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
1) I have not read all the Fleming books. I’m reading them in order of publication and I’m up to book #7, Goldfinger. So this opinion is subject to change (but I doubt it will).
2) I have a Master’s degree in Creative Writing and Comparative Literature and I’m a published author (I also have a Masters in Music Theory and Composition and Guitar Performance, but that’s a subject for another time). I’m not saying this to puff myself up, but only to point out that this isn’t some knee jerk opinion from an illiterate bum. I have some (not a lot, but some) expertise in the subject of writing.
Now to it.
To put it simply, the works of Ian Fleming are not well written.
Now before everyone gets their knickers in a snit, let me give the man his due. Ian Fleming created an enduring and engaging character in James Bond. His books are entertaining and his story ideas are generally creative and engaging.
But the man was a second-rate writer at best. What I mean by that is, stacked next to the truly great authors – Joyce, Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, Faulkner, Garcia-Marquez, etc. – Fleming is nothing more than a genre-bound hack. His writing is highly mannered and pedestrian. His dialogue is too often laughably stiff. His power of description – of place or action – is facile and clumsy. His works do not offer any metaphysical or psychological insight or significant comment on the nature of man or good and evil.
Let me stop here and say, ironically enough, that I’m enjoying reading the Bond novels. They’re a good romp. For all his technical flaws as writer, Fleming can spin a good yarn. But, again, they are not well written. I can only enjoy them because I’m able to forgive the clunky, borderline amateurish, writing skills of the author.
Now when we examine the movie Bonds we find much of the same flaws - simplistic story lines, a reliance on formula, a lack of any deeper meaning or message. But the films, unlike the books, are impeccably made.
Take Casino Royale as an example. The book is almost laughably bad in its writing (again - great story, bad execution). But the movie is beautiful to watch. It is obviously a film made by people who know how to make films – the acting, directing, cinematography, editing, etc., are all top notch. Although there is no book to compare it to, the same could be said for Skyfall. It’s an amazingly well put together film that is beautiful to look at.
So I'll re-state my “controversial opinion” to be more precise: The Bond movies are better films than the original Fleming works are novels.
Well said that man. I read Fleming to be entertained. And entertained I am.
Well said @0Brady.
Lets be honest the novels were always escapist nonsence (i.e. "fun"). Having listened to some of them recently on audiobook they are very much "fairytales for adults". They are meant to be taken completely completely seriously and some of the characters are boarderline parody's (Drax for example). However Fleming's text really lulled you into his (Bond's) world in real style and beauty yet made it accessable for the common man. Some of the prose made me re-wind the CD and listen to it again. One of my favourite passages is the final few paragraphs of MR when Gala rejects Bond - Fleming ends an otherwise rather over-the-top novel in a beautiful, moving way. That IS great writing.
Fleming wasn't perfect and some of his passages really make your mouth drop open in disbelief. Characters deliver lengthy speeches which probably wouldn't happen in the real world. But the pro's outweigh the cons for me.
Listen, I grew up a punk rocker. The Sex Pistols really did change my life. So did the Germs, the Birthday Party, Nirvana, and a dozens of others. Without them I never would have found the incredible, live-saving outlet of musical expression. This discovery (and an open, curious mind) eventually lead me to study music at university and in turn discover artists and composers such as Miles Davis and Stravinsky.
Here’s the thing: even though I’ve composed for orchestras and performed for rooms full of people in black tie, I still love punk. I still consider myself a punk. I’m still just as likely to throw on a disc by the Circle Jerks as I am Beethoven. But I don’t let my love for punk/rock blind me to the fact that Beethoven is working on an entirely different level than Johnny Rotten (god bless him).
We all love Fleming’s work. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t. At the same time, it’s ok to love the work without having to elevate it to something it’s not. We can be honest about the shortcomings of our favorite things. It takes nothing away from our experience of them, trust me.
We all know that Fleming is not going to go down as one of the greats of literature but if I want to be entertained I would still rather read a Bond novel than Shakespeare, Dickens, Hemingway et al.
What's your point exactly?
It was a lighthearted opinion that I thought would be fun to discuss. Didn't think it would turn into such a heated war of words.
Anytime someone looks at a work and its adaptation and say "I like this one more", it's sure to spark very heated debates.
Yeah, to be fair even the best Bond film doesn't stack up to Citizen Kane or any Bergman film, as far as "film as art" goes. But that's beside my point.
As for being elitist, I think I'm actually being the exact opposite. I think I'm anti-elitist.
I read and enjoy Fleming even though I know he's not in the same universe as Shakespeare. And that's ok in my book. I love to listen to Mudhoney even though I know it's roughly 1/10000000th as complex or accomplished as Bartok. Many people - including a good number of your professors I would guess - wouldn't be caught dead reading Fleming. I say, why not enjoy it all? But "enjoying it all" does not mean we declare everything of equal accomplishment or value. Can’t we differentiate between great art and lesser art while still enjoying both? I don’t see why not.
Personally I don't see the harm in enjoying things that are less than "high art". I just don't feel the need to rationalize my enjoyment of them by trying to elevate them to "high art". Fleming is the perfect example. I love reading his books. But I know they're not very well written and Fleming is in no danger of winning the Nobel Prize.
The truth is, what I get from PJ Harvey and Fleming I can't get from Mozart or Garcia-Marquez, and vice-versa. So why not enjoy both?
But I don't think saying out loud that PJ Harvey is no Mozart, or Fleming is no Garcia Marquez is in any way denigrating those artists. Is saying that a Picasso painting is better than my velvet Elvis disrespecting the velvet Elvis? (No, I don't actually have one, but let's assume I did for arguments sake.) I don't see how it is, anymore than saying that Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than I am is somehow disrespecting me. It's simply stating a fact or value judgment. It's not passing moral judgment.
QoS is actually a great movie. The plot may be a bit stupid, but I've always loved the villain.
Dalton is my favorite Bond, followed by Craig (for some reason this is controversial.) Never been a big fan of Connery.
I actually really like the first half of DAD, it has some truly great scenes. As soon as they get to Iceland it just turns to shit.
Lazenby is great as Bond. A bit wooden, true, but I still really like him.
TND and TWINE are both excellent movies. Especially TWINE, I honestly have no idea why people hate it. I also have no problem with Denise Richards, there's nothing separating her from Holly Goodhead or any of the other "brainy" Bond girls.
I've never really liked Pleasance's Blofeld. Savalas' is my favorite, and Gray is actually a damn good villain. Maybe it shouldn't have been Blofeld though, but I really like him. Maybe that's the RHPS nerd in me talking.
Dr. No is a slow, boring movie, with the only redeeming point being the dinner scene with No and Bond.
I understand the need for Brosnan, without him the series would probably have died out, but I still despise him. His movies are okay, but he's far and away the worst Bond. He has the best gun barrel and "Bond, James Bond" though.
Blashpemy
You like TND and TWINE yet dislike Brosnan...
As for QoS, I agree. It is a great movie.
Liking the movies and liking the guy playing Bond is two completely different things. I adore TND because of the villain (obviously), and I adore TWINE because of Elektra.
-Compared to the novels, the James Bond films look like kid's stuff. Even the best Bond film can never match the narrative and the intensity that Ian Fleming had served to us.
-I hate George Lazenby. He didn't do anything commendable in OHMSS except for the ending scene: it closes all our doubts about him and opens a whole new book on how he could have been a great actor. He gave us hope. Then what? He quit the series because he can't milk enough money from Cubby and Harry. And that's not even the end of the story. He gives interviews on how the series degenerated since he went away, saying they're "just in for the money", "they're way too violent nowadays", and how his film "was the only film was the only one that gave Bond a heart. In short, he became the Kanye West of the James Bonds.
-While we're at it, I think Sean Connery's presence alone could've made OHMSS a much better film. He should've stayed in OHMSS instead of the wretched mess that is DAF.
-I actualy like AVTAK. I don't care if Sir Rog is old. It's a good farewell for him.
-As much as I like Timothy Dalton (he's my favorite Bond), I give myself a giant facepalm all throughout the Afghanistan sequence in TLD. It aged terribly.
-Pierce Brosnan doesn't deserve all the bashing he receives. He is an amalgamation of Connery's and Moore's Bonds. Come to think of it, he could've been the perfect cinematic James Bond. The bashing must go to the TWINE and DAD, not Pierce.
-I really like Daniel Craig as Bond (he's my third favorite actor). He's a very, very, very good actor. But he's too overrated. I don't get why people put him in a very high ranking, why his films are the best, why he's the best Bond ever, how he usurped Connery... god... there's nothing he has done that Connery, or even Dalton, hadn't done, and they did it even better. Best James Bond ever? Sean's going to electrocute you with a lamp. Dark, gritty Bond? Tim's reaching for the lighter in his pocket. What we must acclaim Craig for is heralding the James Bond Renaissance: bringing back the series to it's former glory.
1/ I think that Barbara Bach is incredibly wooden, unconvincing and delivers her lines really badly in TSWLM and is definitely NOT one of the 'great' Bond girls that she is often hyped as being. The character maybe but definitely not the performance. I do also feel that TSWLM generally is pretty poor with one of the dullest villains in the series. Got to love the look on Roger's face as he's dropping that fish out of the car window on the beach though!
2/ GoldenEye is seriously overrated. I think the N64 game gives the film a nostalgia effect for a lot of people and, while it is superb in parts and atmosphere, a lot of it is quite boring and does not hold up well. I think TND is a much better and slicker overall package.
3/ Why is Live And Let Die always rated so highly?! I don't deny the amazingly memorable villains but apart from that I can't think of much that it has going for it, it's slow and full of tedious padding (how long did that boat chase need to be??)
Brosnan was an awful Bond cause he wasn't and i never feel he was comfortable playing Bond. So much pressure put on his shoulders as the chosen one, he never was a great actor and came across Smug in the role. He has his fans and Goldeneye is an enjoyable watch but he deserves the bashing cause he could have stood up and said how he felt about the scripts he was given but played it safe.
Craig is no were near overrated and he has dragged this franchise which was lagging and made it important again and dare i say it made Bond "Cool" again which hasn't be anywhere near cool since Connery's Goldfinger. Erm... he's made Bond human which Connery never did . So that shows you're all wrong saying he's done nothing different. Dalton never went as deep as Craig did in CR and QOS shown a man on the brink of loosing it after been betrayed by the woman he loves. Craig if his Bon continues to be as good as his first three will certainly taking his place along with Connery as the number one Bond,
I think you've exemplified why some peope consider him overrated. The two points you raised stem directly from the nature of the stories/scripts they've run with during his tenure. Whether anyone would have done better is difficult to say and naturally Craig does a great job but as no one else was granted this kind of freedom with the character I think it's very difficult to compare. Now that we have entered this new era it will be interesting to see how his successor performs as I think the 'humanising' of the character is here to stay.
He didn't write the scripts and the only actor to get any control over the script was Craig, he's been extremely lucky. Dalton was given LTKs script days before shooting.
You can't say Brosnan deserves the ridiculous ammount of bashing he gets on here because it was his fault for the scripts. And "he should've said he didn't like them!!!" is a stupid reason frankly.
And honestly I don't think his first 3 scripts were as bad as people make out. Especially GE and TWINE, I love those films.
I hate to break this to you as you obviously think Craig is some kind of hero who saved the franchise which hadn't been popular since the 60s, but anyway: Stop with the whole "he made Bond cool again" thing. Bond has always been cool. It's always been popular, that's why the series kept going. Craigs made lots of money but "he made Bond cool again" is a stupid statement.
And Dalton went just as deep if not deeper than Craig, even though he had much less freedom over it.
In The Living Daylights the whole stuff my orders exchange showed an older, burnt out Bond. Yeah they did that in Skyfall but it's much easier to show an older burnt out agent if you give him a beard and show him f*cking up his training tests. Dalton gets it across with that one line.
In Licence To Kill he went rogue on a personal revenge mission and ended up burning a man alive, not for England, not for MI6, but because he was pissed off that his friend had been hurt. If that's not Bond on the brink of losing it I don't know what is, and Bond has never been rogue or anything in Craigs films.
John Barry is an exceptional composer who would not put his name to anything sub-standard. Arguably, I think TLD is the last true Bond soundtrack. Barry is Bond! Barry got the cues totally correct and his signature Bondisms are there.
Barry correctly captured the aims of the film and the style of the new actor. I don't think a TND style score would suit the grittiness of Dalton.
David Arnold is great to, but he is copying the Barryisms and is an imitation of Barry. He admits it himself. What is new about Arnold that Barry has not done?. In fact, I put forward that Arnold is a repetitive composer who recycles many ideas.
It was Barry who took the Monty Norman idea and made it into the signature classic.
The Craig era was made possible by the success of Bourne. EON realised that they needed to seriously get away from tired formula.
Dalton never went as deep as Craig? How can you compare a Bond starting out to a Bond who is at the end of his career? At the time Dalton captured the qualities in Fleming's novel. Seeing Bond with true anger and rage was something else. He conveyed many emotions and conflicts inside.
And most importantly, Dalton re-established the truer aspects of the character that Fleming wrote about. Less fun and games, but no more double taking pigeons and Bond doing Tarzan impressions. Dalton had a huge mountain to climb in an era where thanks to the spoofing of Bond for years, the public lost respect for the franchise.
Dalton had immense depth that was lost on a the general public who thought Bond is Roger Moore.
In CR, we see a Bond who makes some mistakes and it will have consequences that make him into the classic archetype Bond we all know. Craig's era was designed to take the character and show him in a new light. It was pre-conceived. The Dalton era was trying to balance the old and bring in newer aspects gradually. Dalton himself said he would love to have had the scripts Craig got. He also said there were certain preventions as not everyone involved in the production saw Bond the same way.
The Craig era had the whole production singing from the same sheet. Everyone was 100% percent behind it. No half measures.
Connery had very human qualities as Bond. Even in DAF when Connery slaps a woman by the pool where the drowned girl is, he is as human as they come and certainly shocking.
Dalton himself loved Connery's grit and what he achieved in the first two films especially.
Craig is an amalgamation of Connery and Dalton. A fine blend if you ask me. Best of both worlds. But updated for the world today. Bond has to be intelligently evaluated in it' own era. It is unfair to compare.
You have to remember that the Bond films reflect the attitudes of their time. Some are uncomfortable but the reality.
Nice one @Thelivingroyale Bond has always been cool and popular. I cannot give Craig credit for that exclusively. Bond survived in profit for 44 years before CR was released.
And Cubby himself said Bond has survived because of the actor differences. If they were all the same, the series would have died off years ago.
The Bond you see today as far as depth is concerned is a continuation and update of the qualities Dalton introduced. Just like Connery introduced the style and humour. Credit where it is due.
Damn, some will credit Craig for the invention of the one liner and nice suits :)
And Bond was very successful with Brosnan. His first two were fine entries.
Nice one @acoppola. We're on the same wavelength at this one.
Tim really did went deep with his portrayal of the character. He was passionate about it. To say that Tim is nowhere as deep as Craig is like saying Gardner or Benson made better novels than Fleming himself. Craig himself acknowledged Dalton as a model for his Bond. And as for the showing the dark side of Bond, you're right: Dalton's grit makes more sense because he's a Bond who had been through too much, he's burned out, seen too much of violence and death, unlike Craig, who exhibited too much agitation immediately after being promoted to the 00-Section.
And yes, James Bond has to go through the times. Daniel Craig's running perfectly as James Bond today because his foes our our foes as well. He's the James Bond for our generation. Tim didn't had much audience back in the late 80's because the world's head was turning around constantly like nuts. Gorbachev was starting to open up Russia and make up with the West. AIDS was spreading quickly. Marty McFly went to 2015 and Guns N Roses released Appetite for Destruction. Tim was the right Bond at the wrong time. Thanks to Craig for reliving a Bond who was short lived, and is now alive again as his own.
Thank you @emilbertillo Well put! Plus Dalton had the right image as Bond. Bond is known as Tall, Dark and Handsome. Dalton fits it like a glove as does Connery and Brosnan. Though Dalton and Connery really have those chiselled features as in cruel. Both have a sadistic side to them which is unpleasant but true to the man Fleming described.
I agree Craig is a really good actor but his Bond image as in different from described does not quite do it for me. I get very irked when some denigrate Dalton and call Craig "Mr Perfect!". I would have preferred Clive Owen as Bond. He is more the archetype we have been used to for decades. Or James Purefoy who was great in Solomon Kane and wanted to do Bond.
EON promoted Brosnan as a perfect Bond and Craig was a radical change for me. EON cannot have it both ways. Brosnan was called Mr Perfect and now Craig? I see a disparity myself as in the look.
My friend's nephews and his friends who have hardly seen the Bond of yesteryear do love Craig. But they are huge Matt Damon fans who love Bourne. So Craig was a non-issue and is very comparable to that style.
There is a lot in Craig's Bond that was never in Fleming. Craig has some Fleming but no question a cross pollination of other modern film action heroes. It is not hard to check it out these days.
Dalton was very close to what Fleming wrote and it was a cold bucket of water for audiences who believed Moore was the real Bond. Despite Bond's huge mass appeal, few know his origin or roots in the literary sense. Very surprising considering people have huge opinions yet do not know the full picture.
By all means those who enjoy Craig are welcome and he is a good Bond. But unlike Moore's praise, I cannot say Craig is better than Connery. The Bondisms as in cliche of Bond are Connery all the way. Connery nailed that and at best, Craig is a good mimick of some of those aspects. Because it has already been brilliantly done and cannot be improved. When Craig says to Q "You must be joking?!" in SF, I challenge anyone here to tell me he does it better in that delivery.
Dalton kept well away from the cliche or Connery wannabe aspects. By doing that he made a Bond totally his own. Love it or hate it, you know it and it creates strong opinion which means he did his job.
Craig is super good at the action. But that is not what made Connery alone. Even a relaxed Connery in DAF still gives Craig a run for his money. The delivery of the one liners in the funeral home is beautiful as just one example. And you look at Connery and just know he is Bond.