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
LOL, I was saying NOT to include such nonsense, and then you reference my quote saying not to use such nonsense. That's what YOU seemingly missed, now what did I miss?
Islamic terrorism is a greater threat than the communists ever were because the Islamists are far more irrational, and probably more fanatical. And if one manages to detonate a suitcase nuke in New York or London there is no telling how it will end. But it probably won't end well. At any rate, villains of global reach are more relevant now than ever. Al Qaeda has proven Fleming and Bond rather prescient.
As to corporations seeking to destroy the environment, well all I can do is chuckle. Corporations, for all their flaws, "seek" to do no such thing. And it is highly likely that the environment is in better shape in 2013 than it was in 1973.
Reading comprehension is not his problem; common tact is.
Absolutely.
I agree, and it's also how you can have a BIG Bond movie without the comic book flourish of the late 60's & 70's.
And to be honest so far the Islamic terrorists have a proven trackrecord that is not that great when it comes to bombing. They had some horrific results but some of the worse bloothbaths are way over in the middle-east.
I fear the former communists much more as they have nuclear capability and some wicked capitalistic tendencies. They might see profit in selling nukes to some group in order to take some western target if it suits their rationale.
As for cooperations being better than it was in 1973 I must have missed how they basicly fund any research that proves that the envirement is just great while the majority of the studies does say different things. Indeed there is no climate change at all and the fact that humanity might play a part in it is best forgotten?
I think that EON will never use the general muslim terrorist as baddy simply because they have never directly gone for the bad person at the moment (with Korea as real exception since the pose no real moneatry problem, and even then it was crazy Koreans that even commited patricide).
And QoS while being a sh&te movie did actualy touch an enviromental issue that was handled in the name of simple greed by a influencial group of folks.
I think it is time for the return of QUANTUM and one of their outragious schemes which Bond gets to stop with a minimum of personal issues for a change.
The commies never blew up skyscrapers with jumbo jets. And outside of proxie warfare, they didn't extend their violence outside their own borders anywhere near the extent the Islamists have. Of course, the commies did slaughter tens of millions of people within their own borders, but that's not Bond's concern. At any rate, you're right that Eon will never touch this topic. We can hardly run the risk of Barbara Broccoli being hacked to death while walking down a street in London now, can we?
RE: the environment, I'm afraid it is your worthy enviro-scientists who are cooking the books and attempting to suppress refractory data. These "scientists" have a very lucrative cottage industry going and they don't want any whistle-blowers and truth-tellers upsetting the goose that lays the golden egg. But despite the efforts of the fabricators and censors, there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting strongly that global warming...er...climate change, is cyclical and natural rather than anthropogenic.
RE: QOS, I was hardly thrilled with this film, but I did enjoy how it made the environmentalists look like gullible dupes who avidly swallowed any nonsense that confirmed their preconceived beliefs.
You may well be right.
But then, if we prepare well, no windfalls for Quantum...
Someone posted earlier about the 'end of the world' feeling they got after 9/11. But that just proves my point - the world DIDN'T end after 9/11. It was a horrific event and I don't want to be misinterpreted as trying to minimize what happened on that awful, awful day. The fact is we lost a few thousand people and a few buildings (yes, I understand how that statement sounds, but I'm not unsympathetic - I'm only trying to draw comparisons to real world-threatening events such as nuclear war). Life went on, the world is back, basically, to business as normal. In short, life still exists on Earth (although intelligent life did seem to take a walkabout in the immediate aftermath of 9/11).
The cold war carried with it the threat of nuclear war, which, had it occurred, would've meant the instant annihilation of all life on earth (well, save for the cockroaches). THAT was a true “world threatening event”, which is the title and subject to this thread. By definition having a Bond villain try to blow up a city just isn’t on the same scale as that type of world-wide destruction.
I don't think anyone has said this. They're just a more tangible threat. Have you witnessed a nuclear attack in your life time?
This was kind of my point. It was a feeling of despair that subsided with the realisation that we would fight back. What you point out above is exactly why those kind of threats lend themselves to a Bond film, however shocking and insurmountable the threat may seem, Bond will always come out on top. The Al Qaeda thought can be rationalised as it's a tangible threat, we've seen the devastation they can bring upon society, the emotional impact it has not only on those directly involved, but those who are a thousand miles away. There's something quite personal about the devastation caused by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Oh and you can add western governments to that as well. While nuclear war is clearly 'world-ending' it doesn't have the same psychological impact because it's something only seen in movies and therefore a rather more difficult thing to process.
I just think people are trying to offer up alternatives. We all know the consequences of nuclear war and it's not something that would work in a modern day Bond. Save a few fanatical muslims, most people witnessing 9/11 felt like their world had been rocked.
NB. I'm not advocating the use of Al Qaeda, just feeding on the threat they possess. I don't imagine many people spend too much time worrying about nuclear war but I'd say a fair few of us have sat and pondered the likelihood of a terrorist attack and the fear that arises from that situation.
I understand what you're saying, Quarrel. (And I grew up during the Cold War.) But the point is, the people who perpetrated 9/11 and other lesser terrorist attacks, have the will to destroy cities with nukes. They possess the necessary malice. All they lack is the means. And if they manage to get their hands on nukes you can be sure that they will use them. And once the bombs begin exploding in huge cities, will we be able to limit a dam' thing?
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, as you seem to make most of the same points I was trying to make.
The smaller events, like the kind Al Qaeda produce, are what we deal with nowadays. Those types of threats work perfectly fine in a Bond film (and I agree that using Al Qaeda specifically in a Bond film is not a good idea). But they are NOT "world threatening" in the same sense that nuclear war is.
As for the impact of nuclear war, of course we haven't actually seen one. But as someone who grew up having to partake in monthly school "emergency drills" to prepare us for the day the bombs dropped, I can tell you the knowledge that it was a real possibility that could happen at any moment, had a very real impact on our psyche. (Even though, looking back, the drills were pretty comical - as if hiding under a desk or gathering in the school gym would save us from a thermonuclear weapon :) )
So, getting back round to the topic at hand, having Bond save a city from a nuclear device would work just fine. But going back to having some maniacal evil genius try to blow the world up or otherwise destroy it (a'la Moonraker), would be a disaster for the Bond franchise.
When we carried the fear of nuclear war, we knew the possibility of war was a small one. But we also knew that if it did happen, there was no where we could hide, nothing we could do, to prevent our demise. We had no personal control. There was no chance of escape, for us or our loved ones.
We now carry the fear of terroisim. While we know that the possibiliy of us personally experiencing a terrorist attack is more likely than nuclear war was, we also know a lot of that is also being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We do have some control (don't want to be killed in an airplane highjack, don't fly). Not a lot of control, but more than we had over nukes. Terror attacks happen all the time, but have never killed us personally. Unlike nuclear war, there is a chance of escape (or avoidance) for us and our loved ones. In fact, a pretty darn good chance of not being in one.
Both fears are/were very real. But they are also very different. The new Bond movies should reflect that new, different, fear.
True, but the attack does not have to be aimed at USA or UK, aimed at the other powers that have nuclear capability it could trigger a devestating response (As Octopussy did try to show when it did a subterfuge nuclear attack on German soil).
EON will not touch any religious motivation out of monetary reasoning, which I think is smart. Leave that for the MI and Bourne movies.
The baddies will either be QUANTUM or some other greedy cooperation.
As for the climate change we can discuss that but I feel that you stick to your truth and that the other truth is one that does not interest you. So leave at that.
However it seems to me that such a thing is not as easily appliable in adventure films. Simplified black-and-white scenarios are just so much more fun. And emotionally very clear. Good West vs Evil Red Bear. Terrorist plots, on the other hand, usually have to do with chaos. Chaos is wonderfully suited to make depressing stories, not simple good-bad-scenarios.
"You think everything's a conspiracy."
"Well, it is."
Silva did that too to a certain extent, but his motivation was mainly revenge. What I miss........is an organization that really earns great amounts of money for these kind of plots. An organization...or a SPecial Executive....that made its profession from Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion.
This device is still applicable to today's political environment. SPECTRE could be funding programs that create an even stronger military force, by facilitating a political and military union between China and Russia. Something like that. Or what about further destabilizing the Middle East Region. We never went to Israel. Time to create some destruction at the start of a Bond film in both Israël and Palestine. Two terrorist nucleair attacks at the same time in Palestine and Israel could create some havoc and destruction...no?
Secondly, I don't think a nuclear attack would result in the chaos you think it would. Look what happened after 9/11 - the world didn't go on auto-destruct with bombs suddenly flying everywhere. In fact, it did just the opposite. Everything just ground to a halt. The whole world stood still for a bit. People, and governments, were so taken aback by what happened, they're natural reaction was to pause, not take action - especially hasty and destructive action like launching bombs.
Granted, if there is a spot that could ignight a global, or near-global war, then Israel/Palestine would be it. But that's too much of an actual hot-spot for EON to ever come close to touching. Imagine the protests on both sides at how they were portrayed.
If it happened to the US they would invade the living daylights out of that country that I know for sure.
I would worry more about the likes of Pakistan that have nuclear capability, the big boys would know that any strike back would be the end of the world so would not quickly happen. And with Israel I am quite sure that they would find out who did it and take an awefull revenge.
Exactly. If a nuke took out a city the size and importance of NYC or the like, the sky would not suddenly fill with nukes flying in all directions. The entire world - including 99% of the Muslim world (if a Muslim radical group was responsible) would come together to act against any group that would perpetrate such a horror.
The more likely scenario would be nukes used in a more localized, longstanding hostility such as Pakistan/India, North/South Korea, etc.
The reality is that nobody knows with any degree of certainty what would happen because it has never happened before. But you can bet emotions would be running wild and people would mass in the streets demanding blood. In such a situation, the worst case scenario would be a distinct possibility. And a vile scenario would certainly be feasible enough for a Bond movie plot.
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.