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
Most non-Fleming stories have been dire, not just the recent ones.
The Moore era in particular, used up almost all the good titles of the Fleming novels and nearly all the films had very little in common with their literary counterparts.
Or anything Bond related at all. *shivers* :-S
Quite true unfortunately. They weren't without their entertainment factor though.
I can see how some find that entertaining, but I can't sit through it. I love comedies, but not in my Bond films.
I agree. The Moore films that end up in my DVD player the most are the first three, and sometimes FYEO. The other three I only tend to watch when they're on television or during a Bondathon. A bit like DAD and DAF.
I think he was at his best when he did some serious stuff as well as the comedy, so I think TSWLM and OP are his best films.
Moore himself was always good. He always looked like he was enjoying himself. Even when the films weren't good, he was a major reason to continue watching. Sometimes though, it just got too much.
Get real!
I enjoyed most of Moore's movies - although they weren't without their problems. Say what you like about Moore's Bond, but Moore himself is always a pleasure to watch. I think thats why I rate him highly.
Who can't be charmed by this guy?
It's not just that though. We have the entire first half, which starts of with different 00 kills, then a free running sequence and the whole miami scenes, neither were in the book. Then in the 2nd half we have the big list I put a page back.
Like I said, I prefer the film and think the changes were for the best, but there's that many changes I don't think it's very close to the book, it just follows the basic outline with all the important events.
And with regards your list, mostly you are just splitting hairs with differences.
Following basic outlines with all the important events, as you rightly put above, is pretty much admitting the film follows the book fairly closely.
+1
Well then we just have different views on what following the book closely means then. I think just following the basic outline doesn't make it that close to the book.
And I think the first half alone makes the film pretty different from the book. I think we'll just have to disagree on this one.
Using your logic, following basic outlines of all the important events in a novel, translated to film can be applied to Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS too.
In OHMSS there was no scene from the novel where Bond tries to escape Piz Gloria while hanging from a cable car wire, or a stock car sequence, or fights in hotel rooms, or a fight in a bell room, or Tracey getting kidnapped by Blofeld, yet this is still a faithful adaptation.
In FRWL there was no speedboat chase, and no SPECTRE involved, nor Blofeld (who has nothing remotely to do with the novel), yet this is still a faithful adaptation.
In GF the Oddjob fight is very different to the book, the plot has changed, the torture scene altered (saw mill in the book, about to cut through Bond's jaffa's), no Aston Martin car chase, yet this is still a faithful adaptation of the novel.
etc. etc.
I could go on and on all day with this, but I think you may now get my point......
I haven't read FRWL but that doesn't sound that close to the book either.
Than the Moore films, yeah. But I think some of the 60s films are closer. But I'll be fair, they were closer to the time of the books and so it was easier to get more stuff from the books in them.
The films which follow the Fleming books closely are (in this order) -
Dr. No
FRWL
OHMSS
GF
TB
CR
FYEO, TLD, LTK and OP use quite a lot of extensive material (scenes, characters) from the books, either short stories, or scenes previously unused from full length novels (LALD in particular).
The films loosely based on the novels are -
DAF
LALD
TMWTGG
TSWLM has nothing to do with the novel (although Jaws is loosely based on the Horror character)
MR and YOLT have very little to do with their books.
AVTAK and QOS have nothing to do with their short stories.
Are they all that bad?
Only then was Brosnan approached and signed after Dalton ruled himself out. But the series would have continued in the Roger Moore vein, because I doubt the grittier aspects would have suited his very young face.
When Brosnan fell through due to the green lighting of Remington Steele, then Dalton was asked once more and agreed. The 60 days is what made this possible. Had there been no 60 day wait until Brosnan was finalised then Brosnan would have been Bond. They were behind schedule.
But it is obvious that Cubby would only have gone for the harder Bond if Dalton played him. I could not imagine Cubby seeing Brosnan as a Connery type.
But the media spun the story a different way as they wanted Brosnan thanks to his Remington Steele style which is James Bondy in a way. I mean Dalton and Brosnan are radically different actors. Deep down, Cubby wanted some real change and only Dalton had the experience to do that.
Eon had Dalton on their radar since 1968 so it makes sense he would have been approached first.
But Brosnan was cast by Cubby as John Glen was keen on him as well as Michael G Wilson. Those two also wanted Sam Neill.
It still amazes me that they had him in mind for so long. Cubby was a bit of a genius with his casting. The only one he got wrong for me was Brozza, but may be, given how bad those films are, it wouldn't have made much difference if it was any other actor.
Dalton was first choice, Brosnan the second and the third Sam Neill Cubby did not like as Bond. But the pressure of the 25th anniversary looming meant they had to get on with the job. And Brosnan at the time was a compromise.
Dalton was even asked to take over from Roger in 1980 but did not like the direction and said no. Cubby liked Dalton for being honest and also admired the fact that he was a serious actor who respected the franchise and what it achieved for British cinema.
Had Roger Moore said no to Bond in 1972, then I think Cubby would have signed Dalton and persuaded him to do it. He was on the list already and Cubby has a way.
Man LALD with Dalton would be killer. Guy Hamilton would have put him to good use and taken advantage of his toughness. Maybe this happened in an alternate universe?:)
Dalton when he was younger looked incredible no question. He had a roughness despite being a poshly trained actor. He grew in Manchester and has that northern attitude.
Once Dalton stepped down, they needed a safe actor to take over. And with Dalton's exit they had to go backwards not forwards. Gritty Bond in Goldeneye was a thin veneer. A sheep in wolfs clothing.
I like that!