187 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I'm all for EON lifting unused ideas from Fleming's stories for future films, such as Shatterhand and his garden or the beginning of TMWTGG, but I don't really want to see any of the novels as a whole reinterpreted for today in the way that Casino Royale was. They've all been made into films now (obviously, some more faithfully than others), but to go back and start over with them as though they had never been adapted before would be a mistake, IMO.

[Garth007]

I think if they remade the bond films or readapting navels may depend on what it is. I can see Live and Let Die being remade,but not after Casino Royale. i think they should Make Bond22 called " Property of a Lady" then make Live and Let Die for Bond23, but a little different like not having SMASH. what i mean by that is not involed with MR.Big, but he knows information about the organisation. then they should have Bond24 with the Quantium of Solace but with SMASH involved. but thats to far to tell from now. But to me that would be cool to have as a Remade Movie.

[Orion]

To be honest, i agree with tdalton on this i think re-makes would be a mistake. They should make original films in the style of Flemings work, but thats just my opinion, i'll be happy no matter what they release in 08, provided its good of course

[RazorBlade]

Noooooooo, the one right above! Why are you so confused? What are you smoking? Most things Judo says make huge sense to me and I get a bit overexcited. Sorry.

The post immediately yours--on my Confused American screen--is from Razorblade. That was the source of my Dodgeian funk.

Huh? What did I do now? If it was the use new ideas to tell old stories statement, well, that happens all the time. There are no new ideas. Everything is a rehash but that's not so bad. Using parts or aspects of older stories allows the film makers to build a cinematic language with the audience. The audience response is their answer back. It is possible to have a kind of dialogue between the film makers and the public.

What about Samuel L. Jackson as Mr. Big?

[RazorBlade]

Also source materials such as novels are used and reused all the time. Why not Fleming novels? We are NOT suggesting remaking the films, we are suggesting fresh adaptations of the novels. These are two entirely different things. Surely we understand that here?

I know, stop calling you, Shirley.

[00Twelve]

Not only fresh adaptations, but mostly first-time adaptations of the stories.

[dodge]

I'm with Judo on this one.

I probably am too, but you seem to have caught Santajosep-itis, not posting in response to the post. Is this what the Sixties were like, I wonder? Is Santa somehow slipping magic brownies on this site? Anyway, I agree!

[Santa]

Ask my parents, they were true beasts of the sixties, hence I have a stupid name. Anyway, he's on about the same post as I was, the one everyone seems to have seen but you. Are you doing it on purpose?

[00Twelve]

You should see it, dodge-- apparently, it's changed quite a few lives for the better.

[Santa]

Yep, it's a truly cosmic post.

[dodge]

Yep, it's a truly cosmic post.

Look, look, look! I hit the quote button and post beneath your post. See, see, see! Now I'm talking to you! It's fun! It's easy! It's dodgy!

I may have missed the magical mystery tour of Judo's post, but my life has already changed for the better knowing that it's there. Somewhere.

[Santa]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='721927' date='2 April 2007 - 19:44'][quote name='Moore Baby Moore' post='720692' date='30 March 2007 - 12:44']As for remaking the Fleming books, I'm 100% dead-set against the idea. First, it would reek of "we're out of ideas."[/quote]

Someone help me understand this. As in, what really is the concern here? That the world is going to catch on to the fact that EON has 'run out of ideas' and turn their backs to them and the box office for that reason alone? As if the people who contributed to the $600 million CR has made forked over their cash only at the explicit promise from EON that what they were about to witness came from only untouched, extra-virgin sources? As if these people were at all interested in knowing, except as a passing piece of trivia, that the film was based on a book to begin with?

They don't know from where the stories come, and they don't care. This re-working of a Fleming story approach can't

[Judo chop]

Oh my dear children.

[Santa]

That is your response to having caused all this trouble?

[MHazard]

Though I stand in awe of Judo's insight and agree with him, it strikes me the two (or more) camps may not be so far apart. I don't think anyone wants to see strict re-makes of the Bond movies. For example, no one needs "Shaquille O'Neill is the new Jaws" in The Spy Who Loved Me. On the other hand, there is no reason why the original Fleming novel can't be made into a new movie which is different from the original movie which did not incorporate much of the book. "Now it can be told. How did Bond cope with the collapse of his world and exact revenge on the man who killed his wife? Daniel Craig is James Bond 007 in You Only Live Twice (or if you really can't stand using the same title "Daniel Craig is James Bond in Dr. Shatterhand"). Now, does anyone really disagree with that?

[Judo chop]

there is no reason why the original Fleming novel can't be made into a new movie which is different from the original movie which did not incorporate much of the book...

...Now, does anyone really disagree with that?

No, not really.

In fact, no, not at all.

For all of my pushing for a readaptation of YOLT and LALD (and mr, and tmwgg, maybe), that's where my campaign ends. I don't call for looks at the other novels, as I think they've either been done too closely and too well, or have been picked to pieces already, and may have never offered that much to begin with.

Of course, Dodge is still free to champion the movement for a re-MAKE of OHMSS.
After the tar and feathering has subsided, I'll slip right in with a near perfect cinematic representation of YOLT and save the day.

[MHazard]

I'd add DAF. It gets interesting on OHMSS. The movie is relatively faithful to the book and is tied with CR for my favorite Bond movie. But, as discussed on other threads, the idea of seeing Daniel Craig deliver the performance the movie deserves....but of course you lose, Dianna Rigg, Savalas, the actor playing Draco and John Barry's best score. Oh, well, I'd be happy if LALD, DAF, MR, YOLT, and MWGG were re-adapted and the others left alone (perhaps some FYEO stories too).

[00Twelve]

Absolutely, Mhazard. DAF, which some think doesn't offer much, is ripe with possibilities IMO. Don't know if the diamond trade in particular would be relevant or significant enough, but as I've said before, what if Bond had to go undercover in a modern underground crime ring? The possibilities are fascinating. Perhaps it would even include an unused Fleming idea-- Bond must kill his own assistant to keep his cover. That would get dark. But dramatically, it could be very good. I'd want to see Wint & Kidd (or whatever you wanna call 'em!) as a serious closeted pair of homosexual assassins, and I'd really want to see the finale on the cruise liner as it was meant to be. Alright, just musing now. But I don't see diamonds or Blofeld or Vegas or anything like that in anything I just mentioned. Just saying...

[Single-O-Seven]

I think, in some way, the plots of the novels LALD and DAF could be mixed together to form a new film story. Perhaps in Bond 22, we see OO7 damage the organisation. In Bond 23, the organisation sets out on the gold or diamond smuggling operations used in the books in order to rebuild their finances and re-organise themselves after Bond's meddling. Bond, therefore, could be sent into infilitrate and destroy the organisation again, just as he did Mr. Big's and the Spang brothers' operations. Both novels are largely set in America, and both contain enough interesting unused characters and scenes to make a completely new cinematic adventure based on Fleming material.

[00Twelve]

Bumping this back up because it's basically the same subject as the "Should Bond go Voodoo" thread. Mods, if you think it's appropriate, maybe a merge?

[Dr.Mirakle32]

No, because I never meant for the Voodoo thread to be a plea for a redo of LALD. In fact, quite the opposite. I want to see a completely original film, with a new title and a Voodoo theme that might use Fleming's ideas, the original LALD film didn't. I don't want to see a 100% new readaptation of the novel using the same title.

If they did that, as good as it was, they might as well remake CR since the 2006 version wasn't all that faithful to the novel, either.

[stamper]

What ? The 2006 version is as closest as one can get to the novel, same doing a period TV of exactly the same scenes as in the novel, which might be just boring to watch.

[00Twelve]

That's fine by me, Mirakle. I don't want another movie that has anything to do with the '73 LALD movie, either. Conveniently enough, a brand new adaptation of the novel would fit that criteria perfectly. Title or no title.

And LALD the movie was only slightly more faithful to the original book than CR '67 was to its book. CR '06 is the most faithful Fleming adaptation since the 60s.

[MHazard]

Although I would like to see a re-make (re-adaptation, whatever) of LALD, that was actually based on the novel, it seems to me of all Fleming's novels, this might be the most difficult to "faithfully" bring to the screen today as a lot of its elements might well be perceived as racist.

[00Twelve]

M...MHaz? Is it you? Bless my sockets, it is you, it IS you!!




Um, hey MHaz. Good to see ya.

[MHazard]

Yes, it's me. It's good to be back, although I never left, but have been very busy in what passes for my real life. I've also been spending time on the fan fiction posts and working on my second story which I hope to have done in time to submit for the centenary collection competition ( a shameless plug, my first story "The Wrong Name" can be viewed on the fan fiction thread). But, I anticipate I'll be posting my "hazardous" opinions more frequently up here as well.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Come on guys! I LOVE the 2006 film, and it is certainly in my top 5 Bonds, however to say it was a truly faithful adaptation is like saying one hasn't read the novel. I read the book twice: once after DAD came out, and again in the weeks leading up to the release of CR. At first, I was dissapointed by how unfaithful the movie was, yet in some ways it actually imporved on the novel making it more cinemtatic. I mean really, it's gonna be hard turning a dusty, old spy-thriller primarily about a baccarat game, into an explosive, big-budget action film for the 21st century. Eon deffinitely made a great film, but a straight-on adaptation, it wasn't.

So tacking on an action-packed hour of story with a completely diffrent tone from the novel; making CR Bond's fist mission as a double 0, when he was already a veteran in the novel; making M a woman; making Felix Leiter a scruffy, beareded black guy; turning Bond into an unconventional-looking, blond, body builder; making Le Chiffre a younger, thinner, much more sypathetic character; watering down the intense carpet-beater scene into a humorous highlight featuring a rope; completely changing to book's depressing and somber ending and turning it into a Hollywood shoot-em-up, with Vesper eventually drowning while everything goes to hell; completely altering Bond's relationship with Mathis, and making him a possible suspect; and ignoring and replacing several episodes from the novel which could have been included despite the difference in periods; and of course changing the game from Baccarat to Texas Hold-em, make a faithful adaptation of the book? Plus the famous "bitch is dead" line is read in a different context, and was only included as a nod to fans of the novel.

The only similarities are Bond playing a card game against a guy called Le Chiffre, and falling in love, and being ultimately betrayed by a woman named Vesper Lynd who eventually kills her self. Pretty much the same thing happens in the 1967 version, although that was obviously NOT an improvement of the novel (although I truthfully imagine the Bond and Le Chiffre of the book looking more like a tougher Peter Sellers and a clean-shaven Orson Welles, than I do, Craig or Mikkelsen.)

Now I'm not compaining, since CR was a bad- film and the best 007 movie since LTK; But let's be real here, as good as it was and as much as it improved on parts of the book, a faithful adaptation it was not.

[00Twelve]

CR did, of course, alter a lot of details...but my only point was that as far as a Fleming adaptation goes, I've not seen a Bond film match up to the tone of a Fleming novel like CR did since OHMSS.

The majority of Fleming adaptations changed many more details than CR, and "watered down", as you say, so many more tense sequences. All I'm saying is that one such watered down adaptation that happens to stick for me is LALD. I'd really love to just see Bond on the travelogue, and with his friend Felix, and going up against an operative (of some sort) who seriously and eerily uses the vodou threat to keep his subordinates afraid, while salvaging a lost treasure trove worth multi-millions.

Now, that may deviate from what you set out for in your thread, and for that, my apologies. But a common point is that the use of vodou would be an intriguing choice for a threat/ominous tone in a modern Bond movie. Fleming just used it so well, I'd just be happy to finally see his work put onscreen.

[tdalton]

I'd have to agree with those who are saying that CASINO ROYALE is not a very faithful adaptation of the novel. Looking back at it, the film really does have much to do with the novel at all, outside of the characters and some plot elements. They don't play Texas Hold'em in the novel (although that's only a very, very minor complaint), the entire ending of the novel is completely changed (for the worse, I might add), the film depicts Bond on his rookie mission, which is not the case in the novel, and none of what happens in the beginning of the film happens in the novel. Even Bond's two missions to earn his 00 status are altered from the novel. I didn't understand it before I saw the film, but I understood after why they didn't have the credits read "Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 in IAN FLEMING'S Casino Royale", because EON's CR just wasn't Ian Fleming's CR. Still, it's a good movie, but it's not a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel in any way, shape, or form.

[Judo chop]

I'd have to agree with those who are saying that CASINO ROYALE is not a very faithful adaptation of the novel. Looking back at it, the film really does have much to do with the novel at all, outside of the characters and some plot elements...

Other than the characters and plot devices would you expect to see in a faithful adaptation? I would think those two elements comprise nearly the entire basis of any story.

There