SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1222325272845

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Sounds like we're in agreement on all fronts then, @jetsetwilly B-) (CR is my #4).
  • Posts: 3,273
    Sounds like we're in agreement on all fronts then, @jetsetwilly B-) (CR is my #4).

    \:D/
  • Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    I am all for Fleming worshipping and all that, but do you seriously think any of those novels would fit the requirements of what is expected of a 21st century action film?
    Based on the 2006 film Casino Royale, yes.

    Starting with Live and Let Die and Moonraker.

    But that required serious tewrites and the creation of many new ideas. And new ideas is what we don't want apparently, according to @jetsetwilly
  • Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    I am all for Fleming worshipping and all that, but do you seriously think any of those novels would fit the requirements of what is expected of a 21st century action film?
    Based on the 2006 film Casino Royale, yes.

    Starting with Live and Let Die and Moonraker.

    Thank you for some sanity on here.

    CR proved beyond doubt Fleming can be adapted to modern day. And bizarrely that was the very first book from 1952, long before Fleming finally got the workings and template of a Bond formula traditionally defined, which would come later.

    And it meant that P&W had to be very creative and make up many new ideas... which is what you said you didn't want to see...? :-??
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 3,273
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I am all for Fleming worshipping and all that, but do you seriously think any of those novels would fit the requirements of what is expected of a 21st century action film?
    Based on the 2006 film Casino Royale, yes.

    Starting with Live and Let Die and Moonraker.

    Thank you for some sanity on here.

    CR proved beyond doubt Fleming can be adapted to modern day. And bizarrely that was the very first book from 1952, long before Fleming finally got the workings and template of a Bond formula traditionally defined, which would come later.

    And it meant that P&W had to be very creative and make up many new ideas... which is what you said you didn't want to see...? :-??

    No, I DO want to see. I am realistic, and I know if a Bond film tried to adapt something like DAF or MR, much of it will need to be updated to fit into a modern story. I'm totally ok with that. I'm very happy if I see a Bond film with new ideas and stories, but the central focus of it is based around a Fleming book or a short story. Maibaum was an expert at doing this - weaving Fleming into a new script.

    What I don't like is what we have seen since GE - discarding Fleming completely, or retconning Fleming so now Blofeld is now Bond's brother, or some crap like that. Unfortunately P&W have proved time and time again they are just not in the same league as Maibaum, and are not capable of coming up with completely new stories that are as good as anything Fleming wrote, and don't have a grasp of adapting any unused material, instead opting for silly retcon BS.

    The one free pass they get is with CR, where they managed to update the novel successfully. They did it once, I'd love to see if they could do it again. I'd be the first offering my support.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...
    But if you are looking for a proper adaptation of Fleming material, it would need to be set at the same time as the books were? That's kind of what I was referring to in my previous. Otherwise, it's still "Fleming, reimagined" as you put it, rather than an actual translation of the material.

    Anything after OHMSS would fall under that bracket, imo, to varying degrees of success.

    Not at all. I'm talking about FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK and CR.

    None of these examples was `Fleming re-imagined'. They were accurately taking an entire short story, scene, or in the case of CR an entire novel, and adapting it to a modern day script. Obviously certain aspects get tweaked for updating, but events, characters, motivations, etc. stay exactly the same.

    Apart from CR, this hasn't been done since 1989.

    Die Another Day was a Moonraker adaptation. But of course your definition of what is acceptable is your own unique one (it must be updated, but only updated to your taste), and frankly just because Fleming wrote something it doesn't automatically make it great. I hope P&W stick a giant squid fight and kill Safin with a pile of bird shit to keep you happy.
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 7,500
    @jetsetwilly

    I understand. I might have misinterpreted this quote:

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I see CR as just that: P&W's original ideas based on the novel, just as SP were their original ideas based on Fleming's material of Oberhauser being Bond's care taker step dad and SF was their original ideas based on Fleming's material regarding Bond's origins in Scottland as orphanaged. I think it is also quite obvious that DAD was P&W's attempt at a very superficial adaption of the novel MR. You could also argue the organisation Quantum in QoS are "based on" SPECTRE.

    All in all I think the intentions of the producers are not lacking at all. Almost all the recent films have in common the desire to create new material based on Fleming's heritage. What has been letting them down is the very mixed level of execution, ranging on all levels from the triumph that is CR to complete mess of film that is DAD.

    On the topic of P&W we very much agree. There have to be better suited screenwriters out there to realize the producer's intention of creating films based on old Fleming material.
  • Posts: 3,273
    jobo wrote: »

    All in all I think the intentions of the producers are not lacking at all. Almost all the recent films have in common the desire to create new material based on Fleming's heritage. What has been letting them down is the very mixed level of execution, ranging on all levels from the triumph that is CR to complete mess of film that is DAD.

    On the topic of P&W we very much agree. There have to be better suited screenwriters out there to realize the producer's intention of creating films based on old Fleming material.

    There we go. Common ground we can both finally agree on.

    \:D/
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    For all the Fleming experts: CR was published in 1953 (not '52); AND: "Tracey" is actually Tracy (Contessa Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo); when you slam the films and the writers and protest that you're an expert and lover of Fleming, let's get the details correct, shall we?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,548
    peter wrote: »
    For all the Fleming experts: CR was published in 1953 (not '52); AND: "Tracey" is actually Tracy (Contessa Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo); when you slam the films and the writers and protest that you're an expert and lover of Fleming, let's get the details correct, shall we?

    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 3,273
    peter wrote: »
    For all the Fleming experts: CR was published in 1953 (not '52); AND: "Tracey" is actually Tracy (Contessa Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo); when you slam the films and the writers and protest that you're an expert and lover of Fleming, let's get the details correct, shall we?

    CR was written in 1952, Einstein. Don't some on here and start nic-picking, looking for a petty fight. No one is in the mood right now.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,921
    Die Another Day was a Moonraker adaptation. But of course your definition of what is acceptable is your own unique one (it must be updated, but only updated to your taste), and frankly just because Fleming wrote something it doesn't automatically make it great. I hope P&W stick a giant squid fight and kill Safin with a pile of bird shit to keep you happy.

    GE was also a MR adaptation, and P&W were no part of that...

    SF was kind of, sort of, a YOLT/TMWTGG adaptation.

    The problem is that the remaining Fleming may not be that adaptable, which is why it's been left behind so far.

    How much of a story is left to use from DAF or TMWTGG? How much story is in TSWLM, to begin with?

    Do audiences want to see the MR bridge game (which is also in OP) or will it be transformed into something more modern and almost unrecognizable?
  • Posts: 7,500
    echo wrote: »
    Die Another Day was a Moonraker adaptation. But of course your definition of what is acceptable is your own unique one (it must be updated, but only updated to your taste), and frankly just because Fleming wrote something it doesn't automatically make it great. I hope P&W stick a giant squid fight and kill Safin with a pile of bird shit to keep you happy.

    GE was also a MR adaptation, and P&W were no part of that...

    SF was kind of, sort of, a YOLT/TMWTGG adaptation.

    The problem is that the remaining Fleming may not be that adaptable, which is why it's been left behind so far.

    How much of a story is left to use from DAF or TMWTGG? How much story is in TSWLM, to begin with?

    Do audiences want to see the MR bridge game (which is also in OP) or will it be transformed into something more modern and almost unrecognizable?


    I always interpreted the fencing scene in DAD as the action movie equivilant to the bridge game in the novel.
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    I hope P&W stick a giant squid fight and kill Safin with a pile of bird shit to keep you happy.
    That would make me ecstatic, kind sir.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    peter wrote: »
    For all the Fleming experts: CR was published in 1953 (not '52); AND: "Tracey" is actually Tracy (Contessa Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo); when you slam the films and the writers and protest that you're an expert and lover of Fleming, let's get the details correct, shall we?

    Oh man, I wish this thread would die.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    The FRWL train fight was obviously a lot more exciting that the book version too. I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,921
    mtm wrote: »
    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    You make a good point, especially about DAF and even MR. There are characters in Fleming I'd nonetheless like to see--Fidele Barbey, anyone?

    I still think the latter third of YOLT could be bonkers, in a good way, to send off a Bond actor. And then the beginning of TMWTGG for the next Bond actor. But the rest of TMWTGG is just...meh.
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    Good question.

    I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.

    CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.

    TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.

    If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.

    So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    Good question.

    I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.

    CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.

    Hmm. I like all that. It adds drama. It's not as if Bond really does go rogue all that often. In CR the most rogue he goes is to break into M's flat; in QoS he gets taken off the case but reminds M that 'he never left'; in SF he's not rogue at all; in SP it's just the beginning of the story, and even then he's acting on (old) M's orders. If OHMSS or Moonraker or TMWTGG don't offend I'm not sure why these do, I think it's overstated.
    TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.

    If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.

    So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.


    The only writer I've thought who got anywhere close to Fleming's slightly batshit crazy plots with a hint of perversion is actually Charlie Higson: those are the only continuation ones I've felt like were part of Fleming's world truly. Horowitz isn't too bad but not quite there. Casino Royale is such an insane plot I'm actually not sure it would be taken seriously as a new script if it hadn't come from a Fleming novel!
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    Good question.

    I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.

    CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.

    Hmm. I like all that. It adds drama. It's not as if Bond really does go rogue all that often. In CR the most rogue he goes is to break into M's flat; in QoS he gets taken off the case but reminds M that 'he never left'; in SF he's not rogue at all; in SP it's just the beginning of the story, and even then he's acting on (old) M's orders. If OHMSS or Moonraker or TMWTGG don't offend I'm not sure why these do, I think it's overstated.
    TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.

    If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.

    So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.


    The only writer I've thought who got anywhere close to Fleming's slightly batshit crazy plots with a hint of perversion is actually Charlie Higson: those are the only continuation ones I've felt like were part of Fleming's world truly. Horowitz isn't too bad but not quite there. Casino Royale is such an insane plot I'm actually not sure it would be taken seriously as a new script if it hadn't come from a Fleming novel!

    I've not read any Higson novels. You recommend them then?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    Good question.

    I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.

    CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.

    Hmm. I like all that. It adds drama. It's not as if Bond really does go rogue all that often. In CR the most rogue he goes is to break into M's flat; in QoS he gets taken off the case but reminds M that 'he never left'; in SF he's not rogue at all; in SP it's just the beginning of the story, and even then he's acting on (old) M's orders. If OHMSS or Moonraker or TMWTGG don't offend I'm not sure why these do, I think it's overstated.
    TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.

    If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.

    So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.


    The only writer I've thought who got anywhere close to Fleming's slightly batshit crazy plots with a hint of perversion is actually Charlie Higson: those are the only continuation ones I've felt like were part of Fleming's world truly. Horowitz isn't too bad but not quite there. Casino Royale is such an insane plot I'm actually not sure it would be taken seriously as a new script if it hadn't come from a Fleming novel!

    I've not read any Higson novels. You recommend them then?

    If you can get over the central device of him being a boy, and of course some of the more gruesome elements being removed (although not all as kids do like that stuff) then I remember them being surprisingly good. It's been a while though so maybe my memory is cheating, but I do remember them being right in the tone of Fleming with lots of his style of nasty ideas in there. There's one where the baddie chains James down in a swamp or somewhere (?) so that he can basically be bitten to death slowly by a swarm of mosquitos. Another one I liked involved an island run a mastermind where criminals pay to go to retire to be safe and protected, and they have a sunken Aztec obstacle course of death with various deadly traps and wild animals where those who intrude have to run. It felt like Fleming's sort of thing to me.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    Good question.

    I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.

    CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.

    Hmm. I like all that. It adds drama. It's not as if Bond really does go rogue all that often. In CR the most rogue he goes is to break into M's flat; in QoS he gets taken off the case but reminds M that 'he never left'; in SF he's not rogue at all; in SP it's just the beginning of the story, and even then he's acting on (old) M's orders. If OHMSS or Moonraker or TMWTGG don't offend I'm not sure why these do, I think it's overstated.
    TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.

    If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.

    So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.


    The only writer I've thought who got anywhere close to Fleming's slightly batshit crazy plots with a hint of perversion is actually Charlie Higson: those are the only continuation ones I've felt like were part of Fleming's world truly. Horowitz isn't too bad but not quite there. Casino Royale is such an insane plot I'm actually not sure it would be taken seriously as a new script if it hadn't come from a Fleming novel!

    I've not read any Higson novels. You recommend them then?

    If you can get over the central device of him being a boy, and of course some of the more gruesome elements being removed (although not all as kids do like that stuff) then I remember them being surprisingly good. It's been a while though so maybe my memory is cheating, but I do remember them being right in the tone of Fleming with lots of his style of nasty ideas in there. There's one where the baddie chains James down in a swamp or somewhere (?) so that he can basically be bitten to death slowly by a swarm of mosquitos. Another one I liked involved an island run a mastermind where criminals pay to go to retire to be safe and protected, and they have a sunken Aztec obstacle course of death with various deadly traps and wild animals where those who intrude have to run. It felt like Fleming's sort of thing to me.

    I might have to give them a go then. Which novel do you suggest I start with?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    I listened to a properly adapted version of TMWTGG last week.... it wasn't very good...

    All depends on how things are adapted. The premise of CR isn't that intriguing on paper for a modern day blockbuster action film, yet it was done successfully.

    What version was it of TMWTGG? I'd be interested to hear it.

    It was the latest BBC Radio 4 adaptation with Toby Stephens. I'm sure there's a link to it on YouTube in the radio dramas thread. I didn't really rate it to be honest. I find the radio dramas do kind of reveal how much the movies added and how valuable that contribution is.
    I'm not saying they're bad as books- they clearly aren't. But to be made into films they need to be adapted quite literally: changed to suit their new medium. You can't just stick this stuff on screen.

    Yes there we agree. Maibaum had a good grasp of the novels but knew how to adapt them to the screen, without losing the essence of Fleming. GF adapted to the screen actually made more sense than the book.

    OHMSS adapted to film had the nice use of Bond at the beach at the beginning watching Tracy, but managed to also use the flashbacks of the novel too, in the scenes that followed.

    Yes what I love about that is that the scenes are in the same order as in the book (as I remember) but he just made them not flashbacks any more and had Bond experience them in the same order that the reader did! Fixed! :D
    I know I sound like a broken record, but I still think there is enough material left to adapt effectively to screen - Bond being Brooklyn stomped on by football boots, the mud baths and the horse race from DAF, the game of cards from MR, Bond rescuing the damsel in distress held captive in her motel from TSWLM, etc. etc.

    All of this could work visually, and then woven into new stories. Basically EON need to find another Maibaum.

    I guess... these are just bits and pieces though and hardly iconic scenes. I wouldn't be upset if they were in there and obviously if it makes you happy then fine, but there's nothing in there which desperately excites me. A lot of folk talk about wanting to see Shatterhand's garden of death in there but never actually talk about what the scene would be, and I'm not really sure how cinematic a garden is. It doesn't do anything. Does it just need to be mentioned? I'm not sure. Are you saying they have to use all these scraps up before you accept them writing new stories and scenes? How many do they have to use per film?

    Good question.

    I think for me I'm so desperate for Fleming scenes, because ever since the Brosnan era, we have had original storylines that I really think have been varying levels of bad, with P&W obviously held as the main culprits. If they went back to the books, it would be a way of locking them in, a safety measure, a quality control to keep them on the right track.

    CR was the moment where I felt we were back on track, mainly because it was going back to Fleming again, but since then it feels like EON are slowly drifting back to what we saw under the Brosnan era. I don't like the fact that Bond goes rogue too often, that the Scooby gang are brought into the main action, that the family background of Bond is now becoming a prominent feature.

    Hmm. I like all that. It adds drama. It's not as if Bond really does go rogue all that often. In CR the most rogue he goes is to break into M's flat; in QoS he gets taken off the case but reminds M that 'he never left'; in SF he's not rogue at all; in SP it's just the beginning of the story, and even then he's acting on (old) M's orders. If OHMSS or Moonraker or TMWTGG don't offend I'm not sure why these do, I think it's overstated.
    TLD and LTK for me worked as a template. They had enough of an original story, but felt rooted in the essence of Fleming, and also used either a short story or a couple of scenes too.

    If P&W could deliver something that felt like a Fleming novel, then I probably wouldn't be that bothered if any of the material from the books was tossed in for good measure. SF is probably their closest attempt at this, and part of that film worked for me because of it.

    So in an answer to your question - in an ideal world I'd love to see all remaining Fleming used up, panned across various films. The next best thing would be to have a story that felt like it was written by Fleming and then adapted to the screen by Maibaum, even though it is a completely original script.


    The only writer I've thought who got anywhere close to Fleming's slightly batshit crazy plots with a hint of perversion is actually Charlie Higson: those are the only continuation ones I've felt like were part of Fleming's world truly. Horowitz isn't too bad but not quite there. Casino Royale is such an insane plot I'm actually not sure it would be taken seriously as a new script if it hadn't come from a Fleming novel!

    I've not read any Higson novels. You recommend them then?

    If you can get over the central device of him being a boy, and of course some of the more gruesome elements being removed (although not all as kids do like that stuff) then I remember them being surprisingly good. It's been a while though so maybe my memory is cheating, but I do remember them being right in the tone of Fleming with lots of his style of nasty ideas in there. There's one where the baddie chains James down in a swamp or somewhere (?) so that he can basically be bitten to death slowly by a swarm of mosquitos. Another one I liked involved an island run a mastermind where criminals pay to go to retire to be safe and protected, and they have a sunken Aztec obstacle course of death with various deadly traps and wild animals where those who intrude have to run. It felt like Fleming's sort of thing to me.

    I might have to give them a go then. Which novel do you suggest I start with?

    Gosh I honestly can't remember. I know I skipped Silverfin but I think the one after that was pretty good.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Well, if we are being totally honest guys... Plots were never Fleming's strong suit. There are only a couple of his stories I'd say are generaly great in their own right. FRWL, MR and OHMSS are the ones that stand out in my opinion, but on the whole it is not the quality of the plots that make the novels special. Basically all of them are made up on the go anyway, with very little or even non existent planning. That was the way Fleming wrote.

    What Fleming really could do was write. The magic of the novels is in the words he put on the page and some of the best moments in the books are those that let us get into Bond's mind and are concerned with general thoughts, observations or trivia. He also had a talent for the bizarre both in the mystifying world he created for Bond and the fascinating, larger than life characters he encounters. That, together with Bond himself, the perfect, complex and multilayered character, both the ultimate hero and anti hero in one, is the cocktail that makes the novels so special. The stories? Well, not so much.

    The way Fleming created bizarre and unique scenarios is hard to match today. I think only his, very special mind could do that. But don't tell me that the plots he made were so great that no one can do it better. That is far from the case in my opinion.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 3,273
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, if we are being totally honest guys... Plots were never Fleming's strong suit. There are only a couple of his stories I'd say are generaly great in their own right. FRWL, MR and OHMSS are the ones that stand out in my opinion, but on the whole it is not the quality of the plots that make the novels special. Basically all of them are made up on the go anyway, with very little or even non existent planning. That was the way Fleming wrote.

    What Fleming really could do was write. The magic of the novels is in the words he put on the page and some of the best moments in the books are those that let us get into Bond's mind and are concerned with general thoughts, observations or trivia. He also had a talent for the bizarre both in the mystifying world he created for Bond and the fascinating, larger than life characters he encounters. That, together with Bond himself, the perfect, complex and multilayered character, both the ultimate hero and anti hero in one, is the cocktail that makes the novels so special. The stories? Well, not so much.

    The way Fleming created bizarre and unique scenarios is hard to match today. I think only his, very special mind could do that. But don't tell me that the plots he made were so great that no one can do it better. That is far from the case in my opinion.

    You hit the nail on the head. Bang on!

    It was Fleming's skills as a journalist that brought out the best in the books. Part of it felt like a travelogue, that we were going on a sunny holiday, suitcase packed, enjoying the scrambled eggs, ice cold showers and bourbon along the way, while at the same time living inside Bond's head, his thoughts, fears, desires. We get to meet interesting characters along the journey too, whether its banter with old buddy Felix, a sexy girl, or being confronted with some evil megalomaniac villain.

    This is the enjoyment I really get from the books, and yes you are right. Often the plots themselves are secondary to the experience that Fleming could deliver in his writing. It was more about the lifestyle, living like Bond, and getting under his skin (or his sea island cotton shirt).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yes, most of it is about the prose. So if you want have the experience of a Bond novel on screen... read a Bond novel. It's not happening.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes, most of it is about the prose. So if you want have the experience of a Bond novel on screen... read a Bond novel. It's not happening.

    I don't know; FRWL and OHMSS give me the same feelings I get from reading the respective novels. There are differences of course, but they're pretty close in terms of the way they make me feel. Which is why they are my #1 and #2, I guess.

    Granted, that is only two from twenty-four (almost twenty-five) films, but still....
Sign In or Register to comment.