Anthony Horowitz's James Bond novel - Trigger Mortis

1202123252642

Comments

  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    @smitty Yes, I take your point. However, I don't believe he just arbitrarily came out and said SP looks rubbish and I hated SF. He would have been asked his opinion on those films by journalists and, rather than give an answer that was dishonest, he told them what he thought.
    There are plenty of people who have made criticisms of SP based on the trailer alone. Why can we do it but not him?
    I genuinely don't think he's badmouthing the films in order to big up the books. That's one interpretation, but I don't think it's the case.
  • Posts: 7,645
    It makes no difference to me, either way, what Horrowitz thinks of any Bond. I will still buy Triggor Mortis on release day, just like I did with Solo, Carte Blanche & Devil May Care before it.

    I agree and only this time I do not have to buy it myself as Mr Horowitz is so kind to go for a release on my Birthday. Which by accident is also the date on which the first episode of Star Trek was released.

    Once again highly amusing to read about everybody going nuts on free speech and an opinion. The man is an excellent writer and I will most certainly read a story that makes more sense than the screenplay of SF, which is actually fairly easy. I find the written word more enjoyable in recent years than the visual.
  • Posts: 7,645
    HASEROT wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    There are people who do not like what the Craig era has brought us recently, why can they not say it without some young ones throwing a totally irrational tantrum. Think SF & QoB are brilliant does not make it so.

    i don't think most of us who like SF throw irrational tantrums when someone criticizes it.. but what i don't understand is whenever someone criticizes a film on these boards - there is a contingent that believe we have to sit back and take it, without voicing an opinion back... it's like saying "liking the film is good enough, how dare you criticize someone for not liking it - so if they don't like it, just sit down, shut up, and take it." .... (and yes, i am well aware that this sort of "snobbery" if i can call it that, goes both ways).. but it seems anymore, more credibility is given to the person who expresses their open dislike for something (or for some film)......

    "valid" criticisms are only in the eye of the beholder - something that may be awesome to someone else, might be totally stupid to another.. neither is right or wrong, and praise or criticisms (unless talking about the technical aspects in which the film was shot and edited) are merely nothing but opinions, and hold no real weight or value except to that specific individual, or to those who need the validity from elsewhere to back up their own opinions..

    @SaintMark .... how do you feel about Goldfinger as a film?

    Especially for you watched on bluray again, oh no just because Sean Connery is bloody impressive as 007 and he is for me the embodiment of the Fleming novels. The movie has a better ending than the book and Bond in it is less of an actionhero more of a catalyst that makes things happen. Even if he is directly responsible for wiping out the Masterson girls. It is a James Bond movie that makes Daniel Craigs look like blunt gorrila smashing around. Bond has never been a genius, he enjoyed the better things in live but is a survivor and a shrewd person. In Goldfinger we see 007 actually be afraid and desperate in what I consider one of the great scenes in the whole series. In this movie you see a lot of a 007 that is actually not in control and see he is not comfortable in that role. I find GF having better acting than anything that Craig does in SF. Probably SF has parts that are spectacular but they make no sense in the whole story that is not about Bond being sensitive but Bond being bad at his job.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited September 2015 Posts: 14,770
    Walecs wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Good, a new Bond book written by someone who understood absolutely nothing about Bond as a character.

    Please elaborate.

    Is it even neccessary? He said: "Bond is weak in it. He has doubts. That’s not Bond. I don’t want to know about his doubts, his insecurities or weaknesses. I just want to see him act, kill, win."

    Everyone who's read the Bond novels knows this is the opposite of Bond. Bond is full of self-doubts, especially about killing.

    Exactly what I thought on reading that nonsense. I thought Trigger Mortis was a follow-on from Goldfinger? Maybe Horowitz skipped reading Chapter 1?
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 725
    @smitty Yes, I take your point. However, I don't believe he just arbitrarily came out and said SP looks rubbish and I hated SF. He would have been asked his opinion on those films by journalists and, rather than give an answer that was dishonest, he told them what he thought.
    There are plenty of people who have made criticisms of SP based on the trailer alone. Why can we do it but not him?
    I genuinely don't think he's badmouthing the films in order to big up the books. That's one interpretation, but I don't think it's the case.

    Because we are not him. We are just posters on a web site, with relatively few readers. He is representing the Fleming estate, he is selling himself, with the estate's blessing, as Fleming's successor. So when he trashes the new film before it is even released, he is being quoted worldwide as "Fleming's successor" etc. etc. His critical comments about a film he hasn't even seen are trending, and they have weight in the lead up to a film that may have to struggle to make a profit. I don't think EON is too thrilled with this new author's comments weeks before their film opens. He may be answering questions, but the estate and he know the consequences of what he is saying. As you note, they are not dumb.

  • edited September 2015 Posts: 5
    Horowitz's slamming of SF made me angry! He must have been half asleep when he watched it... or incredibly ignorant. Bond is not weak in the movie.. And he has doubts in many of the other ones too! It's not unusual. And the villain wins? Getting killed before he could kill M and himself isn't what I would call winning! "Last rat standing" remember?The villain has greater victories in other films. While there are other things that could be done.. taking M to the primitive place wasn't such a bad idea since Silva was capable of exploiting and make modern things like the underground train dangerous and kill many innocents. They left the breadcrumbs to that he would go after them and not remain in London to do more havoc and destruction while searching for her.

    And when the hell did M stand on top of a hill and wave a torch at her enemies?? Was he talking about the flashlights she and the gamekeeper needed to see their way to the chapel, Which Silva spotted? What a boring guy... And then his prejudgment of Spectre after just seeing the trailer...
    I'm gonna boycott that stupid novel of his.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,999
    @LTK1989, doesn't everyone judge a film based on a trailer, though? You love it, you hate it, it looks like it has dodgy CGI, the acting looks great, the sets look nice, etc. I'm pretty sure that's what the point is of a trailer: to whet your appetite and let you judge how the rest of the movie may appear, based on a few minutes of edited footage.
  • Posts: 7,645
    He is not Flemings successor and does not pretend to be, he is hired to do a 007 book and based upon his credits I would say he could be a smart choice. His job is not to sell 007 movies but a 007 book, And I'll expect that his book will be better than the story that SF delivered.

    And on a personal note he does not enjoy the recent Craig movies and unlike some on this site the trailer of SP did not give him wood (which is also a writer I would like to see for an original continuation novel). Books and movies rarely get compared unless the are the same and in that case the books generally win in that discussion. But I agree with AH the writing has been poor with the last two 007 outings and while their intentions might be good their final product left a lot to be desired.

    The estate has enough sense to do not mind what the author says, unless he criticizes them. And I'll bet you that Broccoli & Wilson have already read the book and are ready to borrow from the next continuation novel for a future movie. They could not care less about the authors opinion and what that would mean for their movie. They have learned with Criagnotbond.com that bad publicity is PUBLICITY they do not have to pay for.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I think Horrowitz needs to write a superman graphic novel.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    smitty wrote: »
    Because we are not him. We are just posters on a web site, with relatively few readers.

    Mi6-Hq.com is the world's most visited Bond site. Our opinions stated here count in the Bond community. If you think that this site isn't read by Eon and our views taken into account then you'd be mistaken.
    His critical comments about a film he hasn't even seen...have weight in the lead up to a film that may have to struggle to make a profit.

    I don't think his opinions will have any impact on the film's success. I also seriously doubt SP will have to struggle to make a profit.
    I don't think EON is too thrilled with this new author's comments weeks before their film opens. He may be answering questions, but the estate and he know the consequences of what he is saying. As you note, they are not dumb.

    Eon are unlikely to give a damn in the big scheme of things. One author's comments will have very little impact on the success or the perceived quality of SP.

    As to towing the IFF line, I doubt that they have any control over what he says to the press. Certainly, his comments about the films are nothing to do with them, and even if they may cause some friction, none of this is really bad publicity for either the book or the film.
  • Posts: 725
    I think I'm pretty objective about the recent films. My past posts reflect that I greatly dislike Logan and I'm no fan of Mendes either. I just think this Horowitz fellow is arrogant. He is being represented in the press as Fleming's successor in selling his book. And he wouldn't have been in the position to write the thing if the films haven't kept the market for Bond books going. I disagree that EON thinks the widely reported trashing of their "weak" Bond "by Fleming's successor" is great publicity for SP. SP's success is not a sure thing. Sometimes bad publicity is not good publicity.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    smitty wrote: »
    I just think this Horowitz fellow is arrogant. He is being represented in the press as Fleming's successor in selling his book...

    Well, in the very literal sense, he is Fleming's successor. However, I don't think Horowitz himself has made any claim to be Fleming's successor in anything other than literal terms. If the press choose to label him in a particular way, he has very little power over it.

    he wouldn't have been in the position to write the thing if the films haven't kept the market for Bond books going.

    I think that Horowitz wouldn't be losing any sleep over that. He is a widely successful author and screenwriter in his own right.

    As to the films keeping the market for the books going, do you genuinely believe that the books would not have continued without the films? Do you honestly believe they would not have been successful. The Bond films are certainly the more overtly popular part of the Bond phenomenon, but there are plenty of people who prefer reading to watching films.
    I disagree that EON thinks the widely reported trashing of their "weak" Bond "by Fleming's successor" is great publicity for SP. SP's success is not a sure thing. Sometimes bad publicity is not good publicity.

    I cannot predict the future, but I can make an educated guess, and my guess is that SP will be incredibly successful. An author's opinions on the films are not going to even dent the marketing juggernaut that Eon and MGM are going to unleash. It will be news for a day, if that. It certainly won't affect the box office in any real way.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,476
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited September 2015 Posts: 14,770
    ^ "Oh Oh Seven." Oh dear.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    That's a nicely stocked bar. Glenfarclas 15, Nikka from the barrel, Hibiki 17...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    He looks like he's had a tipple or 10.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,999
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    ^ "Oh Oh Seven." Oh dear.

    That really confused me, as well. It's worrisome, for someone who appears to be a big fan and can't say 'Double-Oh Seven'.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Enemy of the state
    Posts: 41,656
    Sandy wrote: »
    I think Horowitz needs to change his glasses, where is there a woman in that photo?

    Exactly. Franz Oberhauser is Bond s mum now?
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    doubleoego wrote: »
    He looks like he's had a tipple or 10.

    At least he'd be drinking in style.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,455
    Variety's talking about it now, but the focus is on Elba.
  • 007InVT007InVT Classified
    Posts: 893
    That's a nicely stocked bar. Glenfarclas 15, Nikka from the barrel, Hibiki 17...

    Not too shabby!

  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    doubleoego wrote: »
    He looks like he's had a tipple or 10.

    If Horowitz is going around to perform readings from his book at nice bars like the one behind him in the video, I might just buy a plane ticket to visit London again! ;)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    SaintMark wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    There are people who do not like what the Craig era has brought us recently, why can they not say it without some young ones throwing a totally irrational tantrum. Think SF & QoB are brilliant does not make it so.

    i don't think most of us who like SF throw irrational tantrums when someone criticizes it.. but what i don't understand is whenever someone criticizes a film on these boards - there is a contingent that believe we have to sit back and take it, without voicing an opinion back... it's like saying "liking the film is good enough, how dare you criticize someone for not liking it - so if they don't like it, just sit down, shut up, and take it." .... (and yes, i am well aware that this sort of "snobbery" if i can call it that, goes both ways).. but it seems anymore, more credibility is given to the person who expresses their open dislike for something (or for some film)......

    "valid" criticisms are only in the eye of the beholder - something that may be awesome to someone else, might be totally stupid to another.. neither is right or wrong, and praise or criticisms (unless talking about the technical aspects in which the film was shot and edited) are merely nothing but opinions, and hold no real weight or value except to that specific individual, or to those who need the validity from elsewhere to back up their own opinions..

    @SaintMark .... how do you feel about Goldfinger as a film?

    Especially for you watched on bluray again, oh no just because Sean Connery is bloody impressive as 007 and he is for me the embodiment of the Fleming novels. The movie has a better ending than the book and Bond in it is less of an actionhero more of a catalyst that makes things happen. Even if he is directly responsible for wiping out the Masterson girls. It is a James Bond movie that makes Daniel Craigs look like blunt gorrila smashing around. Bond has never been a genius, he enjoyed the better things in live but is a survivor and a shrewd person. In Goldfinger we see 007 actually be afraid and desperate in what I consider one of the great scenes in the whole series. In this movie you see a lot of a 007 that is actually not in control and see he is not comfortable in that role. I find GF having better acting than anything that Craig does in SF. Probably SF has parts that are spectacular but they make no sense in the whole story that is not about Bond being sensitive but Bond being bad at his job.

    but see, similarly to how you see Bond as being inept and bad at his job in SF, so do i see it GF... he gets Jill killed.. not more than a little while later he gets Telly killed - mind you, not by bad luck - simply because he just either wasn't minding what he was doing (like pissing off a card shark and stealing his woman - you don't think he'd want some kind of revenge?).. and just foolishness.. "hey a bunch of guys are shooting at us, just go run through the woods and get yourself killed." - did he really have a plan or way out besides just "run!" - perhaps it was his way of just getting rid of the girl so he wouldn't have to worry about her??... then his brilliant escape strategy - of driving around the villain's factory... could've easily pulled a U turn and drove out - the windows on his car are bullet proof, plus it's gadget laden, what is going to stop him?? Woops, forgot, Oddjob may throw his hat again lol.... so instead of simply leaving, Bond just drives around a factory, spazes and then rams his car into a wall lol..... He finds out Goldfinger's plot, and entrusts that Felix and CIA Agent #2 will find the note hidden in Solo's pocket? - oh wait, Solo gets killed, nevermind about all that.. plot foiled again.... the only bit of credit i give Bond in this movie, is being able to talk his way out of being almost sliced in half by a laser and being able to turn Pussy Galore with the power of his sex - because if that last one had failed, then thousands of people would've died - including Bond himself by going kaboom with Fort Knox...

    he literally does nothing the entire film except screw 2 women and watch stuff happen lol.

    :) (all in good fun mind you... i too like GF.. but it has it's flaws)
  • Posts: 7,645
    GF does have its flaws, but they have Sean Connery in his prime to make up for that and that is something the current era somehow lacks for me. After CR it feels like going downhill but unlike Brosnan Craig is responsible for that as well.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,534
    I have to say, I find it disheartening the way he says that Bond is without self doubt. This is a facet of Bond's character. I don't understand it. Maybe AH was just comparing the books to heavy dramas where characters will ponder about the same thing for the entire book as opposed to Bond where we get a mere few pages of reflection, then he moves on.

    I'm looking forward to this book. I am thinking about it a lot more than SPECTRE which I rarely think about. For me, a well written Bond book excites me a hell of a lot more than the films.

    As for IFP, when I met Lucy Fleming she seemed like a very nice person. Obviously they only want the best for Mr Bond and maybe if the other continuation books had have been any good they would have asked one of the previous authors to write more.

    As to why people take it so damn personally when someone criticises a Bond movie they like I will never understand. If we all had the same opinion, the world would be a boring place. It's just a damn movie!
  • I've never been thrilled with any continuation novel, but it's actually this interview that got me excited to read it. Guess I feel the same about the DC-era movies as AH does. Enough with the soap-opera drama already. The original novels didn't let Bond continue to dwell on Vesper, he simply moved on. He is that cold.

    Bring back the "spy story to end all spy stories"!

    Personally, I think Horowitz's comments refer to balance. He feels that the continuation narrative of the recent movies has moved too much towards soap-opera and this is a legitimate view that I happen to share. He also appears to have little time for the movies post 'Thunderball', another view that I happen to share.
    Everybody has their perfect Bond era and for Anthony it was the 'Goldfinger' epoch when he was at his peak and the adventures were big and bold. This is clearly the Bond that he wants in his book and good luck to him, I think it will be great and up there with 'Colonel Sun'.
    Roll-on next week!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Horowitz' comments are sane and balanced.
    He is honest. He speaks out what a lot of people (secretly?) think.

    Now he's getting the heat for it. He probably learned now, how touchy die-hard fans can get when their idol gets some scratches.

    Funny how some now even dismiss him as an accomplished writer just because he dared to criticise the current Bond era.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,534
    Agreed too @BondJasonBond006.

    The only thing I feel a bit disappointed about is that AH's Bond doesn't have self doubts sometimes. Such a facet gives the character a bit of humanity.
  • Found out last night that I've won a signed copy.

Sign In or Register to comment.