187 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

[quote name='plankattack' post='716222' date='21 March 2007 - 17:08'][quote name='Judo chop' post='716214' date='21 March 2007 - 16:49']2) They don

[00Twelve]

Gators and hooks and cueballs, oh my. Indeed. I think if the public didn't pan Casino Royale and say it jumped the shark by formatting the continuity hard drive, it won't do it now. Oh, and by the way, Judo... Shotgun.

[plankattack]

Judo - you convinced me, I'm in. But in the back? Behind 12? Can I least pick the music?


Are we there yet?

[Safari Suit]

As far as the confused Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public... well, who are we talking about here? Not the youngins surely (those still climbing the hill) - they wouldn't know anything about 1973 Bond unless they got dizzy at their local Blockbuster store, wandered too far from the "New Releases" section into the old crusty action section, tripped and fell and noticed the bottom shelf with all the Bond films prior to Pierce Brosnan. As I said, these folks are used to the remade film. The younger ones didn't know anything about "Amityville Horror" or "Miami Vice" until the releases of the remakes. They will accept a new LALD because they know and care nothing of the original.

I don't think this is true. There are "young" people out there who have seen films that stretch before this decade. The Bond franchise is something of great fame. The films are shown on TV often, the DVDs sell well and it has always had a great deal of popularity among kids; I imagine there are more than a few out there who have seen/know about the earlier Bond films. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as crystal clear as you suggest.

[Judo chop]

Judo - you convinced me, I'm in. But in the back? Behind 12? Can I least pick the music?


Are we there yet?

Harlem here we come!!!

(I think it

[Judo chop]

As far as the confused Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public... well, who are we talking about here? Not the youngins surely (those still climbing the hill) - they wouldn't know anything about 1973 Bond unless they got dizzy at their local Blockbuster store, wandered too far from the "New Releases" section into the old crusty action section, tripped and fell and noticed the bottom shelf with all the Bond films prior to Pierce Brosnan. As I said, these folks are used to the remade film. The younger ones didn't know anything about "Amityville Horror" or "Miami Vice" until the releases of the remakes. They will accept a new LALD because they know and care nothing of the original.

I don't think this is true. There are "young" people out there who have seen films that stretch before this decade. The Bond franchise is something of great fame. The films are shown on TV often, the DVDs sell well and it has always had a great deal of popularity among kids; I imagine there are more than a few out there who have seen/know about the earlier Bond films. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as crystal clear as you suggest.

Well, I had to make it sound b&w to get people in the car. We can discuss details once rubber hits tar.

I did generalize the youth demographic and it does cover a large range of people. (39 year olds might be thanking me for having included them in such a category.)

Still, I think there are a minimal amount of people below the age of 30 who could tell you ANYTHING about YOLT or LALD or MR. There are some - as you said, Bond is unusually popular and does make its annual appearance in TV marathons and so forth... but I'd feel comfortable putting my money on the bet that these are the minority. I just think of my same-aged family and friends as my own research pool. Not a one of them knows anything specific about pre-Brosnan Bond that I haven't first forced them to learn.

The real question is: Are there enough knowledgeable youth, who care SO MUCH about the original LALD of 1973 to turn the tide of box office success for a remake of LALD using the same title?

can't believe it.

[Safari Suit]

I guess it must be different over here. The "classic" Bond films are probably better ingrained in the popular culture.

[Santa]

Who's with me! Plank? Santa?
Come on! I'll drive!!!

I think I'll stay home and wash my hair...

Oh, and Dumas is highly overrated. IMHO.

[dodge]

As far as the confused Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public... well, who are we talking about here? Not the youngins surely (those still climbing the hill) - they wouldn't know anything about 1973 Bond unless they got dizzy at their local Blockbuster store, wandered too far from the "New Releases" section into the old crusty action section, tripped and fell and noticed the bottom shelf with all the Bond films prior to Pierce Brosnan. As I said, these folks are used to the remade film. The younger ones didn't know anything about "Amityville Horror" or "Miami Vice" until the releases of the remakes. They will accept a new LALD because they know and care nothing of the original.

I don't think this is true. There are "young" people out there who have seen films that stretch before this decade. The Bond franchise is something of great fame. The films are shown on TV often, the DVDs sell well and it has always had a great deal of popularity among kids; I imagine there are more than a few out there who have seen/know about the earlier Bond films. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as crystal clear as you suggest.

You're right, of course, Safari...and yet I think you're straying from the heart of Judo's point and the one I tried to raise. A very few Bond films were based on Fleming novels. Most were based on Fleming titles, no more. There may be thousands, even tens of thousands, of students of film history, Bond films in particular. At the end of the day, though,sights must be trained on millions, not thousands, of viewers. And the millions may have heard of previous Bonds but they won't be troubled in the least by the issue that divides us now. Remakes and sequels are all the rage. They simply do not give a hoot Dad or Mom or Grandpa shout 'Leave that film alone!'

Let me close by returning to my favorite example: The Count of Monte Cristo. One generation wants the focus on the escape from the prison. Another wants the focus on the Count's revenge. But even the revenge spanned several decades and was diabolically complex. A money-minded, hip young crowd may want a faithful, detailed rendering of Dantes' financial destruction of his enemies.

We don't lose the Moore Bond by remaking, say, LALD. We don't lose our treasured memories. We get a bold and brand-new take starring a new Bond in a version grounded in the book. Where we had one, we now have two that thrill us in different ways. When we're twice richer, how are we poorer?

[Judo chop]

I guess it must be different over here. The "classic" Bond films are probably better ingrained in the popular culture.

Hadn't considered that. That may be true.

(Yes, an American who spoke before he considered a culture outside of his own. Unprecedented, I know. ))

I guess we'll only be able to show the new LALD in the states.

[Safari Suit]

You're right, of course, Safari...and yet I think you're straying from the heart of Judo's point and the one I tried to raise. A very few Bond films were based on Fleming novels. Most were based on Fleming titles, no more. There may be thousands, even tens of thousands, of students of film history, Bond films in particular. At the end of the day, though,sights must be trained on millions, not thousands, of viewers. And the millions may have heard of previous Bonds but they won't be troubled in the least by the issue that divides us now. Remakes and sequels are all the rage. They simply do not give a hoot Dad or Mom or Grandpa shout 'Leave that film alone!'

Let me close by returning to my favorite example: The Count of Monte Cristo. One generation wants the focus on the escape from the prison. Another wants the focus on the Count's revenge. But even the revenge spanned several decades and was diabolically complex. A money-minded, hip young crowd may want a faithful, detailed rendering of Dantes' financial destruction of his enemies.

We don't lose the Moore Bond by remaking, say, LALD. We don't lose our treasured memories. We get a bold and brand-new take starring a new Bond in a version grounded in the book. Where we had one, we now have two that thrill us in different ways. When we're twice richer, how are we poorer?

I am aware of all this, and I do not strictly object to the ideas of "re-adaptions". I was merely saying that I believe awareness of previous Bond films among younger audiences is much greater than some seem to think.

[00Twelve]

I guess it must be different over here. The "classic" Bond films are probably better ingrained in the popular culture.

Hadn't considered that. That may be true.

(Yes, an American who spoke before he considered a culture outside of his own. Unprecedented, I know. ))

I guess we'll only be able to show the new LALD in the states.

Maybe the Brits have the same problem with Rocky.

[MHazard]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='716537' date='22 March 2007 - 11:44'][quote name='plankattack' post='716530' date='22 March 2007 - 10:28']Judo - you convinced me, I'm in. But in the back? Behind 12? Can I least pick the music?


Are we there yet?[/quote]

Harlem here we come!!!

(I think it

[00Twelve]

I'm waiting for someone to call, "BACK-SEAT-IN-THE-MIDDLE-WITH-MY-FEET-ON-THE-HUMP!"

[Santa]

I'd say that would be Dodge but I think you'd be better off strapping him to the roof...

[Judo chop]

Hey, Judo, can I work... the ejector seat?

You must be joking.

[dodge]

I'd say that would be Dodge but I think you'd be better off strapping him to the roof...

Good of you to say that. Always loved the roof. Best place to be if you'd shoot for the stars.

Edited by dodge, 22 March 2007 - 05:46 PM.

[MHazard]

Yeah, but don't block the ejector seat.

[plankattack]

Who's with me! Plank? Santa?
Come on! I'll drive!!!

I think I'll stay home and wash my hair...

Oh, and Dumas is highly overrated. IMHO.

Santa - where's your sense of adventure?

[Santa]

But I have nothing to wear for our little outing! Every outing requires new shoes, at least. Particularly if I'm strapped to the roof with Dodge, everyone will see them! What was this about? Oh yes, I'm not coming because I don't want them to reuse titles. JC, you've clearly had too much to drink and shouldn't be the one driving if you think that's a good idea.

[RazorBlade]

I'm converted. I wasn't so sure about remakes or readaptations. I just wanted something really good, no make that excellent, and interesting for Bond 22. I'm not hard to please.

What I didn't want was the same old tired formula from the 70's that so many are crying for. But now, I could go for a different adaptation of LALD or MOONRAKER or even TB.

The problem we face that no one here has addressed yet is the pressure the filmmakers are going to be under to keep remaking CR. That is a problem with any franchise.

Of course truly literal remakes a la Masterpiece Theater of the books and short stories could be done for TV. See the thread under future films bond 23.

Edited by RazorBlade, 26 March 2007 - 07:25 AM.

[MHazard]

If the filmakers are under pressure to keep making CR, what could better fulfill the pressure than a re-adaptation of the next book that follows CR, LALD (perhaps with some updating of some elements that might sound racist). Forest Whitaker is Mr. Big?

[00Twelve]

Thought about him as well. I was also thinking (and this is probably a TERRIBLE idea...) that even good ol' Yaphet could come back and do it again. Mr. Big's not a phyiscal role, and he's supposed to look older than he is (50's). Though that might encourage people to think of this prospect as just a LALD movie remake...which, of course, isn't the case. The only problem is that he's supposed to be a brick wall as well.

[Judo chop]

Forest Whitaker is Mr. Big?

Only if he promises to behave nothing like he has in all of the films I've seen him in (Platoon, Good Morning Vietnam, The Crying Game, Body Snatchers, Species, Phenomenon, Ghost Dog , Panic Room...)

Forest is purported to be a fantastic actor by many and I have tried to see it - I swear I have! - but I find the guy's only got one channel. He's always mopey and tiresome. And as 0012 points out, we're looking for a brick wall. Forest is a jello mold. Not qualities I'd want in my new Mr. Big.

I'll be open-minded and take everyone's word that he's the virtuoso they say he is and EON can sign him up, but first I want to hear him PROMISE he'll be different this time.

[blackjack60]

Personally, I've found the more that the movies rejected the Fleming elements from the book, the worse they've been.

Pretty much true.

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).

The plot of LTK seemed to me a good deal more intelligent than almost all of Fleming's plots (it's certainly a better version of Bond getting in good graces with a Latinate villain than TWTGG was). Films are not just stories, and Fleming' appeal isn't merely in his plots, which were often nonsensical. How a film's story is told and the images it uses to do so are every bit as important as its story, and Fleming's imagination is the real saving grace of his work. I don't read Fleming for his plots--I read him for practically everything else. Being true to Fleming on film means trying to capture and cherry-pick the ambiance, mood, characters, action, and near-surreal elements that make his novels page-turners. Both GF and OHMSS deviate considerably from Fleming's plots, but they do so in order to strengthen and enhance elements from the books, rather than throwing away the book entirely. By grappling with Fleming, they improved on him in certain respects--both GF and OHMSS are better than their source novels (though no other Fleming adaptations are).

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.

Bond wasn't onscreen for six years due to legal issues, and LTK did quite well internationally. In America it had the misfortune of being released in the middle of about 50 other blockbusters (CR was wisely released in the fall, as were some of Brosnan's entries) and suffered from a piss-poor ad campaign.

My only point is, I'm not yet convinced that the masses are into our new, literature-inspired Bond

The masses never will be. Nor should future movies be promoted to the public as true to the books, since the public couldn't care less. The public liked CR because it was more intensely down to earth than other bonds but still stylishly dark. That wouldn't have been possible without Fleming. Fleming will always be the touchstone for Bond--the character grew out of the DNA provided by the books, and just as even camels have to refresh themselves at a well, movie-Bond occasionally has to look bookward if he's to remain true to his core concept. That's why pastiche-makers like Gardner and Benson don't and shouldn't get adapted. The films are already in the pastiche business. They don't need to pastiche a pastiche (we've seen the result--TND).

I was also thinking (and this is probably a TERRIBLE idea...) that even good ol' Yaphet could come back and do it again. Mr. Big's not a phyiscal role, and he's supposed to look older than he is (50's).

Mr. Big is a physical role--not because the character has to climb up buildings or anything like that--but because it requires physical presence. Fleming's Mr.Big is ing scary--he has the looks and authority of someone from out of your worst nightmare. You don't want to meet someone like that in a dark alley--you don't even want him staring at you in a well-lit room, because he can see through to your soul. This is someone who can make you feel the power of voodoo, someone who really could pass for Baron Samedi. Kotto is a fine actor, but he just seemed like an ordinary gangster. Even the comic-strip adaptation of LALD, which is faithful to Fleming's story, makes Mr.Big look more like Farrakhan on a nice day than an Olympian supervillain with yellow eyes of death and the skin of a week-old corpse in a river.

As for the original question of this thread...
I can see a closer adaptation of LALD as Craig's next film. I can even see them reusing the title. Audiences nowadays are extremely familiar with remakes. Practically every week a horror remake gets released onscreen, to lucrative results. Very few people consider the original LALD to be an immortal classic anyway. So by all means, let Craig get LALD right.
The problem comes with further Fleming titles....Moonraker has been recently adapted by DAD. Diamonds isn't strong on plot, but lots of its incidents and characters would work very well onscreen. I'd love to see a non-bimbo Tiffany Case. FRWL and DN and GF and TB are out for obvious reasons. YOLT wouldn't work without OHMSS, and there's no point in remaking that mostly perfect film. TMWTGG could be stripped for its opening, which would work like gangbusters in introducing a new Bond (if Craig went missing at the end of his last film). And "The Hildebrand Rarity" ought to be adapted someday, as should scenes from TSWLM.

But a series of direct and close adaptations ultimately wouldn't work on film. If we want to see Fleming's books faithfuly adapted in period and in sequence, the project would work much better in animated format. In animated format you could even re-adapt books like Doctor No because in many ways they'd work better in the cartoon medium than in live action--the period feel and squid scene especially.
But in movies the key is ultimately less in following Fleming by the letter than in spirit. You don't have to follow the plots, but there are always bits and pieces of action, dialogue, and mood and location that would work well onscreen and keep Bond anchored to his original soul and roots. Fleming should serve as an eternal reference point for the screenwriters--a guide to the character and his world. Directors don't have to have read Fleming, but any screenwriter working on the films should, so that he won't veer too far away from the core of James Bond and his universe. That's what happened during the later Connery years and during much of Moore's reign, though one should note that the screenwriters knew their Fleming perfectly well. But they jettisoned him because they thought the formula they'd built of aping Goldfinger was the key to success. It wasn't, and Casino Royale's success is proof of that. Fleming is the touchstone--ignore him at your peril.

Edited by blackjack60, 26 March 2007 - 04:30 PM.

[dodge]

I have the perfect solution, I think--and one that should spare Judo any nightmares of the Forest. What about dear, dead President David Palmer from 24? The big, charismatic black actor now starring in The Unit?

[Judo chop]

As for the original question of this thread...
I can see a closer adaptation of LALD as Craig's next film. I can even see them reusing the title. Audiences nowadays are extremely familiar with remakes. Practically every week a horror remake gets released onscreen, to lucrative results. Very few people consider the original LALD to be an immortal classic anyway. So by all means, let Craig get LALD right.

Welcome aboard Blackjack!

The problem comes with further Fleming titles...

Definitely. Even the few of us who would like to see re-adaptations of the same titles will be quick to admit there are only a few of Fleming's novels that would be appropriate to work with. LALD, YOLT and MR tend to be the popular votes. (They happen to be my votes too.)

Fleming is the touchstone--ignore him at your peril.

"I wouldn't dream of it."

[Judo chop]

I have the perfect solution, I think--and one that should spare Judo any nightmares of the Forest. What about dear, dead President David Palmer from 24? The big, charismatic black actor now starring in The Unit?

Don't watch TV all that much, so I tried to look him up. Is he the 'snake doctor' guy? Looks like the Candyman? (And maybe he was... ??)

If so, not too bad. I'd think that the perfect Mr. Big is not to be found among the popular pool. I'd imagine somebody whose natural features are frightening enough that he would have a hard time finding a non-specıalısed role.

[00Twelve]

I have the perfect solution, I think--and one that should spare Judo any nightmares of the Forest. What about dear, dead President David Palmer from 24? The big, charismatic black actor now starring in The Unit?

Don't watch TV all that much, so I tried to look him up. Is he the 'snake doctor' guy? Looks like the Candyman? (And maybe he was... ??)

His name is Dennis Haysbert. Look him up on www.imdb.com. He was the voodoo guy in the original Major League. (Hmm...) And here in the states, he does those All-State car insurance commercials as well. GREAT IDEA, Judo!! He does seem rather perfect.

Great post, blackjack, although I'd personally consider "the untouchables" to be FRWL, GF, TB (well, maybe), and OHMSS. I may risk credibility by disagreeing about Dr. No, but really the only "immortal," never-again-duplicable elements are Sean's intro and Ursula's entrance (As Halle Berry very well proved). Other than that, the film deviated quite a bit from the novel after the dinner-with-Julius scene. These are the missing elements I'd like to see in another DN:

- Already knowing Quarrel and Strangways b/c we've already seen LALD
- The poisoned fruit
- Dr. No's longer background, and the original reason he has no hands
- The obstacle course, which sucked, frankly, in the film
- The killing ground with the squid, which obviously couldn't be done in '62.
- The crab (non)torture scene with Honey

Anyway, I too wish to see Moonraker, but would be pleasantly surprised if it was somehow not immediately comparable to DAD and/or Goldeneye. And I agree that DAF is missing some plot interest, but the thought of Bond having to get in bed with organized crime is really engrossing to me.

I forgot earlier: I'd also like to see a better version of the Bond/Scaramanga hunt (or duel) in a swamp, jungle, or forest.

[Judo chop]

Ahh... "Hats for bats."

Gracias.