9 replies to this topic

[Paris]

Am I the only one who got the impression that this book was written with Timothy Dalton's Bond in mind? I'm somehow missing the what I call "Brosnan-twinkle" in this Bond.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

That would make sense considering Michael France's original GE script was written with Dalton, not Brosnan, in mind for the role of 007. This thread contains a summary of the original GE draft:

http://debrief.comma...hl=marina&st=30

Personally, I prefer the GE novelization to the GE film itself but that may be due to the fact I read it before seeing the film.

[zencat]

Well, I don't think Gardner wrote from the France draft...but remember when Gardner wrote this novel he hadn't yet seen PB as Bond. As Gardner did the LTK novelization, Dalton may have still been been the model in his mind for the cinematic Bond.

Nice observation, Paris.

[Qwerty]

I really don't imagine Brosnan or Dalton as Bond in that book, even though it came from Brosnan's film. This is one example of the a Bond novel where you just imagine a literary Bond, but not one specific actor.

[Loomis]

remember when Gardner wrote this novel he hadn't yet seen PB as Bond. As Gardner did the LTK novelization, Dalton may have still been been the model in his mind for the cinematic Bond.

Supposedly Gardner made it a personal rule (for some reason) to totally avoid the new Bond films when he was appointed author of the novels by Glidrose. If that's true, then he may never have heard of either Dalton or Brosnan, or (more likely) knew their names but not their faces.

In that case, he'd have had neither chap in mind when writing "GoldenEye". Perhaps the last he'd seen of the cinematic Bond was Moore in the late 1970s, and he had a mental picture of him. Or maybe he automatically pictured Connery. Or even (whisper it) Lazenby. The most plausible scenario, though, is that Gardner pictured, as Qwerty puts it, "a literary Bond, but not one specific actor." In other words, exactly the same Bond he'd always pictured when writing all his previous novels.

[Paris]

Of course, these reasons you pointed out make it clearer. Thank you all very much for the background information.

Edited by Paris, 04 January 2004 - 12:52 PM.

[Tanger]

Is the novelisation any good? A few keep popping up on eBay and I've been consiering whether to get it or not. Is it worth it, are there any extra bits in it that aren't in the film like in the DAD novelisation?

[Harmsway]

There's certainly differences between the novelisation and film, and that's worth checking out. But as a novelisation I don't like it very much. But then again, I never liked Gardner, so don't take my word for it.

[Blue Eyes]

Is the novelisation any good? A few keep popping up on eBay and I've been consiering whether to get it or not. Is it worth it, are there any extra bits in it that aren't in the film like in the DAD novelisation?

There are the few extra bits. From memory there is a fair bit of explanation as to how Trevelyan got into the 'chemical' plant, and why they were sent there. If you can pick up a paperback, it's always worth the read.

[Qwerty]

Yes, I agree with Blue Eyes, some have claimed that Gardner always does better with the novelizations. I think GoldenEye is no exception. A fun and fast paced read, great to buy!

When it comes to Bond, if you don't own it, buy it!