Purvis & Wade: Trump, the Bond villain, no longer a fantasy.

http://screenrant.com/james-bond-writers-donald-trump-villain/

Screenrant wrote:

The election of former reality television personality Donald Trump to the position of United States President came as quite a surprise to his opponents and many in the international media, in ways that will likely be felt for some time. Initially regarded by many (even those in his own party) as a novelty candidate, the idea of the eccentric real-estate tycoon as a viable politician had been the subject of satirical jokes in comic strips like Doonesbury and episodes of The Simpsons decades ago.

Those “jokes”, however, are no longer mere fantasy and the world of pop culture may soon better reflect so much. Case in point: the fact of a Trump presidency is being named as fiction-made-reality by yet another creative team, namely the longtime screenwriters behind the last several James Bond movies.

In an interview with The Telegraph (reported on by The Spy Command), Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, the screenwriters responsible for co-writing the last six films in the 007 movie franchise, touched on many issues of real-world geopolitical shifts that have made it difficult to maintain the Bond series’ careful balance between fantasy and reality. While the interview mentions multiple issues, including the UK’s recent vote to leave the European Union, it’s a set of quotes from Purvis about the newly sworn-in U.S. President that are now raising eyebrows:

“I’m just not sure how you would go about writing a James Bond film now.

“Each time, you’ve got to say something about Bond’s place in the world, which is Britain’s place in the world. But things are moving so quickly now, that becomes tricky. With people like (U.S. President Donald) Trump, the Bond villain has become a reality. So when they do another one, it will be interesting to see how they deal with the fact that the world has become a fantasy.”

While sure to be received as incendiary by supporters of the controversial president, it’s not hard to imagine reference-points for such a comparison that would have little to do with the onetime Celebrity Apprentice host’s actual politics. Many of Bond’s most famous enemies have been depicted as ultra-wealthy men with colorful personalities (Hugo Drax in Moonraker, Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies, Max Zorin in A View to A Kill) and a taste for unusual decor, and Trump has long framed his preference for ostentatious gold decorations and name-branded buildings and products as key components of his larger-than-life public persona. However, while tycoons of Trump’s stripe attaining (official) political power in the Western world is a common plot for the Bond series and other spy/action films, it’s typically been rare in real life.

As yet, the next James Bond film (or what direction the franchise will now take) has not been made official one way or another. Purvis and Wade are currently in production on the BBC miniseries SS-GB, which takes place in an alternate-history UK where Nazis won the Battle of Britain in WWII and now occupy the country.

I'm not entirely sure how Trump's presidency affects Bond. In fact, I imagine it opens the doors to welcome back the ostentatious Bond villain of the Goldfinger, Zorin, Carver and Orlov moulds.

Not to mention the fears surrounding Russia and China at the moment. Just keep Bond out of America for the next Bond film.

EDIT: Oh, and cue comments about Purvis and Wade's (in)ability as screenwriters. Bring 'em back, with Feirstein!

Fleming certainly had a fondness for villainising wealthy industrialists with physical peculiarities. I can picture it now:

Bond tensed through the ropes binding his body as a petite, pumpkin-coloured hand reached out to examine his Walther PPK.

Having said that, Bond hasn't really engaged with real life geopolitics since his intervention in the Soviet-Afghan war in TLD (I'm ignoring DAD as I don't feel like North Korea actually has killer satellites or race-shifting generals). I certainly don't think Bond, of all franchises, should start making villains out of US Presidents.

CJB wrote:

I certainly don't think Bond, of all franchises, should start making villains out of US Presidents.

Nor do I, if only because a world leader at the forefront of a film's plot is cliched.

I can certainly see some truth in the Bond Villain in the white house analogy we do indeed live in bewildering and bizarre times.

As to this comment - “Each time, you’ve got to say something about Bond’s place in the world, which is Britain’s place in the world."

I disagree strongly you certainly don't have to do this at all, in fact I would argue this is what dates and dilutes Bond more than anything imo. Bond was and is at its best as a form of escapism stuck up self important pretension should be a failing of the villain not a prerequisite of the writing team. The more dire real life the more important our escapism, the Bond thrillers were born in the midst of genuine Nuclear paranoia, so if there is a lesson imo its to create a world we can, for two hours or so, retreat into...any break from the real is appreciated!

But it's something that Fleming did, no? Some a little more than others, but it adds context and depth. Bond (and Britain's) place was in the Cold War, and even the more fantastic Bond films (YOLT, MR) saw Bond up against a threat that could boil tensions over. So in that regard, writing Bond films from 62-87 (since LTK doesn't touch on it) was much easier, even for the films not faithfully lifted from Fleming.

GE successfully acknowledged that Bond is still relevant because loonies from the Cold War still existed, and Skyfall reassessed this to demonstrate that it's no longer a flag, but individuals working in the shadows. TND demonstrated the power of mass media (in a more fantastical fashion), TWINE with oil, DAD with Korea, which is probably the one I'd agree with you on, since it's now known that NK is more of a laughing stock than a palpable threat. I won't go into CR, QOS or SP, but you know when it's done well, it works. Global surveillance isn't as big a threat to the world as the outbreak of war, not to mention recycled themes ('the dead are alive' is synonymous resurrection) from Skyfall, so it wasn't integrated well - or needed to be - and hence, SPECTRE came off as more pretentious than anything else.

I understand Purvis and Wade's desire to contextualise Bond with current threats - it's not new territory, and it's something Fleming did - but I don't see how Trump cripples that.

Albert R. Broccoli's EON Studios presents:

Aidan Turner as James Bond 007 in:

OCTOPUSSY-GRABBER

Sarah Gadon as Gala Brand
Nathalie Emmanuel as Anne Reilly
Charles Dance as M
Nicholas Hoult as Q
Donald Trump as himself

Trump plays a villain who strangles his enemies with his deadly toupee.

Alternate titles:
BOLDFINGER
FROM RUSSIA WITH URINE
PRE-NUPS ARE FOREVER
NYET DEALS, MR. PUTIN

Orangefinger might be more appropriate.

Or Licence to Grab?

Or The Man With The Golden Tan?

FieldsMan wrote:

But it's something that Fleming did, no? Some a little more than others, but it adds context and depth. Bond (and Britain's) place was in the Cold War, and even the more fantastic Bond films (YOLT, MR) saw Bond up against a threat that could boil tensions over. So in that regard, writing Bond films from 62-87 (since LTK doesn't touch on it) was much easier, even for the films not faithfully lifted from Fleming.

GE successfully acknowledged that Bond is still relevant because loonies from the Cold War still existed, and Skyfall reassessed this to demonstrate that it's no longer a flag, but individuals working in the shadows. TND demonstrated the power of mass media (in a more fantastical fashion), TWINE with oil, DAD with Korea, which is probably the one I'd agree with you on, since it's now known that NK is more of a laughing stock than a palpable threat. I won't go into CR, QOS or SP, but you know when it's done well, it works. Global surveillance isn't as big a threat to the world as the outbreak of war, not to mention recycled themes ('the dead are alive' is synonymous resurrection) from Skyfall, so it wasn't integrated well - or needed to be - and hence, SPECTRE came off as more pretentious than anything else.

I understand Purvis and Wade's desire to contextualise Bond with current threats - it's not new territory, and it's something Fleming did - but I don't see how Trump cripples that.

It is something that can be done and periodically should be done but not in any way necessary every time, more importantly it is not the best starting point for the story imo. Fleming's plots and settings are born of a cunning imagination 'what if's rather than 'what i/was' - (effectively tapping into his WWII role) much of the context he provides always strikes me as his desire to flesh out the extremes or make the incredible seem plausible and any commentary on Bond or Britain's position is more a case of retrofitted and optional. I 'd regard that approach as the polar opposite to the one one P&W suggest.

It is actually the most dated novels and films that are easiest to imagine were written with the most contemporary of mindsets. The odd thing about the need GE felt to justify Bond as relevant is that for the vast majority of his life Bond actually ended up not mired in the cold war at all, but more often of corporate or wealthy individuals looking to make a killing..... As far as the films are concerned the 'Trump's were always the likely bad guys but in a bizarre twist of reality they now have a flag to wave :{

Next we'll be suggesting that Melania perfectly fits the 'trapped in a relationship with an evil tyrant because she's terrified what he'll do to her if she leaves him' Bond Girl trope.

Oh, hang on ...

The video circulating of Trump insulting Melania at his inauguration feels like it's straight out of a Bond film.

It's horrible ... her face drops like a stone when he turns back around. He's a fucking prick.

Whose side are you Brits taking in the forthcoming Australian-American War?

Screenrant wrote:

“I’m just not sure how you would go about writing a James Bond film now.

On a warm Spring day Bill Tanner walked into M's office grimacing at his phone.

"Sir, I think you should have a look at this."

M puts on his reading glasses and took the phone. The most recent tweet from the U.S. President made M fall back in his chair mortified.

"This James Bond guy. Can't keep his women alive and drinks like a fish. Sad!" The tweet read.

The notification for a new tweet showed up. M clicks the phone to read the new tweet knowing full well of the horror he was to witness.

"Loser can't keep from breaking his own gadgets. Jason Bourne was FAR BETTER!" M cupped his face with his hands. How could the Americans have elected such ... another tweet.

"Maybe the British should send Austin Powers next time. Lightweight M always sends his worst. LOSER!" #LOSERBOND and #LIGHTWEIGHTM started trending immediately. M started banging his head on the desk.

BI wrote:

It's horrible ... her face drops like a stone when he turns back around. He's a fucking prick.

Indeed.

Strangways&Quarrel wrote:

Screenrant wrote:

“I’m just not sure how you would go about writing a James Bond film now.

On a warm Spring day Bill Tanner walked into M's office grimacing at his phone.

"Sir, I think you should have a look at this."

M puts on his reading glasses and took the phone. The most recent tweet from the U.S. President made M fall back in his chair mortified.

"This James Bond guy. Can't keep his women alive and drinks like a fish. Sad!" The tweet read.

The notification for a new tweet showed up. M clicks the phone to read the new tweet knowing full well of the horror he was to witness.

"Loser can't keep from breaking his own gadgets. Jason Bourne was FAR BETTER!" M cupped his face with his hands. How could the Americans have elected such ... another tweet.

"Maybe the British should send Austin Powers next time. Lightweight M always sends his worst. LOSER!" #LOSERBOND and #LIGHTWEIGHTM started trending immediately. M started banging his head on the desk.

You don't always post at BAB, but when you do, you do it well.

So, some six months in, I thought it was time we analysed the presidency of Donald J. Trump, not politically, but from the perspective of Bond 25 and beyond.

The earliest response to the Trump presidency from a Bondian point of view came in January 2017 after he was inaugurated from Purvis and Wade saying how difficult it would be from a script-writing point of view to write a modern Bond villain when there was a real life one in the White House. See articles here: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-01-30/james-bond-screenwriters-say-trump-makes-it-difficult-to-continue-the-007-franchise and here: https://townhall.com/columnists/christiantoto/2017/04/12/donald-trump-is-not-a-bond-villain-n2312300

This seemed rather a cop out, considering that the Bond films traditionally ignored current affairs trends  (there are some exceptions of course, like the energy crisis plot in The Man with the Golden Gun, 1974) in favour of villains like Karl Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Hugo Drax in Moonraker (1979). In other words, they focused on megalomaniacs as villains as opposed to what the real world Soviets were up to at the time. Ian Fleming even did the same by moving away from SMERSH to SPECTRE to give the Soviets the benefit of the doubt for a while.

To my mind, President Trump most resembles the villain General Brutus Brute Clay in John Gardner's last Bond continuation novel Cold/Cold Fall (1996) as he wanted a fascist take over of the United States by using a bombing campaign against government building to takeover and use the then President Bill Clinton as their puppet to toughen up on law and order and crime etc. That is the only character I can see who resembles Trump in any real way, and yet there had been no discussion of this character or Gardner novel in the debate on Trump as a potential Bond villain. Strange, but given it's a Gardner Bond continuation novel, not altogether unexpected either. The novel is however well worth a read by the Bond fan in the current US Alt-Right political climate.

So this is the thread to discuss the potentiality of a President Trump inspired Bond villain in an upcoming Bond film, novel or comic strip. Please note that it is not a thread to attack Trump politically. This is not the thread for that type of thing, but rather the place to discuss how, if at all, the Trump presidency will influence James Bond villainy in the years to come and especially how it might influence Bond 25 scheduled for release in November 2019.

So I open the floor (of the House?) to those who want to discuss this all aspects of the Trump presidency's potential influence on future Bind villainy...

Clearly one of the biggest problems in Europe, and one of Trump's biggest issues is radical Islam.

Something along those lines. Someone in the mold of London Mayor Sadiq Khan would be a henchman.

bitchcraft wrote:

Clearly one of the biggest problems in Europe, and one of Trump's biggest issues is radical Islam.

Something along those lines. Someone in the mold of London Mayor Sadiq Khan would be a henchman.

Trump and Khan could have patched it up by then hopefully!

Thread already exists. Perhaps a mod can merge them to continue the conversation?

Oops, my mistake then. Merge the threads by all means.

Done. Merged.

About all I can do on this forum, huzzar

Well, I thank you for doing it.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Done. Merged.

About all I can do on this forum, huzzar

Looks like you're the only one visiting these days.

Thanks Hilly.

I don't think we'll see a right winger as a villain to be honest, and I don't care to, either. It will put into question Bond's political leanings, and that will further spiral the movies out of control.

Unless the villain is a neo nazi.

But I'd much rather see the left personified into a whacky villain that Bond must take down.