Has the use of the Col. Sun torture scene in Spectre set a precedent?

Silhouette Man

Obviously the use of the torture scene and the verbatim dialogue was a big step forward in the use of the Continuation Bond novels in the official Bond film series. From reading an article in MI6 Confidential magazine I understand that the use of the Colonel Sun torture scene in Spectre was out of desperation more than anything as they couldn't make the scene effective enough, so they decided to go back to the books again. Happily, the Kingsley Amis Estate even got a mention in the credits as well as (presumably) some remuneration for the use of the torture scene. Perhaps, then, they will only use the Continuations when they are caught between a rock and a hard place in the writing of their screenplay?

So, what do we think? Will there be more overt (as opposed to covert) use of the Continuation Bond novels in the future of the James Bond films series or not? Has the use of the Colonel Sun torture scene in Spectre (2015) set a precedent for future Bond films?

Will they continue to strip mine Colonel Sun or will they move on to the John Gardner novels and beyond? It has been argued by zencat of The Book Bond blog (and others) that the Bond films have already been mining the Continuation Bonds for years, only in a more covert sense.

I personally welcome more use of the continuation novels in the Bond films, along with the use of unmined original Fleming material. Other franchises don't seem to have any problem in using the equivalent of the Bond continuation novels - see the use of the villain Bane in the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Bane was a character who did not come from the original 1930s or 1940s Batman comics but only came along in the comic Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1 (January 1993).

So why don't Eon use the continuation novels more?

Will they just use Colonel Sun in the future as it was published fifty years ago (in March 2018) as it is set in the Fleming timeline more rigidly than what came after (Gardner, Benson and Deaver)? It is also as close to official canon as it is possible to get for a continuation Bond novel.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this fascinating subject.

walther p99

Why not? I'm sure there's still plenty of ideas and scenarios left in Fleming's material to use. I don't see why they couldn't use something from one of the non-Fleming novels if they wanted too though.

caractacus potts

I perceived elements of Colonel Sun's plot in The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and The World Is Not Enough. Could just be me looking too hard, but the plot similarities were more apparent than any from Fleming in most of the Moore and Brosnan films. Difference in SPECTRE could be they actually quoted Amis' dialog near-verbatim, that's gotta be more legally liable than similar but non-exact plot similarities. for example, M being kidnapped and held prisoner on a Mediterranean island must have lept out to all of us who've read the book, but its not even a Greek island its a Turkish island, that's a difference right there. I'm sure EON's lawyers were more than prepared to prove there were enough differences that the two plots were legally non-identical. But quoted dialog would require a credit.

Silhouette Man wrote:

I understand that the use of the Colonel Sun torture scene in Spectre was out of desperation more than anything as they couldn't make the scene effective enough, so they decided to go back to the books again. ... Perhaps, then, they will only use the Continuations when they are caught between a rock and a hard place in the writing of their screenplay?

nice to know they decided to use some authentic source material, I guess after they ran out of ideas from Goldmember. But they've done plenty of films before with zero reference to the source material, and had no creative issue with that. Some of those films with zero Fleming content stunk, yet were much more financially successful than those which did have Fleming content. So I don't share your optimism. I'm frankly surprised they considered opening a book for inspiration at all.

Silhouette Man wrote:

will they move on to the John Gardner novels and beyond?

I see conspicuous use of Gardner's concepts throuthout A View to a Kill, as well as specific scenes in the Living Daylights and Die Another Day, but again vague and differentiated enough that a lawyer could argue coincidence. So they have borrowed Gardner's ideas when its occurred to them. Really though, there is a long list of unadapted Fleming scenes with cinematic potential they could/should be doing first, and they already own those rights.

Silhouette Man wrote:

Other franchises don't seem to have any problem in using the equivalent of the Bond continuation novels - see the use of the villain Bane in the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Bain was a character who did not come from the original 1930s Batman comics but only came along in the comic Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1 (January 1993).

comic book digression - in all these superhero franchises they have this choice to make, usually adapting the classic origin for the first film, then moving on to more recent storylines for the sequels. The more recent storylines are more familiar to modern readers, thus may be more marketable. for Captain America, only the first film was based on Simon & Kirby's 1941 comics. The Winter Soldier and Civil War were both storylines from the last twenty years.
Actually, even in Batman Begins, Ra's as Ghul was a relatively recent character, from 1971 or so ... I know, ancient history to many of you here, but long after series creator Bob Kane had retired.
But I don't think that's really the equivalent to Bond continuation novels. All these superhero franchises are corporate owned properties, every last issue ever published, and they can film whatever storylines they want. I think the situation with the Bond continuation authors is quite different, and EON have avoided any legal/financial obligations to Bond authors not named Fleming.

So in summary, they've borrowed ideas uncredited before and probably will do so again. Giving Amis credit I think only happened because in this case they used his specific dialog.

SFPROPS

I think that the scene it replaced was much superior. It was a game of poker between Blofeld and Bond - winner take all. Blofeld told the story of how his father had stayed up at night teaching Bond poker and how excluded he felt, and how he grew to hate James. He learnt the game on his own and challenged James. He was about to win when James gave a last ditch effort and threw in the watch his birth father had left him - the only thing of his he got to keep. Blofeld folded assuming James hand was too good only to find that he was bluffing. This further enraged him.

At the end of the last Blofeld/Bond poker game, James was again losing - and this time he threw in his Omega. Blofeld called his bluff, but then BOOM! Watch bomb. James and Madeleine make their getaway.

Silhouette Man

SFPROPS wrote:

I think that the scene it replaced was much superior. It was a game of poker between Blofeld and Bond - winner take all. Blofeld told the story of how his father had stayed up at night teaching Bond poker and how excluded he felt, and how he grew to hate James. He learnt the game on his own and challenged James. He was about to win when James gave a last ditch effort and threw in the watch his birth father had left him - the only thing of his he got to keep. Blofeld folded assuming James hand was too good only to find that he was bluffing. This further enraged him.

At the end of the last Blofeld/Bond poker game, James was again losing - and this time he threw in his Omega. Blofeld called his bluff, but then BOOM! Watch bomb. James and Madeleine make their getaway.

Not heard of this before. Was this the actual scene beforehand?

SFPROPS

Silhouette Man wrote:

SFPROPS wrote:

I think that the scene it replaced was much superior. It was a game of poker between Blofeld and Bond - winner take all. Blofeld told the story of how his father had stayed up at night teaching Bond poker and how excluded he felt, and how he grew to hate James. He learnt the game on his own and challenged James. He was about to win when James gave a last ditch effort and threw in the watch his birth father had left him - the only thing of his he got to keep. Blofeld folded assuming James hand was too good only to find that he was bluffing. This further enraged him.

At the end of the last Blofeld/Bond poker game, James was again losing - and this time he threw in his Omega. Blofeld called his bluff, but then BOOM! Watch bomb. James and Madeleine make their getaway.

Not heard of this before. Was this the actual scene beforehand?

The torture scene replaced the scene I described. It was part of the final shooting script, but they apparently changed it between that and filming.

Silhouette Man

SFPROPS wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

SFPROPS wrote:

I think that the scene it replaced was much superior. It was a game of poker between Blofeld and Bond - winner take all. Blofeld told the story of how his father had stayed up at night teaching Bond poker and how excluded he felt, and how he grew to hate James. He learnt the game on his own and challenged James. He was about to win when James gave a last ditch effort and threw in the watch his birth father had left him - the only thing of his he got to keep. Blofeld folded assuming James hand was too good only to find that he was bluffing. This further enraged him.

At the end of the last Blofeld/Bond poker game, James was again losing - and this time he threw in his Omega. Blofeld called his bluff, but then BOOM! Watch bomb. James and Madeleine make their getaway.

Not heard of this before. Was this the actual scene beforehand?

The torture scene replaced the scene I described. It was part of the final shooting script, but they apparently changed it between that and filming.

In that case, I'm glad that they did change it.

zaphod99

SFPROPS wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

SFPROPS wrote:

I think that the scene it replaced was much superior. It was a game of poker between Blofeld and Bond - winner take all. Blofeld told the story of how his father had stayed up at night teaching Bond poker and how excluded he felt, and how he grew to hate James. He learnt the game on his own and challenged James. He was about to win when James gave a last ditch effort and threw in the watch his birth father had left him - the only thing of his he got to keep. Blofeld folded assuming James hand was too good only to find that he was bluffing. This further enraged him.

At the end of the last Blofeld/Bond poker game, James was again losing - and this time he threw in his Omega. Blofeld called his bluff, but then BOOM! Watch bomb. James and Madeleine make their getaway.

Not heard of this before. Was this the actual scene beforehand?

The torture scene replaced the scene I described. It was part of the final shooting script, but they apparently changed it between that and filming.

Any idea as to why they replaced it? The scene used was a pale imitation of the one in Colonel Sun . The scene that you describe seems vastly superior to me.