but when he was quoted as saying that if he would have written the novels after seeing Connery and he would have made him like Connery's character, I think he was probably just being charming and kind.
I don't think Fleming would have been that altruistic. He was not afraid to say the fans of the novel Doctor No would be disappointed by the film.
About the images at the top of my post: I want to point out that if a proper bio film of Fleming had been done twenty years ago, Geoffrey Rush would have been great - it's spooky how much he looks like Fleming. As with the image of Fleming and Craig, you might see how I feel that Craig has that sort of "battered" look that Fleming had.
Yes the resemblance between Rush and Fleming is striking.
It's mentioned he made Bond a Scot because of Connery. I don't think that's really true.
I believe he had Bond being a Scot the entire time, since Fleming's family were Scots, and Bond was just Fleming in disguise.
I want to point out that if a proper bio film of Fleming had been done twenty years ago, Geoffrey Rush would have been great - it's spooky how much he looks like Fleming.
Hello CmdrAtticus, and welcome to ajb- I hope you continue with such interesting posts.
Totally with you on the Rush point; the resemblance was striking. Rush looked a lot more like Fleming than he did Peter Sellers.
And thank you for the point re Bond always being a Scot. You'll find a few people either denying this or claiming they know better than Fleming.
"Hell Goldeneye itself is pretty much a cut and paste of the Bond series and 90's action thrillers"
Hmm I don't think that second part is quite true tbh. Granted LTK might have been influenced a lot by 80s action films but I never really thought that about Goldeneye. What other 90s films do you think it rips off?
I think GE does a great job in maintaining the eligance of Bond but brining it into a post cold-war world.
Terminator 2 heavily comes to mind on Servenaya and the attack on the facility. Jurassic Park is another such as everything in Cuba; The jungle and the underground base. The weird cinematography in Goldeneye is pretty much the same from Martin Campbell's 1994 film No Escape. Lastly the Eric Serra score is Serra ripping off himself from The Professional. Yes, Goldeneye is very much a 90's timecapsule of popular action films at the time.
Terminator 2 is one of my all-time favourite films but to be honest I never thought of it when watching GE. Ditto with JP despite all the greenery in the jungle. I haven't seen No Escape but you may be right as I know directors often have a "signature".
"Hell Goldeneye itself is pretty much a cut and paste of the Bond series and 90's action thrillers"
Hmm I don't think that second part is quite true tbh. Granted LTK might have been influenced a lot by 80s action films but I never really thought that about Goldeneye. What other 90s films do you think it rips off?
I think GE does a great job in maintaining the eligance of Bond but brining it into a post cold-war world.
Terminator 2 heavily comes to mind on Servenaya and the attack on the facility. Jurassic Park is another such as everything in Cuba; The jungle and the underground base. The weird cinematography in Goldeneye is pretty much the same from Martin Campbell's 1994 film No Escape. Lastly the Eric Serra score is Serra ripping off himself from The Professional. Yes, Goldeneye is very much a 90's timecapsule of popular action films at the time.
Terminator 2 is one of my all-time favourite films but to be honest I never thought of it when watching GE. Ditto with JP despite all the greenery in the jungle. I haven't seen No Escape but you may be right as I know directors often have a "signature".
I have thoroughly enjoyed all the posts on the topic of who the best "Fleming Film Bond" is.
I have been a great fan and have studied everything on Fleming and his works, as well as the films. The first film I saw was Goldfinger in 1964 when my father took me, and the first novel I read was of course Casino Royale when I became a teenager.
I loved Connery in the films, but after reading and digesting all the novels and researching everything on Fleming, I realised that Fleming had been right when he thought Connery was not correct for the part as Fleming saw it. I know that he enjoyed the first two films and their interpretations of his novels as well as Connery's performance. but when he was quoted as saying that if he would have written the novels after seeing Connery and he would have made him like Connery's character, I think he was probably just being charming and kind. It's mentioned he made Bond a Scot because of Connery. I don't think that's really true.
I believe he had Bond being a Scot the entire time, since Fleming's family were Scots, and Bond was just Fleming in disguise.
When he conceived the character, it is obvious that internally Bond was mostly Fleming with
the physically tough parts coming from the commandos that were his "Red Indians". As far as Bond's appearance, all his descriptions in the novels reflected Fleming's own (though idealized) appearance when he was a young man. When he had to come up with a real person to compare with, he referenced "sort of like Hoagy Carmichael". I have photos of a young HG, and he didn't look anything like Fleming of course. Fleming liked his music and Carmichael was a clean cut, handsome gentleman in the 1940's and '50s. I think Fleming used HG just to give readers "some" image of what Bond might look like. HG actually has a very undistinctive look - like the average professional business man of the time - the type that would not stand out in a crowd of other professional men.
When it came to actually pick an actor to play Bond, Fleming tossed out David Niven for the same reason he chose HG - he knew him and enjoyed his films. However, I personally think that if they had made the films in the '50's with Fleming actually coming up with the script ideas and someone like Hitchcock directing them, then I thought his choice of Stewart Granger would have been the film ideal. Ignore the Westerns and other costume films he made and search out the lesser known films he did which were contemporary where he wore just suits and ties. Not only did he have the "romanticised look" of Fleming, he could have nailed the character in the novel.
Lazenby was given short shift for a long time, but I actually enjoyed his performance, and thought he carried off the light side and dark side of the character very effectively.
Moore too me was always too light. Even when he was forced to do the darker side of Bond, it never seemed to come across as genuine.
Dalton was great - he got the real Bond in the novels, and could even do the more "playful" side, but the scripts weren't ready for him. There were still shreads of Moore hanging in them. He would have done great in Casino Royale and QOS.
Brosnan was a good balance. He could also do the dark side as well as be flippant, but the scripts were still relying on gadgets and spectacle.
It bothered me that Craig was blonde and average height. After I saw his performance, none of that mattered. He really nailed Fleming's Bond - from his fierce toughness to his light charm.
About the images at the top of my post: I want to point out that if a proper bio film of Fleming had been done twenty years ago, Geoffrey Rush would have been great - it's spooky how much he looks like Fleming. As with the image of Fleming and Craig, you might see how I feel that Craig has that sort of "battered" look that Fleming had.
Terminator 2 is one of my all-time favourite films but to be honest I never thought of it when watching GE. Ditto with JP despite all the greenery in the jungle. I haven't seen No Escape but you may be right as I know directors often have a "signature".
The T2 and JP references aren't blatant but I think they are indicative to those films. I just really get a far too familiar vibe of those films that just should not be in Bond. Also Marty Campbell has had simular cinematography, and the same cinematographer, in his other work but this seems to be honing in on No Escape.
I think the producers were desperate to make this film popular so they drew from what was making money at the time. After GE, the style was shifted back closer to the Bond panache though still lacking in some aspects.
I think Stewart Granger would of been an Excellent Bond and IMHO Richard E Grant would make a great Fleming.But I do seperate the Bond of the Novels from The screen Bond IMNO they are two different Creatures and the direction the Producers are taking the series Bond is becoming just another generic action hero. ( Others will of course say this is Bollocks,and fair play to them ) Just my two cents.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
the direction the Producers are taking the series Bond is becoming just another generic action hero. ( Others will of course say this is Bollocks,and fair play to them ) Just my two cents.
I agree- not Bollocks at all. Another two cents added.
the direction the Producers are taking the series Bond is becoming just another generic action hero. ( Others will of course say this is Bollocks,and fair play to them ) Just my two cents.
I agree- not Bollocks at all. Another two cents added.
I agree as well. They have been doing it for sometime.
the direction the Producers are taking the series Bond is becoming just another generic action hero. ( Others will of course say this is Bollocks,and fair play to them ) Just my two cents.
I agree- not Bollocks at all. Another two cents added.
I agree as well. They have been doing it for sometime.
I agree with you, Thunderpussy on Richard E. Grant - he also resembles Fleming
quite a bit. I too, seperate the films and the novels. Most novels have to be changed
to some degree when made into films to maximize their popularity and (therefore) profitability.
Lets face it...films are an art but to the producers they are first and foremost a business.
Also, directors put their own style and stamp on their films. Every other long lasting series - Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, etc., went through the same evolution both good and bad. The Bond films are no different. It would have been interesting if all the novels had been adapted by
one of the PBS stations or HBO. By doing so, they would have been able to stay close to the novels and maintained a good continuity because the same director would have done all of them.
Though they would lose the wide screen spectacle of the theater films, at least there would be a continuing standard of quality to them. Look how Granada Television did the Sherlock Holmes stories with Jeremy Brett. God, it was a relief to finally see Doyles vision on the screen at last. Perhaps one day someone with tackle Fleming's work in the same manner. As long as they continue with the theatrical films, we will continue to get a hodgpodge quality, not to mention always having to wait two or four or six years to see a new Bond.
Recently BBC Radio Four have broadcast a couple of Radio plays of Bond novels, DR No and Goldfinger,I would love to see these animated and perhaps the rest of the novels could be add to the series.It would be great to see Moonraker or YOLT more as Fleming wrote them.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Recently BBC Radio Four have broadcast a couple of Radio plays of Bond novels, DR No and Goldfinger,I would love to see these animated and perhaps the rest of the novels could be add to the series.It would be great to see Moonraker or YOLT more as Fleming wrote them.
D'oh, why did I miss those. I would have loved to have listened to them. Also I don't mean to sound anti-American but I think if anyone adapted the books it should be the BBC. Whilst I have full respect for HBO (The Sopranoes and Deadwood were excellent) I think they would be the wrong people to adapt Bond. I think in order to maintain that element of "Englishness" the books have, an English organisation really needs to take charge.
Recently BBC Radio Four have broadcast a couple of Radio plays of Bond novels, DR No and Goldfinger,I would love to see these animated and perhaps the rest of the novels could be add to the series.It would be great to see Moonraker or YOLT more as Fleming wrote them.
D'oh, why did I miss those. I would have loved to have listened to them. Also I don't mean to sound anti-American but I think if anyone adapted the books it should be the BBC. Whilst I have full respect for HBO (The Sopranoes and Deadwood were excellent) I think they would be the wrong people to adapt Bond. I think in order to maintain that element of "Englishness" the books have, an English organisation really needs to take charge.
Both were very interesting adaptations, faithful and enjoyable, particularly the latter.
However, the word you're looking for, mrbain007, is "British". It is not interchangeable with "English". One can be British without being English- a fact often overlooked by the BBC, admittedly- as indeed are many in 007 history up to and including James Bond himself.
Recently BBC Radio Four have broadcast a couple of Radio plays of Bond novels, DR No and Goldfinger,I would love to see these animated and perhaps the rest of the novels could be add to the series.It would be great to see Moonraker or YOLT more as Fleming wrote them.
D'oh, why did I miss those. I would have loved to have listened to them. Also I don't mean to sound anti-American but I think if anyone adapted the books it should be the BBC. Whilst I have full respect for HBO (The Sopranoes and Deadwood were excellent) I think they would be the wrong people to adapt Bond. I think in order to maintain that element of "Englishness" the books have, an English organisation really needs to take charge.
Both were very interesting adaptations, faithful and enjoyable, particularly the latter.
Sorry
However, the word you're looking for, mrbain007, is "British". It is not interchangeable with "English". One can be British without being English- a fact often overlooked by the BBC, admittedly- as indeed are many in 007 history up to and including James Bond himself.
Recently BBC Radio Four have broadcast a couple of Radio plays of Bond novels, DR No and Goldfinger,I would love to see these animated and perhaps the rest of the novels could be add to the series.It would be great to see Moonraker or YOLT more as Fleming wrote them.
D'oh, why did I miss those. I would have loved to have listened to them. Also I don't mean to sound anti-American but I think if anyone adapted the books it should be the BBC. Whilst I have full respect for HBO (The Sopranoes and Deadwood were excellent) I think they would be the wrong people to adapt Bond. I think in order to maintain that element of "Englishness" the books have, an English organisation really needs to take charge.
Both were very interesting adaptations, faithful and enjoyable, particularly the latter.
However, the word you're looking for, mrbain007, is "British". It is not interchangeable with "English". One can be British without being English- a fact often overlooked by the BBC, admittedly- as indeed are many in 007 history up to and including James Bond himself.
"For England, James?"
"No. For Britain!"
To be fair, it's easy to call 007 'English' when the protagonists run around yelling 'FOR ENGLAND!' as their battle cry...
dalton is by far the closest any of the actors hav got 2 portraying flemings bond, without a doubt. craig cud threaten it with a few more films but td is by far the closest
The reason the Bond film was successful through the years is because the original producers did not stick to the Fleming's Bond. It borrowed some element of his books but for the most part they recognized what they had from Connery and what he offered to the character. Just like The Bourne Identity films. The Bourne in the book is nothing like the one on film, but it wouldn't make a good series to go with the one in the book though.
This points out exactly why for me Sean Connery is the quintessential Bond. He absolutely projects the danger, the charm and the physical grace that defines 007. Although he was given very few opportunities to project self-doubt or tenderness in his portrayal of Bond, there have been a few moments where he clearly demonstrated he could pull it off. For example, his cool overconfidence certainly faded a bit when he was strapped to Goldfinger's laser table - I believe I detected real panic in his demeanor. And the look of shock and sadness on his face when he discovered Jill Masterson's gold-painted body was memorable. Sure, those moments were less and less evident as the series went on (and they totally disappeared by the time we got to Diamonds Are Forever), but my point is that when called upon, Connery was able to convincingly convey all of those facets of the Bond character. As for Brosnan, I thought he made a fine Bond, but as others have noted, he had some pretty poor scripts to work with.
A few years ago I also read this interview with "the big man" in Total Film (managed to find it in the archives on the website lol):
(what's your opinion) On other actors who have played Bond:
Timothy Dalton has Shakespearean training, but he underestimated the role. The character has to be graceful and move well and have a certain measure of charm as well as be dangerous. Pierce Brosnan’s a good actor. He’s added some new elements to it.
Thats coming from Connery, the man many people regard as the best Bond and (more importantly) the only actor out of the 6 to have talked with Fleming himself on the subject.
Comments
I don't think Fleming would have been that altruistic. He was not afraid to say the fans of the novel Doctor No would be disappointed by the film.
Yes the resemblance between Rush and Fleming is striking.
Hello CmdrAtticus, and welcome to ajb- I hope you continue with such interesting posts.
Totally with you on the Rush point; the resemblance was striking. Rush looked a lot more like Fleming than he did Peter Sellers.
And thank you for the point re Bond always being a Scot. You'll find a few people either denying this or claiming they know better than Fleming.
Terminator 2 is one of my all-time favourite films but to be honest I never thought of it when watching GE. Ditto with JP despite all the greenery in the jungle. I haven't seen No Escape but you may be right as I know directors often have a "signature".
Welcome to ajb -{ A very fair assessment
The T2 and JP references aren't blatant but I think they are indicative to those films. I just really get a far too familiar vibe of those films that just should not be in Bond. Also Marty Campbell has had simular cinematography, and the same cinematographer, in his other work but this seems to be honing in on No Escape.
I think the producers were desperate to make this film popular so they drew from what was making money at the time. After GE, the style was shifted back closer to the Bond panache though still lacking in some aspects.
I agree- not Bollocks at all. Another two cents added.
Stewart Granger is a bit Roger Mooreish in looks, but never really did charm did he?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I agree as well. They have been doing it for sometime.
I agree too. Esp after QoS
quite a bit. I too, seperate the films and the novels. Most novels have to be changed
to some degree when made into films to maximize their popularity and (therefore) profitability.
Lets face it...films are an art but to the producers they are first and foremost a business.
Also, directors put their own style and stamp on their films. Every other long lasting series - Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, etc., went through the same evolution both good and bad. The Bond films are no different. It would have been interesting if all the novels had been adapted by
one of the PBS stations or HBO. By doing so, they would have been able to stay close to the novels and maintained a good continuity because the same director would have done all of them.
Though they would lose the wide screen spectacle of the theater films, at least there would be a continuing standard of quality to them. Look how Granada Television did the Sherlock Holmes stories with Jeremy Brett. God, it was a relief to finally see Doyles vision on the screen at last. Perhaps one day someone with tackle Fleming's work in the same manner. As long as they continue with the theatrical films, we will continue to get a hodgpodge quality, not to mention always having to wait two or four or six years to see a new Bond.
Me too. Maybe someday EON will decide to adapt the novels to television. The market is there.
D'oh, why did I miss those. I would have loved to have listened to them. Also I don't mean to sound anti-American but I think if anyone adapted the books it should be the BBC. Whilst I have full respect for HBO (The Sopranoes and Deadwood were excellent) I think they would be the wrong people to adapt Bond. I think in order to maintain that element of "Englishness" the books have, an English organisation really needs to take charge.
Both were very interesting adaptations, faithful and enjoyable, particularly the latter.
However, the word you're looking for, mrbain007, is "British". It is not interchangeable with "English". One can be British without being English- a fact often overlooked by the BBC, admittedly- as indeed are many in 007 history up to and including James Bond himself.
Ok, thanks.
(None of which he actually has)
(...except the whisky...)
jolly good show ol' chap.
"For England, James?"
"No. For Britain!"
To be fair, it's easy to call 007 'English' when the protagonists run around yelling 'FOR ENGLAND!' as their battle cry...