6 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Screenwriters Purvis and Wade have said they're going to "Flemingise" Bond in BOND 20...but is this REALLY a good thing?

I always get a little spooked when someone says they're going to "Flemingise" the Bond films. I'm never sure what they're saying exactly. A return to the Dalton style films? Don't get me wrong, I like the Dalton films, but I'm a hardcore Bond fan. To most audience members these films were confusing. Why so serious? Where's the fun? Why's Bond so ANGRY? I think EON sometimes underestimates the general audiences desire for a return to a witty, larger than life Bond film in the style of, say, TSWLM or YOLT. Michael Wilson once said we'll never see a villain in a hollowed out volcano again. WHY NOT? Frankly, I really miss the larger than life villians. I love the books -- but they're BOOKS. The movies have become something very different. If I step outside of my Bond fan self... I'm just not sure "Flemingising" Bond is the best thing for the long term health of the series.

[Blue Eyes]

zencat (12 Jun, 2001 07:22 a.m.):
Sorry, I didn't mean to post this topic twice. You can zap it Mr. Webmaster.

Mr. Webmaster here!! Just did it

[B5Erik]

If you stray too far from the original Fleming novels then you lose that common bond (no pun intended) between all of the Bond films.

Making Bond truer to the original Fleming concept and character only makes it more legitimate and believable. You can also film a "Flemingesque" Bond film far cheaper than a You Only Live Twice or Spy Who Loved Me kind of larger than life epic. So you get a better film (as far as drama and realism go) at a lower cost.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

The closer to Fleming, the better.

[White Persian]

I read Purvis and Wade's comments as meaning a "Flemingesque" Bond as opposed to an Americanised Bond or (worse) a cartoonish Bond. I understand what you mean, Zencat, but I think the B.O. of the Brosnan Bonds shows that audiences can cope.

[zencat]

Sorry, I didn't mean to post this topic twice. You can zap it Mr. Webmaster.

[Jacques Nexus]

Blue Eyes (12 Jun, 2001 08:31 a.m.):
I think the question has to be asked, what do Purvis and Wade mean by making Bond more Flemingesque?

Personally (this is my opinion) they're not going to. Their idea of making Bond more like the Bond from the novels is that Bond is going to be more human. We've already seen that (I can't think where I read this first, could have been that article which isn't in front of me). But in Casino Royale the novel Vespa Lynd betrays Bond, all he has to say after she has died is something like "The bitch got it". In very much the same way he could turn cold against Electra in TWINE and kill her.

This to me is what P&W are on about. I could be wrong. Ideas anyone?

I agree Blue Eyes. I got the same impression from the article like you. I don't think they are aiming for a Dalton style 007 but a more human version of Connery; and that's what Brosnan is anyway.

[Blue Eyes]

I think the question has to be asked, what do Purvis and Wade mean by making Bond more Flemingesque?

Personally (this is my opinion) they're not going to. Their idea of making Bond more like the Bond from the novels is that Bond is going to be more human. We've already seen that (I can't think where I read this first, could have been that article which isn't in front of me). But in Casino Royale the novel Vespa Lynd betrays Bond, all he has to say after she has died is something like "The bitch got it". In very much the same way he could turn cold against Electra in TWINE and kill her.

This to me is what P&W are on about. I could be wrong. Ideas anyone?