63 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

Now on the CBn main page...

Michael Gillette Illustrates New UK Fleming Hardcovers

Artist reveals new covers on his blog; due for release on 28 May 2008

[K1Bond007]

Pretty sweet covers if you ask me. Kinda inspired by the 60s Casino Royale poster. Not a bad thing...

[Righty007]

These look great!

[Tim007]

Lovely!

[sharpshooter]

They'll do.

[spynovelfan]

I like them, but not really for this. By which I mean I like the idea of each one featuring a girl, I like the designs, there's a lot of care gone into them and they're very cool - but these are meant to be the hardbacks for Fleming's centenary. The artists says on his blog 'Ahhh, the 60s' but he seems to have missed something there: many of the books were written in the 50s. They look like designs for another job - something to do with the films.

[TheSaint]

I miss the days when Bond actually appeared on the cover of his own books.

[Calypso Vermouth]

James Bond never appeared on the front of any of the original Jonathan Cape first edition hardbacks, so why should it be necessary for him to make an appearance on the front of these new rather uninspired cover designs.

[TheREAL008]

Awesome covers, defenately has a vintage feel to them.

I just hope they come to America.

[MarcAngeDraco]

My first reaction to these is one of being very underwhelmed, nearing disappointment. Was rather hoping for something as inspired as the Fahey paperback covers and these fall far short of that bar, at least IMHO.

[zencat]

I like 'em. I think they are going to look terrific as a set. Guess this means I have to buy them all...again.

[K1Bond007]

I miss the days when Bond actually appeared on the cover of his own books.

There aren't many of those. God, I hope you're not referring to the generic Gardner silhouettes (also on a few Benson). Those were terrible.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Love these covers.

Hope the spines form an image when they are placed side by side on a bookshelf.


PS: My wish has come true!

[Bond111]

I'm not really all that impressed. I was hoping for something with a little more flair for the centenary editions. Instead it's basically the same cover 14 times with slight variations.

[minder125]

My first reaction to these is one of being very underwhelmed, nearing disappointment. Was rather hoping for something as inspired as the Fahey paperback covers and these fall far short of that bar, at least IMHO.

Since I don't think they will be making there way across the seas. I'm happy enough with the Fahey covers. Now if they reprinted those as Hardcover

[Single-O-Seven]

Kind of disappointed. The artist seems to have been inspired by the movie posters more than anything. The Casino Royale cover seems to reflect the 67 film, and the LALD cover seems to have been inspired by Gloria Hendry's character. The Fahey covers reflected the books, and I would have happily accepted them on the HC books. Either that or a re-issue of Cape's original covers.

[zencat]

It's interesting that the Centenary events/publications do seem to be a mix of film and book Bond. Even the Fleming exhibition includes films props. And we see a quote from Babs in the DMC press release. Not a bad thing, I guess.

[Single-O-Seven]

It's interesting that the Centenary events/publications do seem to be a mix of film and book Bond. Even the Fleming exhibition includes films props? And we see a quote from Babs in the DMC press release. Not a bad thing, I guess.

It pays for them to promote both together. Especially if they want to draw in the majority of the potential cashcow - that being the average, casual fan. Most out there aren't overly-familiar with the books - most know Bond from the movies only. The two have to ride of each other's coat tails to ensure success, I think, especially in a year when Bond is appearing once again in both book and film form.

[Professor Dent]

The Fahey covers were more interesting. Maybe if the titles were projected onto real people ala the From Russia With Love opening credits...

[K1Bond007]

It's interesting that the Centenary events/publications do seem to be a mix of film and book Bond. Even the Fleming exhibition includes films props. And we see a quote from Babs in the DMC press release. Not a bad thing, I guess.

Well I was thinking earlier that I would be sort of upset if I were IFP with some of these stories that I read. IFP has been behind the whole Centenary thing. Every single bit. I haven't really seen any involvement from the Broccolis or anyone on the film side, but every story practically features the film incarnation. The stamps, for instance, they even got Samantha Bond to do a photo shoot with them. What is that about? I even think that Bond 22 is looming a large shadow over the literary world (granted Casino Royale was a huge success so there is a renewed interest in the franchise) and has sort of put Faulks and Devil May Care in the back seat. Then again maybe they are trying to work together - the Broccoli quote, e.g. May have been slightly better for IFP had Fleming been born in 1907

[zencat]

The stamps, for instance, they even got Samantha Bond to do a photo shoot with them. What is that about?

Ah, there's another example.

[Gobi-1]

I like them, but not really for this. By which I mean I like the idea of each one featuring a girl, I like the designs, there's a lot of care gone into them and they're very cool - but these are meant to be the hardbacks for Fleming's centenary. The artists says on his blog 'Ahhh, the 60s' but he seems to have missed something there: many of the books were written in the 50s. They look like designs for another job - something to do with the films.

I agree.

I do love some of these covers but I just don't feel they are appropriate for the 100th Anniversary of Fleming's birth. First, they're inspired by the poster art for the 67 version of Casino Royale which has almost nothing in common with the literary Bond. Second, the psychedelic artwork just seems wrong considering Bond's roots in the 1950s and Fleming's death before the counterculture movement took off. It would be like honoring disco with a rap album. Third, they just don't have the class nor elegance one might expect from an anniversary reissue. Something understated might have been better.

Bottom line is that I feel these covers are closer to the spirit of Austin Powers then they are to Ian Fleming. That's not exactly the best way to celebrate him, is it?

[Qwerty]

Interesting. Wasn't sure what to expect, but these aren't bad. Nowhere near as awe-inspiring as the US 2002-2004 Penguin covers, but I imagine these new ones will look great together as a set.

[Sbott]

Kind of disappointed. The artist seems to have been inspired by the movie posters more than anything. The Casino Royale cover seems to reflect the 67 film, and the LALD cover seems to have been inspired by Gloria Hendry's character. The Fahey covers reflected the books, and I would have happily accepted them on the HC books. Either that or a re-issue of Cape's original covers.

I completely agree with these comments. i find the covers, which do no justice to the occasion, very uninspiring.

[bondpix]

Very disappointed with these cover designs. No disrespect to the artist, more surprised at whomever at IFP decided to go along this route. I would have thought something more along the lines of what Fleming himself would have chosen, and I can't for the life of me see Fleming liking these at all. Those excellent Fahey covers are far more appealing to me.
Still, at least I won't have to worry about finding the money to purchase a set.

[Jim]

It pays for them to promote both together. Especially if they want to draw in the majority of the potential cashcow - that being the average, casual fan. Most out there aren't overly-familiar with the books - most know Bond from the movies only. The two have to ride of each other's coat tails to ensure success, I think, especially in a year when Bond is appearing once again in both book and film form.

Quite; albeit one hopes that Devil May Care is designed to appeal more to the reader than to the viewer. They went down that line before - didn't really work.

Very colourful covers - unclear how they cohere with the Devil May Care "look" but that's someone else's headache.

[David Schofield]

Absolutely dire. As has been pointed out, totally unrepresentative of the content of Ian Fleming's originals. But does the artist - and many others for that matter - realise this?

If you want Fleming in hardback and can't afford firsts, track down the FEL reprints from a few years ago.

If you insist on buying these, get the fascimile Cape First covers that are available on ebay and chuck away the "James Bond Austin Powers Edition" covers.

[TheSaint]

James Bond never appeared on the front of any of the original Jonathan Cape first edition hardbacks, so why should it be necessary for him to make an appearance on the front of these new rather uninspired cover designs.

I miss the days when Bond actually appeared on the cover of his own books.

There aren't many of those. God, I hope you're not referring to the generic Gardner silhouettes (also on a few Benson). Those were terrible.

Nice deductive leap the two of you made. I wasn't referring to either the Cape 1st editions or the Gardner/Benson covers. I was referring to the various paperbacks with painted covers that actually showcased Bond. I was hoping for something along those lines.

[Simon]

No, no, no.

I was too impressed with the Fahey covers for these to inspire. Hopefully they find a market somewhere but not here.

Nothing else to add that hasn't alreday been said here.

[DLibrasnow]

I dislike these covers. They leave me completely underwhelmed. For great covers I would go with the current crop of Fahey U.S. paperback editions.

Nothing beats the Pan covers of the 1950/60s though