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
Riding off of Fleming's last line in CR: "The B_tch is dead." If the book had continued, I could easily see Bond (in the next chapter) hunting down the SMERSH agent that killed LeChiffre. Once he nabs him, he brings him in for questioning, when they learn he's really with SPECTRE, and an agent inside the room attacks Bond and M, and lets him escape. Bond then kills the insider, and pursues the agent. Then we have the very Fleming Opera scene which could fit easily into a Fleming Book. The book could end with Bond killing the SMERSH/SPECTRE agent at his hotel ala QoS finale. etc etc.
In fact, I almost think CR (the book) should have been followed with a revenge plot, or at least ended with one. LALD completely drops any notion of losing someone he was almost married to!
And the reason QoS the film appeared to be like Bond was because Eon + Forster brought on many from the Bourne team. Its not a Picasso-copy if you get Picasso himself!
MR the movie close to the Fleming story? Are you completely mad! I know you've read the books so where you are getting this is beyond me. Moonraker the book has NOTHING in common or have any resemblance to the movie! And I'm not just talking about the story.... the characters share one thing.... their names, that's it! The film character of Hugo Drax could not be more different, in looks, traits, everything...
And you criticize QOS being a Bourne style, modern movie, yada yada which I won't even argue, it very likely is influenced by it, the EXACT way MR was influenced by SW and other space movies of the time, that's the Bond producers for ya. At least QOS is gritty and realistic unlike MR which has a completely fantastical, unrealsitic story (Jaws in space, yeah that's JUST like the Fleming story...) Give me a break....
Eh ? MR the film may not be close to the MR novel, but this Moore outing could very well be a Fleming novel.
Really? I think you might be a fair bit off the mark there DC. Fleming had a few proposterous moments but nothing like the double-take pigeon or Jaws falling in love. That's just like a cartoon.
Maybe not those 2 examples, but IMO the MR film still feels very much Fleming, even if the film didn't follow the original novel at all. I've always found the Fleming novels more comical than some here think.
Boy one thing you can't argue with is your wild and vivid imagination...:-)
IF you want talk about "INSULT" to the original novel, Moonraker is an insult to the original novel then, plot wise, acting wise and the character itself.
The original book by Fleming was rather dated by 1979, so the character Bond had to go bigger. And he did just that, there are some very dark moments in MR and overal it is a very good actioner/adventure story which is something that remains true to the Flemingtales. (MR & TSWLM are in my book the best books written after Flemings demise, mr Wood did excellent work)
The other remake of MR, namely DAD, also runs into a lot of critism.
Perhaps it proves that MR the book is very good, but has dated so badly that it is impossible to film it actually.
CR 2006 is a much bigger insult to Fleming than Moore's MR. The '79 MR felt like Fleming to me, atleast much closer to Fleming than Craig's CR or QOS.
How DC? Other than the name Drax and the space programe theme what connection does the film have with the book?
Royale may have had a few changes but at least the fundimentals were the same. Bond having to beat LeChiffe at the card table, almost losing but getting a last minute reprieve, almost getting killed while still at the table, getting his balls wacked, falling in love with Vesper and then Vesper dying in the last reel.
I didn't say MR followed the original novel to the letter, but IMO MR captured much more the spirit of Fleming's writings than CR could ever dream of doing. Sorry, but IMO Moore's MR is just more Flemingesque than the insult that was CR 2006. For me, Craig and his 2 movies are the furthest the franchise have gotten to Fleming. As I've said before, when I read the novels, I find them more comical and closer to the TMWTGG or DAF movies than some members here do.
You're being vague. Give me actual examples of how MR '79 captures the spirit of the original book.
You don't understand - MR '79 doesn't capture the spirit only of the original MR novel, but to Fleming's oeuvre as a whole. The benign bizarre, the atmosphere, the strangely comical scenes, the eery feel, Bond the bon vivant... all these elements puts MR '79 much closer to Fleming than CR '06. I will say again - the novels are not serious espionnage stuff. They are much more strange, funny, larger-than-life, bizarre than that.
There's an atmoshere in the novels that the MR, DAF and TMWTGG flicks captured very well.
I never understood how people say the novels are extremely serious, low-key stuff. Even the darkest novel, which IMO is MR, has more elements in common with Connery's DAF than Craig's CR. There's the strange atmosphere, the eery feel and the benign bizarre that are completly absent in CR '06, that are much more present in DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74.
I guess there is an element of truth to that statement but still, relitively little (if any) of the MR novel is in the film. That's pretty much a fact.
Where the hell are their comical moments in the novels?? And how aren't they espionage when a majority is very realistic to how things are done, as well as how life being an agent would've been if you were in Bond's place. The travesty that is the tongue and cheek DAF and Moore films are a disgrace to anything trying to be Flemingesque, and calling MR, DAF, or any Moore film more Flemingesque than CR or any recent outings is utter tripe.
There's also Dr No's death which sees him getting buried under bird poo.
There was a cardgame, Le Chiffre, Vesper Lynd & abduction & assassination of Le Chiffre that was fairly close to the novel. But overall it lacked Flemings touch and EON chose for action ending instead of a sober ending. CR is a fairly sober tale and shows the fragility of 007 and he gets hurt. The movie was more Thug 007 and the romance between him and Vesper was just unbelieveable her ending a spectacle instead of the sober shock it was in the book. There was nothing for 007 to do or rescue, in the movie it was the opposite. A fairly different approuch imho.
MR, mad vengefull man, of Ubermensch background, wants to take revenge on England with a large rocket - the movie: mad vengefull man obsessed with British culture wants to destroy the human race but repopulate it with his own "supermen & women".
I didn't say MR '79 is the exact transposition to the screen of the MR novel !! I'm just saying the MR film captures much more the spirit of Fleming's writings as a whole (not just the 1 novel).
CR '06 is a much bigger disgrace to Fleming. Sorry if I offended you, but I am simply saying that in *my opinion*, DAF and TMWTGG captured much more the atmosphere and feel and spirit of the novels than CR '06 could ever dream of doing. And IMO (again), Moore in Golden Gun is the closest performance to Fleming's Bond any actor has done in the franchise.
And we don't seem to have read the same novels. There is a strange atmosphere and benign bizarre to the novels that DAF and TMWTGG captured very well. CR '06 is the complete opposite of that Fleming wrote. It's nowhere near the novels... I see no similarity at all.
And we'll have to agree to disagree, because I find the novels to be much more fun than you say they are.
Sorry again, but IMO DAF' 71 and TMWTGG '74 have much more in common with Fleming than CR '06. The eery feel, benign bizarre and strange atmosphere are very present in those 2 films, but are completly absent in the 2006 CR film.
There isn't really any to tell the truth. I suppose there are times when Fleming has a bit of a giggle but most of the time its fairly straight faced. They are "fun" though and certainly a good, enjoyable read.
Maybe, but there is a particular feel and atmosphere to the novels that CR '06 is very far from.
Why?? I never said I didn't enjoy them. Aside from the dreadful LALD I adore CR and MR is shaping up nicely to the point where I reluctantly put it down. I am sure FRWL will astound me as well as the Blofeld trilogy, but to put it simply I do love them, and I never said anything that contradicts that. But just like how I like the films, I like Bond to be realistic as possible, and acting in a cold, calculating, and ruthless manner. Hence my love of Sean at the top of the throne as well as of Dan. I have a lot of respect for Tim, Roger I just can't sit through, and Pierce is an assisted suicide. That's just how I feel.
What about the 50 Drax workmen all with shaved head and wearing moustaches ? Isn't that 'bizarre' ?
Sorry but James Bond was never supposed to be that way. If you want that go watch Bourne or BBC's Spooks. Bond is fun, larger than life. Bond movies are meant to make us escape every day life and make us enter a wonderful, fun, epic world.
Where have you gotten this definition of Bond ? He was never meant to be that way !! Your definition of Bond is the exact opposite of what he is supposed to be.
You have to accept that Bond is larger than life, epic, fantastic in scope. Bond is not Bourne or Spooks. Leave the realistic stuff to them. Sorry but your definition of Bond is very worrying.... it doesn't fit Bond at all. If you want a very realistic world and character, well I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you've picked up the wrong franchise.
**** Sorry if I sound rude 0Brady... I'm just really passionate when it comes to such subjects.
I tend to disagree with you're opinions but I respect them. I'll admit while I love the serious Bond film, a part of me loves the fantasy aspect. Let's hope Skyfall will give us the best of both worlds
Exactly what I think, and what I wanted to say in the "Controversial" thread. Great post.
What source material are you reading? I haven't gotten through all the book, but I'm pretty damn sure Bond never does half the things attempted in the Moore/Brosnan eras.
The only 'larger than life' aspect to Bond is his ability to not die, get out of any situation, and get any woman. REAL spies do travel, to fight hand to hand, DO NOT launch attacks on huge fortresses of baddies (because they don't exist), and all that is perfectly exemplified in Fleming's work.
Look, to EVERYBODY, There are multiple Bonds.
1. Book Bond. Basically a conglomeration of Fleming and all his buds during his war days. Realistic, gritty, and honest in the portrayal of his character and the world he lives in.
2. Light Movie Bond. Any time Bond has a huge, sweeping epic adventure where he does something completely a work of fiction, inspired by no real event or occurrence. (i.e. ninja attacking a volcano lair; chasing a bad guy into space)
3. Heavy Movie Bond. The dark side of the character. Often realistic, but doesn't have to be. When Bond has little humor, and is essentially out for one thing (i.e. revenge, justice)
We all have our picks. 2 and 3 make up 1 in many ways, but you can't even try to argue that Bond is one universal character among 23 films and dozens of books.
It appears we haven't read the same books. Your love of the camp has appeared to blind you of what Bond is at his roots. I'm not talking about the OTT films or sweeping epics at all. Just how Bond is outside of some of the more fantastical films. The literary Bond has instances of fantastical nature ie. beautiful women, the best cars, the best drinks, some strange villains, and the classic spy glorification, but the character itself could've been so much more in the franchise, and something only a few films in the franchise have captured. Bond loves women, sure, but the films have at times turned him into a sex pig who sleeps with countless women over the course of the film. With Fleming's Bond he waits until the mission is over before bedding his woman, because he wants all his focus and energy at the task at hand, something some of the films lack completely. The literary Bond gets beaten and bruised, and can fail. We've seen this at times, but Tim was one of the few who portrayed that well, and now Dan is doing well at it. Bond should be taking damage from all the stuff he is doing, and his weaknesses should become apparent to the viewer. A lot of the films don't even touch on that, and that is truly sad. I want to see Bond bleed for his cause and root him on through the tough battle he is fighting. The literary Bond is very cold, very calculating, and very, very ruthless. I don't see where you are getting this idea of Bond not meaning to be that way. CR is the perfect example. A straightforward novel that perfectly illustrates Bond being ruthless, smart in the face of danger, and beaten badly both at cards and in torture. THAT is Bond to me. The man who sets his feelings aside to do his duty, and can be ruthless through the double dealing and pain he has inflicted upon him both physically and mentally. That is how Fleming wrote him, and that is how he should be, damn it all. Have people really lost all memory of the original Bond, the Bond that is the focus of the franchise that has more often than not spat on the literary characterization?