100 replies to this topic

[stamper]

I meant the name. It's an american created name in order to design "the organisation", whatever or whomever they are. It simplifies in the eyes of the public, any retaliation, rather than fighting shadowy figures.

Here's some hints (but then let's switch back to the subject at hand)

Claims of an American invention
What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute. In the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, writer and journalist Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention. Curtis contends the name "al-Qaeda" was first brought to the attention of the public in the 2001 trial of Osama bin Laden and the four men accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. As a matter of law, the U.S. Department of Justice needed to show that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a criminal organization in order to charge him in absentia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes. The name of the organization and details of its structure were provided in the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, who claimed to be a founding member of the organization and a former employee of Osama bin Laden.

[mcdonbb]

World domination. The same old dream.

Yeah, I know. How disappointing. Suddenly, my interest in BOND 22 has dimmed. A lot.

dont panic....Craig is usually vague in these interviews and I dont we are taking a step back. Remember the its more campy crap.

We dont know the motive much less the plot so dont dim stay happy...keep up the faith.

[LadySylvia]

The whole thing doesn't bother me. It all depends on the execution. As long as it's couched in reality (a-la-Batman-Begins). I'm fine with it. I am more interested in the level of quality than anything else.

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world? The fact that the villain/villains are trying to dominate the world only tells me that any semblance of reality that was found in CASINO ROYALE has finally departed.

Thanks a lot, EON, for screwing up Craig's tenure.

[Skudor]

I suspect this whole 'take over the world/and or/economy' is really just a rehash of the Miami airport plot from Casino Royale. That is, the Organisation plans an incident of some sort, which would allow it to make money on the financial markets. The Panama canal could feature in this quite easily. Sounds a bit dull to me - I much prefer a good old fashioned SPECTRE extortion plot (give us a million or we'll blow up a major city). It has more menace to it.

Or the Organisation might just be an investment bank planning on cornering the market in credit derivatives. You never know.

[Jim]

The whole thing doesn't bother me. It all depends on the execution. As long as it's couched in reality (a-la-Batman-Begins). I'm fine with it. I am more interested in the level of quality than anything else.

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world? The fact that the villain/villains are trying to dominate the world only tells me that any semblance of reality that was found in CASINO ROYALE has finally departed.

Thanks a lot, EON, for screwing up Craig's tenure.

Don't hold back now, dovelet. Tell us what you really think, poppet.

[tdalton]

The whole thing doesn't bother me. It all depends on the execution. As long as it's couched in reality (a-la-Batman-Begins). I'm fine with it. I am more interested in the level of quality than anything else.

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world? The fact that the villain/villains are trying to dominate the world only tells me that any semblance of reality that was found in CASINO ROYALE has finally departed.

Thanks a lot, EON, for screwing up Craig's tenure.

Completely agreed. The whole "world domination" thing has been done many, many, many times, and it really isn't all that realistic. I was hoping that they'd keep the villainous schemes for the Craig Era fairly low-key (or at least more low-key than the schemes of say Drax, Stromberg, and SPECTRE), but it doesn't look like that will be the case.

I also don't like the idea of Dominic Greene having a connection with Vesper. I think that it makes CR even less of a faithful adaptation (not that it was particularly faithful anyway) and turns Vesper Lynd into more of a puppet for the new SPECTRE-like organization than it makes her a tragic figure, which she was more of in the novel. Having her connected to a villain, especially as one as high up in the organization as they're leading us to believe that Greene actually is, it makes it less likely that she was clueless to what was going on behind the scenes and makes it more like she was at least aware of their activity on some small level.

I was hoping that they would leave the French-Algerian Boyfriend out of this, and any future, films because the assumption that he would be a villain was so widely accepted that it really almost became a fact before Bond 22 was even officially greenlit for production. It would have been nice for him to have not been a villain, or, even better, to not have been a part of the film at all.

[Jim]

I am having visions of "Daniel Craig says there will be no dinner jacket in Bond 21, he said it, he really did" from about two years ago. I suspect that one went on for a few pages too.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I suspect this whole 'take over the world/and or/economy' is really just a rehash of the Miami airport plot from Casino Royale. That is, the Organisation plans an incident of some sort, which would allow it to make money on the financial markets. The Panama canal could feature in this quite easily. Sounds a bit dull to me - I much prefer a good old fashioned SPECTRE extortion plot (give us a million or we'll blow up a major city). It has more menace to it.

Or the Organisation might just be an investment bank planning on cornering the market in credit derivatives. You never know.

The Organization wasn't trying to make money on the financial markets, it was Le Chiffre who "borrowed" the Organization's clients' money to gamble on the financial markets and make a little extra of his own by causing company catastrophes behind the scenes. It was because of Le Chiffre's untrustworthiness that Mr. White had to kill him. The Organization only served as the middle man between Obanno's terrorist group and the terrorist banker Le Chiffre.

What exactly the Organization does or has planned is still unknown.

[Simon]

Thanks a lot, EON, for screwing up Craig's tenure.

It does sound to have quite wrecked your morning.

I hear Batman, the series, is going strong.

[baerrtt]

The whole thing doesn't bother me. It all depends on the execution. As long as it's couched in reality (a-la-Batman-Begins). I'm fine with it. I am more interested in the level of quality than anything else.

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world? The fact that the villain/villains are trying to dominate the world only tells me that any semblance of reality that was found in CASINO ROYALE has finally departed.

Thanks a lot, EON, for screwing up Craig's tenure.

He doesn't explicitly state that there is a world domination plot does he?

[dinovelvet]

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world?

Nobody involved with Bond 22 has stated anything about 'world domination'

[Skudor]

I suspect this whole 'take over the world/and or/economy' is really just a rehash of the Miami airport plot from Casino Royale. That is, the Organisation plans an incident of some sort, which would allow it to make money on the financial markets. The Panama canal could feature in this quite easily. Sounds a bit dull to me - I much prefer a good old fashioned SPECTRE extortion plot (give us a million or we'll blow up a major city). It has more menace to it.

Or the Organisation might just be an investment bank planning on cornering the market in credit derivatives. You never know.

The Organization wasn't trying to make money on the financial markets, it was Le Chiffre who "borrowed" the Organization's clients' money to gamble on the financial markets and make a little extra of his own by causing company catastrophes behind the scenes. It was because of Le Chiffre's untrustworthiness that Mr. White had to kill him. The Organization only served as the middle man between Obanno's terrorist group and the terrorist banker Le Chiffre.

What exactly the Organization does or has planned is still unknown.

That doesn't mean they couldn't use the same idea as Le Chiffre.

[Jim]

Is blowing up the world any worse than blowing things out of all proportion?

Gets to the point where anyone associated with Bond Tutu dare not sniff lest the internet blaze alive with "He sniffed and that's the sign of an allergy and people have allergies about cat fur and that means there's a cat that means Blofeld is back that means they have destroyed me and my faith system and everything bad that has ever happened in my life is their fault and I WANT THEM HURT."

[baerrtt]

As it's following from CR evidently there is no world domination plot brewing. And quite honestly I find the 'I'll stop watching the films forever if I don't get what I want' attitude (sorry but I'm getting that feeling from the posters who are randomly jumping to conclusions) ott.

Bond, whether we like it or not, sailed away from the whims of fandom's, (from the moment they began making them DR NO etc), want to keep everything realistic, even though that in itself is NOT the basis for a good or even great film. It makes me wonder how certain fans coped/cope with a MAJORITY of entries in the franchise that used (or reused) the same world domination plot over and over again all these years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but some of the moaning has an air of fans who are thoroughly displeased with nearly all the previous entries and feel this can be corrected if Bond films were (despite the claims) ultimately more Le Carre than Fleming.

[Pussfeller]

Why would anyone have supposed that they wouldn't return to the world domination angle? It's no more hackneyed than it was forty years ago, so why abandon it now?

What exactly is the alternative, anyway? Most Bond villains have been at least theoretically bent on world domination. Because such an ambitious project requires many steps, the scope of each film has always been considerably narrower than total world domination. SPECTRE, an organization that aspired to world domination, was never actually on the cusp of achieving its goal. Instead, it was always engaged in some smaller project, like provoking war or extorting money.

So I find the comments encouraging, even though I wouldn't put any stock in them. I would love to see a villain whose menace is larger than the scope of the film, a villain for whom a blown-up volcano fortress is only a temporary setback. A nemesis, in other words.

[Simon]

In fact, see the thread 'Super-Bitches', a real supervillain but maybe a female one.

Lady Sylvia would know.

[Pussfeller]

There are only 8 plots in media that are capable of being turned into movie/book.
1. love
2. comedy
3. coming of age
4. murder
5. WORLD DOMINATION
6. martial arts
7. heist
8. war

The series has, throughout its long history, incorporated many of these themes:

love - OHMSS, CR
comedy - 1971-1985
coming of age - CR
murder - DN (a murder mystery), LALD, LTK, TWINE
martial arts - YOLT, TMWTGG, TND
heist - GF, TB, DAF, TLD, GE...
war - TLD, TND (not counting the Cold War)

I would add a few more:

blaxploitation - LALD
disaster - TSWLM, MR, AVTAK
revenge - LTK, GE
sci-fi - YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MR, GE, DAD
mystery - DN, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR... (probably most of them)
chick flick - TWINE

One of the things I love most about the Bond series is that it's so varied and irregular. That's probably how it's kept going so long. It isn't afraid to reinvent itself, even drastically. That's why I'm always amused by the grave misgivings voiced by so many fans in response to the slightest change in direction. If you don't like the way the next film turns out, just wait a few years.

[Harmsway]

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world?

Firstly, nobody said the organization was just financial advisers to terrorists. We knew that was one aspect of their organization, but it never seemed like it was the whole deal.

Secondly, we don't know tha they're trying to dominate the world. Using such a term as "world domination" strikes me as highly inappropriate for what Craig says, and as Skudor suggests, I imagine what we'll see is along the lines of the whole Miami incident in CASINO ROYALE.

[00Twelve]

How can it be couched in reality when the story revolves around some organization - which was supposed to be financial advisers to terrorists - trying to find a means to dominate the world?

Firstly, nobody said the organization was just financial advisers to terrorists. We knew that was one aspect of their organization, but it never seemed like it was the whole deal.

Secondly, we don't know tha they're trying to dominate the world. Using such a term as "world domination" strikes me as highly inappropriate for what Craig says, and as Skudor suggests, I imagine what we'll see is along the lines of the whole Miami incident in CASINO ROYALE.

Any bets on who'll say, "Great! I hated that dreadful Miami sequence...now, you're saying the whole film's gonna be like that?! Bond's going down the tubes!" first?

[JimmyBond]

Great! I hated that dreadful Miami sequence...now, you're saying the whole film's gonna be like that?! Bond's going down the tubes!

[tdalton]

I have to disagree with those who say that Craig is not saying that they're going for a "world domination" plot here. When Craig says: "this organisation that is destabilising the world’s economy because they want to take it over", that says to me that they're trying to take over the whole thing. The world this day in age is completely controlled by money, and if you take over the economy, you've got control of pretty much the entire world. Just because it's a more "realistic" way of taking over the world vs. the plans of Drax and Stromberg doesn't mean that it's any more original or interesting. The one thing that CR had going for it was that it wasn't a world domination plot. Now that we're returning to this style of Bond film, there really isn't anywhere original for them to go with it.

[Judo chop]

Personally, I think Craig intentionally drops false plugs to make us squirm. As Jim (I think it was) alluded to earlier in here, Craig

[Harmsway]

The world this day in age is completely controlled by money, and if you take over the economy, you've got control of pretty much the entire world.

Not in the same sense, though, as the phrase "world domination" is used (which instantly brings up images of a man sitting behind a desk ruling the world). There wouldn't be any absolute dominance. It would be more of indirect and shadowy manipulation, through things like blackmail and staging political events.

That strikes me as a massive distinction from the plans of Stromberg and co.

The one thing that CR had going for it was that it wasn't a world domination plot.

For me, the thing CR had going for it was that it wasn't a doomsday plot. It was an escape from the typical storyline with a giant countdown towards the end to some great tragedy.

Now that we're returning to this style of Bond film, there really isn't anywhere original for them to go with it.

It doesn't seem at all that BOND 22 is going to be a film about a big plot to takeover the world, though. Economic manipulation/control seems to be what the organization's agenda is, but that doesn't necessitate that we will see some big plan in BOND 22 to realize that. It just means that behind all of their smaller actions lies that goal.

As long as BOND 22 doesn't mark a return to the "doomsday plot," I'm fine with the organization having that as their background goal. It doesn't strike me as that different from Raymond Benson's the Union, and in concept, he managed to craft some rather interesting stories with them as the focus. The same thing can be done here.

Personally, I think Craig intentionally drops false plugs to make us squirm. As Jim (I think it was) alluded to earlier in here, Craig’s revelations are often well off the mark. More often that not, even?

Granted that Craig likes to be fun. But this one has been repeated since CASINO ROYALE, which tends to make it seem a little more solid than a lot of Craig's comments.

[Judo chop]

Economic manipulation/control seems to be what the organization's agenda is, but that doesn't necessitate that we will see some big plan in BOND 22 to realize that. It just means that behind all of their smaller actions lies that goal.

Thank you.

[Royal Dalton]

The problem with Daniel Craig is, pretty much everything he's said about this film is (no doubt intentionally) open to interpretation.

[quote name='Daniel Craig']"We set up in the last one that there

[Mr. Blofeld]

Maybe they want to take over the last James Bond movie...

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='tdalton' post='823732' date='17 January 2008 - 11:46']I have to disagree with those who say that Craig is not saying that they're going for a "world domination" plot here. When Craig says: "this organisation that is destabilising the world

[blueman]

At the beginning of CR, M said to Bond: they're trying to discover who's behind the funding of terrorists. What Bond then found out is that there's an organization not only making the terrorism happen, but making money off of the attacks--and the attacks themselves always cause upheaval to a certain extent. So it's a two-pronged thing, destabilization AND making money from the destabilization. And Bond is working his way up the Organization's corporate ladder as it were, Mr. White is next. The "take it over" part is kinda interesting, because we don't know what that looks like or how it'll be represented or who will be the face of it. Goldfinger attempted to "take over" the world's economy by flipping the gold standard on it's head after he'd hoarded as much as he possibly could. And all he wanted was to worship gold...perhaps the oddest motivation in Fleming, and yet it translated quite well to the big screen, IIRC.

I'm very curious about this "take it over" comment, if Craig was being sincere and if so then what that might look like in Bond 22. We've had loads of trite and cliched versions of such things in the film series, but also at least one stand-out presentation. Haggis proved to me in CR that he can reinvent not only Bond, but the world Bond moves through very well indeed. The idea this comment represents isn't so dodgy, just the lame attempts at manifesting it we've grown used to because of crappy crappy writing and less than inspired direction. I'm thinking Bond 22 may be the best written AND best directed Bond film...ever? I can see it being in the top 5 or so, easy, just going by the talent involved. Yep, high expectations, but that's CR's fault. Wait for the idea to be realized before blowing it to bits, Bond himself is a tired old cliched has-been, yet CR came out pretty okay. Continuing what CR set up is a good thing IMHO.

[tdalton]

Haven't you said you're not seeing this film anyway?

I was going to see it after they cast the Bond girls. I think that Gemma Arterton and the girl playing Camille have the potential to be some of the best Bond girls that we've had in the franchise in a long time, perhaps even the best since the early Roger Moore days. I thought that the film could be good based on their involvement in the film because, for some reason, they seem to be interesting choices for the role.

The rest of the production, however, doesn't appear all that interesting. I know that my opinion regarding Bond 22 thus far doesn't reflect the majority opinion, which causes disagreement. Perhaps I'm not a real Bond fan anymore, and I'm starting to lean towards that being the case.

[jaguar007]

[quote name='tdalton' post='823732' date='17 January 2008 - 11:46']I have to disagree with those who say that Craig is not saying that they're going for a "world domination" plot here. When Craig says: "this organisation that is destabilising the world