187 replies to this topic

[00Twelve]

Inspired by the "worthiest remake" thread, I wanted to make this thread for this specific discussion. Anybody who's read my posts about future direction in the new Casino Royale continuity knows that I'd favor a faithful, chronological series of readapted Fleming novels. (And, for the sake of argument, new Bond, he's a rookie, just met Felix, Felix has all limbs and a different ethnicity...the series has started over.) I don't see readapting the source material as remaking the movies, because with a few early Connery and Laz exceptions, the original films themselves hardly adapted the source material and don't bear much resemblance to the novels anyway. TMWTGG the movie has 2% to do with the book, for example. I don't think general moviegoers would even hardly recognize them as remakes. I also am fine with using alternate titles (perhaps the alleged unused ones), so long as the story is there. The Flemingesque Bond has had a major renaissance and comeback, after his hiatus beginning in Fall of '89. Why not take advantage of that and put him in his original literary environment? And by the way, I don't see this as doing any disrespect to the original actors' work, which will not be forgotten even if you want it to be, just as Nicholson will not be hurt by Ledger. Granted, take this thread with a grain of salt, as EON (as of now) has no plans for this, but how do you feel about readapting novels vs remaking movies?

[Santa]

This is exactly what I'd like to see happen. Not with any fuss or fanfare, "WE'RE GOING BACK TO FLEMING" or anything like that, just good film making based on good, solid stories and characters. Where better to start than the original source material?

[dodge]

Arch-conservatives will howl but I say 'Bang on, wizzard.' This separate thread on the principle is necessary because the other thread was beginning to drift. The absolute crux of the matter, as you've pointed out, is this: With very few exceptions Eon's Bond films were not true to the books. Basically, they bought the titles. So, now that we've re-booted, a new series of films based on novels that weren't really followed at all could hardly be seen as mere remakes. Nor would they be disrespectful to our beloved Cubby--his immortal YOLT and DAF will shine on in the heavens. Call them anything we please. But wonderful stories remain for our use. And wouldn't it be original to show Fleming more honest respect, trusting in his genius?

[Judo chop]

Here here.

(Someone tell me

Edited by Judo chop, 08 March 2007 - 04:28 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Arch-conservatives will howl but I say 'Bang on, wizzard.' This separate thread on the principle is necessary because the other thread was beginning to drift. The absolute crux of the matter, as you've pointed out, is this: With very few exceptions Eon's Bond films were not true to the books. Basically, they bought the titles. So, now that we've re-booted, a new series of films based on novels that weren't really followed at all could hardly be seen as mere remakes. Nor would they be disrespectful to our beloved Cubby--his immortal YOLT and DAF will shine on in the heavens. Call them anything we please. But wonderful stories remain for our use. And wouldn't it be original to show Fleming more honest respect, trusting in his genius?

Nearly agree with you, Dodge.

However, is there not an argument here that might say that maybe Eon have exhausted what is usable on-screen? Surely the so-called untapped elements of Fleming's back catalogue have remained so for good reason creatively? After 21 films surely Eon would have mined what was worth salvaging? And if they haven't, does that maybe say more about Fleming than Eon? I don't know...

Thus Zorin has spaken again, Dodge...

Edited by Zorin Industries, 08 March 2007 - 04:30 PM.

[dodge]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='710198' date='8 March 2007 - 16:22'][color="#DDA0DD"]Here here.

(Someone tell me

[Judo chop]

Arch-conservatives will howl but I say 'Bang on, wizzard.' This separate thread on the principle is necessary because the other thread was beginning to drift. The absolute crux of the matter, as you've pointed out, is this: With very few exceptions Eon's Bond films were not true to the books. Basically, they bought the titles. So, now that we've re-booted, a new series of films based on novels that weren't really followed at all could hardly be seen as mere remakes. Nor would they be disrespectful to our beloved Cubby--his immortal YOLT and DAF will shine on in the heavens. Call them anything we please. But wonderful stories remain for our use. And wouldn't it be original to show Fleming more honest respect, trusting in his genius?

Nearly agree with you, Dodge.

However, is there not an argument here that might say that maybe Eon have exhausted what is usable on-screen? Surely the so-called untapped elements of Fleming's back catalogue have remained so for good reason creatively? After 21 films surely Eon would have mined what was worth salvaging? And if they haven't, does that maybe say more about Fleming than Eon? I don't know...

Thus Zorin has spaken again, Dodge...

Sure there

[Santa]

Personally, I will yell--and at the top of my lungs--"Hear, hear, HERE!' when 'Memoirs of a Judo Chop shows up on this here site.

Oh God, not that again. Dodge, you're such a tease, always making promises - fit, single young men, tantalising memoirs, but these things don't materialise. It's just not fair.

[dodge]

Personally, I will yell--and at the top of my lungs--"Hear, hear, HERE!' when 'Memoirs of a Judo Chop shows up on this here site.

Oh God, not that again. Dodge, you're such a tease, always making promises - fit, single young men, tantalising memoirs, but these things don't materialise. It's just not fair.

'Memoirs of a Judo Chop' not materialise? Santa, how could you say such a thing? JC will come through for us, exactly as he promised. And the wonderful gift will be well worth the wait. As for those single, fit young men...you will yet be surpised if you'll follow my instructions...go to the nearest Starbucks...and order the potion prescribed.

[plankattack]

I'm all for using what's still adaptable, whether it be complete stories (YOLT, or TMWGG) or unused stuff (LALD cut and pasted beyond belief). But I'm more concerned about the tone of the stories. When the Fleming runs out and it will eventually, how will the films continue? I loved CR because it was relatively faithful adaptation of the novel, and what wasn't was still in spirit of the tone. Unlike DAD, which feels like Fleming and then evaporates in a cloud of invisibility.

[Santa]

I'm all for using what's still adaptable, whether it be complete stories (YOLT, or TMWGG) or unused stuff (LALD cut and pasted beyond belief). But I'm more concerned about the tone of the stories. When the Fleming runs out and it will eventually, how will the films continue? I loved CR because it was relatively faithful adaptation of the novel, and what wasn't was still in spirit of the tone. Unlike DAD, which feels like Fleming and then evaporates in a cloud of invisibility.

Ahhh but for that we have to rely on the wisdom of the producers etc. to get it right, which is another thread entirely.

[MHazard]

This is a point I was trying to make and which it seems there's mostly agreement. If the Fleming book has never been filmed, the fact that there was a movie titled Moonraker, or TMWGG or YOLT doesn't make a subsequent movie which actually attempts to film Fleming's story a re-make. I also don't think you can say well, we've written a totally different plot but the villains named Drax or it has diamond smuggling in it or it takes place in Jamaica, etc. means that all the useable elements are taken from the novel (this is a valid point though if you're talking about the first four films and OHMSS-FYI couldn't a faithful YOLT re-adaptation just flashback to the last five minutes of OHMSS possibly re-filmed with Craig or whoever?).

[plankattack]

I'm all for using what's still adaptable, whether it be complete stories (YOLT, or TMWGG) or unused stuff (LALD cut and pasted beyond belief). But I'm more concerned about the tone of the stories. When the Fleming runs out and it will eventually, how will the films continue? I loved CR because it was relatively faithful adaptation of the novel, and what wasn't was still in spirit of the tone. Unlike DAD, which feels like Fleming and then evaporates in a cloud of invisibility.

Ahhh but for that we have to rely on the wisdom of the producers etc. to get it right, which is another thread entirely.

True words SantaJo, true words. But EON deserve credit for CR, and it's alot easier to be brave a second time, especially if the first time was as successful as it was. With DC, I think they have a sense of how they want to continue with the next couple, and that would mean that original material is on the table.

We hope....

[Santa]

We do. We really do.

[Auric64]

Surely the problem of remaking the Bond films to the Fleming books, (one I would be all for) rests really on the actor in the lead role?

It`s pretty apparent that Craig will only do 3 films. If that`s true, and the producers decided Bond 22 would be a reworking of Fleming`s LALD, followed by MR (or possibly DAF as it isn`t tied to one country as MR is) after Craig departs, there could very well be a shift in attitude as to which direction the Bond films will go.

Will Babs and Mikey cast another Craig clone? If so, then the reworking of subsequent Fleming`s novels can continue unabated. If the producers cast the next Bond actor as a clone of Moore/Brosnan, (i.e. an actor best suited to playing light roles) would that actor be able to step up to the plate, as Craig did, in serious and dramatic scenes lifted directed from the Fleming page?

Many on here believe that Brosnan, had he made CR after DAD, would not have been as believable in the role as Craig had been, either due to his age or the fact that he isn`t as good an actor as Craig is.

The producers should decide on what they want to do and stick with it. Sure, they can make subtle changes here and there, but it seems pointless to want to go back to basics, and film CR as Fleming wrote it, then throw everything out for Bond 22 and beyond. Otherwise, why do a reboot in the first place?

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 08 March 2007 - 08:03 PM.

[plankattack]

Very true, Auric. The source material has been around for years but was passed over due to the casting of the lead. Connery Bond only starts to look out of place when Fleming is replaced by Dahl and Mankiewicz. Was Fleming jettisoned during Sir Rog's tenure because of Rog or because it would have felt dated in the 70s? I'm not sure. I do know that TD doing Fleming's Bond required scripts that contained Fleming themes and ideas (LTK), and CR required an actor who could play Fleming's Bond, DC. Remember, the plan to make CR as it was originally intended was in place before a lead was.

Brozza, who some feel was great 'hybrid' Bond (I'm agree), was given 'hybrid scripts' -original stories twinged with Flemingesque touchstones (TWINE) rather than any source material.

So yes, ultimately choice of lead will determine remakes or readaptations. DC may not look like Fleming's Bond, but he sure as hell acts like him, a perfect case of casting doing a script justice.

Edited by plankattack, 08 March 2007 - 09:08 PM.

[LadySylvia]

The only reason EON Productions has remade "CASINO ROYALE" is because it was the only Fleming title that had not been filmed by them. After all, they had recently acquired the rights to it.

But since there are plenty of sources for Bond movies - the Gardner and Benson novels, why bother making remakes . . . or readapting the Fleming titles?

[Zorin Industries]

Very true, Auric. The source material has been around for years but was passed over due to the casting of the lead. Connery Bond only starts to look out of place when Fleming is replaced by Dahl and Mankiewicz. Was Fleming jettisoned during Sir Rog's tenure because of Rog or because it would have felt dated in the 70s? I'm not sure. I do know that TD doing Fleming's Bond required scripts that contained Fleming themes and ideas (LTK), and CR required an actor who could play Fleming's Bond, DC. Remember, the plan to make CR as it was originally intended was in place before a lead was.

Brozza, who some feel was great 'hybrid' Bond (I'm agree), was given 'hybrid scripts' -original stories twinged with Flemingesque touchstones (TWINE) rather than any source material.

So yes, ultimately choice of lead will determine remakes or readaptations. DC may not look like Fleming's Bond, but he sure as hell acts like him, a perfect case of casting doing a script justice.

Very well said. At last - a burst of fair-minded reality to the debate. For good or bad, the films and the cinematic world they operate in have to be separated from the works of Fleming.

The only reason EON Productions has remade "CASINO ROYALE" is because it was the only Fleming title that had not been filmed by them. After all, they had recently acquired the rights to it.

But since there are plenty of sources for Bond movies - the Gardner and Benson novels, why bother making remakes . . . or readapting the Fleming titles?

EON actually acquired the rights to CASINO ROYALE in 1999. Two Bond films passed since then. They didn't just make the film because "it was the only Fleming title left to them". They made it because the time was right, the script was right and the casting was right.

As for making the newer Bond novels into films.... Not so sure. My experience of John Gardner's novels is that they tend to read like unused DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE scripts with dodgy computer game titles and play-on-words that would embarrass the cast of POLICE ACADEMY.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 09 March 2007 - 09:54 AM.

[plankattack]

As for making the newer Bond novels into films.... Not so sure. My experience of John Gardner's novels is that they tend to read like unused DEMPSEY AND MAKEPEACE scripts with dodgy computer game titles and play-on-words that would embarrass the cast of POLICE ACADEMY.

I'd never thought of Gardner's novels that way, but now you mention it......The Dempsey and Makepeace will stay with me all day.....!!

(I confess, I am a sucker for 'The Facts of Death.' I do like how that sounds...

Edited by plankattack, 09 March 2007 - 12:42 PM.

[Skudor]

The only reason EON Productions has remade "CASINO ROYALE" is because it was the only Fleming title that had not been filmed by them. After all, they had recently acquired the rights to it.

But since there are plenty of sources for Bond movies - the Gardner and Benson novels, why bother making remakes . . . or readapting the Fleming titles?

Because they are vastly superior!

[Zorin Industries]

The only reason EON Productions has remade "CASINO ROYALE" is because it was the only Fleming title that had not been filmed by them. After all, they had recently acquired the rights to it.

But since there are plenty of sources for Bond movies - the Gardner and Benson novels, why bother making remakes . . . or readapting the Fleming titles?

Because they are vastly superior!

Are we talking about the cash-in novels or the Fleming originals?

Regarding the former titles I would say - and I will be honest and say I have not read all of them in great depth - but what I have reeks of a Middle England pedestalling of "upper class" minutae - particularly the Gardner books. Fleming was genuinely from that world and hence able to comment on it.

The Gardner novels I've read came across like they were written by a new Bond fan still excited about the trappings of the character and his world, but not entirely sure of the nuances, subtleties and tone of 007.

That's just my opinion.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 09 March 2007 - 01:00 PM.

[Blabbermouth]

I'm all for re-adapting the novels with respect to the work that Fleming wrote. As it has been said with CR there is a unique opportunity to convert the novels into films. Even when Cubby and Saltz started out they did not have this opportunity.

I have previously created threads about starting with Live and Let Die for Bond 22, and cannot see why this should not be done. I'm also all for keeping the original titles - the last Fleming title was 20 years ago and the way that audiences have embraced CR they will embrace a new faithful series of adaptation of Flemings novels.

My threads:

Live and Let Die

Moonraker

Diamonds are Forever

[Zorin Industries]

I'm all for re-adapting the novels with respect to the work that Fleming wrote. As it has been said with CR there is a unique opportunity to convert the novels into films. Even when Cubby and Saltz started out they did not have this opportunity.

I have previously created threads about starting with Live and Let Die for Bond 22, and cannot see why this should not be done. I'm also all for keeping the original titles - the last Fleming title was 20 years ago and the way that audiences have embraced CR they will embrace a new faithful series of adaptation of Flemings novels.

My threads:

Live and Let Die

Moonraker

Diamonds are Forever

Is there a Fleming title along the lines of [b]'Death Knell Of The Franchise' as I think that's what will happen if this was where Bond went. Though I have said that before on similiar threads so I will not harp on about it again now...

Edited by Zorin Industries, 09 March 2007 - 01:27 PM.

[plankattack]

I'm not convinced that original titles are necessary. The franchise has had a number of successful (and very good) films without Fleming titles. And I don't believe CR was successful because the general public wanted to see an accurate reflection of the original novel (what percentage of that $600million has even read the book?). CR was successful because it was a well-told story - which happens to be the strength of much of Fleming's source material.

Repeating titles would only confuse the general public - instead, isn't it more important to use usable unused (sorry about that) material, than just rehashing a title. I know many of us fans want to see the original novels done true justice, but the reality of life is that's just not going to happen with the original titles. EON hacked up the novels a long time ago - now they have no option to adapt what they can as best they can.

We were fortunate with CR because it was untouched in its entirety.

[00Twelve]

Granted, the entire premise of this thread isn't due to any realistic possibility that Mike & Babs are gonna go down the readaptation road, but more due to our collective joy at seeing the obvious benefits of returning to Fleming's material and tone with a fantastic actor who nails the role. True, they probably aren't gonna ever realize the original stories properly, much to the relief of some and the chagrin of others like myself, but the discussion of anything past this hour is just fun speculation, anyway. We do tend to get a little excited and driven, but that's just because we know that if the screenwriters were able to do with any of the other Flemings what they did with Casino Royale, Bond would find himself back in his prime.

[dodge]

Granted, the entire premise of this thread isn't due to any realistic possibility that Mike & Babs are gonna go down the readaptation road, but more due to our collective joy at seeing the obvious benefits of returning to Fleming's material and tone with a fantastic actor who nails the role. True, they probably aren't gonna ever realize the original stories properly, much to the relief of some and the chagrin of others like myself, but the discussion of anything past this hour is just fun speculation, anyway. We do tend to get a little excited and driven, but that's just because we know that if the screenwriters were able to do with any of the other Flemings what they did with Casino Royale, Bond would find himself back in his prime.

Whichever way we fly here, the irony's exquisite: that some who most enjoyed CR still foresee disaster in continuing along the path of Bond's literary roots. The best films in the series--CR, OHMSS, FRWL--have been generally faithful to Fleming without being slavish. They all knew when--and how--to update and rev the engines for film. Fleming himself, I suspect, would relish the irony: 'remakes', with new titles, that are in fact the first real 'adaptations' of his other books. He'd relish a lot less, I'm sure, the insulting notion that as a storyteller the best that he could do was rub two sticks together. Waiting for Eon to get it all right with their towering renditions of MR, DAF, YOLT, etc. I'm with you, brother, in wishing that they give it one more go or two. But it's a rainy Friday and with a gloomy heart I see the Zorinians winning. The world that Fleming wrought--in flames. Don't forget the marshmallows and sticks to roast them on.

[Zorin Industries]

Granted, the entire premise of this thread isn't due to any realistic possibility that Mike & Babs are gonna go down the readaptation road, but more due to our collective joy at seeing the obvious benefits of returning to Fleming's material and tone with a fantastic actor who nails the role. True, they probably aren't gonna ever realize the original stories properly, much to the relief of some and the chagrin of others like myself, but the discussion of anything past this hour is just fun speculation, anyway. We do tend to get a little excited and driven, but that's just because we know that if the screenwriters were able to do with any of the other Flemings what they did with Casino Royale, Bond would find himself back in his prime.

Whichever way we fly here, the irony's exquisite: that some who most enjoyed CR still foresee disaster in continuing along the path of Bond's literary roots. The best films in the series--CR, OHMSS, FRWL--have been generally faithful to Fleming without being slavish. They all knew when--and how--to update and rev the engines for film. Fleming himself, I suspect, would relish the irony: 'remakes', with new titles, that are in fact the first real 'adaptations' of his other books. He'd relish a lot less, I'm sure, the insulting notion that as a storyteller the best that he could do was rub two sticks together. Waiting for Eon to get it all right with their towering renditions of MR, DAF, YOLT, etc. I'm with you, brother, in wishing that they give it one more go or two. But it's a rainy Friday and with a gloomy heart I see the Zorinians winning. The world that Fleming wrought--in flames. Don't forget the marshmallows and sticks to roast them on.

Without starting an inavertent movement entitled "The Zorinians" (I'll take that dig as a friendly one...for now...), this site throws its posts out to everyone. There is no point surely in everyone agreeing with every opinion on this site. It is meant for debate. And sometimes in debate, we encounter views that are conflict with our own. I for one am very willing to agree that there are vast swathes of Fleming's odds and ends that could be re-moulded into future films. My only concern is that EON haven't done that already (which speaks volumes for the theory that recycling Fleming is the way forward).

Surely this site doesn't want to become some 007 love-fest with everyone admiring everyone else for re-reading John Gardner books before answering such 'far-reaching' questions such as "how old were you when you first read ROLE OF HONOUR?". Maybe I'm just some cynic, but I see Bond on screen as more dynamic, contemporary and interesting than that.

Horses for courses admittedly...

[00Twelve]

No, no, please DO debate. I know I sure will. I'm not taking my prosthetic arm and poisonous flower and going home yet. These threads would die without debate. I was hoping to spark some debate here. By the way, which of Benson's Union Trilogy novels is your favorite?

[dodge]

Granted, the entire premise of this thread isn't due to any realistic possibility that Mike & Babs are gonna go down the readaptation road, but more due to our collective joy at seeing the obvious benefits of returning to Fleming's material and tone with a fantastic actor who nails the role. True, they probably aren't gonna ever realize the original stories properly, much to the relief of some and the chagrin of others like myself, but the discussion of anything past this hour is just fun speculation, anyway. We do tend to get a little excited and driven, but that's just because we know that if the screenwriters were able to do with any of the other Flemings what they did with Casino Royale, Bond would find himself back in his prime.

Whichever way we fly here, the irony's exquisite: that some who most enjoyed CR still foresee disaster in continuing along the path of Bond's literary roots. The best films in the series--CR, OHMSS, FRWL--have been generally faithful to Fleming without being slavish. They all knew when--and how--to update and rev the engines for film. Fleming himself, I suspect, would relish the irony: 'remakes', with new titles, that are in fact the first real 'adaptations' of his other books. He'd relish a lot less, I'm sure, the insulting notion that as a storyteller the best that he could do was rub two sticks together. Waiting for Eon to get it all right with their towering renditions of MR, DAF, YOLT, etc. I'm with you, brother, in wishing that they give it one more go or two. But it's a rainy Friday and with a gloomy heart I see the Zorinians winning. The world that Fleming wrought--in flames. Don't forget the marshmallows and sticks to roast them on.

Without starting an inavertent movement entitled "The Zorinians" (I'll take that dig as a friendly one...for now...), this site throws its posts out to everyone. There is no point surely in everyone agreeing with every opinion on this site. It is meant for debate. And sometimes in debate, we encounter views that are conflict with our own. I for one am very willing to agree that there are vast swathes of Fleming's odds and ends that could be re-moulded into future films. My only concern is that EON haven't done that already (which speaks volumes for the theory that recycling Fleming is the way forward).
Surely this site doesn't want to become some 007 love-fest with everyone admiring everyone else for re-reading John Gardner books before answering such 'far-reaching' questions such as "how old were you when you first read ROLE OF HONOUR?". Maybe I'm just some cynic, but I see Bond on screen as more dynamic, contemporary and interesting than that.

Horses for courses admittedly...

Of course it was a friendly dig. The fact that we're constitutionally incapable of agreeing on most anything doesn't mean we can't be friends. I think Zorinians is a splendid name. But I sincerely do part company with you in limiting that poor stick-rubber Fleming to odds and ends that we might use. It's been proven, beyond doubt, on least three occasions--FRWL, OHMSS and CR--that whole BOOKS make wonderful films. Anyway, agree or not, I've still got you whipped here: I offer the Dodgeians vigorous opinions that can cure Male Pattern Baldness, melt love handles away in days and even vanquish cellulite and speed up alimony checks.

[MHazard]

I'm willing to provoke debate or perhaps venom. Personally, I've found the more that the movies rejected the Fleming elements from the book, the worse they've been. For example does anyone think DAF was a better movie because Blofeld wanted the diamonds to power a laser rather than just being a diamond smuggling case? I know it's a taste thing but I'm unable to watch the Moore movies whose scripts had almost nothing to do with the books they were supposedly based on and Brosnan, while a good actor, never seemed to me to be playing James Bond, which may be due to the fact that he never had a Fleming based script to work with. In LTK, they took "elements" of Fleming (Felix Leiter being fed to the sharks, etc., but without an intelligent Fleming plot I thought it was a hash). So, I agree that the best movies have been those closest to the book and I would also include DN and GF in there.