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
Yes, in the reprints of Fleming's books, where one would expect Fleming's exact word to be respected, as it has been in the UK for the past 70 years and in America for the past 20. How could a continuation author creating a new adventure starring James Bond be expected to preserve "the exact letter of Fleming’s word"?
There's no logical connection between those premises. What a continuation author writes doesn't change the content of Fleming's books. The continuation author is writing their version of Fleming's Bond, not rewriting or editing Fleming's books.
No, it just means that fans are at liberty to accept them or not accept them as canon. The actual gospel had multiple writers after all and various "apocryphal" books. Sacrilege would be the actual deletion of parts of the "gospel," and that's what's happening here.
Fair points. But there are various translations of the Gospels that are updated for all sorts of reasons, including that of modernity. The spirit still exists even if the language is modified.
A counterpoint would be that NONE of the writers' released works should be altered at later dates. They can stand or fall on publication, and later.
With Ian Fleming Library I'm not actually certain what they're reacting to. Is it their own closely held beliefs to change the Chapter 5 name and other content of Live and Let Die? Or did they become a target by a group? Did they see the writing on the wall for these things, I actually couldn't blame them for that.
In a similar way and considering recent political bents, will the mere mention of Nazi come to be expunged from media past and present? Or maybe not, since it's invoked with venom in arguments for its own purpose.
This kind of meddling used to be closer to the creation than so many years later I note.
Fact: the books become public domain in a decade or so.
Fact: whoever wants to read them as they are, will always be able to.
Fact: most people prefer the uncut, unedited, unrated, original thing over anything that was tempered with.
My belief is that these selectively white-washed anniversary editions will not sell well.
Which will make them rare. And thus, "collectible." And 20 years down the road, ridiculously "valuable." Just look at it as an investment, and you too will need to collect the whole series!
Either way, I wouldn't be buying another full set unless they had unbelievable covers and were very inexpensive.
All that to say, censorship is bad.
Literary Bond = already public domain in Canada!
I've read all the Flemings countless of times, but I'm quite sure that the changes will be minor and therefore personally I don't care too much. I know that I, and probably many others, wouldn't even notice the changes unless someone pointed them out...
One aspect to the situation is also that of censorship and intellectual property, where the debate is off the rails Changing the works you have the rights to cannot, by definition, be censorship. Quite the opposite in fact. If you own the rights to a work, whether you're the artist or just the copyright holder, you must have the right to alter it. That is the way the copyright must work. If you were forbidden to change a work you had the ownership over, that is actually a kind of censorship (but also not, but you get my point...) On another note I still think 70 years is too long.
With this mild and minor rant I still want to say that I don't think anyone should change another artists work (unless works aimed for children, in that case I think there are situations where the works should be altered, as kids don't have the same ability as adults to critically reflect on what they're reading).
So: I don't think they should change the Fleming novels, at least not when they're celebrating the 70th anniversary. I understand why they're doing it and I can sympathise with their feeling of wanting to do it, but I don't fully agree with it. The Bond film series is getting more modern for every movie that comes out and I suppose they're hoping to get young Bond movie fans to explore the literary character as well. No idea if it will pay off. Probably not.
Another weird thing about this whole situation is what they've decided to leave in and what to take out. Who have decided? And how? Why is it okay to leave racism towards Asians? Or some of the more extreme sexism comments? That is quite baffling to me. Either you take out all of the offensive stuff, or you leave everything in. But if you start taking all offensive stuff out, who decides where the line is? That is a big issue for me in this situation.
Over and out, fellow Bond fans...
Even i could do something "better" than that.
Errr... There is a missile in MR : The MoonRaker itself ! And there are no missiles in TDWLM. Another one who hasn't read the novels and mistake them for the movies.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/03/04/0521244/roald-dahl-ebooks-reportedly-censored-remotely
Changing something I've already bought would bother me a lot more than changing something I still have the choice to buy, for sure.
Indeed. I do wonder if there'd be a case for misrepresentation under UK law too as the text was purchased (and thus the contract entered into) on the grounds that it was the full unexpurgated text. It's tantamount to fraud or deceit, which is what misrepresentation ultimately us. I'm afraid actions like this on the part of publishers will do nothing to allay the legitimate fear of readers that publishers are busily engaged in the blatant rewriting of history a la Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
These things happen.
The weird thing is that the covers of Doctor No, Live and Let Die, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, and The Spy Who Loved Me depict events that happened only in the novels!
Makes you wonder if the cover designer was out sick one day and left the artist to his own devices. A pity, since most of the covers were excellent.
As for the censored editions, apparently they will have a little disclaimer buried in the copyright page that says certain passages have been altered. I see the censored edition of LALD is already on Amazon, with a pre-sale date of June 27. It has the blandest cover art imaginable.
I suppose that one is slightly more excusable than the cover for YOLT. Even John Gardner slipped up and had Bond recalling a girl painted in gold in Cold/Cold Fall (1996).
This is far from rewriting history. I’m more worried about American Conservatives passing legislation in various states to restrict the actual teaching of history. No one is burning past editions or restricting the access of past editions. We don’t even know if IFP has a plan to release edited and non-edited editions side-by-side or within a close timeframe.
I’m assuming that everyone who believes only authors can change their own work fully support George Lucas’ right to not only edit his Star Wars movies but restrict the sale of the trilogy as it was originally shown.
Good question. I have always supported the idea that Mister Star Wars himself could do to the films whatever he wanted... since he is, ultimately, Mister Star Wars. But trying to keep us from watching "original" Star Wars is something I didn't agree with.
Edit: okay, can someone tell me how to paste pictures in here? Why is it such a problem? Every single time I try to post pictures here I have to spend an hour trying to figure it out...
I fear for the generations ahead of us. Sport articles here in Canada have disclaimers when they deal with domestic violence and such. My Toastmaster clubs at the contest now have a disclaimer about the views and opinions of the speakers are their view and don't reflect Toastmasters. We seem to be bending over backwards to provide "safe" spaces, but the world isn't bubble wrapped and part of navigating it is to develop critical thinking skills and the nuance of thought.
Place the image's weblink in between these image tags [img][/img]
For example, if I find an image with this url: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0210/6626/products/2023_01_06_09_53_30_001_600x.jpg?v=1673022938
I would then bracket the url with the image codes [img][/img] and get this:
Nope. Doesn't work. Eff it. EVERY OTHER SITE lets you just upload images. I'm done here. Frustrated beyond belief.
https://photobucket.com/u/chrisisall/p/7f82e3bc-93c2-49e9-8652-6d2e94d5920f
When I copy and paste this url it takes me to a log-in screen for photobucket, so you might need to adjust its privacy settings. I think the problem is on Photobucket's end.
I used to use that site but nowadays I prefer Imgur for image hosting. When I click on an image in my Imgur account I'm given several weblinks, and I usually select "BBCode (message boards & forums)", which works on this board.
Well I have access to photobucket, and it still doesn't work. Really, I have a heavy heart here, I just wish I could post pictures without joining Imager. Yet another hoop to jump through.