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
I did some research for an article I wrote for The James Bond Dossier website a while back and best I could find was 16,000 sales for the first week and 8,000 for the first week of Solo.
It sold well but was way down on 'DMC.'
I think the fact that Deaver is known as a "thriller" writer and the fact that he was promising a full on contemporary re-boot prevented 'CB' from incurring all of the 'DMC' negative fall out. Albeit when 'CB' itself proved to be a complete clunker, 'SOLO' really caught a major cold. Evidently sales were half that of 'CB' as the law of diminishing returns kicked in.
All of this gives credence to the adage that "you can fool em once, you can fool em twice but you can't fool em a third time."
Just as well because 'SOLO' turned out to be every bit as painful.
So, how did they go so wrong?
In my opinion, it's simple, the IFP board just don't fully understand Bond. I am sure they are nice, well meaning people but Bond they simply don't get. As a consequence they were seduced by the literati and probably thought after the mind numbing fan fiction of Benson, they had to bring an intellectual heavyweight to give credibility to the franchise. It could have worked but they got the wrong guy. Faulks simply took their wonga, wrote forty good pages and went down the pub. When he came back, he finished it with complete drivel.
Then, they must have thought they'd better get a thriller writer. So they recruited one who is more American than apple pie and who is about as international as George Bush jnr. He gave them 400 pages of complete cockamamy that, by the time they'd read them, had the average Bond fans trying to push their heads into a gas oven. Deaver, himself, appeared to take little joy in it. He even succeeded in looking like he was at a funeral when attending launch events surrounded by beautiful women.
After this debacle, I suspect the thought process was starting to crystallise and they thought; "I know were we have been going wrong — let's get a thriller writer who is also a member of the literati and then we'll be wearing belt and braces." So, they sent for friend Boyd. What a mistaka to maka. He turned Bond into a boring voyeur and sent him on a completely incoherent and indecipherable misadventure to an imaginary African country. All of this before returning him home to buy a shit brown Jensen Interceptor.
007 spent the whole book drinking volumes of alcohol that would have made George Best look teetotal probably, because he was wondering what the hell he was doing in this mess and how was he ever going to hold his chin up afterwards. By the time they had finished reading it, the average Bond fan was probably on his third bottle of Scotch as they tried to anaesthetise themselves.
Indeed, the only winner was Bentley who probably thought thank God Boyd left us out of this disaster.
Finally, post SOLO, maybe IFP thought "Houston we have a problem — we've half the sales" and this made them look for somebody who had actually made a success from a continuation novel. Given the IFP track record, I'm surprised they didn't go for P.D.James but thankfully they've landed up in the safe hands of one Anthony Horowitz. I'm sure he'll save their bacon because he well and truly gets it. He is a real Bond fan who knows he has to deliver a truly big Bond adventure.
All of this is, of course, a testimony to the fact that just because you inherit something doesn't mean that you understand it.
Barbara Broccoli understands the movie Bond because she has talent and has worked her
way up through her father's company. Writing is a solo exercise and nobody at IFP has been involved in the writing of the original books.
Consequently,to manage it and add value, they must completely understand the DNA of their product and have a massive enthusiasm for it.
On the evidence to date, I don't think they do understand the DNA and it's always difficult to be enthusiastic about something you don't understand.
Hopefully TM will be the start of a new chapter and they'll leave literary Bond in safe hands. We will see.
I'm wondering if the limited edition from Waterstones, with the Fleming treatment attached, is worth buying. I wonder how long this actual treatment is. Is it worth owning? The book is discounted which is good but I travel around, living in different countries, so I have pretty much switched to e books. I'm willing to make an exception for this limited edition hardback but I'm not sure if it's worth it. Has anyone else ordered this?
I also really just want them to stick with a time period. Keep writing Bond books that take place in the original Fleming time frame, or make them contemporary, but I really dislike all of this jumping back and forth.
I'm going to the event and will ask the question if nobody else does.
I have another question of my own so I'll see if I can squeeze it in.
Regarding the Waterstones edition - I'll have it because I because it's included in the ticket price. I've also ordered the Goldsboro numbered special edition (they've sold out) but that isn't shipped until October. But in answer to your question yes, I think the Waterstones edition will be worth it. I recently bought their special version of James Elroy's Perfidia and it misquote beautiful.
Have there been any details on the Waterstones Ltd Edition? I got a bit excited and ordered the Goldsboro one when I first heard about it but worried now that the Waterstones one will be better (not to mention earlier!)
The Goldsboro edition looks to be more luxurious as it boasts:
-UK First Edition, first print, 1 of a 1000 numbered & signed.
-Sprayed edges.
-Marker Ribbon
-Head & tail bands.
Why it's taking Goldsboro a month to get them out of the door, God only knows?
That said, the edition sold out super fast and will probably be the one to have from a collectors perspective.
Personally, I'd like to have picked my Goldsboro edition up, take it to the Waterstones event and have Horowitz dedicate it. That's not going to work so I'll finish up with both.
Doubtless Pussy Galore will be equally seductive in either!
Solo was released opposite the new and much applauded Mr Mercedes by Stephen King which is always a tough customer to beat. I did buy both but read the King before the Bond novel.
I do not care for Trigger Mortis unless the book is decent read and based upon his Holmes novels Horowitz should deliver, but I reserve judgement until I have read it myself. And I have it in pre-order.
We are all, apart from the select few, in that boat but I have confidence.
Yes, its a proof copy without the dust jacket. The retail hardback may not have the date on the back.
Not to the best of my knowledge but the publisher in the US is different. It's Harper Collins. If you contact them, they might let you know. I say might because I contacted Orion about the UK editions some time ago and they didn't have a clue.
@Dragonpol, if you mean this, I agree. It is a very nice touch and a clear nod to Chopping's 'Goldfinger' artwork. It's a shame the dust jacket is so insipid.
Agreed, though I'd prefer they keep it contemporary. You don't typically see Batman or Superman continuing to have their adventures set in the 1930s!
AGREED Jet
But then again a character like The Shadow, works best in his own era (which would be the '30's), And for me the Saint as well. So why not Bond in his coldwar era.
Doubtless this debate will rage ad infinitum but for me, the movies, with the exception of the first four Connery projects have little to do with Fleming's Bond and I think the literary creation functions best in the cold war era.
I think Horowitz has done a really smart thing setting TM between GF& TB and I'd love to see him place the next one between L&LD and MR. That way he will be really able to build the character and back story.
Of course, if somebody came along and did a really bang up job on a contemporary Bond I'd be first in line to buy it but not the politically correct nonsense of Deaver or the fan fiction of Benson. They were both for the read and laugh file!
Yes, there's certainly something to be said for that. I think that is one of the best ways for Bond to continue - a hero for our ever-changing times if you like.
The movies are a different matter - keep them in the current day.
I appreciate both opinions but personally I would prefer contemporary. Keeps Bond more relevant.
Literary Bond hasn't been handled well at all. Fine if they want to keep the Fleming timeline then so be it ( Did Fleming even keep that timeline?) but please no more duds.
I just hope that there aren't too many stake holders taking a cut to retain any serious author's long term commitment.
Personally, I think there are so many untaped marketing opportunities for this franchise that the author's remuneration shouldn't be an obstacle but you never know what the demands are from the different parties.
'Vintage 007 special edition featuring a re-designed and re-coloured cover, and perhaps even more excitingly an exclusive extract from Anthony Horowitz's new James Bond novel Trigger Mortis.'
http://www.ianfleming.com/vintage-releases-new-goldfinger-special-edition/