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
CR made money because it followed the 'more serious film 'trend that the general public wanted.... and the general public factually don't care about Fleming nor have ever read a novel before.
Face the facts @actonsteve.... the day the general public will want camp again, be it for Craig's successor, or even later, EON will make campy films again.
No one cares about Fleming these days. Hardly any journalist knew that 'Quantum of solace' was a Fleming title when it was announced as Bond 22's title.
Close to no-one in the general public have ever read a Fleming novel, and they are the audience who count at the box office....
If EON for Bond 24 made another DAD, because the general audience demands it, it's not a boycott of 50 members on this website that will change things.
Bond fans don't dictate what direction the movies should follow, it's the general public who do that. Once they will be tired of serious films, Batman, Bond, Superman and company will be campy again.
Yes CR was succesful.... but not because it was Fleming. It was succesful because
1) it followed what the general public wanted, which was 'more serious/gritty', and not a DAD 2
2) The new Bond factor
3) And the whole Craig backlash which also helped, since people wanted to see what the fuss was about and/or if Craig was going to muck it up.
CR was a success because it had an extraordinary Bond actor and a very strong Fleming story. Word of mouth got around it was a good film.
Maybe the campy shit Bonds will return. It is possible there is a rump of fans who were brought up with Brozzer who want that shit.
But Eon when stuck for inspiration go back to Fleming , Even the lamentable crapola that is DAD was supposedly based on the novel MR before Tamahori was brought on board.
Fleming will always remain an influence on Bond.
Well the "golden girl" was only mentioned in passing in the book. A large reason GF did well was because of the emphasis on imagery/hardware. The shot of Jill dead on the bed was enough to make the film memorable but just for good measure we also got the Aston Martin, which became one of the biggest toys of that year. True it used a fair bit of Fleming but I'm not sure that was the main reason for its success.
You are wrong. The films was a success because the *STORY* was great. The fact that it was a Fleming story is not relevant, because the general public have never read a Fleming novel before, so they don't care about whether or not it was Fleming.
For christ sakes it's time to face reality ! Whether a Bond film is Fleming or not is completly irrelevant. A flemingesque film will please Bond fans... and that's it. The main audience, the *general public* don't care whether or not it's Fleming. In 2006 they wanted a more serious film, which for Bond means Flemingesque.... that's it.
The general audience wanted a serious films, they didn't demand a 'Flemingesque' film because THEY NEVER READ A FLEMING NOVEl and THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT FLEMING.
No. CR was a success because it was dark and serious, and thanks to films like Bourne that's what people wanted from spy films. Look at Dalton. He was dark, serious, and very close to Fleming. But he was sadly very underrated, because back then, people still wanted the humour and the classic Bond, which why so many were happy with GE, and why TLD did better than LTK (as well as crap advertising and competition but that's another story). The story was great but people liked the story, they didn't care that it was written by Fleming.
And Brosnan is not shit.
Hmm...I'd say most people these days haven't read Fleming and, to be honest, they probably never will sadly. It's mainly hard-core fans like us who have.
CR was a success because it was a serious film, which was what the general public wanted. CR could have been a serious film, with a great story, without an ounce of Fleming in it and it would have had the same success.
The fact that it was Fleming or not is not important. CR was 'serious', which is all that mattered for the general public. The whole 'CR was Fleming' is irrelevant, because the main audience don't give a sh*t about that.
Well said. I agree with you completely about the Fleming DNA--pretty much every film has it--and the less Fleming they use, the worse the film tends to be (AVTAK, TND, TWINE).
You're forgetting a major element of CR's success: the story. If you can't see that Fleming's fingerprints are all over that film, then you must give me the name of your oculist.
Hmm...interesting thesis. One could bring up the rumoured Quentin Tarantino CR film with Pierce Brosnan. How faithful would that have been? Would anyone here still have seen it?
Fleming only has an influence on Bond because he created the blueprints of the character. He no longer has influence on the success of the films, because 95% of the audience don't care about the novels, nor have ever read any of the novels.
Fact is, whether or not the films are Flemingesque or not is no longer relevant. What is relevant now is whether or not the films are camp or serious. Non-Fleming camp films will be successful when audience demands that, and non-Fleming serious films will be succesful when audience demands that.... the Fleming elements of the serious films are only there to please the hardcore fans.
EON could ditch every ounce of Fleming in the future, and the films would still be successful.... if the films are good. The general audience wants good films, serious films or campy films. They don't want Flemingesque films. The further we get from the 60's, the further the amount of people who have read Fleming will continue to diminish, so the influence Fleming has on the success of the films will diminish as well.
Keep in mind that this is US grosses only. International TB and GF are still #1 and 2, but I think LALD and CR are 4 and 5. I can't remember #3 (might be YOLT).
I have to agree that most movie going audiences today have never read Fleming. I would also guess that the majority of people today (under say 60 years old) who have read Fleming, saw the films first and then read the books.
And who wrote that story?
Hammond Innes? Jackie Collins? J K Rowling? Er, Ian Fleming.
I am not going to rise to your hysterics DaltonCraig. But as someone said upthread its when they abandon Fleming that things go wrong. You may love the campy shit Bonds but once in a while they go so far over the top they have to be reigned in.
Eon always go back to Fleming for inspiration.
More than 90% of those who saw CR didn't read the novel, so why do they care who wrote to story ?
Fact the facts actonsteve, you are wrong. I don't know if you are acting daft on purpose or not, but you have no credible argument.
Even if CR had butchered the novel, but remained a good, serious film, it would have been a major success. At most the 10% of the audience who had read the novel would have been mad they didn't follow the original story..... but the remaining 90% of the audience who didn't know a thing about the novel would have been pleased.
Your quote was the film was a success because the "STORY" was good.
Who wrote the story?
To me these types of nominations generally mean a more quality, strong story based movie. Not always but in the case of CR I think it was merited. It didn't win obviously but it was deserving of being in that league. No other Bond movie as ever been in those categories and goes to show how strong the performance and story was.
90% of the audience never read the story.... can you understand that ? 90% of the audience didn't know whether or not the story followed the novel, or whether or not the story was 'Flemingesque'. How can you say that CR was a success 'because it followed the novel', when 90% of the audience didn't know whether or not the story followed Fleming ?
CR was successful simply because it was a *good *story. Whether or not it was written by Fleming is entirely irrelevant because 90% of the audience never read the original novel.
Its just a feeling I have that most people today don't know (and don't care) about Fleming. ALL of my friends have seen the 2006 CR film but NONE (other than me) have read the book. They see me as a "geek" who is an exception rather than the rule. When they caught me reading the novel one of them said the following:
"why are you reading the book...you've seen the film"
I'm not joking.
Fleming's excellent story was adapted (some purists will say "dumbed down") to be accessable to the current film going public, most of whom haven't picked up a (Bond) book at all. The story was the basis for the film...but it wasn't the reason people flocked to see it.
You can't say 'CR followed the novel' or 'CR was a Flemingesque film' thus it was a success, while 90% of the audience cannot say whether or not the story was respected, or the film followed the spirit of Fleming.
There's an element of truth there DC. As I said further up this thread I suspect an alternative CR starring Pierce Brosnan and directed by Quentin Tarantino would have been hugely successful for two reasons:
-People liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond
-People like Quentin Tarantino and would be curious to see how he'd approach a Bond film.
Would it be AS faithful to Fleming? Probably not for the simple reason it would have been an OLDER Bond that we have seen before.
As long as QT's film is good, the film would have been a major success like CR with Craig. At the end of the day the Flemingesque aspect of the film is only relevant for 10%, if not less, of those who saw the film. Even if you displease them, or remove them from the box office gross, the film would still be a major success if the only spectators were those who had never read a Fleming novel, who let's face it are about 90%, if not more, or the total audience for Bond films nowadays.
Of course it is important. Without Fleming you would not have had a story. Even if they had not read the story - the story was still Flemings.
And a CR with Brozzer and Tarnatino would have been a bigger disaster then DAD. Even worse - Fleming fans would have despised both forever for destroying a good story.
It would have been up there with NSNA and CR67.
Thank you!!
Case in point that "people aren't worried about Fleming" will be Skyfall. From what I hear not much of Fleming will be included in the story but I doubt that will stop it being a hit.
Eh ? what kind of absurd argument is that ? Skyfall was not written by Fleming, yet it has a story. GE was not written by Fleming, yet the film still has a story. So even if CR'2006 had not been written by Fleming, it would have been a success because more than 90% of the audience can't make the difference between a Fleming story and a non-Fleming story.
The fact that you need to face that whether CR 2006 was faithful to Fleming, or had an original story, the film would have been a success, because a large majority of the audience don't know what a Fleming story is.
Your whole 'Fleming is important' is only true to those who read the novel, and they are a small minority. You can even remove them entirely from the box office gross, and CR2006 would still have been a major success. So fact is Fleming had nothing to do with the film's success.
How can Fleming's story be important, when a vast majority of the audience never read the novel ? They didn't say 'omg the film was so good and sooo flemingesque' when they walked out the theater, since they didn't know the original story.
Gotta disagree. Bond is a spy and he is also an assassin. He's paid to spy on and kill people. I doubt his license to kill means going around giving people warm hugs.
Fleming is obviously "important", he created Bond and without him our hero wouldn't exist. BUT he isn't the be all and end all when it comes to his success these days. For the last 30 odd years a lot of the Bond movies have used creative licence and contain relitively little Fleming material. Even the last film used hardly any source material (other than the title and a couple of fleeting references) but still took boatloads of dosh.
I agree with DC in that, as long as the story/actors are good/engaging, the film will go down well.
How many times was Bond actually SENT to kill people in the books? Relitively few. His job was primerily to investigate. However sometimes he had to kill if it led to that. That's what his licence to kill meant, kill if necessary and not be punished for it.
Tarantino wanted it set in the 50s, that to me sounds pretty faithful to the original right of the bat. There would've been changes but probably no more than in the version we got. I don't see how it would be a disaster. It would've been serious, which you seem to like, and probably wouldn't have had any gadgets or anything, like in the film we got. I like CR the way it is, but in a way, I wish the Brosnan/Tarantino version had been made. My favourite director and my 2nd favourite Bond? I would've definetly enjoyed it. And so would others, because like others are saying, barely anyone cares about Fleming. I like the books but as long as the films are good I don't care how close the films are to them.
I actually agree with this. I didn't read CR until after I saw the film.