Any connection Skyfall has to Fleming's works is superficial imo, yeah okay it mentions he's an orphan and namechecks his parents; otherwise his home is nothing like I'd have imagined Bond's to be. Sure it touches on similar stuff, Bond going through his physical tests and so on, by the same reckoning many thought that NSNA was a return to Fleming when it came out.
The same could be said for practically every Bond film, couldn't it?
I think FRWL can justifiably make a solid claim, and possibly OHMSS as well. TB is also pretty close to the novelised screenplay come to think of it.
I agree, but those tend to be the exceptions. For the most, the Bond films diverge quite a bit from the novels, and some use nothing more than the title and perhaps a character name or two.
Any connection Skyfall has to Fleming's works is superficial imo, yeah okay it mentions he's an orphan and namechecks his parents; otherwise his home is nothing like I'd have imagined Bond's to be. Sure it touches on similar stuff, Bond going through his physical tests and so on, by the same reckoning many thought that NSNA was a return to Fleming when it came out.
The same could be said for practically every Bond film, couldn't it?
I think FRWL can justifiably make a solid claim, and possibly OHMSS as well. TB is also pretty close to the novelised screenplay come to think of it.
Yeah, even Dr No and to some extent GF. But SF is the one namechecked as getting back to Fleming's world, like that excuses the excesses.
IMHO the film Goldfinger improves on the novel. {:)
That's true- principally the way in which Fleming's central weakness (blow off the doors of Fort Knox with a nuclear warhead while Golfinger & co shelter behind a wall, then take all the gold away???) becomes using the nuclear device to irradiate the gold, but also more subtly. Tilly's role is shortened while Pussy's is increased; Bond (and the audience, of course) gets to see Jill's golden death (an iconic moment) rather than be simply told about it later; and Fleming's unfilmable exchange between 007 and Goldfinger (Bond: "Then you can go and **** yourself" Goldfinger: "Even I am not capable of that, Mr Bond") becomes the classic "Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!".
All credit to Richard Maibaum & Paul Dehn for their work. It's perhaps the only instance in which the film improves on the book (obvious CUE FOR ARGUMENTS).
I'd like to add FYEO to the list of fairly faithful Fleming films mentioned above. Most of the characters and situations are in FYEO (short story) or Risico.
It would be a good list to do on lovefilm, DVDs of Bond films most Flemingesque. And LTK would be high, albeit like one of Fleming's lesser novels like DAF or TMWTGG imo.
The same could be said for practically every Bond film, couldn't it?
I think FRWL can justifiably make a solid claim, and possibly OHMSS as well. TB is also pretty close to the novelised screenplay come to think of it.
Yeah, even Dr No and to some extent GF. But SF is the one namechecked as getting back to Fleming's world, like that excuses the excesses.
The first three films were made while Fleming was still alive so EON was at least being considerate by staying close to his novels. TB was also easy to adapt since it was actually the first novelization of an unfilmed James Bond screenplay, it was born from a collaboration by five people: Ian Fleming, Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce and Ernest Cuneo. OHMSS was EONs way of getting the series back to Fleming's Bond after the excesses of YOLT (and having a new actor made it easier).
Any excesses in SF are not excused by EON and Craig saying they are attempting to get back to Fleming's hero. They are only a reluctant bow to the unavoidable process of modernizing and keeping a half century character born in the Cold War era current as well as maintaining some touchstones to the famous iconography of the series itself...
hence the old Aston, bringing Q and Moneypenny back - having Bond armed with only a tricked out pistol and radio (harkening the
days when he started out by just getting a firearm upgrade in No and his tricked out case in FRWL.
I think what Craig and EON are trying to do is let Fleming's hero come back and be the ground on which to do the scripts on and to mute as much of the fantastic excesses of the old series without sacrificing the universal icons. In the Granada Sherlock Holmes series they did away with the film series iconography of the bumbling Watson/Bruce character and never had Holmes wear the deer stalker hat or smoke the famous meerschaum pipe for most of the episodes because he never really wore the cap much in the novels and never smoked that pipe, though they did have him wearing the iconic hat (a few times) and smoke the iconic pipe (only once I recall) in some because he actually wore the stalker in a few stories and the iconic pipe was thrown in because of it's iconography. He actually smoked clay pipes - the Calabash came about as a result of stage actors portraying Holmes when the stories were printed in The Strand, since a Calabash was large and easily maintained on stage.
EON has proved (to me anyway) from this reboot (and in particular with SF) that they can continue the series by showing more of Bond's personality (including his flaws) and by treating the other characters - including the villain, as more realistic people rather than just two dimensional avatars to give Bond something to react to, and still be successful at the box office. We will never again have the scripts that match Fleming's actual novels (though they can still slip in some minor scenes that haven't been covered yet), but at least they are trying to bring out the three dimensional spy of the novels - even more than they did with the first three films. Even in those close adaptations, we only know Bond by what he does - not by who he is. I know - there are many who claim even Fleming's hero was more of a cypher and that's why it's easy to step into his shoes when reading the stories, but I think that writes
the character off as just a puppet to hang the story on - because to me Fleming gives him enough inner thoughts and feelings that I have no problem seeing him as a real spy. I'm certain Connery wishes they had given him the creative opportunity Craig now has when he was doing Bond so he could have really stretched his acting talent, instead of having to perform in non-Bond films in order to so. I can easily picture a young Connery in any of those scenes in SF without any difficulty and saying the exact same dialogue and it would have fit him like a glove.
I think FRWL can justifiably make a solid claim, and possibly OHMSS as well. TB is also pretty close to the novelised screenplay come to think of it.
Yeah, even Dr No and to some extent GF. But SF is the one namechecked as getting back to Fleming's world, like that excuses the excesses.
The first three films were made while Fleming was still alive so EON was at least being considerate by staying close to his novels. TB was also easy to adapt since it was actually the first novelization of an unfilmed James Bond screenplay, it was born from a collaboration by five people: Ian Fleming, Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce and Ernest Cuneo. OHMSS was EONs way of getting the series back to Fleming's Bond after the excesses of YOLT (and having a new actor made it easier).
Any excesses in SF are not excused by EON and Craig saying they are attempting to get back to Fleming's hero. They are only a reluctant bow to the unavoidable process of modernizing and keeping a half century character born in the Cold War era current as well as maintaining some touchstones to the famous iconography of the series itself...
hence the old Aston, bringing Q and Moneypenny back - having Bond armed with only a tricked out pistol and radio (harkening the
days when he started out by just getting a firearm upgrade in No and his tricked out case in FRWL.
I think what Craig and EON are trying to do is let Fleming's hero come back and be the ground on which to do the scripts on and to mute as much of the fantastic excesses of the old series without sacrificing the universal icons. In the Granada Sherlock Holmes series they did away with the film series iconography of the bumbling Watson/Bruce character and never had Holmes wear the deer stalker hat or smoke the famous meerschaum pipe for most of the episodes because he never really wore the cap much in the novels and never smoked that pipe, though they did have him wearing the iconic hat (a few times) and smoke the iconic pipe (only once I recall) in some because he actually wore the stalker in a few stories and the iconic pipe was thrown in because of it's iconography. He actually smoked clay pipes - the Calabash came about as a result of stage actors portraying Holmes when the stories were printed in The Strand, since a Calabash was large and easily maintained on stage.
EON has proved (to me anyway) from this reboot (and in particular with SF) that they can continue the series by showing more of Bond's personality (including his flaws) and by treating the other characters - including the villain, as more realistic people rather than just two dimensional avatars to give Bond something to react to, and still be successful at the box office. We will never again have the scripts that match Fleming's actual novels (though they can still slip in some minor scenes that haven't been covered yet), but at least they are trying to bring out the three dimensional spy of the novels - even more than they did with the first three films. Even in those close adaptations, we only know Bond by what he does - not by who he is. I know - there are many who claim even Fleming's hero was more of a cypher and that's why it's easy to step into his shoes when reading the stories, but I think that writes
the character off as just a puppet to hang the story on - because to me Fleming gives him enough inner thoughts and feelings that I have no problem seeing him as a real spy. I'm certain Connery wishes they had given him the creative opportunity Craig now has when he was doing Bond so he could have really stretched his acting talent, instead of having to perform in non-Bond films in order to so. I can easily picture a young Connery in any of those scenes in SF without any difficulty and saying the exact same dialogue and it would have fit him like a glove.
I'd like to associate myself with the comments of my right honorable friend! -{
I can't see Connery pootling off to his old house with M in the car beside him, or coolly holding back while watching someone's assassination, but the he did champion the rather rubbish Warhead script at one point so who knows.
I can't see Connery pootling off to his old house with M in the car beside him, or coolly holding back while watching someone's assassination, but the he did champion the rather rubbish Warhead script at one point so who knows.
I have no problem visually seeing Connery with B. Lee complaining
to him (as he usually did) while riding in the Aston ( I can image Lee
saying "go on..eject me"), nor do I with Connery watching the assassination, since I'm certain the reason Bond didn't stop it was
because he had info on who the target was which probably was some
thug with blood on their hands who deserved it. The thing that takes a little extra imagination for me is playing the Bond rescuing M in London and the Scotland scenes in my head while visualizing it's taking place back in the early sixties.
Yeah, even Dr No and to some extent GF. But SF is the one namechecked as getting back to Fleming's world, like that excuses the excesses.
The first three films were made while Fleming was still alive so EON was at least being considerate by staying close to his novels. TB was also easy to adapt since it was actually the first novelization of an unfilmed James Bond screenplay, it was born from a collaboration by five people: Ian Fleming, Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce and Ernest Cuneo. OHMSS was EONs way of getting the series back to Fleming's Bond after the excesses of YOLT (and having a new actor made it easier).
Any excesses in SF are not excused by EON and Craig saying they are attempting to get back to Fleming's hero. They are only a reluctant bow to the unavoidable process of modernizing and keeping a half century character born in the Cold War era current as well as maintaining some touchstones to the famous iconography of the series itself...
hence the old Aston, bringing Q and Moneypenny back - having Bond armed with only a tricked out pistol and radio (harkening the
days when he started out by just getting a firearm upgrade in No and his tricked out case in FRWL.
I think what Craig and EON are trying to do is let Fleming's hero come back and be the ground on which to do the scripts on and to mute as much of the fantastic excesses of the old series without sacrificing the universal icons. In the Granada Sherlock Holmes series they did away with the film series iconography of the bumbling Watson/Bruce character and never had Holmes wear the deer stalker hat or smoke the famous meerschaum pipe for most of the episodes because he never really wore the cap much in the novels and never smoked that pipe, though they did have him wearing the iconic hat (a few times) and smoke the iconic pipe (only once I recall) in some because he actually wore the stalker in a few stories and the iconic pipe was thrown in because of it's iconography. He actually smoked clay pipes - the Calabash came about as a result of stage actors portraying Holmes when the stories were printed in The Strand, since a Calabash was large and easily maintained on stage.
EON has proved (to me anyway) from this reboot (and in particular with SF) that they can continue the series by showing more of Bond's personality (including his flaws) and by treating the other characters - including the villain, as more realistic people rather than just two dimensional avatars to give Bond something to react to, and still be successful at the box office. We will never again have the scripts that match Fleming's actual novels (though they can still slip in some minor scenes that haven't been covered yet), but at least they are trying to bring out the three dimensional spy of the novels - even more than they did with the first three films. Even in those close adaptations, we only know Bond by what he does - not by who he is. I know - there are many who claim even Fleming's hero was more of a cypher and that's why it's easy to step into his shoes when reading the stories, but I think that writes
the character off as just a puppet to hang the story on - because to me Fleming gives him enough inner thoughts and feelings that I have no problem seeing him as a real spy. I'm certain Connery wishes they had given him the creative opportunity Craig now has when he was doing Bond so he could have really stretched his acting talent, instead of having to perform in non-Bond films in order to so. I can easily picture a young Connery in any of those scenes in SF without any difficulty and saying the exact same dialogue and it would have fit him like a glove.
I'd like to associate myself with the comments of my right honorable friend! -{
The books and films were not exactly the same but they were close enough for government work, as the saying goes. One thing the films kept common with the novels is that the character of James Bond was always intelligent, adept at his expertize, morally centered, and a winner. He had all the social graces without making a point of it, a sense of humor about himself, and was attractive to women who ran in the fast lane, too. He was business-like about killing but still had an empathy for others (Kerim in FRWL, Paula in TB etc). That much was the same. There is NO contradiction between James Bond in the novels and the originating films even though the emphasis is a little different.
Then Barbara Broccoli took over and cast Daniel Craig. In CASINO ROYALE, the character of James Bond is methodically reversed. He is turned into the opposite. He is inverted. He is stripped of his social graces, his upbringing, his sex appeal, his military service, and his commendable record in public service. His adeptness is replaced by brutality, his empathy by indifference. He is lectured at and excoriated by both M and Vesper for doing stupid things -- invading an Embassy, going after one bombmaker instead of the larger plan, blowing his own cover, not knowing what clothes to wear, bragging about his prowess at cards and then losing, misjudging Vesper not once but twice, whining about his loss, and so on. The plot points are mostly the same, but the underlying subtext is queered, perverted, undermined. This character does not come out of the novel. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE James Bond is damaged goods, an instrument of death symbolized by the blood stain on his white shirt. In SKYFALL he is incompetent and a loser. Instead of knowing what to do, he has to be told to "go after him." He can't win the fight on top of the train. His gun is useless, so he throws it away. He turns the crane's cab into incoming gunfire, knowing he will get shot. He fails to recover the computer disc containing a list of agents. Instead of getting on with his duty, he hides out on a beach half way 'round the world feeling sorry himself. Then he turns up in M's apartment, unshaven, smelling bad and needing a shower. M's put-downs are now very personal. Just because James Bond reports for duty doesn't mean he can do his duty. In fact, he fails at everything. Instead of removing the bullet fragments from his shoulder before the tests, Bond removes them after the tests, when he has failed them. He watches the preparations for an assassination making no effort to prevent it. He lets Patrice slip through his fingers and fall to his death, failing to get the information. He is beaten up by a Chinese henchmen, who takes away his gun, then loses his gun to the Komodo dragon. He delays going into action until after Severine is murdered, when all he can say is "What a waste of good Scotch" before easily defeating their captors. In taking M to his ancestral homeland, he maneuvers her into a position where the villain can overcome them and kill her. And in fact M must face her murderer alone while Bond is under the lake losing another fight. Even Daniel Kleinman's wonderful opening titles takes us into Bond's shoulder wound and past a hall of mirrors in which Bond shoots at his own reflection -- which is a pale shadow -- showing us the black abyss of his soul, full of decay, blood, graves and death. James Bond is deconstructed out of existence in SKYFALL. His past prowess is indeed past, symbolized by shooting the Aston-Martin into bits. There is nothing left of James Bond but the name. Toward that end Craig's performance is thoroughly committed and deeply felt -- morose, apologetic, pouting -- and utterly wrong-headed.
The deconstruction of James Bond is consistent from one Craig film to the next. Each film takes the deconstruction one step further. In each film, Craig's James Bond is shown behaving and doing the opposite of what the character would do in the novels or the originating films. Each film shows him doing an ugly, deceitful act. In a pro-Bond film, James Bond will be cheerful instead of depressed, adept instead of inept. He will be amused by criminals instead of intimidated by them. His arguments will be with the people he meets out in the field, not at the office. His aim will be true, he will think before he acts, he will win his fights and his card games, he will romance the beautiful women who want to be romanced, and he will outsmart the villains. He will be challenged and overcome setbacks along the way, but he will do the right thing and win in the end. That's who James Bond is, somebody to root for, and that's what a James Bond film needs to be again.
Agree with most of this, though again it's because Craig inhabits a Bond who screws up early on cos he's a beginner, and screws up later in SF cos he's burning out. This makes for some 'interesting' vulnerablilites in the character largely because imo they don't make Bond's world very interesting; the characterisation of the villains is largely an afterthought and even Silva doesn't really get much screen time. The series has turned introspective; okay it was in Fleming's time but the outside world was equally if not more interesting then.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Agree with most of this, though again it's because Craig inhabits a Bond who screws up early on cos he's a beginner, and screws up later in SF cos he's burning out. This makes for some 'interesting' vulnerablilites in the character largely because imo they don't make Bond's world very interesting; the characterisation of the villains is largely an afterthought and even Silva doesn't really get much screen time. The series has turned introspective; okay it was in Fleming's time but the outside world was equally if not more interesting then.
A fair point; I've very much enjoyed the revitalization of the character and the series in the Craig Era, but at this point I wouldn't mind a bit less navel-gazing going forward. If they were truly going to examine the circumstances of Bond's orphan status, SF was a golden opportunity to do so, but now I think they should turn their energies into making a straight-ahead Bond picture with a classic, twisted father-figure-type villain (Doctor No, Goldfinger, et al.), keeping the level of humour where it is, and putting some space between Bond and the rest of the action/espionage film genre. This should prove an adequate challenge, regardless of the creative team with whom Eon entrusts #24.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A fair point; I've very much enjoyed the revitalization of the character and the series in the Craig Era, but at this point I wouldn't mind a bit less navel-gazing going forward. If they were truly going to examine the circumstances of Bond's orphan status, SF was a golden opportunity to do so, but now I think they should turn their energies into making a straight-ahead Bond picture with a classic, twisted father-figure-type villain (Doctor No, Goldfinger, et al.), keeping the level of humour where it is, and putting some space between Bond and the rest of the action/espionage film genre. This should prove an adequate challenge, regardless of the creative team with whom Eon entrusts #24.
-{ Totally agree, I hated QOS, ( I have mellowed a bit to it ) and wanted a few changes. With Skyfall I feel the producers have
listened to those fans who were upset and have re-introduced many of the traditional elements, but with a contemporary twist.
I too would love to see a bit less of the navel-gazing and get a great full on Bond for # 24. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Agree with most of this, though again it's because Craig inhabits a Bond who screws up early on cos he's a beginner, and screws up later in SF cos he's burning out. This makes for some 'interesting' vulnerablilites in the character largely because imo they don't make Bond's world very interesting; the characterisation of the villains is largely an afterthought and even Silva doesn't really get much screen time. The series has turned introspective; okay it was in Fleming's time but the outside world was equally if not more interesting then.
A fair point; I've very much enjoyed the revitalization of the character and the series in the Craig Era, but at this point I wouldn't mind a bit less navel-gazing going forward. If they were truly going to examine the circumstances of Bond's orphan status, SF was a golden opportunity to do so, but now I think they should turn their energies into making a straight-ahead Bond picture with a classic, twisted father-figure-type villain (Doctor No, Goldfinger, et al.), keeping the level of humour where it is, and putting some space between Bond and the rest of the action/espionage film genre. This should prove an adequate challenge, regardless of the creative team with whom Eon entrusts #24.
Agree with most of this, though again it's because Craig inhabits a Bond who screws up early on cos he's a beginner, and screws up later in SF cos he's burning out. This makes for some 'interesting' vulnerablilites in the character largely because imo they don't make Bond's world very interesting; the characterisation of the villains is largely an afterthought and even Silva doesn't really get much screen time. The series has turned introspective; okay it was in Fleming's time but the outside world was equally if not more interesting then.
A fair point; I've very much enjoyed the revitalization of the character and the series in the Craig Era, but at this point I wouldn't mind a bit less navel-gazing going forward. If they were truly going to examine the circumstances of Bond's orphan status, SF was a golden opportunity to do so, but now I think they should turn their energies into making a straight-ahead Bond picture with a classic, twisted father-figure-type villain (Doctor No, Goldfinger, et al.), keeping the level of humour where it is, and putting some space between Bond and the rest of the action/espionage film genre. This should prove an adequate challenge, regardless of the creative team with whom Eon entrusts #24.
I agree - I'd like to see the Craig films more forward in the way you have suggested. -{
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
It's a long and tangled tale, still unfolding...but I'm very glad to be back {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Did I hear correct that Mendes was directing the London stage version
of Willy Wonkas chocolate factory I thought that's what they said on the car radio today?
Did I hear correct that Mendes was directing the London stage version
of Willy Wonkas chocolate factory I thought that's what they said on the car radio today?
Correct that's why originally he wouldn't commit to the next bond as he was focused on the stage show
But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing; all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be.
The Bond films were never meant to be critical masterpieces. Just good escapism.
I had to go back three months to remember what I was saying; and I see I was taken entirely out of context. I was questioning a member for criticizing John Logan's work on a script he wrote at least A DECADE AGO and saying that it disqualifies him to write Bond 24--the member was ignoring all the critically acclaimed work Logan has done since. Whatever. . . 8-)
But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing; all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be.
The Bond films were never meant to be critical masterpieces. Just good escapism.
I had to go back three months to remember what I was saying; and I see I was taken entirely out of context. I was questioning a member for criticizing John Logan's work on a script he wrote at least A DECADE AGO and saying that it disqualifies him to write Bond 24--the member was ignoring all the critically acclaimed work Logan has done since. Whatever. . . 8-)
What you said about Logan’s work is separate to what you said in the statement I quoted. Your statement is alluding to the Bond films, as it contains the phrase “all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be”. So unless you have had a logic bypass, the first part of your statement (“But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing”) is connected to the second part of it (“all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be”). So my point still stands, and is not addressed out of context.
So unless you have had a logic bypass, the first part of your statement (“But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing”) is connected to the second part of it (“all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be”). So my point still stands, and is not addressed out of context.
That statement was and is pure sarcasm. I was addressing the many fans--this one in particular--who've been carping that Skyfall's boxoffice bonanza, its numerous awards and nominations, its praise from fans, etc., cannot hide the fact that it's really a "bad" film. And to further the clear logic of my reply to you, how does my sarcastic statement show that I seem to feel an escapist movie can't be an award-winner--or vice-versa?
Your statement was obviously sarcastic. That is not my point. My point was that you agree with what it says, as indeed you have now admitted. Of course an escapist film can win awards but your point was that winning awards was the measure of a good Bond film, hence your use of it to defend Skyfall, and hence my saying that Bond films were not meant to be award winning but merely escapism. Using your criteria, no Bond films are any good if they haven’t won a BAFTA.
Bull. I did NOT say that a Bond film must win awards to be good. You are twisting around my meaning. Why? Why did you go crawling through PAGES of materials to find a post I made, cherry-pick a comment, and put it up here in order to make me look like I'm making nonsensical statements? I WAS CRITICIZING A MEMBER FOR SAYING THE SCREENWRITER WAS UNWORTHY TO WRITE THE FILM BECAUSE OF A SCREENPLAY HE WROTE YEARS AGO. I ADDED THAT LOGAN'S AWARDS SINCE THAT SCREENPLAY SHOW THAT HE HAS DONE GOOD WORK. THEN I SARCASTICALLY ADDED THAT OF COURSE PEER RECOGNITION MEANS NOTHING TO PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY AND THEY ALONE UNDERSTAND JAMES BOND. Do you now understand what I was saying? I would prefer this conversation to end here and now. Thank you.
Bull. I did NOT say that a Bond film must win awards to be good. You are twisting around my meaning. Why? Why did you go crawling through PAGES of materials to find a post I made, cherry-pick a comment, and put it up here in order to make me look like I'm making nonsensical statements? I WAS CRITICIZING A MEMBER FOR SAYING THE SCREENWRITER WAS UNWORTHY TO WRITE THE FILM BECAUSE OF A SCREENPLAY HE WROTE YEARS AGO. I ADDED THAT LOGAN'S AWARDS SINCE THAT SCREENPLAY SHOW THAT HE HAS DONE GOOD WORK. THEN I SARCASTICALLY ADDED THAT OF COURSE PEER RECOGNITION MEANS NOTHING TO PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY AND THEY ALONE UNDERSTAND JAMES BOND. Do you now understand what I was saying? I would prefer this conversation to end here and now. Thank you.
Don’t flatter yourself; I wasn’t singling you out, just reading the thread from the beginning and happening upon your comment. You do indeed believe that awards mean something in relation to Bond films, hence your reply to the Skyfall critic that Skyfall is good because it has won awards. Please don’t take a reversionary approach your posting history.
I feel someone picking up a piece of 2by4 and swinging it around a bit 8-)
You can ban me if you wish. From past experience you seem to enjoy throwing your weight as admin around, which I’ve had a few PMs about, so I’m not alone in thinking this is not a healthy way to run a forum.
Comments
I agree, but those tend to be the exceptions. For the most, the Bond films diverge quite a bit from the novels, and some use nothing more than the title and perhaps a character name or two.
Yeah, even Dr No and to some extent GF. But SF is the one namechecked as getting back to Fleming's world, like that excuses the excesses.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's true- principally the way in which Fleming's central weakness (blow off the doors of Fort Knox with a nuclear warhead while Golfinger & co shelter behind a wall, then take all the gold away???) becomes using the nuclear device to irradiate the gold, but also more subtly. Tilly's role is shortened while Pussy's is increased; Bond (and the audience, of course) gets to see Jill's golden death (an iconic moment) rather than be simply told about it later; and Fleming's unfilmable exchange between 007 and Goldfinger (Bond: "Then you can go and **** yourself" Goldfinger: "Even I am not capable of that, Mr Bond") becomes the classic "Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!".
All credit to Richard Maibaum & Paul Dehn for their work. It's perhaps the only instance in which the film improves on the book (obvious CUE FOR ARGUMENTS).
I'd like to add FYEO to the list of fairly faithful Fleming films mentioned above. Most of the characters and situations are in FYEO (short story) or Risico.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The first three films were made while Fleming was still alive so EON was at least being considerate by staying close to his novels. TB was also easy to adapt since it was actually the first novelization of an unfilmed James Bond screenplay, it was born from a collaboration by five people: Ian Fleming, Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce and Ernest Cuneo. OHMSS was EONs way of getting the series back to Fleming's Bond after the excesses of YOLT (and having a new actor made it easier).
Any excesses in SF are not excused by EON and Craig saying they are attempting to get back to Fleming's hero. They are only a reluctant bow to the unavoidable process of modernizing and keeping a half century character born in the Cold War era current as well as maintaining some touchstones to the famous iconography of the series itself...
hence the old Aston, bringing Q and Moneypenny back - having Bond armed with only a tricked out pistol and radio (harkening the
days when he started out by just getting a firearm upgrade in No and his tricked out case in FRWL.
I think what Craig and EON are trying to do is let Fleming's hero come back and be the ground on which to do the scripts on and to mute as much of the fantastic excesses of the old series without sacrificing the universal icons. In the Granada Sherlock Holmes series they did away with the film series iconography of the bumbling Watson/Bruce character and never had Holmes wear the deer stalker hat or smoke the famous meerschaum pipe for most of the episodes because he never really wore the cap much in the novels and never smoked that pipe, though they did have him wearing the iconic hat (a few times) and smoke the iconic pipe (only once I recall) in some because he actually wore the stalker in a few stories and the iconic pipe was thrown in because of it's iconography. He actually smoked clay pipes - the Calabash came about as a result of stage actors portraying Holmes when the stories were printed in The Strand, since a Calabash was large and easily maintained on stage.
EON has proved (to me anyway) from this reboot (and in particular with SF) that they can continue the series by showing more of Bond's personality (including his flaws) and by treating the other characters - including the villain, as more realistic people rather than just two dimensional avatars to give Bond something to react to, and still be successful at the box office. We will never again have the scripts that match Fleming's actual novels (though they can still slip in some minor scenes that haven't been covered yet), but at least they are trying to bring out the three dimensional spy of the novels - even more than they did with the first three films. Even in those close adaptations, we only know Bond by what he does - not by who he is. I know - there are many who claim even Fleming's hero was more of a cypher and that's why it's easy to step into his shoes when reading the stories, but I think that writes
the character off as just a puppet to hang the story on - because to me Fleming gives him enough inner thoughts and feelings that I have no problem seeing him as a real spy. I'm certain Connery wishes they had given him the creative opportunity Craig now has when he was doing Bond so he could have really stretched his acting talent, instead of having to perform in non-Bond films in order to so. I can easily picture a young Connery in any of those scenes in SF without any difficulty and saying the exact same dialogue and it would have fit him like a glove.
I'd like to associate myself with the comments of my right honorable friend! -{
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I have no problem visually seeing Connery with B. Lee complaining
to him (as he usually did) while riding in the Aston ( I can image Lee
saying "go on..eject me"), nor do I with Connery watching the assassination, since I'm certain the reason Bond didn't stop it was
because he had info on who the target was which probably was some
thug with blood on their hands who deserved it. The thing that takes a little extra imagination for me is playing the Bond rescuing M in London and the Scotland scenes in my head while visualizing it's taking place back in the early sixties.
With pleasure, B. With pleasure.
Agree with most of this, though again it's because Craig inhabits a Bond who screws up early on cos he's a beginner, and screws up later in SF cos he's burning out. This makes for some 'interesting' vulnerablilites in the character largely because imo they don't make Bond's world very interesting; the characterisation of the villains is largely an afterthought and even Silva doesn't really get much screen time. The series has turned introspective; okay it was in Fleming's time but the outside world was equally if not more interesting then.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A fair point; I've very much enjoyed the revitalization of the character and the series in the Craig Era, but at this point I wouldn't mind a bit less navel-gazing going forward. If they were truly going to examine the circumstances of Bond's orphan status, SF was a golden opportunity to do so, but now I think they should turn their energies into making a straight-ahead Bond picture with a classic, twisted father-figure-type villain (Doctor No, Goldfinger, et al.), keeping the level of humour where it is, and putting some space between Bond and the rest of the action/espionage film genre. This should prove an adequate challenge, regardless of the creative team with whom Eon entrusts #24.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
-{ Totally agree, I hated QOS, ( I have mellowed a bit to it ) and wanted a few changes. With Skyfall I feel the producers have
listened to those fans who were upset and have re-introduced many of the traditional elements, but with a contemporary twist.
I too would love to see a bit less of the navel-gazing and get a great full on Bond for # 24.
And where the bloody hell have you been? X-(
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I agree - I'd like to see the Craig films more forward in the way you have suggested. -{
It's a long and tangled tale, still unfolding...but I'm very glad to be back {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
of Willy Wonkas chocolate factory I thought that's what they said on the car radio today?
Correct that's why originally he wouldn't commit to the next bond as he was focused on the stage show
The Bond films were never meant to be critical masterpieces. Just good escapism.
I had to go back three months to remember what I was saying; and I see I was taken entirely out of context. I was questioning a member for criticizing John Logan's work on a script he wrote at least A DECADE AGO and saying that it disqualifies him to write Bond 24--the member was ignoring all the critically acclaimed work Logan has done since. Whatever. . . 8-)
What you said about Logan’s work is separate to what you said in the statement I quoted. Your statement is alluding to the Bond films, as it contains the phrase “all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be”. So unless you have had a logic bypass, the first part of your statement (“But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing”) is connected to the second part of it (“all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be”). So my point still stands, and is not addressed out of context.
That statement was and is pure sarcasm. I was addressing the many fans--this one in particular--who've been carping that Skyfall's boxoffice bonanza, its numerous awards and nominations, its praise from fans, etc., cannot hide the fact that it's really a "bad" film. And to further the clear logic of my reply to you, how does my sarcastic statement show that I seem to feel an escapist movie can't be an award-winner--or vice-versa?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm choosing to ignore it this time round.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Don’t flatter yourself; I wasn’t singling you out, just reading the thread from the beginning and happening upon your comment. You do indeed believe that awards mean something in relation to Bond films, hence your reply to the Skyfall critic that Skyfall is good because it has won awards. Please don’t take a reversionary approach your posting history.
? ?:)
Before you leave us, do you think you could explain that sentence?
I feel someone picking up a piece of 2by4 and swinging it around a bit 8-)
You can ban me if you wish. From past experience you seem to enjoy throwing your weight as admin around, which I’ve had a few PMs about, so I’m not alone in thinking this is not a healthy way to run a forum.