Wazzup Pilipinas!?
Writers have known throughout the ages who the villains are:
"The original James Bond novels by Ian Fleming are an interesting read, but they are definitely a product of their time. Some of the material in them is so outdated and unbelievable now. For example, in Moonraker, the villain is an incredibly rich businessman who offers to build rockets for England but he's secretly a nazi trying to cause chaos. I mean that's just crazy and totally unrelonistic, right?"
"Wow this opens up a floodgate of memories …. I remember space shuttles and laser shoot-outs. The villain is a Hitler wannabe who wanted to create a master race after killing the general population of the Earth by toxic nerve gas. He was foiled by James Bond and a CIA female agent ( of course ) with the help of Jaws …. a giant henchman who fell in love with a not so desirable small woman and they both didnt fit the criteria for the pairs that will repopulate the Earth.
The ending was unforgettable , Roger Moore and Louis Chiles making love in zero gravity.
The super villian , Drax if i recall correctly was his name ( shades of SpaceX or just plainly X ) was shot into space , presumably on a trajectory to Mars.
James Bond is the best and I am wishing the anti-wokes will be riled up if the next actor chosen to play 007 will be black ….. or a woman
The technology was ahead of its time, and the plot prophetic and … unELONistic!
Read the original novel version of You Only Live Twice. The part about him undergoing treatment to look Japanese might raise eyebrows.
In Superman, both the comics and animated versions, Lex Luthor is a billionaire with a space program and his company is awarded many government contracts. He is a narcissist obsessed with power. In one story line, he becomes president of the US.
That's also why Superman doesn't trust Batman because Batman minus leather is just Lex Luther from a different city.
But Batman isn’t a narcissist and he is obsessed with implementing justice with his own set of rules.
Actually, Batman is absolutely a narcissist. He thinks he can solve every problem, has severe trust issues, doesn't know how to be a teamplayer, and always thinks he is smarter than others. His idea of justice is about as real as Lex Luthor's good intentions.
I take it back that he is not a narcissist. At least his own set of rules doesn’t allow him to kill unless that has changed.
Bruce Wayne as a young CEO with fresh ideas would have done way better for Gotham than dressing up in leather committing extrajudicial beatdowns."
In an era where technology billionaires launch rockets into space and political intrigue dominates headlines, Ian Fleming's supposedly "outdated" James Bond novels feel surprisingly prescient. The parallels between fictional supervillains and contemporary figures have become increasingly difficult to ignore, raising questions about how yesterday's "unrealistic" thriller plots might have predicted today's reality.
Take Fleming's "Moonraker," published in 1955. The novel's antagonist, Hugo Drax, is a wealthy industrialist who convinces the British government to let him develop a rocket program while harboring sinister motivations. At the time, readers might have dismissed this as far-fetched fantasy. Today, it reads more like a headline.
The archetype of the tech-billionaire-turned-potential-threat has become a staple of popular culture. Superman's Lex Luthor exemplifies this trope: a brilliant industrialist with government contracts, space program ambitions, and even presidential aspirations. The character's combination of technological prowess, political influence, and questionable ethics creates an eerily familiar portrait.
Modern parallels are hard to miss. Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter (now X), his space exploration ventures through SpaceX, and his controversial public statements have drawn comparisons to these fictional figures. His rocket programs, government contracts, and significant influence over public discourse mirror elements from both Fleming's novels and comic book narratives.
The intersection of wealth, technology, and power has long fascinated storytellers. Fleming's "You Only Live Twice" includes elements that would be considered problematic today, but its core theme - the dangerous convergence of private power and public interest - remains relevant. The novel's exploration of identity and deception resonates with contemporary discussions about authenticity and influence in the digital age.
What makes these parallels particularly striking is how they highlight recurring patterns in power dynamics. Whether in Fleming's Cold War narratives or today's tech-driven landscape, the fundamental questions remain: Who can we trust with immense power? What happens when private interests overshadow public good? How do we balance innovation with accountability?
The superhero genre has long grappled with these questions. The ongoing debate about Batman's methods - his vigilantism, wealth, and technological superiority - reflects broader societal concerns about power and justice. His character, like many real-world figures, raises questions about whether immense wealth and good intentions are enough to justify unilateral action.
Fleming's work, viewed through a contemporary lens, serves as both entertainment and warning. While his villains might have seemed cartoonish in the 1950s, they anticipated a world where private citizens could amass unprecedented power through technology and wealth. The "unbelievable" has become believable, and the "unrealistic" has become our reality.
This convergence of fiction and reality prompts us to reconsider how we evaluate both historical literature and current events. Perhaps the value of these "dated" narratives lies not in their literal accuracy but in their ability to identify patterns of power that continue to shape our world.
The next time we dismiss a fictional plot as "unrealistic," we might do well to remember that yesterday's outlandish thriller might be tomorrow's news headline. In an age where billionaires can influence global politics with a tweet or reshape the future of space exploration, perhaps Fleming's imagination wasn't so wild after all.
Something fundamental, went wrong with James Bond from his very creation and only Ian Fleming is to blame. Indeed, as they say in Hollywood, "What a mistaka to maka" ... Ian Fleming didn’t know what a secret agent really was!
ReplyDeleteAt least Le Carré had few blunders compared with Ian Fleming who dubbed James Bond a "secret" agent yet simultaneously depicted 007 as an employee on MI6's payroll. You may say "so what" because Bond is fiction. So is Postman Pat but his creator John Cunliffe never called him an Uber or Deliveroo courier.
Now an MI6 secret agent would never have: (1) been an employee on MI6’s payroll who took holidays and submitted expense claims etc; (2) reported directly to the Head of MI6, had annual appraisals and been on extremely familiar terms with many other MI6 employees such as Q or Moneypenny; (3) been a frequent visitor to MI6 HQ and other MI6 buildings; and (4) even used his own name when he met ministers et al in Whitehall.
Given Ian Fleming's background in British naval intelligence in World War 11, that contradictory classification of 007 was about as absurd as calling a Brain Surgeon a Hair Dresser or a Navy Seal a Coastguard as noted in the latest intriguing news article in TheBurlingtonFiles (advert free) website which is a tad similar to a virtual espionage museum with no entry fee.
To quote from the article ... "As for 007 being “secret”, ... since everybody knew ... his favourite drink was shaken not stirred, I’m surprised he wasn’t poisoned more often … especially as he insisted on letting everyone know his name was “Bond, James Bond”! Perhaps Bond’s true skill lay in being so conspicuously ostentatious that no one believed he could genuinely be a spy!