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
1000% agreed
Keep the films in the present, but with technology that exists now, not some fanciful thing that may exist in the future (Heracles.)
Thank you, I still hope for some modern day villain spinoff novels. I'd say it's overdue on IFP.
I agree, keep it real, with a hint of future fantasy.
Hoping Higson gets to do a modern day trilogy
Even up to the Benson era, tech and (perhaps more importantly) attitudes hadn't moved that far forward from the sixties enough to make Bond's world seem like another world. Now, things are so different in the world that Fleming's Bond simply wouldn't exist in the modern era.
My own preference would be to write him in the Fleming era, and keep that era's attitudes. Which would never happen.
Horowitz actually did a pretty amazing job of not having a car-crash of current attitudes banging up against the period setting. He'll be a tough act to follow, and I'm afraid I can't see Higson doing it successfully.
It's odd we have people wanting the new books to be set current day, and yet often a bunch of people wanting the films to be set in the past! :)
I haven't read Higson's novella but have heard nothing but positive from people who have given it a read. I believe IFP dictated that Horowitz write in the period of Fleming and opened up his archives to take sections, for Trigger Mortis. Gardner did Bond in the 80's but he was Fleming's Bond for the most part.
Everyone of the characters in Carte Blanche were well done. Yes, Bond himself was the odd-man out.
There’s pros and cons of making Bond past and present.
I do feel that IFP should have a few novels (apart Kim Sherwood and her 00-agent trilogy) should be in the present for a while. If IFP keeps going back to Fleming’s timeline, it’s going to feel like a athlete who keeps saying that they will retire, but keeps coming back for money. Bond should generally keep moving forward to the future.
Would you rather travel by train aboard the Orient Express OR by plane in Goldfinger's private jet?
You can decide if Tatiana or Kerim Bey is with you on the train. Or whether Mie Li or Pussy is flying the friendly skies.
What would you rather travel on? train or plane?
But the Orient Express man, that should win every single transportation battle, except perhaps a few nice Italian cars, or an Aston Martin. Or a Riva.
I hear starting g a meal with an Americano and transitioning to a Brolio Chianti does a nice little trick….
Especially since going on the Transsiberian is really no longer an option.
True, true. How sad.
Considering the endless pinetrees, I'm not so sure I mind.
anyway, Orient express for the win.
Okay lets move to the art of gambling! Fleming wrote about bridge, chemin de fer, and other games of chance that i have forgotten. In the films we have seen chemin de fer, poker, backgammon, heck even a video game where Bond gambled and, usually, won.
So my dear community lets pit two of our games together and ask the question:
Would you rather gamble on a golf game OR gamble playing backgammon?
In both cases your opponent will be cheating to win so you will need your wits to overcome. Would you rather battle your villain on the links or at a table? Both have mute henchmen that will likely crush your ball or your dice with their bare hands! Both opponents will be willing to write out a check to cash. LOL! Never realized how much GF and OP were similar!
@thedove, that's a great post at the end there, I've also never realized how much those two sequences have in common.
The scene with Kamal Khan at the backgammon game, on the other hand, was just pure fun, no tension at all, even there's Gobinda, but no tension at all, it's all played for fun and the atmosphere was relaxed, no tension, nor danger lingering around, it's the scene where I don't feel Bond was going to die at any minute he make a wrong move, and since Bond was also in control of the time.
I don't know, it might be my personal feeling, but I don't know, but the golf scenes are serious for me, full of tension and lingering danger, unlike the Backgammon which was just for fun.
So, for that, I'll go with the Backgammon scene with Kamal Khan, as I don't feel to myself that I would get killed after or while in the middle of the game.
The golf scene in Goldfinger is more suspenseful than many action scenes not only in Bond films, but in other franchises as well. It is masterfully done, it serves the plot, reveals something about the characters and has atmosphere. Bond films are different not in their action scenes but in their quiet moments. And that scene is a staple to this.
That said I'd go for backgammon, because I don't think I can play golf to save my life. Not that I know much about backgammon, but I'd have a slightly better chance.
I'd rather play backgammon with a pair of loaded dice. If possible.
I agree with you. I forget which director I saw said the golf game scenes were wonderful and added so much to the characters and the plot. He went on to say that for today's action film audiences they'd never sit through scenes like that. He stated that today's audiences want their action. I agree with @Ludovico it has been a hallmark of the series to have these quiet moments leading up to the big action set pieces. This one set the standard.
I have golfed but never played backgammon so I am heading to the links with Goldfinger and Oddjob. Hopefully I can get Hawker to carry for me and we might just show those 2 rascals how to cheat ethically! LOL!