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
Actually TLD shows them as opium smugglers which also highlights the murky world behind the simplistic headlines of the time and how some governments would turn a blind eye.
But as a film, TLD is far more relevant than TWINE or DAD which is ironic considering they were far more recent. DAD was so out of touch.
Mind you, the new Bond films give us enemies which in truth do not relate to anyone we are currently at war with. I mean there is a certain organisation known as Al-Qaeda and they seem conspicuously absent. I do remember Pierce saying after DAD that he would like to do a Bond film where yours truly goes after Bin Laden.
My opinion and I am a cynical bastard. I mean Quantum are mainly white villains are they not? I would not mention this, but since the Craig films are trumpeted for their realism my above paragraph points to an elephant in the room. And I would not raise this if we had a Roger Moore type playing Bond.
I guess that is to keep things neutral so that the film can reach more markets in the world and not offend certain demographics. But we never had a problem showing the Russians as the bad guys.
Thanks. It is nice to discuss Bond in a wider intelligent ramification. I mean he is a character that works for MI6 and so it is relevant.
I think TWINE is pretty relevant with the whole oil plot.
One of the suprisingly relevent Bond films is TND, with all the phone hacking and stuff the media trying to take over the world is actually still relevant in a way.
TND actually was very ballsy as Elliott Carver was blatantly based on Rupert Murdoch and his media empire. And for 1997, it was a very up to the minute plot. And yes the phone hacking as well as blackmail these giant media organisations have.
I can see that to an extent TWINE's villainess wants to have pipeline exclusivity. But not in the league of TND's insinuations.
But TLD has the sleeping lion in the sense of what was to come years later and the very people we are to fight against like we are. You can see it in that film and looking back now, it is scary. Some conspiracy theorists I am sure would have a field day with TLD. They see code in everything.
Perhaps with Quantum they are like the New World Order in the sense that everyone is under their wing and creates situations which favour their objectives. That is the other side of my theory. And under their wing means governments whether they know it or not. I mean Mr White when he laughs at M in QOS gives away that MI6 are beyond their scope and are blind.
As a matter of fact, I think I'll watch QOS again right now!
QOS is actually very deep and the more it is written off as bad, then the more I say you should watch it in greater detail. That film is maybe the closest of the new Bonds in terms of pointing fingers at how corrupt the whole system really is.
QoS was mostly about a New World Order cabal akin to The Bohemian Club Conspiracy which they name changed to Quantum as not to upset anyone.
I thank her for the reality check.
But the Mujahideen WERE smuggling drugs... among other things.
Yes in Eastern block countries Bond films were Banned. By opening up countries like Russia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and the like, Bond had a welcome boost to box office. I cam imagine all those countries combined add substantially to box office takings.
Yes, I noticed that Quantum seems very close to what some conspiracy theorists talk about. I mean, Dominic Greene was very well shown how he is almost untouchables by the political structure.
I do think the film has some intelligent structuring and is less fantastical as in it is not far off from real world realities. Just disguised into a Bond plot.
I guess the filmmakers need to be cautious as if they get too close to what is really going on, it could have serious consequences for the franchise. In QOS, they show the CIA as having extremely corrupt elements like Leiter's superior which was a nod to several stories about CIA corruption which caused some incredible intelligence failings.
Yes it was an interesting choice. Not sure if it's reflected in the Fleming books or not.
It gives the film a reassuring 'cosy' feeling, as it suggests those in charge are really basically reasonable. May be they weren't totally wrong, especially when compared to today's nutters.
No we won't. Especially meaning if the Chinese government sees any negativity about them in a Bond film, then they will ban it. And the Chinese market is seen as important for Sony/MGM, so any showing of China in a bad light despite human rights violations is going to be a no go.
Considering Bond films are spy films, that is ironic. But it is true that the Russians were shown as villains in the Afghanistan segment of TLD. The film makes no bones showing them as an oppressor of the poor what is now known as The Taliban. That is the only time they since 1962 where we come the closest to their shadiness.
SPECTRE is like a New World Order organisation with a far reaching scope where the villains are just middle men for the organisation. Blofeld is the head of that.
In a way Quantum are just a new name for SPECTRE.
I would have left the Russians to it in that region. In 1960's Afghanistan things were more liberal.
We the west made a huge mistake by creating an enemy that is way more problematic than the Russians. And we even trained them. But then again our interventions in Libya and Syria are history repeating itself and how many more times will we get a kick in the face? The politicians never seem to go on the battlefield so it is easy for them.
I mean the same US Ambassador who championed what happened to Gaddafi ended up getting the same treatment in Libya a few months back. And Romney the idiot wanted the USA to send those people even more weapons like he advocated for Syria. Duh!
It's all in front of you as long as you don't get your news from CNN or Fox!:)
As for new Bond, they would sooner have him fighting aliens then dealing with the mess that we are seeing in the real world. And ex-MI6 agents going rogue are not a patch on what is really at stake.
I think Quantum are not forgiving and Mr White captured by Bond is not a failure on his part. We don't actually know how high ranking Mr White is. But though he was captured, he had men on the inside to get him out. Mr White by the fact that the amount of men in cars chasing Bond at the beginning of QOS, hints that he is a hugely important figure to that organisation.
Quantum is a modern take on SPECTRE in the light of how many stories there are of politicians jumping to the tune of these organisations and to gain their favour. The whole point of Quantum is how vast they are and even MI6 knows little about them which in turn means neither do MI6's political masters who depend on MI6 for inside knowledge.
Sadly, we may never know as the negativity surrounding QOS means the idea may be dropped. But Quantum are scary when you think about it.
I think in the next film, Bond will be crying all the way through because of M. She was like a mummy after all!:) He will have to take it easy for the next one. Bond on holiday. Bond in McDonald's and stuff like that.
It's a shame on a serious note that Quantum was dropped from the radar of the new film. I mean they would still be a threat. In fact, considering what damage Bond did in QOS, I think they could have been even more interesting in Skyfall.
You could of had one of their men being inside MI6 for instance and causing havoc to M and Bond.
Come on now @acoppola, you'll be accused of stirring!
Hey this is a Bond site. And everyone knows Bond's sarcastic humour. Kind of thing Roger would say but not mean it,:)
But I am aware that some may think I have committed a heinous crime.
Hey @Getafix. How about in the next Bond film, Bond gets fired because of David Cameron's austerity. All those cuts we hear about and even the British Army has been reduced by 20%.
And we see Bond on the dole getting £71 a week and seeing his employment advisor at the Job Centre every 2 weeks. That would be cool or maybe not, though it may happen once they run out of ideas.:)
Just joking!!!:) But it is an avenue that would be amusing.
There are many things I don't get about SF but why does he take M to Skyfall? They are clearly implying somekind of psychological link between Bond and M that equates to mother-child. He is an orphan and he is traumatised by his parents' death, so why does he take M to the place of his earlier trauma? Is he trying to redeem himself? He clearly hates the place and it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of defensible territory or a clever place from which to repel an attack. Fortunately of course it does have a priest hole leading to a tunnel. M and Kincade in the final scenes are definitely supposed to represent his mother and father - they'd be their age if they were still alive. So you could imagine Bond wanting to protect/defend them at all costs to somehow erase the memory of his parents' loss. But he doesn't seem that bothered about saving them. I mean if he was bothered he wouldn't have taken M there in the first place.
Any way, like you say, he'll probably go into therapy in Bond 24 and we'll find out more then, with a further revelation that Jimmy Saville was his uncle in Bond 25.
Right there @Getafix is proof how far this is removed from Fleming. Bond's boss M in the books is a stern figure who keeps Bond at arms length. I think the series has made a mistake by now making the M character something so different to what came before.
I have no problem with M being bossy to Bond. I expect that in that profession and the stakes. But I mean Bond breaking into her house in CR is taking the biscuit. It is so unrealistic. Imagine if you broke into your boss's house no matter if they were fond of you? Creepy or what?
I hope Bond does not become a cross dresser in the next one because he mourns M!:)
Bond being this macho character really can do without the mummy syndrome. That's for characters like Bruce Wayne or Norman Bates!:)
I think if you peel back too much of Bond the mystery gets damaged. It may be fashionable now, but will bite the franchises ass years down the line. Because you cannot undo it.
If they wanted to show Bond's personal life, then surely there would be surviving blood relatives they could incorporate to give him a foundation of a background. But M is way too close to him and in Fleming's world that would never happen. These are additions that never existed. Bond being an orphan is a separate issue.
That's my take anyway. I have been a Bond fan for 30 years now and am so used to the other way of doing Bond.
I don't think the audience should know everything about him. And I don't need to see Bond going to the doctor's either because he has trouble getting it up!
No. What did he say?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/13/skyfall-james-bond-first-look-review
True. Sometimes when you try to cram too many aspects into one film you set yourself up for the fall. Many Bond fans I knew loved DAD immensely at the time it played in the cinema. I remember arguing with them at the time, but I was lone voice.
They had rose tinted glasses because of the 40th anniversary and loved the film's homages to the past. It was not until much later on that attitudes changed.
With SF, we are in the middle of the hype and things are too fresh for true perspective. That does not mean I am saying SF is bad or anything like that. It may blow me to pieces for all I know. I like to keep a cool head and some distance. But when it is hammered home that this is the absolutely best Bond ever, then naturally I am afraid of being disappointed.
I may be one of the few who liked QOS. Who knows. I may prefer it after seeing Skyfall.
Moonraker was a much loved film at the time of release. I remember that as I was around. The box office was through the roof and is an example that, that alone is never an indication of a film's true standing in years to come.