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
OK they had DAD (although that still made a shitload of money) but learnt from their mistakes and we are now in a new golden era of Bond films.
IFP hit their DAD point with DMC but didn't have the intelligence to see that continuing down that path of diminishing returns would be disastrous and here we are - old uncle Ian's udders have finally stopped giving out the lucrative milk they thought would never end. I really hope these parasites have massive mortgages and loans secured against the endless money that they clearly thought Bond meant. The bank just might start calling them in because I reckon as a business IFP must be worth a lot less than it was a few years ago.
If they turned up in the Dragons Den with their current strategy and figures I'm pretty sure I know what Duncan Bannatyne would say.
The comparison you make with eon are so relevant. The owners have done a great job revitalising cinema Bond. They have learnt from their mistakes and have taken the franchise from strength to strength. Both of the principles have a huge respect for their fore bearers and a passion for 007 that shines through. They are to be congratulated and they deserve every penny.
Regarding IFP, I believe the complete opposite is true and fans have every right to be angry. Personally, I'm spitting blood over this most recent debacle because apart from the story — which will always be subjective — the thing is just so badly written and edited.
By commissioning and accepting this crap IFP have done Bond fans a real disservice and I would be quite prepared to tell them that in person!
I'm with you Villiers old son. It's time for direct action - who's up for storming IFP House?
A good number of fans on these forums were very enthusiastic and positive about Boyd writing the latest Bond book before it hit the shelves just like IFP obviously were.
After IFP have read the manuscript are they allowed to demand that the author change bits or do a complete overhaul if they're not happy with it prior to it being printed as producers are permitted to do before the movie hits the cinema? If so, then changes should have been made to these continuation books before they were printed years ago. LOL.
"OK they had DAD (although that still made a shitload of money) but learnt from their mistakes and we are now in a new golden era of Bond films."
Pity it took them four rubbish films (GE to DAD) to realise it. Oh, and I wouldn't call Quantum of Solace a "golden era" Bond film. CR is great though. SF is very good.
Not that that's a BAD thing... so far... I am enjoying it.
On this point I can confirm yes, they are allowed to suggest changes, not least because they are the ones paying the author's wage! But quite apart from this, we do know that on severalk occasions Glidrose as it then was and IFP as it now is have used this right to veto Geoffrey Jenkins' Per Fine Ounce (in around 1966) as unsuitable for publication and to insist on a souped up version of John Gardner's first Bond novel Meltdown (later retitled Licence Renewed and published in 1981). We know about the Gardner one from Kingsley Amis' letters to fellow Bond fan Philip Larkin, who himself had just written a review of Licence Renewed in a May 1981 edition of the Times Literary Supplement. These are two instances that we do know of; there may well be others. I hope this has answered your question, @Bounine. :)
Isn't 'I Am Pilgrim' the absolute business?
I found it to be truly new, different and better. Furthermore, it made SOLO look even more sub standard.
Interesting. Thank you. I wonder how the original manuscript of License Renewed read. Maybe they should have deemed DMC, CB and some of the last half of Gardner's Bond novels and Benson's books unsuitable for publication and request that they be re-written. :) Requesting a more solid plot for Solo would have been good too. Still, demanding major changes like this all the time might put them in bad step in the literary industry and make future potential Bond writers quite reluctant to work for them. One must find a delicate balance I suppose.
Indeed. I imagine that is the reason - the authors selected seem to have been given the necessary latitude although John Gardner often complained that writing outlines for the Bond novels was not the natural way that he worked - he took a character or idea or basic premise and preferred to just work from there and see where it took him, which may be quite unusual for a successful writer of fiction.
I thought the Amis first chapter of CS made me want to read further. Solo seems to be cliché and pastiche.
I wonder what people's reaction would be if a section of a Bond novel of similar content was scribed by someone who people were lead to believe was written by another continuation author but in actual fact was penned by Fleming himself who rose from the dead. I can't help thinking that it would be remarkably similar to what you've just said. LOL.
I think this is where the problem lies with these continuation novels. When I know it is not Fleming I'm reading, maybe the perception has already been altered before I even pick the book up. I do find it hard to look at anything outside of Fleming 100% objectively.
Had I picked up GF now, having never read it, with the knowledge this was written by a continuation author trying to pass off as Fleming, would I still judge the book with the same true objectivity, or would I be constantly be analysing and looking for faults - `Fleming would never write anything like this'.....`that is a silly phrase, can't imagine Fleming writing anything like this....', etc.
Difficult one.
Quick question for those who have read the new book. Does it follow the same chapter structure as a Fleming novel (lengthwise, with clever chapter titles), or does it follow the awful, countless numbered chapter structure that CB had?
Thank you. There are many salient points there. It's like wine tasting in a way - perhaps there should be brown paper covers added to the backs of the continuation Bonds so we would not think about whether it was Fleming or Faulks, but would just enjoy it for what it is - a novel continuing the adventures of Commander James Bond.
Yes, sort of the return of George Glidrose or Robert Markham. It would certainly cut way down on the hype not living up to the reality, that's for sure.
I understand the idea but frankly, this is all just semantics. The fact of the matter is neither Faulks, Deaver or Boyd should ever have been chosen. They may all be very talented at what they do but they aren't proven in the world of Bond (Higson) or fully blooded espionage specialists (Cumming, Silva etc..)
Corinne Turner, the Managing Director of IFP, has taken horrendous risks that have blown up in her face at the expense of fans. They now need to get somebody who knows what they are doing or call it a day and leave Ian to RIP.
I thought I'd add that I saw a paperback of Solo by William Boyd for sale in my local Waterstones on Saturday, so they must fear it isn't selling very well in hardback if they've rushed out a paperback already less than a month before the hardback went on sale. The same thing happened with some of the later Raymond Benson Bond novels too.
That was probably the large print edition; you can't just grind out a paperback edition in a month.
No, it was not. I checked by looking inside; they often print both at the same time nowadays so that they are both ready for their respective release. As I said above, the exact asame thing happened with some of Raymond Benson's Bond novels.
Not necessary!
Picking a proven espionage writer might have been safer and wiser. I was fairly confident following the announcement that Deaver had been chosen that we would get a good book as he is at least a thriller writer. Maybe espionage writers just aren't interested in the task or should I say, the "celebrity" ones. Or maybe for some reason, IFP just aren't interest in them. If they're not, they should be. The authors IFP have chosen kind of draws parallels to what Eon have been doing picking drama directors to helm Bond pictures instead of action/thriller directors. Hiring a drama writer to scribe a real espionage thriller though could be a more difficult challenge for an author than it is for a drama director to helm an action/part thriller movie. Still, should the Fleming Bond books be labelled as true espionage thrillers? To me, they're more like a cross between action/boyish adventure/thriller books with a bit of espionage thrown in. Charlie Higson isn't an espionage writer but would do a good job I think with the adult Bond books. I don't think that there's a hell of a lot of espionage in the Fleming Bond books.
It would seem that it's more a case of just understanding what makes a good Bond book which is why I think the Fleming estate have picked authors who are fans of the character. However, this largely hasn't worked. Being a fan of the character doesn't mean one necessarily understands what makes a good Bond book. Conversely, Christopher Wood doesn't even like the literary James Bond but he wrote a couple of good novelisations.
Benson's books were colourful and put Bond in some interesting situations and I thought that he could weave a decent tale, well, as far as relatively simplistic Bond stories go, but he lacked writing skills (plus I wasn't enamoured to how he brought back major characters from the Fleming books and significantly messed with them). Whether Faulks could have written a better book, I don't know. Maybe he just wasn't interested in taking it seriously but his book certainly lacked punch.
They should probably leave out drama writers from here on in. Thriller/espionage writers should at least be chosen. Authors who are willing to be faithful to the character too unlike Deaver. If his 007 hadn't have been called James Bond one wouldn't have even known it was him. Someone who doesn't write with twist after twist like Deaver would be advisable too. Doing this depletes the suspense factor I think.
Bring back John Pearson! His biography of James Bond is my favourite continuation Bond book even though it's not a traditional Bond story focusing on just one assignment. Many parts of it read like Fleming short stories. I think it's fantastic. Looks like he could still be writing too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pearson_(author)
That's strange, the link won't paste properly. It has to be copy and pasted into the address field.
I had fun with it too. Even though the book does lack a solid plot I think that there are many entertaining, interesting scenes in Solo. It also offers a good character study of Bond. Parts of it just like in the Gardner and Benson books would make for interesting scenes in Bond flicks. It does have that Fleming feel too.
When Bond was in Washington, it reminded me a bit of a Jack Reacher novel and the part involving the estate at the end of the Washington section was very Flemingsque to me. For me, it's certainly a decent step up from the last two Bond books but I suppose that isn't saying much. It does outrank some other pre DMC continuation books too I think.
is it as good as Fleming? of course it isn't.
was i expecting it to be as as good as Fleming? nope.
is it better than Carte Blanche? well i actually managed to finish SOLO, so what does that tell you?
Would i read it again? i think i probably will at some point.
would i like Boyd to write another Bond Book ? i'd like him to write a prequel , focusing on bond's time in WW2 .
Would it make a good Film ? unless there's ever a retro bond film it's unlikely.
overall rating 3.5 stars