37 replies to this topic

[doublenoughtspy]

While I have the utmost appreciation for Ian Fleming's work, from a numbers perspective, the movies that are the most faithful to his works have not done nearly as well at the box office as the other Bond movies.

FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK have had lower box office returns than those super adventures that Bond has become known for.

Now don't get me wrong - I prefer a good film that doesn't make as much money over a bad film that makes loadsa money - but if they do plan to make this film as faithful as they are claiming - then they are making a huge gamble.

As someone else on CBN pointed out - it seems EON has touted every Bond single actor as "truest to Fleming" and implied that he is more faithful to the character than the previous actor.

The main shock of CR - Vesper's revelation as a traitor - is just following the formula of the Brosnan films - someone close to Bond betrays him and dies.

It is Bond's invicibility - not his vulnerability - that audiences want to see.

It will be interesting to see if these faithfulness to Fleming stays or goes out like Gala Brand from DAD.

[zencat]

It is Bond's invicibility - not his vulnerability - that audiences want to see.

Bingo! You nailed it, doublenought.

[TheSaint]

If they remain as faithful to this book as Purvis & Wade say they will, how weird will it be to see Bond in a hotel room, by himself, saying "The bitch is dead!" over the phone, instead of being in the clinch with the girl? Probably as weird an ending as the ending of OHMSS.

[Moonraker]

I think it is a wise move. IMO todays have turned away with the humorous and less serious action films which have usually flopped. While serious action films have been successful.

[Bon-san]

It will be interesting to see if these faithfulness to Fleming stays or goes out like Gala Brand from DAD.

I'm really thinking it will be the latter. Despite all the talk of a "faithful adaptation", I'm expecting them to pick and choose among plot and character elements. Ultimately, I'm anticipating a film with a storyline as faithful to the source novel as, say, LALD was.

What I am excited for is the possibility of a return to the to tone of "Thunderball", i.e., some tension, some adventure, some exotica, some style, and a dash of humour. And then amp the whole thing up a bit to reflect the contemporary penchant for high energy action cinema. If they can bring that, I'll be quite pleased.

Edited by Bon-san, 15 March 2005 - 03:31 AM.

[Pussfeller]

First of all, this is pure fiction. CR won't be faithful. It's never faithful. The producers have no incentive to make it so. This is the routine "placate the purist nerds" maneuver. They do it every time, usually well before the script has been completed.

That having been said, my feeling is that if it's well-made and faithful to the novel, then I don't really care whether it makes money or not. EON can afford it, and I think we've waited long enough.

[Loomis]

It is Bond's invicibility - not his vulnerability - that audiences want to see.

Bingo! You nailed it, doublenought.

I'll add to that: it's also his incredible (bordering on arrogance) self-confidence that people want to see, not his emotional angst.

I don't mind a 20-something Bond as long as he's got that self-assurance, that alpha male-ness, that **** you coolness, etc. etc. of Connery, Lazenby and Moore.

What I fear we'll get, though, is Bloom, Gruffudd, McMahon, West or someone like that as a vulnerable 007 who wears his heart on his sleeve (as in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) and gets betrayed by a woman he's fallen head over heels in love with, while also being endlessly rebuked and mocked for his maleness by Dench's M and Bond's Moneypenny. (Oh, yes, and Vesper Lynd will be a "buttkicking babe" who's Every Inch Bond's Equal™, who'll spend most of the movie machine-gunning villains Rambo-style.)

Something tells me that Barbara Broccoli's approach to Bond is set in stone, and that she wants the character to be "real" and "modern" and "emotionally intelligent" and all that cobblers. What we get, of course, is a nancy boy.

[kevrichardson]

If they remain as faithful to this book as Purvis & Wade say they will, how weird will it be to see Bond in a hotel room, by himself, saying "The bitch is dead!" over the phone, instead of being in the clinch with the girl? Probably as weird an ending as the ending of OHMSS.

I don't find the end to OHMSS to be "weird" . It's in line with the novel and works well IMO . I am personally excited about this change in the formula .

[Seannery]

It is Bond's invicibility - not his vulnerability - that audiences want to see.

Bingo! You nailed it, doublenought.

I'll add to that: it's also his incredible (bordering on arrogance) self-confidence that people want to see, not his emotional angst.

I don't mind a 20-something Bond as long as he's got that self-assurance, that alpha male-ness, that **** you coolness, etc. etc. of Connery, Lazenby and Moore.

What I fear we'll get, though, is Bloom, Gruffudd, McMahon, West or someone like that as a vulnerable 007 who wears his heart on his sleeve (as in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) and gets betrayed by a woman he's fallen head over heels in love with, while also being endlessly rebuked and mocked for his maleness by Dench's M and Bond's Moneypenny. (Oh, yes, and Vesper Lynd will be a "buttkicking babe" who's Every Inch Bond's Equal™, who'll spend most of the movie machine-gunning villains Rambo-style.)

Something tells me that Barbara Broccoli's approach to Bond is set in stone, and that she wants the character to be "real" and "modern" and "emotionally intelligent" and all that cobblers. What we get, of course, is a nancy boy.

I agree with you all--we want a kickass invincible Bond. Not a vulnerable Bond or a Bond with angst. Please!!

[spynovelfan]

I'll add to that: it's also his incredible (bordering on arrogance) self-confidence that people want to see, not his emotional angst.

I don't mind a 20-something Bond as long as he's got that self-assurance, that alpha male-ness, that **** you coolness, etc. etc. of Connery, Lazenby and Moore.

What I fear we'll get, though, is Bloom, Gruffudd, McMahon, West or someone like that as a vulnerable 007 who wears his heart on his sleeve (as in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) and gets betrayed by a woman he's fallen head over heels in love with, while also being endlessly rebuked and mocked for his maleness by Dench's M and Bond's Moneypenny. (Oh, yes, and Vesper Lynd will be a "buttkicking babe" who's Every Inch Bond's Equal™, who'll spend most of the movie machine-gunning villains Rambo-style.)

Something tells me that Barbara Broccoli's approach to Bond is set in stone, and that she wants the character to be "real" and "modern" and "emotionally intelligent" and all that cobblers. What we get, of course, is a nancy boy.

What a fantastic post. There's the passion this series needs. I absolutely agree. OHMSS worked so well because it was really the first time we'd seen Bond feel anything in the films. So the impact was that much greater, to see someone as cool and above it all as Bond have his entire life shattered. It was like watching a nun swear. You can only do it once, though, or it just becomes 'Oh, that swearing nun'. That's the problem now - Brosnan has over-OHMSSed the character. Bond needs to be away from pain and tragedy for a very long time before it will pack a punch like that again. As with the explosions, there's been an inflation in Bond's personal stake in his missions. LTK was a long time coming. Now we have LTK/OHMSS stuff every time out. For Bond's fall to mean anything, we need to see him climb first.

The really interesting thing ('phrase that shows a lie is coming up' - Kingsley Amis) is that Jason Bourne carries the burden of personal tragedy with him, is shown to be angst-ridden, grieving, remourseful, and so on - and yet still remains much more of a 'mission to complete' agent in the Dalton vein than Brosnan ever was.

[Seannery]

You make a good point BUT blaming Brosnan is incorrect--Eon has made this shift in the post-Moore period. Dalton especially with the ladies did it more than Brosnan. In fact Brosnan thankfully reigned it in some. And hopefully they will do that more though that doesn't look so great right now.

[Loomis]

OHMSS worked so well because it was really the first time we'd seen Bond feel anything in the films. So the impact was that much greater, to see someone as cool and above it all as Bond have his entire life shattered. It was like watching a nun swear. You can only do it once, though, or it just becomes 'Oh, that swearing nun'. That's the problem now - Brosnan has over-OHMSSed the character. Bond needs to be away from pain and tragedy for a very long time before it will pack a punch like that again. As with the explosions, there's been an inflation in Bond's personal stake in his missions. LTK was a long time coming. Now we have LTK/OHMSS stuff every time out. For Bond's fall to mean anything, we need to see him climb first.

Agreed 100%. Seems to me that, while Cubby Broccoli always wanted to make a Bond film more spectacular and entertaining than the last one, Barbara Broccoli always wants to make a Bond film more Important and worthy than the last one. Bond films with Something To Say. And, of course, they actually have absolutely nothing to say - nothing of any importance, at least, since, as you rightly point out, the shock value of a "personal" escapade for Bond has long gone. When it comes to Emotional Bond, familiarity has bred contempt.

The really interesting thing ('phrase that shows a lie is coming up' - Kingsley Amis) is that Jason Bourne carries the burden of personal tragedy with him, is shown to be angst-ridden, grieving, remourseful, and so on - and yet still remains much more of a 'mission to complete' agent in the Dalton vein than Brosnan ever was.

True. And there's also the point that the Bournes are much better films than pretty much any of the Bonds made since the '60s, of course.

[spynovelfan]

You make a good point BUT blaming Brosnan is incorrect

Sorry, yes - I meant the Brosnan films. I realise the scripts called for that.

[Seannery]

Loomis with more Bourne Propaganda The best thing about the P+W interview is when they said they weren't going to go in the Bourne direction. It would be beneath Bond to copy another series and unnecessary. The Bond formula has great flexibility which allows plenty of room to keep it fresh and has its special charms that no other series could touch. To go away from that would be a death wish--as P+W rightly stated Bond is heightened reality. As has been stated elsewhere it's set a couple of minutes in the future. And when it focuses on that it keeps Bond's special magic that is all its own. And others then rightly copy Bond not vice versa.

[spynovelfan]

The best thing about the P+W interview is when they said they weren't going to go in the Bourne direction.  It would be beneath Bond to copy another series and unnecessary. 

Not so far beneath it that it hasn't done it before. Blaxploitation, science fiction fads, martial arts... Bond has been beneath itself several times. I also think it's fairly clear that Bourne is an imitator of Bond. The books are a clear attempt to imitate Fleming, right down to the rather crass use of the initials JB. The films are clearly inspired by the likes of FRWL. So it wouldn't really be a case of imitating another series, as simply doing what another series has done, and taking inspiration from its earlier incarnations.

[Seannery]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='15 March 2005 - 16:54'][quote name='Seannery' date='15 March 2005 - 15:48']The best thing about the P+W interview is when they said they weren't going to go in the Bourne direction.

[spynovelfan]

That is why i'm saying the Bond formula is flexible.   It can incorporate all those elements and more into a Bond film.  BUT even in it's early more 'serious" day in still had cheeky fun and the fantasic as a part of the films--alway keeping the series a couple of minutes in the future.  Bourne is all about the nitty gritty now and a serious almost grim psychology--not anything Bond can copy without losing Bond.  At best you can take only a very tiny dab of it.  For those who like the Bourne style--that is fine.  it's just very distinct to what make Bond cook.

Nah. I think you're exaggerating how grim the Bournes are to make your point stronger than it is. There's a chase in a Mini in the first one! I'm not going to say they're party-time, but they're in much the same vein as many of the early Conneries and Dalton's two. Grim? Exciting.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Seannery' date='15 March 2005 - 15:59']Bourne is all about the nitty gritty now and a serious almost grim psychology--not anything Bond can copy without losing Bond.

[Seannery]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='15 March 2005 - 17:25'][quote name='Seannery' date='15 March 2005 - 15:59']That is why i'm saying the Bond formula is flexible.

[Loomis]

But, Seannery, who's to say that the Bourne formula won't prove flexible? I think that if THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM turns out to be rather less dark and gritty than its predecessors, with more humour and a more lighthearted escapist feel, it'll be a clear signal that they're planning a reasonably long-running franchise, rather than just a trilogy.

Look at LETHAL WEAPON 4 - a world apart from the first film in terms of tone. The first LETHAL WEAPON is just as gritty as THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, but by the fourth LETHAL WEAPON, instead of a psychotic hero who sticks a gun in his mouth, we have fun-for-all-the-family antics and quips. Yet the series was able to prosper and make money. And even the third DIE HARD is much less dark than the first. So I wouldn't rule out a change of tone in the Bournes.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='15 March 2005 - 17:30'][quote name='Seannery' date='15 March 2005 - 15:59']Bourne is all about the nitty gritty now and a serious almost grim psychology--not anything Bond can copy without losing Bond.

[Seannery]

But, Seannery, who's to say that the Bourne formula won't prove flexible? I think that if THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM turns out to be rather less dark and gritty than its predecessors, with more humour and a more lighthearted escapist feel, it'll be a clear signal that they're planning a reasonably long-running franchise, rather than just a trilogy.

Look at LETHAL WEAPON 4 - a world apart from the first film in terms of tone. The first LETHAL WEAPON is just as gritty as THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, but by the fourth LETHAL WEAPON, instead of a psychotic hero who sticks a gun in his mouth, we have fun-for-all-the-family antics and quips. Yet the series was able to prosper and make money. And even the third DIE HARD is much less dark than the first. So I wouldn't rule out a change of tone in the Bournes.

Well the flexibility of the Bourne series is a different issue--I guess it is possible though it's like ok show me. Lets see what happens. But I have to disagree that LW1 was gritty like Bourne--it was more serious than the rest but also had lots of humor and had a slickness. Thinking about it more though Bourne is written at his heart as an intense hunted almost psychologically scarred man emeshed in the dirty cynical spy world--changing the tone very much could totally lose the essence of the character. Bond cinematically had his feet a few minutes in the future allowing more plausible changes since it is not as moored(not Roger!) to the world. Hence allowing a strong shift from Connery style to Moore. So I suppose Bourne can shift BUT it would be harder--even the original Die Hard and Lethal Weapon were more larger than life and broader in a good way than Bourne. If they do try it i'll certainly watch to see if they can somehow pull that off.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK have had lower box office returns than those super adventures that Bond has become known for.

Those are also some of the best movies though (FYEO and LTK are debatable but I like them). Regardless of the box offices returns, they are all still great. I'd rather have that than a ton of big explosions and really bad one liners for 8 year olds to ooh and ah at.

[jajosh07]

FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK have had lower box office returns than those super adventures that Bond has become known for.

Those are also some of the best movies though (FYEO and LTK are debatable but I like them). Regardless of the box offices returns, they are all still great. I'd rather have that than a ton of big explosions and really bad one liners for 8 year olds to ooh and ah at.

I would agree that LTK is a good movie, but in todays age (terrorism and such) people want to see a spy thriller that as plenty of action but is still lighthearted and humorous. I personally would like to see another Live and Let Die type of movie where the world isn't going to end if bond fails (even though bad things will happen) and that Bond seems to enjoy him self doing his work. Also people expect Bond to be over the top with his gadgets and stuff, it adds flavor to the movies and give a futuristic edge. All these things (action, humor, fun and gadgets) are what made Bond last for twenty movies by standing out from the crowd and not just flop.

[Pussfeller]

I agree that Bond should take on a less apocalyptic mission. His literary exploits were rarely so momentous, yet there was still a strong sense of danger.

[spynovelfan]

I would agree that LTK is a good movie, but in todays age (terrorism and such) people want to see a spy thriller that as plenty of action but is still lighthearted and humorous.

I think people still just want to see good, exciting films. Both Bourne films did very well at the box office, and they're not exactly light-hearted or humourous.

[jajosh07]

I agree that the Bourne films did do very well, but Bond has built on a leagacy and reputation of thrilling, on the edge of your seat action but also had creative wittasisms that made the action just as enjoyable to see as the humor and gadgets

[jajosh07]

I would also like to add that it isn't and wouldn't be good to over do on any of the for-mentioned idems, such as in LTK there is thought but some people to be a little overkill on action and not enough humor, as some thought DAD was a little overkill on gadgets.

[Stephenson]

I agree that the Bourne films did do very well, but Bond has built on a leagacy and reputation of thrilling, on the edge of your seat action but also had creative wittasisms that made the action just as enjoyable to see as the humor and gadgets

However, that hasn't stopped audiences from feeling that the Bond films had grown reduntent in the past and turning away. When they rely only on the formula, and forget character and plot, bad things start to happen. Today's audience is far more sophisticated than in the 60's, 70's and 80's and have more choices within specific genres than ever before. They do expect a film to have great special effects and exciting action set pieces and interesting characters and plots. After the sci-fi overkill of DAD, which really was just your typical action movie dressed up a little bit, I think the goodwill the audience had for Bond has become very strained.

Ironically, in terms of tone and pacing, the Bourne films are more like Fleming's work. If CR turned out to be of the quality of The Bourne Supremacy (I'm not advocating direct imitation and as C & W have stated Bond needs more humour) I don't think anyone would be disappointed. I don't believe we need a word for word translation to the screen, but EON could do a lot worse than looking to the source material for inspiration for character development and overall tone.

[hrabb04]

I don't think a 100% faithful adaptation is a good idea. The whole book is a set up for the next books. Not much happens other than horrible things happening to Bond. He wins back in the card game, but that is it. The character of Bond needs to be beefed up in the movie. Have him get a chance to kill some of the bad guys in the movie. He doesn't get much of a chance in the book.