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
\:D/
But that required serious tewrites and the creation of many new ideas. And new ideas is what we don't want apparently, according to @jetsetwilly
And it meant that P&W had to be very creative and make up many new ideas... which is what you said you didn't want to see...? :-??
No, I DO want to see. I am realistic, and I know if a Bond film tried to adapt something like DAF or MR, much of it will need to be updated to fit into a modern story. I'm totally ok with that. I'm very happy if I see a Bond film with new ideas and stories, but the central focus of it is based around a Fleming book or a short story. Maibaum was an expert at doing this - weaving Fleming into a new script.
What I don't like is what we have seen since GE - discarding Fleming completely, or retconning Fleming so now Blofeld is now Bond's brother, or some crap like that. Unfortunately P&W have proved time and time again they are just not in the same league as Maibaum, and are not capable of coming up with completely new stories that are as good as anything Fleming wrote, and don't have a grasp of adapting any unused material, instead opting for silly retcon BS.
The one free pass they get is with CR, where they managed to update the novel successfully. They did it once, I'd love to see if they could do it again. I'd be the first offering my support.
I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...
Die Another Day was a Moonraker adaptation. But of course your definition of what is acceptable is your own unique one (it must be updated, but only updated to your taste), and frankly just because Fleming wrote something it doesn't automatically make it great. I hope P&W stick a giant squid fight and kill Safin with a pile of bird shit to keep you happy.
All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.
What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.
I understand. I might have misinterpreted this quote:
I see CR as just that: P&W's original ideas based on the novel, just as SP were their original ideas based on Fleming's material of Oberhauser being Bond's care taker step dad and SF was their original ideas based on Fleming's material regarding Bond's origins in Scottland as orphanaged. I think it is also quite obvious that DAD was P&W's attempt at a very superficial adaption of the novel MR. You could also argue the organisation Quantum in QoS are "based on" SPECTRE.
All in all I think the intentions of the producers are not lacking at all. Almost all the recent films have in common the desire to create new material based on Fleming's heritage. What has been letting them down is the very mixed level of execution, ranging on all levels from the triumph that is CR to complete mess of film that is DAD.
On the topic of P&W we very much agree. There have to be better suited screenwriters out there to realize the producer's intention of creating films based on old Fleming material.
There we go. Common ground we can both finally agree on.
\:D/
CR was written in 1952, Einstein. Don't some on here and start nic-picking, looking for a petty fight. No one is in the mood right now.
GE was also a MR adaptation, and P&W were no part of that...
SF was kind of, sort of, a YOLT/TMWTGG adaptation.
The problem is that the remaining Fleming may not be that adaptable, which is why it's been left behind so far.
How much of a story is left to use from DAF or TMWTGG? How much story is in TSWLM, to begin with?
Do audiences want to see the MR bridge game (which is also in OP) or will it be transformed into something more modern and almost unrecognizable?
I always interpreted the fencing scene in DAD as the action movie equivilant to the bridge game in the novel.
Oh man, I wish this thread would die.
It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.
Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.
OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.
The FRWL train fight was obviously a lot more exciting that the book version too. I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.
All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.
Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?
You make a good point, especially about DAF and even MR. There are characters in Fleming I'd nonetheless like to see--Fidele Barbey, anyone?
I still think the latter third of YOLT could be bonkers, in a good way, to send off a Bond actor. And then the beginning of TMWTGG for the next Bond actor. But the rest of TMWTGG is just...meh.
Good question.
I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.
CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.
TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.
If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.
So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.
Hmm. I like all that. It adds drama. It's not as if Bond really does go rogue all that often. In CR the most rogue he goes is to break into M's flat; in QoS he gets taken off the case but reminds M that 'he never left'; in SF he's not rogue at all; in SP it's just the beginning of the story, and even then he's acting on (old) M's orders. If OHMSS or Moonraker or TMWTGG don't offend I'm not sure why these do, I think it's overstated.
The only writer I've thought who got anywhere close to Fleming's slightly batshit crazy plots with a hint of perversion is actually Charlie Higson: those are the only continuation ones I've felt like were part of Fleming's world truly. Horowitz isn't too bad but not quite there. Casino Royale is such an insane plot I'm actually not sure it would be taken seriously as a new script if it hadn't come from a Fleming novel!
I've not read any Higson novels. You recommend them then?
If you can get over the central device of him being a boy, and of course some of the more gruesome elements being removed (although not all as kids do like that stuff) then I remember them being surprisingly good. It's been a while though so maybe my memory is cheating, but I do remember them being right in the tone of Fleming with lots of his style of nasty ideas in there. There's one where the baddie chains James down in a swamp or somewhere (?) so that he can basically be bitten to death slowly by a swarm of mosquitos. Another one I liked involved an island run a mastermind where criminals pay to go to retire to be safe and protected, and they have a sunken Aztec obstacle course of death with various deadly traps and wild animals where those who intrude have to run. It felt like Fleming's sort of thing to me.
I might have to give them a go then. Which novel do you suggest I start with?
Gosh I honestly can't remember. I know I skipped Silverfin but I think the one after that was pretty good.
What Fleming really could do was write. The magic of the novels is in the words he put on the page and some of the best moments in the books are those that let us get into Bond's mind and are concerned with general thoughts, observations or trivia. He also had a talent for the bizarre both in the mystifying world he created for Bond and the fascinating, larger than life characters he encounters. That, together with Bond himself, the perfect, complex and multilayered character, both the ultimate hero and anti hero in one, is the cocktail that makes the novels so special. The stories? Well, not so much.
The way Fleming created bizarre and unique scenarios is hard to match today. I think only his, very special mind could do that. But don't tell me that the plots he made were so great that no one can do it better. That is far from the case in my opinion.
You hit the nail on the head. Bang on!
It was Fleming's skills as a journalist that brought out the best in the books. Part of it felt like a travelogue, that we were going on a sunny holiday, suitcase packed, enjoying the scrambled eggs, ice cold showers and bourbon along the way, while at the same time living inside Bond's head, his thoughts, fears, desires. We get to meet interesting characters along the journey too, whether its banter with old buddy Felix, a sexy girl, or being confronted with some evil megalomaniac villain.
This is the enjoyment I really get from the books, and yes you are right. Often the plots themselves are secondary to the experience that Fleming could deliver in his writing. It was more about the lifestyle, living like Bond, and getting under his skin (or his sea island cotton shirt).
I don't know; FRWL and OHMSS give me the same feelings I get from reading the respective novels. There are differences of course, but they're pretty close in terms of the way they make me feel. Which is why they are my #1 and #2, I guess.
Granted, that is only two from twenty-four (almost twenty-five) films, but still....