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
That disqualifies almost all other entries to a sublevel.
You'll be losing that QoS admiration in the years to come, one you'll realise that QoS is like the SW prequels full of good intentions but not very good and a shamefull addition to a franchise.
But the film takes it to a more extreme level. Space battles, Jaws falling in love with Dolly etc. In the book, its fairly grounded stuff. [/quote]
What about the 50 Drax workmen all with shaved head and wearing moustaches ? Isn't that 'bizarre' ?
[/quote]
You're right. I'd forgotten about that to tell the truth.
I disagree, in the four years since its release, the feelings of QoS have only gone up. I don't think it'll ever be more than a sub par Bond film but it is not the disaster that many people (myself included) thought when it was first released
To be honest, other then FRWL and OHMSS, neither the lighter or darker Bond movies really capture how Bond talks and behaves in the books, he's much more grounded and normal then either portrayal. I don't find Fleming's Bond to be nearly as smooth talking and charismatic as the movies show him.... In the books he's just a normal joe who manages to fight his way out of stuff and when he does loose he never seems to get seriously injured...:-)
I don't for a minute believe the Bond stories are realistic but Fleming pulls you in and your convinced this "could" happen and that's what makes his style so appealing. The detail, the characters, the women... they all get presented in a realistic style and that is what the movies have to strive for. To be based on things and characters that would in reality never, or likely to never exist but are convincing enough to pull you in for 2 hours to make you believe they are. Thats Bond to me! And that is where movies like YOLT, MR and DAD loose me, because they become to "out there". Where the story and probability of such things happening is just to unbelievable. Don't get me wrong I still find them entertaining but they are not the quality movies of when they stick closer how Fleming presented his stories...
Just my 2 cents....
Sorry, but Fleming's novels are very weird and strange at times, which CR '06 completly fails at. I don't know if some people here went blind while reading the novels, but for me the books are much closer to the atmosphere of DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 than CR ' 06.
You know, the novels aren't just plots, they are an atmosphere, a feeling. And this atmosphere is pretty much really eery, strange and bizarre at times. Which is why when I watch DAF or TMWTGG, I really think Fleming could have wrote such stories.
CR '06 is the furthest you can go from Fleming's writings. That film is nothing like Fleming. It's the polar opposite of what Fleming wrote.
Sorry if I offend people here, but IMO DAF and TMWTGG are the closest we got to Fleming, with TLD, FRWL and OHMSS coming 2nd, MR not far behind and CR and QOS far far away in the last 2 places.
I didn't say everything from DAF '71 and MR '79 or TMWTGG '74 could have been written by Fleming. I am merely saying that many things from the novels fits more in the Moore outings, and many things from the Moore films and the DAF film could have been written by Fleming.
Take the 50 Drax workmen with moustaches and shaved heads. Such a thing could come straight from Moore's TMWTGG or Connery's DAF. Even the darkest of novels is more similar to Moore and DAF than Craig's films...
And again, you have to realize that the novels are also an atmoshere, that only DAF '71 and TMWTGG '74 conveyed very well. CR '06 couldn't be further from the Fleming atmoshere.
Again, that's not the issue. The issue is how to determine who or what is 'Bond'. The movies, or the books.
No I don't think YOUR reading the same books. You keep mentioned the 30 workers with moustaches and shaved heads.... its explained in the novel why they did it and the LAST thing I would call it is benign bizarre. What exactly is that anyway? I'd be curious to hear more examples of this. Also, what "strange atmosphere" and "eery feelings" are there. To state these claims without examples is not making a particularly valid claim. Fleming describes some unique settings (the old western town in DAF for example) but I do not get any sort of eery or bizarre feeling.... and since you are the only one using these words to describe Fleming this way I'm pretty sure your on your own with these opinions. Thats fine but don't jam it down our throats like we're "blind" as you put it.
I mentioned it in my TMWGG thread that I agreed the first half of that movie was very Fleming but MR and DAF?? Sorry but I completely disagree with you there. Maybe there is moments but they are completely ruined by characters and cheap scenes that both those movies suffer from. Personally I think the ending of DAF could have been a great Bond ending in a Fleming style but they failed miserably!
Perhaps. As would Bond being
Well there is the Castle of Death in YOLT @Vancouver007. That's pretty bazare. Not to mention a mute servant with a leathal, steel rimmed bowler hat.
Fleming wrote YOLT in 1963 after the films came out. So it could be argued he followed the films in adding bizzare stuff in. Certainly there are more straight thriller novels then fantasy (I count Dr No, GF and YOLT really)
I remember being rather suprised when I first read Dr No. I thought "Wow...Fleming's really going for it". So much for "gritty realism" ;)
The more I think about it the film of Dr No is more realistic than the book...but Fleming still hated it.
There's certainly a "quirkyness" to Fleming - I don't think you can argue that. The idea of the enemies setting up elaborate traps for Bond when he could just shoot him demonstrates the author's wild imagination. Most of the stuff Austin Powers makes fun of actually started in the books - not the films.
I think the "fantasy" stuff starts as early as LALD really. The elaborate Keel-hauling trap for Bond combined with the exotic setting and the plot involving "Mr Big" and "Vodoo"
But the films took the sending up to extremes. Guy Hamilton could handle it but when you have a hack like Lee Hamahori cackhandedly trying it thats where it goes splat.
Keelhaulinging is standard potboiler material. As is tying the girl to the railway tracks ala DAF or TMWTGG.
True but I suppose the books laid the groundwork for the films. As I recall both Mr Big and Drax spend ages explaining to Bond how he's going to be killed and how Bond has no chance of escape.
Keelhaulinging is standard potboiler material. As is tying the girl to the railway tracks ala DAF or TMWTGG.
[/quote]
Is it? I'm not really an avid reader to be fair but I've never seen (or heard of) other well known instances where keelhauling is used. I'm preparing myself to be proved wrong though ;)
Babs and Co made a huge decision when they made Casino Royale. They turned their backs on all the Bond films that went before, I include the first two as well (they being more "realistic"). They opted for a modern Bond that put its film past far behind it.
They tried to soften this by saying that Casiono Royale's Bond was much closer to the books but even a blind monkey could see that is a lie.
So what is left? A character named Bond who does not act in anyway like his film predecessor or the character described in the books (looks and character).
Very strange.
As opposed to above though - I can*t say how often I read and heard, that CR Bond or Dalton Bond with their gritty "realism" were much close to Flemming...Funny this...so obviously Moore (my fav) or Pierce were not very close to Flemming Bond - so what? Each time has their Bond and times change. After DC - who knows, what we will get. I doubt though, it will ever go down the Moore/Brosnan line again...
I don´t think there´s any resemblance whatsoever to the SW prequels. And I sharply disagree on QOS being a shameful addition to the franchise.
Newer fans may not care whether there's a resemblance between Fleming's Bond and the film Bond. Differences in opinion are what makes a horse race. But his name is on every movie. With most of the films, it's immediately after the star's name and right before the title.
Tom Mankiewicz has a harder last name to spell but it's rarely misspelled on message boards. For some reason, here, Commander Bond and other message boards, people spell it Flemming. Not picking on anyone, just have seen it a lot.
Exactly. And the only good thing about Star Wars is Yoda, about the only thing Lucas hasn't pissed with in an effort to ruin yet another famous franchise.