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
Fair point in the context of this debate, but looking at the bigger picture how many well made independent films that have found the right audience have gone on to a fifty year franchise. Fleming wrote the Bond novels primarily to make a lot of money, Cubby and Harry made the films to make a lot of money, a movie doesn't have to make a billion dollars to be good but vast wealth was the only yardstick they all set themselves, so surely we should keep that spirit in mind when considering what constitutes a 'good' Bond.
Don't get me wrong @pachazo, I like Fleming's YOLT very much but I just don't see how it could be faithfully adapted into a 90min+ feature film. Like the other films I quoted, there just isn't enough plot.
The idea of Bond going to pieces, drinking too much etc. could be explored but it would take up about 5 mins I guess (we saw a somewhat similar scenario during the "retirement" sequence of SF), Bond then goes to Japan and most of the first half of the novel is an extended travelogue of the country with Dikko and Tiger acting as guides. Very interesting and works wonderfully in the novel but would be hard to get much screen-time out of it.
We then get to the actual meat of the story - Bond's mission to assassinate Guntram Shatterhand and his discovery that he is in fact Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It's a very good sequence but would surely only take up 30 mins or so max.
So there would be a lot of additional story, plot and material required hence why I don't think a "faithful" adaptation would be possible.
I would still love to see Shatterhand as a villain, Dikko as a rough-and-ready ally, and a cliffhanger ending with an amnesiac Bond however.
I don't really want to debate over what a faithful film adaptation technically is or isn't. I agree with you that a word by word, scene by scene recreation of the book isn't feasible. Some creative liberties would have to be taken. Many films have done this over the years (to a greater or lesser degree) simply because it such a different medium.
You wouldn't necessarily have to create too many new details though as you could expand upon things that are already there. Perhaps begin the film with Bond's last mission that nearly gets him fired as an example. I believe that you could present all the material and add some nice creative touches within the spirit of the novel and still make a faithful adaptation. That's just my opinion and I'll leave it at that.
<font color=blue size=7><b>The Bond films display less travelogue ambitions now than they did in the 60s and 70s.</b></font>
Agree and whant at the 80's too. It is very weak to take Turkey again for Skyfall and i like to see we get a Bond movie in Egypt again. Also Bond should visit Belgium and America for real.
This is one of things I miss in the films of the most recent times, I admit it. The films of the past at large really let the locations breathe, and you really got to see different sensibilities and ways of life in the shots. I also learned a ton of stuff regarding geography and politics of respective eras in the films, something that still happens, but we now lack the feeling of knowing the location being filmed like we are really there with Bond as it felt in the past.
I'll make my decision after examining the map.
The common place is to talk about globalization. But yes, it has connected far corners of the land by the mass media. It can't be easy for a director to shot Venice in an original fashion... So the Bond locations seem more mundane but still could be developed in an interesting way (e.g. Shanghai and Istambul in SF).
Agree: The world is alot smaller and oddly more expensive to live in let alone make a big budget movie in too!
I think QOS had a good deal but didn't do much with some of them. I think I want some gorgeous or wildly interesting places visited, but it had better serve the story and not just be too quick to enjoy.
Having said that, I am really happy Skyfall was a truly London/England/Scotland movie - it fit the story and was appropriate for the anniversay AND I just enjoyed it being centered there for a change. We still had the lush shots of Shanghai, too.
And Istanbul. Silva's Island. Macao.
But perhaps, because of the way the films are shot, people forget what they see. Compare SF to TB and you'll see Bond travels far further in SF and to more places. Same with DN, FRWL, GF etc. etc.
QoS saw Bond in Italy, Bolivia, Austria. Even London!
Some of Italy,yes; I just would have liked more time in those places in QOS.
Suppose that's a fair observation, we don't get to see Bond as ubiquitous as say Moore, as Connery felt a bit restricted for locations, as was Dalton (especially License to Kill) and Brosnan came along and things picked up a bit, and we took in sights such as Russia, Cuba, China, Germany and Iceland for example. It's always frustrating when Bond feels restricted to one or two locations such as with You Only Live Twice or the aforementioned LTK for example. Going to agree with thesis this time out
I also loved the John Barry homage music que when Bond and Anya are searching for Jaws. I give Hamlisch props for redoing a FRWL music que.
In Luxor? Are you talking about the Bond theme played in slow fashion?
In that case I should give attention to the moment. I haven't noticed it.
Yep the music is beat per beat the same song, just rearranged. It was a nice little nod to John Barry who wasn't available in 77. :)
Perhaps, but a lot of Bolivia, and for me personally that's a lot more exotic then the three others as I've been there quite often. But that's the different perspective from this side of the pond I guess.
<font color=blue size=7><b>In keeping with OHMSS, Bond should not have cried tears at the end of SF.</b></font>
Disagree. M was a mother figure to Bond, through thick and thin they shared some sort of bond and since she died at his place of childhood trauma that brought back even more bad memories which made him even more upset. Emotions don't make one weak. it makes them stronger.
Anyway, DISAGREE. The moment at the end of Skyfall is one of the most powerful in the series, and acted so beautifully by both Dan and Judi. As @Murdock said, showing emotions don't make us weak, they allow us to release all our feelings instead of keeping them inside, and Bond is doing just that. He and M had a very special relationship, and she very much formed him into the competent agent he is through their time together. They are both stubborn and through that they created a great partnership built on trust, loyalty and duty, no matter the challenges they faced. For this and more, Bond becomes emotional, as anyone would in the situation. I know I cried like a baby...