44 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

The one big question Loomis, what do you think of having the complete adaption, with Bond not coming into until the second third of the novel, if you will.

That I find, to be the most interesting aspect.

[Loomis]

The one big question Loomis, what do you think of having the complete adaption, with Bond not coming into until the second third of the novel, if you will.

Not sure about that one, really. Having Bond come into the frame as late as he does in the book might not have worked so well for the film. Wasn't it screenwriter William Goldman who wrote (in "Adventures in the Screen Trade", I think) about the golden rule that a film's main character had to be introduced by page 15 (or something) of the script, at the latest?

Still, I do think Bond appears somewhat too soon in the film of FRWL. The opening scene with the guy in the Bond mask stands as one of the most ridiculous moments in the entire series, while Bond's encounter with Sylvia Trench is irrelevant to the forward movement of the story and ought to have been left on the cutting room floor.

[Qwerty]

I suppose I can see your point on that. I don't know if that was indeed the golden rule, but it does sound like it would be a wise one to follow for making successful films, with novels it's different, but a two hour film, and you're then pushing it.

I'm not trying to badger you in any way, because I'm just really interested in this topic now, what do you think would have been a better time in the film to introduce Bond? Should they just have focused on showing of SPECTRE and Grant in the precredits? I think that might have been interesting.

[Loomis]

what do you think would have been a better time in the film to introduce Bond? Should they just have focused on showing of SPECTRE and Grant in the precredits? I think that might have been interesting.

Interesting question. Yes, I think it would have been better to introduce Bond after the pre-credits sequence. Off the top of my head:

Gunbarrel opening.

Rosa Klebb and someone else are flying to SPECTRE Island/the SMERSH house to rendezvous with Grant. They talk about Grant, and we learn a bit about his past, his madness, his defection to the Russians (if we're going with SPECTRE and not SMERSH as the baddies, no reason why Grant can't also be a former Russian agent who's gone over to SPECTRE).... the chopper lands, Klebb meets Grant, sizes him up, punches him with her knuckleduster, and so on.

KLEBB: He seems fit enough. Have him report to me.... etc., etc.

Klebb and her colleague walk back to the chopper.

COLLEAGUE: A tough customer, this Grant. But may I ask, what do we need him for?

KLEBB: He's going to help us kill James Bond.

Title sequence.

A scene or two in which Klebb, Kronsteen and co. discuss their plan to kill 007 and humiliate the Brits. We first see Bond as a photograph in a dossier. Then a scene to introduce Tatiana and reel her into the villains' scheme, and then, 15 minutes or so into the film, we go to London and see our hero, Bond, throwing his hat onto the hatstand or something like that.

[Qwerty]

I like that Loomis, while I think the way it is in the film seems to be fair, I actually really wouldn't have any problems with this suggestion you make. It might be a tad odd to keep the people waiting so long to see their hero, after this is only his second film, but then maybe it would have worked with great results!

[Loomis]

Thanks, Qwerty.

[Triton]

Don't forget the chess match Loomis, I think it's critical to the development of the Kronsteen character. They really should have made mention in the film of the fact that Kronsteen completed the chess match instead of "reporting at once".

[Loomis]

Don't forget the chess match Loomis, I think it's critical to the development of the Kronsteen character. They really should have made mention in the film of the fact that Kronsteen completed the chess match instead of "reporting at once".

Agreed.

[Qwerty]

Oh yes, I forgot about that, the thoughts of finishing the match or following orders in Kronsteen's mind, one of my favorite parts of the novel! "The Wizard of the Ice" Excellent stuff!

[Double-O-Section]

This is all interesting.

I think that the film was weakened by leaving out some of the book, but improved on it in other areas. Having the main villains be SPECTRE rather than SMERSH was a brilliant piece of thinking, because it deepened a pretty simple story. At the same time, they made it easier to follow: Kronsteen became the Bulgarian (who was pretty irrelevant), and we got to see the Russian embassy being blown up (and for a better reason), rather than just being told about it.

But I think it was, by and large, pretty faithful to the novel. Robert Shaw really got his part down: the flat bored tone of voice and the barely concealed psychosis while he is Nash is just as in the book. I do wish we'd had that line of Bond's from the book, though: 'Could you stop calling me "old man"?'

[Qwerty]

Welcome to the CBn Forums, Double-O-Section!

[Double-O-Section]

[quote name='Qwerty' date='2 January 2006 - 17:55']
Welcome to the CBn Forums, Double-O-Section!

[quote]

Thank you. I'm happy to be here! I'm a long-time lurker.

[Scottlee]

It took me until the third post down the page to realise this was an old thread. No way did I catch this when it first came onto the boards. I would have remembered.

Anyway, I highly doubt I'll ever bring myself to criticize FRWL. Even Loomis' initial criticisms were the type you can only make if you have read the novel (which I haven't). FRWL is right up there in my TOP 6 Bond films.

[Qwerty]

[quote name='Double-O-Section' date='2 January 2006 - 16:55']
[quote name='Qwerty' date='2 January 2006 - 17:55']
Welcome to the CBn Forums, Double-O-Section!

[quote]

Thank you. I'm happy to be here! I'm a long-time lurker.

[/quote]

Hope you enjoy it here!

[triviachamp]

- Grant's moon-inspired madness and his defection to the Russians;

Since Grant works for SPECTRE showing him defect to Russia would be pointless. Also why does Grant need so much background in the film? None of it is really needed. In books you can spend lots of time describing the childhood of minor characters but in the film this doesn't really add anything.

- Bond and Tatiana's escape via the Orient Express is a much more atmospheric and exciting on the page than on celluloid. A major trick is missed by not having (as in the novel) Bond and Tatiana break their journey in some godforsaken eastern European slum. If you're looking for the "travelogue feel", seek out the novel "From Russia With Love", for the film will shortchange you.

Too long. Why do we need to see slums? Isn't Bond about exotic locations?

- Bond's final confrontation with Rosa Klebb is somehow more exciting in the book, and not just because of the legendary surprise ending.....but because, in the book, 007 must initially face Klebb alone.

Well having Tania there did allow them to show where her true loyalties lie. Anyway no way would they use the cliffhanger here!