What would you expect? Fleming as the novel author and Dahl as the script writer. There just had to be huge departures from the original material, and as much as I am a Bond fan, I consider Dahl to be a much better writer. YOLT was the first Bond movie I watched, and I judge all the others by its standard for this particular reason. It will always be my favourite. So many great line, some of which are not even in the novel.
Eon was in no way ready to do a more proper YOLT adaption in the 60s, to be sure, nor was the filmgoing public ready to accept it. But I think that has changed now, with the current era and the way that Craig's interpretation of the role (like/agree with it or not) has pushed Bond into brave Flemingesque territory (SP's retro lighter tone notwithstanding). So I expect the actual YOLT storyline to see the light of day soon.
Why wasn't a more literal adaptation possible back then? Half a century later, it would be tricky to do it – first, the title has already been taken. Then, either you set the movie 50 years ago (unprecedented), or you have to change quite a bit to bring it to modern times (which would mean that the movie will likely be as removed from the literary original as the first one).
I think we should accept that there is no point re-frying Fleming material again and again. For goodness sake, why not just get some able script-writers?
For one thing, it's a cracking good story, and it's unused original material (the precise opposite of 're-fried' anything). That means something to fans of Fleming, and it speaks to what was great about Bond from the beginning. The story is in no means dependent upon the era in which the novel was written. And of course, I (again) reiterate my agreement that Eon does indeed need new writers. But deliberately ignoring untapped Fleming is simply wrong-headed in my view.
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
Fleming probably thought that running a Castle of Death was evil, but modern audiences would see it very differently. So again, either stick to the period, or you have to change the material considerably.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Fleming probably thought that running a Castle of Death was evil, but modern audiences would see it very differently. So again, either stick to the period, or you have to change the material considerably.
Eon isn't afraid of doing that, clearly :007) Of course a new spin is necessary; it ought to go without saying, for crying out loud. Eon have NEVER done a 100% faithful adaptation---the closest was OHMSS, and it was so jarring at the time that it scared them into the DAF we got ...but times have changed. They've shown us that they have the courage...they just need the writing.
You call the film The Death Collector...and the garden is strictly an Act 3 device/setting, only thematically linked to the villain's main plot.
ATTENTION EON: Contact me. I'm not going to spill the beans here, and I don't work for free B-)
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
Fleming probably thought that running a Castle of Death was evil, but modern audiences would see it very differently. So again, either stick to the period, or you have to change the material considerably.
Eon isn't afraid of doing that, clearly :007) Of course a new spin is necessary; it ought to go without saying, for crying out loud. Eon have NEVER done a 100% faithful adaptation---the closest was OHMSS, and it was so jarring at the time that it scared them into the DAF we got ...but times have changed. They've shown us that they have the courage...they just need the writing.
You call the film The Death Collector...and the garden is strictly an Act 3 device/setting, only thematically linked to the villain's main plot.
ATTENTION EON: Contact me. I'm not going to spill the beans here, and I don't work for free B-)
According to the earlier discussion thread linked above, working on YOLT started with a scouting trip to Japan, which discovered that they did not really build castles near the sea there. The rest is history. At least we had the very talented Mr Dahl to complete the script.
Now we're talking about "a new spin", courage, never doing a faithful adaptation, and we live in a world that has advanced half a century. Perhaps the producers don't want to revisit the novel because they know the result would be even further removed from the literary original than the first film.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Fleming probably thought that running a Castle of Death was evil, but modern audiences would see it very differently. So again, either stick to the period, or you have to change the material considerably.
Eon isn't afraid of doing that, clearly :007) Of course a new spin is necessary; it ought to go without saying, for crying out loud. Eon have NEVER done a 100% faithful adaptation---the closest was OHMSS, and it was so jarring at the time that it scared them into the DAF we got ...but times have changed. They've shown us that they have the courage...they just need the writing.
You call the film The Death Collector...and the garden is strictly an Act 3 device/setting, only thematically linked to the villain's main plot.
ATTENTION EON: Contact me. I'm not going to spill the beans here, and I don't work for free B-)
According to the earlier discussion thread linked above, working on YOLT started with a scouting trip to Japan, which discovered that they did not really build castles near the sea there. The rest is history. At least we had the very talented Mr Dahl to complete the script.
8-)
Now we're talking about "a new spin", courage, never doing a faithful adaptation, and we live in a world that has advanced half a century. Perhaps the producers don't want to revisit the novel because they know the result would be even further removed from the literary original than the first film.
You seem strangely linear in thought, and limited in imagination (but I daren't presume 8-) ) Does the castle have to be in Japan??
Of all the people here with whom I converse, I cannot imagine anyone having a lesser grasp on my idea. And that gives me great comfort. You and I really have so little to talk about; why do you waste your time on my thread?
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
Simple - if it's not a castle, not in Japan, not set 50 years ago, and so on, there is no point claiming a link to the YOLT novel.
I was also not aware that threads on this forum had owners. I therefore duly check out. :007)
I repeat my last post...and also welcome your absence.
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
Woo the hostility in here. Can't have a good conversation without some right hooks.
I don't see the huge problem with the Craig Era films. SF, CR, SP.all rest in my top 12. So therefore I don't see the huge issue here.
Regarding Fleming's work it seems as if many keep beating it like a dead horse. It surely would have been great if he wrote 5+:more Bond adventures. But he didn't. And from many comments on here people are sounding like the only way a Bond film is good is if it directly is influenced by Fleming material.
I agree with many other posts. There are plenty of talented script writers. Hire them. If theyve never seen a Bond film. Or only seen a few. Make them watch them all. See the elements in each film. Write a new one.
I for one love SP ability to balance old and new. Not my favorite film. (#12 currently) but I am very excited for where the franchise goes next.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
For the record, I would never say that Bond's current films MUST be rooted in Fleming original material; that's clearly impossible. However, unexplored Fleming material should not be ignored. It seems axiomatic to me ?:) We do have those who thrive on conflict here, regrettably. I am not one of those.
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
For the record, I would never say that Bond's current films MUST be rooted in Fleming original material; that's clearly impossible. However, unexplored Fleming material should not be ignored. It seems axiomatic to me ?:)
This is the right attitude. Since there's still unexplored Fleming material, I think it should be used. But there are great films not at all rooted in Fleming material, like TSWLM. I also think YOLT is a great film, and though it takes Fleming elements I wouldn't consider it rooted in Fleming.
I think you are probably right. I love Connery's Bond but it's some way from Fleming. Apart from the physical stuff Craig may indeed be closer. As Connery was the first he sets the initial template for the cinematic incarnation. Not many laughs in Fleming but more than the oft recited 'blunt instrument' to Fleming's Bond. If not as I have said before he'd just be a tough guy and I suspect that we'd have long since stopped caring.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig's looks remind me of the face on a Troll Doll. The Denial Craig movies are good, but he is not James Bond, and never will be. The broke the mold after Sean Connery. Craig as Bond is about the same as the actor Verner Troyer playing the lead in a movie about the life of Micheal Jordan.
A little harsh! I think that facially he does look quite ordinary and not really how I would Bond to look at all (going off Casino Royale I would expect Bond to have matinee idol looks- that's where the tension comes from, looking beautiful but cruel). It does mean though that there is a lot of mileage for Bond post-Craig.
A little harsh! I think that facially he does look quite ordinary and not really how I would Bond to look at all (going off Casino Royale I would expect Bond to have matinee idol looks- that's where the tension comes from, looking beautiful but cruel). It does mean though that there is a lot of mileage for Bond post-Craig.
While beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, one aspect of DC Bond is that he tends to get overshadowed at times. In SF, both Silva and M took over the 2nd half .... In fact, Silva just takes over the film once he is introduced (may be that is why many Bond critics like the film) .... In SP, Swann and Blofeld shine at times
I can't help but wonder that if DC were in GF, he may have been over-shadowed there too
Craig's looks remind me of the face on a Troll Doll. The Denial Craig movies are good, but he is not James Bond, and never will be. The broke the mold after Sean Connery. Craig as Bond is about the same as the actor Verner Troyer playing the lead in a movie about the life of Micheal Jordan.
A little harsh! I think that facially he does look quite ordinary and not really how I would Bond to look at all (going off Casino Royale I would expect Bond to have matinee idol looks- that's where the tension comes from, looking beautiful but cruel). It does mean though that there is a lot of mileage for Bond post-Craig.
'Denial Craig' has got to be one of the best typos eva! ) truly marvelous. Unless of course it was intended in which case I'm a Duffus (of course I could be a twonk whether it was intended or not- just getting my retaliation in early don't cha know)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Craig's looks remind me of the face on a Troll Doll. The Denial Craig movies are good, but he is not James Bond, and never will be. The broke the mold after Sean Connery. Craig as Bond is about the same as the actor Verner Troyer playing the lead in a movie about the life of Micheal Jordan.
A little harsh! I think that facially he does look quite ordinary and not really how I would Bond to look at all (going off Casino Royale I would expect Bond to have matinee idol looks- that's where the tension comes from, looking beautiful but cruel). It does mean though that there is a lot of mileage for Bond post-Craig.
'Denial Craig' has got to be one of the best typos eva! ) truly marvelous. Unless of course it was intended in which case I'm a Duffus (of course I could be a twonk whether it was intended or not- just getting my retaliation in early don't cha know)
...I'm pretty sure it wasn't a typo 8-) Pretty typical post from
danielcraigdoesntanswermyfanmail.com site members :007)
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 little harsh! I think that facially he does look quite ordinary and not really how I would Bond to look at all (going off Casino Royale I would expect Bond to have matinee idol looks- that's where the tension comes from, looking beautiful but cruel). It does mean though that there is a lot of mileage for Bond post-Craig.
'Denial Craig' has got to be one of the best typos eva! ) truly marvelous. Unless of course it was intended in which case I'm a Duffus (of course I could be a twonk whether it was intended or not- just getting my retaliation in early don't cha know)
...I'm pretty sure it wasn't a typo 8-) Pretty typical post from
Oh. ;% thanks for pointing that out.
danielcraigdoesntanswermyfanmail.com site members :007)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
While beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, one aspect of DC Bond is that he tends to get overshadowed at times. In SF, both Silva and M took over the 2nd half .... In fact, Silva just takes over the film once he is introduced (may be that is why many Bond critics like the film) .... In SP, Swann and Blofeld shine at times
I can't help but wonder that if DC were in GF, he may have been over-shadowed there too
Partly this is the writing; Bond can't shine if he isn't on screen (he seems to disappear part-way through SP only to re-emerge at the end) or if the focus isn't on him. I also think that having got top actors, the filmmakers obviously want to make the most of them and they think it will help broaden the audience (people may not want to see a Bond film but they may want to see a particular actor). I think DC will inevitably be overshadowed when put next to established great actors who could quite easily steal the film if they wanted to.
While beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, one aspect of DC Bond is that he tends to get overshadowed at times. In SF, both Silva and M took over the 2nd half .... In fact, Silva just takes over the film once he is introduced (may be that is why many Bond critics like the film) .... In SP, Swann and Blofeld shine at times
I can't help but wonder that if DC were in GF, he may have been over-shadowed there too
Partly this is the writing; Bond can't shine if he isn't on screen (he seems to disappear part-way through SP only to re-emerge at the end) or if the focus isn't on him. I also think that having got top actors, the filmmakers obviously want to make the most of them and they think it will help broaden the audience (people may not want to see a Bond film but they may want to see a particular actor). I think DC will inevitably be overshadowed when put next to established great actors who could quite easily steal the film if they wanted to.
That's a good point. In the 1960s and first half of the 1970s, Bond was on screen along with same actors Simon Templar, John Steed and John Drake saw: B-list character actors. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with actors like Paul Stassino or Marne Maitland, but they didn't steal anything away from Bond.
While beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, one aspect of DC Bond is that he tends to get overshadowed at times. In SF, both Silva and M took over the 2nd half .... In fact, Silva just takes over the film once he is introduced (may be that is why many Bond critics like the film) .... In SP, Swann and Blofeld shine at times
I can't help but wonder that if DC were in GF, he may have been over-shadowed there too
Partly this is the writing; Bond can't shine if he isn't on screen (he seems to disappear part-way through SP only to re-emerge at the end) or if the focus isn't on him. I also think that having got top actors, the filmmakers obviously want to make the most of them and they think it will help broaden the audience (people may not want to see a Bond film but they may want to see a particular actor). I think DC will inevitably be overshadowed when put next to established great actors who could quite easily steal the film if they wanted to.
That's a good point. In the 1960s and first half of the 1970s, Bond was on screen along with same actors Simon Templar, John Steed and John Drake saw: B-list character actors. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with actors like Paul Stassino or Marne Maitland, but they didn't steal anything away from Bond.
Agreed; there's lots of good character actors they could pick rather than leading actors.
While beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, one aspect of DC Bond is that he tends to get overshadowed at times. In SF, both Silva and M took over the 2nd half .... In fact, Silva just takes over the film once he is introduced (may be that is why many Bond critics like the film) .... In SP, Swann and Blofeld shine at times
I can't help but wonder that if DC were in GF, he may have been over-shadowed there too
Partly this is the writing; Bond can't shine if he isn't on screen (he seems to disappear part-way through SP only to re-emerge at the end) or if the focus isn't on him. I also think that having got top actors, the filmmakers obviously want to make the most of them and they think it will help broaden the audience (people may not want to see a Bond film but they may want to see a particular actor). I think DC will inevitably be overshadowed when put next to established great actors who could quite easily steal the film if they wanted to.
Mostly agree .... However in the past talents such as Joseph Wiseman, Gert Frobe, Telly Salavas, Christopher Lee, Louis Jourdan, Kabir Bedi, Chistopher Walken, Robert Davi, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, Sophie Marceau, etc. have been part of the franchise and have good roles written for them but Bond actors have not been overshadowed much or have held up well against them
Lee was brilliant in TMWTGG but still RM held up nicely. Same goes for Salavas, Walken, Davi, Marceau, etc. vs. Bond actors .... In SF, Bardem just takes over ) .... I guess that one of the reasons could be that DC is a bit monotonous. So he can do some scenes brilliantly but can be found lacking in others
Mostly agree .... However in the past talents such as Joseph Wiseman, Gert Frobe, Telly Salavas, Christopher Lee, Louis Jourdan, Kabir Bedi, Chistopher Walken, Robert Davi, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, Sophie Marceau, etc. have been part of the franchise and have good roles written for them but Bond actors have not been overshadowed much or have held up well against them
Lee was brilliant in TMWTGG but still RM held up nicely. Same goes for Salavas, Walken, Davi, Marceau, etc. vs. Bond actors .... In SF, Bardem just takes over ) .... I guess that one of the reasons could be that DC is a bit monotonous. So he can do some scenes brilliantly but can be found lacking in others
These are all bad guys. It's something else for Bond to be overshadowed by people on his own team. Before Craig, Judi Dench was certainly the best actor to be on Bond's side, but she was never a major character in Bond's films. She had a sizable role in TWINE, but she wasn't given anything to do, so she didn't overshadow Brosnan. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is all over SP.
Comments
For one thing, it's a cracking good story, and it's unused original material (the precise opposite of 're-fried' anything). That means something to fans of Fleming, and it speaks to what was great about Bond from the beginning. The story is in no means dependent upon the era in which the novel was written. And of course, I (again) reiterate my agreement that Eon does indeed need new writers. But deliberately ignoring untapped Fleming is simply wrong-headed in my view.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Fleming probably thought that running a Castle of Death was evil, but modern audiences would see it very differently. So again, either stick to the period, or you have to change the material considerably.
Eon isn't afraid of doing that, clearly :007) Of course a new spin is necessary; it ought to go without saying, for crying out loud. Eon have NEVER done a 100% faithful adaptation---the closest was OHMSS, and it was so jarring at the time that it scared them into the DAF we got
You call the film The Death Collector...and the garden is strictly an Act 3 device/setting, only thematically linked to the villain's main plot.
ATTENTION EON: Contact me. I'm not going to spill the beans here, and I don't work for free B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
According to the earlier discussion thread linked above, working on YOLT started with a scouting trip to Japan, which discovered that they did not really build castles near the sea there. The rest is history. At least we had the very talented Mr Dahl to complete the script.
Now we're talking about "a new spin", courage, never doing a faithful adaptation, and we live in a world that has advanced half a century. Perhaps the producers don't want to revisit the novel because they know the result would be even further removed from the literary original than the first film.
You seem strangely linear in thought, and limited in imagination (but I daren't presume 8-) ) Does the castle have to be in Japan??
Of all the people here with whom I converse, I cannot imagine anyone having a lesser grasp on my idea. And that gives me great comfort. You and I really have so little to talk about; why do you waste your time on my thread?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I was also not aware that threads on this forum had owners. I therefore duly check out. :007)
I repeat my last post...and also welcome your absence.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't see the huge problem with the Craig Era films. SF, CR, SP.all rest in my top 12. So therefore I don't see the huge issue here.
Regarding Fleming's work it seems as if many keep beating it like a dead horse. It surely would have been great if he wrote 5+:more Bond adventures. But he didn't. And from many comments on here people are sounding like the only way a Bond film is good is if it directly is influenced by Fleming material.
I agree with many other posts. There are plenty of talented script writers. Hire them. If theyve never seen a Bond film. Or only seen a few. Make them watch them all. See the elements in each film. Write a new one.
I for one love SP ability to balance old and new. Not my favorite film. (#12 currently) but I am very excited for where the franchise goes next.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Threads do not have owners, and Loeffelholz was not claiming to be one. They do, however, have OPs and he is certainly that so "my thread" is correct.
Would you consider 2006's Casino Royale having no link to the source material then ?
This is the right attitude. Since there's still unexplored Fleming material, I think it should be used. But there are great films not at all rooted in Fleming material, like TSWLM. I also think YOLT is a great film, and though it takes Fleming elements I wouldn't consider it rooted in Fleming.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think you are probably right. I love Connery's Bond but it's some way from Fleming. Apart from the physical stuff Craig may indeed be closer. As Connery was the first he sets the initial template for the cinematic incarnation. Not many laughs in Fleming but more than the oft recited 'blunt instrument' to Fleming's Bond. If not as I have said before he'd just be a tough guy and I suspect that we'd have long since stopped caring.
A little harsh! I think that facially he does look quite ordinary and not really how I would Bond to look at all (going off Casino Royale I would expect Bond to have matinee idol looks- that's where the tension comes from, looking beautiful but cruel). It does mean though that there is a lot of mileage for Bond post-Craig.
While beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, one aspect of DC Bond is that he tends to get overshadowed at times. In SF, both Silva and M took over the 2nd half .... In fact, Silva just takes over the film once he is introduced (may be that is why many Bond critics like the film) .... In SP, Swann and Blofeld shine at times
I can't help but wonder that if DC were in GF, he may have been over-shadowed there too
'Denial Craig' has got to be one of the best typos eva!
...I'm pretty sure it wasn't a typo 8-) Pretty typical post from
danielcraigdoesntanswermyfanmail.com site members :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Partly this is the writing; Bond can't shine if he isn't on screen (he seems to disappear part-way through SP only to re-emerge at the end) or if the focus isn't on him. I also think that having got top actors, the filmmakers obviously want to make the most of them and they think it will help broaden the audience (people may not want to see a Bond film but they may want to see a particular actor). I think DC will inevitably be overshadowed when put next to established great actors who could quite easily steal the film if they wanted to.
That's a good point. In the 1960s and first half of the 1970s, Bond was on screen along with same actors Simon Templar, John Steed and John Drake saw: B-list character actors. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with actors like Paul Stassino or Marne Maitland, but they didn't steal anything away from Bond.
Agreed; there's lots of good character actors they could pick rather than leading actors.
Mostly agree .... However in the past talents such as Joseph Wiseman, Gert Frobe, Telly Salavas, Christopher Lee, Louis Jourdan, Kabir Bedi, Chistopher Walken, Robert Davi, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, Sophie Marceau, etc. have been part of the franchise and have good roles written for them but Bond actors have not been overshadowed much or have held up well against them
Lee was brilliant in TMWTGG but still RM held up nicely. Same goes for Salavas, Walken, Davi, Marceau, etc. vs. Bond actors .... In SF, Bardem just takes over
These are all bad guys. It's something else for Bond to be overshadowed by people on his own team. Before Craig, Judi Dench was certainly the best actor to be on Bond's side, but she was never a major character in Bond's films. She had a sizable role in TWINE, but she wasn't given anything to do, so she didn't overshadow Brosnan. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is all over SP.
Not necessarily monotonous but he isn't a very lively actor. Sean Bean totally upstaged Piers Brosnan
GE is currently my least fav Bond film so I try avoid thinking about it as much as possible