76 replies to this topic

[Simon]

- just because Faulks wrote a book with Bond in it doesn't mean they should use [either] it.

....or the title.

Yup.

[mister-white]

They're saying it's all to do with setting?!? C'mon, we just had a Bond film where if they took out the product placement cellphones and other stuff, you wouldn't be able to tell when it takes place. Plus, also most of the Bond films are dateless, cause I've always thought that the events of Dr. No to Die Another Day happened over a much shorter period than the forties years of the series existance, more like all 20 missions are supposed to be over a 5 year period or something like that.

Now, for DMC, could this mean we could have a NSNA where it's done "unoffically" featuring a new cast and crew. If so, my vote would be for Chris Nolan and his team to get behind the project. Hopefully he could get either Christian Bale or Hugh Jackman for Bond (both of which he's worked with and are two actors I hoped would eventually play Bond even as much as I like Craig).

[MarkA]

Now, for DMC, could this mean we could have a NSNA where it's done "unoffically" featuring a new cast and crew.

I am afraid that will never happen. EON have the rights pretty much sewn up. The only reason we had NSNA because it was a remake of Thunderball and the cinema rights were awarded to McClory. This won't happen again.

[Skudor]

Sounds like Faulks is pretty keen on getting his movie made. Sigh.

[marktmurphy]

As with those above, I'd prefer to see a Young Bond series. Would the 30's setting of those be confusing when running alongside a present day Bond or could you just ignore that? I'm not certain.

I think it would work if they did Young Bond on TV. My vision for a YB series would be a very faithful high quality BBC mini series. One book each season for five seasons. It'd be awesome, and I think it would easily exist beside the contemp film Bond without a problem. For many kids, "Young Bond" is a stand alone character anyway. (And for "kids" like me, because Young Bond is so rooted in Fleming, it actually feels more like James Bond to me than Craig's Bond.)

That would be lovely, but I don't think that the BBC could adapt the novels very easily because they'd be so damned expensive to make: foreign location shooting with period sets, locations, cars etc. that have to be blown up? Floods through Mexican towns, mountaintop lairs, cruise liners crashing into docks etc. Even with help from overseas channels it might be a tall order.

I don't know if budget would be much of a concern these days. They can tinker with that stuff to drive the price down and there are plenty of bigger special-effects TV shows. Rome might be good for comparison. Period piece with plenty of action and authentic-looking set pieces. (Helluva show too)

But Rome is all set on one enormous stage which is the only place they shoot the thing. Same costumes and sets for the whole series. Young Bond would have to be shot in a wide variety of foreign locations with lots of fulling functioning period vehicles. Even the villain's lair from Blood Fever would take most of the budget from Rome, I'd imagine (or perhaps you could actually shoot it at Cinecitta Studios, I suppose). It's practically the same as Young Indiana Jones, which I think was one of the most expensive TV shows ever, wasn't it?

I can see this working. I think the biggest concern with this is that it's Young Bond. Nothing is wrong with Young Bond, but if you get the wrong people involved... if you're not serious about the material, this could turn out to be a complete disaster. How many Bond ripoffs have we seen with the secret agent being young? How many of those are a complete joke? That's my concern. This isn't James Bond Jr. or Agent Cody Banks, but I'm afraid any movie or TV show of Young Bond may turn into exactly that and that's just a crying shame. It's the first thing any writer beyond Charlie (and maybe zencat ) would try to do.

I don't really know what you mean- have you read them? All you'd have to do is adapt them in a vaguely similar tone to the books and you wouldn't have to worry about any of that.

- just because Faulks wrote a book with Bond in it doesn't mean they should use [either] it.

....or the title.

Yup.

No, I wouldn't use the title just because it's a Bond title, but because it's a very good Bond title!

[Trident]

What's really astonishing here is that Faulks obviously really thought there was a chance his book would ever be made into a film. This is, well, not a very realistic point of view, to put it mildly. I'd have thought that surely Faulks was completely aware that EON wasn't ever going to do more than make a few polite remarks about DMC, regardless of its quality. It seems there have been some illusions on Faulks side, or he'd not have commented on the obvious fact that his work is surely not prevented by the period setting to get filmed.

[Safari Suit]

I'm not disappointed EON didn't pick up the rights, but strangely I think it's a shame no one else can.

[Skudor]

What's really astonishing here is that Faulks obviously really thought there was a chance his book would ever be made into a film. This is, well, not a very realistic point of view, to put it mildly. I'd have thought that surely Faulks was completely aware that EON wasn't ever going to do more than make a few polite remarks about DMC, regardless of its quality. It seems there have been some illusions on Faulks side, or he'd not have commented on the obvious fact that his work is surely not prevented by the period setting to get filmed.

Perhaps he's delusional.

[Trident]

What's really astonishing here is that Faulks obviously really thought there was a chance his book would ever be made into a film. This is, well, not a very realistic point of view, to put it mildly. I'd have thought that surely Faulks was completely aware that EON wasn't ever going to do more than make a few polite remarks about DMC, regardless of its quality. It seems there have been some illusions on Faulks side, or he'd not have commented on the obvious fact that his work is surely not prevented by the period setting to get filmed.

Perhaps he's delusional.

Well, I'm not really sure but from what I've heard so far, neither Gardner nor Benson had such misconceptions about their books. And I strongly doubt that Amis would have even championed a 'Colonel Sun' film as I got the impression he wasn't a friend of the films in the first place. At any rate since 1968 none of the continuations was ever adapted for film. Perhaps it's really a bit pushing the point to expect that EON started breaking a rule of four decades just because Faulks has penned a continuation now. It's really not as if DMC was that much of a visual novel to start with and it's really far from being the stuff for an entire film. At the very most one might take a few elements and mix them up with a completely new plot. Which was all EON was ever going to do anyway. I'm really surprised that there should have been a situation that allowed Faulks any misunderstanding of that question.

[HildebrandRarity]

What's really astonishing here is that Faulks obviously really thought there was a chance his book would ever be made into a film. This is, well, not a very realistic point of view, to put it mildly. I'd have thought that surely Faulks was completely aware that EON wasn't ever going to do more than make a few polite remarks about DMC, regardless of its quality.

Perhaps he's delusional.

... I'm really surprised that there should have been a situation that allowed Faulks any misunderstanding of that question.

Perhaps he's delusional

?

[Skudor]

There don't seem to be many other alternatives

[Mr. Blofeld]

P'rhaps he thought, "I'm Sebastian Faulks, beeyotches; I wrote Birdsong! Y'all gone hafta make dis into a movie!"

[oddjob007]

I am glad. As one of your earlier threads say, 'Not Fleming, Not Bond.'

[Safari Suit]

I assume you dislike all but six of the movies then. And I'm being generous there. Very generous.

[Trident]

Now, with all due respect, but it would really have called for entirely different circumstances for DMC (or any other continuation) to become an EON production. And I would have supposed that every adult character connected to this business shared the mutual understanding that the literary and the film franchise over the decades have become two entirely different kinds of kettle with only minor fields of common content (regardless of some more or less 'filmic' entries by Benson or Gardner). And from a financial point of view it would be downright ludicrous for EON to pay for outside material they can get in better quality, script-shaped from their own writers and then wouldn't have to do vast rewrites to fit into a present-day filmscript.

[HildebrandRarity]

...from a financial point of view it would be downright ludicrous for EON to pay for outside material they can get in better quality, script-shaped from their own writers ...

Precisely!

Yes, he's definitely delusional.

There don't seem to be many other alternatives

[Napoleon Solo]

Well, I'm not really sure but from what I've heard so far, neither Gardner nor Benson had such misconceptions about their books.

Gardner and Benson, though, were hired by a different regime at Ian Fleming Publications, formerly Glidrose. It may be that IFP's new regime, as well as Faulks, thought they could interest Eon.