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
And I don't think it will work. Despite the old saying, it’s not true that any publicity is good publicity. When the media is loudly talking about how racist the Bond books are and how the new editions are censored attempts to cover that up…well, that's not good publicity! And having this emerge right after the fracas over Roald Dahl is the worst sort of timing.
There might be a few people who rush out to buy the novels now that they've been partly sanitized, but I think most people who enjoy reading books dislike censorship, dislike being told by interlopers which versions of an author's work they should read, and respect the author's preferred version of a book.
Perhaps there will be new readers who won't realize they've read censored versions. But living in that state of innocence is much harder with the internet. I suspect many of those readers will feel resentful or angry at being soft-soaped. And is the sort of reader who applauds censoring racism going to be happy when they read books that are still outrageously sexist and Imperialist?
The overall nature of the Bond novels means they won't appeal to any reader who can't appreciate that "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" (to quote L.P. Hartley). If you can't enjoy reading about a Imperialist who goes around killing foreigners and objectifying beautiful women during the 1950s, and if you don't get off on fast cars, hetero sex, gambling, and torture, then Bond just isn't for you, no matter how censored the books are. IFP wants "to protect the brand," without understanding the brand's inbuilt limits. Instead of giving new readers methods to contextualize the books, it has chosen to treat them like children who mustn't be exposed to offensive material. What a wretched way to celebrate Bond's 70th anniversary!
We own the original works... Remember Fahrenheit 451... I will be Moonraker.
Can I please be Casino Royale then?
History isn't supposed to represent the world we live in today, that's the point. If you remove the history from history then what's the point in looking back to begin with?
The cave painting reference had crossed my mind too. Or think of more recent paintings. Say someone were to take a big brush and paint over 300-year old work of art, just to cover up genitalia. Or what if we were to cut away the parts of a statue that we disagree with?
But wait, some will say, that kind of art is unique, so it's different. Well, it's not different to me. Intellectual property, like an author's words, is unique too. Only the writer himself can choose to mess with it after the fact, the same way that only Da Vinci could have trimmed the Mona Lisa's eye brows and given her a pair of ear rings.
No one else, not even 'heirs' or 'the estate' can start changing things whimsically (and it is all fairly whimsical when you think about it, catering to the sensitivities of 2023 which are most likely different than those of 2035 will be, and only selectively altering things, and so on). The only thing I consider tolerable is for a text to be transcribed when it is really old (centuries!) and most people no longer speak the language. And even then, you print the original next to the newer version. Then still, however, you don't remove words that you think are offensive; if anything, you find contemporary offensive words to replace them with.
It's really simple: you don't want to read something because you're worried that it will offend you? Then don't bloody read it. But of course, some people want to make money off of these books. And they will stop at nothing to boost sales. And the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that that is what this is all about. Hey, good for them if it works (which I doubt). Still, the people representing Ian Fleming are doing a terrible job representing Ian Fleming.
Was Mr Bean the restorer there?
I like David, he's always level headed and enthusiastic about the series
Absolutely!
Talking to my Wife about this and she said LOTS of books have gone through this over the Centuries... but that's no reason to actively continue on this piss poor path.
16 Years and older (Dutch R-rating)
Possible include:
Good to see that there more often use it for tv when there going to expect people raised volume of speaking too.
Sometimes some gerne of movie's there don't at Scream / Discrimination logo because there thinking gerne (War, News) and age said enough. There use 16, Scary and Violence. I think be better if two logo's be include too or mabey used insteed. There is a risk people no longer whant to see it, but atleast you let people know and that's what in first where symbols used for.
Since a year or two there changed 16+ for tv screenings a litle bit with those movie's are now also aloud to show after 08.00 PM (12+ rule) with big warning note on screen and with voice over (With Season 2 of Hamilton on Dutch Public Channel there even repeat 16 logo and Scary/Fair logo). 16+ rank for cinema stil remain as rule not as advice as 6, 9, 12 and 14 are. The last one is introduced begin 2021. The 14 symbol moost of time will be used for young adult movie's with a litle bit of sex or subject people from 14 or 15 whant to see or talk about.
There can have considerd for NTTD have been first 14 age logo who introduced in January 2021. There can have considerd to give drugs logo for the scene's with Madeline mother. But more inportent be or actualy realy should show 11 year old Daniel Craig Bond movie.
https://screenmusings.org/movie/dvd/Casino-Royale/images/Casino-Royale-0828.jpg
Stairs fight possible in 90's get 16+ and with more loud audio / music i think CR is wrong rank as 12+.
But i have strong believe it must be your time / you can handle is more inportent. Also made difrence between cinema and at home. Creative making story can help a lot, this why i can handle Harry Potter novels and some chooses there make with Bond. Another is one X-men Fox films, i think X-men first class who be creative with German/English actor.
The books that go to the fase that books been released should remain and if needed with higher classification or some notes in later print if realy needed.
Not sjure or books have symbols, but for exampple Harry Potter novels get 10+ advice.
With comic book like Kuifje (Tin Tin) you see that make re-releases with more modern words, overall replacing words for a black person for a better word. Nothing wrong with that and people who whant first print can stil buy that one. Video from another Dutch Bondfan said something about Roald Dahl. Like him i don't understand issues of those example's.
On my wishlist to have some Fleming novels in more modern bigger version with bigger lettertype and cheaper and mabey some modern words for easier to read. But it be very inportent how original author / author translater mean it. If need i take Zwarte Beertjes (Black Bear Pockets) that i have. Not realy much read them.
Translaters also made some mistakes too. for 5th Potter book admit he made mistake with Luna's second name and should keep it as Luna Lovegood. Translater of Roald Dahl mabey thaught Charlie sound to English in rest of title translation and made Sjakie from it. Also American title is diftent then original English first Potter novel/film is.
In The Netherlands and Belgium Sony discrimated us since every movie or tv serie from June 2021 and later from them no longer be relased on Dvd, BD, 3D and 4K. Disney, Paramount and Warner a couples of times missing Dutch subs on misleading releases.
I think if David Zaritsky spoke to the publishers they'd do am immediate u-turn. Damn this guy always hits the nail on the head!
I believe he has some pull as he’s been bulding his presence in the Bond lore for years now. The truth is, he’s currently the voice as far as the Bond universe is concerned. He’s earned that place, IMO, being bith interested and respectful. He could very well mobilise us into a petition, presented by him. I’d sign it today.
He’s a good guy. Very enthusiastic.
Hergé's a great example of someone who learned and improved, from the crude caricatures in the early books to meticulous research and depiction. It would be a loss if we couldn't still read Congo and Soviets for comparison.
This guy says it really well. And I completely agree with everything.
If the argument against sensitivity edits is centered on preserving Fleming's written word, worldview and characterization of Bond, then wouldn't any other work about Bond by any other author be just as offensive?
In other words, Gardner and Benson--for example--wrote Bond in a way that was decidedly different from Fleming's execution. The spirit may be there but the language and worldview are different. Sometimes, even in direct opposition to what Fleming may have conjured.
It's clear that IFP's sensitivity changes are financial in origin. Any time they decide to publish anything Bond or Fleming related is, of course, a money-making venture. If these changes mean that Fleming can sit comfortably next to Doyle or Tolkien at Barnes and Noble then so be it. We have the novels as they were originally written in so many different editions, including those recent releases from the Folio Society.
I wouldn't put Gardner or Benson in the same league as Fleming, nowhere near. Anything written by Fleming is now the work of a legend, no different to say, the song writing duo of Lennon/McCartney, or the film director Stanley Kubrick. Fleming's name rightly belongs alongside all the creative geniuses in various art forms that are no longer with us.
Fleming has a solid foothold place now in literary history, and his work in my opinion is untouchable. The same could hardly be said of any other author that followed. Who would really care if Gardner or Benson had written something slightly risky in their books, and who would really give a damn if they were edited either.
I don't think anyone believed that Gardner and Benson were required to completely preserve Fleming's written word and worldview. That's an impossible task of literary ventriloquism. The only person who could accurately capture Fleming's worldview was Fleming himself. We expected Gardner and Benson to tell good Bond stories that reflected the best aspects of Fleming, and since those stories weren't set in Fleming's time and were by different authors, their worldview would have to be different. This even applied to Colonel Sun, which was closer in time to the original books but was by a much dfferent author. Amis channelled Fleming but did not slavishly mimic him. As for preserving Fleming's characterization of Bond, I think we expect continuation authors to be true to the spirit rather than the exact letter.
That's the thing: If I go to my local Barnes and Noble and find Conan Doyle on the shelf, I'm almost certain I wouldn't find an expurgated volume of Holmes stories edited for racial sensitivity. Doyle used the n-word too, and there's plenty more racial stuff that could be edited, but the only expurgated editions I've seen are in the children's section. If IFP thinks selling censored editions will really increase sales, I'd like to see their evidence.
That's what makes IFP's decision so silly. They're shutting the barn door 60 years after the horse left. If Fleming was a children's writer I could see the financial incentive for sanitized versions (as with Dahl), but I think most people who enjoy reading books dislike reading censored ones. And any new readers who don't realize they've read censored versions will be quickly wised up by the internet and might resent being soft-soaped. Lastly, I also dislike the idea that anyone who wants to buy new uncensored copies of Fleming will have no options besides they want to pay extra for the Folio editions or waiting for whatever deluxe hardcovers IFP is rumored to release down the line.
I wouldn't be surprised if part of IFP's rationale is that they expect to sell twice as many "new" copies of each existing Fleming novel this way: some fans will need to buy BOTH versions, the original and the edited version, of any Fleming novel re-released. If it works in the comic book biz to have multiple variant covers (and it evidently does work, otherwise they'd have stopped doing it decades ago) then why shouldn't it work for IFP?
I think the likely price difference between the mass market and possible deluxe editions will ensure the scheme isn't as lucrative as the variant covers gimmick has been in comics, especially since a variant comics cover usually doesn't ensure a price hike. Also, I'm guessing that if IFP releases deluxe uncensored editions, they won't be as widely available as the censored ones (who would choose the latter in that case?), so that would restrict sales and profits. Undoubtedly some collectors will leap at the chance to buy the censored editions and later complete ones, but I have no intention of rewarding IFP for its behavior. And if IFP plans on a policy of "censored books for plebs, complete ones for the bigspenders," then it's being more snobbish than Fleming even was.
Of course, Gardner not Benson are Fleming. That point is well taken and agreed upon but not central to my question.
The whole argument concerns the exact letter of Fleming’s word. It just seems highly selective to accept what are bastardized versions of Bond from continuation authors yet bemoan the relatively light changes of Fleming’s novels.
I mean, if Fleming is Gospel then any other novels about Bond, by their very existence, are sacrilegious.