2121 replies to this topic

[whiteskwirl]

Yeah, having Bond undercover is a good idea. I always thought Bond wasn't very smart sometimes, giving out his real name, smoking the same kind of cigarettes all the time, driving a flashy car--anyone looking for him would be able to spot him easily (makes me think of Casino Royale [the movie] when Bond shows up on Africa and he's standing on the street corner all dressed up, standing out about as much as possible).

[Quantumofsolace007]

Oh, I think Deaver's few sentences are stuffed to the brim with some terrific news.

- Reboot!

I mean 'reboot'! That in itself is pretty much unheard-of for the series. Think of the consequences. Great! This indeed is a Bond-revolution, something I'd never have thought possible any more.

- 00's are to work under cover

Perhaps the closest to reality the series has ever come with that step. It's one thing to abolish the 00-section as Gardner did, but never pulled through consequently. Having the 00's deniable and well below the radar of the public is far more logical and indeed crucial in a media world such as ours.

- Bond in his 30's

Perfect for the kind of assignments Bond is to face today. Loving it already!

And so on. There is incredibly much to be found in this snippet.

I am extremly EXCITED about this and I do feel now is the perfect time to do a reboot.


Though i didn't listen to the interview I will when i get home is there any chance that Deever's Bond Beat Le Chiffe at a poker table in Montenegro and battled Dominic Greene in bolivia or is Deever's Bond novel going to be Bond's first mission as a 00 in 2011.



I honestly feel this is (FINNALY) a move by IFP to combine the film and Novel world so the 2 work with each other instead of against each other. As many know IFP and Eon never saw Eye to Eye since 67 (I believe Harry Saltzman loved Per Fine Ounce and wanted to film it but IFP didn't like the novel so it didn't go into print)


I am curious if Deever's novel could even act as a loose prequel to Bond 23... Not out of the question and certantly would be fun for us bond fans.

Now if Activision can give us a video game version of say Colonel Sun With Daniel Craig as 007 then the 3 branches of 007 (video Game Film and Novel) will finnaly be one whole universe rather then 3 seperate entities (except for film tie ins) Which as a bond fan that is extremly exciting.

[zencat]

Not sure why everyone kind of hangs up on the smoking as being anything. The lit Bond hasn't smoked in years. There is a reference to his new brand of cigarettes in License Renewed, but I'm not sure he ever actually smokes in the Gardner books. And he didn't smoke at all in Benson.

Smoking, in modern context, just doesn't work anymore. Besides, as a spy, it's dangerous. In this non-smoking world, I can smell a smoker a mile away. Be too easy to mark Bond. "Shoot the guy who stinks." Unless the book is set in China, of course.

I am curious if Deever's novel could even act as a loose prequel to Bond 23... Not out of the question and certantly would be fun for us bond fans.

Agree, that would be fun. Wondering how the two might compare. Ah, what's to wonder, the Deaver book will be better.

Novelizations will fit better into this rebooted universe as well.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Not sure why everyone kind of hangs up on the smoking as being anything. The lit Bond hasn't smoked in years. There is a reference to his new brand of cigarettes in License Renewed, but I'm not sure he ever actually smokes in the Gardner books. And he didn't smoke at all in Benson.

Smoking, in modern context, just doesn't work anymore. Besides, as a spy, it's dangerous. In this non-smoking world, I can smell a smoker a mile away. Be too easy to mark Bond. "Shoot the guy who stinks." Unless the book is set in China, of course.

I am curious if Deever's novel could even act as a loose prequel to Bond 23... Not out of the question and certantly would be fun for us bond fans.

Agree, that would be fun. Wondering how the two might compare. Ah, what's to wonder, the Deaver book will be better.

Agreed Bond being a non smoker makes sense in this world sorry fleming purists.

[zencat]

Novelizations will fit better into this rebooted universe as well, if they continue to do them.

I'm gonna need a bigger bookcase.

Shatterhand puts in his sidebar that it's a series by different authors. JD makes a reference to "future authors in the series."

BTW, if Charlie Higson isn't one of these future authors, I'm going on a hunger strike.

[Loomis]

Think making May Indian or Pakistani is exactly right.

If something of a sign that the author is an American whose grasp on life in Britain is not quite 100%. May would be far more likely to be eastern European than Pakistani (and very unlikely to be Indian).

(Why is May needed at all? The idea of a 30-something James Bond in 2011 employing a live-in housekeeper seems incredibly old-fashioned, not to mention suggesting that he has the income of a hedge fund manager.)

Anyway, would someone mind listing the spoilers? I have no sound on my computer so cannot listen to the interview.

BTW, has Deaver actually stated explicitly that Bond was born in the 1980s? If so, I wonder why he's missed a trick in not lining up 007's birthday with Daniel Craig's. (Craig was born in '68, if I'm not mistaken.)

[Trident]

(Why is May needed at all? The idea of a 30-something James Bond in 2011 employing a live-in housekeeper seems incredibly old-fashioned, not to mention suggesting that he has the income of a hedge fund manager.)

Oh, needn't necessarily be a live-in housekeeper, does it? Perhaps she's coming two days a week and more often only when Bond's abroad?

[Matt_13]

(Why is May needed at all? The idea of a 30-something James Bond in 2011 employing a live-in housekeeper seems incredibly old-fashioned, not to mention suggesting that he has the income of a hedge fund manager.)

Oh, needn't necessarily be a live-in housekeeper, does it? Perhaps she's coming two days a week and more often only when Bond's abroad?

Right, she doesn't necessarily have to be under the sole employment of Bond.

As far as I'm concerned, the farther they keep the literary Bond from the cinematic Bond the better. I do not want the two crossing over, but I seriously doubt that will happen. I wonder what Bond's first two kills will be? Don't think he could pull off the Rockefeller Center sniping mission in this day and age.

[whiteskwirl]

BTW, has Deaver actually stated explicitly that Bond was born in the 1980s? If so, I wonder why he's missed a trick in not lining up 007's birthday with Daniel Craig's. (Craig was born in '68, if I'm not mistaken.)

Yeah, he said the Bond he is envisioning "will have been born roughly in the early 1980s".

[zencat]

(Why is May needed at all? The idea of a 30-something James Bond in 2011 employing a live-in housekeeper seems incredibly old-fashioned, not to mention suggesting that he has the income of a hedge fund manager.)

Oh, needn't necessarily be a live-in housekeeper, does it? Perhaps she's coming two days a week and more often only when Bond's abroad?

Yeah, that's really what it should be. The idea of a "bachelor" having a live-in housekeeper seems painfully old fashioned (or just really foppish).

This Bond scrambles his own eggs...and eats 'em from the skillet!

[Loomis]

Yeah, he said the Bond he is envisioning "will have been born roughly in the early 1980s".

Extraordinary.

Any other juicy goss?

[Trident]

(Why is May needed at all? The idea of a 30-something James Bond in 2011 employing a live-in housekeeper seems incredibly old-fashioned, not to mention suggesting that he has the income of a hedge fund manager.)

Oh, needn't necessarily be a live-in housekeeper, does it? Perhaps she's coming two days a week and more often only when Bond's abroad?

Yeah, that's really what it should be. The idea of a "bachelor" having a live-in housekeeper seems painfully very old fashioned.

And she will be vetted by the SIS, probably a former member of a kind (no, not a former 00 or a much exposed post; admin I think would be right). And her duty would also be to care for Bond's plants while he's away. It's terribly depressing to come back to a flat that's full of gum tree corpses after a few months. I can attest to that...

Oh, and that perhaps might also explain why May has a Commonwealth background rather than an Eastern European.

[whiteskwirl]

Yeah, he said the Bond he is envisioning "will have been born roughly in the early 1980s".

Extraordinary.

Any other juicy goss?

He said the research and the outline was done, the places in the novel are places he has been to, and he has thousands of pages of research, so now he's reading to sit down and start writing.

He said he would leave it to "future authors in the series" to decide if some characters who will not be in his book for logistical reasons will return or not, but he is leaving that open, which I take to imply that Deaver is not going to have nay characters killed off or explicitly left out of the Bond universe.

[OmarB]

I've just watched Shatterhand's piece and it was really cool, but I have a few thoughts I'm gonna put in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

- Bond being born in the 80's is a bit odd for me being myself born in November 1980. The idea of me being older than Bond kinda freaks me out.

- The exact nature of the reboot concerns me. As a comic book fan I've read many reboots of various quality over the years. Some that completely disregard what came before, some that simply retell an origin and carry on from there, some that function as a new starting point but still pays attention to what came before. So I'm wondering, aside from name checking characters, how much of the previous Bond will we see here? After John Byrne's reboot of Superman, it was a more focused storyline starting from the beginning, but still accepted that there were decades of storyline before and it was all paid attention to (like they still kept Kandor).

[Loomis]

Personally, I don't care about what gets thrown out and what gets retained. I don't give a stuff about "Bond lore" or "Fleming elements" - I've got the Flemings (and indeed most of the other continuation novels) for that. As long as the main character is called James Bond and behaves in a vaguely Bondian way, I'm good to go.

[zencat]

That's largely how I feel, Loomis. I don't need name checks and lore in this series, just bring me an excellent "James Bond 007" adventure. He has always been a largely anonymous person anyway.

[Loomis]

Exactly. For me, the thrill has always been about Bond's "world" (casinos, cuisine, beautiful women, exotic travelogue, audacious schemes, etc.), rather than anything particularly interesting about the characters themselves, 007 included.

And I'm delighted that Deaver is doing a reboot in the present day. If this were yet another period piece, I'd be considerably less interested.

Let's take Jimmy Bond by his pasty white limey and drag him into the twenty-first century! Let's make him young, dumb and full of come! Ian who?

[Trident]

I've just watched Shatterhand's piece and it was really cool, but I have a few thoughts I'm gonna put in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

- Bond being born in the 80's is a bit odd for me being myself born in November 1980. The idea of me being older than Bond kinda freaks me out.

- The exact nature of the reboot concerns me. As a comic book fan I've read many reboots of various quality over the years. Some that completely disregard what came before, some that simply retell an origin and carry on from there, some that function as a new starting point but still pays attention to what came before. So I'm wondering, aside from name checking characters, how much of the previous Bond will we see here? After John Byrne's reboot of Superman, it was a more focused storyline starting from the beginning, but still accepted that there were decades of storyline before and it was all paid attention to (like they still kept Kandor).

I think one shouldn't worry too much about comic book reboots. They are far more frequent than literary ones, especially Bond ones.

This whole approach in my book is exactly what the series needed; perhaps even for a long time needed. The more realistic, closer-to-reality approach makes Bond and the other 00's the cost-effective equivalent to the CIA's drone-attack operation. It gives the series a fresh breath, cuts tons of baggage that was dragging the continuations from the picture and opens literally endless options for Bond's development. It's fantastic!

[zencat]

Exactly. For me, the thrill has always been about Bond's "world" (casinos, cuisine, beautiful women, exotic travelogue, audacious schemes, etc.), rather than anything particularly interesting about the characters themselves, 007 included.

And the villain. A great villain. It's a lesson the movies need to re-learn. I'm really tired of movies about the torment of being 007 instead of the excitement of being 007.

But I'm off topic.

[Trident]

Novelizations will fit better into this rebooted universe as well.

Phew, doubt that. The age of the novelizations seems a bit past, doesn't it? Also I wouldn't want X-Series to become film Bond. Different worlds.

[Righty007]

Think making May Indian or Pakistani is exactly right.

Anyway, would someone mind listing the spoilers? I have no sound on my computer so cannot listen to the interview.

You don't need sound. All the spoilers are written in text in the video box.

[zencat]

This whole approach in my book is exactly what the series needed; perhaps even for a long time needed. The more realistic, closer-to-reality approach makes Bond and the other 00's the cost-effective equivalent to the CIA's drone-attack operation. It gives the series a fresh breath, cuts tons of baggage that was dragging the continuations from the picture and opens literally endless options for Bond's development. It's fantastic!

I agree. I don't think I realized how badly I wanted this until I got it. Really forward thinking by IFP...yet again. What a joy it is to be a lit Bond fan these days.

Only hard part is waiting a year.

[whiteskwirl]

Novelizations will fit better into this rebooted universe as well.

Phew, doubt that. The age of the novelizations seems a bit past, doesn't it? Also I wouldn't want X-Series to become film Bond. Different worlds.

I agree. Movie Bond and Literary Bond have always had a different feel, and it ought to stay that way.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Just in case some of you might have misunderstood, May, Bond's Scottish housekeeper will not be part of this reboot. Instead, Deaver is introducing a new character who is either Indian or Pakistanian. No name yet, but he said that there are many Indian maidservants throughout Britain and that May would seem out of place.

This was from a question I asked him during his Q & A.

He has been working with IFP for approximately 7 months and the outline he has written up is finished and will now start writing the novel.

He has another book coming out in November called THE EDGE and with his book tours, editing this other book, and Bond, his plate is defintely full.

Please check out his website and feel free to email him if you wish to ask him a question. He told the group that he reads all his email.

He is very easy to approach too. He loves to hear from his fans and has book tours all the time, so the chance of meeting him and getting his book signed by him is very good. He does book tours all over the world.

Best of all, he loves Fleming!

[Aris007]

I really don't like the fact that Bond will go after 9/11 terrorists! This looks more like Bruce Willis' job, to be honest!

[zencat]

I really don't like the fact that Bond will go after 9/11 terrorists! This looks more like Bruce Willis' job, to be honest!

It depends on how it's done. Did you not like it in Casino Royale?

[Aris007]

I really don't like the fact that Bond will go after 9/11 terrorists! This looks more like Bruce Willis' job, to be honest!

Depends on how it's done. Did you not like it in Casino Royale?

Well yes I liked it! But it Casino Royale it wasn't that obvious, was it? In Casino Royale he wasn't after a bunch of terrorists, he was after their financer! So if it's covered in a way it's fine by me! Do you see what I mean?

[Trident]

I really don't like the fact that Bond will go after 9/11 terrorists! This looks more like Bruce Willis' job, to be honest!

It's more about a past-9/11 world, not about the specific terrorists of that attack. It makes for a whole new understanding of the particular role intelligence services play after that date and it has changed our world far more than a casual observer would think.

[zencat]

I really don't like the fact that Bond will go after 9/11 terrorists! This looks more like Bruce Willis' job, to be honest!

Depends on how it's done. Did you not like it in Casino Royale?

Well yes I liked it! But it Casino Royale it wasn't that obvious, was it? In Casino Royale he wasn't after a bunch of terrorists, he was after their financer! So if it's covered in a way it's fine by me! Do you see what I mean?

Yes I do, and I agree if it was as limited to chasing down guys in a cave. But I don't think that's the thinking. All he said was "post 9/11 terrorists." I think the concept of "terrorists/terrorism" in the Deaver Bond world is going to be like "communists/communism" in the Fleming world. It's the underlying world struggle. It can take many forms, as it did in CR with financing. Maybe some creative and even more terrifying forms that we can't imagine...until 007 uncovers it!

[coco1997]

I really don't like the fact that Bond will go after 9/11 terrorists! This looks more like Bruce Willis' job, to be honest!

Depends on how it's done. Did you not like it in Casino Royale?

Well yes I liked it! But it Casino Royale it wasn't that obvious, was it? In Casino Royale he wasn't after a bunch of terrorists, he was after their financer! So if it's covered in a way it's fine by me! Do you see what I mean?

I think you have to accept that this is an unavoidable part of life that we, along with Bond, now face. Did you not like the fact that Bond went after the Soviets during the Cold War?