10 replies to this topic

[General Koskov]

So what ever happened to Christopher Wood? He wrote James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me as the fantastically wonderful novelisation of The Spy Who Loved Me.

Then he went and novelised Moonraker, which, although I have never read it (damned library and bookstore!) and I'm sure it's got excellent writing, but it--like the film of the same name--'takes away' from Fleming's much better novel.

But enough of that; my reason for posting this is to say publicly what I've been thinking for many years:why doesn't Gildrose just have Gardner/Benson novelise the films and nothing else?

First of all Benson's ideas are, in my opinoin, half-arsed and the books (and this is on purpose rely on film stunts to supposedly keep the young 'uns interested.

News flash, Mr Benson and Mr Gardner: action does not translate well into novels when you try to describe a gigantic The Living Daylights -ish end-battle in the utmost sickeningly-similar-to-Tom-Clancy detail. Read Fleming to see how the 'blink-of-the-eye' action is portrayed to take up no more than a page.

Now Gardner's Licence to Kill was pretty good but whatever happened to The Hildebrany Rarity? I am sure that could be worked in to the beginning and Felix's mauling could be worked out to preserve the fact that 'lightning does not strike twice', as Gardner would have us believe.

As for Benson's novelisations...well they're aimed at eight-to-ten year-olds. Occasionally good passages, but whatever happened to changing events to suit realism? I mean you don't have to have Bond fly a nuclear-armed jet from Afghanistan with a garroting co-pilot in the back. How about having Bond reflect on a similar event as he's driving to MI6 where M will tell him about Carver?

The World is not Enough is not much better, though it does give an interesting 'thought-sequence' to Renard as he's in the sub, much like the Donovan Grant thoughts as he's flying to Moscow from Crimea (or where ever the hell 'Roseland' is).

So here's a proposition: why doesn't Gildrose or Eon or whoever get some author *cough* Chris *cough* to novelise Licence to Kill and onwards with more Fleming-style (which Benson actually refuses to do--'I'm not good enough, boo-hoo!') and fewer reliances on action.

Also, the films of the eighties--all created from short-stories--could be novelised while utilising the short-stories as chapters.
I'm sure that's completely legal seeing as Gildrose lets Messrs Gardner and Benson screw up the Bond cannon with changes of weaponry, more gadgets than Q can shake a stick at (does Bond have any more room for his concealed Colt .45 with all of his colour-changing paints, and flying drones to follow other cars?), and far to many silly stunts that no self-respecting secret agent would do!

So what d'you think?

[RossMan]

Have to go with everyone else here.

I look forward to a Bond novel every year, even if some do tend to flow more like a movie storyline, and would hate to see that replaced with one book every three years or so that is the exact same thing of the Bond movie coming out at the same time. Novilizations are fun, nice to read but aren't really anything more than a modified screenplay.

Who cares if the authors can write like Fleming did, as long as they can write? every author has his own writing style and there will occasionally be someone who can caputure Fleming's writing. (Amis). The Bond actors aren't expected to all act the exact same as Connery so why should the authors have write like Fleming?

[General Koskov]

zencat (25 Apr, 2002 01:01 a.m.):
I agree with you that it would be fun to read novelizations of the films that never got novelized (FYEO, OCTOPUSSY, AVTAK, TLD), but as far as ONLY doing novelizations? No. I'll take original stories over novelizations any day, and for the very reasons you sighted. I don't like reading movie-like action.

Original is my point! Sorry, I must be confusing everyone! I mean that Benson (or whoever takes over next) should use his own 'non-film-ish' ideas to incorporate with the film plots and short stories of the eighties films. That's a lot, but it could turn out a fantastic book like James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me.

RossMan (25 Apr, 2002 11:35 p.m.):
Novilizations are fun, nice to read but aren't really anything more than a modified screenplay.

That's what I think about Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is not Enough. They are nothing more than glorified screenplays. But had Benson not been writing his own books, he'd have put more work (and I mean no disrespect to Benson's work that he did do) and turned out a book that people unfamiliar with Bond would have thought was written alone and then used for the film.

I don't want to read exactly what happens in the film, but with some stuff about Wai Lin sneaking into a warehouse. That's a novelisation, but if I wanted that, I'd read the screenplay. (And the oringinal Tomorrow Never Dies screenplay could make a very good novelisation.)

The Bond actors aren't expected to all act the exact same as Connery so why should the authors have write like Fleming?

Of course they weren't, but they all played James Bond. To a point, they're interchangeable because Bond films are about continuity and not being 'different' or tailored to suit the actor. That's why Spielberg wasn't hired in the late '70s: he had a style, Eon wanted the films to be Bond, not Glen, or Young, or Gilbert, or Hunt.

And there are passages in Benson and Gardner that are extremely Fleming. They've proven they can do it. They are competent writers. So at least give us more writing about food and drink!

However, I agree that re-novelisations do not look professional. But, neither does Tomorrow Never Dies.

[General Koskov]

OK, so if he gets six months why can't Benson turn out something good?

Gardner did an okay job of Licence to Kill--though the shark biting off Felix's prosthetic arms is a bit much. It's like a person eating the plate along with the meal. ^_^

[Mister Asterix]

RossMan (25 Apr, 2002 11:35 p.m.):
...there will occasionally be someone who can caputure Fleming's writing. (Amis)...

It's funny that people keep saying how Amis captured Fleming's style, I remember on the first reading of COLONEL SUN being annoyed at how un-Fleming the writing was. I still enjoyed the heck out of the book though, but I definitely missed Ian's ability to bend the language to suit his needs. Of course, neither Gardner or Benson--or Wood--share that trait, but Amis was cursed to be the first Bond I read after finishing Fleming so it was a bit more irritating.

[zencat]

I agree with you that it would be fun to read novelizations of the films that never got novelized (FYEO, OCTOPUSSY, AVTAK, TLD), but as far as ONLY doing novelizations? No. I'll take original stories over novelizations any day, and for the very reasons you sighted. I don't like reading movie-like action. And if you think Benson structures his books around movie-like action set pieces then you need to re-read HIGH TIME TO KILL. That's a suspense novel if there ever was one.

[Blue Eyes]

General Koskov (24 Apr, 2002 11:47 p.m.):
So here's a proposition: why doesn't Gildrose or Eon or whoever get some author *cough* Chris *cough* to novelise Licence to Kill and onwards with more Fleming-style (which Benson actually refuses to do--'I'm not good enough, boo-hoo!') and fewer reliances on action.

So what d'you think?

One: Only the fans will buy re-novelisations.

Two: Re-novelisations aren't a professional image.

Three: The current ones are fine. I think Tomorrow Never Dies is exceptional. Benson works in a great back story. And they're novelisations of the films, which means they should be darn close to the films.

Leave them how they are, they're good that way.

And as for Benson writing like Fleming. Fleming wrote like Fleming, no one else.

[General Koskov]

zencat (25 Apr, 2002 01:01 a.m.):
And if you think Benson structures his books around movie-like action set pieces then you need to re-read HIGH TIME TO KILL. That's a suspense novel if there ever was one.

Sorry! I forgot, that was my favourite Benson book. The golf game was fantastic. I was referring more to the boat-jump thing from Never Dream of Dying. I can't imagine Bond practises diving underwater just in case he's in the middle of a film and the pyrotechnics guy decides to kill him.

But I still stand on my belief that Fleming can be copied fairly faithfully. Read Wood. Apparently Amis is excellent at capturing the style, too, but I haven't read Colonel Sun yet.

As for novelisations being only read by fans, I'd say that non-fans would not stand any better of a chance reading Fleming's books than the noveliser's.

Because if you're indicating that novelising old films is going to make people wonder which films the novels came from, then Fleming's books should have a hard time too. But this can't be true because Penguin has just made a new edition/set of paperbacks--with, I might add, no reference to James Bond on the covers.

I can see the point about re-novelisations, but films are always getting re-made, so why not books? I think Benson should get more than six weeks (that's what he said in an interview) to write his novelisations. Better to have him incorporated in the story-writing process right off the top and then have the novelisation come out around the film: that would give Benson around two years to write the book!

My point about not writing new novels was mainly because I'd rather see the writer focus on their own vision of the new Bond film and thus turn out a somewhat different (fewer explosions, et cetera) novel like Wood did with The Spy Who Loved Me. Wood managed to write a Flemingesque, realistic James Bond novel that can fit in with Fleming's cannon... and he was the screenwriter for Moonraker for God's sake!

So my point is that Benson should be able to do this too.

[Mister Asterix]

Wow! What a bad idea.

It's tacky. It's rude. It's a waste of time and effort. It's an awful idea. No respectable author would take the job. And it's a marketing nightmare. I'm a collector of Bond books and I wouldn't buy a re-novelisation.

[scaramanga]

[quote]General Koskov (25 Apr, 2002 03:21 p.m.):
[quote]zencat (25 Apr, 2002 01:01 a.m.):
I think Benson should get more than six weeks (that's what he said in an interview) to write his novelisations.
[/quote]

Actually, I'm pretty sure he gets six months to write the novelisations, which you have to admit, is more plausible.

[Mister Asterix]

[quote]scaramanga (25 Apr, 2002 08:28 p.m.):
[quote]General Koskov (25 Apr, 2002 03:21 p.m.):
[quote]zencat (25 Apr, 2002 01:01 a.m.):
I think Benson should get more than six weeks (that's what he said in an interview) to write his novelisations.
[/quote]

Actually, I'm pretty sure he gets six months to write the novelisations, which you have to admit, is more plausible.[/quote]

It might be six months from the time he starts to the time it hits the stores but there is a lot of time in editing, typesetting, design, printing, shipping, et cetera