Similarities between the Gardner books and the Eon films (updated).
#1
Posted 13 June 2001 - 05:40 AM
Click HERE for the UPDATED (2/29/04) main page article.
#2
Posted 11 September 2001 - 10:59 AM
#3
Posted 12 September 2001 - 01:00 PM
That would be fantastic. I think I'll try and dig out that old P & W interview and check that aircraft carrier info.Blue Eyes (11 Sep, 2001 08:40 a.m.):
I'd love to organise an interview with Purvis and Wade sometime. Though I don't think I'd be so direct with the questions
#4
Posted 12 September 2001 - 11:56 PM
#5
Posted 25 June 2001 - 01:00 AM
#6
Posted 25 June 2001 - 01:46 AM
#7
Posted 10 September 2001 - 01:25 PM
This is the first time I have peeked at the Gardner forums and I've got a doozy to add here. I remember in 1999 reading an interview with Purvis & Wade (I'm not sure which Bond site, but it may have been Kimberley Last's; in which case it may still exist in her TWINE archive) and the article let slip a big titbit which I didn't realise the significance of at the time. Apparently, P & W originally contemplated featuring an AIRCRAFT CARRIER ! instead of a submarine (presumably because large carriers have nuclear reactors on board). In WIN, LOSE OR DIE, Royal navy aircraft carrier HMS Invincible featured prominently. I reckon this is Gardner's best Bond novel...I really loved reading it at the time.zencat (14 Jun, 2001 03:09 p.m.):
...WIN, LOSE OR DIE (1989)
Book: Bond dogfights in a Harrier fighter jet.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - Bond dogfights in a Mig fighter jet.
#8
Posted 10 September 2001 - 01:33 PM
And here's another...the plots of both LICENCE RENEWED & TWINE involve nuclear meltdown ! (LICENCE RENEWED is one of my favourite Gardner's).zencat (13 Jun, 2001 06:42 a.m.):
...LICENSE RENEWED (1981):
Book: James Bond gets his first glimpse of villain industrialist Anton Murik at England’s famous Ascot race course...
#9
Posted 11 September 2001 - 07:40 AM
#10
Posted 25 June 2001 - 12:57 AM
But surely someone would still have mentioned it to him! Perhaps somewhere in his original contract there's a disclosure like:
"Should any of your work in the Bond films you're not open to compensation" or something. Or "EON has the rights to film any ideas or novels for a fee". Perhaps he has been payed and we don't know about it!
#11
Posted 25 June 2001 - 12:18 AM
..."(re the gardner books) I especially think they would make excellent bases for films, and am preplexed as to why their potential has never been exploited. ... Nevertheless, they are actually more 'filmable' than Flemings orginal works ('I wish you'd tell Mr. Broccoli that! John exclaims)...
As to why Gardber never noticed his ideas being used, well...
Gardner is quoted as saying; "I also made a resolve not to see any of the films. I have not watched a Bond movie since 1979."
#12
Posted 13 June 2001 - 07:29 AM
No doubt the ideas from Gardner novels have filtered throught into the actual films. But I wonder if it was accidental? Perhaps Gardner did some work on the film that was never disclosed. Much like Robert Wade did work on GoldenEye but they couldn't credit him for legal reasons, instead Jack Wade was named after him.
#13
Posted 11 September 2001 - 09:41 AM
Blue Eyes (25 Jun, 2001 01:57 a.m.):
His lack of seeing Bond films may explain it.
But surely someone would still have mentioned it to him! Perhaps somewhere in his original contract there's a disclosure like:
"Should any of your work in the Bond films you're not open to compensation" or something. Or "EON has the rights to film any ideas or novels for a fee". Perhaps he has been payed and we don't know about it!
I remember an interview with gardner where he states that " he was aware of similarities between the books and the movies but didn't complain until the title of LICENCE REVOKED was used.Gardner's agent contacted EON and said,basically,that's TOO obvious.Gardner reveals he was offered the novelisation rights soon after with amusement.
#14
Posted 11 December 2001 - 03:23 AM
#15
Posted 11 December 2001 - 04:32 AM
Then later someone else realises,"Oh, we can't. We've already picked the books clean."
#16
Posted 20 June 2001 - 09:07 AM
The two Die Hard movies are pretty far removed from the two (unrelated) novels that inspired them.
Possibly Gardner's deal to novelise LTK and GoldenEye included compensation for the other material of his that EON had used.
#17
Posted 17 June 2001 - 02:24 PM
Unless Gardner hasn't noticed the extent of the similarities. Many Bond fans haven't. I suspect Eon only has to compensate Gardner if they flat out adapt a book, use the title, the names, the plot, etc.White Persian (17 Jun, 2001 05:32 a.m.):
In using the term "ripping off" we seem to be assuming that EON is using Gardner's ideas without financial compensation. It seems to me that, since Gardner hasn't complained or sued, some financial arrangement *has*
been made.
#18
Posted 17 June 2001 - 06:47 AM
zencat (14 Jun, 2001 03:02 p.m.):
From my understanding, EON has automatic rights to any of the Gardner/Benson books
It's completely true that they do. I asked Raymond Besnon once. They automatically have the rights to film any Bond novels. Why they don't? Well he doesn't know. I suspect it's because we would then all know the plot/ending etc... about the film and it would bring it too much critisism which is always bad at the box office.
#19
Posted 17 June 2001 - 04:32 AM
been made.
Nevertheless the list of "similarities" is mighty convincing.
#20
Posted 14 June 2001 - 04:36 PM
Same place I saw it, and thought "what a great location for a Bond movie!" - a report on CNN.
#21
Posted 14 June 2001 - 02:02 PM
#22
Posted 14 June 2001 - 05:57 AM
Surely Gardner must've spotted them as well. The fact that he hasn't made a song and dance about it makes me suspect that EON may have optioned his books, but only to use isolated elements rather than (thank God) film them entire. Surely they'd get first refusal pre-publication through Glidrose.
#23
Posted 13 June 2001 - 02:41 PM
Blue Eyes (13 Jun, 2001 08:29 a.m.):
Much like Robert Wade did work on GoldenEye but they couldn't credit him for legal reasons, instead Jack Wade was named after him.
Wow, really? This is a piece of info I've never heard. Interesting...
#24
Posted 18 January 2003 - 06:33 AM
That way, we get top-notch literature in it's own right, but benefiting of the better plots of the films (my opinion is that the modern Bond films have much better plots than the modern Bond books).
PS. I think I've suggested this before, but with much Benson-bashing, so I was taken for a nut and disregarded. Anyway, this suggestion embraces Benson's writing.
#25
Posted 18 January 2003 - 10:45 AM
#26
Posted 18 January 2003 - 04:21 PM
#27
Posted 18 January 2003 - 04:28 PM
#28
Posted 18 January 2003 - 04:40 PM
#29
Posted 18 January 2003 - 04:41 PM
#30
Posted 18 January 2003 - 04:58 PM
Of course, I think this might have been one of those intentional "winks" -- P&W giving Gardner some respect. Or maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe ALL this is just a coincidence. After 20 films and some 36 or so books, ideas have to reappear. I mean, how many different ways can you destroy (and save) the world?