39 replies to this topic

[Bon-san]

Excellent topic, with interesting tangential diversions in the follow-up responses. I have only to add a musing as to M.'s role in Colonel Sun. Is it just me, or was he a tad too pathetic in his rapid deterioration in captivity? Just didn't seem like the steely admiral I've come to know and love. That said, I find Colonel Sun, and all of Amis' contributions to the Bond pantheon to be exquisite.

[Victor Zokas]

... well then Mr Osato should have a look at that Denise Richards poster.

To pick up on a few points raised in this thread so far, I would say that Colonel Sun is an excellent Bondian title, and better than DAD. I think EON really wasted the M kidnap story in TWINE, whereas in CS it is the strating point and the main goal for Bond, rather than just stuck two-thirds into the plot.

Why don't EON make CS or Benson/Gardner novels into movies? I think they keep pinching elements from them to bolster their own screenplays ie: the Zorin horse cheating plot at Ascot seem inspired by the Ascot scenes from Licence Renewed.

As for CS, it is a great novel. It has a crackerjack opening and the torture scene at the end is certainly satisfyingly gruesome. It's true to say that the imagination is more scared of a threat that you cannot see or visualise. Breaking Bond's fingers is torture for sure, but probing his ear is unthinkable.

However, I too took quite some time to get thrugh CS when I read it, and I think i found that the middle third was a bit slow paced.

[zencat]

Victor Zokas (24 May, 2002 05:02 p.m.):
Why don't EON make CS or Benson/Gardner novels into movies? I think they keep pinching elements from them to bolster their own screenplays ie: the Zorin horse cheating plot at Ascot seem inspired by the Ascot scenes from Licence Renewed.

This has to be one of the most asked questions on these boards. The only offical answer I've ever heard from Eon is when Michael Wilson said something to the effect of, "We don't need them, we have our own stories." Whatever.

[Victor Zokas]

zencat (24 May, 2002 06:17 p.m.):

This has to be one of the most asked questions on these boards. The only offical answer I've ever heard from Eon is when Michael Wilson said something to the effect of, "We don't need them, we have our own stories." Whatever.

Pretty strange then that if they are so confident in their own stories, that they keep using elements from the novels.

[General Koskov]

Perhaps, Eon feels (presently) that none of the post-Fleming authors are very good, and therefore making a film of their books would make Mickey G and Babs look like they're really keen on Benson or whatever.

Personally, I found the post-Fleming plots a little dry.

[zencat]

I've always sensed some sort of strange hostility between the two Bond camps (lit and film) that I've never really understood. I think both take a sort of snobbish attitude that "their" Bond is the "real" Bond. I don't know. It's just one of the reasons the Bond franchise has never really put forth an intergrated plan the way Star Trek and Star Wars has, but maybe that's not such a bad thing.

[Jim]

Problem with filming any of the Benson/Gardner/Amis books is that the element of surprise would be gone, and they'd end up getting fried on boards like this for what they didn't include in their film, rather than for what they did.

Who really knows what the situation is? Perhaps Gildrose want too much for the film rights, including using the titles.

[General Koskov]

zencat (25 May, 2002 05:14 p.m.):
I've always sensed some sort of strange hostility between the two Bond camps (lit and film) that I've never really understood. I think both take a sort of snobbish attitude that "their" Bond is the "real" Bond. I don't know. It's just one of the reasons the Bond franchise has never really put forth an intergrated plan the way Star Trek and Star Wars has, but maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Yes, that seems to be the situation. What a pity. Like if Moore and Dalton fought over who was better.

[General Koskov]

I don't mind the 'pinching' of scenes from the books at all. Perhaps because I never have read the books first, so I didn't know about it, but the ones I've read are, as I've said, rather dry, so Eon might as well take a few good parts and make a superior story.

This is why I suggested that Benson et al could just do novelisations. That way, Benson could work with P&W/Feirstein and create a seemingly 'original' book, then...SURPRISE! a year later a film of that book comes out.

Obviously the book and film would have differences: more action in film, more talk in book, et cetera. But we'd have a 'solid' Bond franchise this way--no competing parts.

[RossMan]

Originally posted by Bon-san
Excellent topic, with interesting tangential diversions in the follow-up responses.  I have only to add a musing as to M.'s role in Colonel Sun.  Is it just me, or was he a tad too pathetic in his rapid deterioration in captivity?  Just didn't seem like the steely admiral I've come to know and love.

I think that's what Amis was going for, show us M in a completley different, frightning way.