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
Excellent point from TheWizardOflce.
If I were running EON I'd definitely commission new franchises for a 'Period' Bond, a "Young Bond' and a 'Moneypenny Diaries' spin off.
Ultimately, being too protective and stifling innovation will have a negative effect on their current screen strategy.
If they control the quality what could positively be the problem?
Yes obviously people were reading the stories but that was because they were the only medium available. I'm offering the hypothesis that Holmes' widespread public fame wasn't down to 'readers of books' per se but the Strand magazine which would have been the TV of its day. Had the wireless been in widespread use then I'm sure Holmes public appreciation would have come from this medium instead of the Strand.
Also I think you're being slightly disingenuous towards Fleming's sales suggesting Bond only truly achieved fame through the films. Yes Bond ended up at Holmes levels of fame due to the massive success of the films but the same could be said about Holmes. Had Holmes not been immortalised in thousands of films and TV performances and just relied on the books would his fame be as universal as it is now?
As for being sceptical, the Hound of the Baskervilles has been filmed hundreds of times with varying degrees of success. Yes someone might make a total botch of it but someone else might do something amazing with it.
And given EON have given us the double take pigeon, invisible car, Jinx and Blofeld in drag and as Bond's stepbrother is the quality of their guardianship really so high up on a pedestal no one else can touch it?
The Hound of the Baskervilles was adapted with varying degrees of success... And I'd argue that it is because the source material is still more famous and revered than any of its adaptations. The Maltese Falcon was adapted far less, mainly because the 1941 movie became a classic and a reference. Which takes nothing away from Hammett's novel, but it certainly does diminishes the interest or relevance of another adaptation. Not all Bond novels were adapted faithfully, but at least a few of them did.
I am not saying EON never made mistake, I am saying however that others can make such mistake and given the particular nature of Bond's fame, they might be prone to. If such hypothetical series ever happens, I'll watch it with open mind, but somehow I suspect they will want to tone down the most controversial (and of his time) elements of Fleming's novels, fearing accusations of misogyny, racism and what have you. I also think they might get tempted to add on action and cut dialogues a bit. Or a lot. And do we also need a Young Bond and a Moneypenny Diaries series, really? This TV series hasn't been invented and the OP suggesting a retro Bond is already dreaming of spinoffs.
But anyway, we are already getting far from "getting back to Ian Fleming's original james Bond" when we start talking about a Young Bond series and a Moneypenny Diaries series. Which makes me even wearier of the retro Bond idea.
Interesting observation.
I was at a cocktail party on Saturday, hosted outside Fleming's office off Fleet Street and amongst the literary aficionados the idea of 'Young Bond' and 'Moneypenny Diaries' screen adaptations were two things that were much enthused about.
Perhaps it appeals more to the literary fans and less to the movie buffs.
Maybe the film fans are more turned on by the thought of more disappearing cars ?
I'm a literary fan and I would rather not see a disappearing car ever again in a Bond movie or any movie for that matter, so do not assume anything about my motivations, thank you very much. You are building a strawman here.
I don't consider what continuators have done as literary canon and I see no point in using them in a parallel adaptation... And anyway, wasn't this Bond going back to 1953 supposed to be all about getting back to the source material? to what Ian Fleming wrote? Now you are talking about Young Bond and the Moneypenny Diaries as if they'd be any relevant for a retro Bond. Did I miss anything or did Ian Fleming never wrote Young Bond? I'm sure it makes perfect sense after a few drinks, but to me this is simply gimmicky and doing the exact opposite of what you intent.
It is also disingenuous to say that those against such adaptations want the return of the invisible car. But in any case and surely, the original material is what keeps the flame of literary Bond alive.
I'm not sure I understand all of your post.
That said, if you have read Higson's excellent 'Young Bond' novels and Weinberg's fabulous 'Moneypenny Diaries', you will know that they both adhere to Fleming's time line and are therefore highly relevant to the debate.
Adapted for the screen they could both allow eon a way of developing the franchise and testing the appetite for Bond in his original period setting.
I did not actually say this but many apologies if my reference to "invisible cars" has offended you. It's just that you sounded like an "invisible car" fan and I thought you might enjoy it.
Post of the year.
My post is very easy to understand: Ian Fleming did not wrote above "continuation" works hence it's not going back to its source using non Fleming originals, whether they stick to Fleming or not. And by the way a Young Bond might adhere to a Bond time line but is still irrelevant to it: Fleming's Bond did not become a spy in his childhood or teenage or whatever.
As for your assumption I have no idea where you got it from and in any case it was a strawman.
Seconded and what's more, I can understand it!
TheWizardOflce is a poster of great substance and his hypothesis that Holmes' fame was down to the Strand magazine and that was the then equivalent of TV is correct and extraordinarily perceptive.
Back to the subject of Bond in '53. I recently watched the original screen version of Casino Royale featuring Barry Nelson and although the production values were of that time it somewhat bizarrely gives an insight as to how things might be if the movies were re-booted to replicate Fleming's novels.
I'm sorry but I don't understand.
Ian Fleming did not wrote continuations he wrote the original work. Adapting any continuation work as retro would be moving away from the sources not back to it. What's not to understand?
I believe, there's a lots of stuff from the novels can be done and re-captured in the modern films. In some respects, we're back in the 50's now, considering the political situation around the world. Possible wars are around the corner, paranoia everywhere. Villians are not just crazy individuals... There's Russia and its obvious lust for conquering, we have ISIS and so on. Bond could tap into all those things with a minimum of digital technology. That's just my opinion.
But unfortunately, that will happen only without political correctness and a big Hollywood studio looking over Bond's shoulder. And it would also mean not getting the film distributed to the Russian, Chinese, or whathever market and no sane producer would let that happen. But maybe... well, we'll see.
For me, it's not about the period and style, it's about the values and certain view of the world which Bond represents. In the end, that's also what makes the style of the novels so good and everlasting for me.
Over and out.
P.S. I really don't want to turn this post into a self-propagation, but reading about the desire for a proper adaptation of Moonraker... https://www.facebook.com/legomoonraker007
Perhaps you meant to say that Ian Fleming didn't write continuation works ?
In fairness, it would have been difficult for him to have done that.
=))
I think you're having bad faith. I meant what I meant what I meant, and you are either too thick to understand or you don't want to.
The main and maybe the only rationale for a retro Bond is to return back to Ian Fleming's spirit. Using continuation works such as Young Bond is moving away from it.
Well, he might have well have done for some, apparently.
Absolutely.
SPECTRE is living proof that we've run out of road and the time is right to start telling real stories again and can this CGI and men in tight suits nonsense.
For me, the only Bond film that now truly stands the test of time is FRWL.Conversely watch the BBC's 'Tinker Tailor Sailor Spy' or Thames TV's 'Callan' series and - production values aside - they stand the test of time because they are great stories with great atmosphere.
Nobody wrote better stories than Fleming and they deserve faithful adaptations.
After such comment, it is me that fail to understand your reasoning. What would Young Bond and the Moneypenny Diaries bring to a potential faithful adaptation of Ian Fleming's work? Why would they even be relevant to such project, or useful? Ian Fleming's stories stand on their own.
Exactly.
If Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle can be faithfully adapted for TV then dammit so can Fleming!
Well that's more than a valid point there, @tanaka123.
Obviously we violently agree.
With eon having a $1 billion per movie franchise, one can understand resistance to change but I honestly don't see a problem with them running a period version in tandem.
http://screenrant.com/james-bond-time-cold-war-60s/
This is why EON control the franchise and not people who have a fleeting interest in the same way they do bands, or food, or fashion.