Things They Should Have Kept

Napoleon Plural

I'm re-reading Fleming's novels at the moment, and it's an eyeopener. Of course, we fanboys talk up stuff like the Shatterhand Garden, or Klebb's explosive telephone, for further usage in future films. But other elements that have been used, often I prefer Fleming's way.

1) The stakeout in The Living Daylights

In the short story this takes place over three days, and we get to enjoy Bond's company as he hangs out in a grotty Berlin apartment that smells of cabbage. It's a different atmosphere to the film, where it's a one-night assignment, very brusque. Bond sort of daydreams a bit, and his imagination is caught by the blonde celloist, who turns out, as we know, to be the sniper. It's kind of like Bond tailing GF across Switzerland, it's that kind of feel.

Here, Bond isn't protecting a defector but Agent 272 who is getting across with info on atomic plans the Soviets are trying out. He's been undercover on it for years.

In the film it's relocated to Bratislava. Some thing are improved; it makes more sense that the blonde is rubbish with a gun so Bond misses on purpose; later it turns out this is why Yogi asked for him on the job, he knew he'd miss Kara. This went over my head at the time.

If they were following the book more, they'd have the blonde as the deadly sniper she is meant to be; Bond doesn't make a professional decision here, it's romantic. There's no evidence the sniper is a good sort who's been set up. So in the film they could have had her as a femme fatale, who reapperas at a later date to hound Bond, making him regret his first instinct.

Fans say Dalton is Fleming's Bond; I disagree based on this. Dalton's so severe, so professional and immediately wound up by the annoying Saunders. In the book, he's more laid-back yet hides his irritation, and is reading a smutty, seedy paperback to pass the time. We relate to him (!) a bit more. He's good company.

2) Bond's drive to Shrublands in Thunderball

This is an eyeopener. In the film he goes in his Aston Martin DB5, which I like. In NSNA he uses his Bentley, which does look quite old.

In the book he gets a taxi (a Thunderbird), and the cabbie is a wide boy youth, 'the sort who despises his parents, gets £20 a week and idolises Tommy Steele.' He combs his hair in that vain, teddy boy manner and typifies 'the assertiveness of cheap labour since the war'. Yet after a shaky start, Bond gets a rapport and bit of banter with this unlikely (for a Fleming novel) character.

But then... the young lad talks about Shrublands, saying he knew this girl in Brighton who is a hooker, and all his lads had a go on her, she was a popular lass. Then she started plying her wares to the rich old goats at Shrublands and with the proceeds got herself a car and is now mobile, so he and his lads can't have a go on her anymore. I am not making this up. Amazing, it's like a normal conversation and Bond shows no disapproval.

All the same, when you consider how NSNA closely resembled Thunderball, they could have included a scene like this in Connery's remake. It's an entertaining scene, quite light-hearted. Clements and Le Franais could have done something with it, they wrote the sitcom Porridge. I suppose they could have had a new romantic type driving the car. It would have been funnier than Rowan Atkinson anyway.

I guess it adds nothing to the plot however. They like to cut things down in films, it's like, how does this move the plot along? If not, cut it. Still it's odd when you read a passage that could be fun to watch on film, and they don't actually bother to include it.

3) Tailing Goldfinger

More an observation really. In the film, Bond flies to Geneva and tails Auric to the centre of Switzerland. In the book he flies to Le Tourquet on the north coast of France, and tails him through the centre of France via Chartres and Orleans, ending up at Geneva. Actually, the latter makes more sense, it's less travelogue.

4) Griffin Ore in OHMSS

This eccentric is omitted from the film, yet it's an amusing scene and you can see Connery playing it. It would have been written with in mind; Dr No had come out by then. A wasted opportunity here. Ore rambles on, unwilling to let Bond get a word in edgeways, about the Bond family tree.

Amazingly, Bond doesn't even meet Sir Hilary Bray in the book, but some guy called Sable Basinkle or something, a younger, friendlier fellow, the kind who does pop up in the books but not much in the films. The sort who should be worked into Craig's tenure. I can see why they included Bray, though it somehow makes his disguise sort of more of a disguise somehow, rather than a cover. What's more, in the book Bond scolds himself for trying to act pompous, as the thinks a baronet would. Instead, he just acts pretty normal. I'd have preferred this to Lazenby's painful and unfunny impersonation in the film.

Barbel

1) The stakeout in The Living Daylights

The atmosphere is all-important to the short story, all right, but the film of necessity abbreviates this to the bare essentials. Sender/Saunders (why the name change I don't know, just as with Fanning/Fanshawe in OP) is caught just right but the collapsing of Fleming's time frame is cinematically correct.

In expanding the story, the screenwriters thought it right to portray Kara as an innocent rather than a professional and thus play on her role as Koskov's pawn. Bond is more laid-back in the written version, but his irritation at Saunders is more immediately evident in the film for timing reasons.

2) Bond's drive to Shrublands in Thunderball

You've answered your own point- while this may be fun to read, it wouldn't add anything to the (already overfull) film.

3) Tailing Goldfinger

This is simply one more aspect of the restructuring of book-into-film. Fleming spends a lot more time in the early part of the novel (Goldfinger's cheating at cards in Miami; Bond in London with M and Col Smithers; the golf game; Bond tailing Goldfinger across Europe) than does the film- conversely, the film spends more time on the raid on Fort Knox than does the book. It's just that cinematically the Fort Knox scenes can be shown more interestingly than they can be told, while the reverse is true of the earlier scenes.

4) Griffin Ore in OHMSS

It's Or, actually. OHMSS was already a long film (much editing was done) and parts of the book had to be compressed for the film. This character was one lost in the shuffle, since his meagre part in the plot could be easily merged with Sable Basilisk.

jetsetwilly

The excision of the Griffin Or scene was absolutely right, in my opinion; like the later "Man from Ag & Fish" chapter, it's not so much an extension of the story, as an opportunity for Fleming to info-dump all his research on heraldry (or bio-weaponry, or, in a similar scene in YOLT, poisonous plants and fish). In the novel, you can just about get through it but on the screen it would have been horrific. The entire chapter gets boiled down to one brief speech by Sir Hilary, ending in "the world is not enough", and that's all we need.

emtiem

Barbel wrote:

1) The stakeout in The Living Daylights

The atmosphere is all-important to the short story, all right, but the film of necessity abbreviates this to the bare essentials. Sender/Saunders (why the name change I don't know, just as with Fanning/Fanshawe in OP) is caught just right but the collapsing of Fleming's time frame is cinematically correct.

Although it is quite amusing when we see the book's version of the careful plan which takes ages of planning, rehearsal and execution, whereas in the film Bond just wanders in in his dinner suit, asks Saunders to 'bring the chair!', shoots the gun and drives off!
Although it's not such a great plan in the film of course- of course Saunders' escape route is rubbish, but even more bizarrely his scheme for getting Koskov out of the firing line of a sniper involves leaving the general tapping on the front door of a shop in plain view of the assassin whilst he scampers downstairs and fiddles with the keys! A sense of urgency might have helped, old boy!

cbdouble07

I've been reading through the Fleming novels in order and not too long ago finished up DAF. The scene on the boat in which Bond disposes of Wint and Kidd was MUCH better than what happens in the film. There is a much greater sense of danger and panic. Bond really likes this girl and all of a sudden he realizes she's in grave danger and he doesn't seem to have much of a change to help her. So he risks his life climbing around outside the boat and swiftly enters through the window not having any idea where the baddies are in the room and no idea what to expect. He quickly and efficiently disposes of them and gets the girl out of there. Much better than the quick silly fight in the film. Of course the seriousness of that scene wouldn't fit into the style of the film but it would have been nice to see in a more serious closer to Fleming adaptation of the novel.

DEFIANT 74205

I suppose in the perfect world, all Bond films should've been close adaptations of Fleming novels, notwithstanding the fact that some parts of the novel must be cut out from the film for cinematic reasons.

emtiem

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

I suppose in the perfect world, all Bond films should've been close adaptations of Fleming novels, notwithstanding the fact that some parts of the novel must be cut out from the film for cinematic reasons.

Maybe, although in a few cases, like Goldfinger and OHMSS, the movie plots are a distinct improvement on those of the books.

cbdouble07

emtiem wrote:

Maybe, although in a few cases, like Goldfinger and OHMSS, the movie plots are a distinct improvement on those of the books.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I feel that the best movies are the ones that stay true to the plot and feel of the novel BUT make the minor changes needed to make the plot even better and better adapted to film. Little changes can actually improve the original plot, it's when the producers and writers throw everything out the window that problems can develop. It's a pity that this formula wasn't followed in more of the films.

7289

The Bond films are unqualified sucesses, the very sad thing about the series was the way it squandered Fleming's work.

I think much of the success of Casino Royale was due to retaining the Fleming plot at the core of the film. We will see what QOS does, but without Fleming it looks like we are playing a game of dice.

Loeffelholz

7289 wrote:

...the very sad thing about the series was the way it squandered Fleming's work.

Amen to that. Hopefully some of these still-unused plot elements will continue to seep into future entries.

Silhouette Man

7289 wrote:

The Bond films are unqualified sucesses, the very sad thing about the series was the way it squandered Fleming's work.

I think much of the success of Casino Royale was due to retaining the Fleming plot at the core of the film. We will see what QOS does, but without Fleming it looks like we are playing a game of dice.

Never were truer words written about James Bond. Thank you. -{

Barbel

Nice thread revival, SM, this was a good one.
What cbdouble07 said above about the ocean liner sequence near the end of DAF- I could see a straight adaptation of this being a key element in a Craig movie.

Napoleon Plural

Very odd to read my own words from 8 years ago!

We will have to see what they do with QoS! )

Prob too late, but Craig would have been the perfect Bond for TSWLM; use the story as an opening for a movie, Craig's delayed entrance when he knocks on the motel door...