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
Have you actually read the short Fleming story 'Quantum Of Solace'?
No I haven't read it, I'll admit, but what I've heard of it sounds completely different to the film. The short story if I remember right was about Bond being told a story at a dinner party.
LTK had lots of stuff from LALD that wasn't used in the film. It apparently has some stuff from one of the short stories too but I haven't read it.
The character Milton Krest is taken from The Hildebrand Rarity. They adapted his character although some of the traits are still there. He was more of a presence in the book who viciously beat his wife.
I don't think he would like it. And this isn't an insult to SF, it's an insult to Fleming more than anything else.
He wouldn't like any Bond film really. Even DN, which is thought of now as one of the closest to Fleming, he didn't like. He disagreed with Connerys casting so imagine how he would've reacted to Moore or Craig.
He'd have liked the money but the films themselves? I don't think he would've liked them.
I think he would maybe have enjoyed SF, probably more than most other films. It is very British, very patriotic, Scottish heritage, and it is one of only 2 Bond films were it shows Bond in a slightly depressed state over his profession (the other being TLD). I have a feeling SF would have struck a chord with him.
OHMSS.
Besides which, Fleming would probably have had massive issues with an Auzzie playing his 007...... ;)
It is the 21st century and with all the technology available, is that all they have to offer? It's a pity that 007 no longer has gadgets to operate with and doesn't get into rather ridiculous sticky situations as he was once used to. Try to find a screen play writer with a little more imagination please.
It also has an Aston Martin with machine guns, a black Moneypenny, a woman playing M, a Bond who looks nothing like his original creation, etc.
I don't think Fleming would've liked it as much as the rest of us.
Fleming passed away in 1964. How does that have any effect on the 'current screenplay writers'? Also, big, ridiculous situations with gizmo gadgets isn't what Fleming wrote for Bond. Read one of the books.
I think that you are very mistaken, Fleming would not have written this characters-are-more-important-than-a-logic-story. At his shabbiest he could not invent such awefull storyline that did it best to not involve any continuety and left it up the fanboys to make up for it.
Bond gets shot twice and then falls of a bridge mortally wounded and a few months on he walks into the home of his boss, on whom just an terrorist attack did happen. He then gets lovingly be taken back into the family of MI6. Even Fleming did know better than that as he proved in TMWTGG...... (but Mendes was perhaps desperate to show how original he was while trhowing any sense of reality overboard)
If anybody considers SF a great original treatment you are simply blinded by Craiglove. In my humble opinion GE made far more sense and had a far better Flemingesque approach than most of the original Craig screenplays.
Britain letting an ICBM be solely and entirely constructed by one man with questionable profits and a questionable background in Moonraker made logical sense?
Dr. No crashing American missiles into the ocean and retrieving them to make a quick dime off the Russians, while murdering and enslaving people to cover it up made complete logical sense?
Fleming always put the characters before the sub-plots. Always. Dr. No or Drax's plans weren't the centerpiece to the books, it was Bond. Now I'll admit his villains' plans were perhaps more feasible, plausible, and more logical when specifically compared to Skyfall's logic, but it's not much of a stretch.
Flemings plot might be fantastical but even he did know that a lost secret agent does not get into line as quick. M did like 007 but still send him out to get killed after a thorough check up.
I doubt sincerely that he would send M out with James Bond while a very well organised terrorist is lusting after her blood. It just makes no sense at all...........
O:-)
01) 'For Your Eyes Only' (1981) also uses the identigraph from Goldfinger
02) 'Octopussy' (1983) also uses the line from Moonraker '..to spend the money while you can'
03) 'Licence To Kill' (1989) also uses the Bond 'on the roof' shooting borrowed from the novel Casino Royale.
I remember reading this list as made by some fan with stuff BORROWED from Gardners books and it was quite painfull as how unoriginal EON has been.
So glad I did not have to Write this. Somebody still had to say it though!
I also like TSWLM and Goldeneye very much. TND would also be on my list of best original (although all borrow some bits) Bond screenplays.
Skyfall and Casino Royale are very close in quality, in my opinion. Both are excellent, top tier Bond films.