I wonder if anyone out there could give me some insight into this rather bewildering subject which has lingered on my mind for several years now! I recently joined "Commanderbond.net" due to being a huge James Bond fan! I have always enjoyed watchin the movies, reading the novels and collecting various bits of merchandise! However, several years ago I accidently discovered that Ian Fleming was not the only writer to produce books on the character! This took me completely by surprise and upon further investigation, I uncovered the Novels of John Gardner and Raymond Benson, which I began to read with eager anticipation!
I can honestly say that after reading then re-reading each novel I was extremely impressed with a majority of their works. I believe both authors captured the essence of the character and took him in a completely different direction while maintaining the tradition and familiarity of Bond! Obviously if you are commissioned to write about an existing character you are going to want to put your own creative mark on that character. In otherword, do your own interpretation of things! An example of this would be "Spider-Man" whom through the years has been handled by quite a few talented writers!
My question is this...... I noticed after covering various websites on James Bond that these two writers have come under a lot of heavy criticism for their work and are seemingly ignored for their efforts! Also, if evidence of this is needed. Why have none of these novels, which were commissioned by Glidrose publications, never been adapted into James Bond films?
Considering that Gardner wrote his novels between 81-96 and Benson 97-03 it left me a little confused! Instead of addressing these novels, United Artists/MGM decided to produce flimsy film scripts which in my opinion did not convince at all! If the film company considered Gardner's book not good enough to film then why the hell did Glidrose allow him to continue writing about the character for so long?
As you can imagine, there are a lot of unanswered questions about this interesting subject. Can anyone help?
I personally would love to see "Icebreaker" & "Scorpius" made into Bond movies! As for the "Devil May Care"! A competant effort by Sebastian Faulkes however, it was nothing new and original as he duplicated Fleming's style to closely! Being a writer. Would you not want to inject some of your own idea's into a character and take him forward? Afterall.... that is what writing should be all about!
John Gardner & Raymond Benson
Started by
JamesGardnerBond
, Jun 13 2008 11:20 AM
3 replies to this topic
#2
Jim
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 14266 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:Oxfordshire
Posted 13 June 2008 - 11:54 AM
Hello, welcome to CBn and great to have you here.
On the point you raise about these continuation novelists generally, there's a comment (which I'm paraphrasing) attributed to Michael G. Wilson (I think) that Eon are happy to make up their own stories, ta very much.
That said, we do have a cracking thread here http://debrief.comma...p?showtopic=323
pointing out a lot of uncanny similarities between the Eon films since 1981, and the Gardner books.
On the specific ones you raise, Icebreaker may now be unlikely due to the ice palace used in Die Another Day, and Scorpius with its religious cult + suicide bomber theme may be a bit too raw (not that this should stop them, in my view).
The Benson books a lot of people have criticised (myself included) as being too much like the films (at least, the Brosnan films) but where you're coming from, that's probably not a proper criticism! I know there are a lot of people who would like the Union trilogy filmed.
Most important thing is that you have read them and enjoyed them!
On the point you raise about these continuation novelists generally, there's a comment (which I'm paraphrasing) attributed to Michael G. Wilson (I think) that Eon are happy to make up their own stories, ta very much.
That said, we do have a cracking thread here http://debrief.comma...p?showtopic=323
pointing out a lot of uncanny similarities between the Eon films since 1981, and the Gardner books.
On the specific ones you raise, Icebreaker may now be unlikely due to the ice palace used in Die Another Day, and Scorpius with its religious cult + suicide bomber theme may be a bit too raw (not that this should stop them, in my view).
The Benson books a lot of people have criticised (myself included) as being too much like the films (at least, the Brosnan films) but where you're coming from, that's probably not a proper criticism! I know there are a lot of people who would like the Union trilogy filmed.
Most important thing is that you have read them and enjoyed them!
#3
Skudor
-
- Veterans
-
- 9286 posts
Commander
- Location:Buckinghamshire
Posted 13 June 2008 - 01:36 PM
Another part of the answer is that the film producers have the rights to all the Fleming novels, and to the character for film purposes etc. This allows them to make any number of movies but if they wanted to adapt, say, a Benson novel they would have to pay for the privilege. It's cheaper, and easier, to just plagiarise whatever little bits or ideas that you like.
#4
Dr. Noah
-
- Veterans
-
- 1405 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:40 PM
Continuation authors as a rule get slammed no matter how they do, whether it's Gardner or Benson doing a Bond book or Robert Parker doing Raymond Chandler. I guess the assumption is that they aren't using their own characters, so their work will be no better than a film novelization. I guess that's why so few established authors will try it.
Poor Faulks is not only getting his work compared to Fleming, as if he has to be BETTER than the guy he's paying tribute to, but he's getting it compared to Birdsong and his own stories as well. Nobody can just take it as a fun little tribute. No wonder he only wants to do one.
Then half the people are mad because he, say, makes the Moneypenny scenes more like the movies, while the others are mad that he added nothing new to a one-off tribute that isn't meant to be built upon.
I think a nice solution might be a collection of short stories by different authors in a single book, ala For Your Eyes Only, which might interest some decent writers as a little challenge/lark, while the fans could compare them and not get so overwrought about it: Read Martin Amis' take on Bond after Stephen King's after Bret Easton Ellis', etc...
Poor Faulks is not only getting his work compared to Fleming, as if he has to be BETTER than the guy he's paying tribute to, but he's getting it compared to Birdsong and his own stories as well. Nobody can just take it as a fun little tribute. No wonder he only wants to do one.
Then half the people are mad because he, say, makes the Moneypenny scenes more like the movies, while the others are mad that he added nothing new to a one-off tribute that isn't meant to be built upon.
I think a nice solution might be a collection of short stories by different authors in a single book, ala For Your Eyes Only, which might interest some decent writers as a little challenge/lark, while the fans could compare them and not get so overwrought about it: Read Martin Amis' take on Bond after Stephen King's after Bret Easton Ellis', etc...