The Ian Fleming Purist Thread

Silhouette Man · November 2012

Are you an Ian Fleming purist when it comes to the world of James Bond 007?

Please sign your name to this thread if you consider yourself as such.

Also, do you always look for the links back to Fleming in the modern films, such as Skyfall etc.

What are your thoughts on the James Bond Continuation project 1968-2011?

Thank you AJB.

DEFIANT 74205 · November 2012

Right here.

And to answer your questions, yes I do look for any hints of Fleming's work in the modern Bond films - and by and large, although partly because most of the Fleming material has already been taken, they don't hold a candle to the classics in that regard.

I'm on the fence with the James Bond Continuation Project, as you put it. While I like any idea that would keep the franchise going well into the new millenium, I can't help but feel that they've stepped a bit too far away from the history that Fleming gave him, only to explore it again in Skyfall.

I can't wait for the day when the producers give Bond his Bentley back. The new Bentley Continental GT Speed would suit him perfectly.

Donald Grant · November 2012

I look for Fleming in the movies, of course. However, I am also mindful of the fact that if Fleming were left to his own devices to make the first Bond movie it would have sucked and we would not be talking about 50 years of Bond in the cinema today. I think Cubby and Harry were perfectly suited to bring Bond to the cinema.

With respect to Bond, I have learned to compartmentalize him. Novel Bond is somewhat different than movie Bond, but I love them both. There are also sub-sets of novel Bond and movie Bond. For instance a sub-set of novel Bond is Robert Markham (Kingsley Amis) and a sub-set of movie Bond is George Lazenby.

In general, I think the earlier Bond movies are closer to Fleming, however that does not mean I can't enjoy a Roger Moore Bond Romp or a John Gardner Bond.

Yes, always back to Fleming, but one must remember that it was EON that made Bond the success he is today.

DG

DEFIANT 74205 · November 2012

Donald Grant wrote:

Yes, always back to Fleming, but one must remember that it was EON that made Bond the success he is today.

DG

I think one must also remember that without Fleming, there would be no Bond, be it literary or cinematic. EON would never have existed as there would be no Bond novels for them to work off.

AdamOmega · November 2012

Donald Grant wrote:

I look for Fleming in the movies, of course. However, I am also mindful of the fact that if Fleming were left to his own devices to make the first Bond movie it would have sucked and we would not be talking about 50 years of Bond in the cinema today. I think Cubby and Harry were perfectly suited to bring Bond to the cinema.

With respect to Bond, I have learned to compartmentalize him. Novel Bond is somewhat different than movie Bond, but I love them both. There are also sub-sets of novel Bond and movie Bond. For instance a sub-set of novel Bond is Robert Markham (Kingsley Amis) and a sub-set of movie Bond is George Lazenby.

In general, I think the earlier Bond movies are closer to Fleming, however that does not mean I can't enjoy a Roger Moore Bond Romp or a John Gardner Bond.

I agree with this; Fleming created the character and wrote some wonderful stories, but at the same time, I enjoy the fact that the books and the films are often completely different. Moonraker always comes to mind; I don't even think it's a great film, but I think it's one of the earliest examples of the film series pushing itself to a whole other level of action-adventure. Had EON Productions adhered strictly to the source materials, they might have ended up with a good or even great film, but not necessarily the big public spectacle that would ultimately be more successful. In a weird way, I think even Fleming himself would have approved...

Donald Grant · November 2012

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

Donald Grant wrote:

Yes, always back to Fleming, but one must remember that it was EON that made Bond the success he is today.

DG

I think one must also remember that without Fleming, there would be no Bond, be it literary or cinematic. EON would never have existed as there would be no Bond novels for them to work off.

Oh I remember, and Ian Fleming was very successful as a writer. But so was Mickey Spillane with the Mike Hammer series. In fact, I think Spillane was even more successful than Fleming in terms of book sales. Who could forget his I Jury and many of the novels that followed? However, today we are not talking about 50 years of Mike Hammer in the cinema. Why? Because although there were Mike Hammer movies, none of them were all that successful.

So, a large part of the mega success of Bond is due in large part to the producers Cubby and Harry. They understood what Fleming wrote and tried to be faithful to the charachter he created within certain parameters.

DG

AdamOmega · November 2012

Donald Grant wrote:

So, a large part of the mega success of Bond is due in large part to the producers Cubby and Harry. They understood what Fleming wrote and tried to be faithful to the charachter he created within certain parameters.

DG

Touché! -{

perdogg · November 2012

Silhouette Man wrote:

Are you an Ian Fleming purist when it comes to the world of James Bond 007?

Please sign your name to this thread if you consider yourself as such.

Also, do you always look for the links back to Fleming in the modern films, such as Skyfall etc.

What are your thoughts on the James Bond Continuation project 1968-2011?

Thank you AJB.

I am flemingist. I think Skyfall is heresy and Mike and Babs should be tried for blasphemy.

)

mpoplawski · November 2012

I also go back to the Fleming novels. There is something very different about them and the atmosphere they described. I love his descriptions and fast paced story telling. Once in a while you catch a whiff of it in some movies from the sixties. Other than that not much. I am OK with that, most people have never read them...and if they did it would no longer be special.

superado · December 2012

Though there are some aspects of Fleming's life that I would rather not have for all the money in the world (basically his disfunctional relationships and the health effects of hard living), Fleming lived a very remarkable and novel life. He wasn't just some clueless, globetrotting tourist whose main aim in travel was to collect photos of themselves against hackneyed landmarks...not only was he intelligent, he was also an interesting writer who was able to put on paper his unique experiences and outlook. Socially, he knew 1st hand privilege that translated holistically into his books. Professionally, Fleming wasn't a mere functionary in a security agency; his role in WWII was put to greatest use and influence in very significant events involving the UK and her allies with strategically global outcomes that would be impossible to completely measure.

It's surprising how the events in James Bond's world seem small in scope when compared to Fleming's involvement. The sum of these experiences resulted in such a richly fleshed out world of James Bond that I'm convinced that it would be impossible to fully and faithfully capture that essence on screen, which is why, try as it might, the film series though enjoyable will never measure up to my inner vision of Fleming's James Bond...but that's okay, I don't feel miffed or will ever feel a sense of misfortune that the literary world of Bond is somehow trapped on paper and will never transcend into the "legitimacy" of cinema because the books in themselves are more than good enough for me and remain my happy place in the Bond universe.

AdamOmega · December 2012

superado wrote:

The sum of these experiences resulted in such a richly fleshed out world of James Bond that I'm convinced that it would be impossible to fully and faithfully capture that essence on screen, which is why, try as it might, the film series though enjoyable will never measure up to my inner vision of Fleming's James Bond...but that's okay, I don't feel miffed or will ever feel a sense of misfortune that the literary world of Bond is somehow trapped on paper and will never transcend into the "legitimacy" of cinema because the books in themselves are more than good enough for me and remain my happy place in the Bond universe.

Very insightful comments, superado -{ I feel like more purists should share your views.

superado · December 2012

AdamOmega wrote:

superado wrote:

The sum of these experiences resulted in such a richly fleshed out world of James Bond that I'm convinced that it would be impossible to fully and faithfully capture that essence on screen, which is why, try as it might, the film series though enjoyable will never measure up to my inner vision of Fleming's James Bond...but that's okay, I don't feel miffed or will ever feel a sense of misfortune that the literary world of Bond is somehow trapped on paper and will never transcend into the "legitimacy" of cinema because the books in themselves are more than good enough for me and remain my happy place in the Bond universe.

Very insightful comments, superado -{ I feel like more purists should share your views.

Thanks, AdamOmega, it looks like I'm in good company! -{

James Suzuki · December 2012

Let's just say I'm slowly becoming one

0073 · December 2012

Hello everyone, I am 0073, and I am a Fleming purist.

The Domino Effect · December 2012

I love the books. I love the films (most of them). But for me, there is only one James Bond and that is Fleming's literary Bond. While I can certainly understand, appreciate and even support the need to amend cinematic Bond for the needs of the day and the requirements of a film adaptation, any questions about Bond's character or background must always have their answer in Fleming's words when there is a difference between movies, modern continuation novels and the original books. It is for this reason that I was absolutely appalled by Jeffrey Deaver's decision to change some of the background of Bond's parents in 'Carte Blanche.' It was not a necessary plot point for his novel, it had nothing to do with re-setting Bond to the modern day, it was quite simply just a gratuitous bit of backstory-manipulation that should never have been done.

77007 · December 2012

Unpurist.

Silhouette Man · December 2012

77007 wrote:

Unpurist.

An unpurist, the Devil take thee from my sight!

minigeff · December 2012

Fleming sucked balls.

Only joking, but I'm still an 'unpurest'.

DEFIANT 74205 · December 2012

77007 wrote:

Unpurist.

minigeff wrote:

I'm still an 'unpurest'.

Heretic!!

Thunderpussy · December 2012

minigeff wrote :

Fleming sucked balls.

"Everyone needs a hobby".

Sir Miles · December 2012

Thunderpussy wrote:

minigeff wrote :

Fleming sucked balls.

"Everyone needs a hobby".

And its helps with resurrection apparently

0073 · December 2012

I would love to see a true to the source version of the Mooraker, made as a period piece. It is IMHO the best complete Bond novel. Right behind the short stories in the two collection books. The reason I like the short stories best is that those stories make the picture complete and give us a glimpse of what Bond does between his big assignments.

Oh Merry Christmas everybody!

Silhouette Man · December 2012

0073 wrote:

I would love to see a true to the source version of the Mooraker, made as a period piece. It is IMHO the best complete Bond novel. Right behind the short stories in the two collection books. The reason I like the short stories best is that those stories make the picture complete and give us a glimpse of what Bond does between his big assignments.

Oh Merry Christmas everybody!

Hear! Hear!

Great maiden speech - my username comes from Moonraker!

The Ian Fleming Purist Thread

Comments