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
EON should always stick to simple good v evil. Bond should stay away from politics, as they did in changing Connery Bond from fighting The Russians to fighting SPECTRE.
LTK shows how getting involved in real politics is misguided.
Apart from looking silly in the years to come, when the West keeps changing its mind over who is the bad guy - why alienate large numbers of cinema goers?
Obama is a traitor to those who ideologically and politically oppose him. The right-wingers.
These are real-life figures often in debate who's right and who's wrong among social opinions. Hence it would be totally utterly stupid to touch either of those subjects and make either of the aforementioned ones look like villains/antagonists.
The Bond films are meant to face a supervillain who's a third party with the intention of actually overthrowing governments for a new rising power that didn't exist before or was vanquished (like Nazis) making a comeback. These are the kind of villains Bond should be fighting who are high-life, very rich and sophisticated bastards, and insistently not political figures based on current-world real life people. Namely, the Hugo Drax types!
The kind of force you deploy to fight Talibans, ISIS and Al-Qaida are soldiers. Because these anarchists don't look to be reasoned with nor persuade a diplomatic stance to hide their truths. They are visibly out there fighting the western world. Bond isn't a soldier. He's a spy and field agent who sneaks within shadows and under the covers to smuggle information, expose the head of the serpent and cut it off. The Middle Eastern anarchists named up there aren't hiding. Bond goes after those who hide.
I like how they handled it in CR, with a not-country-affiliated terrorist trying to blow up the airplane on the ground. It was thrilling and different enough from reality. I liked it much less in SF, with the off-track train hitting too close to reality.
I don't need to see a hijacked plane nor exploding bus in a Bond film. No thanks.
"Better make that two."
True. But publically destroying them on film isn't bad PR either.
I think that President Trump will try his hand at that and he certainly seems more proactive than the previous US administration was, if the Syrian airbase bombardment is anything to go by.
Anyway, the world is bad enough as it stands, and I don't want Bond to fight real-life terrorists. Apart from the fact that within the UK, it would be MI5's job, not MI6's. While I despise Islamist as much as everyone else, I'm not wishing to see Bond fighting them. It's too simplistic.
He bombed the guys who actually fight ISIS. Same as before.
Not the guys that used poison gas on their own people?
All I know is the official story from media outlets.
Well, sometimes. I need to read up on it all more. Either way, Assad is part of the problem, not the solution.
I wouldn't mind ISIS take on a similar role: e.g. you get the sense that Bond sometimes has to deal with them (a PTS or an offhand mention of him stopping an attack) and they could sometimes play a role in the story (manipulated/used as a pawn by a villain for example, like how Blofeld played on fears of terrorism in Spectre) but they're never really the main bad guys in the films. They're simply not interesting enough for that.
I really liked Blofeld's scheme in Spectre but I think they could have taken it a step further by referring to these terrorist groups directly (maybe they could have claimed responsibility for the various attacks and Blofeld could have mentioned how the publics fear of terrorism made things a lot easier for him). I wouldn't mind a villain further down the line doing something similar (maybe make it more domestically/politically focused to differentiate it from Blofeld? E.g. a villain who's causing terrorist attacks and then blaming them on the current refugee crisis in order to gain some sort of political advantage).
Forgetting that pride comes before the fall of course.
Yes, taking down ISIS (or the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011) is and was a job for American/British Special Forces troops, not secret agents like the (admittedly fictional) James Bond.
Thank you, @ClarkDevlin! :)
You think so?
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/terrorism
https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-mission.html#current-threats