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
And honestly, that would be something. Unfortunately my experience of other media suggests that later writers will often ignore & replace significant events like these not written by the original author, feeling that they could do it better.
We'll just have to see how it goes.
I seriously doubt screenwriters most of the time write these scripts thinking it’s “better” than what Fleming wrote. Most of the time it’s either about just wanting to try something different from what was done before, or in cases like GOLDFINGER alter things because of adapting for the format that is visual medium.
Bond in the novel never sees Tilly painted gold, he’s only told that after the fact, and that works for the novel because readers can visualize it for themselves. But for a visual medium like film it makes more sense to have the audiences be with Bond actually discovering Tilly on that bed, rather than it be just something told to him after the fact.
Either like that, or he dies from liver cirrhosis. :))
There is no point. Let them stand on their own.
M says to Bond " welcome back, 007. Pity about Swann."
Bond replies saying "the relationship didn't work out. It was agreed she had full custody of Mathilde. It's for the best."
M nods in agreement.
Bond's family is never mentioned again. This allows the writers to preserve continuity from NTTD and to avoid rehashing Bond's family. It's a clean slate moving forward.
Bond is the same Bond as Craig's Bond. He has the physical and emotional scars of NTTD but we get all that stuff over with in the first act of Bond 26. Once Bond has recovered and back as a fully fit 00 agent he's the established Bond with no more emotional baggage. Clean slate. No mention of Swann, his daughter, SPECTRE.
I think it's worth using SPECTRE in a future film but not in Bond 26.
Fleming flirted with and implied these very things. FRWL was not a happy ending, and DN was never assured.
Yes, Fleming considered killing Bond and may have considered killing Leiter, but that's not relevant to the point I was making.
"Bond scholar John Griswold notes that in the original draft of the story, Fleming killed Leiter off in the shark attack; when Naomi Burton, Fleming's US agent with Curtis Brown protested about the death of the character, Fleming relented and Leiter lived, albeit missing an arm and half a leg."
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Felix_Leiter_(Literary)
Thanks, but it’s still not relevant to the point that I was making, which was
I don't think I knew that, thank you, that's very interesting. Makes sense too, there's kind of no point to Felix surviving.
I tend to think they should have killed him off in LTK especially. It's a revenge thriller- kill the guy. There's no payoff to his not dying; an unusual case of Eon sticking to the original text a bit too much.
This would raise more questions than answers.
How did Bond survive the missile? How did they assure that Heracles would not be transmitted to Madeleine and Mathilde? Why would Bond keep working for MI6, if he had already quit the service deciding the life of an assassin is not for him (even after him and Madeleine had broken up in Matera he was still in retirement), and why would he risk his life knowing he has a young daughter somewhere?
As for the last point, yes, lots of parents risk their lives despite having young children (soldiers, policemen, firemen and so on), but him dismissing everything with a throwaway line at the beginning feels very insensitive, as if he couldn't care less about Mathilde growing up without a father, especially after he'd already missed her first years.
Exactly. Audiences have become so accustomed to the idea of different iterations of characters that’s why they’ll have no trouble with being ready for a new Bond with a clean slate.
It’s only a few Bond fans that I notice having difficulty to this idea of Bond existing as different iterations with each actor. As if they’re so used to this idea of one large continuity spanning decades that they wanted to see the same apply to Craig’s, as if we’ll see Fiennes, Whishaw, and Harris continue on much like Lee, Llewelyn, and Maxwell did back in the old days. Those days are gone.
I do find it curious: it's not as if anyone expects the next Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes to be in the same continuity as all the previous ones.
And Bond for me was never like that anyway. I never thought that the guy going after Sanchez had flown into space on a shuttle and driven a hover gondola around Venice a few years earlier.
A bit of short term continuity is great between films, so they're interested in Vesper or whatever; and an in-joke which lots of people will remember is also good, like the DB5 turning up, but no-one cares if Bond met Dikko Henderson in a film in the 60s or whatever.