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 respectfully disagree. By and large, the Moore and Brosnan eras did just that, and they were weaker for it. Incorporating Fleming, even just as a launching pad a la TLD, results in a far richer film.
Nothing comes from nothing. Fleming did not just pluck Bond out of thin air, it was a sum of his War experience, his personal anxieties about fatherhood/marriage, and a great deal of tropes from the pre-existing pulp/action literature.
The lines of "adaptation" and "original" in fiction, especially genre fiction, are blurrier than one suspects! Imagination is something that needs fuel to grow. It is like a tree.
Bond screenwriters pulling from Fleming is no different than Fleming pulling from prior authors for certain tropes or character archetypes.
I'd actually say the same about half of Brosnan's tenure as well seeing as how Goldeneye is one of the more beloved films of the series (and a favorite amongst general audiences as well) and Tomorrow Never Dies has undergone a bit of a re-evaluation amongst certain groups these days, and as mentioned above; Goldeneye and Die Another Day at least take influence from Fleming's Moonraker, while The World is Not Enough is clearly trying to replicate On Her Majesty's Secret Service (and perhaps not succeeding at such.) Brosnan's Bond himself has some great moments steeped in Fleming throughout his tenure. The scene that always springs to mind is the bit in Tomorrow Never Dies where he's alone, next to a bottle of Champagne and equipping the silencer on his PPK.
I think it's largely forgotten that each Fleming novel is different from one another tonally speaking. Casino Royale and From Russia With Love come across as more grittier adaptations of their works because the source material source themselves are much more gritier compared to say Moonraker or Dr. No (the books) which are much more fantastical thus lending themselves for the liberties taken in their adaptations. I can understand why EON felt Fleming's Moonraker was a bit out of date for 1979, especially after the success of Star Wars. Regardless of the polarizing nature of EON's Moonraker, it did help ensure the series' survival going into the 80's and the same can be said of Brosnan's tenure.
EON can't always please the Fleming purists.
Exactly. So much has been made up about how Fleming took influence from various people he met during WWII as well as his own fantasies; but it's also important to note that Fleming also took influence from authors such as Raymond Chandler, John Buchan, or even Mickey Spillane. In fact, characters like Bulldog Drummond, Richard Hannay, Philip Marlowe, and Mike Hammer all predate Bond and have arguably influenced Fleming's initial conception of the character.
They said Casino Royale was "unfilmable"...and now it's probably the best movie Barbara has ever made.
The best is subjective, some of the fans in here ranked the film at middle and not number 1, some prefer Skyfall to it, or Goldeneye (latter, is in my case).
They weren't able to film CR prior to the 2000s because they didn't have the rights. I know Tarantino claimed they said it was unfilmable after he tried and failed to get the rights himself, but I suspect he was just trying to save face by claiming it was his idea.
No, they said that. I read it too at that time. Tarantino didn't lie.
On a basic level that's just not how it works. @BMB007 said it exceptionally well:
Sure, every writer begins with a blank page, but what they fill that page with has to draw on something. It's the old adage 'write what you know', whether that means drawing on personal experiences, passions, wider interests, or even what genres/kind of stories a writer knows well. All of that is what Fleming used to write Bond.
Tarantino's claims about his 'CR adaptation' are messy to be fair. I suspect what happened at the time was the rights were up in the air and Miramax (not necessarily Tarantino himself, at least initially) had their sights on it. Tarantino was used to reach out to the Fleming estate, who then confirmed that while they had the rights to the book, a deal with EON meant they wouldn't sell it to a third party.
There's an interview with Tarantino in 1997 discussing his attempt to do this film. He claimed that the book ends with Bond killing Vesper, which is obviously not correct. He also seemed to believe the book takes place in the 1960s. I doubt he had read the book in a very long time prior to that (if at all, but that's me being really cynical). As EON's CR was announced he piped up again about it, claiming his version would have involved Brosnan in the role, that it'd be about an older Bond after Tracy's death, and it'd be set in the 60s. It makes no sense as presumably he tried to get these rights in the mid-90s when Brosnan was the official Bond and relatively young. I don't know if Miramax/Tarantino made a second attempt to get the rights in the 2000s, which might explain these claims (although why they'd bother again at that point is a bit of a head scratcher). Obviously EON weren't going to hire him to direct, and the way Tarantino talks about it implies he was working independently on the project (which again would make no sense if there was never a chance he'd get the rights). I suspect he was just riffing about what he'd hypothetically do at that point.
I doubt he ever seriously thought about adapting CR (again, there's a chance he hadn't even read the book before the mid-90s!) I certainly don't think he had any influence in EON's decision to adapt CR. I suspect that he played it up a bit.
I don’t think he would’ve made a version of CR that was any better than the film EON and Martin Campbell gave us.
Yeah, his sensibilities aren't right for Bond. He is fantastic at building suspense (the basement-bar scene in Inglorious Basterds), but his fascination with ultraviolence is too much for Bond, imo.
Love Inglorious. But yeah, I don't think Tarantino would have been right for Bond, and I find his claims that he was the reason EON decided to make CR very questionable. He doesn't even seem all that into Bond from what he's written about the films.
Well, true that. They committed one of the most heinous crimes in history. Very disgusting crime! But I just feel it was an excuse for Tarantino to feed his insatiable hunger for violence.
Yes. Tarantino's version of Bond would be loquacious...something we wouldn't like. Yes, and like you say...there's also the foot fetish thing.
True. We like what we like.
I wonder how many base their opinions on the age of a film and production values. For example, does one prefer SF over Connery's films because those early films look dated?
An indie movie, why not ? Benson wanted to do a stage play.
Depends upon the people, some may do, I do see some people rank Skyfall over Goldfinger, and of course many people disliked the Dalton films for how dated they are, particularly, Licence To Kill which many still view as a generic 80s action film like Miami Vice.
I’ve seen people unfairly criticize the Connery era for that exact reason which is fairly misguided. Some of those earlier Bond films are still 10x better than most of the generic action films that are coming out these days that younger audiences tend to prefer.
Personally, I think something like FRWL looks and feels quite classic. It’s got that wonderful ‘technicolour’ feel you get with certain Hitchcock films if that makes sense. It’s of its time but timeless in some weird way. SF’s quite a modern looking film but has a similar timeless feel to it in terms of look/tone.
But I'm still bothered by the likes of FYEO, LALD, TMWTGG, DAF, and YOLT, I've got through the effects and visuals, and just focus on the acting and the story, but it does nothing for me.
Today's films which feature unparalleled technology designed to look and feel real can often have the opposite effect. It will be interesting to see which Craig films will achieve classic status.