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
One could safely say the same for the likes of DN, FRWL, and OHMSS, back then they would still work as faithful adaptations as the ideas and narratives are quite new at the time, but in today's world, it wouldn't, and one needs to change some parts here and there to make them work.
So, it's not that the Fleming novels wouldn't just work in film adaptations because they're either boring, this or that wouldn't work in film, they could work, why not? But in today's generation, it wouldn't, as the standards compared back then, were high, and so, the storytelling needs to be improved too.
We could say the same case for MR, TSWLM and other Fleming novels, they're very much of their time, and no longer plausible in today's time, if I would read TSWLM in 60s, 70s or even 80s, I would be thrilled at the idea of Bond saving a girl in a motel shootout, it's very dramatic, but now, with today's lens, it's pretty much low key and boring, and I want something more than that, although I could see that TSWLM scene as a PTS of introducing the new Bond actor, but of course, there needs to be changes, it needs to be updated in current time, so it wouldn't still be a 100% faithful adaptation.
I could see a faithful adaptation of MR being a great film in 60s (and it's one of my frustrations, I'd rather have it to be Connery's film in 1967 instead of YOLT (since the film also tackled rockets and space), and I'd rather see YOLT in 1971 as a sequel to OHMSS as how it should be, with DAF opening the Moore Era).
But now, of course, given the high and advance filmmaking, scriptwriting and other concepts, the book would no longer work, because it's very much a shallow plot compared to today's plots, which were futuristic, advanced and progressive.
Bond should progress and get on with the times, not regress, unless they would be doing a period pieces (to which I don't see in film, in TV series, it's possible, a la Casino Royale 1954 'Climax!').
With the possible exceptions of FRWL and CR, Bond films have never been plausible.
I'll buy Dr.No toppling rockets before giving credibility to Silva racing through London to lead Bond into a subway crash right out of the Universal Studios tram ride. Or a massive shootout in Scotland where satellite technology and radar don't exist. How convenient.
Skilled screen writers can make seemingly outdated material fresh without changing the stories so much that they bear no resemblance to the original. Even the novel version of TSWLM could make a compelling story in the right hands. As it was the much praised TSWLM was a corny remake of YOLT.
What made the original films fun was they were big and outrageous. SF, SP, and NTTD for all their up-to-date technology actually turns out to be what is throughly boring and predictable about them: someone's stolen the chip or hard drive, it's a virus, the program has been reprogrammed, the doors closed by themselves, the rockets can't be recalled.
It's almost a foregone conclusion AI will play into the next one. As if that story line isn't already boring. "Oh, no! AI has taken control of everything."
Bond 26 needs to be a man alone, on his own without a magnetic bomb watch, without a smartphone, can't be tracked by GPS, and he must use his wits to survive and do away with his enemy.
Yes indeed, I remember even seeing prop MI6 paperwork from the movie on display with Brand’s name on it.
Again, not saying that a villain wanting to blow up London, or a villain with a secret past can't be done anymore. It's been done several times in Bond, often in cool and different ways. Ie. Alec Travelyan essentially has that sort of past/is a character who has been assimilated into British society while wanting to destroy it, much like Fleming's Drax. Personally, I think it's much more interesting that he's an ex-00/Bond's former ally rather than an industrialist. It's a great spin on the material and more impactful in that story. In that sense GE adapts MR to some extent, or at least uses Fleming's ideas. That's the sort of adaptation I'd rather see. Something fresh and shows the writers know and care about Fleming's material. They're not clinging onto it religiously/squeezing every superficial plot, story and character detail from it but using it as a way to craft their own Bond stories. That's how the series has survived this long, not just simply adapting Fleming.
Casino Royale was good because it was difficult to adapt. It's not something obvious.
I've never viewed GE as a typical Bond film, though. It's the second most dark Bond film before Craig's run. GE has typical Bond things, yeah...but a lot of very new things as well, including its score. That's why it's generally considered Brosnan's best, even if my favorite of his is TND.
Yeah, I wouldn't call GE pastiche. It just puts a lot of the cinematic Bond tropes into a new context. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm genuinely not quite sure of the logic though. Even if it is very much a cinematic Bond affair it still adapts those elements of Fleming I talked about. It's actually a perfect example in that sense of how to make a Bond film while still keeping the spirit of Fleming's work in there.
Exactly. That's just it. Also, the euro feel adds a lot to the already tense and cold atmosphere, but still very much maintains the Fleming and cinematic Bond spirit.
Yeah, GE's just an updated Bond film. It's not different to the many other times the Bond series did this (something like YOLT I'd say is much more worthy of being called pastiche than GE, but even then it's still a Bond film).
But the real Fleming is more original than this. He is not the enemy, embrace him
What I’m saying is they should do exactly that 😂 GE does embrace Fleming. It’s essentially using the MR novel.
No, it doesn't. It just say hello.
Yes it's an important distinction which I think some are missing. Taking the underlying idea and adding new and creative ideas is obviously perfectly fine and that's how many Bond films have worked before.
It’s not a faithful adaptation but it’s there in the ways I described. You even admitted it’s in there.
It’s not enough just to lift Fleming. DN I’d argue isn’t a very good - or ant least ‘true’ - adaptation of the book (even Fleming didn’t think so) but on paper it’s relatively faithful. It could never be a wholly true adaptation (you miss the dynamic of Bond recovering from his poisoning/his ego being shaken by not including the end of FRWL). It’s a great film still but not strictly speaking ‘Fleming’.
I think it’s the only way this can work now. You can’t just scrape every last bit of plot from Fleming’s material. At some point it’s not even adaptation anymore but copy and pasting with a few adjustments. Bond films survive by using those novels in large part. They certainly did in the Craig and Brosnan eras.
Yeah, but it's more than what GE has.
I don't want a faithful adaptation but there is unused material and it's probably good to use it precisely because they didn't want to use it before.
For me DN is a superficial adaptation that doesn’t have the same substance of the book (ie. Bond’s frame of mind, the twisted and rather dark/fantastical tone you miss by sanitising down No’s backstory, not including the human maze etc. Certainly things like Bond’s genuine friendship with Quarrel aren’t there in the film). Actually there’s a lot there to base some of a future film off of. Again, it’s a great film in itself, and that’s ok. But it’s missing a lot of what makes the novel what it is.
Meh, like I said at some point this becomes copy and pasting. I don’t really need another ‘die Blofeld die’ moment. I think what GE does is in many ways more authentically Fleming-esque as adaptation and more in line with what the majority of us are talking about when it comes to keeping these ideas fresh. Same for SF using YOLT. Neither could have been full adaptations anyway.
Copy and pasting novels is no worse than copying movies.. We don't need another Aston Martin with gadgets and it's what we have.
I’m fine seeing the Aston Martin in new contexts! Same for any Bond tropes.
Like I said, they just need to keep it fresh. Embrace Fleming and use the material to craft new, interesting adventures/ideas. And don’t be boring.
I kind of think Brosnan had the least Fleming in his films of all the actors, until P&W arrived anyway. There were the hints at MR in GE, yes certainly, but apart from that you had Paris mentioning the gun under the pillow and not much more really. Until DAD there was probably more Amis in there than Fleming!
I’d say there was more there. The drag race between Onatop and Bond always reminded me of Bond/Tracy’s first interaction in the OHMSS novel. Bond’s demeanour about his profession with Natalia on the beach seemed very in line with how Fleming’s Bond would react. Of course Travelyan’s broad backstory/his scheme is a riff on Drax in MR. Then there’s Bond’s past that’s mentioned which comes from YOLT. There’s a surprising amount there.
Yeah, It's not that they have tried to be like the novels either. They are too over the top.
That's fair, although it probably reminds me more of Tony Curtis meeting Roger Moore in The Persuaders for the first time! :)
The Drax thing, certainly, but I'm not sure there's a lot there otherwise. It is quite funny that Brosnan basically bookended his run with Moonraker adaptations though!
Yes, true! I do think his Bond in GE is one of the more Fleming-esque portrayals we've seen in the films though. Especially on a script level (even more than Craig's Bond in CR in my opinion). He's very much a blunt instrument, quite stoic about what his job entails. It's probably minor as well but a moment that always sticks out for me is his brief interrogation with Mishkin. Bond behaves almost quite childishly (or at least very arrogantly) until Natalya cuts them both off, smirking at implications he'll be executed, going full in by accusing Mishkin etc. It reminds me a lot of how Fleming's Bond sometimes behaved when put in affable but tenuous situations to assert control (there's a moment in GF when he's been drugged/on the plane and he basically snaps at Oddjob to fetch him dinner/a drink for example).
We got that in DAD. And surfing, to boot.
The original film and every Bond film that has cribbed something from MR is a lesser work than the original novel itself.
With so many rubbish adaptations, I don't think the original novels have been exhausted.
I don't mind if Bond films are written from scratch, but I don't need to see another film that borrows something from one of the novels. All that does is remind me that the film I am watching doesn't trust itself to be completely original.
Bond, the music, and the supporting players are reminder enough that I am watching a Bond film.
It can be done if they really wanted to. It'd just be a very heavily changed version of a story from over 60 years ago that'd have to be heavily adapted anyway. After a point I'm not sure it'd even be an adaptation anymore just by virtue of them saying during this writing process, 'what if we did x as opposed to y?'
We're really thinking about this so narrowly. It really depends on what Bond adventure EON want to craft. I don't think for them it begins with thinking about what Fleming novel they want to adapt specifically, but is instead about what interests them.
That's completely your opinion. I'm sorry there are large chunks of the Bond film franchise you don't like for this reason. I couldn't imagine spending so much time writing about what I'd consider rubbish adaptations of greater works.
You can say that even about a 'faithful' adaptation. Like I said previously DN isn't exactly a true adaptation of the novel.
But even if a Bond film is 'written from scratch' why would that mean there'd be no trace of Fleming's material in there? Any writer worth their salt knows that you can't create something from absolutely nothing. With something like Bond you have such a rich history of Fleming's novels, the previous films, contemporary ideas etc. that you'll always draw upon them. It's just how it works.
Could not have said this any better.