The Bond Movie Discussion For Fans Of The Fleming Novels also thread

chrisisall

How does one enjoy a Moore Bond film (or DAF for that matter) being a fan of the fairly serious (given the givens) tone in Fleming novels?
Can a Fleming fan still like a Brosnan movie even with all the Die Hard/Rambo era-influenced automatic gunfire shoehorned in?
Do Craig's Bond films make Fleming's literary Bond into a fully-fledged tough-guy/one man army action hero?

Can we have a go at this without malice aforethought? )

superado

I'm a pretty big Fleming Bond fan, but with that said, at the onset of any viewing and appreciation of a Bond film, no matter which one it is, I divorce the two Bonds. I watched AVTAK just last week and managed to enjoy it again without giving it thought of whether or not it was faithful to Fleming, just as I watched TLD last night with the same "going in" mindset. With both movies, I'm conscious if a Fleming element was added in and as we know about these 2 movies very well, some has more Fleming stuff in it, while others less...come to think of it, what Fleming elements were in AVTAK But see what I mean? I was able to really get into AVTAK and enjoy it for what it was, a Bond movie set in my neck of the woods, with Patrick McNee, Christopher Walken, Grace Jones and even Dolph Lundgren! Then, I was able to watch TLD and think, look at this guy, Necros...and Koskov and Whitaker, but check out how the plot is so close to the short story, but instead of Sender you have Saunders, and instead of a black hood and a Winchester rifle, Bond has this transforming tuxedo and a Walther rifle, etc., etc.

AlphaOmegaSin

A proper Bond Fan would like all Aspects of the Character, Books and the Series -{

Thunderpussy

I sort of regard them as two separate animals, the Bond of the books
and the Bond of the movies. only my opinion but the Bond of the novels
Has only appeared on screen in Dr No and FRWL, all the others no matter how
Good they were or are are eon's Bond.
I do think with Dalton And Craig they have tried to get back to the Fleming
Character ast least,. Just my two cents.

AlphaOmegaSin

I was thinking of writing a funny Fan fiction where Film Bond meets his Novel Counterpart -{

Thunderpussy

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfSQW499Xc
Old sketch but it's what Bond's like at a party. )

Dutchfinger

Thunderpussy wrote:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfSQW499Xc
Old sketch but it's what Bond's like at a party. )

) I think you posted that one here before, hilarious!

superado wrote:

come to think of it, what Fleming elements were in AVTAK .

Well there is the horse track thing that was also in the DAF novel, but yeah I get your point

I agree with what most people say here. The novel Bond and the movie Bond are just two very seperate ones. I do however agree that since I've gotten more into the novels, movies like DN and FRWL are even more fun to watch! It's good to see some Fleming influences popping up in the movies! But that doesn't mean I cannot enjoy an occassional Roger Moore movie. TSWLM remains one hell of a great Bond movie in my opinion, even if it moved away far from Fleming by then...

Thunderpussy wrote:

Has only appeared on screen in Dr No and FRWL, all the others no matter how
Good they were or are are eon's Bond.

I would have thought you would have named OHMSS among those as well! (I'm not a fan myself, but I know you are! -{ )

Thunderpussy

The only reason I have OHMSS as an eon Bond is in the novel he only
Beds Ruby to get information out of her ( oh! What our man does for
England ) ) but in the Film Bond is shagging everything with a pulse.
So yes it is my favourite Bond film but I think the Bond of the novels is
Connery in Dr No and FRWL. With GF, I think you can begin to see the change
In Bond's portrayal.

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfSQW499Xc
Old sketch but it's what Bond's like at a party. )

Hilarious; I'd not seen that before~!

For quite a while Brosnan was my favourite Bond, but after I read the novels I realized how well Dalton had nailed it. Also my appreciation for DN & FRWL grew exponentially.

Firemass

Good discussion Chrisisall. Here's my take:

1. I am first, and foremost a fan of the Bond movies.

2. I am proud to have recently finished reading all the Fleming novels.

3. The movies that are faithful to the novels are actually harder to watch now, because I find myself nitpicking over missing details and altered plots. On the other hand, I can appreciate several improvements made on various elements of the novels.

4. Watching a film like Moonraker is still a joy due to it's "Pure Cinema" approach. It also helps that I wasn't too keen on the novel.

5. I don't find the novels to be overly-serious. For the most part it's still pure fantasy. Bond is Bond.

6. There's plenty of Fleming to be found in the Moore era Bonds.

7. DAF is a lot of fun, but disappointing when it veers so far off course from the novel. It had such a promising start.

8. I can't speak for others, but I sure as heck like the Brosnan films. Okay...maybe TND went a little overboard with the machine-gun fire, but I can dig Bond as a modern action hero.

Firemass

PS- My grandfather was an avid reader of the Fleming novels. A true old-school fan who probably would be completely lost watching a Brosnan film. From here on out, I would expect most Fleming fans to first be exposed to the films and then work their way backwards.

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

From here on out, I would expect most Fleming fans to first be exposed to the films and then work their way backwards.

I would assume it as well.

AlphaOmegaSin

That's what I did -{

Thunderpussy

Me too. -{

Barbel

Firemass wrote:

PS- My grandfather was an avid reader of the Fleming novels. A true old-school fan

Pretty much the same as me, Firemass! {[] My grandfather died in 1966 and I inherited his book collection.

CmdrAtticus

I enjoy most of the films other than the ones that veer off so far from Fleming's ideas that they are near parodies (and I don't fault any of the actors for that - it's mainly on the heads of EON and the writers). The ones I dislike the least can be viewed certainly on the basis of pure entertainment, but for me they were a waste of many years and time when EON could have been staying closer to Fleming's work (the way the reboot seems to be trying to do).

Blackleiter

I, like others, started with the movies and then moved to reading the novels. I think that's probably why I generally view cinema Bond and literary Bond almost as separate characters, although there are many similarities. That being said, I tend to enjoy the so-called serious Bond films more (YOLT notwithstanding) partly because it is easier for me to connect them to the character depicted in the books. But that doesn't keep me from enjoying the other films in the series as well. After all, I'm a Bond movie fan!

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

After all, I'm a Bond movie fan!

Yes, same with most of us I guess. It's not like I like the sillier films less after reading the novels, just that I like the more Flemingesque ones MORE. -{

Thunderpussy

In a perfect world you can be a fan of both. )
Luckily I live in a Utopia.

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

Luckily I live in a Utopia.

Hey TP, when you gonna change your signature & get a Connery film closer to the front? I'm tired of seein' OHMSS #1 all the time. )

Thunderpussy

) Never gonna happen, CR came close and that only took 37 years
Although I like to think spectre, might have a chance ?

chrisisall

What's weird though, is that my two most watched Connery Bonds seem to be DN & YOLT. The smallest Flemingesque Bond movie & the biggest mostly non-Fleming Bond movie.
What's that all about? Can someone analyse this for me (free of charge)?

Dutchfinger

chrisisall wrote:

What's weird though, is that my two most watched Connery Bonds seem to be DN & YOLT. The smallest Flemingesque Bond movie & the biggest mostly non-Fleming Bond movie.
What's that all about? Can someone analyse this for me (free of charge)?

I wouldn't call YOLT the smallest Flemingesque Bond movie, a lot of the Roger Moore ones could still hold that trophy. If not DAD...

I would say it's for the simple fact that YOLT is a darn-entertaining-guilty-pleasure Bond flick. It's pure 60'ies entertainment. Back when villians could still be in hollowed out volcano's and have a controlable bridge with a footpedal over a piranha bath in their lair. It's just classic! This movie reminds of the Thunderbirds era (my biggest sentiment ever) so much! Of course it went far - far away from Fleming's Bond. But I have to say that what Roald Dahl essentially did with it, along with Lewis Gilbert, was make one hell of a great classic. So, I wouldn't call it strange for you to be watching YOLT so much along with DN. I'm guilty of the same sin myself

DEFIANT 74205

I have to agree with Thunderpussy that the first two films, Dr No and From Russia With Love, are about as close to Fleming as EON has ever got, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service. That's why they're my top three favourite films (not in that order, though), and that's not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

I'm a fan of the Fleming Bond first. I believe that there is only one way to portray the character of James Bond, and that's by the book. While I can appreciate certain EON Bonds for their entertainment value, there are certain films that have drifted so far away from Fleming that I find I cannot tolerate watching them. I may have started watching the films before reading the novels, but the films that I liked as a kid were predominantly the first four Connery films, for its portrayal of a more serious Bond. Generally speaking, the further the EON Bond drifts away from its Fleming roots, the less I like the film.

So to answer the OP's questions:

chrisisall wrote:

How does one enjoy a Moore Bond film (or DAF for that matter) being a fan of the fairly serious (given the givens) tone in Fleming novels?

Diamonds Are Forever used to be in my top 10 when I was younger, but these days it's been sliding down the order. It still has its good parts - the beginning of the film was mostly good, but I thought it deteriorated from the Plenty O'Toole scene onwards. As for the Moore films, I do enjoy For Your Eyes Only, Live and Let Die and Octopussy - coincidentally three of the most Flemingesque of films that Moore has starred in (and they rank highly just outside my top 10), while I have little time for the other four, except The Man With the Golden Gun which was the first Bond film I saw, and still have a soft spot for.

chrisisall wrote:

Can a Fleming fan still like a Brosnan movie even with all the Die Hard/Rambo era-influenced automatic gunfire shoehorned in?

The only Brosnan Bond film that I strongly disliked was Die Another Day. It was positively the worst Bond film ever made. Goldeneye was the only good film; Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough are passable.

I have no issue with Brosnan using automatic machine guns. Bond would use any means at his disposal to kill. Sure, it does change the tone of the films somewhat, and it does change Bond's character from a spy to a de facto action hero (which I don't think is what Fleming intended), but I can't see why the novel Bond wouldn't have done the same had that been available to him at the time.

chrisisall wrote:

Do Craig's Bond films make Fleming's literary Bond into a fully-fledged tough-guy/one man army action hero?

Some scenes do appear to portray him that way. For instance, in the beginning of Casino Royale, leaping from crane to crane, the one man shootout at the embassy, the motorcycle rooftop chase ... things that the Fleming Bond has not been documented as being able to do. That may make for great viewing, but I think there is a distinct difference between what makes a good film, and what makes a good Bond film. I think EON should focus more on the latter than the former.

Don't get me wrong: Craig has done a magnificent job as Bond, and I think that the staircase scene in Casino Royale remains one of the best fight scenes in the Bond film franchise. I can easily picture Fleming's Bond in that same fight. Bond is brutal at close combat, but I think some of the stunts that EON has inserted into the modern Bond films is rather implausible and beyond anything that the Fleming Bond would've done.

CmdrAtticus

"Don't get me wrong: Craig has done a magnificent job as Bond, and I think that the staircase scene in Casino Royale remains one of the best fight scenes in the Bond film franchise. I can easily picture Fleming's Bond in that same fight. Bond is brutal at close combat, but I think some of the stunts that EON has inserted into the modern Bond films is rather implausible and beyond anything that the Fleming Bond would've done."

I agree. As with the large action scenes and stunts, it's why the films (or most films) veer off the original footprint. In order to draw in more audiences they had to stay stay current with the times and with more and more action films flooding the market with A list actors and almost Bond like plots at times, EON had to alter the original character's undercover spy to that of big screen action hero in order to compete.

When watching the the Craig films repeatedly (even CR) it's very obvious where the cinematic scenes are inserted into Fleming's world. All the stunt set pieces (foot chase, airport chase, Venice battle) are just that - action stunt scenes added to the story in order to give visual thrills. At least they do make an attempt to justify them in the plot. Then there is Fleming's work..the casino scenes, Bond being poisoned (though I would have preferred the gun in the cane as in the novel), the torture and his recovering at the clinic, Vesper's betrayal, his interaction with Le Chiffre. It makes it very clear where his ideas are at and where the cinematic ideas are padded in around his.

Given all that, I think the reboot has gotten closer to the beginning of the series and I hope EON continues this trend even after Craig's departure.

superado

CmdrAtticus wrote:

"Don't get me wrong: Craig has done a magnificent job as Bond, and I think that the staircase scene in Casino Royale remains one of the best fight scenes in the Bond film franchise. I can easily picture Fleming's Bond in that same fight. Bond is brutal at close combat, but I think some of the stunts that EON has inserted into the modern Bond films is rather implausible and beyond anything that the Fleming Bond would've done."

I agree. As with the large action scenes and stunts, it's why the films (or most films) veer off the original footprint. In order to draw in more audiences they had to stay stay current with the times and with more and more action films flooding the market with A list actors and almost Bond like plots at times, EON had to alter the original character's undercover spy to that of big screen action hero in order to compete.

When watching the the Craig films repeatedly (even CR) it's very obvious where the cinematic scenes are inserted into Fleming's world. All the stunt set pieces (foot chase, airport chase, Venice battle) are just that - action stunt scenes added to the story in order to give visual thrills. At least they do make an attempt to justify them in the plot. Then there is Fleming's work..the casino scenes, Bond being poisoned (though I would have preferred the gun in the cane as in the novel), the torture and his recovering at the clinic, Vesper's betrayal, his interaction with Le Chiffre. It makes it very clear where his ideas are at and where the cinematic ideas are padded in around his.

Given all that, I think the reboot has gotten closer to the beginning of the series and I hope EON continues this trend even after Craig's departure.

I'm impressed with the effort the producers put in to preserve and translate the novel elements into CR, though IMO in terms of business that was mostly unneccessary. They could have made an equally serious CR while gutting out the major plot elements (like with TSWLM and MR) and the ticket-buying audience wouldn't have known the difference and would have enjoyed it just the same.

DEFIANT 74205

superado wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

"Don't get me wrong: Craig has done a magnificent job as Bond, and I think that the staircase scene in Casino Royale remains one of the best fight scenes in the Bond film franchise. I can easily picture Fleming's Bond in that same fight. Bond is brutal at close combat, but I think some of the stunts that EON has inserted into the modern Bond films is rather implausible and beyond anything that the Fleming Bond would've done."

I agree. As with the large action scenes and stunts, it's why the films (or most films) veer off the original footprint. In order to draw in more audiences they had to stay stay current with the times and with more and more action films flooding the market with A list actors and almost Bond like plots at times, EON had to alter the original character's undercover spy to that of big screen action hero in order to compete.

When watching the the Craig films repeatedly (even CR) it's very obvious where the cinematic scenes are inserted into Fleming's world. All the stunt set pieces (foot chase, airport chase, Venice battle) are just that - action stunt scenes added to the story in order to give visual thrills. At least they do make an attempt to justify them in the plot. Then there is Fleming's work..the casino scenes, Bond being poisoned (though I would have preferred the gun in the cane as in the novel), the torture and his recovering at the clinic, Vesper's betrayal, his interaction with Le Chiffre. It makes it very clear where his ideas are at and where the cinematic ideas are padded in around his.

Given all that, I think the reboot has gotten closer to the beginning of the series and I hope EON continues this trend even after Craig's departure.

I'm impressed with the effort the producers put in to preserve and translate the novel elements into CR, though IMO in terms of business that was mostly unneccessary. They could have made an equally serious CR while gutting out the major plot elements (like with TSWLM and MR) and the ticket-buying audience wouldn't have known the difference and would have enjoyed it just the same.

But fans of Fleming's Bond would know the difference and would bemoan the fact that the film hasn't followed the novel.

I still think Moonraker should be remade, but this time exactly in accordance with the novel, save for the timeframe that the film is set in.

chrisisall

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

I still think Moonraker should be remade, but this time exactly in accordance with the novel, save for the timeframe that the film is set in.

Yes! YES!!! -{

Barbel

What he said.

superado

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

superado wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

"Don't get me wrong: Craig has done a magnificent job as Bond, and I think that the staircase scene in Casino Royale remains one of the best fight scenes in the Bond film franchise. I can easily picture Fleming's Bond in that same fight. Bond is brutal at close combat, but I think some of the stunts that EON has inserted into the modern Bond films is rather implausible and beyond anything that the Fleming Bond would've done."

I agree. As with the large action scenes and stunts, it's why the films (or most films) veer off the original footprint. In order to draw in more audiences they had to stay stay current with the times and with more and more action films flooding the market with A list actors and almost Bond like plots at times, EON had to alter the original character's undercover spy to that of big screen action hero in order to compete.

When watching the the Craig films repeatedly (even CR) it's very obvious where the cinematic scenes are inserted into Fleming's world. All the stunt set pieces (foot chase, airport chase, Venice battle) are just that - action stunt scenes added to the story in order to give visual thrills. At least they do make an attempt to justify them in the plot. Then there is Fleming's work..the casino scenes, Bond being poisoned (though I would have preferred the gun in the cane as in the novel), the torture and his recovering at the clinic, Vesper's betrayal, his interaction with Le Chiffre. It makes it very clear where his ideas are at and where the cinematic ideas are padded in around his.

Given all that, I think the reboot has gotten closer to the beginning of the series and I hope EON continues this trend even after Craig's departure.

I'm impressed with the effort the producers put in to preserve and translate the novel elements into CR, though IMO in terms of business that was mostly unneccessary. They could have made an equally serious CR while gutting out the major plot elements (like with TSWLM and MR) and the ticket-buying audience wouldn't have known the difference and would have enjoyed it just the same.

But fans of Fleming's Bond would know the difference and would bemoan the fact that the film hasn't followed the novel.

My point is...realistically, of all the people in the world who watched CR, what would be a fair estimate expressed as a percentage, of those who actually read the novel and know the more trivial details of the CR plot? I personally would say 5% is a generous estimate. I would think that there are more people familiar with the basic plot details of A Christmas Carol, Romeo and Juliet, The Ten Commandments or even The Nutcracker than there are those familiar with CR. Believe it or not, I myself did not make the connection between the gun cane sequence of the novel that became the poison scene of the movie until I read it here recently.

Taking these things into consideration, what I meant earlier is that the producers were very mindful of and thoughtful towards the Bond fans and even among that group, how many are pure, straight-up Movie Bond fans vs. those who are also Literary Bond fans?

CmdrAtticus

superado wrote:

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

superado wrote:

I'm impressed with the effort the producers put in to preserve and translate the novel elements into CR, though IMO in terms of business that was mostly unneccessary. They could have made an equally serious CR while gutting out the major plot elements (like with TSWLM and MR) and the ticket-buying audience wouldn't have known the difference and would have enjoyed it just the same.

But fans of Fleming's Bond would know the difference and would bemoan the fact that the film hasn't followed the novel.

My point is...realistically, of all the people in the world who watched CR, what would be a fair estimate expressed as a percentage, of those who actually read the novel and know the more trivial details of the CR plot? I personally would say 5% is a generous estimate. I would think that there are more people familiar with the basic plot details of A Christmas Carol, Romeo and Juliet, The Ten Commandments or even The Nutcracker than there are those familiar with CR. Believe it or not, I myself did not make the connection between the gun cane sequence of the novel that became the poison scene of the movie until I read it here recently.

Taking these things into consideration, what I meant earlier is that the producers were very mindful of and thoughtful towards the Bond fans and even among that group, how many are pure, straight-up Movie Bond fans vs. those who are also Literary Bond fans?

I'm not really sure EON has become more thoughtful towards the core fan, as much as they have personally become to cherish Fleming's work now. I've read or heard many interviews on this with Craig and Mendes and the producers where they have discussed this topic. Getting the rights to CR is what really gave them the kick to reboot the series and go back to Fleming's ideas. Craig reads the novels a lot in order to get into the character (which is what good actors always try to do).

As far as the percentage of people of this generation who have read the novels, I would agree it's pretty small. With all the instant 24 hr entertainment media that is available to anyone who can afford it, people who actually read old fiction literature seem to be a shrinking factor. They would certainly be more knowledgeable about the Harry Potter novels than anything Fleming wrote.