Anthony Horowitz's James Bond novel - Trigger Mortis

1212224262742

Comments

  • Posts: 2,598
    Congratulations!
  • Event magazine ran a competition where you could win a signed copy or tickets to the launch event, initially i won the tickets to the launch event but i wouldn't have been able to make it so they have gone to the runner up .
  • Posts: 2,598
    Nicely done. Enjoy the book. I'm really looking forward to it although I haven't even ordered it yet. Still can't decide whether I should download it or buy the Waterstones edition for half price that contains Fleming's notes. I'm not sure if this book will still be half price after release date. Wish I knew this. Quite likely not.
  • Posts: 372
    As is always the case with one person's opinions Horowitz makes some very valid points and some not so. I do agree with the comments about Bond's self doubt in both QoS and SF. There was never a single frame of film where Connery indulged in any kind of self doubt and he is still the guv'nor of all screen Bonds. Horowitz is a superb writer of both book and screen and I look forward to what he is going to do with the character
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    Found out last night that I've won a signed copy.

    Nice.
  • I don't agree with some of the statements Horowitz made, but if the book is as good as the early reviews seem to indicate, I really don't give a fig. Bring it on!
  • It's interesting how this thread has garnered a host of new contributions. Some from posters who don't appear on the literary side of things too
  • I agree with his comments to a point. I am a bit tired of seeing Bond's personal backstory woven into the fabric of the plot of the film (same goes for him constantly going rouge in the Craig era). If SPECTRE returns then fine, but having him have some sort of personal/childhood connection with Waltz' character is a bit much. Especially considering that Skyfall ended with Bond driving to Scotland to do battle with Silva and his mercenaries simply because it allowed them to pull more of Bond's personal backstory into the fold.

    Having said that though those elements didn't make me hate Skyfall (I really enjoyed it - perhaps not as much as others though) and it certainly won't make me hate SPECTRE (the trailers so far have looked great).

    I'll buy Trigger Mortis no matter if it is a good book or not, but based on the early reviews it sounds like it is the best of the continuation novels. Horrowitz's personal feelings about Bond certainly won't keep me from purchasing a new Bond book.
  • 007InVT007InVT Classified
    Posts: 893
    The thrust of what Anthony was saying is sensible, he just could have been a little more elegant with his words (surprising since he's a writer), but anyway, it's grist for the mill for the media and an excuse to write about racism. An article in The New Statesman made me chuckle. Utterly off-base about Fleming with no sensibility to the era.

    Anyway, the writer's line 'I suspect that Fleming would piss magma at the thought of Idris Elba playing Bond' was brilliant.

    I think he would have pissed magma but not for any racist views but because he wrote the character with a very particular social background in mind. It's not just about how good the character looks in a suit - black or white.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited September 2015 Posts: 45,489
    I can t see that he had anything to apologize about? If I was that sore to stupid criticism, I would make 10 apologies a day here, and another 10 at work.
  • Posts: 632
    His comments regarding Bond's character give me some caution, "Bond is weak in it (Skyfall). He has doubts. That's not Bond." I'm rereading Fleming right now, trying to get up to Goldfinger before TM is released and I'm currently almost finished with Dr. No and I would say Bond has plenty of doubts. What's interesting is the contrast seen between Horowitz and VARGR writer Warren Ellis, who states regarding the novels, "But I have a great fondness for Dr. No and YOLT is possibly my favourite because it shows Bond at his most lost and broken."

    Regardless, I pre-ordered a few weeks ago and have no intention of cancelling. I hope it's as good as the advance reviews claim!
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    Horowitz' comments are sane and balanced.
    He is honest. He speaks out what a lot of people (secretly?) think.

    Now he's getting the heat for it. He probably learned now, how touchy die-hard fans can get when their idol gets some scratches.

    Funny how some now even dismiss him as an accomplished writer just because he dared to criticise the current Bond era.

    agreed - people can be way too stuffy about things they like or love... but such is the world of fandom.

    i respect Mr Horowitz's opinion on SF, even though we are probably miles apart in it's assessment - it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.... in a situation like this, i think a lot of people (on both sides) need to learn a simple little word called Tolerance. lol..

    where he does leave me miffed is the whole "self doubt" thing.. i would have to hear him explain that in better detail, because Fleming's Bond tend to doubt himself (and sometimes his job) a lot, but he soldiered on.. Dalton said it best in an old on set interview from TLD "Bond is not a superman, he's a very beaten and weathered man." (or something along those lines) - so for Horowitz to say all Bond needs to do is more or less 'drink,kill,win'.... it makes me wonder if he truly understands who the character is?

    thats my only concern/complaint..
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited September 2015 Posts: 9,020
    double post
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Horowitz' comments are sane and balanced.
    He is honest. He speaks out what a lot of people (secretly?) think.

    Now he's getting the heat for it. He probably learned now, how touchy die-hard fans can get when their idol gets some scratches.

    Funny how some now even dismiss him as an accomplished writer just because he dared to criticise the current Bond era.

    agreed - people can be way too stuffy about things they like or love... but such is the world of fandom.

    i respect Mr Horowitz's opinion on SF, even though we are probably miles apart in it's assessment - it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.... in a situation like this, i think a lot of people (on both sides) need to learn a simple little word called Tolerance. lol..

    where he does leave me miffed is the whole "self doubt" thing.. i would have to hear him explain that in better detail, because Fleming's Bond tend to doubt himself (and sometimes his job) a lot, but he soldiered on.. Dalton said it best in an old on set interview from TLD "Bond is not a superman, he's a very beaten and weathered man." (or something along those lines) - so for Horowitz to say all Bond needs to do is more or less 'drink,kill,win'.... it makes me wonder if he truly understands who the character is?

    thats my only concern/complaint..

    The self doubt thing doesn't transform well into the movies as has Skyfall shown do blatantly. It simply isn't made for the big screen version of a Bond movie.
    The big flaw of Skyfall is exactly that, it tries to show deep character development with Bond, full of self-doubt and angst. You can't have a melodramatic Bond it just doesn't work.
    I'm pretty sure he meant it like that and not for the existing novels of Fleming.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It's like some people are trapped in time and fail spectacularly to understand that the all too assured, untouchable superman type Bond just doesn't work as effectively as it once did.

    This is 2015 not 1962. The threats of the world today take all sorts of sinister obscure guises and interesting heroes worth watching are the one who persevere and persist against all sorts of crazy odds. If the protagonists succeeds then that's great and hallmarks the triumph. If the protagonist fails the least we can expect is to see the trials, the struggles and the embracing of taking on the challenge in order to do succeed and win.

    Many people here over the years have expressed how they'd love to see a Bond movie end like the novel version of FRWL where Bond seemingly dies. Now, it's a huge problem if Bond isn't swagger-dickering around where his biggest challenge is, if he can prevent spilling his martini while simultaneously unleashing his "patronas" charm from his magic stick and sending his adversary to a dirt nap.

    I don't think Bond has become weak at all. I think humanising him to the degree in which he has been conveyed in the Craig era is a welcome departure from the unflappable superman he ended up becoming. Ironically enough, it's this more humanised take on the character where we see him putting his duty above all else in his life and seeing him never giving up and striving to achieve his aims and objectives where we see an almost terminator/superman character shine through but it's done in a credible way. It's actually inspiring to see when done right.

    SF is ridiculously flawed but if one can't see where, why and how Bond's state of mind has affected him physically as well as emotionally then I don't know what to say. However, I will point out that the instant he realised his country was in trouble he didn't hesitate to haul himself back to where he needed to be; working. That's no sign of weakness at all. Furthermore, Bond knew he wasn't ready physically irrespective of what M's reading out his results were. However, he still wanted and intended to get back to work which he did. These are qualities that make for an interesting character to watch and be captivated by. Internal conflicts, defying one's own physical limitations to pull through and get the job done.

    I'm all for critical assessments but they have to at least be reasonable and make sense.
  • Posts: 2,904
    The New Statesman article referred to by 007InVT is here. The author also reviewed Trigger Mortis for the Guardian. The comments section is depressing.
  • Posts: 2,598
    Well, I find this encouraging:

    "And then there’s Bond himself, who is curiously not quite Bond. He’s still a sexist and a xenophobe, although the narrator no longer endorses this chauvinism. But this Bond is uncharacteristically cultured: he has a habit of literary allusion that suggests a sudden personality change, and when he notes a young woman’s resemblance to Jean Seberg, the implied vision of Bond taking time out from double-O duties to catch a screening of Otto Preminger’s Saint Joan, the only film she’d made in 1957, when the book is set, is almost unbearably funny. Even weirder, this Bond has qualms about killing – not the after-the-fact ruefulness on show at the beginning of Goldfinger, but a genuine respect for human life that intercedes in acts of violence. As revolting as Fleming’s hero is, I prefer the Bond who squirts Oddjob out of a plane window like toothpaste to this merciful, interior-monologuing shadow. Horowitz certainly comes closer than most to solving the Bond conundrum, but Trigger Mortis is in many ways inferior to the Alex Riders as Fleming fan service. The insoluble problem with Bond, in the end, is Bond."

    All this sounds good to me. :)

    This article cracked me up:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2015/09/breaking-bond-ceiling-won-t-solve-british-cinema-s-race-problems

    Not a fan of Bond, Ditum? LOL.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    It's like some people are trapped in time and fail spectacularly to understand that the all too assured, untouchable superman type Bond just doesn't work as effectively as it once did.

    This is 2015 not 1962. The threats of the world today take all sorts of sinister obscure guises and interesting heroes worth watching are the one who persevere and persist against all sorts of crazy odds. If the protagonists succeeds then that's great and hallmarks the triumph. If the protagonist fails the least we can expect is to see the trials, the struggles and the embracing of taking on the challenge in order to do succeed and win.

    Many people here over the years have expressed how they'd love to see a Bond movie end like the novel version of FRWL where Bond seemingly dies. Now, it's a huge problem if Bond isn't swagger-dickering around where his biggest challenge is, if he can prevent spilling his martini while simultaneously unleashing his "patronas" charm from his magic stick and sending his adversary to a dirt nap.

    I don't think Bond has become weak at all. I think humanising him to the degree in which he has been conveyed in the Craig era is a welcome departure from the unflappable superman he ended up becoming. Ironically enough, it's this more humanised take on the character where we see him putting his duty above all else in his life and seeing him never giving up and striving to achieve his aims and objectives where we see an almost terminator/superman character shine through but it's done in a credible way. It's actually inspiring to see when done right.

    SF is ridiculously flawed but if one can't see where, why and how Bond's state of mind has affected him physically as well as emotionally then I don't know what to say. However, I will point out that the instant he realised his country was in trouble he didn't hesitate to haul himself back to where he needed to be; working. That's no sign of weakness at all. Furthermore, Bond knew he wasn't ready physically irrespective of what M's reading out his results were. However, he still wanted and intended to get back to work which he did. These are qualities that make for an interesting character to watch and be captivated by. Internal conflicts, defying one's own physical limitations to pull through and get the job done.

    I'm all for critical assessments but they have to at least be reasonable and make sense.

    You can get hints and measures of character without having to do all this navel-gazing; Dalton managed it quite nicely up front in TLD, and I think the tiny quiet desperation of Connery's 'we'll double it' in FRWL shows this is no superman here. You don't need the extreme they've gone to with the reboot era, PLUS it is ham-handed treatment, which is the real problem. Maybe they need to spell it out for the lowest common denominator, but if that's the case, why aren't they just keeping it all lowbrow, so you don't have the expectation of something serious and then have that undermined by incompetent execution?
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,598
    I like what they're been doing with the Craig era, even showing the back story but I don't see why his backstory must be weaved into the plot all the time. Why couldn't, when Bond returned to the UK after Turkey, and before approaching M, just take some quick time out looking at his parents graves and picking up some little nick nacks/memories from his home? It would only have to be a short scene. We could have seen him have a brief conversation with Kincade or Kincade and Aunt Chairman who met Bond there, have a brief conversation about Bond and how he was as a child and what he's now become. Just some brief and even perhaps amusing dialogue wouldn't have hurt. He could have found out about the Mi6 attack while out his house or perhaps on a pop up TV screen in his Aston Martin while driving back. Well, the latter may be a bit cheesy. :)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Horowitz' comments are sane and balanced.
    He is honest. He speaks out what a lot of people (secretly?) think.

    Now he's getting the heat for it. He probably learned now, how touchy die-hard fans can get when their idol gets some scratches.

    Funny how some now even dismiss him as an accomplished writer just because he dared to criticise the current Bond era.

    agreed - people can be way too stuffy about things they like or love... but such is the world of fandom.

    i respect Mr Horowitz's opinion on SF, even though we are probably miles apart in it's assessment - it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.... in a situation like this, i think a lot of people (on both sides) need to learn a simple little word called Tolerance. lol..

    where he does leave me miffed is the whole "self doubt" thing.. i would have to hear him explain that in better detail, because Fleming's Bond tend to doubt himself (and sometimes his job) a lot, but he soldiered on.. Dalton said it best in an old on set interview from TLD "Bond is not a superman, he's a very beaten and weathered man." (or something along those lines) - so for Horowitz to say all Bond needs to do is more or less 'drink,kill,win'.... it makes me wonder if he truly understands who the character is?

    thats my only concern/complaint..

    The self doubt thing doesn't transform well into the movies as has Skyfall shown do blatantly. It simply isn't made for the big screen version of a Bond movie.
    The big flaw of Skyfall is exactly that, it tries to show deep character development with Bond, full of self-doubt and angst. You can't have a melodramatic Bond it just doesn't work.
    I'm pretty sure he meant it like that and not for the existing novels of Fleming.

    respectfully disagree... ticket sales - critic reviews - and box office revenue i think has proved that wrong... all three Craig films have been box office successes, and 2 out of 3 have been critical successes - with QOS, the problem was the lack of a coherent story and direction (in terms of editing and camera work) more than anything else - never once did i hear about Craig, or his portrayal of Bond as being the issue (in any of the films).... if this style of Bond wasn't translating with the public, then SF would've fallen flat on it's face... the 50th Anniversary hype might get butts in the seats for the first week or two, but if a film doesn't have legs beyond that, then it falls big time - SF hung around for almost 4 months.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,598
    I remember making comments on these threads about how we should learn more about Bond's past and add more character movement which would appeal to the general audience way back during the Brosnan era and my comments were vetoed by so many people. The Craig films are clearly doing well and people in general enjoy learning more about Bond's past and seeing more character movement. ;)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Bounine wrote: »
    I remember making comments on these threads about how we should learn more about Bond's past and add more character movement which would appeal to the general audience way back during the Brosnan era and my comments were vetoed by so many people. The Craig films are clearly doing well and people in general enjoy learning more about Bond's past and seeing more character movement which I always thought they would. ;)

    i dont mind them visiting Bond's past in these films - as long as they don't take up residence ;)
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,598
    No, no of course not! LOL.

    Anyway, I suppose we should all get back to talking about the literary Bond... :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    trevanian wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    It's like some people are trapped in time and fail spectacularly to understand that the all too assured, untouchable superman type Bond just doesn't work as effectively as it once did.

    This is 2015 not 1962. The threats of the world today take all sorts of sinister obscure guises and interesting heroes worth watching are the one who persevere and persist against all sorts of crazy odds. If the protagonists succeeds then that's great and hallmarks the triumph. If the protagonist fails the least we can expect is to see the trials, the struggles and the embracing of taking on the challenge in order to do succeed and win.

    Many people here over the years have expressed how they'd love to see a Bond movie end like the novel version of FRWL where Bond seemingly dies. Now, it's a huge problem if Bond isn't swagger-dickering around where his biggest challenge is, if he can prevent spilling his martini while simultaneously unleashing his "patronas" charm from his magic stick and sending his adversary to a dirt nap.

    I don't think Bond has become weak at all. I think humanising him to the degree in which he has been conveyed in the Craig era is a welcome departure from the unflappable superman he ended up becoming. Ironically enough, it's this more humanised take on the character where we see him putting his duty above all else in his life and seeing him never giving up and striving to achieve his aims and objectives where we see an almost terminator/superman character shine through but it's done in a credible way. It's actually inspiring to see when done right.

    SF is ridiculously flawed but if one can't see where, why and how Bond's state of mind has affected him physically as well as emotionally then I don't know what to say. However, I will point out that the instant he realised his country was in trouble he didn't hesitate to haul himself back to where he needed to be; working. That's no sign of weakness at all. Furthermore, Bond knew he wasn't ready physically irrespective of what M's reading out his results were. However, he still wanted and intended to get back to work which he did. These are qualities that make for an interesting character to watch and be captivated by. Internal conflicts, defying one's own physical limitations to pull through and get the job done.

    I'm all for critical assessments but they have to at least be reasonable and make sense.

    You can get hints and measures of character without having to do all this navel-gazing; Dalton managed it quite nicely up front in TLD, and I think the tiny quiet desperation of Connery's 'we'll double it' in FRWL shows this is no superman here. You don't need the extreme they've gone to with the reboot era, PLUS it is ham-handed treatment, which is the real problem. Maybe they need to spell it out for the lowest common denominator, but if that's the case, why aren't they just keeping it all lowbrow, so you don't have the expectation of something serious and then have that undermined by incompetent execution?

    I think there's an exaggerated overreaction towards Bond's character building and I think it may have been jarring first some because it was the first time in 50 years we were seeing some of Bond's backstory, which may or may not tarnish tge mystery of what's unknown about Bond. The good news is, at least it's not Bond himself pushing his own backstory to the forefront. He'd rather ignore or simply just not talk about his past.

    SP like SF delves into Bond's past again but how much and how deep we don't know yet and I'm hoping it's not a lot but so far overall, I think the character exploration and building has been good so far.
  • Conflating the movies with Fleming's creation always results in the most ridiculous nonsense.
    The fact of the matter being that cinema Bond has had virtually nothing to do with the books since 'Thunderball'.
    Connery's first four were pretty faithful interpretations with the novels being adapted with a pace and élan suitable for the early '60s.
    Since then eon have skilfully adjusted a super hero franchise to feed the changing appetite of cinema goers. This is all well and good but it doesn't at all represent Fleming's creation and claims that Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming or that Dalton did it better or that Brosnan would have been Ian's 007 if the studio had let him etc..etc... are all complete and utter balderdash.
    If you want to know what Fleming's Bond is like. Read his books, it's that simple. Amongst many other things, he's a character deeply rooted in the '50s who is dealing with the post war world, the decline of the British empire and all that was relevant at that time.
    That is why Anthony Horowitz has chosen to set his novel after his favourite Fleming, 'Goldfinger'. A very smart move that probably motivated him hugely and hopefully he's produced his best work. I'll give you my verdict on that next week.
    In the run up to this great event he was asked by the Mail about Elba playing Bond in a movie and he gave a perfectly elegant and respectful response.
    He perceives Elba as 'street' because of his performance in the excellent 'Wire' and the thoroughly awful 'Luther'. Not surprising as it's completely normal to judge actors by their previous roles.
    Horowitz and I are about the same age and when I think of Bond movies there is only early Connery. I discovered 007 mainly through the novels and I respond with that vision in mind and within that context, Elba playing Bond is about as sensible as having Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaft. Doubtless Benedict could stagger around Harlem with Isaac Hayes playing in the background but he would be about as relevant to Ernst Tidyman's original creation as chalk is to cheese.
    That said, within the eon context, Elba doubtless could play Bond. Indeed, we could even have a female Bond. They could both be perfect twists in an ever changing franchise.
    All of this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. The very suggestion is ridiculous and Elba probably knows it. It's to do with one man's vision of Fleming's Bond, not eon's hero.
    Since then he's apologised, I've no idea why, other than the you have to apologise for everything these days. The tabloid media have got hold of it and spun it to Armageddon (beware The Witch Of Wapping is back) but I have a simple message for the movie fans.
    Enjoy your eon Bond, I am sure he is great fun and post Craig will doubtless be played by many different actors and maybe Idris Elba and Benedict Cumberbatch could be two of them but don't get confused, they won't have anything to do with Fleming's creation.
    And,in the highly unlikely event that Fleming's Bond ever hit's the screen again, Sam Riley or Michael Fassbender would be great choices. Maybe they could play Bond in a film version of TriggerMortis?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    giphy_zpsiqzpntbj.gif
  • HASEROT wrote: »
    giphy_zpsiqzpntbj.gif

    Fabulous!

  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,598
    Conflating the movies with Fleming's creation always results in the most ridiculous nonsense.
    The fact of the matter being that cinema Bond has had virtually nothing to do with the books since 'Thunderball'.
    Connery's first four were pretty faithful interpretations with the novels being adapted with a pace and élan suitable for the early '60s.
    Since then eon have skilfully adjusted a super hero franchise to feed the changing appetite of cinema goers. This is all well and good but it doesn't at all represent Fleming's creation and claims that Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming or that Dalton did it better or that Brosnan would have been Ian's 007 if the studio had let him etc..etc... are all complete and utter balderdash.
    If you want to know what Fleming's Bond is like. Read his books, it's that simple. Amongst many other things, he's a character deeply rooted in the '50s who is dealing with the post war world, the decline of the British empire and all that was relevant at that time.
    That is why Anthony Horowitz has chosen to set his novel after his favourite Fleming, 'Goldfinger'. A very smart move that probably motivated him hugely and hopefully he's produced his best work. I'll give you my verdict on that next week.
    In the run up to this great event he was asked by the Mail about Elba playing Bond in a movie and he gave a perfectly elegant and respectful response.
    He perceives Elba as 'street' because of his performance in the excellent 'Wire' and the thoroughly awful 'Luther'. Not surprising as it's completely normal to judge actors by their previous roles.
    Horowitz and I are about the same age and when I think of Bond movies there is only early Connery. I discovered 007 mainly through the novels and I respond with that vision in mind and within that context, Elba playing Bond is about as sensible as having Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaft. Doubtless Benedict could stagger around Harlem with Isaac Hayes playing in the background but he would be about as relevant to Ernst Tidyman's original creation as chalk is to cheese.
    That said, within the eon context, Elba doubtless could play Bond. Indeed, we could even have a female Bond. They could both be perfect twists in an ever changing franchise.
    All of this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. The very suggestion is ridiculous and Elba probably knows it. It's to do with one man's vision of Fleming's Bond, not eon's hero.
    Since then he's apologised, I've no idea why, other than the you have to apologise for everything these days. The tabloid media have got hold of it and spun it to Armageddon (beware The Witch Of Wapping is back) but I have a simple message for the movie fans.
    Enjoy your eon Bond, I am sure he is great fun and post Craig will doubtless be played by many different actors and maybe Idris Elba and Benedict Cumberbatch could be two of them but don't get confused, they won't have anything to do with Fleming's creation.
    And,in the highly unlikely event that Fleming's Bond ever hit's the screen again, Sam Riley or Michael Fassbender would be great choices. Maybe they could play Bond in a film version of TriggerMortis?

    Agreed. Well put.

    The only thing I will add is that the cinematic Bond has never entirely been Fleming's Bond. Not necessarily because of Connery's portrayal but because of the script.
  • Great comments by Tigger Mortis. Totally agree, although I will say that Dalton probably came closer to Fleming's Bond than Connery managed, even though TLD and LTK are set in a different era. Dalton nails the essence of Fleming's character, and the script tries to accommodate it accordingly, particularly in LTK.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, Dalton nailed it. =D>
Sign In or Register to comment.