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
This is demonstrated by a tighter plotting and a more even pace. Up until TB his works had often had great starts and great finales but had often flagged in the middle.
The Pussy thinks that Fleming benefited from his exposure to writing for the screen and its demands for pace and consistency. Something he incorporated into what many consider his best work, OHMSS.
I always saw it the other way around, that it was too obvious it wasn t primarily a creation of litterature on its own accord, and I thought that hurt it somewhat.
An interesting perspective but there is a whole posteumous analysis regarding this because when it was released in 1961 nobody had any clue that it was based on a film outline and even Fleming's harshest critics were favourable. Regarding it as one of his best works.
It was only after the '63 court case that Fleming was obliged to put 'Based on ....' as part of the settlement.
Pussy's question to Thunderfinger is, without the court case, would you honestly ever have known and if so, what were the tells?
If I didn t know, I would still sense a drop in quality, but would not know what to pin it on.
A drop of quality from Goldfinger ?
Very much so, but I still enjoy it.
P.S. Where I get controversial: start adapting books not by Ian Fleming. I would rather that happen with new writers than a "original" screenplay by Purvis and Wade. I would say start with Colonel Sun, but P & W have already butchered the good material with it. My list for adaptations in no particular order. For Special Services, Icebreaker, Nobody Lives Forever for John Gardner. The Union Trilogy as a whole shot for one actor, filmed if possible, back-to-back-to-back style together. Also The Man With The Red Tattoo, all by Raymond Benson. Even though they aren't liked much, Devil May Care and Solo for the ending of a James Bond, but made modern. For a reboot, I would start with Carte Blanche. It's a good place for a new cinematic Bond to start. Sorry about my rambling, I didn't expect to go this far with this post. My opinions, at this point for me any writer for James Bond is fresher than Pervis and Wade. Take a chance EON!
I agree with this @Thunderfinger... I got roasted the last time I said this, but I found TB such a slog to get through the last time I read it. To me, and only me, not to upset fans of the book, but I wondered where Fleming's descriptive zest had gone to. This felt bogged down... and, to me, awkward (something I had never felt about a Fleming Bond novel before or since.)
And I wondered: was reversing the process (script into novel vs novel into script), behind this awkwardness?
I have no answer on this, other than to say, TB was my most disappointing read of Fleming novels the last time out...
You felt Fleming’s descriptive zest had gone in Thunderball?! To the contrary, during my first read through of all of Fleming Thunderball was the saving grace that reassured me Fleming hadn’t lost the plot completely. Fleming is most in his element when writing of underwater adventure and his descriptive prose excels here. We also get a very finely drawn Bond girl in Domino. One of Fleming’s best.
The description of Blofeld in a chapter, I think, called Violet-Scented Breath.... all vintage Fleming...
@Some_Kind_Of_Hero , I loved TB through every reading. Until last year. I was bored with the over all execution.
It's like how I view SP, the film: wonderfully executed scenes, it failed because a few wonderfully executed scenes, does not a good film make.
For me, there were many great chapters in TB. But as a whole, during my last read, it bored me.
My opinion only!
Not a controversial opinion to me, since I agree. Plotting was never a strength of Fleming's (on occasion his plots were downright primitive), so working from the various screenplay drafts did indeed give TB tighter plotting and a more even pace (the movie looks bloated and slow in comparison). It also permitted him to infuse the book with the sort of characterization and detail that mark his best writing. That said, it needs to be reiterated--especially to the book's detractors--that Fleming did not simply novelize a screenplay. He selected various plot elements and wove them into a new work. This can be demonstrated by comparing the plot of TB to the screenplay/treatment synopses included in The Battle for Bond.
I didn't know that. Ahh, what could have been...
It's really sad when you think about it. So much wasted opportunities. Both literary and cinematic.
Also, with the recent rerelease of Roger Moore's LALD Diaries, could Christopher Wood's Bond Novels be reprinted? Both are certainly deserving.
If they put as much effort in their release as the LALD diaries I am buying both especially if they are hardcovers.
Both of these men would perhaps put some much needed flesh on the bones of the script and actually write a book you are then cheesed off for not getting a far more decent product.
So I do not think that SF or SP should get a novelization, and face it both writers would never write one as they do not need the dosh that much.