Which Bond novel are you currently reading?

1808182838486»

Comments

  • Posts: 2,202
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, in both the film and the book it's about killing Bond and causing a scandal for the purposes of revenge. There's not a major difference in that regard.

    But Spectre wants the Lektor. In the novel, the ultimate goal is to kill Bond, and damaging Bond's reputation makes more sense for a rival secret service than for someone as apolitical as SPECTRE.

    I'd say it gives SPECTRE a pretty tangible motivation in the form of a McGuffin. They're going all in trying to attain the Lektor and, during the process, kill Bond (in fact causing the scandal would essentially cover SPECTRE's tracks here - Grant has a fake letter saying Tanya is going to send the film to the press unless Bond marries her for helping him get the Lektor. It actually strengthens that plot point somewhat and gives it more relevance). The Russians in the book are being slightly daft too by genuinely using their decoding machine as a honey trap, even if they booby trap it. At the very least it comes off as them taking a great risk, which doesn't make Kronsteen come across as quite the master tactician he is in the film.


    To be fair, if SPECTRE wanted the Lektor, Rosa Klebb could have asked Tatiana for it more directly.
  • edited 5:07pm Posts: 5,569
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, in both the film and the book it's about killing Bond and causing a scandal for the purposes of revenge. There's not a major difference in that regard.

    But Spectre wants the Lektor. In the novel, the ultimate goal is to kill Bond, and damaging Bond's reputation makes more sense for a rival secret service than for someone as apolitical as SPECTRE.

    I'd say it gives SPECTRE a pretty tangible motivation in the form of a McGuffin. They're going all in trying to attain the Lektor and, during the process, kill Bond (in fact causing the scandal would essentially cover SPECTRE's tracks here - Grant has a fake letter saying Tanya is going to send the film to the press unless Bond marries her for helping him get the Lektor. It actually strengthens that plot point somewhat and gives it more relevance). The Russians in the book are being slightly daft too by genuinely using their decoding machine as a honey trap, even if they booby trap it. At the very least it comes off as them taking a great risk, which doesn't make Kronsteen come across as quite the master tactician he is in the film.


    To be fair, if SPECTRE wanted the Lektor, Rosa Klebb could have asked Tatiana for it more directly.

    Well, I suppose that would have been too easily traceable back to Klebb, which they wouldn’t want. They would have had to set up Tatiana too to cover their tracks, and involving the British makes sense in the Cold War context. A bit elaborate? Somewhat, although that’s kind of the sense you get in the film with Kronstein having formulated this seemingly airtight scheme.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,850
    So rare to have a FRWL discussion. I'm here for it.
  • edited 5:27pm Posts: 445
    007HallY wrote: »
    Surely the trap relies on the same naivety that the novel does? In both adaptations, Bond and M suspect a Russian trap; and in both adaptations they decide to go through with it either way. In both adaptations Bond decides to take the train, against the conventional wisdom of getting her out as quick as possible. And in both he takes Tania at her word, when perhaps he shouldn't have.

    The SPECTRE for SMERSH change is entirely cosmetic. You could swap Blofeld for General G, make Klebb a loyal Soviet agent again and the story is the exact same as the novel (with the boat chase added and a different ending).

    I think it makes a difference having a third party essentially playing puppet master to the whole thing. The film downplays Bond and M's naivety - IIRC in the book M seems more convinced Tatiana's story is genuine, and I suppose it's needed from a dramatic standpoint in order to maintain the sense that both are in the dark about the whole thing. In the film they guess it's a trap immediately, but go in knowing that they're taking a huge risk, which I think is more in character for both men and makes them come off as less daft. The audience know it's much worse than even they think, and I feel it adds to the suspense/gives us the idea Bond genuinely doesn't know what he's going to walk into. It's not a massive change in itself (although it does create quite significant differences here and there), but for me it creates a slightly different feel to the story that works better. I don't think the film would be as good as it is if they just went with SMERSH.

    Not exactly. In the novel, they are more surefire about their plan, but because they don't see the benefits on the Soviet end. There's the worry of a trap that starts with the briefing and grows with the whole aspect of the train, the Bulgars, and Kerim's death.

    I think the novel is a bit more real in this aspect. After all, a normal agency would trap Bond for three reasons; to interview him, to kill him, or to give him false intelligence. Two that they dismiss, and the third is worth the gamble. Perhaps the cinematic version makes it a bit glossier but I prefer the novel's version regardless.

    Either way, if the film was more or less sound than the novel is a little bit off topic. My point was more questioning the point of whether jettisoning the political aspects actually made a difference to the performance of the films.

    Swap SMERSH for SPECTRE in the first 2 films, and do either of them actually perform worse? Would adding the fact that Goldfinger worked for SMERSH lead the series to fizzle out after a few films?

    The choice was a cosmetic one, for longevity, and for a potential Soviet market. But a franchise-saving or one that the Fleming estate should thank? Probably not.
  • edited 5:58pm Posts: 5,569
    007HallY wrote: »
    Surely the trap relies on the same naivety that the novel does? In both adaptations, Bond and M suspect a Russian trap; and in both adaptations they decide to go through with it either way. In both adaptations Bond decides to take the train, against the conventional wisdom of getting her out as quick as possible. And in both he takes Tania at her word, when perhaps he shouldn't have.

    The SPECTRE for SMERSH change is entirely cosmetic. You could swap Blofeld for General G, make Klebb a loyal Soviet agent again and the story is the exact same as the novel (with the boat chase added and a different ending).

    I think it makes a difference having a third party essentially playing puppet master to the whole thing. The film downplays Bond and M's naivety - IIRC in the book M seems more convinced Tatiana's story is genuine, and I suppose it's needed from a dramatic standpoint in order to maintain the sense that both are in the dark about the whole thing. In the film they guess it's a trap immediately, but go in knowing that they're taking a huge risk, which I think is more in character for both men and makes them come off as less daft. The audience know it's much worse than even they think, and I feel it adds to the suspense/gives us the idea Bond genuinely doesn't know what he's going to walk into. It's not a massive change in itself (although it does create quite significant differences here and there), but for me it creates a slightly different feel to the story that works better. I don't think the film would be as good as it is if they just went with SMERSH.

    Not exactly. In the novel, they are more surefire about their plan, but because they don't see the benefits on the Soviet end. There's the worry of a trap that starts with the briefing and grows with the whole aspect of the train, the Bulgars, and Kerim's death.

    I think the novel is a bit more real in this aspect. After all, a normal agency would trap Bond for three reasons; to interview him, to kill him, or to give him false intelligence. Two that they dismiss, and the third is worth the gamble. Perhaps the cinematic version makes it a bit glossier but I prefer the novel's version regardless.

    Either way, if the film was more or less sound than the novel is a little bit off topic. My point was more questioning the point of whether jettisoning the political aspects actually made a difference to the performance of the films.

    Swap SMERSH for SPECTRE in the first 2 films, and do either of them actually perform worse? Would adding the fact that Goldfinger worked for SMERSH lead the series to fizzle out after a few films?

    The choice was a cosmetic one, for longevity, and for a potential Soviet market. But a franchise-saving or one that the Fleming estate should thank? Probably not.

    From what I remember M’s relatively sure Tanya’s being legitimate and even tries to convince Bond of it. I do vaguely remember them not seeing the benefits on the Soviet end. Bond of course gets his premonitions/dark omens too. It’s certainly not on the same level as Goldfinger making Bond his personal assistant, but I felt it was one of Fleming’s contrivances - that’s to say keeping them quite that naive. I think their initial attitude in the film is a lot more consistent and they seem a bit more switched on about the whole thing (although there’s the unfortunate mention of Bond saying M thinks he’s wasting his time to Kerim, which I can only presume is something not edited out from an early draft, because it makes no sense).

    I don’t know if having SMERSH would have affected the success of the films financially speaking or in terms of longevity one way or the other, but I think without SPECTRE you’re less likely to get some of those iconic Bond elements we now associate with the films - Blofeld/the white cat being an example. I think it wouldn’t have been the simple switch you’re trying to make out. These films would be different, and it’s naive to say they wouldn’t be to some extent.

    Same for the effect it had on the story. It’s not just a swap job, having SPECTRE manipulating the whole thing changes things, even if subtly (as I mentioned above you’ve got their motive of getting the Lektor/the purpose of causing scandal with Bond. It’s not just a bid to humiliate him but something quite integral to their plan).
  • In the briefing scene, M's quite confident, but on the plane Bond reveals the aftermath of their discussion with the Heads of Sections.
    Was it all a complicated MGB plot of which he couldn't find the key? Was he walking into some trap that not even the tortuous mind of M could fathom? God knew M was worried about the possibility of such a trap. Every conceivable angle of the evidence, for and against, had been scrutinized--not only by M, but also by a full-dress operations meeting of Heads of Sections that had worked all through the afternoon and evening before

    I don't really see the plan being naive. The film takes a different look at it: "it's definitely a trap, so we'll give you gadgets to get out of it", while the novel is more like: "we don't see why it would be a trap, but we'll still give you gadgets to get out of it if it goes south."

    Both are similarly cautious ways of looking at the problem, and I agree that they probably suit their own mediums of storytelling.

    The SMERSH-SPECTRE swap really only impacts DN and FRWL, and then the Chinese would be swapped for SMERSH in GF. While FRWL does a lot for Blofeld (the cat, the killing of Kronsteen, etc.), TB and YOLT do continue the iconic vision of Blofeld that we get.

    As for SPECTRE's impact on FRWL, I never really paid attention to their plans for the Lektor. I always though it was bonus, but the main part of the operation was killing Bond and discrediting him as revenge as Dr. No represented their first real failure as an organization. If anything, diluting the personal aspect with the Lektor hurts the story rather than helps it (but I managed to ignore it on my past watches to be fair).
  • Posts: 5,569
    In the briefing scene, M's quite confident, but on the plane Bond reveals the aftermath of their discussion with the Heads of Sections.
    Was it all a complicated MGB plot of which he couldn't find the key? Was he walking into some trap that not even the tortuous mind of M could fathom? God knew M was worried about the possibility of such a trap. Every conceivable angle of the evidence, for and against, had been scrutinized--not only by M, but also by a full-dress operations meeting of Heads of Sections that had worked all through the afternoon and evening before

    I don't really see the plan being naive. The film takes a different look at it: "it's definitely a trap, so we'll give you gadgets to get out of it", while the novel is more like: "we don't see why it would be a trap, but we'll still give you gadgets to get out of it if it goes south."

    It might just be the fact that the reader has been given the context to the plan. I remember practically shaking the book when I first read the briefing scene, thinking 'of course it's a trap, you stupid old man'! Bond being so unsure about it has that similar elaborate dramatic irony behind it. I think it's much easier to swallow in the film because there's the extra layer of SPECTRE and the fact that Bond and M are knowingly taking a dangerous risk. It gives the sense they know what they're doing a bit more while still walking into something very dangerous.

    I also remember that paragraph in the book being a bit odd. We get this whole briefing with M essentially convincing Bond that Tanya is legitimate (we're 'shown' it in literary terms) only for that aside in the next chapter where we're 'told' that M is worried about the possibility of this being a trap? Feels like we should have seen more of a shake in his confidence during that briefing... It's otherwise a well written book, one of the best Bond novels in fact, but it's just one of those issues Fleming has in terms of contrivances.

    Again, you can argue the film does similar with the whole 'M thinks I'm wasting my time' line. But ultimately I think the briefing feels much more realistic in the film, and M comes across as much more competent.

    The SMERSH-SPECTRE swap really only impacts DN and FRWL, and then the Chinese would be swapped for SMERSH in GF. While FRWL does a lot for Blofeld (the cat, the killing of Kronsteen, etc.), TB and YOLT do continue the iconic vision of Blofeld that we get.

    As for SPECTRE's impact on FRWL, I never really paid attention to their plans for the Lektor. I always though it was bonus, but the main part of the operation was killing Bond and discrediting him as revenge as Dr. No represented their first real failure as an organization. If anything, diluting the personal aspect with the Lektor hurts the story rather than helps it (but I managed to ignore it on my past watches to be fair).

    Honestly, it's so hypothetical I don't think anyone can say one way or the other how this would have impacted the future of the Bond films. We're talking about a lot of creative choices as well that started with FRWL - would Blofeld have been depicted as being faceless with his white cat if he'd been introduced straightaway in TB? We wouldn't have had the drawn out process to his face reveal quite to the extent we did. I suspect having him in FRWL impacted that creative choice. I think this would have resulted in different films and creative choices ultimately. It's not just a simple switch in practice. But honestly, it's a thought experiment whatever way (and to be honest, a bit pointless).

    I think it works better for a film that the McGuffin is genuinely something all parties are trying to attain. It's something tangible and gives SPECTRE that extra motivation. I think you get enough of the personal element with Bond having defeated No in the previous film.
Sign In or Register to comment.