Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

SPOILER: The threat is...


144 replies to this topic

#91 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 12:04 PM

That said, I suppose Fleming introduces Bond battling SMERSH and developing a hatred of them. I think the emphasis that Bond is MI6's agent battling the MGB/KGB in the Cold War of the 50s as a method of maintaining the "realism" of both Bond and his work flavours the novels and hence gives the impression "Russia" was involved more often than it actually was.

View Post


Very good point, well put. :) And it's why they are now changing SMERSH to terrorism. Fleming's SMERSH was, of course, infinitely more mysterious and dangerous than the real organisation. In real life, SMERSH agents were primarily confined to desks sorting through documents and questioning people - more like immigration officers. There were some hunter-killer squads, and there were interrogations, too, but the organisation was largely made up of pen-pushers. The dramatically titled NIGHTS ARE LONGER THERE: SMERSH FROM THE INSIDE by A I Romanov (a pseudonym, of course) amply demonstrates this: it's terribly dull and, as far as I've been able to ascertain, historically accurate. SMERSH was a convenient organisation for Fleming to play with, and he used it brilliantly. But it was indeed a kind of background shorthand for realism, rather than realism itself. It is incredibly unlikely that a SMERSH agent would try to win his losses back at baccarat! But that's not the point - the SMERSH stuff just adds that touch of the real. Bond needs something to focus his hate on - it doesn't much matter who or what it is.

#92 DOUBLE-O-JOE

DOUBLE-O-JOE

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 61 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 12:05 PM

I am very happy with the idea of using a ficticious rogue nation. Back in 2001, under a very different username, I posted seven Bond film 'scenarios', several of which involved a 'shadowy rogue nation, that is an enemy of mankind...'
I love it :) This development conjures up so many interesting possibilities for Bond 22 & 23.

#93 hcmv007

hcmv007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2310 posts
  • Location:United States, Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 October 2005 - 12:43 PM

This actually fits w/ a post that I hade made about the plot for CR. I am glad this is how they are doing it.

#94 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 24 October 2005 - 01:37 PM

They are creating a fictitious country so they don't have to worry about ticking off anybody from a real country and, more likely, having their film (esp. it's release) impacted by something that would happen (i.e., a terrorist attack in that country, an invasion, a natural disaster). If it's a fictitious country all of these external events beyond the filmmakers' control almost become moot. The West Wing invented a fictitious middle eastern country for the same reasons.

View Post

It's quite in Fleming's spirit : after al, Royale-Les-Eaux does not exist either.

View Post


[mra]Touch

#95 daman3755

daman3755

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts
  • Location:Reading PA

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:44 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='24 October 2005 - 08:37'][mra]Touch

#96 Le G

Le G

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 50 posts
  • Location:V

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:10 PM

When I read this news I came to think about an earlier rumour about the Indian actor Gulshan Grover. He stated in an interview that he had been cat as the villain in the new movie Casino Royale. If I do not remember wrong he also sad that it in this movie would be two main villains and as it now appear he seams to be right. LeCiffre and the leader of the new enemy organisation that will be introduced in this movie. So my question is. Is Gulshan Grover signed as the villain?

#97 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:35 PM

My answer is: I very much doubt it. I suspect he may ultimately turn the part down, as Rikki Lee Travolta memorably did the main role. :)

#98 YOLT

YOLT

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1533 posts

Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:36 PM

It could be Syria, surely, without making a country up. Its terrorsist central at the moment isn't it? Any CBner's want to defend Syria or how much CR would lose at the Syrian box-office as a result?

Dump on Syria, Daniel, EON, I say.

View Post


Why not U.S.A? Everyone knows that the power behind Al-Qaede is the U.S.A. Just watch TLD.

View Post


Well, without debating the political and historical accuracy in its entirety, it might not do the box office much good, don't you think?

View Post


Well, we have never had a country that is totally Bonds enemy. Why now? There had been American and British enemies before. Even in DAD the Korean guy is bad because he was educated in the West.

View Post

It's called communist Russia. Russia was Bond's undisputable enemy throughout the Fleming novels, and the early Connery films have that as well. It was only the Roger films that made Russia more ambiguous.

View Post


Well in the films only one side of the enemies are the same : they are all capitalists. In a way Bond allways served for Russia by eliminating worlds richest people.

#99 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:39 PM

Well in the films only one side of the enemies are the same : they are all capitalists. In a way Bond allways served for Russia by eliminating worlds richest people.

View Post

Isn't the Queen of England one of the world's richest people? :)

#100 INTREPID

INTREPID

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 28 October 2005 - 03:42 AM

Isn't the Queen of England one of the world's richest people? :)

View Post


Not getting any richer :)

I doubt she has an evil masterplan. I do hear she likes beans on toast.

#101 YOLT

YOLT

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1533 posts

Posted 28 October 2005 - 06:43 PM

Well in the films only one side of the enemies are the same : they are all capitalists. In a way Bond allways served for Russia by eliminating worlds richest people.

View Post

Isn't the Queen of England one of the world's richest people? :)

View Post


Well I dont think that Bond loves or even likes his job. He do it to earn his life. In the whole 20 films I have never felt that Bond is a nationalistic person. I dont think that what he does is just for his country. He has to escape from the sadness of the real world: Death of parents, death of his wife, lots of sadness.

#102 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 28 October 2005 - 06:51 PM

Doesn't he apologise to the Queen in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?

#103 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 28 October 2005 - 08:04 PM

Well in the films only one side of the enemies are the same : they are all capitalists. In a way Bond allways served for Russia by eliminating worlds richest people.

View Post

Isn't the Queen of England one of the world's richest people? :)

View Post


Well I dont think that Bond loves or even likes his job. He do it to earn his life. In the whole 20 films I have never felt that Bond is a nationalistic person. I dont think that what he does is just for his country. He has to escape from the sadness of the real world: Death of parents, death of his wife, lots of sadness.

View Post

Bond does it because he's a thrill seeker and adrenaline junkie.

#104 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 29 October 2005 - 05:07 AM

You're right Harmsway. Normal life bores him. He can't stand the regular daily grind. After awhile he gets morose and begins yearning for the next mission so he can get away from London and on to something new and exciting. Basically, he's a sensualist. He feels invigorated and alive when he's on a mission. If he had a regular 9-5 job, he'd go crazy.

#105 Stax

Stax

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 334 posts

Posted 29 October 2005 - 06:03 AM

I think the key to this new threat -- and the layout for the future films where this new network is said to play a more prominent role -- can be found on the very last page of the novel Casino Royale. Substitute this rumored new terror network for SMERSH/Russia and you get a hint about what the arc for the future films may be:

"But now he would attack the arm that held the whip and the gun. The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy, and catch spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."

Fleming's Bond said that "fear was the impulse" for the Russian agenda; it is for terrorists as well. As with Fleming's novel, Bond finds (or rediscovers) his purpose at the end, after his failed relationship with Vesper. After he was tortured, he doubted himself, doubted whether he was any different than those he was going after. His betrayal taught him he was different. 007 regains a sense of purpose (with a vengeance). I think it could work nicely.

#106 YOLT

YOLT

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1533 posts

Posted 29 October 2005 - 07:06 AM

Doesn't he apologise to the Queen in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?

View Post


He did it in a funny way. He also left the job because he found the perfect woman. All Bond wants is a normal life but he just cant have it. I think he is a miserable man, and that helps him to take risks on his life.

#107 Mr Malcolm

Mr Malcolm

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 736 posts
  • Location:Osaka, Japan

Posted 29 October 2005 - 05:53 PM

Just to give my two pennies on this:

It certainly sounds intriguing, this news. I think making terrorism the threat could work, but it'll have to be handled extremely carefully. Personally, one of the things I love about the Bond films is how they do exist in a heightened, stylised reality (as long as it doesn't go too far!). I would worry that bringing terrorism into the film would make it a bit too close to the bone. At the same time, the threat in the film would have to be real, or there would be no tension. I hope P, W and H have thought this through first, and haven't written another Bond film...only with 100% extra suicide bombers!
As for the fictitious country; I enjoyed LALD and LTK, so I'm not against this per se. Although I think the approach suggested above (who was it?) of quickly namechecking it (if at all; it could be an implied fictitious country) would work better. Either way, can't wait for November 2006!

#108 The Richmond Spy

The Richmond Spy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1586 posts
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Posted 29 October 2005 - 06:35 PM

Awesome.  Once again delivering on something most of us have wanted for a long, long time.

View Post


The news just keeps getting better.  :)

View Post


Can't wait! This film should be terrific! :)

#109 TheREAL008

TheREAL008

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1190 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 10 November 2005 - 05:35 PM

Well, this seems like the only positive thing I can stand behind so far. :tup:

Or maybe certain would be better?

Edited by TheREAL008, 10 November 2005 - 05:36 PM.


#110 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 14 November 2005 - 08:19 AM

IMDb now has this plot description...

Monsieur Le Chiffre, a French gangster, uses the profits from his casino to fund terrorists. But he has made the mistake of misappropriating their funds. Le Chiffre plans to recoup the loss at a gambling tournament. James Bond is sent to make sure he doesn't win.


#111 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 08:56 AM

Granted this is a brief initial plot description, but it sounds like there will be more gambling scenes in Casino Royale than I anticipated.

I take it the casino Le Chiffre runs is not Casino Royale, otherwise I doubt he'd be eligible to enter a competition in a business he operates. But he being a villain, anything is possible, I guess.

I suppose the only way to have a large winning pot for Le Chiffre to recoup his embezzled funds is to hold a poker tournament, but the concept does sound a little un-Bondish. To be honest, I'm not really sure how I feel about this news. My initial reaction is slightly negative, but I'm reserving full judgement until I learn more.

Anyway, looking forward to learning more.

#112 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 10:45 AM

IMDb now has this plot description...

Monsieur Le Chiffre, a French gangster, uses the profits from his casino to fund terrorists. But he has made the mistake of misappropriating their funds. Le Chiffre plans to recoup the loss at a gambling tournament. James Bond is sent to make sure he doesn't win.

View Post


Could this have been submitted by Eon to Imdb, or do we think it's imdb's guess at it? Seems odd they would reveal stuff to imdb but nobody else - no press conference, no mention in interviews with Campbell or Craig, etc.

#113 Andrew

Andrew

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1274 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 02:44 PM

Most of what IMDB posts is fan submitted so I take this with a grain of salt.

#114 Gabe Vieira

Gabe Vieira

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3873 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa, USA

Posted 14 November 2005 - 05:05 PM

Most of what IMDB posts is fan submitted so I take this with a grain of salt.

View Post


Quite. IMDB.com has one of the worst forums on the Internet, mainly because of their posters. Good site and everything, but most of the people who post there are rude and annoying, and you can never trust anything posted their unless it is cited that it is official.

My call is that posted synop of CR is fake.

#115 Lounge Lizard

Lounge Lizard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 27 November 2005 - 04:17 PM

Don't know if it's already been reported here, but MI6.co.uk is running this story from The Daily Telegraph's 'Spy' Celia Walden:

With Daniel Craig now confirmed to play James Bond in next year's Casino Royale, I hear the film's producers have come up with a very modern villain for 007 to pit his wits against.

"Barbara Broccoli wants to work an Osama bin Laden-type character into the script," says my source. "In Ian Fleming's book, the main villain is a Russian agent called Le Chiffre. But in the film, they want to replace Le Chiffre with a wealthy Islamic fundamentalist who provides funding for terrorism."

The producers had originally coined the idea for the previous Bond film, Die Another Day.

"The last film was going to feature a baddie called bin Sane," adds my source. "But it was deemed to be too soon after the 9/11 atrocities, so the character was canned."


Bin Sane? As a non-Briton, I don't know how reliable the DT is- but this is rather nasty both as truth and as rumour.

Link: http://www.telegraph...1/26/dp2601.xml

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 27 November 2005 - 05:18 PM.


#116 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 27 November 2005 - 09:32 PM

In the Cold War, Russia was the enemy, a very real country and viewed as the most dangerous threat to democracy. International terrorism has replaced that threat, so it makes sense for Bond to fight the new big bad. That said, agree that how they handle it will, like everything else about this film, make or break it.

#117 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 27 November 2005 - 09:34 PM

Yes, by all means have terrorism be the threat. But don't call the guy Osama he's bin Sane in the Membrane.

#118 Gabe Vieira

Gabe Vieira

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3873 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa, USA

Posted 27 November 2005 - 09:36 PM

With Daniel Craig now confirmed to play James Bond in next year's Casino Royale, I hear the film's producers have come up with a very modern villain for 007 to pit his wits against.

"Barbara Broccoli wants to work an Osama bin Laden-type character into the script," says my source. "In Ian Fleming's book, the main villain is a Russian agent called Le Chiffre. But in the film, they want to replace Le Chiffre with a wealthy Islamic fundamentalist who provides funding for terrorism."

The producers had originally coined the idea for the previous Bond film, Die Another Day.

"The last film was going to feature a baddie called bin Sane," adds my source. "But it was deemed to be too soon after the 9/11 atrocities, so the character was canned."


I don't that that Le Chiffre should be replaced by a wealthy Islamic fundamentalist, but instead Le Chiffre should be a wealthy Islamic fundamentalist. I want Le Chiffre to be the main villain in the story but also I want him to be re-invented for the modern age.

#119 Lounge Lizard

Lounge Lizard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 27 November 2005 - 09:48 PM

So far we've got the possibility of a fictitious country, probably Le Chiffre working for terrorists, and perhaps a villain called Bin Sane.

Yes, it makes sense that Bond joins the War on Terror in some form or another, as he did in DAD. But even during the height of the Cold War, Bond mostly battled SPECTRE and other 'free-lance operators', with the Russians and Red-Chinese being shady backers at most. That took the political edge off the movies- they needed to be fantasies first and foremost, to be enjoyed by an international audience. With CR, I hope Eon travels the same route. Bond should battle the opportunistic middle men, the arms suppliers and the spies and the blackmailers, not the Bin Ladens themselves. If he did, Bond movies would stop being what they are about. Gritty and realistic or not, they still need to be 'a pleasant divertion'- and this just comes a little too close for comfort.

God, imagine the one-liners: 'Would you like your 72 virgins shaken or stirred, Bin Sane?'

Shudder.

#120 triviachamp

triviachamp

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1400 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 27 November 2005 - 09:51 PM

a villain called Bin Sane.


Oh Brother :tup: