good point. The most vividly written passages in ...Golden Gun were about the bordello and the stripper's routine, presumably Fleming was more interested in these subjects than some of the more plot-centric stuff. And Scaramanga did have a fouler vocabulary than the "damn" and "blast" swearing we had seen in previous books.
and Bond and Tanaka sure spent a lot of time partying with geisha girls in the previous volume.
_______________________________________
EDIT: just had a read through this thread. I like the premise and wonder too about the what-if's.
For Fleming to have lived, we have to assume he had no heart problems, and I think much of the tone of his last couple of novels would therefor be completely different. Much of YOLT, tMwtGG, and the Octopussy story is quite morbid, the obsessions of a dying man.
And as Revelator notes, he only set ...Golden Gun in Jamaica because he was too sick to travel elsewhere and do his usual research.
We know he had direct input on the first two films (arguing about the land crabs, and the gypsy girls, both of which were compromised in the final films). So he would never have let YOLT be filmed the way it was done. The arguments he picked were quite minor details compared to the substantial changes in that film.
But would he have continued writing new novels? His goal was always to sell the filmrights, and he had achieved that. Why continue writing more having achieved that goal? Pearson suggests he had long been bored with the obligation to keep writing the book series.
He could just as easily make money coming up with basic concepts like Napoleon Solo the Man From UNCLE. Thatd be easy work for a man like him, and following the success of Bond he could coast for years like that.
I think Dashiell Hammett got by like that after his fifth and last novel: basic plot ideas for Thin Man film sequels, comic strips (Agent X-9), radio series ... but never a proper novel again. Fleming could easily have followed the same route, a highly valued professional ideas man.
Thing is, and something you haven't taken into consideration, is that he never lived to see the Bond-mania.
I think that would've the push he needed to stop the boredom and rejuvenate his interest in the character.
no I am considering that. Thing is there's two contingencies: 1)Fleming's health is good, and 2) he lives to see the success of the films, both change things and this does make predictions more complicated.
and really I only know him from Pearson's biography, which is one point of view ... but that's where I get the idea he was bored with the book series, and primarily motivated to sell the film-rights. Others have pointed out later biographers paint a different picture of Fleming, but I haven't read them.
you make a point though. The Bondmania of the mid60s may have motivated him to crank out a few more volumes, to take advantage of all that unimaginable demand. Why let imitators of his style get all the action?
In such a case he may have held out for a new deal with his publishers, the authorial equivalent of Connery's DaF fee. So a few years go by, he no longer has to do one per year, but the huge advance his publisher offers inspires him to write something maybe a little more ambitious, more polished, than the first 14. Thatd be great.
Or maybe just the opposite, any old thing will do and they'll still pay him for it.
Another scenario: the other idea Pearson planted in my mind, is Fleming hung out in serious literary circles and felt a bit ashamed about cranking out pulp fiction. He may have had some Serious Literary Ambitions himself, and may have used such demand as an excuse to write something more pretentious, nothing to do with spies, and something we would no longer remember today. Like James Cain's later historic novels, no one ever talks about them, but we still talk about The Postman Always Rings Twice.
I do think he would have continued to be involved in the films, as he was with the first two. Perhaps he would have begun writing new plots directly for the films, rather than in book form first? We do know at least four of the books started as failed film/tv proposals before being reworked as the next James Bond volume.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,844MI6 Agent
Does anyone else want to add their thoughts on this one. I'm currently writing a piece on the future Bond novels Fleming had ideas for so all input is very much appreciated, as always! -{
Did you ever write this piece, and if so where online (or on this forum) can it be found? I checked your blog but didn't see it there, unless I just missed it. I'd love to read it!
No, I have the ideas mapped out but sadly it remains unwritten at the moment. I need to get back to my blog writing ASAP.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
since we're talking about McClory in another thread...
as noted above, Fleming was involved in the first two and a half films, debated some of the omissions, and it was those films that most closely resembled his books. And the deviations began after he died, with YOLT.
But there was another film made after he died that did closely follow Fleming's book: Thunderball.
Why didn't they throw out Fleming's plot and replace it with an outlandish volcano headquarters in that film? why did they wait til the a second completely posthumous film to start making all those changes?
my theory: Thunderball is a special case, as it was a McClory collaboration, and McClory claimed credit for a lot of those elements faithfully adapted from the book. Because he believed the book itself was adapting the plot for an unmade film he himself had come up with, or at least was his legal intellectual property. He thought that was his story, and he was certainly alive, and more involved with this film than Fleming ever had been. So the faithful adaption of Thunderball had more to do with McClory's involvement than any reverence for what Fleming wrote.
but getting back to this topics's big What If?: if Fleming were still alive and personally involved in the EON films, would Thunderball as we know it have even gotten made? I'd guess not, that EON would have moved onto another title without the legal baggage. It probably wouldn't be …Golden Gun as it had not been published quite yet, or OHMSS or YOLT as those were sequels to a book they weren't going to adapt. So what would the fourth film (and the fifth and the sixth) have been?
Alternately, if Saltzman and Brocolli did decide to collaborate with Fleming's nemesis in this reality, I'd guess there is no way Fleming would be visiting the set and debating the filmmakers' choices as he had done with the first two and a half movies. Would he stay away for just that one film and re-involve himself with whatever the fifth turned out to be, or would that permanently end his active involvement? If it were me, I know I'd be bitter about McClory usurping my place in the production, and that would poison future relations even if that film was just a one off.
But if he did distance himself after a McClory collaboration, then the remaining films would begin deviating from his original plots in that reality too.
my theory: Thunderball is a special case, as it was a McClory collaboration, and McClory claimed credit for a lot of those elements faithfully adapted from the book. Because he believed the book itself was adapting the plot for an unmade film he himself had come up with, or at least was his legal intellectual property. He thought that was his story, and he was certainly alive, and more involved with this film than Fleming ever had been. So the faithful adaption of Thunderball had more to do with McClory's involvement than any reverence for what Fleming wrote.
This is a plausible theory, but it's incorrect. McClory devised some of the basic elements of the novel, but the final version that he and Whittingham worked on before Fleming wrote his book is substantially different from the novel. This can be shown by comparing the novel with the script synopses included in The Battle For Bond by Robert Sellers, and with the article "Inside Thunderball" by John Cork. Sellers and Cork are the only people around who've read all the scripts, and Cork is especially good on showing how the novel differed--and improved on--the scripts. Cork's article can be read in the following three parts:
So, a faithful adaptation of McClory and Whittingham's Thunderball would not have been a faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel.
Keep in mind that the very first book Broccoli and Saltzman wanted to adapt was Thunderball, not Dr. No, and that Richard Maibaum even scripted a complete adaptation of Thunderball in 1961, which was even more faithful to the book than the final one (read about it here: https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/1961-eons-first-try-at-a-thunderball-script/). So when 1965 rolled around, Maibaum simply dusted off the script, made a few additions, and then playwright John Hopkins took a crack at it too. Because the novel already told a larger than life story, it didn't need to be changed the way YOLT was. The fact that Maibaum was the main adapter should demonstrate that Broccoli and Saltzman were still in control of how the script went, not McClory.
if Fleming were still alive and personally involved in the EON films, would Thunderball as we know it have even gotten made? I'd guess not, that EON would have moved onto another title without the legal baggage.
No, I'm sure TB would still have been made. Broccoli and Saltzman's primary objective was to eliminate any rival Bond productions, which is why they decided to make a deal with McClory. Doing so after Goldfinger was the right idea, because they had the extra leverage of a wildly successful film series, so McClory had extra incentive to make a deal that included not making another Bond film for 10 years.
Had Fleming still been alive, he might have resented McClory's involvement and stayed away from the set, but Broccoli and Saltzman would have impressed upon him the necessity of making TB and neutralizing McClory. That, along with the prospect of more money, and a script that retained Fleming's novel, would have probably convinced him to go along with the project.
thanks for all the links to further reading Revelator.
It's great to see all those early iterations of the story.
The first concept with all the movie stars would have been a terrible idea, but the "funny" version of Casino Royale ended up with a lot of Around the World in 80 Days style cameos. Too bad McClory didn't sue to have that one stopped.
I expect, as has been suggested, that Fleming would have been reinvigorated by Bond's success. I expect however his new novels would become parodies of the movies and lack the realistic bite and edge his early books had. Heroin smuggling certainly looks a subject he'd have covered and maybe something to do with the space race or African nationalism. He could even revisit the tried and trusted Nazi-in-hiding thread, as this was covered countless times by his immediate contemporaries.
Comments
and Bond and Tanaka sure spent a lot of time partying with geisha girls in the previous volume.
_______________________________________
EDIT: just had a read through this thread. I like the premise and wonder too about the what-if's.
For Fleming to have lived, we have to assume he had no heart problems, and I think much of the tone of his last couple of novels would therefor be completely different. Much of YOLT, tMwtGG, and the Octopussy story is quite morbid, the obsessions of a dying man.
And as Revelator notes, he only set ...Golden Gun in Jamaica because he was too sick to travel elsewhere and do his usual research.
We know he had direct input on the first two films (arguing about the land crabs, and the gypsy girls, both of which were compromised in the final films). So he would never have let YOLT be filmed the way it was done. The arguments he picked were quite minor details compared to the substantial changes in that film.
But would he have continued writing new novels? His goal was always to sell the filmrights, and he had achieved that. Why continue writing more having achieved that goal? Pearson suggests he had long been bored with the obligation to keep writing the book series.
He could just as easily make money coming up with basic concepts like Napoleon Solo the Man From UNCLE. Thatd be easy work for a man like him, and following the success of Bond he could coast for years like that.
I think Dashiell Hammett got by like that after his fifth and last novel: basic plot ideas for Thin Man film sequels, comic strips (Agent X-9), radio series ... but never a proper novel again. Fleming could easily have followed the same route, a highly valued professional ideas man.
I think that would've the push he needed to stop the boredom and rejuvenate his interest in the character.
and really I only know him from Pearson's biography, which is one point of view ... but that's where I get the idea he was bored with the book series, and primarily motivated to sell the film-rights. Others have pointed out later biographers paint a different picture of Fleming, but I haven't read them.
you make a point though. The Bondmania of the mid60s may have motivated him to crank out a few more volumes, to take advantage of all that unimaginable demand. Why let imitators of his style get all the action?
In such a case he may have held out for a new deal with his publishers, the authorial equivalent of Connery's DaF fee. So a few years go by, he no longer has to do one per year, but the huge advance his publisher offers inspires him to write something maybe a little more ambitious, more polished, than the first 14. Thatd be great.
Or maybe just the opposite, any old thing will do and they'll still pay him for it.
Another scenario: the other idea Pearson planted in my mind, is Fleming hung out in serious literary circles and felt a bit ashamed about cranking out pulp fiction. He may have had some Serious Literary Ambitions himself, and may have used such demand as an excuse to write something more pretentious, nothing to do with spies, and something we would no longer remember today. Like James Cain's later historic novels, no one ever talks about them, but we still talk about The Postman Always Rings Twice.
I do think he would have continued to be involved in the films, as he was with the first two. Perhaps he would have begun writing new plots directly for the films, rather than in book form first? We do know at least four of the books started as failed film/tv proposals before being reworked as the next James Bond volume.
No, I have the ideas mapped out but sadly it remains unwritten at the moment. I need to get back to my blog writing ASAP.
as noted above, Fleming was involved in the first two and a half films, debated some of the omissions, and it was those films that most closely resembled his books. And the deviations began after he died, with YOLT.
But there was another film made after he died that did closely follow Fleming's book: Thunderball.
Why didn't they throw out Fleming's plot and replace it with an outlandish volcano headquarters in that film? why did they wait til the a second completely posthumous film to start making all those changes?
my theory: Thunderball is a special case, as it was a McClory collaboration, and McClory claimed credit for a lot of those elements faithfully adapted from the book. Because he believed the book itself was adapting the plot for an unmade film he himself had come up with, or at least was his legal intellectual property. He thought that was his story, and he was certainly alive, and more involved with this film than Fleming ever had been. So the faithful adaption of Thunderball had more to do with McClory's involvement than any reverence for what Fleming wrote.
but getting back to this topics's big What If?:
if Fleming were still alive and personally involved in the EON films, would Thunderball as we know it have even gotten made? I'd guess not, that EON would have moved onto another title without the legal baggage. It probably wouldn't be …Golden Gun as it had not been published quite yet, or OHMSS or YOLT as those were sequels to a book they weren't going to adapt. So what would the fourth film (and the fifth and the sixth) have been?
Alternately, if Saltzman and Brocolli did decide to collaborate with Fleming's nemesis in this reality, I'd guess there is no way Fleming would be visiting the set and debating the filmmakers' choices as he had done with the first two and a half movies. Would he stay away for just that one film and re-involve himself with whatever the fifth turned out to be, or would that permanently end his active involvement? If it were me, I know I'd be bitter about McClory usurping my place in the production, and that would poison future relations even if that film was just a one off.
But if he did distance himself after a McClory collaboration, then the remaining films would begin deviating from his original plots in that reality too.
This is a plausible theory, but it's incorrect. McClory devised some of the basic elements of the novel, but the final version that he and Whittingham worked on before Fleming wrote his book is substantially different from the novel. This can be shown by comparing the novel with the script synopses included in The Battle For Bond by Robert Sellers, and with the article "Inside Thunderball" by John Cork. Sellers and Cork are the only people around who've read all the scripts, and Cork is especially good on showing how the novel differed--and improved on--the scripts. Cork's article can be read in the following three parts:
http://archive.li/cjf2m
http://archive.fo/Ha6nu
http://archive.li/QQ2QU
So, a faithful adaptation of McClory and Whittingham's Thunderball would not have been a faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel.
Keep in mind that the very first book Broccoli and Saltzman wanted to adapt was Thunderball, not Dr. No, and that Richard Maibaum even scripted a complete adaptation of Thunderball in 1961, which was even more faithful to the book than the final one (read about it here: https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/1961-eons-first-try-at-a-thunderball-script/). So when 1965 rolled around, Maibaum simply dusted off the script, made a few additions, and then playwright John Hopkins took a crack at it too. Because the novel already told a larger than life story, it didn't need to be changed the way YOLT was. The fact that Maibaum was the main adapter should demonstrate that Broccoli and Saltzman were still in control of how the script went, not McClory.
No, I'm sure TB would still have been made. Broccoli and Saltzman's primary objective was to eliminate any rival Bond productions, which is why they decided to make a deal with McClory. Doing so after Goldfinger was the right idea, because they had the extra leverage of a wildly successful film series, so McClory had extra incentive to make a deal that included not making another Bond film for 10 years.
Had Fleming still been alive, he might have resented McClory's involvement and stayed away from the set, but Broccoli and Saltzman would have impressed upon him the necessity of making TB and neutralizing McClory. That, along with the prospect of more money, and a script that retained Fleming's novel, would have probably convinced him to go along with the project.
It's great to see all those early iterations of the story.
The first concept with all the movie stars would have been a terrible idea, but the "funny" version of Casino Royale ended up with a lot of Around the World in 80 Days style cameos. Too bad McClory didn't sue to have that one stopped.