Why Are Literary Spin Off Ideas Verboten?

edited December 2013 in Literary 007 Posts: 267
Given the commercial and critical success of Higson's "Young Bond" series and the phenomenal literary acclaim attributed to Kate Westbrooks "Moneypenny Diaries" I can't understand why it is verboten to discuss similar ideas in this hallowed cyber hall.
Why is it such a stupid idea to propose 'M' or 'Q' spin offs?
In the case of 'M', as the head of "Universal Export", who else could provide more fertile ground for creative story telling? One could easily imagine many adventures from his war years culminating in his transition into the secret life, the formation of the 00 section and the recruitment of everybody's secret agent. Why would this be such a crazy idea? Maybe a trilogy along those lines could have more merit than the recruitment of another celeb to deliver another flawed adult Bond clunker?
With regards to 'Q' or 'Major Boothroyd', again is it beyond man's imagination to recognise the excitement that could emerge from well penned adventures written around the use of the weapons and gadgetry he designs for field use?
In my humble opinion, I don't find either of these proposals bizarre at all and I would appeal to the free thinking libertarians out there to keep their creative ideas coming in. Don't be put off by the literary STATSI - most of whom haven't even read those fabulous "Moneypenny Diaries".

Comments

  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    wouldn't mind seeing bond during the war don't know if young bonds come to that yet?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    Bentley wrote:
    Why Are Literary Spin Off Ideas Verboten?

    Wow. German. I'm impressed...
    Bentley wrote:
    Don't be put off by the literary STATSI?

    ... or not, because it's 'Stasi', not 'Statsi'. But never mind. We'll pretend we never read your clumsy references to fascism, effectively disproving your hypothesis that we rule the forum like Nazi tyrants.

    We're actually quite tolerant, as last year you already took a dump on us and we didn't even close that abomination: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4465/closing-threads-close-this
    Bentley wrote:
    Given the commercial and critical success of Higson's "Young Bond" series and the phenomenal literary acclaim attributed to Kate Westbrooks "Moneypenny Diaries" I can't understand why it is verboten to discuss similar ideas in this hallowed cyber hall.

    Why would it be "verboten"? This thread is still very much alive:
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/294995#Comment_294995

    Are you hallucinating perhaps, seeing threads be closed that are still open?
    Bentley wrote:
    Why is it such a stupid idea to propose 'M' or 'Q' spin offs?

    Allow me to reverse the question. Why is so wrong that I, as a member, express my personal opinion concerning this TV series idea? I'm entitled to an opinion, right? Or will you deny me an opinion of my own? Sounds an awful lot like Stasi mentality, sir. I didn't close the MP thread, did I? I just explained, like every member is allowed to do, why I don't or do like that idea and suddenly you go ballistic.

    We don't mind a thread for exploring James Bond television series. We have one of those. And probably more than one. It - they - can be used for spin-offs too. The Q spin-off was closed because there's already a place where it can be discussed. And next thing you know, we're going to see a gazillion of "let's do a [insert random character from Bond universe here] spin-off TV series" threads pop up like mushrooms in a forest.
    Bentley wrote:
    In my humble opinion, I don't find either of these proposals bizarre at all and I would appeal to the free thinking libertarians out there to keep their creative ideas coming in. Don't be put off by the literary STATSI - most of whom haven't even read those fabulous "Moneypenny Diaries".

    Yeah? These were the replies to the Q spin-off:

    No. Enough of these damn spin-offs already.

    It's a fair point. I can't see anyone backing this idea personally, or this thread going anywhere.

    We don't want spin-offs, just focus on Bond.


    And they didn't even come from me!

    You see, Bentley, somehow you struggle with accepting all the measures that are needed to keep the forum an organised place for you and other members. Also, you can't cope with opposing opinions. And again, like you did a year ago, you feel compelled to open a thread to moan, troubling forum organisation even further. And despite your attempts to convince people that we control this place like the Gestapo or Stasi, you weren't even once served a warning or even a friendly PM. Sounds to me like we are a very tolerate lot here. ;-)

    So relax, friend.
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    Bentley wrote:
    Why Are Literary Spin Off Ideas Verboten?

    Wow. German. I'm impressed...
    Bentley wrote:
    Don't be put off by the literary STATSI?

    ... or not, because it's 'Stasi', not 'Statsi'. But never mind. We'll pretend we never read your clumsy references to fascism, effectively disproving your hypothesis that we rule the forum like Nazi tyrants.

    We're actually quite tolerant, as last year you already took a dump on us and we didn't even close that abomination: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4465/closing-threads-close-this
    Bentley wrote:
    Given the commercial and critical success of Higson's "Young Bond" series and the phenomenal literary acclaim attributed to Kate Westbrooks "Moneypenny Diaries" I can't understand why it is verboten to discuss similar ideas in this hallowed cyber hall.

    Why would it be "verboten"? This thread is still very much alive:
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/294995#Comment_294995

    Are you hallucinating perhaps, seeing threads be closed that are still open?
    Bentley wrote:
    Why is it such a stupid idea to propose 'M' or 'Q' spin offs?

    Allow me to reverse the question. Why is so wrong that I, as a member, express my personal opinion concerning this TV series idea? I'm entitled to an opinion, right? Or will you deny me an opinion of my own? Sounds an awful lot like Stasi mentality, sir. I didn't close the MP thread, did I? I just explained, like every member is allowed to do, why I don't or do like that idea and suddenly you go ballistic.

    We don't mind a thread for exploring James Bond television series. We have one of those. And probably more than one. It - they - can be used for spin-offs too. The Q spin-off was closed because there's already a place where it can be discussed. And next thing you know, we're going to see a gazillion of "let's do a [insert random character from Bond universe here] spin-off TV series" threads pop up like mushrooms in a forest.
    Bentley wrote:
    In my humble opinion, I don't find either of these proposals bizarre at all and I would appeal to the free thinking libertarians out there to keep their creative ideas coming in. Don't be put off by the literary STATSI - most of whom haven't even read those fabulous "Moneypenny Diaries".

    Yeah? These were the replies to the Q spin-off:

    No. Enough of these damn spin-offs already.

    It's a fair point. I can't see anyone backing this idea personally, or this thread going anywhere.

    We don't want spin-offs, just focus on Bond.


    And they didn't even come from me!

    You see, Bentley, somehow you struggle with accepting all the measures that are needed to keep the forum an organised place for you and other members. Also, you can't cope with opposing opinions. And again, like you did a year ago, you feel compelled to open a thread to moan, troubling forum organisation even further. And despite your attempts to convince people that we control this place like the Gestapo or Stasi, you weren't even once served a warning or even a friendly PM. Sounds to me like we are a very tolerate lot here. ;-)

    So relax, friend.

    Good God @DarthDimi, I think you need to throttle back. Frankly Benters makes a great contribution to these forums and you should respect that. If you haven't got anything intelligent to say - don't!

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2013 Posts: 23,836
    I'm surprised, @Villiers53, that you and @Bentley share the same IP address...

    Plus, I've been referred to as a fascist, I've corrected flawed spelling, and I've tried to explain, for the final time I might add, that we will go against the flow if it means keeping the forums better organised, for the better good of everyone else. Nothing intelligent to say?
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    I'm surprised, @Villiers53, that you and @Bentley share the same IP address...

    Plus, I've been referred to as a fascist, I've corrected flawed spelling, and I've tried to explain, for the final time I might add, that we will go against the flow if it means keeping the forums better organised, for the better good of everyone else. Nothing intelligent to say?

    @DarthDimi why would you lie to this audience about my IP address?
    Is it a trick or are you appertaining to have GCHQ or NSA connections?
    Also, I can't recall ever referring to you as a fascist but you certainly appear to be displaying embryonic tendencies.
    That said, my principle beef — if I were to have one is that you seam to know so little about Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    Villiers53 wrote:
    @DarthDimi why would you lie to this audience about my IP address?
    Is it a trick or are you appertaining to have GCHQ or NSA connections?
    Also, I can't recall ever referring to you as a fascist but you certainly appear to be displaying embryonic tendencies.
    That said, my principle beef — if I were to have one is that you seam to know so little about Bond.

    It's the same IP address.

    Read the opening post of this thread. I wasn't talking about you. It made reference to Bentley.
    Villiers53 wrote:
    That said, my principle beef — if I were to have one is that you seam to know so little about Bond.

    Funny.


  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, I never had the impression that talking about spin-offs was not tolerated. I think many of us just do not like the idea, and we are probably rather vocal about that at times.

    Moneypenny diaries may be interesting as a mini series.
    I have not read the young James Bond series yet (so shoot me), but I do want to.
    I sort of don't mind that as a TV series; of course, only if well done.

    But Q or M as a spin-off for TV or their own movie? No, I just don't like that.
    Just my opinion, of course.

  • JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,380
    Bentley
    81.147.0.186

    Villiers53
    81.147.0.186

    Pick and account to be closed.
  • Posts: 14,918
    As far as I'm concerned, since the OP attacks fellow members as Nazis and/or fascist and/or Soviet-minded fanatics, the Godwin law should apply in full force.

    Why not a M or Q or Moneypenny or a Bill Tanner spin off? Because they are peripheral characters that work as such within the Bond universe. Because since we now have one Bond movie every three years, we should focus on Bond, not squeezing the lemon in hope to get some juice in between. Because if people wanted to see an ongoing series about a secretary working for MI6, we would know it already. Because if I want to see a spy series based on the internal conflicts and rivalries in MI6, I have The Sandbaggers and Queen & Country, they explore this aspect fully and perfectly.

    And I don't have to explain why not anyway. The OP, as he is making the positive assertion, has the burden of proof. Why make spin off from the Bond series?
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 12,837
    oo7 wrote:
    wouldn't mind seeing bond during the war don't know if young bonds come to that yet?

    I think the Young Bond books have only gotten as far as him leaving school. But I do think that a book series focused on Bond in the war is a good idea and something I think stands a chance of happening.
  • Posts: 267
    oo7 wrote:
    wouldn't mind seeing bond during the war don't know if young bonds come to that yet?
    I think this was Higson's idea had he stayed in the saddle and a damn fine one it was.

  • edited December 2013 Posts: 7,653
    Just the "verboten" part in the title would if I were a moderator be enough to close the thread. Its reference is quite clear and unwanted in a civil site like MI6.
  • Posts: 14,918
    Basically, Bentley is asking why nobody thinks his ideas are good, and since nobody does, everybody sucks. If I understand correctly.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I would love to see the BBC doing the Moneypenny diaries and some other do not, whioch should be possible in a democracy. People coming up with labels like Verboten are usually refering to a certain attitude of NO other opinions possible which they more often than not are having.
    In the case of the Moneypenny diaries I find the discussion not very negative each his/her own actually.
    I am not sure if Bently/Villiers does see it that way hence his thread which imho should be locked as the title does refer to something that should be locked down quickly as it does not add anything positive to the discussion but some disgruntled mudslinging.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2014 Posts: 18,006
    Yet another moan of an excuse for a thread. People (hopefully) come here for James Bond and his world alone. Members don't join up expecting an in-depth debate on Charles Robinson and why he wasn't given a spin-off series. All of these spin-off ideas are a mess and will hopefully never happen as the Jinx spin-off idea was, I think, rightly the final nail in the coffin for that sort of nonsense.

    Let me tell you this: if you think MI6 Community is run like a Nazi state (as you seem to do, e.g. "verboten", "Stasi") then take a trip over to CBn or Bond and Beyond to see a real site run by power-mad moderators with a liberal/fascist (oh, the irony!) agenda. And I would know, I've been on all of these sites (and been banned from them all too, I might add). Tells you something, surely. Dual accounts are against the forum rules too, I might add.
  • Posts: 14,918
    To be fair, the Stasi was from East Germany, so communist, so the OP is accusing us of Leftist totalitarianism.
  • Dragonpol2Dragonpol2 The Crazy World of Daniel Dragonpol
    edited January 2014 Posts: 145
    Ludovico wrote:
    To be fair, the Stasi was from East Germany, so communist, so the OP is accusing us of Leftist totalitarianism.

    I much prefer that distinction, @Ludovico. Stalin was in many regards much worse than Hitler and German fascism. Reminds me of a point Kingsley Amis made in a 1970 letter to The Guardian that had referred to James Bond as being a "secret policeman" in the vein of Henrich Himmler's Gestapo. Amis contended that the Soviets were what should have been mentioned, as Himmler was dead twenty-five years by that stage. I have a copy of that article and the book which it was based on - Snobbery with Violence (1971) by Colin Watson - he also wrote the article in question. The Amis letter in reply to this piece is to be found in his Collected Letters (2001), edited by Zachary Leader.
  • Dragonpol2Dragonpol2 The Crazy World of Daniel Dragonpol
    edited January 2014 Posts: 145
    JamesPage wrote:
    Bentley
    81.147.0.186

    Villiers53
    81.147.0.186

    Pick and account to be closed.

    Has this been done yet?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    No, it hasn't. He hasn't decided yet.
    I like the phrase he used a few posts ago:
    "@DarthDimi why would you lie to this audience about my IP address?"
    Uh, because I didn't? ;-)

  • Dragonpol2Dragonpol2 The Crazy World of Daniel Dragonpol
    Posts: 145
    DarthDimi wrote:
    No, it hasn't. He hasn't decided yet.
    I like the phrase he used a few posts ago:
    "@DarthDimi why would you lie to this audience about my IP address?"
    Uh, because I didn't? ;-)

    Indeed. Time for him to decide methinks.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Some people have nothing better to do at this time ?
    I feel this a matter that is best left to the mods to sort out as they think fit
    And it's not that you haven't got enough to be getting on with is it @ Dragonpol X2 ?.
  • Posts: 14,918
    Dragonpol2 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    To be fair, the Stasi was from East Germany, so communist, so the OP is accusing us of Leftist totalitarianism.

    I much prefer that distinction, @Ludovico. Stalin was in many regards much worse than Hitler and German fascism. Reminds me of a point Kingsley Amis made in a 1970 letter to The Guardian that had referred to James Bond as being a "secret policeman" in the vein of Henrich Himmler's Gestapo. Amis contended that the Soviets were what should have been mentioned, as Himmler was dead twenty-five years by that stage. I have a copy of that article and the book which it was based on - Snobbery with Violence (1971) by Colin Watson - he also wrote the article in question. The Amis letter in reply to this piece is to be found in his Collected Letters (2001), edited by Zachary Leader.

    In any case, the Godwin law should apply to this thread I think. The OP is not the starting point of a debate, it is a gratuitious, insulting, rambling statement.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    Let's just say we wanted to have our not (immediately) closing this thread function as the antithesis to said OP, @Ludovico. ;-)
  • Dragonpol2Dragonpol2 The Crazy World of Daniel Dragonpol
    edited January 2014 Posts: 145
    Ludovico wrote:
    Dragonpol2 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    To be fair, the Stasi was from East Germany, so communist, so the OP is accusing us of Leftist totalitarianism.

    I much prefer that distinction, @Ludovico. Stalin was in many regards much worse than Hitler and German fascism. Reminds me of a point Kingsley Amis made in a 1970 letter to The Guardian that had referred to James Bond as being a "secret policeman" in the vein of Henrich Himmler's Gestapo. Amis contended that the Soviets were what should have been mentioned, as Himmler was dead twenty-five years by that stage. I have a copy of that article and the book which it was based on - Snobbery with Violence (1971) by Colin Watson - he also wrote the article in question. The Amis letter in reply to this piece is to be found in his Collected Letters (2001), edited by Zachary Leader.

    In any case, the Godwin law should apply to this thread I think. The OP is not the starting point of a debate, it is a gratuitious, insulting, rambling statement.

    Oh, I very much agree, @Ludovico.

    Yes, that is true @mrcoggins, I have much work still to complete but there will be new blog content on the way very soon, so it's not all bad news. Oh, and please check my activity page for the reasons for me using my open back-up account @Dragonpol2. I've been very open about this identity and the reasons behind it, which is more than can be said for some...
Sign In or Register to comment.