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
'He reached for the box of Shinsei and lit one, drawing the harsh smoke deep down into his lungs' - You Only Live Twice
Remember the Sumo's being able to retract their testicals ? Or
Gay fellas not being able to whistle
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which was redundant because I acknowledged that Bond used to smoke. The fact is he doesn't anymore.
But he does smoke.
all the paraphernalia of the habit, the case and lighter ?
For a man like Bond, there's no feasible way to have him on screen and acknowledge he smokes without showing him smoking, simply because of how many cigarettes he has a day. It's all or nothing, but I don't see them returning to a smoking Bond, unfortunately. At least he's not doing anything lame like vaping or e-cigs.
Urgh can you imagine.
I can't, and I hope I never have to.
How much smoking went on, in so many situations. :)
Morland and Ronson will be proposing product placement soon - that should knock doubleoego's argument about sponsorship into a cocked hat!
John Player Specials, as they had a couple of gold rings round
them ! As close as I could get to Fleming's discription. ;)
I'm pretty sure that Kingsley Amis would have brought that in if he'd continued to write James Bond continuation novels as he was a snuff taker and even wrote a book on the subject - I have it somewhere in my collection! :D
Not nearly as often as in the movies and not always to kill. In any case, the Bond of the novels spends more time drinking and eating. And it's fine. That's what I'd expect from the novels.
It worked for The Day of the Jackal and in other movies. But Bond novels are not pseudo-historical thrillers, they are spy thrillers. Often I see people wishing to make retro Bond using the retro aspect as a gimmick.
Of course they are not 'pseudo-historical thrilled', they are classic novels published between 1953 and 1965 that have never really benefited from a faithful screen interpretation.
The manipulation is the modern interpretation which frankly is like making 'The Thirty Nine Steps' without a train.
Adapting classics is always tricky. It is even trickier when these classics have already been adapted on the big screen with a huge success that cast a large shadow over the source material. I am not always happy with the way some of these adaptations were done (how YOLT, DF and MR depart from the source material is borderline criminal) but Bond movies being contemporary to the time they were shot was a wise decision for an ongoing series.
That said, it was still a good movie despite.
They'd be completely separate entities.
Too much Bond is surely a good thing for us fans!
Agreed.
Yes, but you see there already is another actor in the role with the current Radio Bond Toby Stephens on BBC Radio 4 since 2008.
Yes but that is radio, a very different medium.
Sherlock Holmes, since his creation, has been the most cast fictitious character in the history of TV/cinema/what have you. More than Dracula, more than Frankenstein and his monster, etc. And unlike James Bond, Sherlock Holmes adaptations were never "centralized" into one single dominant franchise. Unlike Bond, whose cinematic incarnation become infinitely more famous than the source material, Sherlock Holmes is first and foremost an iconic literary character.
And why can't we have another adaptation? Sherlock Holmes is the closest thing to Bond in terms of this discussion and the Holmes stories have been adapted numerous times with differing levels of success.
I really don't see the fact that the story has already been adapted once successfully as any sort of argument that it should never be done again.
There were silent Holmes films in the 20s but if people had followed the 'there's already been an adaptation of that story' theory there would have never been any Rathbone, Brett or Cumberbatch let alone any of the numerous other great scripts who had a crack at the part.
Again Holmes has proved that this is a fallacy. We have had both the completely different interpretations of the Cumberbatch version and the Downey Jnr version going pretty much head to head in recent years and both were successful.
Yes it's unlikely to happen because EON are very unlikely to put another iron in the fire when they have enough of a struggle keeping the first one hot, but in principle I don't see there's anything to turn our noses up at the notion of a separate series on Netflix or suchlike of period adaptations of the novels running in tandem with the continuing modern day action spectaculars in the cinema we are used to.
Agreed. I don't think it would be a problem at all and the cinema Bond and TV Bond would be pretty different animals anyway.
The character of Bond faithfully adapted from the books would be very different from the Cinema portrayal. And the series would be period pieces, even further removing it from the cinematic 007.
Oh well, mabey one day!
These are just accidents of history aren't they?
The Strand magazine is where Holmes gained his popular fame not literary circles. Given there was no TV or cinema at the time the argument could be made that populist publications like this were the equivalent of the day.
Bond is only locked into EON by the fact that copyright law has evolved massively. Had Conan Doyle had the foresight to sign an exclusivity deal of some sort we could easily have seen a similar single series of Holmes films with trademarks such as the Holmes theme and a GB sequence (perhaps a series of dots that form a magnifying glass as Sherlock walks across te screen?). By the same token had the Bond books come out at a time when people didn't realise the commercial potential of cinema then we could have seen numerous Bond series from different producers (silent movie era versions of EON, McClory, Ratoff, Feldman etc).
Not quite sure what your point is here. Is that an argument that Bond shouldn't be adapted multiple times?
How is Bond ever supposed to catch up Holmes' 60 years lead if you object to anyone but EON adapting the stories?