187 replies to this topic

[Santa]

I'm a conscientious objector.

[Judo chop]

I hate being that guy who is caught between conversations, trying to stay in the game! Plus, "00Twelve" doesn't lend itself gracefully to the formation of a party title. And as a side-note, I feel like such a politician by framing a debate with the term "readaptation" and a refusal to call this idea a bunch of "remakes." (Only because it's true.)

Twelve, I can only suggest you form a party of your own, a third way perhaps, or maybe even a twelth way.

Judo, I'm with you, though Dodge, I agree and respect your views on OHMSS that even though I feel it's untouchable, I would let you lose as Judo suggests. Yes, I'm seeing it now - DC picking up the shoe on the beach, looking past the camera and saying "I'll get crucified on the web for letting this happen."

[Santa]

I'm getting very confused by this thread, but can happily say I don't really find men that mysterious. They're no trouble.

ahh, my dear, but the best of the worst of us are. We just like you think we're no trouble.

Oh trust me, I can handle the likes of you

[dodge]

I'm getting very confused by this thread, but can happily say I don't really find men that mysterious. They're no trouble.

ahh, my dear, but the best of the worst of us are. We just like you think we're no trouble.

Oh trust me, I can handle the likes of you

Allow me to leave you with that last of your cherished illusions.

[LadySylvia]

Are Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson too cheap to consider the John Gardner or Raymond Benson novels as source for future Bond movies?

[Craig is 007]

I dont want EON to remake movies, but not all the novels has been used yet. they have different elements from some novels, like TMWTGG, where Bond tries to kill M, and they have many scenes from YOLT. And TSWLM novel hasn't been used at all(Only the character Horror, which is the real name of Jaws).
And I am all for the Gardner and Benson novels;)

Edited by Craig is 007, 15 March 2007 - 09:36 PM.

[00Twelve]

Are Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson too cheap to consider the John Gardner or Raymond Benson novels as source for future Bond movies?

I wasn't as big a fan of Gardner, anyway, but I think they refrain from adapting Benson because Benson's books reflected the Brosnan years a lot, mostly in the way they read like movies and carried more of the lighthearted tone of the movies than the Fleming books. And I think now, as I interpret CR, they wanna get away from that tone. Granted, I liked Benson too (though I did feel half his titles were regurgitations of "die" "kill" and other "bondian" terms), and have all his novels, but I don't know how well they'd translate in the post-Broz time.

[00Twelve]

There seems to be a lot of flack for readapting the Fleming novels lately. I don't see how bringing a previously adapted novel to screen is insulting to the actors or fans when the previous adaptation had next to nothing to do with the source material (granted, OHMSS, TB, FRWL, and GF were generally faithful films). It's like saying Batman Begins is a remake of Tim Burton's Batman or the series. It's not at all. It's a readaptation of the comic. And Tim Burton's Batman ain't going anywhere, and its reputation isn't going anywhere it hadn't already been. It's nowhere near the same thing as cutting an entire actor out of a film, like with Sebastian Shaw and Clive Revell (Original Anakin and emperor) in ROTJ & ESB, which Lucas has even rectified by making the originals available.

[LadySylvia]

I can understand EON Productions doing CASINO ROYALE, since it was the first time they had done so. But if they decide to remake those films they had already released - LIVE AND LET DIE, etc., I can tell you right now that I will not waste my time on seeing it in the theater or buying it on DVD.

[dodge]

There seems to be a lot of flack for readapting the Fleming novels lately. I don't see how bringing a previously adapted novel to screen is insulting to the actors or fans when the previous adaptation had next to nothing to do with the source material (granted, OHMSS, TB, FRWL, and GF were generally faithful films). It's like saying Batman Begins is a remake of Tim Burton's Batman or the series. It's not at all. It's a readaptation of the comic. And Tim Burton's Batman ain't going anywhere, and its reputation isn't going anywhere it hadn't already been. It's nowhere near the same thing as cutting an entire actor out of a film, like with Sebastian Shaw and Clive Revell (Original Anakin and emperor) in ROTJ & ESB, which Lucas has even rectified by making the originals available.

All of Shakespeare's plays have been 'remade' for hundreds of years now. And, except for cinematic cuts, they've stuck to the text. No one argues. Different takes for different times. Now, no one would compare Fleming to Shakespeare. Yet so many seem upset by the prospect of 'remaking' certain films that weren't even true to the novels. We accept different Bonds with completely different styles, different M's, different Leiters. If it would help ease the pain, then a faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die could be called something else. But, really now, why need it be? The original films will remain on our shelves. Me, I'm all for updated versions of any of the films--above all, of those that simply used Fleming's titles. What could be less sacrilegious?
Let's have another new Midsummer Night's Dream and a new Live and Let Die!

[plankattack]

Now, no one would compare Fleming to Shakespeare.

Why not? They are both popular entertainment to the general mass audiences of their times.

[dodge]

Now, no one would compare Fleming to Shakespeare.

Why not? They are both popular entertainment to the general mass audiences of their times.

Plan, that's a very valid point--and Shakespeare, by most accounts, was every bit as interested in making money as was Fleming. I avoided a quality-comparison for fear that the point I was trying to make would get lost: an argument about which was the better writer would have taken us all off point. Now that you've raised the point, I clink my glass to yours. And I'll also toast Alexandre Dumas, whose Count of Monte Cristo and Three Musketeers have both been remade countless times to the delight of new generations.

[00Twelve]

Dodge, you just helped me to realize how to articulate how I feel about the subject (so thanks!).

A story that originates as a film and does so in a prolific way would (or should) be totally out of bounds for re-envisioning. There will not be another Godfather, or French Connection, or Shawshank, or Butch Cassidy, or Star Wars, etc. But our beloved Bond films, much as we hold them dear, didn't originate with their own screenplay. They originated earlier, with novels and short stories. THOSE are the source of the character and material. Like Shakespeare stories. Thus, I feel a film that looks like said novel, and nothing like one other film adaptation (which never looked like the novel anyway), is credible. Let me apologize for harping on this subject, but it's one of two major directions in which the series can now go. The series can go on with totally new stories and forget bringing the former adventures back into new continuity (or pretend the older movies came "after" CR, thus going the Jack Ryan route and self-destructing the franchise), or revisit the Fleming novels in a better way than has ever been done. I'm just in favor of the latter, though I'll trust EON's choices and support Bond 22, 23, and so on, no matter what. I'm just a neurotic guy who appreciates the organization of chronological continuity (too much?).

[Judo chop]

All of Shakespeare's plays have been 'remade' for hundreds of years now. And, except for cinematic cuts, they've stuck to the text. No one argues. Different takes for different times. Now, no one would compare Fleming to Shakespeare. Yet so many seem upset by the prospect of 'remaking' certain films that weren't even true to the novels. We accept different Bonds with completely different styles, different M's, different Leiters. If it would help ease the pain, then a faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die could be called something else. But, really now, why need it be? The original films will remain on our shelves. Me, I'm all for updated versions of any of the films--above all, of those that simply used Fleming's titles. What could be less sacrilegious?
Let's have another new Midsummer Night's Dream and a new Live and Let Die!

Right! If EON is going to do a faithful adaptation of Fleming

[plankattack]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='716214' date='21 March 2007 - 16:49']2) They don

Edited by plankattack, 21 March 2007 - 10:13 PM.

[MHazard]

No one would say that you can't do another Sherlock Holmes movie because Basil Rathbone already did them. I think a lot of this has to do with whether you think of Bond as a literary character or as a movie action hero. If you think of him as a literary character then why not feel free to take another crack at a book you don't feel was properly adapted. If you see him as a movie action hero, and that's your frame of reference, then perhaps you think once it's been done, you shouldn't do it again. I'm a Fleming guy, so I say you can always try to do the book better and you should give it the book's title when you do. Would it confuse Joe Casual Fan, maybe, but I think particularly with the success of CR, the right publicity would give them what to expect. And the books are mostly fabulous and better adaptations of some of them could be quite successful.

[plankattack]

No one would say that you can't do another Sherlock Holmes movie because Basil Rathbone already did them. I think a lot of this has to do with whether you think of Bond as a literary character or as a movie action hero. If you think of him as a literary character then why not feel free to take another crack at a book you don't feel was properly adapted. If you see him as a movie action hero, and that's your frame of reference, then perhaps you think once it's been done, you shouldn't do it again. I'm a Fleming guy, so I say you can always try to do the book better and you should give it the book's title when you do. Would it confuse Joe Casual Fan, maybe, but I think particularly with the success of CR, the right publicity would give them what to expect. And the books are mostly fabulous and better adaptations of some of them could be quite successful.

M - don't get me wrong. I want to see as much original Fleming up on screen. I was one of many earlier in the thread who feels that YOLT has so much to offer the current Bond as a dark, atmospheric, thriller that done right, could stay with the viewer awhile.

The last five movies have all been big hits, but as been my point all week (I'm like a broken record, aren't I/ ) the last Bond before that hiatus was a flop. And yet it had TD and a plot ripped from LALD the novel. Were all those things related? Who knows, but I do know the movie earned about twelve bucks in the globe's biggest market and the next thing you know, there's no Bond on screen for six years.

My only point is, I'm not yet convinced that the masses are into our new, literature-inspired Bond, and for better or for worse, these films get made for the masses. We've all heard (or at least read about them here) of the "didn't feel like Bond" chatter. Heck, we've heard that from many of our own members.

If adjusting the title to get original material on the screen is the price to be paid, then I have no problem paying it. I loved LTK, especially when he read the note on Felix's body. I knew I was watching Fleming. Whether Joe Public did or not, well, I can't let that be my concern.

Edited by plankattack, 21 March 2007 - 10:27 PM.

[LadySylvia]

I don't see the need to remake some of the movies so that they would adhere closer to Fleming's novels. Why? There were many cases in which Fleming's plots were not that to begin with and EON's writers had to do something to improve them. Sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't.

I don't understand why many fans believe if the movies adhere closer to the novels, it would make the movies better. Honestly, I think it all depends upon the story. And I certainly think it is a waste of time for EON Productions to turn around and remake all of those titles that certain fans believe should be remade. I think they would consider it a waste of their time, especially if the old titles are still making money on the DVD market.

I think that EON Productions should consider the Gardner and Benson stories. So what if they had used some elements from those novels in recent Bond movies? They have adapted the entire novels. And quite frankly, I don't think that Fleming's novels are better or worse than the Gardener or Benson novels. As a writer, I think that he was overrated.

[TheREAL008]

New era. New Bond.

Since this Bond 2.1 and heading towards Bond 2.2 Why not readapt the novels into the newer movies? It really wouldn't be repeating themselvs if it happened that way and we could finally have some sort of continunity and the fans of Fleming's work can finally have something that resembles and carries on Ian's spirit.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[LadySylvia]

New era. New Bond.

Since this Bond 2.1 and heading towards Bond 2.2 Why not readapt the novels into the newer movies? It really wouldn't be repeating themselvs if it happened that way and we could finally have some sort of continunity and the fans of Fleming's work can finally have something that resembles and carries on Ian's spirit.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

For me, it would be a matter of EON Productions repeating itself. Thanks but no thanks. If they decide to remake their old titles, they're going to lose a fan.

[triviachamp]

I don't want to seem them remade. That would make EON look like they are out of ideas and are just spinning their wheels. Not to mention they will be "updated" and "improved" just like the "unfaithful" old movies. So what is the point? They will have more Fleming but they will still seem the same.

Now if a totally new production company took over and completely ditched the formula (I mean completely) then I would agree.

Despite the "reboot" it is clearly still the same series and rehashing the old ones looks desperate.

As for Gardner and Benson they are pastiches. I don't see why they should bother paying these guys money for books no one has heard of when they can make up their own plots. When someone makes a Sherlock Holmes movie they either use Doyle or make up their own story. There are exceptions of course (such as The Ten Percent Solution) but those are regarded as "real" literature not pastiches.

Edited by triviachamp, 22 March 2007 - 04:20 AM.

[Santa]

Remake the novels, please, that's what I want to see but PLEASE DON"T USE THE SAME TITLES! Ooops, sorry about that, my finger got stuck... Please don't use the same titles. Look at how divided we are over just the idea of it. Wait until the more casual fan and the plebs get their hands on this idea. Or in fact, don't. I don't want to be caught in the middle of the kind of poo throwing we saw when DC was named as James Bond. For their own reasons, it seems people get rather upset when you monkey with Bond tradition, so I think we need to be a bit gentler with them. The unnecessary but inevitable debate it will provoke is just so boring.
Oh, and I just don't like it.

[Zorin Industries]

Are Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson too cheap to consider the John Gardner or Raymond Benson novels as source for future Bond movies?

"Too cheap?". That is not something I would throw at the pair. Far from it in fact.

[MHazard]

I too, have wondered why the producers didn't consider using Gardner and Benson books, instead of plots that were manufactured from whole cloth and really didn't seem like Bond at all, except for the name of the character. Having said that, the Gardner and Benson books only seem good until you read a Fleming in close proximiity in time. When I did this I realized how inferior the writing was. Also, there's a big drop off in quality from the first book Gardner and Fleming wrote to the last. License Renewed, For Special Services, and Zero Minus Ten would all probably make better movies than many that have been filmed. But the last books each did weren't very good. In any case, why do them when you have Fleming books like YOLT and MR that have never really been done. I still think how you come out on this debate depends primarily on whether you view Bond as a Fleming literary hero or a movie action guy. It's like the post on another topic "Who do you see in your head as Bond?". If your answer is the guy with the scar in the books you probably come down one way. If your answer is Roger Moore you come down a different way. Lady Sylvia thinks Fleming was overrated so she doesn't want them to re-do the movies. I get upset about elements in CR, OHMSS and FRWL, all fine movies, that don't follow Fleming. So, your views on this are really a matter of perspective. I would also note that there have been more than one version of Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe novels, some of which had different titles but were based on the same book. Then again, Phillip Marlowe never had the cultural impact of our James.

[00Twelve]

For me, it's just like a comic book hero. I would much rather see a good adaptation of a comic book story arc than a made-up story when there is so much history. For instance, what Superman fan doesn't want to see the Death/Return story done right? What Batman fan would rather see movies that chuck characters like the Joker, Penguin, and Riddler just because they've already been done before (and in most cases, almost unsurpassably well)? What X-Men comic fan doesn't lament X3's take on the Phoenix Saga and the death of Cyclops, Jean, and Professor X (yes, I saw the very end)? (Btw, Harry Knowles in his review of X3 likened it to X1 being Dr. No, X2 being FRWL, and X3 being GF-MR in one movie, and shorter than the first two! LOL)

Bond has begun again. The drive's been formatted. It seems unfortunate that so many pivotal people in the character's life will always remain dated and never seen again in a new time, part of an era that has come to an end. It's not a big issue in life or anything by any stretch of the imagination, just lamentable. Ah well, it's all still great and Bond isn't going anywhere.

As far as the continuation novels, the reason this debate is a little different is that the possible opportunity to do the old novels justice is only now coming to pass. The opportunity to use Gardner and Benson has been around for over 2 decades, and it seems obvious they're not interested. I'm sorry, because about 1/4 of all those seem actually worthy of a screenplay, minus the movie cliches that the authors felt neccessary to add.

So, just one hypothetical question... if they made, say, LALD next, and called it that or something else, called the girl like, Simone Latrelle and the bad guy Ouroboros or something, had no mention of New Orleans or any fake Caribbean islands or heroin or speedboats or redneck sheriffs, and made a DYNAMITE movie with Daniel Craig surpassing himself, then some of you still would refuse to watch it out of principle?

[dodge]

For me, it's just like a comic book hero. I would much rather see a good adaptation of a comic book story arc than a made-up story when there is so much history. For instance, what Superman fan doesn't want to see the Death/Return story done right? What Batman fan would rather see movies that chuck characters like the Joker, Penguin, and Riddler just because they've already been done before (and in most cases, almost unsurpassably well)? What X-Men comic fan doesn't lament X3's take on the Phoenix Saga and the death of Cyclops, Jean, and Professor X (yes, I saw the very end)? (Btw, Harry Knowles in his review of X3 likened it to X1 being Dr. No, X2 being FRWL, and X3 being GF-MR in one movie, and shorter than the first two! LOL)

Bond has begun again. The drive's been formatted. It seems unfortunate that so many pivotal people in the character's life will always remain dated and never seen again in a new time, part of an era that has come to an end. It's not a big issue in life or anything by any stretch of the imagination, just lamentable. Ah well, it's all still great and Bond isn't going anywhere.

As far as the continuation novels, the reason this debate is a little different is that the possible opportunity to do the old novels justice is only now coming to pass. The opportunity to use Gardner and Benson has been around for over 2 decades, and it seems obvious they're not interested. I'm sorry, because about 1/4 of all those seem actually worthy of a screenplay, minus the movie cliches that the authors felt neccessary to add.

So, just one hypothetical question... if they made, say, LALD next, and called it that or something else, called the girl like, Simone Latrelle and the bad guy Ouroboros or something, had no mention of New Orleans or any fake Caribbean islands or heroin or speedboats or redneck sheriffs, and made a DYNAMITE movie with Daniel Craig surpassing himself, then some of you still would refuse to watch it out of principle?

It's beginning to seem as if many would either refuse to watch--or to enjoy the result. I respect all opinions. But I'm frankly underwhelmed by the non-argument that Fleming was an overrated author--and if that if the novels had really had all that good, then Eon would have filmed them as the books were written. After the smashing success of GF cold commercial decisions were made: to capitalize on what the film makers felt had been the real reasons for its success: the spectacular finale, the epic sweep, the tongue in cheek humor, etc. One of the results was a franchise that has been going strong for nearly half a century. Another result was that Ian Fleming pretty much got lost in the shuffle...relegated to the role of Provider of Titles. Well, 40-plus years of Strategy A is a good long run, but it was running out of gas. Strategy B, with CR, was to return to Fleming. Almost no one denies that the results were superb. Not a slavish version of the book--an inspired adaptation. Lightning can strike twice, friends. We have nothing to lose by removing our blinders and paying respect to its source.

Meanwhile, I look forward to the next imaginative adaptation of The Big Sleep, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Phantom of the Opera, The Three Musketeers...or fifty other classics by popular 'hacks' cut from the same cloth as Fleming.

Edited by dodge, 22 March 2007 - 02:10 PM.

[00Twelve]

dodge, you know someone is going to accuse you of putting Fleming up there with the IMMORTAL Dumas, right?

[Safari Suit]

I think some of us might be more open to the idea, and I certainly am not completely opposed, if we hadn't been deluged with a spate of inferior, pointless and inept remakes the past four years. I realise these films would be nothing like that, but it's still a huge emotional block to get past.

To reiterate, for me:
Fleming material incorporated into films with new titles-no problem
Same titles-some reservation

It's silly and it's petty, but I can't help it.

[Judo chop]

I step away for an evening and look what happens! I might have to book some time on my work calendar just to give me a chance to catch up.

[dodge]

dodge, you know someone is going to accuse you of putting Fleming up there with the IMMORTAL Dumas, right?

LOL. And here's a Dumas sidebar. Dumas was a pioneer in another regard: the first real fiction factory. The man wrote some 200 books, up to 1000 pages in length And, of course, these were all written long-hand. How? He had a large staff of assistants and scribes who did his research--and wrote the parts that bored him or were beyond his reach. He was notorious for this in his day, even sued for plagiarism. More plant superintendent than author.