Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Has the Fleming 'flavor' been 'diluted' for you in the Bond movies through the years?
chrisisall
Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
IMO, the Fleming 'flavor' was strongest in the movies up 'till OHMSS. Strong hints of it in DAF through AVTAK, a noticeable rise in TLD & LTK, then back to the recent past in Brosnan's. A slight rise in Craig's.... hopefully we'll see a stronger resurgence in SP.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
^ 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
^This. I wish they would go back to what they did in the '80s (save AVTAK): take remaining elements from various books and mash them together. That era's approach generally worked, and the scripts were stronger back then. (Of course we still had Maibaum.)
By the time the films got to the '90s, they abandoned Fleming entirely and were content just to remake other Bond films. We only got mere crumbs (006 mentioning the climbing accident, Brosnan's cryptic response to Elektra, and the mess DAD made of MR).
CR was a welcome return to form and QoS a valiant effort derailed by the strike, but SF and SP took us back to the '90s remake mindset.
When one remembers Fleming only lived until 1964, it puts into perspective how much of the world's changes he missed in the ensuing years.
The late 1970's were completely different in flavor to the 50's and early 60's. Clothes, fashions, hair, cars, furniture etc and technology were rapidly changing. Same with the '80's and '90's.
I felt the 80's Bond films were a welcome return to the themes and concepts of Fleming. It's great to see some Fleming sequences sprinkled throughout that batch of films.
The 90's had very little Fleming vibe, and reminded me more of John Gardner. That decade was more homage to the classic traditions of cinematic Bond.
Of all the post 60's Bonds, the Craig era has a better timelessness in visual flavor. Aside from the tight fitting suits, Craig clothes could be worn in pretty much any decade and be fine. The haircuts in the Craig films more or less would also have worked in Fleming's time.
yes.
It certainly showed once he'd gone. He was from the same generation as Ian Fleming too.
The rest of the film...so not so Flemingian.
Would love for MGW to pick up his pen again.
Agreed, though sadly I don't think that will ever happen.
Given he’s been producing Bond for longer than Cubby now I don’t think we can begrudge him taking a back seat, if not actually retiring. Fabulous servant to the series.
DAD did MR so poorly that I wish they hadn't even bothered. At least they didn't use Gala Brand in the end.
If MGW said to any screenwriters, "Hey, let's put THR and the rest of TMWTGG in this one," you know they'd do it. Even just one Fleming scene or two would help--look at TLD. It's like the amber in Jurassic Park; just inject a little Fleming DNA.
All that's needed is a little direction from the top.
Yes, and that was of coirse where they went wrong with their (very loose) adaptation of the MR novel in DAD.
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
OHMSS
FYEO (to a certain extent)
TLD
LTK (at a reach)
CR
QoS
So, yeah, I mostly agree. However, Fleming’s influence pops up quite a bit in some of Moore’s films, particularly first two Glen helmed, TLD is very heavy on Fleming echoes as well.
The Brosnan years were lacking. Some of the atmosphere and cinematography of GE evokes his prose/tone a bit, I think, but otherwise Brosnan’s films had whiffs of Fleming at best.
Actually I felt like GE had a lot of Fleming flavor but Pierce's following 3 films didn't. CR has it but QOS didn't then SF and SP had it in spades. From a visual perspective of course.
A lot of the checklist Fleming stuff is there, but it is too conscious and the film doesn’t commit to it (a symptom of the Brosnan era, come to think of it). The ole, “okay, we’ve done this, now we can call it Flemingesque” checklist mentality. Too forced. The little flags pop up to signal that they’re here (Elektra’s backstory, arc, relationship with Bond being the major one) and then they’re lost in the soap opera that is the rest of the film.
I’m trying not to rag on the film too hard, despite my distaste for it. I don’t think it’s inherently bad, in a franchise known and often praised for being formulaic, to adhere to formula or return to common tropes and themes from the past, but it has to be done in earnest. It can’t be shoehorned, which is precisely what TWINE does.
The Fleming elements in the film (weren’t people bantering about it being “Brosnan’s OHMSS” or some shit?) would be stronger and more effective if the screenplay weren’t horrendous.
It is the chief example of screenwriters wanting to be “Flemingesque” without having any idea of how to actually evoke Fleming’s tone and, as the thread is titled, “flavor.” Instead, it’s a box-ticking exercise.
This, in my questionable opinion of course, is why TND is so obviously superior to TWINE. You can find a bit of Fleming in there if you look hard enough, but the film doesn’t try to be something it isn’t. It fails in ways most of the Brosnan films do (mentioned earlier) in that it is a bit too self-conscious, but where TWINE fails to be authentic, TND doesn’t really have any misgivings. Ironically, TND ultimately ends up being a far more sophisticated and compelling film than its (supposedly) more dramatic successor.
Anyways, I’m being long winded again. Take me to task, or whatever.
Edit: One last opinion on this (interesting) topic: I’m of the opinion that just because something does qualify as having the “Fleming flavor” that is not an inherent or automatic signifier of quality. For example, and I’m sure many disagree with me but I feel pretty strongly about this — QoS is, at least as far as 007 is concerned if not the entire film around him, pretty bereft of Fleming in my opinion, and I have reappraised that movie a bit after my recent viewing.
Now, Fleming was a strong writer (not without his faults / shortcomings / issues, of course), and one of the strengths of his prose was his command of tone and ambience and atmosphere, and as such most films that are able to successfully achieve echoes of Fleming do tend to be stronger, but it is not an inherent positive quality, I don’t think.
Anyways, take me to task. QoS has very little Fleming in it, despite being a successor to CR which does contain quite a bit of Fleming, at least in its later half (the stuff at the hotel/casino primarily as well as Craig’s portrayal as written in the script).
ITA. TND was Brosnan's least pretentious Bond film while TWINE was definitely his most pretentious one. It makes me very glad they didn't have the rights to make CR 7 years earlier.
Well said sir!