Where does Bond go after Craig?

12021232526697

Comments

  • Posts: 3,327
    Minion wrote: »
    I could argue the tone variance from CR to SP is similar to the first four Connery and Moore flicks.

    There I'm agreeing with you. So will Craig's 5th be a YOLT, or a FYEO....?

  • edited October 2019 Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.
  • I've said before, I think Tom Hiddleston would be a good choice to bring a slight shift in tone to the next phase.

    In Night Manager (basically a top-shelf audition tape for Bond) he had some charm, sophistication, and physicality in good balance.

    It would be a mistake to try to go 'darker,' since I think Craig has taken that to its logical conclusion. But you also can't go full Moore any longer - as has been said, Austin Powers has effectively parodied that to death. So a bit more adventure and travelogue, a bit more charm and humour, balanced with more grounded fisticuffs and villains.

    Sadly, with Hiddleston at 38, he may be getting on a bit - get cracking, EON!
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    What would you go for, personally?
  • They might use elements (like the CS torture scene in SP) but I can't see them ever actually adapting any of the continuation novels.

    There's still Fleming stories to use though. Most of YOLT is very workable imo, they could have easily done that as a follow up to SP if they wanted. MR could still be updated and used today too. You'd have to change the names they've already used and change the rocket to something more modern but the basics (bridge scene, Gala brand, cliff scene, car chase, Bond investigating an enemy posing as British but who's actually working against them in the English countryside) could still work.

    I posted on here a while back an idea I had for a modern MR, updating the enemy within from the Nazi's to Islamic terrorists and the defence contract from a rocket to a drone fleet. The idea was that, unlike in the novel, the bad guy really was a British soldier, but had been turned/radicalised when he was previously captured during his army career. Thinking about it now though, I'm not sure that'd be the best film to make. Britain's racist enough as it is lately without that sort of film fuelling the fire. How about it seems like that's the case, Bond could assume he's been turned, but it turns out that he was never brainwashed and the attack he's planning with the drones is actually on British muslims? So Bond and the audience would assume he's working with Daesh or whoever but he'd actually be a far right extremist.

    I dunno. There's lots of different ways they could update and use some of the unused Fleming stuff is my point. And it'd be nice after CR to turn "new actor gets a Fleming story for his first film" into a tradition.
  • Posts: 19,339
    They might use elements (like the CS torture scene in SP) but I can't see them ever actually adapting any of the continuation novels.

    There's still Fleming stories to use though. Most of YOLT is very workable imo, they could have easily done that as a follow up to SP if they wanted. MR could still be updated and used today too. You'd have to change the names they've already used and change the rocket to something more modern but the basics (bridge scene, Gala brand, cliff scene, car chase, Bond investigating an enemy posing as British but who's actually working against them in the English countryside) could still work.

    I posted on here a while back an idea I had for a modern MR, updating the enemy within from the Nazi's to Islamic terrorists and the defence contract from a rocket to a drone fleet. The idea was that, unlike in the novel, the bad guy really was a British soldier, but had been turned/radicalised when he was previously captured during his army career. Thinking about it now though, I'm not sure that'd be the best film to make. Britain's racist enough as it is lately without that sort of film fuelling the fire. How about it seems like that's the case, Bond could assume he's been turned, but it turns out that he was never brainwashed and the attack he's planning with the drones is actually on British muslims? So Bond and the audience would assume he's working with Daesh or whoever but he'd actually be a far right extremist.

    I dunno. There's lots of different ways they could update and use some of the unused Fleming stuff is my point. And it'd be nice after CR to turn "new actor gets a Fleming story for his first film" into a tradition.

    Nice ideas but definitely not the right climate or timing to use them atm.
    These are unpleasant times.
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?
  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote: »

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    What would you go for, personally?

    I'd love the next 3 films to use up all the remaining Fleming novels, woven expertly into a modern script that was done to great effect in the likes of LTK and CR.
  • Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.
  • Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?
  • Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.

    It doesn't need to be. If you look at LTK, it has an original story, but incorporates Fleming scenes from various novels. Even CR only loosely follows the novel in the second half of the movie, and then it gives us a different way Vesper dies.

    Both the new books could loosely be adapted, using scenes and characters from both books, yet padding them out with action sequences that modern audiences expect.

    Did you not like the villains or characters in the books? Is that what your issue is?
  • Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.

    It doesn't need to be. If you look at LTK, it has an original story, but incorporates Fleming scenes from various novels. Even CR only loosely follows the novel in the second half of the movie, and then it gives us a different way Vesper dies.

    Both the new books could loosely be adapted, using scenes and characters from both books, yet padding them out with action sequences that modern audiences expect.

    Did you not like the villains or characters in the books? Is that what your issue is?

    I originally responded to this:
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers.

    Faithful adaptations and picking bits and pieces from the two novels is two different things, at least to me.

    I have no issues with the villains; however a character like Irwin Wolfe would have to be changed into something completely else in order to work, IMO.
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.

    It doesn't need to be. If you look at LTK, it has an original story, but incorporates Fleming scenes from various novels. Even CR only loosely follows the novel in the second half of the movie, and then it gives us a different way Vesper dies.

    Both the new books could loosely be adapted, using scenes and characters from both books, yet padding them out with action sequences that modern audiences expect.

    Did you not like the villains or characters in the books? Is that what your issue is?

    I originally responded to this:
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers.

    Faithful adaptations and picking bits and pieces from the two novels is two different things, at least to me.

    I have no issues with the villains; however a character like Irwin Wolfe would have to be changed into something completely else in order to work, IMO.

    An adaptation can still be faithful if the essence of the story is the same, and scenes and characters appear in similar fashion. Even the hardcore Fleming adapted movies like Dr. No, FRWL, GF and OHMSS loosely deviate from the books to make the story work better on film, while also adding action sequences that were not in the books.

    When I meant faithful adaptation, I mean in terms of title, storyline, certain scenes and characters, like what we got with CR. You could never have a Bond film 100% faithfully adapt everything from a book. None of the films have ever done that either.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.

    It doesn't need to be. If you look at LTK, it has an original story, but incorporates Fleming scenes from various novels. Even CR only loosely follows the novel in the second half of the movie, and then it gives us a different way Vesper dies.

    Both the new books could loosely be adapted, using scenes and characters from both books, yet padding them out with action sequences that modern audiences expect.

    Did you not like the villains or characters in the books? Is that what your issue is?

    I originally responded to this:
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers.

    Faithful adaptations and picking bits and pieces from the two novels is two different things, at least to me.

    I have no issues with the villains; however a character like Irwin Wolfe would have to be changed into something completely else in order to work, IMO.

    An adaptation can still be faithful if the essence of the story is the same, and scenes and characters appear in similar fashion. Even the hardcore Fleming adapted movies like Dr. No, FRWL, GF and OHMSS loosely deviate from the books to make the story work better on film, while also adding action sequences that were not in the books.

    When I meant faithful adaptation, I mean in terms of title, storyline, certain scenes and characters, like what we got with CR. You could never have a Bond film 100% faithfully adapt everything from a book. None of the films have ever done that either.

    I get your points, but my argument still stands; I don't think there's that much content in those two books that lends itself to adaptations.
  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.

    It doesn't need to be. If you look at LTK, it has an original story, but incorporates Fleming scenes from various novels. Even CR only loosely follows the novel in the second half of the movie, and then it gives us a different way Vesper dies.

    Both the new books could loosely be adapted, using scenes and characters from both books, yet padding them out with action sequences that modern audiences expect.

    Did you not like the villains or characters in the books? Is that what your issue is?

    I originally responded to this:
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers.

    Faithful adaptations and picking bits and pieces from the two novels is two different things, at least to me.

    I have no issues with the villains; however a character like Irwin Wolfe would have to be changed into something completely else in order to work, IMO.

    An adaptation can still be faithful if the essence of the story is the same, and scenes and characters appear in similar fashion. Even the hardcore Fleming adapted movies like Dr. No, FRWL, GF and OHMSS loosely deviate from the books to make the story work better on film, while also adding action sequences that were not in the books.

    When I meant faithful adaptation, I mean in terms of title, storyline, certain scenes and characters, like what we got with CR. You could never have a Bond film 100% faithfully adapt everything from a book. None of the films have ever done that either.

    I get your points, but my argument still stands; I don't think there's that much content in those two books that lends itself to adaptations.

    I strongly disagree. The racing car scene and Bond being buried are 2 scenes I would love to see in a movie, and were far better than anything seen in Craig's last outing.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I'm holding out hope that at some point in the future we get a chance to see what Denis Villeneuve's James Bond could look like :)
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm holding out hope that at some point in the future we get a chance to see what Denis Villeneuve's James Bond could look like :)

    That would be amazing. I was beyond excited when I heard he was being considered for Bond 25. Imagine him directing with a PW-B script. I'd love EoN to move on from P&W.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    How would Sony have the rights to do such a thing?

    I seem to remember that the deal with Sony is done and EON & MGM are partnered with Annipura & Universal on NTTD.

    Sounds like a load of tabloid BS, unless someone can enlighten me.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited October 2019 Posts: 13,999
    007Blofeld wrote: »

    I'll be even more angry and bitter if Dalton isn't cast as Nomi.


    On the upside, if a Nomi spinoff happens, would that take the pressure off to gender/race swap Bond?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Fake news. Again.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 17,819

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?

    I'm a Horowitz fan, so I really like his Bond books. I just don't think either of his two novels lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films. They can take a few elements from them, but that's it, IMO.

    I disagree. If CR can be adapted into a modern movie (and still rated as Craig's best by many), then I'm sure as hell these books could be too.

    CR as a novel had very little action. Most of it set around a gambling table, a gruesome torture scene, and a very downbeat ending. Yet somehow EON did the impossible and made it into one of the best Bond movies in the franchise.

    We just have to agree to disagree with this, I guess.

    Again, I would be really happy for Horowitz to work on the Bond films though.

    What bit do you disagree with? That CR was no good as a movie?

    That the two Horowitz books lend themselves to be faithfully adapted into modern-day Bond films.

    I think there is enough in both novels to feature well and adapt in a movie. Bond in his racing car at the track undercover, being buried alive, etc. None of that is any worse than the kind of stuff served up in the past 3 Craig films.

    Obviously exciting action sequence padding would be needed, just like Madagascar, Miami airport and Venice sinking scenes were added into CR.

    Even FRWL and OHMSS had actions scenes incorporated into them which wasn't in the original novels, and yet they are as faithful a Fleming adaption as you can get.

    But the essence of the storylines could remain faithfully intact.

    As I wrote, they can take a few elements from them (the racing track sequence in TM is one of them: it's partly Fleming too), but other than that, I don't think so personally.

    You didn't like Bond being buried alive scene?

    Yeah, I think that was a really good part of the book. But that doesn't automatically mean I think the majority of the book lends itself to be faithfully adapted into a future Bond film.

    It doesn't need to be. If you look at LTK, it has an original story, but incorporates Fleming scenes from various novels. Even CR only loosely follows the novel in the second half of the movie, and then it gives us a different way Vesper dies.

    Both the new books could loosely be adapted, using scenes and characters from both books, yet padding them out with action sequences that modern audiences expect.

    Did you not like the villains or characters in the books? Is that what your issue is?

    I originally responded to this:
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers.

    Faithful adaptations and picking bits and pieces from the two novels is two different things, at least to me.

    I have no issues with the villains; however a character like Irwin Wolfe would have to be changed into something completely else in order to work, IMO.

    An adaptation can still be faithful if the essence of the story is the same, and scenes and characters appear in similar fashion. Even the hardcore Fleming adapted movies like Dr. No, FRWL, GF and OHMSS loosely deviate from the books to make the story work better on film, while also adding action sequences that were not in the books.

    When I meant faithful adaptation, I mean in terms of title, storyline, certain scenes and characters, like what we got with CR. You could never have a Bond film 100% faithfully adapt everything from a book. None of the films have ever done that either.

    I get your points, but my argument still stands; I don't think there's that much content in those two books that lends itself to adaptations.

    I strongly disagree. The racing car scene and Bond being buried are 2 scenes I would love to see in a movie, and were far better than anything seen in Craig's last outing.

    Again, that's just two examples from TM. I don't think there's much there that will suit a modern-day Bond film.

    But I agree that those two examples easily beat anything from SP. SF and QoS too, for that matter.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Doubt they're planning anything right now but I don't think a Nomi spinoff is out of the question to be fair. I'd imagine it'd depend on how well recieved she is in NTTD, but we know that a Jinx spinoff actually got to the scripting stages, so I don't think they're opposed to that sort of thing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    I think the personal angle is here to stay. It's become a hoary staple of the action genre since every movie started copying Die Hard. And now Liam Neeson, etc.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 12,521
    echo wrote: »
    I think the personal angle is here to stay. It's become a hoary staple of the action genre since every movie started copying Die Hard. And now Liam Neeson, etc.

    Correct. This is just how action movies are now sadly. They’re all expected to carry at least some kind of emotional angle, if not make it the focal point. Not all action movies that do this are bad, but almost every time they’re good in spite of the emotional angle - not because of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.