Bond against the Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS?

1235

Comments

  • edited April 2017 Posts: 338
    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and all that.

    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?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    I think there's not much to fear regarding Islamists appearing in an Eon Bond film, although including President Trump as a villain would be just as misguided in my view.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Trump is a villain to those who ideologically and politically oppose him. The leftists.
    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,062
    I'm of two minds on this one...terrorism is clearly a major threat in the world, and it would make the stakes feel real. But to single out a particular group might date the film (see TLD).

    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.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    I think Bond needs more realistic villains. SPECTRE was a step in the wrong direction. They could bring in a terrorist organization I feel if it was fictional. A bonus would be if it was backed by a government like Libya or Turkmenistan.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,336
    No thanks. I hate when politics gets into my Bond films.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    No thanks. I hate when politics gets into my Bond films.
    In the respective words of Timothy Dalton,

    "Better make that two."
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Murdock wrote: »
    No thanks. I hate when politics gets into my Bond films.
    In the respective words of Timothy Dalton,

    "Better make that two."
    Terrorist Organizations are not politics per say. What do you call it when SPECTRE tries to infiltrate Mi6 via C a mole?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Sadly if they did directly address them by name? It would glorify them! Also it would put the crew and cast of future movies at severe risk on location filming possibly? That is how twisted these people are!

    True. But publically destroying them on film isn't bad PR either.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Sadly if they did directly address them by name? It would glorify them! Also it would put the crew and cast of future movies at severe risk on location filming possibly? That is how twisted these people are!

    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.
  • Posts: 12,506
    It is the impossible dream to deliver a Bond film nowadays to please everyone when it comes to a Bond film as so many fans love their own interpretation of what they wish for!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,776
    The Bond movies have been so successful because they did NOT use actual political opponents as villains. It was a stroke of genius to replace SMERSH (from the novel) with SPECTRE in FRWL, and generally to use Russians/Soviets as opposites only when they were renegades/rebels/outlaws (Orlov, Koskov, Ourumov), while portraying the official KGB types as basically good guys on the wrong side of history (Gogol, Pushkin). Saltzman and Broccoli must have anticipated being able to market their movies in what was then the Soviet Union at some time.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Sadly if they did directly address them by name? It would glorify them! Also it would put the crew and cast of future movies at severe risk on location filming possibly? That is how twisted these people are!

    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.

    He bombed the guys who actually fight ISIS. Same as before.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Sadly if they did directly address them by name? It would glorify them! Also it would put the crew and cast of future movies at severe risk on location filming possibly? That is how twisted these people are!

    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.

    He bombed the guys who actually fight ISIS. Same as before.

    Not the guys that used poison gas on their own people?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Who seriously believes that? The moderate rebels who were bombed, had a chemical weapons factory that blew up.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    Who seriously believes that? The moderate rebels who were bombed, had a chemical weapons factory that blew up.

    All I know is the official story from media outlets.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The usual propaganda, you mean.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    The usual propaganda, you mean.

    Well, sometimes. I need to read up on it all more. Either way, Assad is part of the problem, not the solution.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Same goes for the US.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I think it's notable that while the Russians were never the main threat to Connery, Moore and Dalton, they were there.

    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).
  • Posts: 19,339
    I don't want this scum to get any more publicity than necessary or to have them acknowledged as even existing.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,336
    Agreed.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    They would be so proud to be in a Bond film.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    They would be so proud to be in a Bond film.

    Forgetting that pride comes before the fall of course.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited April 2017 Posts: 15,423
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever. Those aforementioned terrorists are not subjects of espionage.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever.

    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.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever.

    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.
    Precisely, Dragonpol!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,923
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever.

    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.
    Precisely, Dragonpol!

    Thank you, @ClarkDevlin! :)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever.

    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.
    Precisely, Dragonpol!

    Thank you, @ClarkDevlin! :)
    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 4,325
    The only way ISIS could ever be made into a Bond film is through mentions and how they are financed by shadowy organizations like SPECTRE, and that is all. Bond fights shadowy powers that orchestrate world affairs without anyone knowing. ISIS is a subject of a direct combat that military departments handle, attack, take down and whatever. Those aforementioned terrorists are not subjects of espionage.

    You think so?

    https://www.mi5.gov.uk/terrorism

    https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-mission.html#current-threats
Sign In or Register to comment.