12 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

What do you all think of John Gardner's GoldenEye novelization? How do you compare it with the film, and with his previous novelization, Licence To Kill?

[Qwerty]

Anyone?

[Carver]

Goldeneye is the only Gardner novel I have read to date . It wasn't bad, but I felt that it seemed too restricted because of the way the film went, and I expected a tad more. Obviously it wouldn't be like other Bond novels as it was an adaptation from a film, so I'm not a big fan of these. However, I did think that Gardner did well. I liked the longer version of the PTS, in how it explains what Bond's mission was, I thought it was done pretty well. I liked how Bond's battles with Trevelyan were written, and I thought it added more depth to both characters and showed more history between them. I didn't really like Bond's conversations with Wade, calling him "Jacko" really didn't sound like what Bond would say, and I thought that Gardner tried to hard to make Bond seem more attached to Natalya. IMO, Natalya was just another Bond girl-nothing special-but Gardner tried to make her into much more.
It isn't the worst book I've read, but it's still given me a bad introduction to Gardner and to book adaptations of films. If anyone could recommend a better Gardner/film novel to me then perhaps my opinion will change. Overall I'd give Goldeneye 6 out of 10.

[Qwerty]

From my point of view, the James Bond books from John Gardner often seem to be on a "rollercoaster" of sorts in terms of fan appeal of them. I think that is the case from No Deals, Mr. Bond to his final novel, Cold. His 15th James Bond story and second novelization, after 1989's Licence To Kill, GoldenEye is one of the better ones in his run.

It's quite often that one sees The Man From Barbarossa being slammed and other novels such as Win, Lose Or Die or Never Send Flowers being called "okay" or "good", but when Gardner had the storyline already plotted out for him so to speak, I think he created a good novelization. That is the case both with GoldenEye here and Licence To Kill earlier.

The pretitle sequence of this novelization is good, clearly staying in line with that of the film. All the characters also stay in line with the ones in the film as well; a good thing, since most of them are solid chararacters in the Bond franchise. The overall mood of the film, which I think is much darker than several others, is also present in the novelization. John Gardner has written better Bond novels for certain, but GoldenEye is definitely one for the fan to pick up. A solid 3 out of 5.

[Lounge Lizard]

I'm not a fan of novelizations in the first place, because they usually don't have anything to add; with GoldenEye, the main point of interest is the way Gardner has to explain how 007 evades the Russian military after his wrecking half of St. Petersburg, and how he then manages to escape to Puerto Rico. Just a simple cut away in the film version, but that's not something you can do in a novel. It's a daunting task and Gardner does a great job making the events at least 50 % plausible. But still, it never really is Gardner's Bond we're reading about, it's the screenwriters' Bond. The proceedings have a hurried feel to them, and Gardner seldom goes deeply into details. Still, GoldenEye is Tolstoy compared to Tomorrow Never Dies, the Benson novelization. After having read that, I'll never pick up another novelization.

[Genrewriter]

For a novelization it's not bad but Gardner's LTK was a little better. IUt's hard to keep these things from coming off as extended recaps of the movies and GE almost makes it, but not quite.

[Double-Oh Agent]

GoldenEye is good, especially with the additional information added in the pre-titles sequence but I much prefer Licence To Kill. That (LTK) is one of my favorite Bond books and I read it before I saw the film, which also happens to be my favorite Bond movie.

[Qwerty]

Keep them coming...

[Mr Malcolm]

This was actually the first Gardner book I read (I didn't know at the time he'd done any!). I was about 14 at the time, and I did enjoy it. Looking back, it's not that bad; not the best novel ever written, but pretty solid. I did like how Gardner explained what the dog-sled team was doing there, just in time to save Natalya. It also seems more plausible how Bond destroys the antena at the end, rather than just sticking a pipe in the chain.

[sharpshooter]

Having sought the book for a long time being a big fan of the film -I have read it. It is a fairly good adaption of the film - with the noted added sequences. I may be biased to liking it a bit more than I should, so I give it a 4 out of 5.

[Major Tallon]

It's ok, I guess, but the writing's kind of flat in places. For example, after the Goldeneye destroys the Severnaya control room, Natalya tries to escape by saying her name aloud to the voice-activated door control. When it doesn't work, she repeats it, this time in desperation, only to have nothing happen again, and Natalya realizes that she's trapped underground. Here's Gardner's description: "Twice she called out her name, but nothing happened." As I say, it's just kind of flat. Gardner's an experienced writer, and the book isn't bad, but I don't think he had much enthusiasm for the project.

[neversaynever]

How does the stupid 'Bond drives off the cliff, freefalls chasing the plane, gets in the plane and corrects it' stunt come off in the book, then?

[dlb007]

As far as novelizations go, GoldenEye was okay. Not much more than that. I felt that License to Kill was a much better book, and it too, was lacking. Gardner put a little more effort into License to Kill when describing some of the little bits we weren't inclined to see in the movie; and also did away with the ridiculous parachuting to the wedding bit; however, he did include Felix getting attacked by a shark twice, which was a bit off putting. GoldenEye was purely by the numbers. Some info here and there to fill in gaps. Not a great effort, but it could be worse.