Speaking of new novels, I haven’t gotten any emails from IFP, Kim Sherwood or Vaseem Khan for a couple of months. Could a announcement be coming soon?
3 Likes
What is amazen? A new Buddhist lineage?
Its the state I enter to accept my inability to control how damaged my packages will be on arrival.
4 Likes
Well, we are already 1/4 through 2025! Tempus fugit (Latin for “time flies”). I’m pretty sure that we all realize that we have already got some big Bond news this year so far! I don’t think we expected those announcements! So far, the one announcement that I got right was another novel spinoff: Felix Leiter: The Hook and the Eye. By returning Raymond Benson, no less! Are there any other announcements that you want, (realistically) before the end of the year? I’m sticking to my original hopes, plus, the major crew of Bond 26 (director, writers, cinematographer, etc) will be announced for sure.
4 Likes
I mean a James Bond project that actually had James Bond in it sure would be nice…
7 Likes
The best news that we could get at this point is that Amazon’s James Bond film will actually star James Bond. I’m half expecting them to announce that Felix Leiter or Q will be taking over from Bond in the new films à la Captain America.
3 Likes
Whatever the Orange Haired Lord demands from his underlings…
5 Likes
It takes place on Greenland, I assume.
1 Like
I miss the days when politics weren’t allowed to be discussed on the forums.
5 Likes
We‘re not discussing politics.
2 Likes
There has never been an outright ‘ban’ of politics, but we don’t encourage it - mainly because people don’t usually come here for the discussion of politics (Bond’s or that of Blofeld’s heirs).
However, when politics decides to employ language and tactics of the darkest and most vicious times of human history, and subsequently floods our daily lives with what ‘shit’ is even a flattering description for…then it becomes difficult to keep politics entirely out of the discussion. Especially when public figures don’t feel they’d have to restrain themselves.
There was a time the mention of ‘Greenland’ (or Canada for that matter) wasn’t perceived as politics. Believe me, we’d rather wish that was still the case. The easiest way to achieve this would likely be if politics left them well alone.
Apart from that, we’re CBn, not the Washington Post, New York Times or Columbia University. We do not obey in advance.
I sincerely hope that doesn’t bother.
4 Likes
That wasn’t the case over at the old forums. I remember seeing it outright stated on more than one occasion that it was forbidden.
It would be nice to have somewhere (anywhere) to go where politics doesn’t have to inject itself into whatever the discussion happens to be about. It doesn’t seem as though there is a place where that’s possible anymore.
3 Likes
@dalton, don’t think I don’t share that sentiment. I absolutely do. However, where do you think we ought to draw the line to keep off sensibilities? Would ‘eggs’ be already a touchy topic? Greenland, Canada, orange - of course, orange! - must certainly be regarded as off limits. Tariffs? Nope…
We all realise this is not normal, do we?
We are now a bit over two months into what will likely turn out a very long four years. And I’m already avoiding ‘Trump’ like in a Harry Potter book.
Absolutely true. But what has changed the rules here is politics. I rather they hadn’t.
1 Like
@Dustin , I just made the statement that I enjoyed the forums more when there was a more strict edict against political speak. That’s all. I’ll drop it here, though. Having trouble getting too bothered about things when we’re all going around in circles discussing a franchise that really doesn’t even exist anymore.
2 Likes
@dalton, @Arbogast777, several fellow members: You all know I value and respect your contributions and CBn has always strived to be a welcoming place for erudite discourse you all provide.
It’s you, ladies and gentlemen, who make this platform what it is and always has been.
We of course want to continue to keep this tradition upright and stable - all the more so as times are troubled and difficult. And will likely turn even more so.
As for the rules: We will continue to try keeping politics out of discussion as far as possible. As long as that doesn’t mean to appease an aggressor or forfeit the rule of law.
3 Likes
I think the key lies here. Prior to this moment, people inhabited various points on the political spectrum, but, importantly, everyone (or almost everyone) shared the same spectrum. This is no longer the case.
Additionally, the James Bond franchise is one of the more political of film franchises, intentionally engaging with the politics and the mores of the time of each film’s production (similar to Fleming’s novels). I would argue that it is this engagement that helped keep the franchise viable for so long.
2 Likes
Sorry if anyone felt offended. Technically, I was not discussing politics, I was making snide remarks. But less towards politics. I’m criticising certain business decisions of the man who now owns the James Bond franchise and how they came about.
Will try to hold the horses, even though currently, I can’t eat as much as I want to vomit.
4 Likes
There is, broadly speaking, a humane consensus that a certain kind of behaviour - attacking your neighbours; bullying smaller, weaker kids; raping and torturing those who cannot defend themselves or hacking political opponents to pieces - is unquestionably evil.
None of us condone any of these examples or would want to have any part in such or other despicable crimes. That should be self evident and suffice as our common understanding.
3 Likes
Frighteningly, the consensus is disappearing. From an interview in The New Yorker with Albert Mohler (the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a very influential Christian leader in the United States):
I take a very Augustinian view of state power. You know Augustine, the Church Father?
I’ve heard of him.
This is the main Western theological tradition in Christianity. Am I making sense?
Yup.
An Augustinian view of government says that government coercion is never pretty. It is necessary, but it’s never pretty.
The rise of Trumpism in the United States, the National Rally in France, AfD in Germany, Fdl in Italy, Nigel Farage in Great Britain, and Viktor Orban in Hungary are all part of the rising tide of illiberalism that is sweeping the West. And illiberalism dissents–in the strongest possible way–from the “humane consensus” you cite.
This movement is reaching backward, past the Enlightenment and the Classical Liberal framework it developed (which has guided Western culture for centuries) to an earlier tradition, which is also highly nationalistic, and unafraid of committing harm.
The “common understanding” that was self-evident and sufficient for centuries is no longer common or shared. Classical Liberalism, which had a left/liberal cohort and right/conservative one is no longer the consensus ground for society.
Bond 1-25 were made when Classical Liberalism was the consensus ground. Bond 26 will be made during a time when that ground is under siege. Hence, my thoughts in another thread that making retro-Bond movies, when the Classical Liberal consensus was in effect, might be a viable path at the moment.
Lastly, on the presence of politics in the threads. To some degree, politics is inevitable since we are all members of the polis, and write from that positioning. To me, what is unneeded are posts telling us to “Vote for X” or “Y is a mad person.” But James Bond creative works–both literary and filmic–have always been significantly entwined with their political moments. There is a reason both book and film were not titled “From Singapore with Love.”
Part of what makes Bond movies fascinating is how they endorse, critique, or (often) endorse and critique their cultural moment. Much depended on who were the owners/guiding consciousnesses of Bond at the time.
The links below are offered as elaborations on the cultural/societal shift I have outlined above (please remember about archive.ph if there is trouble accessing). I will understand if I am made subject to the imposition of tariffs.
3 Likes