15 replies to this topic

[piotr007]

In one of MKKBB's interviews with Raymond Benson there is an interesting question about whether literary Bond should be constantly updated.

Benson says:
"Personally, I believe that eventually Bond should stop being updated. I can't see a James Bond running around in the year 2045. I would like to see him become a historical, Cold War-era character. Sherlock Holmes is a Victorian Age character, and that's where he belongs. I think Bond should stay in the 1950s and 1960s after we get into the 21st Century. There will come a time when any references to the past, that is, the Fleming books, will become ludicrous because it will make Bond seem so old. The age factor will become more and more of a problem. There are some fans who agree with me, but I know there are just as many who would disagree. I'm positive that EON would never go that direction. Actually, I'm happy either way. As long as Bond continues in some fashion, I won't complain."

What do you think? Go on, but first listen to my idea.

I think that Bond should be updated, but instead of refering to 007's past adventures, the future writers should write new versions of the Fleming's novels. This would be a nice literary entertainment, kind of postmodern intellectual fun.

Tell me your opinions.

[piotr007]

scaramanga (02 Dec, 2001 08:18 p.m.):
If Bond were kept in the past, then we would have too many continuity errors. Garner and Benson would most likely come under fire for their descriptions of the '50s and '60s. Also, how many times can Bond go up against the Russians or SMERSH. After a while, it would get tiresome. Coming up with new and refreshing outlines for Bond is so much better and gives the opportunity for more vastly different Bond adventures. The movie series have moved forward with the times, so why should the novels not? The whole Bond canon is now a big continuity error, but one we overlook. Plus, keeping Bond in the past would alienate "casual" Bond fans. You know, those lazy few who have only ever watched the Brosnan film and read the Benson like they were screenplays, expecting the likes of Q, a female M, Aston Martin DB5, etc., etc. So, I would have to say no to have Bond as being a character 'frozen in the past'.

Amen. I'm even more convinced after reading RossMan's "Death To Spies" fanfic. It's quite good, but in my opinion the main idea of presenting Bond adventures after "Colonel Sun" and before "Licence Renewed" doesn't work well.

[piotr007]

And one more thing...

When will you finally tell me what do you think of the idea of writing new versions of old (Fleming's ?) adventures? I mean - the old Fleminguesque motives in the new situations.

(In order to transfer Bond's dated memories, which become the basis for the future novels, to modern era.)

[Mister Asterix]

piotr007 (05 Dec, 2001 04:07 p.m.):
When will you finally tell me what do you think of the idea of writing new versions of old (Fleming's ?) adventures? I mean - the old Fleminguesque motives in the new situations.

It should not be done. Just like Psycho should have never been remade. That said it could make for some interesting topics on the forum. Topics like 'How would You Only Live Twice be if it were set in 1979' would make for some good, healthy arguments. But rewriting the novels, they cannot be better than the originals, so it should not be done. Ever.

[rafterman]

This is a very interesting topic and something that comes up most often in comic books where characters created in the 60s are still the same age today, with events over ten, fifteen years having occured in just a few.
Bond films will stay contemporary for quite awhile, I feel it's simply too early to do a period 60s spy series.
References to previous Bond screen adventures will become few and far between.
On the same idea, I feel that since Brosnan stepped in and there was a sizable gap between LTK and GE that this could almost be seen as a new series with little tie to the rest.
Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton were all definately the same guy, but is Brosnan meant to fit in the same continuity?
or is it hazy? is this a question of canon?
on screen it doesn't matter, Bond can never age....
In book form it becomes a little different with reference to past exploits, for now it's ok, but soon Bond will either have to age or the adventures will need to be frozen in time.

[scaramanga]

If Bond were kept in the past, then we would have too many continuity errors. Garner and Benson would most likely come under fire for their descriptions of the '50s and '60s. Also, how many times can Bond go up against the Russians or SMERSH. After a while, it would get tiresome. Coming up with new and refreshing outlines for Bond is so much better and gives the opportunity for more vastly different Bond adventures. The movie series have moved forward with the times, so why should the novels not? The whole Bond canon is now a big continuity error, but one we overlook. Plus, keeping Bond in the past would alienate "casual" Bond fans. You know, those lazy few who have only ever watched the Brosnan film and read the Benson like they were screenplays, expecting the likes of Q, a female M, Aston Martin DB5, etc., etc. So, I would have to say no to have Bond as being a character 'frozen in the past'.

[Mister Asterix]

freemo (29 Nov, 2001 12:55 a.m.):(edited)
I've always thought that Bond should have been confined to a realistic timeline...

I've been thinking about this timeline thing. Fleming didn't even keep Bond in a consistant timeline, Bond Bond was originally born in 1920, later it changed to 1924. Fleming really ignored age keeping Bond in his mid-thirties throughout his books. With this in mind, it really doesn't bug me that the Bond who oversaw the Hong Kong handover had at one time worked for His Majesty's Secret Service.

[Icephoenix]

There are good reasons that he should stay in the past, but...I'll miss him!

[Mister Asterix]

Blofeld's Cat (06 Dec, 2001 06:50 a.m.):
It was actually remade in 1977. It's called The Spy Who Loved Me.

True. However, I was talking about the novel You Only Live Twice, which really hasn't been made in to a movie yet. (Not until zencat's Shatterhand gets put to film anyway.)

[Blofeld's Cat]

Mister Asterix (05 Dec, 2001 04:41 p.m.):
It should not be done. Just like Psycho should have never been remade. That said it could make for some interesting topics on the forum. Topics like 'How would You Only Live Twice be if it were set in 1979' would make for some good, healthy arguments. But rewriting the novels, they cannot be better than the originals, so it should not be done. Ever.

It was actually remade in 1977. It's called The Spy Who Loved Me.

[Mister Asterix]

I think Bond should stay present day for now. References to Bond's past should be left vague as far as timing. I personally when reading the Benson novels will think of the Fleming stories as having taken place during the Seventies and early Eighties. The day Bond should be put in to the past is the day they introduce a practical flying car.

[zencat]

This is an interesting question and one that I discuss all the time with Bond fans, not just in relation to the books, but also the films. I think, like Benson, eventually Bond will find his way back to the Cold War era and remain there. But this could take a while, and I'm fine with a contemporary Bond for may more years.

I look at Sherlock Holmes as an example of what could happen with Bond. The original Holmes stories spanned the 1880s into the late 1920s. They were always contemporary. Holmes movies started in the 1910s and '20s and continued as contemporary adventures well into the '30s with Holmes battling bootleggers, etc. After a lag of 10 years or so, 20th Century Fox decide to do The Hound of The Baskervilles, but set it when the story was written, in the Victoria era. This turned out to be an inspired choice and a HUGE hit! It revealed that Sherlock Holmes stories weren't just about the man and the mystery, they were also about the Victorian era, a world audiences were nostalgic for. Holmes was a true product of his times and belonged there. Once they figured that out, Holmes was immortal.

I think one of the reasons Austin Powers is such a hit is because it taps into the public nostalgia for the world of the "swinging" cold war spy and, ironically, the world of James Bond. The world Michael Wilson will not let James Bond inhabit anymore, a world of super villains in volcanoes.

Could what happened to Holmes happen to Bond? I think so. I'd like to see Benson write a period Bond book, or the BBC do a period adaptation of Casino Royale or FRWL. But, like I said, James Bond as modern man still works...for now.

[freemo]

I've always thought that Bond should have been confined to a realistic timeline. Though once you leave that and keep Bodn in present day, I would think that it would pretty hard to go back to the 50s/60s. Could get confusing, if indeed the the whole novel series is supposed to be 'canon' which is another debate all together. Remember one of the Benson Bond books has the time of Hong Kongs handover to China, can he really go backwards are doing this.

If there is a point where Bond can no longer be brought up to the present day I think we've just about reached it if not already.

[RossMan]

I'd prefer to see Bond kept back in the time period where Fleming created him. I'd love to see Benson, or the next Bond author set Bond stories in that period between Colonel Sun and Licence Renewed. One of the problems is certainly the age thing but also it seems like there is less for Bond to do. It seems like the end of each new movie/book, Bond is disarmming/preventing a nuclear bomb/explosion and/or stopping some nut from starting a war between two countries, usually from sort of criminal group, the Union (don't get me wrong I really enjoyed Benson's Union trilogy) and Lord knows how many groups and SPECTRE rip offs Gardner created. BAST, COLD, NSAA, Scales of Justice, etc. I'm not saying that the Soviets and Russians HAVE to be the bad guys, Fleming still was able to create some interesting non-Soviet related villains.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I also prefer Bond to be in the '50's-'60's. This is the why I have not bothered to read any novels since CS.

[Blue Eyes]

A fascinating topic!

Seeing as this is in the Literature section I guess I should try and look at the novels. Personally, I'm not hugely worried as to when Bond turns up in time. I like the idea of Benson's and Gardner's novels where Bond is a modern day person, I find it easier to relate to. Perhaps it's because I was born in '83 and my memory of the Cold War is almost nil bar what I've read in History books. I remember the fall of the Wall, but back then I wondered why people just didn't walk around it, it was only a wall afterall. Being of the younger generation I find it's harder to relate to the threat of Communism.

That said, if Benson writes a story with Bond back in the 60's, it's fine with me. I can rest easy with it. But only on the condition that the surroundings and the atmosphere are explained well enough. I need to be able to understand why Bond is after the Russians etc...