Double O by Kim Sherwood

1356714

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 14,792
    Leon12 wrote: »
    I'm wondering if this is the first steps to a Marvel type 'Bond universe' where he doesn't feature himself but various spin off characters, time will tell I guess.

    Kinda surprised there hasn’t been a Leiter novel. He’s already had his own comic book.

    Side note: while reading the Felix Leiter comic books, I had sometimes the impression that Robinson was more interested in telling a Tiger Tanaka story. I wouldn't be against more products about Tiger (novel, comics, anything). Of all the Bond characters, this is, IMO, the one that has the characteristics best suited for a spin-off.

    Ooh Tiger would be cool, wouldn't he. I think I'd like the film version with his personal train and awesome hi-tech lairs everywhere. He's almost more like Derek Flint than he is like Bond, which I think would be supercool.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,959
    mtm wrote: »
    Leon12 wrote: »
    I'm wondering if this is the first steps to a Marvel type 'Bond universe' where he doesn't feature himself but various spin off characters, time will tell I guess.

    Kinda surprised there hasn’t been a Leiter novel. He’s already had his own comic book.

    Side note: while reading the Felix Leiter comic books, I had sometimes the impression that Robinson was more interested in telling a Tiger Tanaka story. I wouldn't be against more products about Tiger (novel, comics, anything). Of all the Bond characters, this is, IMO, the one that has the characteristics best suited for a spin-off.

    Ooh Tiger would be cool, wouldn't he. I think I'd like the film version with his personal train and awesome hi-tech lairs everywhere. He's almost more like Derek Flint than he is like Bond, which I think would be supercool.

    I would love to see Tiger get more time in adaptions. With these Bond Universe possibly starting in the books, I would like to write my own story on Goldfinger’s background, set in modern day. I know it sounds silly but I enjoy the writing process. As for the Felix Leiter comic, I would love to see it continued by Dynamite.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,093

    Kinda surprised there hasn’t been a Leiter novel. He’s already had his own comic book.

    Leiter: The Pinkerton Years, in a hardboiled Raymond Chandler style. Yes please.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Gonna be a +1 here and say I really enjoyed the Leiter comic!

    I'll give these books a chance, I think. They could be interesting.
  • Posts: 2,585
    Looking forward to reading this but I’m disappointed that Bond won’t feature for some of it.

    November 11 - Armistice Day. According to John Pearson, Bond was supposed to have been born today in 1920. That would make him 101! Happy Birthday James!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959


    An interview with Kim Sherwood, it’s not Bond related, but it’s interesting.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959
    We know that M and Moneypenny will be returning. Who else could be coming back in this trilogy?I know I brought up Alec Trevelyan, but another 00 agent could be Scarlett Papava. Other MI6 personnel I think could turn up are Loelia Ponsonby, Bill Tanner and Mary Goodnight.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,824
    Sir James Moloney is another, but he wouldn't have Bond to analyze.

  • Agent_99 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Fleming NEVER intended Bond to be a period character

    But he's become that because Fleming made him so up to the minute contemporary, and I love it.

    I do think it's tricky to bring the literary Bond up to date, because there are so many parts of his life that have disappeared. People don't dine at their clubs any more, or have housekeepers, so it's harder to imagine his domestic setup between missions. Does Bond put out his recycling bins? I can't picture it.

    This is an interesting problem we haven't seen tackled yet: Bond up against recycling in the 21st century. They certainly could have gone there in Craig's films. When Moneypenny visits Bond's apartment in SP perhaps.

    Bond crumples soda can and chucks it in with his garbage.

    Moneypenny: "Aren't you going to recycle that?"

    Bond stares blankly.

    Bond: "No."

    Moneypenny: "You know the world has changed, James. People recycle their soda cans."

    Bond: "And what do you do?"

    Moneypenny blinks.

    Moneypenny: "I recycle my soda cans."

    Bond: "Well then you're an idiot."

    Moneypenny: "Excuse me?"

    Bond: "I said you're a bloody idiot!" *smashes two champagne glasses, sweeps glass into garbage*

    Moneypenny, turning to leave: "Bye, James. I'll see you at the office tomorrow..."

    Bond, calling after: "You're all bloody idiots!" ... "Wait, don't go, I still have to show you Judi Dench!"
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,824
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Fleming NEVER intended Bond to be a period character

    But he's become that because Fleming made him so up to the minute contemporary, and I love it.

    I do think it's tricky to bring the literary Bond up to date, because there are so many parts of his life that have disappeared. People don't dine at their clubs any more, or have housekeepers, so it's harder to imagine his domestic setup between missions. Does Bond put out his recycling bins? I can't picture it.

    This is an interesting problem we haven't seen tackled yet: Bond up against recycling in the 21st century. They certainly could have gone there in Craig's films. When Moneypenny visits Bond's apartment in SP perhaps.

    Bond crumples soda can and chucks it in with his garbage.

    Moneypenny: "Aren't you going to recycle that?"

    Bond stares blankly.

    Bond: "No."

    Moneypenny: "You know the world has changed, James. People recycle their soda cans."

    Bond: "And what do you do?"

    Moneypenny blinks.

    Moneypenny: "I recycle my soda cans."

    Bond: "Well then you're an idiot."

    Moneypenny: "Excuse me?"

    Bond: "I said you're a bloody idiot!" *smashes two champagne glasses, sweeps glass into garbage*

    Moneypenny, turning to leave: "Bye, James. I'll see you at the office tomorrow..."

    Bond, calling after: "You're all bloody idiots!" ... "Wait, don't go, I still have to show you Judi Dench!"
    Wow. That could be a thrilling conclusion to a film version of Carte Blanche.

    11535253._UY200_.jpg

  • Agent_99 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Fleming NEVER intended Bond to be a period character

    But he's become that because Fleming made him so up to the minute contemporary, and I love it.

    I do think it's tricky to bring the literary Bond up to date, because there are so many parts of his life that have disappeared. People don't dine at their clubs any more, or have housekeepers, so it's harder to imagine his domestic setup between missions. Does Bond put out his recycling bins? I can't picture it.

    This is an interesting problem we haven't seen tackled yet: Bond up against recycling in the 21st century. They certainly could have gone there in Craig's films. When Moneypenny visits Bond's apartment in SP perhaps.

    Bond crumples soda can and chucks it in with his garbage.

    Moneypenny: "Aren't you going to recycle that?"

    Bond stares blankly.

    Bond: "No."

    Moneypenny: "You know the world has changed, James. People recycle their soda cans."

    Bond: "And what do you do?"

    Moneypenny blinks.

    Moneypenny: "I recycle my soda cans."

    Bond: "Well then you're an idiot."

    Moneypenny: "Excuse me?"

    Bond: "I said you're a bloody idiot!" *smashes two champagne glasses, sweeps glass into garbage*

    Moneypenny, turning to leave: "Bye, James. I'll see you at the office tomorrow..."

    Bond, calling after: "You're all bloody idiots!" ... "Wait, don't go, I still have to show you Judi Dench!"
    Wow. That could be a thrilling conclusion to a film version of Carte Blanche.

    11535253._UY200_.jpg

    Complete freedom to act as one thinks best.

    "You have a licence to kill, 007. Not to break the recycling guidelines."
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Sir James Moloney is another, but he wouldn't have Bond to analyze.

    ‘James Moloney, analyse this’
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959
    https://www.instagram.com/kimtsherwood/

    It seems she’s going all out for Bond. The first person from my generation to write a James Bond novel!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    https://www.instagram.com/kimtsherwood/

    It seems she’s going all out for Bond. The first person from my generation to write a James Bond novel!

    Yes, I was thinking she's so far the first person born after me to write a Bond novel (of sorts) though admittedly I am getting older. She's 5 years younger than me in fact.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959
    I don’t know if this was posted before, it goes into why IFP and Kim Sherwood are working together.

    https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/11/05/kim-sherwood-tapped-to-write-new-james-bond-novels-without-007-will-reimagine-classic-characters/
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959
    Has anyone read Kim Sherwood’s only novel Testament since her Bond announcement?

    https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Kim-Sherwood-author/dp/1786488671
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,824
    Double no.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,959
    https://www.themix.net/2021/11/kim-sherwood-tapped-to-write-new-james-bond-novels-without-007-will-reimagine-classic-characters/

    Based on her comments about her love of Goldeneye, I still can't shake the feeling of Alec Trevelyan making a surprise comeback. I wonder if Barbara Broccoli had any say in her selecting.

    John Logan said that Bond should always fight Blofeld, just before he wrote Spectre.

    https://thefilmstage.com/john-logan-suggests-a-blofeld-presence-in-bond-23/
  • MaxCasino wrote: »
    https://www.themix.net/2021/11/kim-sherwood-tapped-to-write-new-james-bond-novels-without-007-will-reimagine-classic-characters/

    Based on her comments about her love of Goldeneye, I still can't shake the feeling of Alec Trevelyan making a surprise comeback. I wonder if Barbara Broccoli had any say in her selecting.

    That would certainly be a first (apart from novelizations) for a character created in the films to cross over into the books. I don't think even Robinson (apart from TND, TWINE, or DAD) appeared in any of Benson's books. Somehow, I just can't see this happening, but that would be kinda crazy if it did.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 14,792
    Yeah I don't think any film character has travelled into non-film novelisation continuation books. The only slight exception would be a bit of fudging over whether Boothroyd or his associates are actually known as 'Q' or not, I guess.
    Regardless I wouldn't expect it to happen just because they'd surely have to pay EON to use any original characters?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959
    It seems to me that IFP has been doing almost everything in threes since Raymond Benson. Benson wrote 3 trilogy of novels: The Union Trilogy, Choice of Weapons, and three movie novelizations. Plus three official short stories. Also, Kate Westbrook’s Moneypenny Diaries Trilogy.Then, 3 guest authors, Faulks, Deaver and Boyd. Then, Anthony Horowitz’s trilogy. Now, Kim Sherwood’s Double 0 trilogy. History repeats itself.
  • MaxCasino wrote: »
    It seems to me that IFP has been doing almost everything in threes since Raymond Benson. Benson wrote 3 trilogy of novels: The Union Trilogy, Choice of Weapons, and three movie novelizations. Plus three official short stories. Also, Kate Westbrook’s Moneypenny Diaries Trilogy.Then, 3 guest authors, Faulks, Deaver and Boyd. Then, Anthony Horowitz’s trilogy. Now, Kim Sherwood’s Double 0 trilogy. History repeats itself.

    Fleming's twelve Bond novels are divisible by three. So are his nine short stories. Post Fleming there were three Bond novels in the late 60s/70s before Gardner took over (Colonel Sun, TSWLM, MR). Novels and short story combined, Charlie Higson wrote six Bond adventures, again divisible by three.

    All signs point to John Gardner as the only Bond author not to conform to the rule of threes.

    Coincidence?

    mourir-peut-attendre-photo-billy-magnussen-1395571.jpg
  • Posts: 1,678
    Does each double O agent have their own set of larger than life villains and situations where they get to save the world. Must be hard to keep track of. Personally, I'd rather follow Felix on some exploits involving Spectre.
  • Posts: 5,745
    As admiral Sir Miles Messervy put it once : "We do function in your absence, Commander."
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,093
    delfloria wrote: »
    Does each double O agent have their own set of larger than life villains and situations where they get to save the world. Must be hard to keep track of. Personally, I'd rather follow Felix on some exploits involving Spectre.

    I'd like to see TB from the point of view of all the agents who got sent to parts of the world where the stolen bomber turned out not to be.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Does each double O agent have their own set of larger than life villains and situations where they get to save the world. Must be hard to keep track of. Personally, I'd rather follow Felix on some exploits involving Spectre.

    I'd like to see TB from the point of view of all the agents who got sent to parts of the world where the stolen bomber turned out not to be.

    :)) I love that! Yes please.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2022 Posts: 17,620
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    It seems to me that IFP has been doing almost everything in threes since Raymond Benson. Benson wrote 3 trilogy of novels: The Union Trilogy, Choice of Weapons, and three movie novelizations. Plus three official short stories. Also, Kate Westbrook’s Moneypenny Diaries Trilogy.Then, 3 guest authors, Faulks, Deaver and Boyd. Then, Anthony Horowitz’s trilogy. Now, Kim Sherwood’s Double 0 trilogy. History repeats itself.

    Fleming's twelve Bond novels are divisible by three. So are his nine short stories. Post Fleming there were three Bond novels in the late 60s/70s before Gardner took over (Colonel Sun, TSWLM, MR). Novels and short story combined, Charlie Higson wrote six Bond adventures, again divisible by three.

    All signs point to John Gardner as the only Bond author not to conform to the rule of threes.

    Coincidence?

    mourir-peut-attendre-photo-billy-magnussen-1395571.jpg

    In some ways early on John Gardner did also conform to the rule of threes as his initial contract from Glidrose was for three Bond novels. Gardner then thought that that would be it and another author would get to have a go. However, once he had written those initial three Bond novels he was given a contract to write three more and so it continued. As Gardner wrote fourteen original Bond novels and two film novelisations the rule of three was obviously broken later on. I assume that some of the later novels or more likely the novelisations were more of the "one and done" variety, especially as the novelisations would have involved input from Eon as well as Glidrose. Gardner even stated in the introduction to the US Armchair Detective edition of his Licence to Kill novelisation, that as he had had truck with film screenplays in the past this would be his one and only foray into doing a Bond film novelisation. Of course, as we all know, he later reneged on this stance and went on to write the GoldenEye film novelisation as well.
  • Dragonpol wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    It seems to me that IFP has been doing almost everything in threes since Raymond Benson. Benson wrote 3 trilogy of novels: The Union Trilogy, Choice of Weapons, and three movie novelizations. Plus three official short stories. Also, Kate Westbrook’s Moneypenny Diaries Trilogy.Then, 3 guest authors, Faulks, Deaver and Boyd. Then, Anthony Horowitz’s trilogy. Now, Kim Sherwood’s Double 0 trilogy. History repeats itself.

    Fleming's twelve Bond novels are divisible by three. So are his nine short stories. Post Fleming there were three Bond novels in the late 60s/70s before Gardner took over (Colonel Sun, TSWLM, MR). Novels and short story combined, Charlie Higson wrote six Bond adventures, again divisible by three.

    All signs point to John Gardner as the only Bond author not to conform to the rule of threes.

    Coincidence?

    mourir-peut-attendre-photo-billy-magnussen-1395571.jpg

    In some ways early on John Gardner did also conform to the role of threes as his initial contract from Glidrose was for three Bond novels. Gardner then thought that that would be it and another author would get to have a go. However, once he had written those initial three Bond novels he was given a contract to write three more and so it continued. As Gardner wrote fourteen original Bond novels and two film novelisations the rule of three was obviously broken later on. I assume that some of the later novels or more likely the novelisations were more of the "one and done" variety, especially as the novelisations would have involved input from Eon as well as Glidrose. Gardner even stated in the introduction to the US Armchair Detective edition of his Licence to Kill novelisation, that as he had had truck with film screenplays in the past this would be his one and only foray into doing a Bond film novelisation. Of course, as we all know, he later reneged on this stance and went on to write the GoldenEye film novelisation as well.

    I did not know that about Gardner. My comment was facetious, but it does seem there is something about the number three when it comes to contracts. I believe most Bond actors have been contracted for three, then negotiate on a film to film basis from there. (I do also recall Gardner’s surprisingly candid Licence to Kill introduction.)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    It seems to me that IFP has been doing almost everything in threes since Raymond Benson. Benson wrote 3 trilogy of novels: The Union Trilogy, Choice of Weapons, and three movie novelizations. Plus three official short stories. Also, Kate Westbrook’s Moneypenny Diaries Trilogy.Then, 3 guest authors, Faulks, Deaver and Boyd. Then, Anthony Horowitz’s trilogy. Now, Kim Sherwood’s Double 0 trilogy. History repeats itself.

    Fleming's twelve Bond novels are divisible by three. So are his nine short stories. Post Fleming there were three Bond novels in the late 60s/70s before Gardner took over (Colonel Sun, TSWLM, MR). Novels and short story combined, Charlie Higson wrote six Bond adventures, again divisible by three.

    All signs point to John Gardner as the only Bond author not to conform to the rule of threes.

    Coincidence?

    mourir-peut-attendre-photo-billy-magnussen-1395571.jpg

    In some ways early on John Gardner did also conform to the role of threes as his initial contract from Glidrose was for three Bond novels. Gardner then thought that that would be it and another author would get to have a go. However, once he had written those initial three Bond novels he was given a contract to write three more and so it continued. As Gardner wrote fourteen original Bond novels and two film novelisations the rule of three was obviously broken later on. I assume that some of the later novels or more likely the novelisations were more of the "one and done" variety, especially as the novelisations would have involved input from Eon as well as Glidrose. Gardner even stated in the introduction to the US Armchair Detective edition of his Licence to Kill novelisation, that as he had had truck with film screenplays in the past this would be his one and only foray into doing a Bond film novelisation. Of course, as we all know, he later reneged on this stance and went on to write the GoldenEye film novelisation as well.

    I did not know that about Gardner. My comment was facetious, but it does seem there is something about the number three when it comes to contracts. I believe most Bond actors have been contracted for three, then negotiate on a film to film basis from there. (I do also recall Gardner’s surprisingly candid Licence to Kill introduction.)

    Yes, I understood that you were joking but you did raise a very good point all the same and it triggered that fact about the Gardner novels in my mind. You could be right about the number three in contracts. I suppose it's a nice number. It allows for a beginning, a middle and an end if that is envisioned. I think Gardner must've negotiated some of his later books one by one after the contracts for three books were fulfilled. I recall Gardner saying somewhere that there was initially a get-out clause written into the contract for the first three books so that either Glidrose or he could pull out of the contract and not be in breach of it if they felt what he was producing wasn't up to scratch.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    I think you're also right that the novelisations were probably outside of his deal to write continuation novels. Same with Benson: it's notable that M is never referred to as the name he gave her of Barbara Mawdsley in the film tie-ins he wrote.
Sign In or Register to comment.