It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'd argue in some ways the current conflict between the West and lunatic Islam is much more cut and dry, althhough once again, we are doing things that will make future generations ashamed.
It's fine having contemporary events as a sort of back drop, but the last thing I want when watching Bond is to be reminded of the real world.
I'd agree with this too. That said, there is a certain Manichean vision in Fleming's novels about East and West that is most definitely there and mostly absent from the movies.
Bond stands for what is good, not what is left or right.
That is a most brilliant quote from QoS's director there, @Gustav_Graves. Thank you for unearthing it. I'm a big fan of QoS precisely because like OHMSS it is a very different kind of Bond film than the norm.
I mostly agree, however, I do think that the Bond films have explored political commentaries with a heightened and in many cases loosely foreboding flare, which I think they should continue doing just so long as they don't go down the cliched and potentially isolating route of the religious arena. As should be the case a good story and plot shouldn't be compromised nor neglected and as long as that's a priority, building themes, social commentaries and structures of geopolitics can more appropriately be applied.
In any case....continue on the road that CR, QOS and SF were on :-)
The Thunderball example you made @GustavGraves, is probably the best one. It draws from things that the world was afraid of at the time, but did so in a way that was unrestrictive (plot wise). By comparison, The Living Daylights has that taint of trying to be too involved in politics and showing Bond aligning himself with people, who would then in real life go on to be associated with one of the greatest mass murders in history. I always have that in the back of my mind now when I watch the film, and it's unfortunate to have to associate a great film with something so awful.
So I'd probably agree that while Bond should tread political waters, he should do it extremely lightly. I don't think I'd have him facing off with religious extremists, for example.
Bond should have steered well clear of all that. Just as it should stay well clear of anything specific about today's geopolitics. Yes the Cold War was the back drop to the early Bonds, but there's rarely anything specific, apart from the odd reference to detente and thawing of relations in the later Moore films.
;)
The funny thing is: Even Bond scenes from the past, that at time time seemed quite cheesy, nowadays get a rather interesting new meaning. Let's quote one of the Bond villains from the past, General Orlov: "The West is decadent....and divided!" This fictuous villain couldn't be more right. The West IS decadent and divided nowadays.
The thing is.....because is always kind of mirroring today's world, it's impossible to stay clear of politics. And sometimes it's not always politics. It can be rich filantropists too, or narcistic cyberhackers. I mean, Silva was never deliberately written as a slightly larger-than-life, psychotic version of Julian Assange. But look now to Julian Assange himself. Or to all this billionaires full of green nonsense, like Richard Branson or Elon Musk. Or....Dominic Greene.
Even politics isn't that black-and-white. So I'm not too worried about this subject. Bond will never be "Zero Dark Thirty". And for that I'm happy. But during the course of 3 Bond films with Craig I really think the franchise has become more relevant than in the 1990's. The Craig-films for me are slightly more intelligently written, perhaps slightly more "intellectual", as Peter Hunt once said about his own film "OHMSS". Perhaps 9/11 gave the franchise a welcome dose of realism...how weird that may sound?
Anyway, it's nice being a Bond fan nowadays :-). So much more stuff to talk about, to reflect upon.
bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-07/sony-s-darkseoul-breach-stretched-from-thai-hotel-to-hollywood.html
After reading this, the plot from Silva in "Skyfall", mainly the technical part, should be seen in a different light.....
It's not the technical aspect that bothers me.
It's Silva's supernatural ability to predict with 100% accuracy such a large array of variables on which is entire plan hangs that rankles.
That discussion should be held in another topic @TheWizardOfIce . This topic is about the geopolitical relevance of the Bond films mirrored to today's global events. Taking that in mind, regardless of plot holes and so on, "Skyfall" is suddenly a very relevant Bond film.
Indeed, the Soviets and MI6 teaming up to fight Stromberg was completely unrealistic. But it was only 2nd to General Gogol being delighted to meet a commander in the Afghan mujaheddin. It was one of those moments that make you say "oh come on!" I'm of the opinion that TLD would have ended better with the line "I know a good restaurant in Karachi."
I keep meaning to read/watch more John la Carre. As a fan of film noir I like ambiguity and situations where no one is a pure good guy. But that's not Bond. I'm still not sure how I feel about that part of QoS. I like the fact that they acknowledged that Western governments aren't always pure in either their intentions or actions, but it felt out of place.
Exactly. Every time Bond has tried to be too 'topical' it dates itself. Perhaps the exception is TMWTGG. They probably couldn't imagine that forty years later the plot about solar power would still be so relevant!
Changing the bad guys from SMERSH to SPECTRE was quite a deliberate move, and one that I think turned out very well. The Connery movies would have much more limited appeal if he was battling SMERSH the whole time.
Yet they still do reference the Cold War. In Dr No ('you must work for the East') and FRWL is pretty Cold War-ish, although really that plot could be done today with any unfriendly government.
The Connery movies had an undertone of Sinophobia to them. It wasn't a coincidence that Miss Taro, the Chinese secretary, was a spy for Dr No, the half-Chinese evil genius. This was made much more explicit in the book. Also the Chinese were working with both Goldfinger (they supplied to bomb) and bankrolling SPECTRE in YOLT. China was a 'safe' bad guy back then, because the threat from them was very limited and no on in China watched Bond. I doubt we'll see that again because of the importance of the Chinese movie market.
then why'd you bring it up?
Skyfall was very 'relevant' in 2012. Thats when Wikileaks was in its heyday.
WikiLeaks was only the "tip of the tentacle". Cyber Warfare is still among us. Countries like China, even North-Korea, master this art. So did Silva in "SF".
!00% in agreement. They are the masters of it, and the Windows 10 software (out next year), Facebook, IOS are all bugged and tracked, no matter what anyone says. Let's not be so quick to assume it's only 'the bad guys' who do this.
Well, that's true. But that's different, IMO, from hacking entire companies and using the hacks as means of extortion, revenge and other severe threats.
If you're comparing the threats coming from GoP to the spying on your personal activities via MS, Facebook & IOS, then yes, there is a difference. Your privacy is compromised in both cases. In one case (the Sony case) you know about it because it's publicized, and it was a hack of a corporate, commercial system. In the other case (spying on your personal activities) you still assume you're safe when you're not & the system that is being spied on is completely personal & not commercial in nature.
If you're talking about comparing the threats coming from GoP to Struxnet and other bugs that are used for geopolitical warfare, then the only difference is GoP have identified themselves. Struxnet is still anonymous.
No.
Elaborate please...:)