Time for a realistic world threatening event in Bond 24

13»

Comments

  • Posts: 96
    Troy wrote:
    Quarrel wrote:
    Someone posted earlier about the 'end of the world' feeling they got after 9/11.

    As a non-US citizen, i find that comment, and similar comments, interesting. I realise that 9/11 was probably the first attack on the US mainland for nearly 200 years, and maybe the first attack on a US civilian target ever. But the world has suffers similar attacks on a regular basis - many, it has to be said carried out, or at least instigated by the US. So did Americans really have such a feeling?

    This is the problem with 007 taking on "real" targets, as they are almost by definition, political. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. Bond films have a global audience, and the producers want their global audience to see 007 as a hero - not a symbol of Western oppression or hypocrisy.

    I think I'm safe when I say many, if not most Americans had that feeling. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we had a "this is the beginning of the end" type feeling. You are right in that the rest of the world has lived with terrorist attacks for many, many years. But this just speaks to how ignorant and uneducated Americans are when it comes to what's happening with the rest of the world (and I say that as an American - there are many thing I love about my country, but this is not one of them). To all those non-Americans, I will say this: never, ever underestimate the ignorance of the American people when it comes to being knowledgeable about the rest of the world (heck, half our high school students can't fine Mexico on a map).

    Let the flaming begin.

    As for Bond, I think you're absolutely correct when you say he should never take on "real" targets. There's just too much political baggage there. Plus, there's no quicker way for a film to become "dated".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm British and I posted the comment referenced above.

    9/11 was an attack on 'The West' - the financial and political centre of which is, unfortunately for some of you, the US. The hypocritical nature of our foreign policy aside, as someone who happens to enjoy the relative freedom of the west, it was quite a moment - driven by nothing but a voracious hatred. The West is collectively responsible for a lot of awful things but deep down, as a people, we don't particularly thrive on conflict. We live for the here and now. The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people. Sadly, this is where multi-culturalism hits a enormous brick wall.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm British and I posted the comment referenced above.

    9/11 was an attack on 'The West' - the financial and political centre of which is, unfortunately for some of you, the US. The hypocritical nature of our foreign policy aside, as someone who happens to enjoy the relative freedom of the west, it was quite a moment - driven by nothing but a voracious hatred. The West is collectively responsible for a lot of awful things but deep down, as a people, we don't particularly thrive on conflict. We live for the here and now. The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people. Sadly, this is where multi-culturalism hits a enormous brick wall.
    Not ancient, but maybe sold as that.
    To be blinded by faith is the best thing that can happen, as long as there´s truth behind the faith. So I wouldn´t generalise the concept of faith as something bad. Also, you can expect some kind of power manipulating that kind of ill faith, secretly continuing putting cerosine to the fire.

    As films are concerned, and especially Bond films, the more I think about it, the more it becomes important to have an icon. 60s Bond films proved to be not so outandish when Saddam Hussein had a bunch of Doppelgangers. But to make a terrorist interesting in a pop-cultural sense, he must become more than just a man, he must become a symbol. Did I quote correctly ;-)?
    Or simply put, a good film needs it´s Darth Vader.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm British and I posted the comment referenced above.

    9/11 was an attack on 'The West' - the financial and political centre of which is, unfortunately for some of you, the US. The hypocritical nature of our foreign policy aside, as someone who happens to enjoy the relative freedom of the west, it was quite a moment - driven by nothing but a voracious hatred. The West is collectively responsible for a lot of awful things but deep down, as a people, we don't particularly thrive on conflict. We live for the here and now. The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people. Sadly, this is where multi-culturalism hits a enormous brick wall.
    Not ancient, but maybe sold as that.
    To be blinded by faith is the best thing that can happen, as long as there´s truth behind the faith. So I wouldn´t generalise the concept of faith as something bad. Also, you can expect some kind of power manipulating that kind of ill faith, secretly continuing putting cerosine to the fire.

    I'm not generalising. We're specifically talking fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are blinded by their faith. They refuse to see alternative points of view. Much like people on here. The difference is, we don't go around killing people who profess MR is a masterpiece. By the way, I hope your line about being blinded by faith is the best thing that can happen was sarcasm.
  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm not generalising. We're specifically talking fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are blinded by their faith. They refuse to see alternative points of view. Much like people on here. The difference is, we don't go around killing people who profess MR is a masterpiece. By the way, I hope your line about being blinded by faith is the best thing that can happen was sarcasm.
    Not in the least was I trying to be sarcastic. What I mean is something along the line of, if all people loved their next at least as much as theirselves, they would be blind to the other´s shortcomings, like one tends to be very lenient with one´s own shortcomings many times, and that would bring a lot of peace to the world :-).
    The problem with certain fundamentalists is that their faith is not grounded on truth, but on lies and greed. And it´s not just the fault of the brain-washed, but also that of those who do the brain-washing. That makes it so difficult to handle realistically in an adventure film.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,334
    If a nuke were detonated in New York--or Beijing, or Moscow, or Tel Aviv, or New Delhi--and the victimized country found out that the attack was orchestrated by another country, what do you think would happen Quarrel?

    I think we would see a rebooted Dr. Christmas Jones in Bond 24.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2013 Posts: 6,334
    Troy wrote:
    Quarrel wrote:
    Someone posted earlier about the 'end of the world' feeling they got after 9/11.

    As a non-US citizen, i find that comment, and similar comments, interesting. I realise that 9/11 was probably the first attack on the US mainland for nearly 200 years, and maybe the first attack on a US civilian target ever. But the world has suffers similar attacks on a regular basis - many, it has to be said carried out, or at least instigated by the US. So did Americans really have such a feeling?

    This is the problem with 007 taking on "real" targets, as they are almost by definition, political. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. Bond films have a global audience, and the producers want their global audience to see 007 as a hero - not a symbol of Western oppression or hypocrisy.

    I am an American, and I was living in downtown Manhattan on 9/11 (luckily, about two miles from Ground Zero). As devastating as it was, it showed how Americans are basically a bunch of isolationist babies: "How dare they attack us! Let's invade...something." It has to do with the geography and the mindsets of many in the US. European countries are far more civilized in this regard because they have experienced, and survived, repeated invasions on their home turf. Aside from 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, the US really hasn't.
    RC7 wrote:
    The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people.

    Really? There's zero rationality? Part of Bin Laden's hatred toward the US was because of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

    The genius of Cubby was that he largely stayed away from real-life politics: it was always SPECTRE, or some renegade general, never Russia itself. Whenever Bond wades into topical politics, it rarely works because the reference becomes quickly dated (like the proto-Taliban in TLD).
  • Posts: 342
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm British and I posted the comment referenced above.

    9/11 was an attack on 'The West' - the financial and political centre of which is, unfortunately for some of you, the US. The hypocritical nature of our foreign policy aside, as someone who happens to enjoy the relative freedom of the west, it was quite a moment - driven by nothing but a voracious hatred. The West is collectively responsible for a lot of awful things but deep down, as a people, we don't particularly thrive on conflict. We live for the here and now. The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people. Sadly, this is where multi-culturalism hits a enormous brick wall.
    .

    Plenty of people in the West supported the invasion of Iraq, and were excited by the attack on Baghdad - positively thriving on conflict. It has always been so - the start of WW1 was very popular, as were the Napoleonic wars, the expansion of the British empire, Henry V invasion of France, the Crusades etc etc. In the movies, Westerns featuring killing of Indians,WW2, Vietnam, Rambo - all very popular.

    How many Western countries have been invaded by a Muslim country? Last one I can recall is Spain.

    How many Western countries have muslim troops stationed in them?

    And look at the cost to the taxpayer of, say, invading Iraq. The financial sector didn't support the huge cost unless they expected to make enormous profits.

    Everyday, the West drops bombs on Pakistan. Imagine the impact on American public opinion if bombs were exploding in residential areas killing and maiming civilians with the same frequency.

    By all means support the West, but don't fall for the Murdoch propaganda that they are just evil, without cause, and there is no alternative to trying to kill them all. Or that we have to turn our nations into police states to "keep us safe".

    As for living in fear...does anyone really live in fear of terrorism?






  • Troy wrote:
    This is the problem with 007 taking on "real" targets, as they are almost by definition, political. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. Bond films have a global audience, and the producers want their global audience to see 007 as a hero - not a symbol of Western oppression or hypocrisy.
    IMO the success of Bond worldwide has a lot to do with the perception he's not American. So any Americano-centric view would be a problem for Bond movies I think.

    For instance, about the use of nuclear weapons on towns. I think that the bombers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered in the US as heroes who helped stop the war fast, that the scientists who lobbyied to make the bombs were pacifists, etc... So in the end for some these bombings "do not count". But I'm afraid you will not find this opinion anywhere else, in many other countries, they are considered as the first example of an use of Weapon of Mass Destruction.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Troy wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm British and I posted the comment referenced above.

    9/11 was an attack on 'The West' - the financial and political centre of which is, unfortunately for some of you, the US. The hypocritical nature of our foreign policy aside, as someone who happens to enjoy the relative freedom of the west, it was quite a moment - driven by nothing but a voracious hatred. The West is collectively responsible for a lot of awful things but deep down, as a people, we don't particularly thrive on conflict. We live for the here and now. The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people. Sadly, this is where multi-culturalism hits a enormous brick wall.
    .

    Plenty of people in the West supported the invasion of Iraq, and were excited by the attack on Baghdad - positively thriving on conflict. It has always been so - the start of WW1 was very popular, as were the Napoleonic wars, the expansion of the British empire, Henry V invasion of France, the Crusades etc etc. In the movies, Westerns featuring killing of Indians,WW2, Vietnam, Rambo - all very popular.

    How many Western countries have been invaded by a Muslim country? Last one I can recall is Spain.

    How many Western countries have muslim troops stationed in them?

    And look at the cost to the taxpayer of, say, invading Iraq. The financial sector didn't support the huge cost unless they expected to make enormous profits.

    Everyday, the West drops bombs on Pakistan. Imagine the impact on American public opinion if bombs were exploding in residential areas killing and maiming civilians with the same frequency.

    By all means support the West, but don't fall for the Murdoch propaganda that they are just evil, without cause, and there is no alternative to trying to kill them all. Or that we have to turn our nations into police states to "keep us safe".

    As for living in fear...does anyone really live in fear of terrorism?

    I said 'our hypocritical foreign policy aside' - as such I'm completely aware of all you've outlined but it didn't seem relevant to my point. Nowhere do I suggest they are 'all evil', I merely suggested that the fundamentalists are not capable of reason. They have no interest in it. You cannot get around the table in the way you could with, for example, the IRA. It's non-negotiable when it comes to Allah. I'm certainly not a slave to Murdoch propaganda, far from it. I hate the bloke.
  • Posts: 342
    RC7 wrote:
    Troy wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm British and I posted the comment referenced above.

    9/11 was an attack on 'The West' - the financial and political centre of which is, unfortunately for some of you, the US. The hypocritical nature of our foreign policy aside, as someone who happens to enjoy the relative freedom of the west, it was quite a moment - driven by nothing but a voracious hatred. The West is collectively responsible for a lot of awful things but deep down, as a people, we don't particularly thrive on conflict. We live for the here and now. The reason Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics strike such fear is because they have complete disregard for the concept of life. They're just blinded by faith. Oppressive, ancient, misplaced. You can't possibly reason with such people. Sadly, this is where multi-culturalism hits a enormous brick wall.
    .

    Plenty of people in the West supported the invasion of Iraq, and were excited by the attack on Baghdad - positively thriving on conflict. It has always been so - the start of WW1 was very popular, as were the Napoleonic wars, the expansion of the British empire, Henry V invasion of France, the Crusades etc etc. In the movies, Westerns featuring killing of Indians,WW2, Vietnam, Rambo - all very popular.

    How many Western countries have been invaded by a Muslim country? Last one I can recall is Spain.

    How many Western countries have muslim troops stationed in them?

    And look at the cost to the taxpayer of, say, invading Iraq. The financial sector didn't support the huge cost unless they expected to make enormous profits.

    Everyday, the West drops bombs on Pakistan. Imagine the impact on American public opinion if bombs were exploding in residential areas killing and maiming civilians with the same frequency.

    By all means support the West, but don't fall for the Murdoch propaganda that they are just evil, without cause, and there is no alternative to trying to kill them all. Or that we have to turn our nations into police states to "keep us safe".

    As for living in fear...does anyone really live in fear of terrorism?

    I said 'our hypocritical foreign policy aside' - as such I'm completely aware of all you've outlined but it didn't seem relevant to my point. Nowhere do I suggest they are 'all evil', I merely suggested that the fundamentalists are not capable of reason. They have no interest in it. You cannot get around the table in the way you could with, for example, the IRA. It's non-negotiable when it comes to Allah. I'm certainly not a slave to Murdoch propaganda, far from it. I hate the bloke.

    Interestingly, Obama seems to trying just that

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/u-resume-talks-taliban-days-white-house-150430725.html
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not one and the same. That said, any negotiating with the Taliban will be a vital step towards progress.
Sign In or Register to comment.