I can't recommend the original 14 Fleming books highly enough. Read them in order:
CR
LALD
MR
DAF
FRWL
DN
GF
TB
FYEO (collection of 5 short stories)
TSWLM
OHMSS
YOLT
TMWTGG
OP/TLD (2 novellas in one volume)
They will give you a perspective on the character that you won't get from the films---although IMO the Craig Era gets closest---but be warned: the films (for the most part) pale by comparison.
Well said.
The films are mostly so much different from the books (except for a few films in the 60s) that I don't think it's fair to compare. You'll get a different perspective on the character from the books, but that's the character in the books and not the films.
I can't recommend the original 14 Fleming books highly enough. Read them in order:
CR
LALD
MR
DAF
FRWL
DN
GF
TB
FYEO (collection of 5 short stories)
TSWLM
OHMSS
YOLT
TMWTGG
OP/TLD (2 novellas in one volume)
They will give you a perspective on the character that you won't get from the films---although IMO the Craig Era gets closest---but be warned: the films (for the most part) pale by comparison.
Well said.
The films are mostly so much different from the books (except for a few films in the 60s) that I don't think it's fair to compare. You'll get a different perspective on the character from the books, but that's the character in the books and not the films.
To understand the character better you must read the books...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Typically, novel source material is superior to any film adaptation. Fleming's Bond is anomalous in that the films very quickly evolved into something quite different, but undeniably linked. As a FlemingistTM, I feel that the original books are important to getting a 3-dimensional image of the spirit and intent of Ian Fleming's creation. It IS the same character as in the films, IMO, in that Terence Young first took Fleming's template and gave it cinematic life. Literary Bond, in a sense, is Cinematic Bond's ancestor...and as in real life, subsequent offspring don't always live up to the promise and potential of their forebears
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
The films are mostly so much different from the books (except for a few films in the 60s) that I don't think it's fair to compare. You'll get a different perspective on the character from the books, but that's the character in the books and not the films.
To understand the character better you must read the books...
That's true to understand the books' character. But I'll repeat mysef: the film and book Bonds aren't the same character because many aspects of the books' character aren't the same as the films' character. You can learn a lot of things about the character in the book, but when you try to apply them to the film character they don't hold up. I think the Bond that Terence Young created is just as valid as the Bond that Fleming created. You can feel free to disagree.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2015
Well, I do...naturally But then of course no character from a book (Harry Potter, etc., et al.) is the 'same' character as the one in the source material, and things quickly devolve into semantics. I'd never assert that Cinematic Bond is less valid than Literary Bond, but I have no problem asserting that they're simply different versions of the same character. The interesting thing about Craig's Bond is that he has actually succeeded in importing fresh, heretofore unexplored aspects of Fleming's original character---which is nothing short of remarkable when the character had already been reinterpreted many times over the 44 years before he stepped into the tuxedo.
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
The films are mostly so much different from the books (except for a few films in the 60s) that I don't think it's fair to compare. You'll get a different perspective on the character from the books, but that's the character in the books and not the films.
To understand the character better you must read the books...
That's true to understand the books' character. But I'll repeat mysef: the film and book Bonds aren't the same character because many aspects of the books' character aren't the same as the films' character. You can learn a lot of things about the character in the book, but when you try to apply them to the film character they don't hold up. I think the Bond that Terence Young created is just as valid as the Bond that Fleming created. You can feel free to disagree.
The Fleming version is the genesis of the character - the other versions spring from that. But the Bond of the books is the real James Bond..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
The Fleming version is the genesis of the character - the other versions spring from that. But the Bond of the books is the real James Bond..
Statements like this are one of my biggest pet peeves in the entire world because they're by their very nature condescending and incredibly 'limiting' in that they imply that unless you're absolutely familiar with one particular version of a character, you're not actually familiar with said character, and are therefore somehow 'obligated' to make yourself familiar with one particular version of said character in order to actually 'qualify' as someone who understands and can enjoy the adventures of said character.
Filmic!Bond - in both of the continuities in which he appears - is just as 'real' a character as Literary!Bond, and suggesting otherwise is just wrong. Period.
The Fleming version is the genesis of the character - the other versions spring from that. But the Bond of the books is the real James Bond..
Statements like this are one of my biggest pet peeves in the entire world because they're by their very nature condescending and incredibly 'limiting' in that they imply that unless you're absolutely familiar with one particular version of a character, you're not actually familiar with said character, and are therefore somehow 'obligated' to make yourself familiar with one particular version of said character in order to actually 'qualify' as someone who understands and can enjoy the adventures of said character.
Filmic!Bond - in both of the continuities in which he appears - is just as 'real' a character as Literary!Bond, and suggesting otherwise is just wrong. Period.
Disagree utterly, In 1953 Fleming created the character in Casino Royale. Its spread for fifty years but the genesis of the character remains.
How would Terence Young be able to know if was a successful character if it wasn't in print
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
The Fleming version is the genesis of the character - the other versions spring from that. But the Bond of the books is the real James Bond..
Statements like this are one of my biggest pet peeves in the entire world because they're by their very nature condescending and incredibly 'limiting' in that they imply that unless you're absolutely familiar with one particular version of a character, you're not actually familiar with said character, and are therefore somehow 'obligated' to make yourself familiar with one particular version of said character in order to actually 'qualify' as someone who understands and can enjoy the adventures of said character.
Filmic!Bond - in both of the continuities in which he appears - is just as 'real' a character as Literary!Bond, and suggesting otherwise is just wrong. Period.
Well, since we're talking about an utterly fictional character, the word 'real' is naturally problematic. I tend to think that Sidney Reilly (aka Sigmund Rosenblum) was the 'real' James Bond, but that's another discussion entirely -{ And I would never insist that someone 'must' read the source material to be actually familiar with the cinematic interpretation. I will say that ignoring the source material will deny one access to a more intricate weave to the character's tapestry---to say nothing of missing out on the enjoyment of Fleming's prose, which when I was eleven years old showed me just how electrifying the printed word can be.
People happily ignore books all the time, and of course they're free to do so. As a writer, I rather wish they wouldn't :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
broadshoulder: Just because Fleming's Bond was the FIRST version of the character from which the other versions were derived doesn't automatically make it the only 'real' version of the character.
You may be of the opinion that it's the BEST version of the character because it was the first, but there are far better and less condescending ways to express that opinion than to label every other version of the character that followed the original literary version as somehow being 'not real'.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Another factor: reading the novels, particularly for the first time = More James Bond Experience :007) And as a James Bond fan, I'm bemused that anyone would ignore such an opportunity. Plus, it's yet another continuity! Again, however, to each his/her own.
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
Another factor: reading the novels, particularly for the first time = More James Bond Experience :007) And as a James Bond fan, I'm bemused that anyone would ignore such an opportunity. Plus, it's yet another continuity! Again, however, to each his/her own.
Another factor: reading the novels, particularly for the first time = More James Bond Experience :007) And as a James Bond fan, I'm bemused that anyone would ignore such an opportunity. Plus, it's yet another continuity! Again, however, to each his/her own.
Agree with this. Its a better chance to get to know the character.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
broadshoulder: Just because Fleming's Bond was the FIRST version of the character from which the other versions were derived doesn't automatically make it the only 'real' version of the character.
You may be of the opinion that it's the BEST version of the character because it was the first, but there are far better and less condescending ways to express that opinion than to label every other version of the character that followed the original literary version as somehow being 'not real'.
Flemings Bond is an original creation. He comes from the writer himself. I am stunned by someone who thinks the first original creation just isn't Bond.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
broadshoulder: Just because Fleming's Bond was the FIRST version of the character from which the other versions were derived doesn't automatically make it the only 'real' version of the character.
You may be of the opinion that it's the BEST version of the character because it was the first, but there are far better and less condescending ways to express that opinion than to label every other version of the character that followed the original literary version as somehow being 'not real'.
Flemings Bond is an original creation. He comes from the writer himself. I am stunned by someone who thinks the first original creation just isn't Bond.
Flemings Bond is an original creation. He comes from the writer himself. I am stunned by someone who thinks the first original creation just isn't Bond.
As far as I'm aware, no sentiments of that sort have been expressed anywhere here.
You'd make a killing at literary-themed bachelorette parties where your work will be up to your ears! )
"...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
You'd make a killing at literary-themed bachelorette parties where your work will be up to your ears! )
) ...I'm always looking for engaging side-work {[]
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
I don't feel Bond's backstory has been properly explored in this era. Certainly there's been more attention given to it, but we haven't learnt much that we don't already know. Casual fans will learn Bond's parents names but everything else has already been covered.
All we learn is he's a reckless orphan who has authority issues.
s.
So we go forty years without a backstory and they come up with one....and you don't like it
I have a suggestion.Lets turn him back into a walking cliche. He drinks vodka martinis. Wears a dinner jacket. Bonks girls. And thats it. Without doubt you end up with DAD
One way to keep the actor interested in the role is to give him a backstory?
No I'm saying they should expand on it. All they did in skyfall was show us the tombstones and have the line "how old were you when they died?" "you know the whole story". Well us the audience don't!
A few films give us Bond backstory snippets. GE "your parents had the luxury of dying in a climbing accident", CR orphan mention.
And btw Bond does drink vodka martini, wear a dinner jacket, and bonks girls in SF -{ :007) :x . Is Bond a walking cliche in Skyfall? No. What I like about Skyfall is that it has all the familiar elements, but done in a refreshing way. And Spectre looks to be following the same road...really looking forward to it -{
These are excellent points. At least Batman Begins, which the Craig era draws a lot from, includes the actual childhood scenes. Mentioning Bond's past in a few throwaway lines hardly seems worth all the angst and, as you say, doesn't really develop him as a character signficantly. A better film would at least have included some flashbacks, or started the film in the past proper.
Imagine if the teaser, for instance, had shown for a minute or so the scene that Kincade only describes in expository dialogue, with Bond getting the news of his parents' demise and then hiding in the "priest hole" for three days. When he emerges, the camera closes up on his eyes, and we transition to Bond as an adult, instead this time the camera backs away from his eyes rather than has him walk into frame. The rest of the teaser could be identical. Moreover, the fact that his parents were killed in a fall could echo later when Bond, himself, falls, apparently to his death.
Then the opening credits animation could show scenes echoing Bond's lonely childhood, rather than the rather baroque and useless hints at the rest of the film's plot. There could be dream-like sequences of his psychology and how haunted he is by the event. All of this could be done in the first few minutes of the film and convey a lot about Bond's past -- certainly more than a few lines of dialogue and one or two images later. Narratively, this could also have reinforced the at-best bizarre logic of Bond having to return to Skyfall in the first place -- his plan was always less than half-baked. But imagine instead if Silva provoked some sort of psychological need in Bond to return there. Then the plan was less about M and more about Bond. As it stands, none of that structure exists in the film, and we're left to believe that this was the best Bond could come up with to lure Silva into the open.
This is another reason I don't think Skyfall is that great. There are a lot of missed opportunities to layer the film by actually showing us instead of the tired modern crutch of telling us with dialogue. Film is a visual medium. Instead of wasting time on precious shots of Bond arriving solo in a dragon boat or driving his Aston Martin through lonely Scottish countryside -- and Mendes as a director loves to eat up precious screen time with such ponderous but narratively empty images -- time instead could have been spent on showing the actual story.
Whilst the actor should mentally give Bond a backstory because it adds depth to the performance, it would bog down the film too much to dwell on his past. It also feels a bit cheap, like they're bringing out the violins.
I think Alec's background in GoldenEye was well-handled- and actually we learnt about Bond through seeing his telling reactions to some of Alec's lines, which were clearly hitting home.
Comments
The films are mostly so much different from the books (except for a few films in the 60s) that I don't think it's fair to compare. You'll get a different perspective on the character from the books, but that's the character in the books and not the films.
To understand the character better you must read the books...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
That's true to understand the books' character. But I'll repeat mysef: the film and book Bonds aren't the same character because many aspects of the books' character aren't the same as the films' character. You can learn a lot of things about the character in the book, but when you try to apply them to the film character they don't hold up. I think the Bond that Terence Young created is just as valid as the Bond that Fleming created. You can feel free to disagree.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The Fleming version is the genesis of the character - the other versions spring from that. But the Bond of the books is the real James Bond..
Statements like this are one of my biggest pet peeves in the entire world because they're by their very nature condescending and incredibly 'limiting' in that they imply that unless you're absolutely familiar with one particular version of a character, you're not actually familiar with said character, and are therefore somehow 'obligated' to make yourself familiar with one particular version of said character in order to actually 'qualify' as someone who understands and can enjoy the adventures of said character.
Filmic!Bond - in both of the continuities in which he appears - is just as 'real' a character as Literary!Bond, and suggesting otherwise is just wrong. Period.
Disagree utterly, In 1953 Fleming created the character in Casino Royale. Its spread for fifty years but the genesis of the character remains.
How would Terence Young be able to know if was a successful character if it wasn't in print
Well, since we're talking about an utterly fictional character, the word 'real' is naturally problematic. I tend to think that Sidney Reilly (aka Sigmund Rosenblum) was the 'real' James Bond, but that's another discussion entirely
People happily ignore books all the time, and of course they're free to do so. As a writer, I rather wish they wouldn't :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You may be of the opinion that it's the BEST version of the character because it was the first, but there are far better and less condescending ways to express that opinion than to label every other version of the character that followed the original literary version as somehow being 'not real'.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nobody can argue with that!
Agree with this. Its a better chance to get to know the character.
Flemings Bond is an original creation. He comes from the writer himself. I am stunned by someone who thinks the first original creation just isn't Bond.
And who thinks that here?
As far as I'm aware, no sentiments of that sort have been expressed anywhere here.
Bollocks, twisting words to say Nothing.
You'd make a killing at literary-themed bachelorette parties where your work will be up to your ears!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Imagine if the teaser, for instance, had shown for a minute or so the scene that Kincade only describes in expository dialogue, with Bond getting the news of his parents' demise and then hiding in the "priest hole" for three days. When he emerges, the camera closes up on his eyes, and we transition to Bond as an adult, instead this time the camera backs away from his eyes rather than has him walk into frame. The rest of the teaser could be identical. Moreover, the fact that his parents were killed in a fall could echo later when Bond, himself, falls, apparently to his death.
Then the opening credits animation could show scenes echoing Bond's lonely childhood, rather than the rather baroque and useless hints at the rest of the film's plot. There could be dream-like sequences of his psychology and how haunted he is by the event. All of this could be done in the first few minutes of the film and convey a lot about Bond's past -- certainly more than a few lines of dialogue and one or two images later. Narratively, this could also have reinforced the at-best bizarre logic of Bond having to return to Skyfall in the first place -- his plan was always less than half-baked. But imagine instead if Silva provoked some sort of psychological need in Bond to return there. Then the plan was less about M and more about Bond. As it stands, none of that structure exists in the film, and we're left to believe that this was the best Bond could come up with to lure Silva into the open.
This is another reason I don't think Skyfall is that great. There are a lot of missed opportunities to layer the film by actually showing us instead of the tired modern crutch of telling us with dialogue. Film is a visual medium. Instead of wasting time on precious shots of Bond arriving solo in a dragon boat or driving his Aston Martin through lonely Scottish countryside -- and Mendes as a director loves to eat up precious screen time with such ponderous but narratively empty images -- time instead could have been spent on showing the actual story.
I think Alec's background in GoldenEye was well-handled- and actually we learnt about Bond through seeing his telling reactions to some of Alec's lines, which were clearly hitting home.