21 replies to this topic

[Hollywood Gothique]

I just read a report that some company is planning to remake DAY OF THE DEAD, the 1985 horror film written and directed by George Romero. Curiously, Romero is himself finishing up LAND OF THE DEAD, which could be considered a sequel to DAY OF THE DEAD.

This got me thinking: Has there ever been a previous exapmle in film history when a franchise was creating both sequels and reamkes simultaneously? The obvious example that occurred to me was in 1983, when we had two Bond films, OCTOPUSSY, a "sequel" (at least the next film in the series chronologically) and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, a remake of THUNDERBALL.

But here's the rub: I seem to recall that the producers of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN insisted that there film was not a remake (I think their exact words were along the line of "That's Eon Productions' interpretation of what we're doing").

So here's my question: Is NEVER SAY NEVER a remake of THUNDERBALL, or does it just share some elements, being a new movie based on the old Kevin McClory treatment (that inspired Fleming's novel THUNDERBALL, which in turn led to the film version of the same title)?

[Mister Asterix]

Welcome to CBn, HG.

Perhaps they did not want to call it a remake because they are starting from the McClory/Fleming/Whittingham scripts and Thunderball was based on the book (which was based on the McClory/Fleming/Whittingham scripts). But it is a remake whatever they say.

[Loomis]

Is the upcoming CASINO ROYALE a remake, Mister Asterix?

[Bon-san]

Here we go again!

[DLibrasnow]

Is the upcoming CASINO ROYALE a remake, Mister Asterix?

Well going on what Evan said he MUST consider CASINO ROYALE a remake.

[Loomis]

Is the upcoming CASINO ROYALE a remake, Mister Asterix?

Well going on what Evan said he MUST consider CASINO ROYALE a remake.

My thoughts exactly. Not that there's anything wrong with remakes, of course. In fact, I consider NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN a better film than THUNDERBALL, and I'm sure Eon's CASINO ROYALE will be superior to the 1967 version.

[Mister Asterix]

Is the upcoming CASINO ROYALE a remake, Mister Asterix?

[mra]I

[marktmurphy]

Considering that Thunderball was a film treatment first, then a film and then another film, I think you can say that NSNA is a remake as Thunderball was always a film- it simply had a book adaptation (albeit before it was actually made).
Casino Royale was a novel first, with a loose adaptation in film and now this new version, which will presumably draw on the source novel more than the first film of the same name. So Royale is not a remake.

[DLibrasnow]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='25 May 2005 - 14:18'][quote name='Loomis' date='25 May 2005 - 13:59']Is the upcoming CASINO ROYALE a remake, Mister Asterix?

[/quote]

[mra]I

[marktmurphy]

I agree with you Evan. Both NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and CASINO ROYALE are remakes. In fact its impossible to say one is a remake and the other is not,

In fact tha case is stronger that CASINO ROYALE is a remake, because it is a remake of the same source material (the Fleming book).

Except that Thunderball was always a film (with a novelisation written after the film was written) whereas the two Royale movies are separate adaptations of the same source material novel. NSNA is a remake of the original film, the Royale movies are adaptations of the same novel- one is not a remake of the other.

[DLibrasnow]

So your assertion is that Flemings book was a novelization of a THUNDERBALL script.

Even if that is the case the fact remains that CASINO ROYALE is a remake of the same source material as the 1967 version of the book.

[marktmurphy]

No matter which way you look at it, both NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and CASINO ROYALE are remakes.

NSNA- remake of the (original) movie Thunderball; Casino Royale (06) second adaptation of novel of Casino Royale. No matter which way you look at it, one is a remake of a movie, the other is a book adaptation.

[Kara Milovy]

NSNA is a remake. Some films are not remakes if they are re-adaptations of a book; i.e. the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes was purported to be a new version of the novel, not a remake of the Charlton Heston film. The various Dracula films are not remakes, they are re-adaptations of Stoker's work, or perhaps of the original stage play.

But NSNA just doesn't qualify as a re-adaptation, because it borrows too many things from the film TB that weren't in the novel.

Femme fatale killer working for SPECTRE: Original film YES/novel NO
Gorgeous female MI6 agent accompanying Bond: Original film YES/novel NO
Femme fatale murders gorgeous assistant: Original film YES/novel NO
Q provides Bond with gadgets: Original film YES/novel NO
Blofeld has a cat: Original film YES/novel NO
Jetpack scene: Original film YES/novel NO

[marktmurphy]

But NSNA just doesn't qualify as a re-adaptation, because it borrows too many things from the film TB that weren't in the novel.

Thunderball was a movie formost and a novelisation by Ian Fleming second. The film treatment was written by Fleming, McClory and Whittingham (I think) and then Fleming wrote a novel based on the (as yet unmade) film. It would be like making another Die Another Day and saying it is based upon the Raymond Benson novel of the same name. Hence, you're right- NSNA is a remake, Royale is a new adaptation.

[Qwerty]

Welcome to the CommanderBond.net Forums, the #1 James Bond site in the world!

[DLibrasnow]

No matter which way you look at it, both NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and CASINO ROYALE are remakes.

NSNA- remake of the (original) movie Thunderball; Casino Royale (06) second adaptation of novel of Casino Royale. No matter which way you look at it, one is a remake of a movie, the other is a book adaptation.

Oh so now you are switching your argument to say that Flemings book was not a novelization?! Thats very convenient for you.

But NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was a new adaptation of the Fleming novel. As the British High Court ruled McClory was given the movie rights to the Fleming novel.

Therefore since both THUNDERBALL and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN were both adaptations of the same book. Then if you consiider one a remake of the other then you must consider CASINO ROYALE a remake.

[marktmurphy]

Oh so now you are switching your argument to say that Flemings book was not a novelization?! Thats very convenient for you. 

Er.. presumably you're not reading the bit where I just said it was a novelisation.

But NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was a new adaptation of the Fleming novel. As the British High Court ruled McClory was given the movie rights to the Fleming novel.

Therefore since both THUNDERBALL and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN were both adaptations of the same book. Then if you consiider one a remake of the other then you must consider CASINO ROYALE a remake.

The Fleming novel was based on the film treatment. It was a novelisation of a movie, not an original book as Royale was. Thunderball was only ever a movie, albeit one with a very good (and early) novelisation, just like Die Another Day (although it didn't have a good novelisation). Thunderball was a movie, Royale was a book.

[DLibrasnow]

Damn.....you are so much fun to wind up marktmurphy.

[marktmurphy]

Oh, so you're only pretending to be stupid. Nice story- I'd stick with it if I were you.

[Kara Milovy]

But NSNA just doesn't qualify as a re-adaptation, because it borrows too many things from the film TB that weren't in the novel.

Thunderball was a movie formost and a novelisation by Ian Fleming second. The film treatment was written by Fleming, McClory and Whittingham (I think) and then Fleming wrote a novel based on the (as yet unmade) film. It would be like making another Die Another Day and saying it is based upon the Raymond Benson novel of the same name. Hence, you're right- NSNA is a remake, Royale is a new adaptation.

You're missing my point. First of all, the script that McClory and Whittingham worked on with Fleming wasn't TB; all that the lawsuit ever stipulated was that Fleming took elements from that script (which I believe was a teleplay, not a movie) and used them in his novel.

Secondly, the movie TB was substantially different from the novel OR the script from which the novel was adapted. The items I list were added by Eon explicitly for their film. Those items were then copied from the film TB into the film NSNA. There was never Q-the-gadget-master in any Fleming novel to the extent he was in the Eon films, which was then copied by NSNA. There was never a cat in Blofeld's lap in any Fleming work until Eon put one there in FRWL and then again in TB. There was never a femme fatale SPECTRE assassain in any Fleming or McClory work until the part of Fiona Volpe was written explicitly for the movie TB and then copied (as Fatima Blush) for the movie NSNA. There was never a female assistant accompanying Bond in Nassau in Fleming's novel or the script that preceded it; Eon added Paul Caplan for the film and NSNA copied that character as Nicole. There was never a scene in the novel or the script that preceded it in which Bond is out meeting Largo and Domino and then comes back to his hotel to find his assistant has been harmed. The kidnapping was added by Eon for the film TB and then copied by NSNA as a murder.

[DLibrasnow]

There was never a femme fatale SPECTRE assassain in any Fleming or McClory work until the part of Fiona Volpe was written explicitly for the movie TB and then copied (as Fatima Blush) for the movie NSNA.

Some good points Kara but let me correct you on this one item. Fatima Blush was a character that appeared in the screen treatments from the late 1950s. It was from the 1950s screen treatments that NSNA took this character from.

Source: THE JAMES BOND FILMS: A BEHIND THE SCENES HISTORY by Steven Jay Rubin

[Hollywood Gothique]

Thanks for the comments. Some interesting points. Considering the lineage between THUNDERBALL (film version) and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, I guess the latter really does have to be considered a remake, in spite of what the producers contented at the time.

As for the rest of the arguments (particularly concerning CASINO ROYALE), I think you guys may be having what logicians call a verbal disagreement (meaning you're arguing over terms instead of substance).

Possibly you could bury the hatchet if you would stop arguing over minuetea and instead agree to the basic terms: how to define a remake?

If we define remake as a new adaptation of a book that has previously been adapted, then CASINO ROYAL is a remake.

If we define a remake not as a new adaptation of previously existing source material, but as a film derived specifically form a previous film, then CASINO ROYAL would not be a remake.

I would tend to fall into the former category, at least when speaking casually. When a book gets adapted to cinema, we say the "book is being made into a movie." If it's already been "made" into a movie once, and somebody "makes" into a movie again, it's inevitable that we will refer to the second version as a "remake."

If we want to split hairs, we might stipulate that it is the "book" that is being remade, not the earlier film version. In this specific case, it would certainly seem fair to say that the new CASINO ROYALE film is not a remake of the old film in any meaningful sense (unless Jimmy Bond shows up in a flying saucer at the end).