›

Dr No - "absolutely dreadful"?

BAIN123BAIN123
edited May 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 11,189
I heard some time ago that Ian Fleming, upon seeing Dr No, referred to the film as "dreadful". This has always puzzled me seeing as, compared to later films, No is relitively faithful to the original story despite a few changes. Is this actually true?

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    I know that Fleming did have some issues with the film but honestly I don't think Fleming was the type of guy who'd ever have liked any version of his creation on screen, at least at first sight. I do believe he was more gentle towards the film, Connery and so forth later on. He had to be. I'm sure DN's success helped sell some more books. ;;)
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    I seem to recall reading somewhere that Fleming was so impressed with Connery that he gave Bond Scottish ancestory.

    Of course, that might just be an urban legend.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    Originally, Ian Fleming disliked the film in a private screening as "dreadful, absolutely dreadful" but because of the popularity of the film's release, Fleming warmed up to Connery and gave the literary Bond a half Scottish ancestry.
  • followingthenerdfollowingthenerd
    Posts: 21
    Dr No is probably my least favourite Bond movie by Connery.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    I believe he said that fans of his books were likely to be very disappointed, but those that had not read his books would enjoy the thriller.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited May 2011 Posts: 23,551
    I believe he said that fans of his books were likely to be very disappointed, but those that had not read his books would enjoy the thriller.
    How wrong he was. ;;) I wonder, if Fleming had live through the 70s, how he would have felt about DN, having just walked out of the MR première.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    edited May 2011 Posts: 987
    Fleming was always very self-deprecating about his own novels in public, despite actually being very proud of them, and his comments on the film DN may of just been an extension of this. Certainly the film didn't put him off visiting the sets of FRWL and GF, though by this stage of his life he was a very ill man who could see (if not appreciate) the irony of the financial and creative success the films had finally brought arriving too late to be of any use to the frail, dying man he had become.
    As far as Sean Connery inspiring Bond's Scottish heritage, it has now been disproved as Fleming's reference notes make it clear he had worked on this notion long before Sean arrived on the scene, and considering Fleming's own thoroughly Scottish background this is hardly surprising.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    As far as Sean Connery inspiring Bond's Scottish heritage, it has now been disproved as Fleming's reference notes make it clear he had worked on this notion long before Sean arrived on the scene, and considering Fleming's own thoroughly Scottish background this is hardly surprising.
    I had actually heard that aswell. I do find it interesting though that he name-checks Ursula Andress in his OHMSS novel (I think). Obviously he didn't hate the film so much as to not acknowledge it.

  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    Judging from the on set photos whatever Ian thought about the film, he certainly found Ursula Andress anything but 'absolutely dreadful', and who can blame him.
  • RussianMummyRussianMummy
    Posts: 17
    For a long time I never liked Dr No. I always thought it was pretty cheap feeling, not much to it and its only real appeal was that it was th 60s and seeing foreigners and women in bikinis on screen was still quite exciting.

    Watching it recently however, I've really come to appreciate it for its simplicity of Bond basically being a detective, but set in a time when the world of espionage and MI6 was at it's most interesting.
  • timmertimmer
    edited May 2011 Posts: 4,622
    Fleming was quite mercenary. I think all was forgiven once he saw what a huge box office success, DN was.
    Fleming hob-knobbed with an upper class crowd. He desperately wanted to strike it rich with Bond and combine substantial wealth with his upper-crust status and novelist celebrity. That's what I read in my various Fleming bios.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    edited May 2011 Posts: 257
    Well, let's face it, DN is not exactly Casablanca or The Third Man - it's a great film but perhaps Fleming just has really high standards? Had Hitchcock made the film, I doubt Fleming would have had much to criticize.

    Fleming's personal thoughts aside, DN has always been one of my most favored films of the series. One of the main reasons that I have always preferred DN to much of the series is because it is a tough little thriller, perhaps lacking the Hollywood polish of GF and the grand, sweeping feel of YOLT or TSWLM but very rich with character, attitude, and style and containing a rough edge and feel that is more in-tune with the hardboiled detective genre (Bogart could have felt at home in the film). Very few other 007 films in the series can even be compared to it.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Let's face it, Fleming was an old-school Etonian snob. My gut feeling is that he was never fully satisfied with Connery in the part (despite what stories say about him later coming round), or maybe he simply disliked the idea of James Bond being taken out of his own hands and transferred to the big screen.

    Nonetheless, I agree that DN is one of the best films in the series.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Terence Young thought the dragon scene was dreadful. But they were on a budget so that was the best they could do.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    Terence Young thought the dragon scene was dreadful. But they were on a budget so that was the best they could do.
    That is the one poor scene of the film, in my opinion - a casuality of the film's low budget. Still, it hardly made a dent on the great overall film, I think.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I suppose that's the reason why they didn't have Bond and Honey escape in the dragon like in the book
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I've always loved "Dr. NO", and it's anything but "dreadful".
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Dr. No was a great intro for Bond and far from dreadful. You have to take Fleming's criticisms with many grains of salt. He was a great writer but not a great judge of acting ability. The fact that he wanted the likes of Hoagy Carmichael and Noel Coward should put his views into perspective.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I think many authors are unhappy with the film version of their books because they have an idea in their mind of what the characters are like. Didn't Fleming envisage Bond as like David Niven? I'm sure Niven would have done a decent job, but there is no way Dr.No or the series would have been as iconic and as successful without Connery.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    I think Fleming would be overwhelmed to see how loved his creation has become!
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Fleming saw Connery as lower class and even referred to him as a lorry driver or overgrown stuntman. Fleming wanted someone whom he thought was an accepted star of the day. It would have boosted his ego and this was in a time where your social status mattered. Men like Fleming did not mix with men from Connery's background. They were seen as inferiors and may as well be slaves to them. It was not until The Beatles changed that, that the world changed.

    David Niven did a Bond spoof and we all know how far that got off the ground. I don't think between 1962-1967 Niven aged that much. But I do not see Bond in him. Maybe Fleming was drunk when he suggested David Niven?:)
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    Fleming saw Connery as lower class and even referred to him as a lorry driver or overgrown stuntman. Fleming wanted someone whom he thought was an accepted star of the day. It would have boosted his ego.

    David Niven did a Bond spoof and we all know how far that got off the ground. I don't think between 1962-1967 Niven aged that much. But I do not see Bond in him. Maybe Fleming was drunk when he suggested David Niven?:)

    I think he was mates with Niven and thought he'd be right for the part. Shows how Fleming's own image of the character differed. He obviously wanted his Bond a bit older.
  • GSSGSS
    Posts: 14
    I think Dr No is rather good; had it not been there wouldn't have been a sequel I guess. Joseph Wiseman certainly set the standard for Bond villains by putting in a great performance (he had a truly wonderful voice for that role) and all in all it was a great start. Given that I understand Ian Fleming wanted Noel Coward to play Dr No I am not sure why he would describe the actual result as dreadful - can you imagine Coward entering and uttering the line 'do sit down my dears, f-f-frightfully sorry about the cells'. No, that wouldn't have worked would it....
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    GSS wrote:
    I think Dr No is rather good; had it not been there wouldn't have been a sequel I guess. Joseph Wiseman certainly set the standard for Bond villains by putting in a great performance (he had a truly wonderful voice for that role) and all in all it was a great start. Given that I understand Ian Fleming wanted Noel Coward to play Dr No I am not sure why he would describe the actual result as dreadful - can you imagine Coward entering and uttering the line 'do sit down my dears, f-f-frightfully sorry about the cells'. No, that wouldn't have worked would it....

    Amusing thought. Niven and Coward in Dr.No.
Sign In or Register to comment.