what elements of Fleming are in the new movie?

caractacus potts

I didnt notice any plot elements or characters taken directly from Fleming, but sometimes it can be subtle: for example I never would have guessed the final Brosnan film was based on Moonraker until I read it somewhere, but now I see DAD has more Moonraker in it than the real Moonraker

so this new movie has all kinds of elements from previous films, both glaring (Oilfinger) and some so subtle I might be imagining them
but is there any Fleming I should be seeing?

I did not notice any traces of the eponymous short story, and I had been thinking going in, as unlikely as that one was as the basis for an adventure, it could easily have formed the backstory for some of the major characters, and even been related to Bond while at a dinner party (presuming Craigs Bond ever hangs out at dinner parties), but we didnt even get that much

after all the hype that Casino Royale was a return to Fleming I was hoping for yet more Fleming in this one, but it seems like theyre continuing with the grim'n'gritty badass Bond entirely created for the previous film, and Flemings been forgotten once again

youknowmyname

I don't have much time to reply to this...but there is one guy who wrote a book called "Ian Fleming's Seven Deadlier Sins and 007's Moral Compass" who noted some connections with the short story...check out the link below and scroll down a bit and you'll catch some of his thoughts:

http://www.readthespirit.com/bondbiblestudy/i-know-that-groups-starting-to-read-and-study-my-new-bond-bible-study-are-likely-to-disagree-with-me-somewhere-in-the-cour.html

As far as my own noticing goes...I have yet to re-read Quantum of Solace, but when I do I will look for more connections when I see the film again on Sunday. :007)

Loeffelholz

In responding to the topic of this thread, I beg your indulgence as I 'cut and paste' something I said in a different thread related to this subject:

Well, not being an adaptation of a Fleming novel (there won't be any more of those under the current ownership), obviously we're reduced to flagging individual elements of the picture as being rooted in 'Fleming'---many of them intangible, which gives one plenty of room to dispute them

The obvious ones are the presence of Mathis and Leiter, who---although significantly differing from their literary inspirations---give Bond some 'old school' in terms of his allies in the field.

You have one of the classic Fleming-inspired Bond girls in Camille: the revenge-driven edition of 'a bird with a wing down.'

You have a Bond who gets the crap beaten out of him in the course of getting his job done, rather than being the unflappable, infallible, indestructible (non-Fleming) superhero he's been for most of the films, which leads us to the obvious...

'Spirit' of Fleming, which IMO pervades both of Craig's films thus far. I know this courts a revisiting from superado for another 'drive-by' posting ( ) ), but the overall manner in which this particular Bond moves and conducts himself reminds me of the character in Fleming's novels; a man occasionally haunted by the demands of his job---a job at which he excels, but which takes a toll on him. This Bond is a tough guy with a veneer of sophistication, as opposed to a dandy or a sophisticate with fleeting moments of toughness (aided by an array of gadgets whose use is directly foreshadowed---in quite an 'on-the-nose' fashion---by the script). This approach to storytelling owes far more to the books, IMO, than to the Cinematic Tradition of Bond thus far.

Granted, in many ways this particular Bond is every bit as steeped in the demands of the cinema as each of his predecessors have been (and, like the rest, he surely takes his own liberties)...but IMRO he's been afforded more room to explore the spirit of his literary roots because of this era's focus---minus the glaring moments of incongruity and silliness which (again only my opinion) diluted the impact of even the most "serious" prior Bond, Timothy Dalton. I don't expect an Aston Martin driving along a frozen lake, whilst still inside a shed!, skydiving in tux and tails---or wheelie-poppin' big rigs ---in the Craig Era, and I'll be suitably disappointed if I get such things.

In conclusion, I'm not of the opinion that you have to use Fleming source material to convey the 'spirit' of the character, as his creator intended---and thank God, because there's precious little untapped stuff left. They should, however, continue to insert whatever unused remnants they can make work.

caractacus potts

youre right, Craig did seem to be a bloody shambles by the end of the movie, and was usually pretty bloodsplattered at the end of each scene as well, and that is exactly the way the Fleming books go - no spotless tuxedoes or champagne stocked escape capsules in Fleming, Flemings Bond usually got rushed to the hospital at the end of each adventure
and the BondGirls scar-tissue, which I note in another thread has some people confused and disturbed, is a classic Fleming touch - Honeychile Rider for example was described as having a broken nose thatd never healed right, imagine if Ursula Andress had sported such a nose? and the characters motivation seemed to be an update on the For Your Eyes Only concept, it just took a few scenes longer for her to get her revenge
still I was hoping for some more new bits from the books, the scenes change so much over the course of a movie it shouldnt be hard to work a few unused chapters in, like the bits of Live and Let Die that used to pop up in various films
I remember in the promotional material for CR, it sounded like parts of CraigBonds backstory were taken from Flemings Octopussy, something about a mountaineering tutor? I felt sure that was setup for more Flemingcontent in the sequel
as well theres all of tSWLM, most of YOLT, and two short stories from FYEO that havent even been touched

Loeffelholz

Bond's mountainclimbing mentor was named Hannes Oberhauser---and I hope they do something with that. And you're right about bits and pieces of unused stuff from everywhere...I hope Craig's Bond gets his pinky finger broken in New York City :v B-)

Hopefully, there are a few surprises still in store.

Napoleon Plural

He's got another finger though - and you know what he can do with that...

Loeffelholz

Very true -{

Napoleon Plural

There's a sentence in the short story about Cuban rebels and how Bond was meant to be stopping them, though he felt more sympathy for their cause generally. Reflected in the moral ambiguity in the film about government actions over who they choose to support. The Observer reviewer noted this.

Loeffelholz

Reminds me of the Fleming Playboy interview, where he basically says that what few politics Bond has are probably a bit 'left of centre.'

yodboy007

Loeffelholz wrote:

You have a Bond who gets the crap beaten out of veneer of sophistication, as opposed to a dandy or a sophisticate with fleeting moments of toughness (aided by an array of gadgets whose use is directly foreshadowed---in quite an 'on-the-nose' fashion---by the script). This approach to storytelling owes far more to the books, IMO, than to the Cinematic Tradition of Bond thus far.

Granted, in many ways this particular Bond is every bit as steeped in the demands of the cinema as each of his predecessors have been (and, like the rest, he surely takes his own liberties)...but IMRO he's been afforded more room to explore the spirit of his literary roots because of this era's focus---minus the glaring moments of incongruity and silliness which (again only my opinion) diluted the impact of even the most "serious" prior Bond, Timothy Dalton. I don't expect an Aston Martin driving along a frozen lake, whilst still inside a shed!, skydiving in tux and tails---or wheelie-poppin' big rigs ---in the Craig Era, and I'll be suitably disappointed if I get such things.

Loeff, I understand that you and I have a very different idea of the Bond character and how he should be portrayed on screen and it is those differences among all of us here that makes discussing Bond on here so fun.

However, what I also enjoy is understanding the reasoning behind those who see it different than me. I have learned from this often and it has even helped to alter my views on rare occasions.

So now I must address the topic of this thread. Fleming elements in QOS. You pointed out most of them already: a human Bond who bleeds and sweats, strong Bond girls, characters like Leiter and Mathis, and a more focus on the character of Bond himself by looking into his feelings and emotions about love, betrayal and revenge. I agree that QOS did a good job with all of these. On the other hand, many non-Fleming elements were also prevalent. Many of these elements do not even stem from the Cinematic Bond Traditions. Forgettable car chase scenes involving Aston Martins and machine guns were not in a Fleming novel. That is something straight out of Hollywood. Fleming novels had solid and interesting stories. Aside from Bond's quest to find Vesper's boyfriend, QOS had a forgettable, weak story that got too political. Fleming novels feature Bond actually sneaking around and engaging in true espionage. QOS barely had this.

So now that I have pointed out my views on the "Flemingness" of QOS, I must ask what makes you hold this film in such high regard compared to the Dalton films? I even concede that CR had loads of Fleming elements and it is great that fans like you loved it as much as you did. But I wonder why QOS is regarded as more Fleming-like than TLD and LTK. The silly scenes that you speak of that occurred in the 1980s were sometimes dumb. The Tarzan yell, the "sit" to the Tiger, the parrot in FYEO and things like that I can see your complaints on. But in TLD I feel the chase across the frozen lake was one of the best scenes in the film. So what if Bond drove his car covered by a shed on the lake for a brief time. Does that ruin the scene for you? I do not find it nearly as silly as the other things I mentioned earlier. The tux and tails was merely part of the 1980s fashion. Don't blame the producers for that one because that was not as laughable back then. The wheelie pop, again, is a very brief scene that cannot hurt a film for me. My lowest ranked Bond films involve much larger elements that are prevalent throughout. An entire approach or tone that defines the movie can make it or break it for me. Little things here and there never help or hurt a film for me. Loeff, you rate DAF fairly high and it is the campiest Bond of all. What elements does that film have that allows you to give it a pass over films like Roger Moore's?

All in all I feel that Dalton's films have just as much Fleming elements as QOS (and CR sometimes). TLD had a strong plot with a great, non-bimbo Bond girl. LTK had a great and threatening villain along with a new level of violence and grit. Both films had a human Bond who bleeds, sweats and always expresses his emotions. This is all thanks to Timothy Dalton who has always been underrated. It really irritates me when newbie fans around my college and other forum boards look to Craig and the first actor to channel a Bond like Fleming's. Dalton did it first and for me did it best. Craig is doing good and will only get even better because he will get more films than Dalton. Also, both Dalton's films and QOS have their share of non-Fleming elements. So I am simply asking what pulls QOS ahead of them for you? I put QOS below Dalton's two because my tiebreaker involves cinematic Bond traditions that the producers felt QOS did not need for some idiotic reason. Those traditions set Dalton's films apart from QOS and I feel they will in the long run be considered better.

Why Dalton's films are always underlooked, even by hardcore fans of Fleming's Bond, I will never know. It is obvious that I prefer the cinematic approach of Moore, but I rank Dalton's two quite high so he must be doing something right. While I have my preferences, I enjoy Bond films of many different types. I have said over and over again that this versatility and constant cycle of approaches and tones has helped this franchise last. I understand that there are some who prefer only a specific type of film and approach, but I also wonder why they have watched the films all these years when only a handful of them get it right.

superado

Loeffelholz wrote:

I don't expect an Aston Martin driving along a frozen lake, whilst still inside a shed!, skydiving in tux and tails---or wheelie-poppin' big rigs ---in the Craig Era, and I'll be suitably disappointed if I get such things.

I suggest being patient...it's just a matter of time ) ...and the signs you will see of these coming to pass ... when Bond meets Q and Moneypenny!

Loeffelholz wrote:

I know this courts a revisiting from superado for another 'drive-by' posting ( ) )

"Indubitably!" :v

Loeffelholz

yodboy007 wrote:

Loeff, I understand that you and I have a very different idea of the Bond character and how he should be portrayed on screen and it is those differences among all of us here that makes discussing Bond on here so fun.

{[]

yodboy007 wrote:

...now I must address the topic of this thread. Fleming elements in QOS. You pointed out most of them already: a human Bond who bleeds and sweats, strong Bond girls, characters like Leiter and Mathis, and a more focus on the character of Bond himself by looking into his feelings and emotions about love, betrayal and revenge. I agree that QOS did a good job with all of these. On the other hand, many non-Fleming elements were also prevalent. Many of these elements do not even stem from the Cinematic Bond Traditions. Forgettable car chase scenes involving Aston Martins and machine guns were not in a Fleming novel. That is something straight out of Hollywood.

I agree, which is why I said this:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Granted, in many ways this particular Bond is every bit as steeped in the demands of the cinema as each of his predecessors have been (and, like the rest, he surely takes his own liberties)...

yodboy007 wrote:

Fleming novels had solid and interesting stories. Aside from Bond's quest to find Vesper's boyfriend, QOS had a forgettable, weak story that got too political. Fleming novels feature Bond actually sneaking around and engaging in true espionage. QOS barely had this.

Forster's goal was to make this film like a "bullet fired from a gun," which I think by design carries the story along a certain trajectory, if you will. I don't think the actual story---i.e., the villain's goal, and his means of carrying it out---is actually all that weak. In fact, it's somewhat timely given the negative buzz around regime changes in the past few years. If your complaint is that the narrative doesn't take the time to explain it all to your satisfaction, I can certainly buy that.

yodboy007 wrote:

So now that I have pointed out my views on the "Flemingness" of QOS, I must ask what makes you hold this film in such high regard compared to the Dalton films? I even concede that CR had loads of Fleming elements and it is great that fans like you loved it as much as you did. But I wonder why QOS is regarded as more Fleming-like than TLD and LTK...in TLD I feel the chase across the frozen lake was one of the best scenes in the film. So what if Bond drove his car covered by a shed on the lake for a brief time. Does that ruin the scene for you?

Yes. Actually, it does---or nearly enough. For me, a film is like a piece of music, and either the guitar is in tune, or it isn't. If it isn't, it affects the tune if the 'G' is off every time it's hit. I understand there are many fans who don't mind the guitar being off key (or to them its perfectly in tune ), and that's just taste, I suppose.

yodboy007 wrote:

I do not find it nearly as silly as the other things I mentioned earlier. The tux and tails was merely part of the 1980s fashion. Don't blame the producers for that one because that was not as laughable back then.

The tux and tails for a wedding is fine; it's the skydiving in them---straight to the wedding chapel ---that chafes. And if I can't blame the producers, whom should I blame?

yodboy007 wrote:

The wheelie pop, again, is a very brief scene that cannot hurt a film for me. My lowest ranked Bond films involve much larger elements that are prevalent throughout. An entire approach or tone that defines the movie can make it or break it for me. Little things here and there never help or hurt a film for me.

Again, it's the out-of-tune guitar thing for me. I don't thing the wheelie belongs in a film trumpted as starring "the most Fleming Bond ever." Naturally, opinions vary.

yodboy007 wrote:

Loeff, you rate DAF fairly high and it is the campiest Bond of all. What elements does that film have that allows you to give it a pass over films like Roger Moore's?

Two words: Sean Connery. I once created a minor hellstorm by asserting that I felt Connery's worst Bond was better than Moore's best---and, to be consistent, I ranked my preferences in that light. If I'm in the mood for a silly Bond, I'm much more likely to pop in DAF than anything which followed in the next decade-plus.

yodboy007 wrote:

All in all I feel that Dalton's films have just as much Fleming elements as QOS (and CR sometimes). TLD had a strong plot with a great, non-bimbo Bond girl. LTK had a great and threatening villain along with a new level of violence and grit. Both films had a human Bond who bleeds, sweats and always expresses his emotions. This is all thanks to Timothy Dalton who has always been underrated.

You're probably right about that...if only the guitar had been in tune

yodboy007 wrote:

...both Dalton's films and QOS have their share of non-Fleming elements. So I am simply asking what pulls QOS ahead of them for you? I put QOS below Dalton's two because my tiebreaker involves cinematic Bond traditions that the producers felt QOS did not need for some idiotic reason. Those traditions set Dalton's films apart from QOS and I feel they will in the long run be considered better.

Why Dalton's films are always underlooked, even by hardcore fans of Fleming's Bond, I will never know. It is obvious that I prefer the cinematic approach of Moore, but I rank Dalton's two quite high so he must be doing something right. While I have my preferences, I enjoy Bond films of many different types. I have said over and over again that this versatility and constant cycle of approaches and tones has helped this franchise last. I understand that there are some who prefer only a specific type of film and approach, but I also wonder why they have watched the films all these years when only a handful of them get it right.

Well, we take whatever Bond we can get, don't we? I never missed a Moore Bond film at the cinema...but I was ravenous for something fresh when Dalton came along, and he delivered; a profound step in the right direction.

But to me, CR and QoS hit every note plucked---clear and sharp.

Loeffelholz

superado wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I don't expect an Aston Martin driving along a frozen lake, whilst still inside a shed!, skydiving in tux and tails---or wheelie-poppin' big rigs ---in the Craig Era, and I'll be suitably disappointed if I get such things.

I suggest being patient...it's just a matter of time ) ...and the signs you will see of these coming to pass ... when Bond meets Q and Moneypenny!

Loeffelholz wrote:

I know this courts a revisiting from superado for another 'drive-by' posting ( ) )

"Indubitably!" :v

At least I'll know what car to watch for )

yodboy007

Loeffelholz wrote:

yodboy007 wrote:

Loeff, I understand that you and I have a very different idea of the Bond character and how he should be portrayed on screen and it is those differences among all of us here that makes discussing Bond on here so fun.

{[]

yodboy007 wrote:

...now I must address the topic of this thread. Fleming elements in QOS. You pointed out most of them already: a human Bond who bleeds and sweats, strong Bond girls, characters like Leiter and Mathis, and a more focus on the character of Bond himself by looking into his feelings and emotions about love, betrayal and revenge. I agree that QOS did a good job with all of these. On the other hand, many non-Fleming elements were also prevalent. Many of these elements do not even stem from the Cinematic Bond Traditions. Forgettable car chase scenes involving Aston Martins and machine guns were not in a Fleming novel. That is something straight out of Hollywood.

I agree, which is why I said this:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Granted, in many ways this particular Bond is every bit as steeped in the demands of the cinema as each of his predecessors have been (and, like the rest, he surely takes his own liberties)...

yodboy007 wrote:

Fleming novels had solid and interesting stories. Aside from Bond's quest to find Vesper's boyfriend, QOS had a forgettable, weak story that got too political. Fleming novels feature Bond actually sneaking around and engaging in true espionage. QOS barely had this.

Forster's goal was to make this film like a "bullet fired from a gun," which I think by design carries the story along a certain trajectory, if you will. I don't think the actual story---i.e., the villain's goal, and his means of carrying it out---is actually all that weak. In fact, it's somewhat timely given the negative buzz around regime changes in the past few years. If your complaint is that the narrative doesn't take the time to explain it all to your satisfaction, I can certainly buy that.

yodboy007 wrote:

So now that I have pointed out my views on the "Flemingness" of QOS, I must ask what makes you hold this film in such high regard compared to the Dalton films? I even concede that CR had loads of Fleming elements and it is great that fans like you loved it as much as you did. But I wonder why QOS is regarded as more Fleming-like than TLD and LTK...in TLD I feel the chase across the frozen lake was one of the best scenes in the film. So what if Bond drove his car covered by a shed on the lake for a brief time. Does that ruin the scene for you?

Yes. Actually, it does---or nearly enough. For me, a film is like a piece of music, and either the guitar is in tune, or it isn't. If it isn't, it affects the tune if the 'G' is off every time it's hit. I understand there are many fans who don't mind the guitar being off key (or to them its perfectly in tune ), and that's just taste, I suppose.

yodboy007 wrote:

I do not find it nearly as silly as the other things I mentioned earlier. The tux and tails was merely part of the 1980s fashion. Don't blame the producers for that one because that was not as laughable back then.

The tux and tails for a wedding is fine; it's the skydiving in them---straight to the wedding chapel ---that chafes. And if I can't blame the producers, whom should I blame?

yodboy007 wrote:

The wheelie pop, again, is a very brief scene that cannot hurt a film for me. My lowest ranked Bond films involve much larger elements that are prevalent throughout. An entire approach or tone that defines the movie can make it or break it for me. Little things here and there never help or hurt a film for me.

Again, it's the out-of-tune guitar thing for me. I don't thing the wheelie belongs in a film trumpted as starring "the most Fleming Bond ever." Naturally, opinions vary.

yodboy007 wrote:

Loeff, you rate DAF fairly high and it is the campiest Bond of all. What elements does that film have that allows you to give it a pass over films like Roger Moore's?

Two words: Sean Connery. I once created a minor hellstorm by asserting that I felt Connery's worst Bond was better than Moore's best---and, to be consistent, I ranked my preferences in that light. If I'm in the mood for a silly Bond, I'm much more likely to pop in DAF than anything which followed in the next decade-plus.

yodboy007 wrote:

All in all I feel that Dalton's films have just as much Fleming elements as QOS (and CR sometimes). TLD had a strong plot with a great, non-bimbo Bond girl. LTK had a great and threatening villain along with a new level of violence and grit. Both films had a human Bond who bleeds, sweats and always expresses his emotions. This is all thanks to Timothy Dalton who has always been underrated.

You're probably right about that...if only the guitar had been in tune

yodboy007 wrote:

...both Dalton's films and QOS have their share of non-Fleming elements. So I am simply asking what pulls QOS ahead of them for you? I put QOS below Dalton's two because my tiebreaker involves cinematic Bond traditions that the producers felt QOS did not need for some idiotic reason. Those traditions set Dalton's films apart from QOS and I feel they will in the long run be considered better.

Why Dalton's films are always underlooked, even by hardcore fans of Fleming's Bond, I will never know. It is obvious that I prefer the cinematic approach of Moore, but I rank Dalton's two quite high so he must be doing something right. While I have my preferences, I enjoy Bond films of many different types. I have said over and over again that this versatility and constant cycle of approaches and tones has helped this franchise last. I understand that there are some who prefer only a specific type of film and approach, but I also wonder why they have watched the films all these years when only a handful of them get it right.

Well, we take whatever Bond we can get, don't we? I never missed a Moore Bond film at the cinema...but I was ravenous for something fresh when Dalton came along, and he delivered; a profound step in the right direction.

But to me, CR and QoS hit every note plucked---clear and sharp.

I see what you mean about the fine-tuned guitar analogy, Loeff. It proves our difference in what it takes for us to enjoy a Bond film. You want a guitar that is finely-tuned, while I will accept a guitar that is off key sometimes as long as it has the traditonal cinematic elements.

I asked my parents (who are a few years older than you) if a tux and tails has been or is now considered silly in a fashion sense. They told me no. So I guess it comes down to who thinks it is silly to sky-dive in one. I know this is something a woman would usually say, but I think the whole sky-diving after capturing the drug dealer sequence that opens LTK is romantic if you look at it from Della's viewpoint. She, as well as her friends, must be impressed and proud of the heroic and dangerous jobs that Bond and Leiter have. To have your husband arrive at your wedding in his tux ready to go just after having taken care of business in his tough job is quite "badass" in my male view and perhaps romantic in a female view. Any ladies on here agree?

I would be lying if I said I don't enjoy DAF. I love it. But, I feel it is the only true campy Bond film and it has moved lower on my list recently. Bond films with a flawed focus and approach are the lowest for me. Plots make a difference, too. They go along with the approach. DAF had the worst plot ever until DAD and none of the Moore plots came close to being as bad as the plot of DAF, not even MR. I do not think for a second anyone involved in the production of DAF took it seriously. This especially includes Big Sean. I love the guy and he is my #2 Bond, but he did not play 007 well in this film at all. He is not taking it seriously, is in bad shape for his standards and I even think he may have performed so poorly deliberately to ensure EON would not dare ask him back. They did, of course! ) I rank most of Moore's films above DAF because they always had, at the very least, a decent focus that was almost always serious. Roger Moore always took the role seriously and never in my view "phoned it in". He was very committed to the role and this is where Connery failed in DAF. Moore's approach to and interpretation of the role was always consistent. You say Sean's worst still beats Roger's best. For me it is who is the most committed, serious and who has the most heart. The heart that Sean Connery displayed in his first four films are unrivaled, but his last two (three if you count NSNA) places him below Roger for me.

Your idea of silly Bond is DAF while mine is certain parts of TMWTGG (kung-fu school, J.W. Pepper, Nick Nack). They both involve Guy Hamilton who I always felt was inconsistent. GF and LALD are fantastic films in my view and are the best of the "fun" and balanced Bonds. Young, of course, did the darker and more serious Bond films. I think Glen is the most versatile director because he made a good Bond film in each category (fun/balanced, serious, silly). While directing DAF and parts of TMWTGG Hamilton seemed to have lost his inspiration and heart to take it seriously.

Lastly it is good to see that a Flemingist who loves Craig as much as you appreciates the effort and heart that Timothy Dalton put into the role. I prefer his films to Craig's obviously for traditionalist reasons, but I truly believe that Craig has the heart that Dalton had. Give Craig the traditional elements for Bond 23 and he can much better than he already is.

blueman

So I was re-reading CR, got to the Mathis/Bond recovering-from-torture conversation about good v. evil - and Bond has a bit of dialogue about knowing the heroes from the villains, word for word what Mathis recites in QOS. And: made more sense the way it was used in QOS I thought, that's a very weird and dodgy chapter in CR.

Interesting bit to pull from CR, somebody's doing some cool research.