164 replies to this topic

[Mister Asterix]

I suspect Anne might be doing blackflips with Ian.

I do wish people would give this "Fleming spinning in his grave" nonsense a rest. Although proud of his creation, he was never precious about it. I mean, he cheerfully took the money and ran when the Daily Express turned his novels into a cartoon strip, and what about his deal with CBS in 1954? That was meant to be a serious adaptation of Casino Royale. This is a series of books for children! If he didn't care about the former, why would he give a flying one for the latter? Speaking of which, wasn't Fleming a bit of a fan of children's literature? And didn't he create one of his own, about a flying car?

Fleming was a bibliophile and I think if he was going to be alarmed by anything happening today, it would be the declining standards of literacy among schoolchildren. If this helps to keep kids reading and away from other mind-numbing visual media, then I reckon he'd be all for it.

Fleming would roll over in his grave if he heard you...

Nah. Just kidding. Very good points there, Att. I

[Hawkeye]

Now where did I put my spade?

Edited by Hawkeye, 06 April 2004 - 02:56 PM.

[zencat]

Hmm. This is an interesting development; speaking as someone who's written books for the teen market myself, I can see the marketing reasoning behind such a series.

Obviously, with the fallout from Rowling's Potter books still around, the kid's market continues to be a strong one, and there's already a demonstrable fanbase for spy thrillers in that audience - just check out the number of spin-offs from the Spy Kids movie franchise, the Spy High books or the Alex Ryder novels by Anthony Horowitz (the latest of which, 'Scorpia' is being given a big marketing push here in the UK). Plus media like the Spy Kids films, the Agent Cody Banks movies, the Kim Possible cartoon etc. all show that the "teen agent" genre is a going concern.

However, as some people have already stated, this isn't the first time a Bond franchise has been aimed at a 'junior' audience and misfired - the most recent was the 007 Spy Files partwork magazine, which was firmly targeted at the 9-12s and got lots of negative mail from adults who wanted something 'serious' without crosswords or colouring pages in it.

I'm willing to let Charlie Higson's work speak for itself - it's not fair to judge the man without having read the book - but I have to say I fear that losing an 'adult' 007 fiction series in favour of gaining a children's one will be ultimately weaken the franchise.

But from a marketing point of view, the fact is that Bond novels aimed at a children's market could very probably sell more than those written for the adult market. Look at the sales figures Raymond Benson talks about in his interview on this site - those are a fraction of what a hot kid's book can sell.

Personally, I don't see why there couldn't be two fiction streams based on 007 - one for the children's market and one following on from where Benson left off - but I'm afraid that it's more likely that there won't be, for fear of creating "brand confusion".

Interesting. Thank you for the insights, James.

And welcome to CBn.

[Bond_Bishop]

It could be a good idea if it is made in the right way. And it takes place in the thirties thats good. But I love the adult Bond most. Take in someone good british/american author to write adult Bond. Someone has to continue Fleming's, Gardner's and Benson's legacy. Glidrose should do that and write a book that takes place after The Man with the Red Tatoo/Die Another Day.

[marktmurphy]

I've seen too many people stomp their feet and declare that Bond should only be brought back if it is hugely popular on here (they usually dig out that old 'heterosexuals in airports' quote, <yawn>) but never actually giving any insight as to how this is to be done.
It seems that the IFP have thinking the same way, but have actually been realistic about the situation, unlike the fans who want Bond back only on their terms and only if everybody else reads them (? Scared of being individual it seems), and have come up with this solution. A famous and passably talented writer (so they have learnt from their mistakes!) taking up a series in which publicity seems possible- not least from the fact that Bond taking a different direction is newsworthy in itself, never mind that a famous writer like Higson is doing it.

So stop bloody moaning. Come up with a better idea or shut up. This is, after all, what you asked for.

And if you don't like it, just ignore it. I'm sure the Flemings wouldn't give a toss.

[Qwerty]

And if you don't like it, just ignore it. I'm sure the Flemings wouldn't give a toss.

Fans of the series should not just ignore anything that they don't like happening to it.

Why shouldn't they care, after all, the majority of their dedicated fans are accustomed to reading about the Bond we know of...therefore they might have objections to this, which matters in some way or another to the IFP.

[Mister Asterix]

And if you don't like it, just ignore it. I'm sure the Flemings wouldn't give a toss.

Fans of the series should not just ignore anything that they don't like happening to it.

Why shouldn't they care, after all, the majority of their dedicated fans are accustomed to reading about the Bond we know of...therefore they might have objections to this, which matters in some way or another to the IFP.

Except it would be easy enough to ignore since it could easily be considered a different series. Just as many ignore the graphic novels, the comic strips, even the continuation novels themselves, or anything else that doesn

[marktmurphy]

Exactly Evan. Nothing has changed if you don't like the idea: there are still no new James Bond novels. Or you could stop sulking and embrace something different with an open mind. Yes, it might be rubbish; but these martyred 'dedicated fans' you speak of should at least try it if they are so devoted, no?

[Qwerty]

A fine point Mister Asterix, but it sort of seems like this is going to be the part of the already estbalished literary series, and won't be something different.

It's be a different story if we had this, along with the regular novels continuing, then I would consider it a seperate series.

I will read every one of these and will have some hopes for them, that I will enjoy them, because they're apart of the James Bond character, and there's no point in giving up on them.

[marktmurphy]

Will the books do well? I seriously doubt it. As pointed out before, James Bond is an adult character. He never should be aimed towards kids. It's been tried before and failed.

Ha! Erm, 'durr' is the term here I believe. Check out the average age here for starters! Bond is generally like by kids because the films are fun and glossy, and then teenagers enjoy the books because they think they're realistic! Most of us adults who still like him haven't really grown up! These books are pretty much perfectly aimed. Read some kid's thrillers. I think you'll be surprised.

[Bond111]

Actually you may have a point there. Perhaps I should have wrote "Will these books be any good?". Anyway that post was my immediate reaction to hearing this news. I'm still disappointed, but I won't make any more criticisms until I actually see and read these books. Who knows, maybe we might be surprised. Best to keep a positive attitude.

[Mister Asterix]

Who knows, maybe we might be surprised. Best to keep a positive attitude.

Yup. Remember, Michael Keaton was great as Batman. All the Batfans were ready to kill people when Keaton was announced, and low and behold...

[Xenobia]

But Batman was being played at the right age by Keaton.

Here we have the young James Bond. I realize this is war time, and in war children must do difficult things...but isn't this pushing things a touch too far?

-- Xen

[Xenobia]

But Batman was being played at the right age by Keaton.

Here we have the young James Bond. I realize this is war time, and in war children must do difficult things...but isn't this pushing things a touch too far?

-- Xen

[Loomis]

I've seen too many people stomp their feet and declare that Bond should only be brought back if it is hugely popular on here (they usually dig out that old 'heterosexuals in airports' quote, <yawn>) but never actually giving any insight as to how this is to be done.
It seems that the IFP have thinking the same way, but have actually been realistic about the situation, unlike the fans who want Bond back only on their terms and only if everybody else reads them (? Scared of being individual it seems), and have come up with this solution. A famous and passably talented writer (so they have learnt from their mistakes!) taking up a series in which publicity seems possible- not least from the fact that Bond taking a different direction is newsworthy in itself, never mind that a famous writer like Higson is doing it.

So stop bloody moaning. Come up with a better idea or shut up. This is, after all, what you asked for.

And if you don't like it, just ignore it. I'm sure the Flemings wouldn't give a toss.

I don't want "Bond fiction in some form or another at any cost"/"Bond fiction just for the sake of it". I want it to be [A] good, and [B] popular, or to not exist at all. I'd rather they let the "series" die a dignified death at this point than proceed with this Higson stuff.

As for your challenging us naysayers to "come up with a better idea or shut up", Mark, here's a better idea than "Young James Bond" (which has been suggested many, many times on CBn): get someone to write more continuation novels featuring an adult 007.

[Simon]

I've seen too many people stomp their feet and declare that Bond should only be brought back if it is hugely popular on here (they usually dig out that old 'heterosexuals in airports' quote, <yawn>) but never actually giving any insight as to how this is to be done.

So stop bloody moaning. Come up with a better idea or shut up. This is, after all, what you asked for.

Whether the "heteros at the airport" is an old phrase or not, it does rather sum up the target audience succinctly without spending the first five paragraphs of your post trying to describe just this.

(I'm answering this first as I am (at least) one of the culpables here)

If all we need to do to reinvent a character is to remove 40 years, then why not have a young Miss Marples, a young Tarzan, a young Poirot? The idea is utterly redundant and as all Young variations have so far failed, then I feel history would be on our side as to just where this latest "idea" will go.

Indeed, hands up anyone who can tell me if a Young variation has in fact succeeded?

As to insights, as elsewhere on this thread, I feel guesting authors is an idea that has been prominently successful and debated positively here.

[Mister Asterix]

But Batman was being played at the right age by Keaton.

Here we have the young James Bond. I realize this is war time, and in war children must do difficult things...but isn't this pushing things a touch too far?

-- Xen

First, no, he wasn

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='7 April 2004 - 13:32'] I

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Loomis' date='7 April 2004 - 11:17'] [quote name='Mister Asterix' date='7 April 2004 - 13:32'] I

[Loomis]

So stop bloody moaning. Come up with a better idea or shut up. This is, after all, what you asked for.

And if you don't like it, just ignore it. I'm sure the Flemings wouldn't give a toss.

[A] It's not what we asked for (I don't believe anyone at all on CBn has ever demanded a "Young James Bond" series by Charlie Higson, or indeed a "Young James Bond" series by anyone else), [B] many better ideas have been floated, [C] why should we shut up? Is this not a public message board? Are we not permitted to air our views? If not, where exactly does that leave a great many of your own posts slamming various moves in both the film series and the literary series? Why should we "just ignore" what we don't like?, [D] of course "the Flemings wouldn't give a toss" - they're books; what a silly thing to write (at least, I assume you're referring to Fleming's novels rather than to members of the Fleming family; if the latter rather than the former, then I'd say that the Fleming family members connected with IFP should give a toss if their latest venture meets with hostility or indifference from the overwhelming majority of Bond fans [take a look at the polls on this site and others]), and [E] you yourself wrote: "Young James Bond? Not James Bond yet. So pointless."

I mean, if they brought out a series of "early learning" Bond books aimed at two-year-olds, with pictures to colour in, would you expect Bond fans to keep an open mind and not complain, on the grounds that they might, in theory, be quite good?

[Hawkeye]

As for your challenging us naysayers to "come up with a better idea or shut up", Mark, here's a better idea than "Young James Bond" (which has been suggested many, many times on CBn): get someone to write more continuation novels featuring an adult 007.

Couldn't agree more.

+ JIMS, Clink, Mr * fanfics at this site = all nicely in the adult bond lit canon and all a perfect continuation of the series. i'd happilly buy stories by these folks and some others, even if i'd downloaded them for nothing here. In fact fanfic like this should be used by IFP to snout out possible Bond lit talent.

Hawkeye

Edited by Hawkeye, 07 April 2004 - 07:03 PM.

[Xenobia]

But Batman was being played at the right age by Keaton.

Here we have the young James Bond.  I realize this is war time, and in war children must do difficult things...but isn't this pushing things a touch too far?

-- Xen

First, no, he wasn’t. Keaton was playing Batman on his first assignment, he should have been in his mid- to early-20s. He was 38.

Second, you have completely missed my point. The point is that Keaton as Batman was an idea that was completely hated by the fans yet turned out to be a great idea that the fans loved once they saw it. I’m not saying people should like the idea of a young Bond, but I am saying they should give it a chance.

I didn't realize that Keaton was playing Batman at his first assignment in the first film. It seemed to me, as I recall watching the film, that Batman was pretty well established at that point when the movie begins.

My point is, I am willing to give anything a chance, within reason. This idea, the young James Bond series, is beyond reason.

-- Xenobia

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Xenobia' date='7 April 2004 - 14:25'] My point is, I am willing to give anything a chance, within reason.

[Loomis]

All I am saying is that could be done well.

Yes, it could be, but it won't be. It's perfectly obvious from IFP's press release, coupled with common sense regarding today's kids'-aimed publishing industry, that Higson's book will be totally unlike anything Ian Fleming might have written about the young Bond. Personally, I'm expecting bland characters, a totally uninteresting storyline, plenty of references to the cinematic James Bond, and the Brosnan-era cinematic James Bond at that (no doubt the Bond on the cover will be drawn like Brosnan as a child), a prototype Q, lotsa gadgets, groansome humour and overweening political correctness. I very much doubt that I'll be proven wrong. I mean, come on, it's aimed at 9-12-year-olds! If that's your idea of the literary Bond, go for it, but as for me I'd rather read the XXX 2 novelisation, since it'll doubtless be far closer to what I want from a Bond novel.

[Qwerty]

I will not argue that this is a great idea, or that I am sure that it will work. All I am saying is that could be done well. And that people might as well give it a shot because it is going to happen whether they like the idea or not.

Agreed. I was at first, when I read this for the first time, completely against it, and still hate the idea--alot, but I will look at this in the most positive way possible.

Granted, perhaps they can do some interesting ideas and plots with this younger Bond, there are a lot of things I'm wondering how they'll include, but I suppose it's fair to judge after the first one is out, to know for sure.

[Mister Asterix]

All I am saying is that could be done well.

Yes, it could be, but it won't be. It's perfectly obvious from IFP's press release, coupled with common sense regarding today's kids'-aimed publishing industry, that Higson's book will be totally unlike anything Ian Fleming might have written about the young Bond. Personally, I'm expecting bland characters, a totally uninteresting storyline, plenty of references to the cinematic James Bond, and the Brosnan-era cinematic James Bond at that (no doubt the Bond on the cover will be drawn like Brosnan as a child), a prototype Q, lotsa gadgets, groansome humour and overweening political correctness. I very much doubt that I'll be proven wrong. I mean, come on, it's aimed at 9-12-year-olds! If that's your idea of the literary Bond, go for it, but as for me I'd rather read the XXX 2 novelisation, since it'll doubtless be far closer to what I want from a Bond novel.

You are probably right, but again, I

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='7 April 2004 - 19:59'] Some say the glass is half full, some say half empty. I say I think it

[Xenobia]

Is there any work of Mr. Higson's that is easily accessible?

-- B

[marktmurphy]

As for your challenging us naysayers to "come up with a better idea or shut up", Mark, here's a better idea than "Young James Bond" (which has been suggested many, many times on CBn): get someone to write more continuation novels featuring an adult 007.

That's a great idea. If only they'd...oh no, wait: they did try it. It was rubbish and no-one bought them. They want to make some money. Yes, it's off the back of their relative's work, but everyone's gotta make a buck somehow.

Why should we give it a chance, Mr A? Are we under some sort of obligation as hardcore Bond fans to gratefully accept as part of the hallowed "canon" anything foisted on the market by IFP? Are we so obsessed with Bond that anything at all will do?

I take it you saw Die Another Day?

[A] It's not what we asked for (I don't believe anyone at all on CBn has ever demanded a "Young James Bond" series by Charlie Higson, or indeed a "Young James Bond" series by anyone else),

You totally missed my point by taking it out of context. What many people have been screaming for ages is that they would only accept new Bond novels if they were aimed at the masses (heteros, airports etc.) and were given plenty of publicity to ensure this. Well, you can't do that by simply carrying on with a joke of series which has been going downhill for twenty years. This is the populist approach, by a famous writer. This is what they asked for.

[B] many better ideas have been floated

Yup. I've tried, but everyone just trots out the ''airports' quote and insists it be written as and aimed at the same market as Uncle Ian did it. Which just isn't realistic, as the past has shown us.

[C] why should we shut up? Is this not a public message board? Are we not permitted to air our views? If not, where exactly does that leave a great many of your own posts slamming various moves in both the film series and the literary series? Why should we "just ignore" what we don't like?,

Because you'll go mad if you don't? Everybody here seems to hate everything, and it might be best for your sanity if you let the idea of a book series for kiddies slide. As Benson pointed out: all the internet does is let people slag things off continuously. There's never anything positive or constructive. It's tiring. I like Jim an awful lot, but when was the last time you heard him mention something he actually liked? He just bashes the films and books endlessly and sometimes it would be nice to come to a fan forum and discuss how much you actually like something. No?
It's a book series for kiddies. What does it actually matter? Who does it harm? (And no, it harms Fleming's 'legacy' no more than the Young Indys and Sherlocks harm the originals i.e: not at all) Why are you more interested in preventing a bunch of little Bond fans enjoying themselves and learning to love reading so that you can have a quick thrill in an airport somewhere? And why are you being so nasty to people who are trying to encourage debate on a debating board over a kiddies book series?

[D] of course "the Flemings wouldn't give a toss" - they're books; what a silly thing to write (at least, I assume you're referring to Fleming's novels rather than to members of the Fleming family; if the latter rather than the former, then I'd say that the Fleming family members connected with IFP should give a toss if their latest venture meets with hostility or indifference from the overwhelming majority of Bond fans [take a look at the polls on this site and others]

Why's that then? No Bond fans bought the bloody things when they writing them for the fans so they have moved on to another audience. What's wrong with that? I always cringe when fans believe the object of their affection belongs to them: it often ends up with the series being lead by the fans and it then turning up its own bottom and ending. See Star Trek; Doctor Who; James Bond book series.

[E] you yourself wrote: "Young James Bond? Not James Bond yet. So pointless."

Yup. I reckon it's a very bad idea. But it could be executed in an interesting fashion- the signs of this are there. And it's better to have something than nothing. And apparently Higson is a decent (and occassionally sadistic) writer. So I'll have a look when it pops out. I won't lose any sleep over it. I suggest you try and chill out a bit.
It's some books. For kids. So what?

I mean, if they brought out a series of "early learning" Bond books aimed at two-year-olds, with pictures to colour in, would you expect Bond fans to keep an open mind and not complain, on the grounds that they might, in theory, be quite good?

It's not for you, mate. It doesn't harm anything, and it's possible that the two year olds might enjoy it. Why would you wish to prevent that? I find Live and Let Live is a much better motto to live by.
And why should anyone care what Bond fans say? There are, perhaps about one hundred active members here. With a similar amount on the other two boards. That's not exactly a representative cross-section, just a bunch of bored yank teenagers. Who cares?

[Atticus17F]

... in this case I'd say that the glass is totally empty.... unless merely the name James Bond is enough to get you off, or unless you're after a glass of milk instead of a glass containing a vodka martini, shaken not stirred.

But that's precisely it. These things aren't intended for us, they're intended for our kids. Nobody's expecting a mature, sensible adult to enjoy these books any more than they'd expect one to enjoy James Bond lunchboxes or James Bond pyjamas.

I find it astounding that adults can get so wound up over this.