Where does Bond go after Craig?

1542543545547548571

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    peter wrote: »
    [q
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    I don't think EON's plots are that original.

    Skyfall is Mission Impossible meets The man with the Golden Gun. Sure, it's a well made movie but you can catch all influences easily

    Most people say SF is a bit like The Dark Knight. Not sure where you got MI from (I guess the list of agents is a bit like the first MI film plot but it’s still very different in practice). There’s bits and pieces which resemble TMWTGG but they’re quite broad too (ie. The boat that brings them to Silva’s island, Severine bargaining with Bond as a means of escape like Andrea, and the very general idea of Bond and the villain being mirror images of each other).

    Anyway, nothing’s completely original. That’s not the point. Like I said Bond has an inherently repetitive formula. What I was trying to get at was I think some of the Bond continuation novels feel a bit too derivative of the series without doing it quite as well, adding anything quite as interesting, or developing these ideas in a fresh way in comparison to some of the more recent films.

    They can do the same thing they are doing with Fleming's novels. It's not that hard.

    They have the titles, they have the plots, they have the characters... They can make whatever changes they want.

    Yeah, @007HallY ! Taking a book and making it a smash hit around the world isn't hard at all!! Jeez, when will you ever learn??

    Thanks for spreading the wisdom Deke!

    In Deketown we use common sense. More books, more ideas.

    No, Deke, you may think that's common sense. But that's your lack of humility talking.

    There are less ideas in one book as there are after an hour of pitch-meetings.

    And if those ideas in these books aren't any good (some on here believe that the recent Bond films have better cinematic ideas than the continuation books), then that has no value either.

    So, no, Deke. Not common sense. Just a half-baked absolute in your eyes, that isn't particularly well thought out.

    We don't need another YOLT adaptation. Or another big character's death.

    Maybe they need more hours and more humility too.

    None of that is likely happening, so your statement is absolutely redundant.

    And considering EoN make films that have worldwide appeal, where you're just a fan on a website, with a Monday morning quarter-back eye, who seemingly thinks making films, or writing scripts, or adapting books to films isn't "that hard", I'm gonna say it's you who needs a healthy dose of humility.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,461
    Maybe we'll be Bisqmayer and his ice cream company plot
  • Posts: 3,211
    Maybe we'll be Bisqmayer and his ice cream company plot

    Mind control ice cream 😂 yes!
  • Posts: 886
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    [q
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    I don't think EON's plots are that original.

    Skyfall is Mission Impossible meets The man with the Golden Gun. Sure, it's a well made movie but you can catch all influences easily

    Most people say SF is a bit like The Dark Knight. Not sure where you got MI from (I guess the list of agents is a bit like the first MI film plot but it’s still very different in practice). There’s bits and pieces which resemble TMWTGG but they’re quite broad too (ie. The boat that brings them to Silva’s island, Severine bargaining with Bond as a means of escape like Andrea, and the very general idea of Bond and the villain being mirror images of each other).

    Anyway, nothing’s completely original. That’s not the point. Like I said Bond has an inherently repetitive formula. What I was trying to get at was I think some of the Bond continuation novels feel a bit too derivative of the series without doing it quite as well, adding anything quite as interesting, or developing these ideas in a fresh way in comparison to some of the more recent films.

    They can do the same thing they are doing with Fleming's novels. It's not that hard.

    They have the titles, they have the plots, they have the characters... They can make whatever changes they want.

    Yeah, @007HallY ! Taking a book and making it a smash hit around the world isn't hard at all!! Jeez, when will you ever learn??

    Thanks for spreading the wisdom Deke!

    In Deketown we use common sense. More books, more ideas.

    No, Deke, you may think that's common sense. But that's your lack of humility talking.

    There are less ideas in one book as there are after an hour of pitch-meetings.

    And if those ideas in these books aren't any good (some on here believe that the recent Bond films have better cinematic ideas than the continuation books), then that has no value either.

    So, no, Deke. Not common sense. Just a half-baked absolute in your eyes, that isn't particularly well thought out.

    We don't need another YOLT adaptation. Or another big character's death.

    Maybe they need more hours and more humility too.

    None of that is likely happening, so your statement is absolutely redundant.

    And considering EoN make films that have worldwide appeal, where you're just a fan on a website, with a Monday morning quarter-back eye, who seemingly thinks making films, or writing scripts, or adapting books to films isn't "that hard", I'm gonna say it's you who needs a healthy dose of humility[/b].

    Don't play that card, meritocracy has nothing to do with this.

    I hope they pay you well for this defense.

  • Posts: 1,632
    The consistent message in this thread is only two people know what they are talking about. Other opinions need not apply.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    [q
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    I don't think EON's plots are that original.

    Skyfall is Mission Impossible meets The man with the Golden Gun. Sure, it's a well made movie but you can catch all influences easily

    Most people say SF is a bit like The Dark Knight. Not sure where you got MI from (I guess the list of agents is a bit like the first MI film plot but it’s still very different in practice). There’s bits and pieces which resemble TMWTGG but they’re quite broad too (ie. The boat that brings them to Silva’s island, Severine bargaining with Bond as a means of escape like Andrea, and the very general idea of Bond and the villain being mirror images of each other).

    Anyway, nothing’s completely original. That’s not the point. Like I said Bond has an inherently repetitive formula. What I was trying to get at was I think some of the Bond continuation novels feel a bit too derivative of the series without doing it quite as well, adding anything quite as interesting, or developing these ideas in a fresh way in comparison to some of the more recent films.

    They can do the same thing they are doing with Fleming's novels. It's not that hard.

    They have the titles, they have the plots, they have the characters... They can make whatever changes they want.

    Yeah, @007HallY ! Taking a book and making it a smash hit around the world isn't hard at all!! Jeez, when will you ever learn??

    Thanks for spreading the wisdom Deke!

    In Deketown we use common sense. More books, more ideas.

    No, Deke, you may think that's common sense. But that's your lack of humility talking.

    There are less ideas in one book as there are after an hour of pitch-meetings.

    And if those ideas in these books aren't any good (some on here believe that the recent Bond films have better cinematic ideas than the continuation books), then that has no value either.

    So, no, Deke. Not common sense. Just a half-baked absolute in your eyes, that isn't particularly well thought out.

    We don't need another YOLT adaptation. Or another big character's death.

    Maybe they need more hours and more humility too.

    None of that is likely happening, so your statement is absolutely redundant.

    And considering EoN make films that have worldwide appeal, where you're just a fan on a website, with a Monday morning quarter-back eye, who seemingly thinks making films, or writing scripts, or adapting books to films isn't "that hard", I'm gonna say it's you who needs a healthy dose of humility[/b].

    Don't play that card, meritocracy has nothing to do with this.

    I hope they pay you well for this defense.

    Oh wow. I have no idea what you're now going on about!!!

    And meritocracy should be about everything, 😂!

    And no one is paying me for anything, 😂.

    Wow, I thought I've heard some whacky things, but.... This takes the cake. But thank you, I did need a chuckle, and I received one.

    Thanks, Deke, that was incredible!
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,461
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe we'll be Bisqmayer and his ice cream company plot

    Mind control ice cream 😂 yes!

    Not gonna lie, that was my favorite of the Gardner novels
  • Posts: 886
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    [q
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    I don't think EON's plots are that original.

    Skyfall is Mission Impossible meets The man with the Golden Gun. Sure, it's a well made movie but you can catch all influences easily

    Most people say SF is a bit like The Dark Knight. Not sure where you got MI from (I guess the list of agents is a bit like the first MI film plot but it’s still very different in practice). There’s bits and pieces which resemble TMWTGG but they’re quite broad too (ie. The boat that brings them to Silva’s island, Severine bargaining with Bond as a means of escape like Andrea, and the very general idea of Bond and the villain being mirror images of each other).

    Anyway, nothing’s completely original. That’s not the point. Like I said Bond has an inherently repetitive formula. What I was trying to get at was I think some of the Bond continuation novels feel a bit too derivative of the series without doing it quite as well, adding anything quite as interesting, or developing these ideas in a fresh way in comparison to some of the more recent films.

    They can do the same thing they are doing with Fleming's novels. It's not that hard.

    They have the titles, they have the plots, they have the characters... They can make whatever changes they want.

    Yeah, @007HallY ! Taking a book and making it a smash hit around the world isn't hard at all!! Jeez, when will you ever learn??

    Thanks for spreading the wisdom Deke!

    In Deketown we use common sense. More books, more ideas.

    No, Deke, you may think that's common sense. But that's your lack of humility talking.

    There are less ideas in one book as there are after an hour of pitch-meetings.

    And if those ideas in these books aren't any good (some on here believe that the recent Bond films have better cinematic ideas than the continuation books), then that has no value either.

    So, no, Deke. Not common sense. Just a half-baked absolute in your eyes, that isn't particularly well thought out.

    We don't need another YOLT adaptation. Or another big character's death.

    Maybe they need more hours and more humility too.

    None of that is likely happening, so your statement is absolutely redundant.

    And considering EoN make films that have worldwide appeal, where you're just a fan on a website, with a Monday morning quarter-back eye, who seemingly thinks making films, or writing scripts, or adapting books to films isn't "that hard", I'm gonna say it's you who needs a healthy dose of humility[/b].

    Don't play that card, meritocracy has nothing to do with this.

    I hope they pay you well for this defense.

    Oh wow. I have no idea what you're now going on about!!!

    And meritocracy should be about everything, 😂!

    And no one is paying me for anything, 😂.

    Wow, I thought I've heard some whacky things, but.... This takes the cake. But thank you, I did need a chuckle, and I received one.

    Thanks, Deke, that was incredible!

    You need a raise.

    CrabKey wrote: »
    The consistent message in this thread is only two people know what they are talking about. Other opinions need not apply.

    Yeah, welcome to Deketown.
  • edited May 22 Posts: 3,211
    Genuinely have no idea what's going on with some of these posts.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe we'll be Bisqmayer and his ice cream company plot

    Mind control ice cream 😂 yes!

    Not gonna lie, that was my favorite of the Gardner novels

    It's been a long time since I read it. I actually remember enjoying it on the whole, but it was a bit weird in places (secret daughters and mind control ice cream being the main two examples!) Then again Bond is a bit weird sometimes and Fleming had his silly moments.

    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The consistent message in this thread is only two people know what they are talking about. Other opinions need not apply.

    Thanks for that @CrabKey , but I think you know that’s not the case. But kind of you, all the same!

    @DEKE_RIVERS , if that makes you feel better!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 22 Posts: 15,355
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    Skyfall has many boons, but in terms of meat of plot, that's actually one of the weaker aspects. There's the weak "Silva wanted to be caught", there's the plan to kill while suiciding which makes little sense. NTTD storywise always gets me wound up: the ideas are weird and unrealistic and don't come off. QoS I could potentially give but it isn't realised enough. Mind you I can agree on some of the novels, (while you enjoy Solo, I think it would make an awful film). But Benson's novels are incredibly cinematic and some stories still come off better than their contemporary films.

    Is it worth the pain to adapt the continuations? No. But so many good ideas are out there: Fleming's Murder on Wheels/Trigger Mortis, the setting of Icebreaker, chase in NLF, the killing of agents in NDMB. There's plenty of originality in the continuation novels and most would make average to above average films if adapted properly, but there's no obligation to adapt them like the Fleming novels. So in the quest for excellence its completely fair for EON to ignore them. I would have rather had Nobody Lives Forever as Craig's last film than NTTD, would much rather High Time to Kill than Spectre, and Zero Minus Ten is on par with Tomorrow Never Dies.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 801
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.

    I've read one (or possibly two) Gardner Bond books and that sounds very familiar!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 22 Posts: 15,355
    Edlitz hasn't mentioned so far that Gardner really liked the idea that you could spot people who are following you if their shoes look worn out, and I'm sure he always used to go on about shooting people by firing two shots at them.
    But Benson's novels are incredibly cinematic and some stories still come off better than their contemporary films.

    I strongly disagree with that!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    @Reflsin2bourbons … I quit the continuation novels many years ago, but one that has stood out to me was Icebreaker. I have to admit, I love the setting, the bleakness of the snowy terrain, and I accepted the double (triple, quadruple?) crossing that Gardner planted in the story.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.

    I've read one (or possibly two) Gardner Bond books and that sounds very familiar!

    I don’t know if it’s my memory exaggerating, but the double crosses seem to repeat themselves in further Gardner novels, and maybe he was ahead of his time as it seems we don’t have a lot of trust in governments and their agencies recently, but it felt repetitive and was one of the reasons I fell off Gardner.

    I’ve attempted the other books, but the character doesn’t feel like James Bond in these stories. It’s a man, with the same name, but I just can’t “feel” James Bond there.

    So, I shrug my shoulders and resign myself to enjoying the Fleming books only (they always give me a jolt, a “buzz” an authentic happiness every time I start to re-read the opening pages).

  • edited May 22 Posts: 3,211
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    Skyfall has many boons, but in terms of meat of plot, that's actually one of the weaker aspects. There's the weak "Silva wanted to be caught", there's the plan to kill while suiciding which makes little sense. NTTD storywise always gets me wound up: the ideas are weird and unrealistic and don't come off. QoS I could potentially give but it isn't realised enough. Mind you I can agree on some of the novels, (while you enjoy Solo, I think it would make an awful film). But Benson's novels are incredibly cinematic and some stories still come off better than their contemporary films.

    Is it worth the pain to adapt the continuations? No. But so many good ideas are out there: Fleming's Murder on Wheels/Trigger Mortis, the setting of Icebreaker, chase in NLF, the killing of agents in NDMB. There's plenty of originality in the continuation novels and most would make average to above average films if adapted properly, but there's no obligation to adapt them like the Fleming novels. So in the quest for excellence its completely fair for EON to ignore them. I would have rather had Nobody Lives Forever as Craig's last film than NTTD, would much rather High Time to Kill than Spectre, and Zero Minus Ten is on par with Tomorrow Never Dies.

    I'm actually not a fan of Solo (although to be honest I've only read it once). I kinda get what you mean about the plot of SF. It's the sort of film that prioritises story over plot mechanics. I mean this in the sense that threads like the list (which is essentially a sort of McGuffin/something one would expect to extend throughout the remainder of the story in a more traditional spy narrative) is released by the second act and used as a way of getting us to Silva/shows the damage he's doing to MI6. There's also things like Bond figuratively 'dying' and coming back in some sort of purgatory after the PTS (ie. no attempt is given to explain how he survived, and it's unlikely he would have done with such a fall/injury, but the film is more concerned about how it affects his character than trying to contrive an explanation). We do get some nice foreshadowing about Bond's past though, as well as the neat 'rule of three' with Bond failing twice to shoot straight, and ultimately doing so by the end with his father's rifle. But again, that's prioritising character.

    I'm actually ok with all that by the way. Bond films often have plots which fall apart on closer inspection, and actually SF's plot is pretty tight.

    I think bits and pieces of the continuation novels will and have ended up in the films anyway, but they're relatively minor inclusions. Not read Nobody Lives Forever or even Zero Minus Ten, but High Time to Kill's fine. The plot does stop and start a bit though (ie. there's little reason for the Governor's assassination at the beginning as his death doesn’t lead into anything further down the line. Apart from showing us The Union, which the book does later anyway and is a group MI6 already seem to know about, there's no reason it couldn't have begun with the second chapter, with Bond's relationship with his secretary integrated there instead. You then have a lot of major plot steps/twists which don't actually involve Bond at all, with villains double crossing each other and doing things which mess up The Union’s plans. Honestly, the group actually comes across as a bit incompetent and unable to control their members. I wasn't a huge fan of Bond's past schoolboy rivalry with the main villain (can't remember his name) and Bond comes off bizarrely petty throughout the whole thing which I think is a bit out of character). I enjoyed it on the whole though, but I think the recent films all have stronger plots.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,355
    Yeah I found the school bully stuff rather embarrassing.
  • mattjoesmattjoes At my most trollish behavior
    edited May 22 Posts: 6,880
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.

    "In Everybody Wins or Loses, Bond is sent to investigate FEAR (Fraternity of Evil Among Realtors), a terrorist organization with plans to detonate ten nuclear warheads in unsold houses all over the world, plus kidnapping ten world leaders for a ransom of ten billion dollars in cash. Along with fellow agent Camilla Cattolica-Porfira, Bond infiltrates FEAR and meets its psychotic leader, Heinrich Katzenellenbogen. Eventually, Cattolica-Porfira is revealed to be a traitor, but Bond, with the help of Rodney Mitchell-Gutierrez, Felix Leiter's neighbor, manages to save the day anyway."
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 22 Posts: 15,355
    Ha! Needs more double agents and scenes on aircraft carriers though.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Edlitz hasn't mentioned so far that Gardner really liked the idea that you could spot people who are following you if their shoes look worn out, and I'm sure he always used to go on about shooting people by firing two shots at them.
    But Benson's novels are incredibly cinematic and some stories still come off better than their contemporary films.

    I strongly disagree with that!

    Well... Zero Minus Ten I believe has very similar merit to Tomorrow Never Dies. 0-T has Benson's best work on the character of Bond, a relatively charismatic Bond girl who is both damsel-esque but also "strong", and perhaps a better original ally than the rest of the Brosnan era.

    The Facts of Death is in the TND mold, which matches up poorly to the more Fleming-esque and certainly more serious TWINE. I think HTTK matches up nicely though: a pacey adventure bites at the weakness of TWINE, which is slow, and unoriginal in terms of action.

    Doubleshot, Never Dream of Dying, and the The Man With the Red Tattoo all do a poor job to be honest compared to DAD, but I think Doubleshot does the best because of the idea of a Bond unable to trust his own judgement.
    peter wrote: »
    @Reflsin2bourbons … I quit the continuation novels many years ago, but one that has stood out to me was Icebreaker. I have to admit, I love the setting, the bleakness of the snowy terrain, and I accepted the double (triple, quadruple?) crossing that Gardner planted in the story.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.

    I've read one (or possibly two) Gardner Bond books and that sounds very familiar!

    I don’t know if it’s my memory exaggerating, but the double crosses seem to repeat themselves in further Gardner novels, and maybe he was ahead of his time as it seems we don’t have a lot of trust in governments and their agencies recently, but it felt repetitive and was one of the reasons I fell off Gardner.

    I’ve attempted the other books, but the character doesn’t feel like James Bond in these stories. It’s a man, with the same name, but I just can’t “feel” James Bond there.

    So, I shrug my shoulders and resign myself to enjoying the Fleming books only (they always give me a jolt, a “buzz” an authentic happiness every time I start to re-read the opening pages).

    Many dislike Gardner's stories, but I think his first eight/nine of the sixteen were quite good. There's a reason that I didn't quote the twin twist in Never Send Flowers, or Tarn's plot in Seafire. From Brokenclaw onwards, the annoying habits from earlier amplify with none of the boons of earlier. Only Death is Forever is alright, but that's because it's the same as No Deals, Mr Bond.

    With that, the ideas of 8 books can be plenty of interesting films. While Bond deals with a defector in The Living Daylights (and in From Russia With Love), he hasn't ever protected one from harm, for example. And while Gardner's Bond does feel more likely to enjoy a chicken korma than scrambled eggs, there's an interesting take on what Bond would after the brainwash (if we ever seen that on screen). Not particularly cold/cruel, more joyous, but also still pensive and thoughtful.

    On the doublecrosses: I would go to say except Gardner's first, each novel has at least one, with Icebreaker having the most. Gardner most likely came up with these twists on the spot though, as they often make little sense and require long explanation to understand. Some seem silly as the men who doublecross are handpicked by Bond (in NDMB), or Bond puts excessive trust in them without any care taken (in Icebreaker).

    I'm yet to think that a Bond film has done a doublecross properly (excluding Fleming's own), as Elektra's and Frost's do come a bit short. But Gardner's whodunnit (as in who is the traitor) in No Deals, Mr Bond pulls off the whole trope quite well as there is a small unit of who it could be (and it is guaranteed that there is one).
  • mattjoesmattjoes At my most trollish behavior
    Posts: 6,880
    mtm wrote: »
    Ha! Needs more double agents and scenes on aircraft carriers though.

    The John Gardner Bond novel plot generator. Let's make it happen!
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't want faithful adaptations of any of the continuation novels. SF I’d say is far more interesting and better plotted than any of them, and even QOS and NTTD are actually much more interesting story-wise than anything the more recent Bond authors have done. Hell, I’d say the same about Brosnan’s first three Bond films - they’re much more interesting and Fleming-esque than what Benson was doing at the time (and Benson for the record knows his Fleming).

    Yeah I don't think any of them have strong enough ideas, or at least not as strong as the original films. It's hard to give any of them Friends-style 'The One With..' names to rhyme with any unique, catchy ideas. Maybe Benson's climbing one, Solo, Mind To Kill... perhaps Win Lose Or Die... not much else. Even then I wouldn't be desperate to see any of those concepts on the screen.

    Thing is, a good chunk of what we get in the continuation novels are spins on either Fleming or the EoN films. Between Gardner and Benson we seem to get variations of evil supergroups which are seemingly a riff on SPECTRE (High Time to Kill I’ve always thought was also a riff on TB in terms of basic framework, albeit with a much weaker stop and start plot based around a lot of stuff completely out of Bond’s hands, and Doubleshot isn’t all that far off of the FRWL film with SPECTRE devising an elaborate cat and mouse trap for Bond out of revenge). Bond stories have often repetitive structures, no doubt, but I think compared to EoN’s more recent efforts few of the continuation novels stand on their own for me in this sense. The more original ones like Horrowitz’s efforts aren’t much better and often contain weak villains and other problems.

    Skyfall has many boons, but in terms of meat of plot, that's actually one of the weaker aspects. There's the weak "Silva wanted to be caught", there's the plan to kill while suiciding which makes little sense. NTTD storywise always gets me wound up: the ideas are weird and unrealistic and don't come off. QoS I could potentially give but it isn't realised enough. Mind you I can agree on some of the novels, (while you enjoy Solo, I think it would make an awful film). But Benson's novels are incredibly cinematic and some stories still come off better than their contemporary films.

    Is it worth the pain to adapt the continuations? No. But so many good ideas are out there: Fleming's Murder on Wheels/Trigger Mortis, the setting of Icebreaker, chase in NLF, the killing of agents in NDMB. There's plenty of originality in the continuation novels and most would make average to above average films if adapted properly, but there's no obligation to adapt them like the Fleming novels. So in the quest for excellence its completely fair for EON to ignore them. I would have rather had Nobody Lives Forever as Craig's last film than NTTD, would much rather High Time to Kill than Spectre, and Zero Minus Ten is on par with Tomorrow Never Dies.

    I think bits and pieces of the continuation novels will and have ended up in the films anyway, but they're relatively minor inclusions. Not read Nobody Lives Forever or even Zero Minus Ten, but High Time to Kill's fine. The plot does stop and start a bit though (ie. there's little reason for the Governor's assassination at the beginning as his death doesn’t lead into anything further down the line. Apart from showing us The Union, which the book does later anyway and is a group MI6 already seem to know about, there's no reason it couldn't have begun with the second chapter, with Bond's relationship with his secretary integrated there instead. You then have a lot of major plot steps/twists which don't actually involve Bond at all, with villains double crossing each other and doing things which mess up The Union’s plans. Honestly, the group actually comes across as a bit incompetent and unable to control their members. I wasn't a huge fan of Bond's past schoolboy rivalry with the main villain (can't remember his name) and Bond comes off bizarrely petty throughout the whole thing which I think is a bit out of character). I enjoyed it on the whole though, but I think the recent films all have stronger plots.

    Nobody Lives Forever is one of Gardner's best: Bond has ruined SPECTRE's plans for Western disarmament (Role of Honour, the previous book), so their chief (a military tech man, named Rahani) puts a price on his head. Bond, on holiday, is oblivious to this head hunt until after he picks up two suspicious girls: one a damsel in distress at a gas station robbery, and the other her friend and bodyguard. On top of all this, SMERSH or SPECTRE or one of them has captured Moneypenny and May and Bond has to go save both of them by following the bait that all his potential killers have laid for him. (Albeit the end is a bit confusing as one of the girls is a traitor and the explanation why is a bit long). The writing and pacing is quite good and it's action packed while lacking any sort of silliness that comes with the pacier adventures.

    Zero Minus Ten is a story about a businessman trying to blow up Hong Kong before the handover, where Bond gets help from a triad chief (cheated out of his money by said businessman) to stop the bomb. It has the exotic setting of East Asia, pacy and cinematic story telling, and a very full ally Li Peng (the aforementioned triad chief). I think Li Peng if adapted to film would be the best non-Leiter ally in a Bond film since Colombo or Draco.

    I do agree that the schoolboy rivalry bit is weird, that's Benson being a bit lazy with Marquis being unpleasant. But I find the double crossing in the Union quite interesting: although they can't control their members, it creates suspense as everybody wants the the information. What falls flat is the Bond girl, and related to that, the unrealistic dialogue that feels more adolescent than adult. But would make an interesting film and the mountain climbing would make for a beautiful setting.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,062
    peter wrote: »
    @Reflsin2bourbons … I quit the continuation novels many years ago, but one that has stood out to me was Icebreaker. I have to admit, I love the setting, the bleakness of the snowy terrain, and I accepted the double (triple, quadruple?) crossing that Gardner planted in the story.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.

    I've read one (or possibly two) Gardner Bond books and that sounds very familiar!

    I don’t know if it’s my memory exaggerating, but the double crosses seem to repeat themselves in further Gardner novels, and maybe he was ahead of his time as it seems we don’t have a lot of trust in governments and their agencies recently, but it felt repetitive and was one of the reasons I fell off Gardner.

    I’ve attempted the other books, but the character doesn’t feel like James Bond in these stories. It’s a man, with the same name, but I just can’t “feel” James Bond there.

    So, I shrug my shoulders and resign myself to enjoying the Fleming books only (they always give me a jolt, a “buzz” an authentic happiness every time I start to re-read the opening pages).

    I agree with this. I was recently looking over the Gardner novels--for some reason my teenage self bought a few signed first editions!--but they are, by and large, terrible.

    Icebreaker always stood out to me as the one screaming for adaptation. The title, the settings, the cool setup of four government agents in-fighting (UK, US, Israeli, Russian?), and the icy torture sequence. Neo-nazis, sadly, are back again. All that would work onscreen.

    Some of the Gardner novels have good premises...I recall they get terrible after five or so...there is one where there is a bounty on Bond's head, and another where he is racing across Europe--Operation Cream Cake? (or is that the same novel?).

    The double- and triple-crosses just take over the plots, and when he took Bond to Disneyland (surely the last place Fleming's Bond would want to go!), I'm sorry, Gardner lost me entirely.

    I gave up on Benson early because it just read like fanfic. And now if I want Bond, I just go back to Fleming.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The consistent message in this thread is only two people know what they are talking about. Other opinions need not apply.

    @CrabKey
    Other opinions are more than welcome here. It's time to pull this thead back on its tracks and return to speculating about where the film series is taken next. Discussions about continuation novels and what have you can take place in other threads. And don't ever feel bullied out of having your own opinion. The last thing we want in these forums is a collection of echo chambers.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The consistent message in this thread is only two people know what they are talking about. Other opinions need not apply.

    @CrabKey
    Other opinions are more than welcome here. It's time to pull this thead back on its tracks and return to speculating about where the film series is taken next. Discussions about continuation novels and what have you can take place in other threads. And don't ever feel bullied out of having your own opinion. The last thing we want in these forums is a collection of echo chambers.

    I think that may’ve been me @DarthDimi . I was disagreeing with something Deke had said and we had a back and forth, when @CrabKey wrote that comment— although i had not directed anything his way.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,674
    I've been wondering more and more lately, before we get to the point where the news starts flying and confirmations begin, how they could "revitalize" the series without it being a Craig 2.0 era, a period piece, or even simply feeling "fresh" by falling back on what the series originally was for a few decades. It's fun to ponder but shows those in charge will have a tough time crafting their vision for the future without constant course-correcting (though some of that will inevitably happen either way, I'm sure).
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 801
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I've been wondering more and more lately, before we get to the point where the news starts flying and confirmations begin, how they could "revitalize" the series without it being a Craig 2.0 era, a period piece, or even simply feeling "fresh" by falling back on what the series originally was for a few decades. It's fun to ponder but shows those in charge will have a tough time crafting their vision for the future without constant course-correcting (though some of that will inevitably happen either way, I'm sure).

    I was wondering the same thing.

    I came up with "James Bond vs the Daleks"

    This is why I'm not in charge of the James Bond franchise.
  • Posts: 3,211
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I've been wondering more and more lately, before we get to the point where the news starts flying and confirmations begin, how they could "revitalize" the series without it being a Craig 2.0 era, a period piece, or even simply feeling "fresh" by falling back on what the series originally was for a few decades. It's fun to ponder but shows those in charge will have a tough time crafting their vision for the future without constant course-correcting (though some of that will inevitably happen either way, I'm sure).

    I was wondering the same thing.

    I came up with "James Bond vs the Daleks"

    This is why I'm not in charge of the James Bond franchise.

    Well, Dalton’s planned third Bond film involved him fighting a robot I suppose. So maybe in spirit it’s not too left field…. Maybe…
  • Posts: 886
    If you have the right actor, a course correction is not a big problem.

    Someone like a young Hugh Jackman could sell any course
  • Posts: 744
    I've picked up a minor wrist injury at work and all day yesterday I was opening cupboards or pouring milk with my left hand. That's when I had the idea of Bond losing his hand in the first act (as well as a colleague). It would show his struggle/determination to continue his duty, he's given a prosthetic hand by Q-branch, add in some training montage and then he's back in the field out for revenge. Something different I guess.
Sign In or Register to comment.