I created this thread for hope. Not for personal viewpoints of real world evil. This thread is meant to help us get away from the real threat. Just like James Bond as a whole is. Let’s stop the politics, no matter how they are related to James Bond or his villains.
On the plus side, it does seem like this year will be better than the last couple, in terms of Bond news.
We’ve had more hopeful Bond news in the last two weeks than we have in the last two years, which I’m hoping bodes well for 2025.
I’m sorry but what exactly do you feel you cannot stomach here, @Arbogast777? I’d really like to understand that.
The problem in my view is, we are living in a world that burns. None of us exactly likes that it burns - but we didn’t start the fire and we’re unlikely to be able to stop it. You may feel offended that these facts of our reality seep into the context of our common interest (like the smoke of that burning world), but this will not be entirely possible to be avoided. I’ve said it before, politics has changed the rules.
How would you suggest that we handle this? I’ve tried to formulate this broadly in a way that shouldn’t be controversial, but perhaps there’s some misconception on my part as to what could constitute a broadly acceptable common ground there?
Indeed. And while some of that news has been shaking the foundations of Bond to the core there’s one thing above all that has to be a sliver of hope on the horizon: James Bond WILL return - and possibly soon-ish.
We haven’t had that kind of assurance for years now.
I agree that this thread is about good news (meaning news we consider good because they conform with our views on what Bond films should be).
But as @Dustin pointed out very clearly and without any political bias the real world cannot be closed out when we‘re discussing our hopes for a new setup for a British secret agent sent on missions to save the world, either from Cold War relics, world domination seeking cabals or billionaires wishing to create a new world order.
Clinging to a wish for escape from the unnecessary but somehow chosen chaos is understandable but as clueless as telling, for example, Bruce Springsteen to just stop being so political and play the party hits.
Yes, we won’t have to derail any thread by uttering our grievances. But to insist that nobody makes ironic remarks or point out opinions derived from the new situation the Bond series is in (something many seem to either disregard or to not have realized yet) is not just shortsighted but also against the purpose of a discussion forum.
I just disregard posts which don’t interest me. But I want to engage with posts which make me think and state my opinion.
Feel free to enjoy the same.
As far as possible would be my preference.
My personal opinion is that political commentary on a message board is risky, because we can’t assume everyone agrees with our worldview. People either have to begrudgingly keep their mouths closed to avoid arguments or actually engage in one. I’d hate to see that happen here - we see it everywhere else enough. It would doubly be a real shame considering the length of time some members have been posting here.
I’m not saying people can’t care about politics or think what they want. But I do sense the message board is as an escape for plenty of users and I’d genuinely like to see us connect over the shared interest that brought us here: Bond.
Well said. Very well said.
There’s also the fact that the Bond franchise, since its inception, has bent itself over backwards to avoid making even the mildest of political statements. It would seem to me that a discussion board centered around the franchise should follow its lead.
Which is why we’ve always strived to keep our community a civil and broadly positive force within the fanbase, supporting inclusivity and refusing racism, sexism and hate preaching. This is a basis we’ve all profited from over the decades and has been our common ground regardless of political affiliation.
This is non-negotiable for us and cannot be controversial where people from all nations and all walks of life congregate to engage in their favourite pastime, Bond, James Bond.
Since this is the hopeful Bond news thread it’s self-evident our hope is for the franchise - our common interest as a whole - to succeed and prosper in challenging times. This is now more important than in the entire history of the series and will be far and away the biggest hurdle to take for BOND 26. It’s entirely possible - as long as the circumstances allow for it.
Indeed, Bond is about good vs evil, in the broadest possible brushstrokes. And we all are able to identify evil, I should think. I’ve tried to give a few examples but the list is doubtless longer.
This is not about some political discussion - it’s not a discussion at all.
That is not true.
Having Russians as villains was a political statement.
Casting a woman as M was a political statement.
Have that female M call Bond a “dinosaur” was a political statement.
The list goes on.
By its nature, art produced for public engagement/consumption contains political statements/elements.
The template of a Bond work employs broad brushstrokes. But the actual works-books, films, comics, etc.–fill in this template with details, and these details carry political elements. It is how art-making functions. As SAF notes:
will involve a political dimension. Bond 26 will draw (as the previous 25 films did) from the real world for its plot, villains, characters. Bond is a state agent, and his missions will reflect the outlook of that state (as presented in the film) and the enemies it perceives. MaxZorin recommends
Why? We have discussed the politics of the Bond films as long as I have been here, e.g., the sexual politics of how Bond interacts with women. In fact, the films themselves have made it a topic.
@Arbogast777 says “Let’s get back to talking about James Bond.” But James Bond films and books have a political dimension. They also have an aesthetic dimension, and a production dimension. I love reading all the posts speculating about who the next Bond might be, but never comment or contribute to the threads since it is not my area of interest. New Bond will be new Bond, and I will learn from all of you a) why it is a great choice; b) why it is a terrible choice; or c) why it is a choice we should wait to see how it plays out. I also give a cursory glance to the thread about Bond games, but since I have never gamed (unless you count Tetris), I make no comment. I think we all share an interest in Bond, but our emphases fall to different aspects of the Bond phenomenon.
This may be where I have a disconnect. I bring my whole self to the community. I am not trying to escape. Or maybe another way to put it is: I find stimulating, deep conversation and analysis to be an escape (if escape is understood as a practice/behavior that offers a respite from daily/mundane life). I usually write my posts on a break from work (as now), or when I get home, and am unwinding from the day.
I understand that this may not be everyone’s glass of tea, and if so, I agree with SAF that the best approach is to
But like SAF,
I do not think the choice is binary. There is the middle path of discussion. To reference SAF again, we have engaged in several discussions–often with vigor–where we have disagreed, but never argued (for me, arguments entail the negative elements of anger and vitriol). I think we remain in disagreement about the topics, but as far as I can tell, it does not alter how we relate to each other. Seeing one’s options as limited to a) keeping one’s mouth shut begrudgingly or b) arguing seems like a Scylla and Charybdis framing, and angst-producing.
Along with Dustin, I hope the Bond franchise will
but I do not think that having such a hope is incompatible with also pursuing a deep analysis of the elements constituting Bond 26–the aesthetic, the material, the cultural, and the political.
EON went out of their way to make sure that the Russians that were depicted as villains were not seen to be acting as agents of the USSR, but usually as a part of SPECTRE or otherwise working as a freelance agent with their operations having no ties to the Russian/Soviet government. They even depict the USSR in very friendly terms, through the characters of Gogol and Pushkin, later on in Cubby’s run with the franchise.
FRWL - Klebb/Grant - acting on behalf of SPECTRE will lying to the Russian government
OP - General Orlov - openly defies his superiors and works on his own to detonate the bomb on the American base
AVTAK - Zorin - depicted as being ex-KGB and someone that Gogol can’t control
TLD - Koskov - working on his own “directive” against his own superiors in the Russian government; his superiors are treated in the film as allies of sorts of the British
GE - Orumov - betraying the Russian government by stealing their space weapon and using it against them to cover his tracks, while working for a former British agent
TWINE - Renard - former KGB agent turned freelance terrorist - not operating under the directive of the Russian government
It is, actually true, then that the franchise went out of their way to not paint the Russian state itself as the villains of their films when it would have been extremely easy to do so. They don’t even feature actual Russian villains for most of the run that Cubby had with the franchise, with only FRWL, OP, AVTAK, and TLD featuring such villains, and even then, they bend themselves over backward making sure the audience knows that while the characters are Russian, they are not working for the Russian government. They even talk about this in behind the scenes segments on the films that it was done intentionally to make sure that they didn’t alienate potential customers of the franchise.
Point taken. Thank you for the correction.
One question: isn’t it the KGB that tries to kill Bond at the beginning of TSWLM?
Also, I agree that Gogol’s portrayal softens over time, but he starts out as an enemy.
What about my other examples–a female M who calls Bond a “dinosaur.” That seems to be a deliberate leaning into the political on the part of EON.
Singling out a defector or a crazy zealot does not clear the films from being political. Of course, they played into the Cold War mindset, and that lifted as the political situation in real life changed.
It was and will always be a financial decision: will audiences in other countries, sympathizing with the nation the villain is coming from, still buy tickets?
When German actors were cast as villains it was obviously not just because these actors were better than those from other nations - it played into what was thought about Germany. Hey, Ouromov was even played by a German (“A Nazi playing a Russian - double whammy!”).
I am always amazed when people think that you can or even should take politics out of every topic. It always is rooted deeply within everything.
As for Bond´s future, and focusing on the thread´s title: my hope is that the films do not ignore the political situation at all.
I hope they stay firmly on the ground they stood on so successfully since 1962, making Bond fight against suppression and dangerous domination plans.
I hope they do not become a sheer fantasy about a “cool guy who does what he is told and does not think about the consequences”.
I hope they reflect the world we are living in. Will that be difficult in these days? Absolutely. But to quote another franchise: This is not Mission Difficult. This is Mission Impossible.
Yes! Thank you!
And this is what has been changed about discourse in a disastrous way: disagreeing has severed people.
But a discussion is not a war which every side needs to win. And if arguments don’t convince us or do convince us although it is hard to accept, we don’t need to dig in our heels just to cling to a wrong idea - or shut down the discussion because we don’t want to be convinced at all.
Disagreeing, even vehemently, should never take away our civility but actually enforce the bond we all share.
Given that it’s the Chinese actively backing Goldfinger, Scaramanga too, possibly Blofeld in his volcano, am not sure the argument about neutered “politics” totally holds. The films don’t seem to hold back on giving the Chinese government a bit of a kicking.
Going back to Fleming, if that means anything any more, would make everything “political”. Bond is born of “politics”. He doesn’t think much of the British, for a start.
A great deal of the current entrapment stems from people’s inability to accept even the presence of dissent. Our devices allow us to shape our daily routines of news, opinions and everything we consume largely aligned with our own convictions. That’s no doubt nice to have to cushion our comfort zones - but fatal for our ability of discourse and compromise.
We lose not only the ability to communicate amongst each other, it’s also getting increasingly difficult to process how one can be wrong on one topic - and right on another. Cognitive dissonance is an important element of perception and once we can’t handle it any more it’s getting increasingly harder to deal with those opinions and facts we’re uncomfortable with.
Avoiding any and all conflict might seem like a way to a peaceful journey through life’s challenges, but it really only increases the volume and intensity of trouble down the road.
Once again off topic, but not entirely without hope if we look for it.
Demolition Man has raised us so well.
Still not sure about the seashells thing, though.
I never thought of it this way, but you have helped me see it now. Whatever the specifics of the plot or milieu of the villainy, a Bond villain wants to dominate and control. Reinforces my idea that a non-denominational megalomaniac will be best for Bond 26 (tempered by the fact that megalomania is having a moment right now).
Exactly. The devices have allowed people to connect with like-minded brethren (a positive in many ways), but there have been two perilous consequences: 1) bubbles of interest have arisen, cultivating/feeding a person’s desire to be affirmed; and 2) these bubbles have become no-dissent zones, so as not to interfere with the affirmation process.