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 of those films you mention have quite a few differences from their respective novels (Fleming once described Dr No as "absolutely dreadful"). They have stars who are either suave or cheekey or often immaculately groomed. Arguably, this wasn't "the Bond of the books".
CR, as great as it is, has quite a lot that isn't in the book. Namely the entire first 40 minutes.
People want Bond to be slick, cool, stylish and "bigger than life". Why do you think the one-liners are coming back for SF?
They dont just cut across his thesis they kick the living shit out of it.
Good old Baine. Unless its Goldeneye he cant really cope...
Without the action scenes (or more faithfully, if the film was only set at Casino Royale), the movie would be far too short. Plus, Bond audiences expect death-defying action scenes. If they hadn't included these, would it have been the success it was?
Even Craig is arguably "bigger" than the character in the books. He also (at times) has that twinkle in his eye which the original character didn't really have - or at least have as much of.
Plus, Bond audiences expect death-defying action scenes.
But doesn't that enhance my point? People expect the more OTT stuff from film-Bond.
Also @actonsteve its B-A-I-N. I have to put up with people mispelling my name constantly in the real world :p
Never forget "Bain" the books were a colossal worldwide phenomenon before the films come out - so people must have liked the character before the film.
I'd also argue that more people remember the likes of Roger Moore (a lesser Fleming Bond) over someone like Timothy Dalton or George Lazenby (closer to Fleming Bond). True the last two were in fewer films but even so, most of Moore's films were, generally, more succesful world-wide than either Dalton's two or Lazenby's one.
The top 5 Bond movies (adjusted for inflation) are:
1. Thunderball
2. Goldfinger
3. You Only Live Twice
4. Moonraker
5. Die Another Day
http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
But you were bigging up the films...and the books were successful worldwide before the films.
People had read Fleming and must have liked the character a long time before the campy films.
I know they were extremely sucessful but the films were more so. They took on their own identity.
Based on the DNA of the books. Without the character of the books you have no films.
You mean like Thunderball....ummm...yes..that doesn't have much Fleming in it does it?
:D
Hmm...rocket pack? Brief sequence I know but quite a big selling point at the time.
You stated the campy dumb Bonds without any Fleming did better - Thunderball disproves your theory doesnt it?
Hmm...I don't think it does. TB was a fairly "big" film.
I think that the important thing to note is that we've had decades of the films establishing to the general public what "Bond" is. The number of people who have seen the films and the number of people who have read the books would be incredibly different in 2012 than it was in 1962.
I think that if there was a completely faithful adaptation of one of Fleming's books now most of the general audience would dismiss it because it wasn't "real Bond"! I'm not saying that I agree with that, I'm just saying what I think is likely to happen. I think the best that Fleming fans can hope for - at least at the moment - is a film that mixes in a lot of Fleming (plot, character, situations) with a lot of "film Bond". I think CR did a great job of that.
The films are made for the general public, who don't care about Fleming, nor have they ever read a novel in their entire life.
Fact is, only Bond fans care about Fleming... but the films aren't made for us.
Sorry, but members like you and actonsteve should face the facts : the films aren't made for Fleming lovers like you. The films are made for the general public, and they follow the current trends that the general public like. Once the general public will grow tired of realistic films and want more fun, EON will start making the films like in the Brosnan and Moore days.
Well said!!
Seconded. Moore is definitely the more Fleming-esque of these 2 Bond actors. Of course, Moore benefited from his films being made in a time less removed from the time period Ian Fleming lived and worked in.
Are you serious ? We are in 2012, and close to no-one in the general public has ever read a Fleming novel in their life. The films are *NOT* made for hardcore Bond fans like us here who still read and adore Fleming. Fact the facts, the movies are made for the general public, most spefically the young demographic, who don't give a sh!t about Fleming.
No one cares, and certainly not EON, what people think on a recluse website like mi6community.
Well, it has happened.
CR was a reasonably faithful of the strong Fleming story even down to the "The jobs done. The bitches dead" line.
If the story is strong and its a good film then people will go and see it.Alot of it was word of mouth.
There are some which are happy with the campy dumb Bonds but if you feed people shit they dont know any different. If you give them caviar like CR - then the difference is obvious and CR made shedloads of money and was a triumph around the world.
Were any of the campy Bonds nominated for a BAFTA?
So was MR and TSWLM.......
CR was made because the general public wanted more serious films...... the day people want campy films again to be made in Hollywood, EON will follow and make new GE's and MR's and TSWLM's,
Well...the actual line in the book is "yes dammit I said "was", the bitch is dead now" so...no it wasn't exactly faithful. More a "homage" :p
Royale may have been a " more grounded" film but it still had lots of crowd-pleasing OTT action.
So were two Fleming Bonds ie Goldfinger and Thunderball.
You have gone running to the bookcase havent you?
"The bitch is dead" line is in there at the end of the film. Not a homage.
TSWLM has the most nominations a Bond film ever had.
Your argument is moot. you started an argument that only serious Bond films were nominated..... well sorry to burst your bubble, but the campy Bond films have more nominations than the serious Bond's put together.
Thunderball - the rocket pack
Each featured quite big "gagets" that weren't in Fleming's books.
Haha, no @actonsteve. I just have a worringly good memory when it comes to Bond
And I countermanded with "so did the Fleming Bonds"...
^^^this, it's 2012, and barely anyone has read the books. And I'd say they made CR not because of wanting to be close to Fleming, but because of competition from Bourne. If it wasn't for Bourne and more realistic films, CR would've been different or it might have not been made at all. If the public decides they want another Moore type film, they'll get one, no matter how many hardcore Bond fans want a film that's close to Fleming.
I've read 3 of the books and I've enjoyed them, but I don't think it's the end of the world if the films are close to Fleming or not. If they are, great, if not, I don't really care, I'll probably still enjoy the film. Honestly I don't care, the films have their own identity and don't need to be close to the books.
But there is scene after scene of Fleming ie the golf game, Shrublands, the golden girl, the Nassau casino.
The blueprint are the books.