7 replies to this topic

[DavidJones]

What is/was Ian Fleming Publications' (or Glidrose, as they used to be called) opinion on the films?

 

They do seem pretty posh (but then, so was Fleming) and not people who would usually read thrillers, let alone watch a film of one.

 

For that matter, what is their opinion on the books themselves?

 

His niece, Lucy Fleming, described her uncle as "a very, very, very, very good writer" in a documentary on him on the TLD DVD, but I do wonder if some share the same embarressment as his wife Anne did. I like to think people are more open-minded these days when it comes to the old literary fiction vs genre fiction debate. And Fleming was a good writer. In particular, he conveyed atmosphere very well.

 

It must be a source of annoyance that, in general terms, the films have eclipsed the novels, but the same can be said for Sherlock Holmes, Dracula and Frankenstein, if not Poirot and Miss Marple. On the other hand, the films have arguably kept the novels in bookstores, whereas works of a similar vintage - such as the Johnny Fedora books by Desmond Cory - are lost in time. People watch the films and go to the books, so they serve a purpose and do garner huge fans.

[glidrose]

The "Fleming family" - note the quotes - did not like Die Another Day.

 

The Fleming heirs apparently thought John Gardner's books were just alright. However, according to Peter Janson-Smith, they did not like Raymond Benson's Bond novels. At all. This confirms what I once heard from a UK-based fan with publishing connections when Raymond still had the official gig.

[DavidJones]

Interesting... DAD was a tough pill for many Fleming fans, let alone those related to him. It would be an awkward position for them if the continuation novels were actually better than Fleming, so perhaps they were it was just as well that they thought Gardner wasn't quite up to snuff.

 

Re Benson: I read somewhere that, generally, fans in the 80s considered the then-current Moore films to be trivia and Gardner's books to be the real deal, while they would late consider Benson's trivia and prefer the films. Benson certainly had a more filmic style, and seemed to be influened by the Brosnan films of the time. On the other hand, The Union organization was an update of Smersh, and characters like Mathis and Marc-Ange Draco returned.

Edited by DavidJones, 02 June 2014 - 09:27 PM.

[Grard Bond]

I can tell you: no one I know -and knew back then- considered in the eighties the Gardner novels as "the real deal" and the movies with Moore "trivia".

With Eyes Only and Octopussy they even got back to Fleming and they used a couple of Fleming's short stories.

Edited by Grard Bond, 02 June 2014 - 10:40 PM.

[Dustin]

Such things are of course very subjective. The 'real deal' - for a given value of real, within certain limitations and subject to change with time. Further conditions apply...

What the films and the books were is simply: just what their respective producers thought would sail on the market. A Moore Bond every other year, that used to be something dependable. You could rest in your bed in the evening and ponder your future - as I did as a kid - and knew exactly in which years to expect a new Bond at the theatres. They may not always have been the super-duper spectacles one came to expect after being introduced to Bond for the first time. But they were Bond films and that alone used to quicken the pulse. And for many years this biennial magic used to work.

Same with the continuations. Having one new book every year used to excite, no matter what. I'll admit readily most of them didn't make you think of the originals, but they helped to keep the habit during the dry spells and I've bought every single one whenever I found them - usually by blind luck - at the newsagents.

As for Benson's direction towards a closer proximity between his books and the films, that's also what used to be the flavour of the month. Benson really just delivered what the powers that were thought people would buy, the equivalents to the films of the time.

[Grard Bond]

I also bought all the Gardner books when they were released.

Meaning: the Dutch translated paperbacks, or the English pockets (as a teenager in the eighties I had never heard of Hardcovers and First Editions)

Only the first one, Licence Renewed, I realy liked, all the others were more or less a dissapointing.

For me it were just surrogates. I never believed that the guy who was in it and called James Bond, was the real and same one of the Fleming books.

Edited by Grard Bond, 03 June 2014 - 04:36 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Just one thing about the "Union" organisation mentioned above. To me, it read more like an update of SPECTRE, only more vicious (The execution of people, even innocents, by cutting their throats almost to the point of decapitation, being just one distasteful example of the Union's methods.)

 

If the IFF did have "misgivings" about the Benson novels, I wonder why? The way they were written? Or that certain characters from the Fleming novels were used in unexpected ways? Example - Marc-Ange Draco in Never Dream Of Dying. If you haven't read it I won't spoil it for you, save to say that while I would have welcomed the return of Draco I wasn't expecting a return like that. On the other hand the connection between Bond and the villain of the Union trilogy I guessed at by the end of "Doubleshot" and had confirmed by NDOD. (Rene Mathis' fate in the Benson books was also sad.)

[glidrose]

If the IFF did have "misgivings" about the Benson novels, I wonder why? The way they were written? Or that certain characters from the Fleming novels were used in unexpected ways? Example - Marc-Ange Draco in Never Dream Of Dying.

IFP, not IFF. Only speculation but I suspect the quality of writing. Don't think what he did with the characters was that big a deal. If it were they would have told him to do a page-one rewrite.

Another thing... I don't think the folks at IFP are fanboys like us. It's a business, a family business to be sure, but a business. I suspect deep down inside they don't have that much interest in Bond.