How did I make myself "ruler of the Bond universe?" Please don't preach to me about opinions, because stating them is one thing, but it's totally another when asserting them in the face of others, untiringly, and I mean on and on and on, desperately trying to get in the last word, tire out other people (which you do to me), apparently as your attempt to "win" by the quantity of your arguments vs. the quality/validity (or lack therof).
Then don't respond. I don't care. All I am doing is engaging in a discussion using logic and reason. If it tires you out, then ignore me and do something less tiresome. 8-) Just do whatever you want and stop publicizing it as if I should care because I couldn't care less wether you find my posts tiring or what you do with yourself. I will continue to post because I enjoy doing so and because this is a discussion site. As for winning, I don't care if you end up agreeing with me or not. I just resent it when you phrase opinions as facts. Which you do. All the time. I'll respond to some of you other posts. I don't expect a response as it would be too tiresome for you to do so. 8-)
And how did I "prove nothing"? Just by your ludicrous statement that "Fleming-like elements are NOT more valid than non-Fleming elements. They are simply different..." is evidence in itself that I don't even need to prove anything...you speak loudly about yourself and the weakness of your position. Just look at what you're saying...think about it...no Fleming, no Bond, period. You can take out any of the other extraneous elements added onto the product "after the fact," such as the requisite martinis, tuxedos and the whole EON formula, and you are still left with Bond. You take out Fleming from the series, and you get Austin Powers.
Do you ever read my posts? No, obviously not. You know, I find it interesting that in my first post on this site, I expressed admiration for Fleming, defended OHMSS, and now you think that I'm denying Fleming created Bond. ?:) You must really have something against me. As a matter of fact, this post proves how weak your position is (is this an example of me trying to 'win?' 8-) ) as you not only ignored my first response to you, which sets out my argument perfectly, but you fail to see that the issue isn't about wether or not Fleming created Bond. The issue is wether or not the films, since the creation of Bond by Fleming (I should stop acknowledging his contribution as it proves how ridiculous your charges are), when differing from the novels, are as good as the novels. If you honestly think that one can't prefer non Fleming-like elements to Fleming-like elements, simple because Fleming created the Bond films which according to you is all that matters, then you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Nonetheless, there are people out there who firmly believe that the whole NASA program has from the begining been a set up on a Hollywood stage, and even Aristotle would not be able to convince them otherwise.
You are too predictable, and I can count on another response from you in the form of an F-grade, 2000 word essay that like the others...I won't even bother to read
Ooh, personal insults. I'm glad I'm predictable, if that's the worst someone can call me, then that's fine with me. As for F-grade, 2000 word essays, well, actually, I've never gotten an F in my entire life. Not even in year 9 when I barely studied for the math test. Thankyou though. The fact that you describe my posts as 'F-grade' (as opposed to your 'masterpieces') means that I'll know that when I want help regarding structuring an argument, I certainly won't come to you.
Finally, I don't care if you read this or not, I'm actually writing this for my own enjoyment. I enjoy tearing apart ridiculous and (what's your word?) F-grade posts. It's fun.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Without reading the above, again a statement of mine, or rather, a prediction proved to be true )
The fact remains, one cannot fully appreciate OHMSS without reading the book. Ten thousand words to the contrary cannot refute that fact.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
Actually, I've been re-reading all of the Flemings in order this year, and I'm now 3/4 of the way through OHMSS...I haven't read it in twenty years, at least, and I'm reminded why it's my favourite of his books...
That moment when Bond's 'Station Z' ally is captured by Blofeld's men, recognizes Bond and blows his cover...Blofeld turns to Bond and asks him if he's in any way associated with the British Secret Service... B-) Classic. Just Classic. :007)
As good as the film is...the book is BETTER...
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
that is a disturbing scene
Bond had seen many friends, allies, and lovers get themselves killed, tortured, commit suicide, or be fed to the sharks up til this point*
but thats the 1st time he had to betray a friend for the greater good
undoubtedly added to his doubts about his choice of profession, and his decision to settle down
I gotta say, if you do read all 14 books in one sitting as I and Loeffelolz and others have been doing, OHMSS makes much more sense
there is a character arc that begins with Vespers suicide that comes to a head in OHMSS
the movies do not provide this underlying logic as movieBond
1) does not feel selfdoubt about his profession
and
2) does not worry about his inability to have a normal healthy relationship with a woman
_______________________________
*off the top of my head: Vesper, Leiter, the cabbie in DaF, Kerim Bey, Quarrell, and both Masterton sisters all paid the price for entering the life of our hero
007s life must be a lonely one
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Actually, I've been re-reading all of the Flemings in order this year, and I'm now 3/4 of the way through OHMSS...I haven't read it in twenty years, at least, and I'm reminded why it's my favourite of his books...
That moment when Bond's 'Station Z' ally is captured by Blofeld's men, recognizes Bond and blows his cover...Blofeld turns to Bond and asks him if he's in any way associated with the British Secret Service... B-) Classic. Just Classic. :007)
As good as the film is...the book is BETTER...
BTW, OHMSS is my favorite novel and Bond film.
Thank you, yes, and how can one possibly arrive at your conclusion, unless you've studied both works? ...which makes your opinion an informed one. It's like writing a research paper; you must first gather a good representation of sources, which often have differing conclusions, before making any informed conclusion of your own.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I have to agree with that! Blofeld became more and more menacing as the novels went on. Unlike, as crawfordboon lays out in the beginning of this thread, he becomes less and less of a threat. I think CFBs analysis is very accurate...not necessarily intentional by the filmmakers, I gather...but interesting nonetheless.
OHMSS and the subsequent YOLT were simply some of the best page-turning novels. And Blofeld was a character that was overall handled weakly. The OHMSS movie was probably the best portrayal (sorry, Mr. Pleasance) at establishing the Holmes/Moriarty type rivalry. In no other Blofeld appearance in the film did I get a sense that Blofeld was a 'threat' to Bond. He might have been a danger to the world, but in OHMSS we see physicality and a real personal involvement by Blofeld to wreak destruction.
And I thought it was me who wanted the last word? 8-)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
Holmes and Moriarty is an excellent example, dh. To me, that's exactly what Fleming was going after...and he succeeded masterfully...
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
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I have to agree with that! Blofeld became more and more menacing as the novels went on. Unlike, as crawfordboon lays out in the beginning of this thread, he becomes less and less of a threat. I think CFBs analysis is very accurate...not necessarily intentional by the filmmakers, I gather...but interesting nonetheless.
OHMSS and the subsequent YOLT were simply some of the best page-turning novels. And Blofeld was a character that was overall handled weakly. The OHMSS movie was probably the best portrayal (sorry, Mr. Pleasance) at establishing the Holmes/Moriarty type rivalry. In no other Blofeld appearance in the film did I get a sense that Blofeld was a 'threat' to Bond. He might have been a danger to the world, but in OHMSS we see physicality and a real personal involvement by Blofeld to wreak destruction.
The Holmes/Moriarty parallel exactly describes what I wished for the Bond/Blofeld relationship, which this thread had me thinking about and I agree that this could have been better developed in the novels. Despite of whatever is lacking, however, Bond's focus on this relationship at soul angst levels was conveyed well enough and it's no coincidence that Blofeld was directly and indirectly involved with Bond's mid-life events when he began growing more philisophical and reflective about his life (note his recollections of childhood in OHMSS), questioning meaning in his career, bachelorhood, etc.
As with Moriarty, anything and everything with meaning to Bond came to a head during his final encounter with his enemy...just plain classic...resulting in such a dramatic change in Bond's reality, one even more drastic than say, ordinary marriage (meaning, how married life would have been like had Tracy lived), a rebirth almost (and literally) as reality-altering as death itself, hence the title and theme of the YOLT novel, of course.
In the movies, we instead get a Blofeld plunging down a smokestack while a charming, smiling Bond gives us a twinkle in his eye.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
"Die, Blofeld, die!" - Bond, through clenched teeth, in You Only Live Twice...
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
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
And I thought it was me who wanted the last word? 8-)
Which you did get in, for you in record succinctness...oops, sorry, no you didn't.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Which you did get in, for you in record succinctness...oops, sorry, no you didn't.
I have never denied I was predictable. Unlike certain other people on this board, that's probably the worst you can say about me. You, on the other hand, claimed that you would ignore me as you were 'tired' of speaking to me and accused me of always wanting the last word. 8-) But look at this, you have responded to me two times! I guess if I am predictable, you are a hyppocrit. 8-) Go ahead, respond and prove me wrong! )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Tell you what, Dan...I'll respond for him. I tend to agree with superado's assessment that the position you are arguing is not very tenable. Fleming elements are a great deal more important to the series than you would like to admit. Case in point: the top four films in your Favorite Bond Films are all very close adaptations of the Fleming novels. OHMSS, which you adore, also ranks very high on your list. Your own list shows that the films that depart from Fleming aren't as liked by you than those that try to remain faithful. The fact that EON is trying to make a faithful adaptation of CR is just proof that the people in the film side heavily rely on Fleming's vision in the novels. I'm not saying you have to read the novels (I enjoyed the movies for years before I seriously delved in the books) but that fact that you haven't read the novels, and aren't very eager to, means that you cannot clearly make a distinction of the importance of the novels' influences on the films. It is not hard for us to understand your point of view, but it is very difficult for you to fully grasp our perspective since you admittedly haven't read the books. It is akin to telling someone the world is round, when they percieve it to be flat, and they refuse to believe anything other than what they can see.
The books are very enjoyable. I recommend them to any fan of adventure and spy fiction. If you don't like to read, well, I guess I can't help you there.
Tell you what, Dan...I'll respond for him. I tend to agree with superado's assessment that the position you are arguing is not very tenable. Fleming elements are a great deal more important to the series than you would like to admit. Case in point: the top four films in your Favorite Bond Films are all very close adaptations of the Fleming novels. OHMSS, which you adore, also ranks very high on your list. Your own list shows that the films that depart from Fleming aren't as liked by you than those that try to remain faithful. The fact that EON is trying to make a faithful adaptation of CR is just proof that the people in the film side heavily rely on Fleming's vision in the novels. I'm not saying you have to read the novels (I enjoyed the movies for years before I seriously delved in the books) but that fact that you haven't read the novels, and aren't very eager to, means that you cannot clearly make a distinction of the importance of the novels' influences on the films.
The thing is however, I have never denied the importance of Fleming. My contention was that many of the elements that I do like may be non-Fleming which does not make them invalid and similarly many of the elements that I dislike are FLeming-like. Yes, most of my favourite elements are Fleming-like (of course, he created the chatacter and provided the source material) but it's not always the case. The first half of DAD is often described as very Fleming-like. The thing is, however, I hated it. Does that mean that I don't like Fleming or don't admire him? Of course not. It's simply that I don't agree with the view that everytime the cinematic Bond differed from the literature Bond, its quality automatically drops and everytime it is completely faithful, its quality automatically rises. Therefore, TSWLM may not be particularly Fleming-like, but I still consider it to be among the absolute Best Bond films ever made. Similarly, I love Moore and hate Dalton, regardless of how faithful Moore isn't and Dalton is.
I don't know why that is so controversial. It wasn't me who dismissed Fleming on this thread. It is simply that while many of my favourite cinematic elements come from Fleming, some of my favourite cinematic elements do not, and I will not be looking forward to Bond's being tortured in CR and having self doubts, even if it is pure Fleming.
It is not hard for us to understand your point of view, but it is very difficult for you to fully grasp our perspective since you admittedly haven't read the books. It is akin to telling someone the world is round, when they percieve it to be flat, and they refuse to believe anything other than what they can see.
Except I was only stating my opinion! If one uses torture as an example, my saying that I don't think that Bond's being tortured shouldn't be in the films, isn't saying that the world is flat. It is simply my opinion. See, that is one of the things that really annoyed me when I was having the conversation with the other person. I wasn't denying any facts or stating anything that is blatently untrue. I was simply expressing an opinion, which is equally as valid as other (perhaps majority) opinions. Additionally, how can you claim to understand my point of view since I had to explain it on this thread?
The books are very enjoyable. I recommend them to any fan of adventure and spy fiction. If you don't like to read, well, I guess I can't help you there.
I can assure you, I love to read. (Although I don't seem to have the time anymore. 8-))
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
***while breathing heavily and typing at a fever pitch****
must...get...my...opinion...out...there (which is more "equally valid" than superado's) X-(
-DS
...which stands for??? ) ) )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The fact remains, one cannot fully appreciate OHMSS without reading the book. Ten thousand words to the contrary cannot refute that fact.
I have to agree with supes on this point. The novel and movie are very similar, but I think that they complemnt each other very well. For example the novel goes into more detail about Blofelds snobbery and the influence power can have over people. Additionally I felt that the scenes at Royale at the begininng of the novel were very emotional, it was the first time I ever truly sympathised with Bond.
Also, hearing Fleming go on about the differences between an alp and a piz add an interesting about of local character to the novel. And hey! Theres Ursula Andress.
***while breathing heavily and typing at a fever pitch****
must...get...my...opinion...out...there (which is more "equally valid" than superado's) X-(
-DS
...which stands for??? ) ) )
I guess this is you not responding to my posts. 8-) You're right though. My opinion is more valid than yours. Thank you for acknowledging that in your own nasty way.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
Then don't respond. I don't care. All I am doing is engaging in a discussion using logic and reason. If it tires you out, then ignore me and do something less tiresome. 8-) Just do whatever you want and stop publicizing it as if I should care because I couldn't care less wether you find my posts tiring or what you do with yourself. I will continue to post because I enjoy doing so and because this is a discussion site. As for winning, I don't care if you end up agreeing with me or not. I just resent it when you phrase opinions as facts. Which you do. All the time. I'll respond to some of you other posts. I don't expect a response as it would be too tiresome for you to do so. 8-)
Do you ever read my posts? No, obviously not. You know, I find it interesting that in my first post on this site, I expressed admiration for Fleming, defended OHMSS, and now you think that I'm denying Fleming created Bond. ?:) You must really have something against me. As a matter of fact, this post proves how weak your position is (is this an example of me trying to 'win?' 8-) ) as you not only ignored my first response to you, which sets out my argument perfectly, but you fail to see that the issue isn't about wether or not Fleming created Bond. The issue is wether or not the films, since the creation of Bond by Fleming (I should stop acknowledging his contribution as it proves how ridiculous your charges are), when differing from the novels, are as good as the novels. If you honestly think that one can't prefer non Fleming-like elements to Fleming-like elements, simple because Fleming created the Bond films
I take it that you're one of them then. 8-)
Ooh, personal insults. I'm glad I'm predictable, if that's the worst someone can call me, then that's fine with me. As for F-grade, 2000 word essays, well, actually, I've never gotten an F in my entire life. Not even in year 9 when I barely studied for the math test.
Finally, I don't care if you read this or not, I'm actually writing this for my own enjoyment. I enjoy tearing apart ridiculous and (what's your word?) F-grade posts. It's fun.
The fact remains, one cannot fully appreciate OHMSS without reading the book. Ten thousand words to the contrary cannot refute that fact.
That moment when Bond's 'Station Z' ally is captured by Blofeld's men, recognizes Bond and blows his cover...Blofeld turns to Bond and asks him if he's in any way associated with the British Secret Service... B-) Classic. Just Classic. :007)
As good as the film is...the book is BETTER...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bond had seen many friends, allies, and lovers get themselves killed, tortured, commit suicide, or be fed to the sharks up til this point*
but thats the 1st time he had to betray a friend for the greater good
undoubtedly added to his doubts about his choice of profession, and his decision to settle down
I gotta say, if you do read all 14 books in one sitting as I and Loeffelolz and others have been doing, OHMSS makes much more sense
there is a character arc that begins with Vespers suicide that comes to a head in OHMSS
the movies do not provide this underlying logic as movieBond
1) does not feel selfdoubt about his profession
and
2) does not worry about his inability to have a normal healthy relationship with a woman
_______________________________
*off the top of my head: Vesper, Leiter, the cabbie in DaF, Kerim Bey, Quarrell, and both Masterton sisters all paid the price for entering the life of our hero
007s life must be a lonely one
BTW, OHMSS is my favorite novel and Bond film.
Thank you, yes, and how can one possibly arrive at your conclusion, unless you've studied both works? ...which makes your opinion an informed one. It's like writing a research paper; you must first gather a good representation of sources, which often have differing conclusions, before making any informed conclusion of your own.
I have to agree with that! Blofeld became more and more menacing as the novels went on. Unlike, as crawfordboon lays out in the beginning of this thread, he becomes less and less of a threat. I think CFBs analysis is very accurate...not necessarily intentional by the filmmakers, I gather...but interesting nonetheless.
OHMSS and the subsequent YOLT were simply some of the best page-turning novels. And Blofeld was a character that was overall handled weakly. The OHMSS movie was probably the best portrayal (sorry, Mr. Pleasance) at establishing the Holmes/Moriarty type rivalry. In no other Blofeld appearance in the film did I get a sense that Blofeld was a 'threat' to Bond. He might have been a danger to the world, but in OHMSS we see physicality and a real personal involvement by Blofeld to wreak destruction.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The Holmes/Moriarty parallel exactly describes what I wished for the Bond/Blofeld relationship, which this thread had me thinking about and I agree that this could have been better developed in the novels. Despite of whatever is lacking, however, Bond's focus on this relationship at soul angst levels was conveyed well enough and it's no coincidence that Blofeld was directly and indirectly involved with Bond's mid-life events when he began growing more philisophical and reflective about his life (note his recollections of childhood in OHMSS), questioning meaning in his career, bachelorhood, etc.
As with Moriarty, anything and everything with meaning to Bond came to a head during his final encounter with his enemy...just plain classic...resulting in such a dramatic change in Bond's reality, one even more drastic than say, ordinary marriage (meaning, how married life would have been like had Tracy lived), a rebirth almost (and literally) as reality-altering as death itself, hence the title and theme of the YOLT novel, of course.
In the movies, we instead get a Blofeld plunging down a smokestack while a charming, smiling Bond gives us a twinkle in his eye.
B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Which you did get in, for you in record succinctness...oops, sorry, no you didn't.
The books are very enjoyable. I recommend them to any fan of adventure and spy fiction. If you don't like to read, well, I guess I can't help you there.
I don't know why that is so controversial. It wasn't me who dismissed Fleming on this thread. It is simply that while many of my favourite cinematic elements come from Fleming, some of my favourite cinematic elements do not, and I will not be looking forward to Bond's being tortured in CR and having self doubts, even if it is pure Fleming.
Except I was only stating my opinion! If one uses torture as an example, my saying that I don't think that Bond's being tortured shouldn't be in the films, isn't saying that the world is flat. It is simply my opinion. See, that is one of the things that really annoyed me when I was having the conversation with the other person. I wasn't denying any facts or stating anything that is blatently untrue. I was simply expressing an opinion, which is equally as valid as other (perhaps majority) opinions. Additionally, how can you claim to understand my point of view since I had to explain it on this thread?
I can assure you, I love to read.
must...get...my...opinion...out...there (which is more "equally valid" than superado's) X-(
-DS
...which stands for???
I have to agree with supes on this point. The novel and movie are very similar, but I think that they complemnt each other very well. For example the novel goes into more detail about Blofelds snobbery and the influence power can have over people. Additionally I felt that the scenes at Royale at the begininng of the novel were very emotional, it was the first time I ever truly sympathised with Bond.
Also, hearing Fleming go on about the differences between an alp and a piz add an interesting about of local character to the novel. And hey! Theres Ursula Andress.