It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Horowitz's comments to be fair I am not super excited about time period bond novels (although I would make an exception if we got some 70's bond stories a decade that is extremely untouched and due to the various political movements could of made for interesting novels) I didn't read the excerpt and I am wondering if I should the last adult bond novel I loved was Man with the Red Tattoo (Of course if Deaver's bond banged more then one woman and the plot was a bit more developed Carte Blanche could of been the last great bond novel)
Like I said I will buy it hell I am going through the Gardner Bond novels just as a way to pass time between films.
Me too, but it's a painful way though. Luckly I should receive my copy of Colonel Sun soon - should have arrived a week ago. Also, I still have got Lycett's Fleming biography to read and all Benson's novels.
Silva doesn't die with the knowledge he succeeded. If he was so sure she was dead he wouldn't have been goading her on to kill them both.
All I'm saying is he says CR is his favourite in the same breath as saying Skyfall is bad because the villain wins, and (regardless of length or complexity of plot), the villain wins in Casino Royale as well. I agree with everything you've said about Casino Royale.
You might like this then:
http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-literary-james-bond-in-1970s.html
Leaving CR extremely satisfied.
Leaving SF extremely disappointed.
I think that is the core of Horowitz' statement.
This Horowitz guy is now trashing SF with some inaccurate comments, and also trashing SP just before it opens, based on a one minute trailer. His is an ass to play this card. These books exist only because of the films, so they exploit the films to promote their books, and then trash them. To me, there is just something low about this kind if self promotion. The Fleming cousin who commissions the books strikes me as dicey. Not sure which Fleming relatives are responsible for the hideous idea of making a Bond musical play (which EON is trying to stop), but they seem greedy. I wonder if they get a cut from the films.
When is Daniel Silva going to get a crack at one of these books, anyway?
In CR the villain does not win, he dies. However the organisation behind does win and lose because they got a certain 007 on their tail at the end of the movie.
And indeed in SF Bond dies/lives and lets his boss be killed, he'd better stay dead as it would have made no difference for the outcome. SF is indeed a spectacular stupid movie with some breathtaking filmed sequences that did not serve the movie at all as a poor screenplay cannot disguise anything with beauty. In that sense QoS was easily better than SF.
I look forward to Horowitz as his Sherlock Holmes books left me wanting for more. And I get tired if any writer has any criticism on anything Bond related we get the moaners out in force how poor the book must be as the writer does not understand anything and they do.
‘I’m looking at the trailer and I am seeing a photograph of Bond’s family. The mum and the dad are in there and their faces are missing because the picture has been burned in a fire.
'This is going to be to do with his family background, and I know the fans are all terribly excited to know more, but I’m saying, “Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.”
'I don’t want to know about his doubts, his insecurities or weaknesses. I just want to see him act, kill, win.’
THIS IS NOT TRASHING SPECTRE just a simple analysis of what seems to be going on in the trailer and he is honest and says he's not impressed, he doesn't want more of the Skyfall drama.
Get a grip people and don't react like an allergic stung by a bee as soon as someone brings valid points of criticism to your favourite Bond and QOS or especially Skyfall.
This I agree with.
If an author cannot be honest about what bothers him about the movies without some fans seeing red and spewing fire and what not, then why would anybody bother writing a continuation novel in the future. Horowitz has proven himself far more as a writer and those qualities I am interested in especially after the Sherlock novels.
There are people who do not like what the Craig era has brought us recently, why can they not say it without some young ones throwing a totally irrational tantrum. Think SF & QoB are brilliant does not make it so.
That's not at all what I wrote. I didn't like SF either for a number of reasons. But it is dicey using the films to promote yourself, and trashing SP with inaccurate facts from a 1 minute trailer to then push your book. It's cheezy.
i don't think most of us who like SF throw irrational tantrums when someone criticizes it.. but what i don't understand is whenever someone criticizes a film on these boards - there is a contingent that believe we have to sit back and take it, without voicing an opinion back... it's like saying "liking the film is good enough, how dare you criticize someone for not liking it - so if they don't like it, just sit down, shut up, and take it." .... (and yes, i am well aware that this sort of "snobbery" if i can call it that, goes both ways).. but it seems anymore, more credibility is given to the person who expresses their open dislike for something (or for some film)......
"valid" criticisms are only in the eye of the beholder - something that may be awesome to someone else, might be totally stupid to another.. neither is right or wrong, and praise or criticisms (unless talking about the technical aspects in which the film was shot and edited) are merely nothing but opinions, and hold no real weight or value except to that specific individual, or to those who need the validity from elsewhere to back up their own opinions..
@SaintMark .... how do you feel about Goldfinger as a film?
Please elaborate.
I don't agree with what AH says about how Bond shouldn't have the odd doubt. This is what makes him more human. He also reads books. He has books in his living room.
This still sounds like it will be a good book but it's obviously like one of Fleming's installments where Bond is without doubt and gets the job done to the best of his ability. Nothing wrong with this for some books but it's also nice to have the odd book too when Bond does have to think twice as this makes him more human. I have my doubts now as to whether the Fleming estate have any interest in asking AH to stay on. If he did, presuming he's even interested, we'd quite likely get good novels but ones in the fashion where Bond is at his finest and 100% sure of himself at all times. Horowitz did mention that Bond makes the odd mistake in this book where as the female spy gets it all right. This is different to doubts though.
because if technology is Silva's weapon - why go somewhere where you could end putting yourself at a disadvantage.. Silva would be able to trace their every movement - and plus, who knows how many other men he could have on the inside (or get on the inside) who work for him... he had men dressed as police helping him out - what would stop him from doing something similar to infiltrate a government safe house?... leading Silva on a wild goose chase out to the middle of nowhere not only ensures a 1 on 1 fight for the most part, but it gives Bond an advantage, being that the location is a place that Bond is familiar with, and Silva is not....
in terms of weaponry - remember, even though the place had been abandoned, Bond still assumed that his father's gun closet was fully stocked - well, turns out it wasn't.. all that stuff got sold off when Bond was presumed dead from earlier in the film.
You wouldn't think that the SIS would have a record of all their safe houses in computer systems for obvious reasons but I don't know much about it.
You'd think that Bond would have still brought more weapons with him to be on the safe side. Anyway, aside for some of the humour, I enjoyed Skyfall as a whole but it's definitely not as good as CR.
you wouldn't think that they would carelessly keep the identities of all their agents embedded in terrorist organizations on a simple laptop hard drive - but they did ;) ... sometimes we give our governments a little too much credit in being able to keep secrets... if the recent Sony hacks proved anything, it's that as long as it has a digital footprint, anything can be found and disclosed..
also, Silva was a former MI6 agent - if he was smart enough to figure out their fail safe procedures, wouldn't he also know about any possible government safe house? - to quote Dalton from TLD, "That's the first place they'd look." lol.
bringing more weapons - yeah, i can understand that... but if he's going to a place where he thinks a lot of weaponry is already present, then why would he bother?
Who knows who may have tried to break into that house over the years and stolen some priceless stuff. This is the first thing I would have thought of. However, if what's his name, who looks after the house was in touch with Bond then he would have informed him of any robberies but was he? I know the place was off the beaten track but I would still expect some attempted break ins.
Anyway, it's Bond. It'll always be far fetched. :)
Is it even neccessary? He said: "Bond is weak in it. He has doubts. That’s not Bond. I don’t want to know about his doubts, his insecurities or weaknesses. I just want to see him act, kill, win."
Everyone who's read the Bond novels knows this is the opposite of Bond. Bond is full of self-doubts, especially about killing.
Criticizing SKYFALL and SPECTRE won't endear him to Broccoli and Wilson.
I just wonder if there is a touch of sour grapes to his comments because his own spy franchise-to-be never happened. Stormbreaker underperformed at the box office. Had it been a hit it would have spawned a James Bond-ish type series of films. Alex Rider is sort of Bond Jnr for the 21st century. 10 Alex Riders novels have been written.
Putting aside any hidden agenda to his comments, many other Bond fans have mentioned Skyfalls's incredulous plot and the more metrosexual characterization of Bond. The producers decided to make Bond less 'hard', more flawed, and it's worked at the box office. People like the new style and the Bond fans, including Mr Horowitz, have to accept times have moved on. I doubt the old style 'not insecure' James Bond will return. Barbara Broccoli has put her mark on the franchise and I can't see why she would want to change her approach. The box office for SPECTRE may be massive so she would be crazy to tinker with the character of Bond.
He must really hate OHMSS then, seeing as Bond's wife gets shot in the freaking head and all.
Bring back the "spy story to end all spy stories"!
It would be boring!
Actually, they do. I've spoken with Deaver and Boyd about the books and both were extremely forthcoming in their praise of Fleming and his influence upon them.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement. Firstly, they rarely speak about the films in promoting their books, unless they are asked by journalists to do so. I'd agree that the films are the most prominent in the public imagination, but to say that they keep the market going for the books is not entirely accurate.
I don't remember reading that. Which author was it and what did Barbra say?
The fact that he worked with Craig and that he was encouraged to write the Bond novel by him has really no bearing on who that author feels would make a good Bond.
Is he not entitled to his opinion? Especially if he has been directly asked to give it.
What, giving his opinion on the films that have no bearing on him as an author or his book?
Don't you have that the wrong way around?
I don't believe for a second that this is their marketing strategy. The IFF are not idiots. They are lovely people, but they are also a savvy business that is very protective of their property. They have a good relationship with Eon and it is not in anyone's interests to play against one another. If an author is asked their opinion on a film, they are likely to give it honestly. If they don't like it, they'll say so.
Lucy Fleming is anything but dicey. She is dedicated to preserving the estate of Ian Fleming and the continuation of the Bond novels. She is intelligent, articulate, and not simply someone trying to make a fast buck.
It was nothing to do with the Flemings, actually, and nothing to do with the IFF. It was supposedly the daughter of Harry Saltzman (one of the original film producers) who was intending to mount this musical, however, this now seems dubious.
No, they don't. The IFF is entirely separate to Eon Productions, Danjaq LLC, and MGM. Danjaq LLC hold the rights to the films and IFF hold the rights to the books. It's really that simple.
in all fairness, Craig's Bond only brooded over Vesper for 1 film - and that was QOS, which was essentially a 2nd part to the CR storyline..
don't remember him sulking about Vesper in SF - and to my knowledge, he wont be doing it in SP either..