44 replies to this topic

[Icebreaker]

I know this is a literary 007 Discussion, but surprisingly there isnt a thread like this anywhere on the boards (that I could find anyway). So here is what I want to discuss:

What would Ian Fleming think of James Bond NOW? In both the movies and in Fiction?

I think first off all, he is probably rolling over in his grave when it comes to the movies. Is there any other fictional character that has been so brutally chopped to pieces, other than James Bond? Dont get me wrong, I love the movies...but they arent exactly the 'real' Bond.

I do however, think he would have been slightly impressed with Daltons performance as Bond...In fact I think he would like him the most...but what would he have done during the Moore era? I mean seriously, if Ian Fleming had lived to see 'Moonraker' on the big screen I think he would have killed somebody


As for the fictional potrayl of his character...I want to ask this: Does anybody know if he WANTED his character to live on after his death? Everything I have seen points to NO, after all, look at the way he ended TMWTGG. I really dont think Fleming would want anyone (especially an American) to write with HIS character.

So there you go, I was hoping to find a thread already discussing this but like I said, I was surprised to find there wasnt!



~IceBReaKeR

[iain]

I think Fleming would be in two minds on the subject.

From an artistic point of view he would be horrified with what has been done to his character both in print and on the screen. In print, he would be dissapointed with the quality of the writing and on screen he would hate that the character bears no resemblance to the one that he created. I don't think that it would be the outlandish plots that would upset him. Remember that he wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and may well have been tempted to make the Bond books more outlandish. I think that it is the essence of the character that would be most dissapointing. The flashy cars and clothes and the flippant one liners. In the books, these attributes are more the realm of the villain than Bond.

From a business point of view, I think that he would be on cloud nine as he watched the character he created become an international icon and last for as long as it has.

[Dunph]

I think Fleming would probably get the filmmakers to seriously reconsider the direction they're taking Bond in, however, his character wouldn't apply today, he's sexist, homophobic, he smokes and drinks incessantly and he's the epitome of the reluctant anti-hero.

I can see a few films being made with this character, but not 20.

Bond needs to evolve, which is exactly what he has done through the years, and now he's in an era of self-parody, mocking what has gone before in the more outlandish Connery films and most of the Moore films. Fleming's spinning-in-grave would have started with Diamonds Are Forever, but then again, maybe he would approve of the style and not the content. I'm pretty sure he would be opinionated as Blofeld started making replicas of himself, calling it "the stuff of cheap horror" or something similar.

Moore's character was easily the most removed from Fleming's Bond, and it needed to be, as the clubland values and social scene of the sixties were long gone, Bond would have quickly outdated if he'd have stuck to Fleming's original idea.
But then again Fleming may be willing to accept the change. Though I agree with you Icebreaker when you ask if Fleming wanted Bond to live on after his death and after the novels had been exhausted as sources. I think he would not.

posted by Iain:
From a business point of view, I think that he would be on cloud nine as he watched the character he created become an international icon and last for as long as it has.

Exactly, Iain, I'm of two minds whether to think Fleming selfish if he were to come back from the dead and to express his hate towards today's Bond, would he have the right? His character is ingrained in popular culture and never will be forgotten, the number of things that have arisen just through a connection with the phenomenon, however tenuous.

The books are another matter though. I've only read two of Benson's, the first two (forgettable titles) and it's like they've been written by a fan and not an author. Just because he's written some Bond computer game involving words a great author does not make.

[Atticus17F]

From my understanding of the man, I don't think he'd give two hoots about Bond either way. He famously said that writing the novels was a mere distraction from being married and his only concern was that the books generated enough cash to provide a birthright for Caspar.

Don't forget, he was more than willing for Bond to become a US citizen for CBS in 1954... so I doubt he'd be precious about anything, as long as the cash was coming in!

(The above isn't meant to vilify Fleming... it's just an opinion)

[ChandlerBing]

Why don't we either drag out the ouije board or get John Edwards to ask him?

[Jim]

Originally posted by Atticus17F


Don't forget, he was more than willing for Bond to become a US citizen for CBS in 1954... so I doubt he'd be precious about anything, as long as the cash was coming in!

(The above isn't meant to vilify Fleming... it's just an opinion)

Agree with you - imagine the question - "Tell me, mulit-multi-multi millionaire Ian Fleming, which would you prefer - the money or your precious blimmin' "literature" having been left untouched?"

I'm not sure his scruples were up to much, frankly. A hound for the pound, collar that dollar, let's get the cash.

[Jriv71]

I think he would have loved the film version, in all its incarnations, as long as they didn't carve up his novels, too much. Roger Moore is the furthest from literary Bond, but if you believe the idea that his first choice was Moore, he probably would have accepted Moonraker, and those like it. Maybe (like myself) he also would've preferred eventually to see a 'proper' MR, LALD, DAF and YOLT, but as a money-making machine, he would've loved what Bond became.

And if you think that the on-screen character bears no resemblance to the one he created, consider this: It's been 50 years! Imagine a film in 1953 starring a character created in 1903! I'd say he's still pretty close, all things considered. If he gets into adventures that bear no resemblance to those of Cold War, 1953, that's one thing. But James Bond is still James Bond.

Now, in print...

I've read all of Gardner, and I'm currently reading Benson, but I wish they'd never continued with the Bond novels. I know there are people who agree with me, and more who disagree, but I believe that Fleming would agree.

Truthfully, I've basically enjoyed most of what I've read, and if they do continue writing them, I'll continue buying them. But no one should have the right to tear apart and re-shape the charcaters of Bond and M and Moneypenny and give the asexual Blofeld a daughter, bla-bla-bla. Now, literary Bond bears almost no resemblance to Fleming's character.

[Qwerty]

I think Fleming would probably want the films to focus more on the character of Bond. I love all of the films, but they seem to have come to a point where after Bond does something exciting, he says a casual remark to induce a laugh from the audience. The books are much more difficult to classify. I'm not sure if Fleming would like them or not, but I think they he want them to have better storylines.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think he would have both pride and embarrassment. Pride for the fact that his character is so adored the world over but embarrassed that the films have become so silly at times.I think he would like Dalton's films the most post OHMSS but also enjoy all the actors who played Bond, including Moore despite the tounge and cheek approach.

[iain]

And if you think that the on-screen character bears no resemblance to the one he created, consider this: It's been 50 years! Imagine a film in 1953 starring a character created in 1903! I'd say he's still pretty close

I disagree. In the books Bond is pretty conservative. His possesions are low key and usually described as 'battered'. He replaces the Bentley emblem on his car with a hex bolt (OHMSS), he refuses any dashing clothes (LALD) and he distrusts men who display signs of vanity (ascot knot in FRWL). In Goldfinger, he chooses the DB3 partly because it was battleship gray as opposed to a bright red Jaguar. While I agree that people change with the times, I can not imagine Fleming dressing Bond in Brioni suits.

Having said all of that, I have no problem with the way Bond is portrayed on screen today, in fact I think the suits are fabulous. Its just not in keeping with the character that Fleming created.

[Jriv71]

Fair enough. I'm just not sure that you could say the character bears no resemblance. Part of his deal is he does have somewhat high standards in certain areas like food and drink (Fleming's Bond would never drink a beer, for example), and so forth. On screen, it's the suits and the cars and the women. He may have been 'conservative', but always with high standards, and that's what screen Bond has always had, in one way or another.

I also have no standards, so I wouldn't recognize a Brioni suit from any other. I know he always looks good, so perhaps Fleming would dress Bond in the best suits for screen, if given the chance.

[Atticus17F]

Fleming's Bond would never drink a beer, for example

Why not? Bond used to visit his local pub off the King's Road, and also stops off at the "World Without Want" in Kent... I think if he'd ordered anything but a beer then he'd probably be shown the door fairly quickly!! (You'd get away with it in the cocktail lounges of the Dorchester or Scott's, but a bloke walking into an English pub? Asking for a Martini?? With an olive in it?? In postwar Britain??? His feet wouldn't touch the floor!)

As a point of interest, the "World Without Want" is a real pub on the Dover Road near St. Margaret's Bay, Kent. It's a little place called The Swingate and was frequented by Fleming and Noel Coward on their journeys to and from London. I'm reliably informed by the manageress that, in the 50s, the pub never sold anything but beer.

[Jriv71]

MMMMmmmmm....beer.

The point is, Bond has high standards and would wear the best suits, drive the best cars, etc. He did have a Bentley.

[Atticus17F]

I guess it depends on how you define "high standards". Personally, I don't think Fleming's Bond has high standards, as such. His Bentley was bought second-hand and he used to prefer Sea Island cotton shirts to Savile Row suits. His diet was often quite uninspiring with his scrambled eggs and black coffee (even Fleming pointed out that Bond was a gourmand, rather than a gourmet) and, as Iain already mentioned, the hat and briefcase were always described as 'battered'.

Okay, the Rolex and the custom cigarettes and a knowledge of wines make him appear more refined than yer average agent, but I still don't see how this can give him "high standards".

A wiser man than myself once said that Bond "wasn't a man of expensive tastes; just particular ones"... and I'm inclined to agree with him.

[iain]

Bond drank beer in several of the books, but not very good beer. Lowenbrau, Red Stripe and Miller High Life are not exactly the best brews in the world.

[Jaelle]

Didn't Fleming warm to Connery's interpretation of Bond during and after the two Bond films that he got to see before he died? And didn't he begin to write the books with a bit of Connery in mind? That's what I've read anyway.

From what little I know of Fleming I can't see him as too much of a purist. Maybe he'd keep the film Bond and the literary Bond as two separate things while enjoying the fame and money that came with the longest-running film series in history. But that's just based on some superficial reading of the man.

[Righty007]

Does anyone know what Fleming thought of the films, Dr. No and From Russia With Love?

I heard somewhere that Fleming probably rolled over in his grave when Bond drove the non-British BMW in the films.

[Jriv71]

Originally posted by Righty007
Fleming probably rolled over in his grave when Bond drove the non-British BMW in the films.

While he was alive???

[Jriv71]

Let's say Bond had LOW standards. I don't think that makes the character unrecognizable from the one Fleming created, and I also don't believe Fleming would mind at all, the change in Bond, to a more sophisticated one than he created.

It's not as though the filmmakers made him a coward, or German, or bald, or not a womanizer, or a bad shot. That character would bear no resemblance to the one he created.

[marktmurphy]

I doubt he'd care either: the films still stick to the formula of the novels pretty closely (they ain't exactly mega realism- Giant Squid, anyone?) with a silly central character doing silly things. The only change is that the films are more self aware than the books- a change I feel makes them much more palatable. Personally I now find Fleming's books far too silly and yet take themselves far too seriously. They are for teenage boys.


As to whether he'd care for the continuation novels, well he was a human being and an intelligent one at that, so like any other human being I'm sure he would have been slightly annoyed at the garbage the last hack spewed onto the page. I would imagine he would have been flattered and impressed by Amis' outing, and possibly wouldn't have minded Gardner's efforts too much as they do attempt to make Bond Gardner's own to some extent and have a small amount of artistic merit. As for Benson, I'm sure he would have found the attempts to copy his style which simultaneously fail to understand anything about his work desperately insulting.

But basically if was getting plenty of cash out of it I doubt he'd mind too much.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by marktmurphy

Personally I now find Fleming's books far too silly and yet take themselves far too seriously. They are for teenage boys.

That's an excellent point, marktmurphy. Fleming created James Bond, wrote some entertaining stories and was a far more accomplished craftsman of prose than Gardner or Benson (or perhaps "far more distinctive" would be more accurate), but at the same time some of his books are stuffy and dull in the extreme, taking schoolboy silliness much too seriously.

Fleming's novels, on the whole, lack emotional resonance and literary merit, "You Only Live Twice" being the one glaring, glorious exception I can think of. That's not to say that I would dismiss everything he wrote apart from YOLT - far from it (although YOLT would be the one Fleming book I'd hang on to if I was forced to settle for owning just one); and I'm sure that Fleming never deluded himself into believing that he was a writer of literary fiction. But the sum of his Bond oeuvre is certainly greater than its parts (to state the bleeding obvious).

Personally, I'd say that only two of the Bond novels are of real literary worth: "You Only Live Twice" and "Colonel Sun". Only one was penned by Fleming.

[Jriv71]

Wow. Rip Fleming a new one, why don't you? If you guys think that Fleming was schoolboy-ish and silly, what must you think of the films? And what elements of James Bond do you like? (If anything.) I know you guys are here for a reason, you're obviously fans, but surely you haven't posted thousands of times because of Colonel Sun...what are your favorite elements of the Bond series?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jriv71

Wow.  Rip Fleming a new one, why don't you?

That's not my intention. I was just pointing out that Fleming's novels have their flaws, and that Fleming wasn't a literary giant. Sure, Fleming's the fount of all things Bond, but I don't think that puts him beyond criticism.

Originally posted by Jriv71

If you guys think that Fleming was schoolboy-ish and silly, what must you think of the films?  

Schoolboyish and silly, on the whole - but I like 'em. I like the books, too.

[Jriv71]

By the way...I am schoolboy-ish and silly. Therefore, I'm not even sure I was disagreeing with you. That's probably what I like about the books and films, as well. (Of course, my favorite films are FRWL and TLD, and my least favorite film is DAF, so, nevermind.)

[Kingdom Come]

I have a feeling that Fleming would say "I never watch them". So many before him have said similar things in regards to work that you would think the opposite. He would not be pleased I'd say, but understand the need for modern film making to be about nothing but money.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jriv71

By the way...I am schoolboy-ish and silly.  Therefore, I'm not even sure I was disagreeing with you.  That's probably what I like about the books and films, as well.  

Me too. Just because the Fleming novels aren't great literature it doesn't mean they're rubbish.

Mind you, I don't think anyone on this thread was actually claiming that they are brilliant literary masterpieces.

Originally posted by Jriv71

(Of course, my favorite films are FRWL and TLD, and my least favorite film is DAF, so, nevermind.)  

I think you and I share very similar tastes, Jriv71. FRWL and TLD are near the very top of my list of favourite Bond films, and DAF is certainly my least favourite.

[Jriv71]

And it doesn't get sillier than Diamonds are Forever...

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jriv71

And it doesn't get sillier than Diamonds are Forever...  

Yeah, but that said, I don't automatically dislike "silly" Bond. I like MOONRAKER, and I absolutely love THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. I don't dislike DAF because it's silly so much as because it's boring. I just find it deeply, deeply dull.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis


Yeah, but that said, I don't automatically dislike "silly" Bond. I like MOONRAKER, and I absolutely love THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. I don't dislike DAF because it's silly so much as because it's boring. I just find it deeply, deeply dull.

Agreed. For me, the worst thing I can say about a film is that it's dull. I don't care if it's loaded with flaws, if it keeps my interest, I can find something good to say about it. Which is why I enjoy MR, FYEO, AVTAK, TND, TWINE, YOLT, even NSNA to a degree. (Not that I put all those films on the same level of quality).

DAF has its moments, but I just find myself snoozing in several places throughout.

[Icebreaker]

I just want to point out to those in here that say even Flemings books were somewhat 'silly'...you have to remember that the novels you are talking about as being silly are the ones that came after FRWL. Remember he originally planned to kill off Bond and leave things there. So when he brought him back for Dr. No, he sorta 'redid' him a bit (in terms of how seriously he took the plots).

The first five books were really gritty and realistic (for the most part). But after that they started to have 'movie-bond' plots...



~ICeBReaKeR