11 replies to this topic

[zencat]

So does Project X, with its modern setting, spell the end of James Bond period adventures? No more Young Bond? No possibility of War Bond?

I put the question to the boss herself and got a nice quote here:

Could Project X spell the end of Young Bond?

[Brisco]

That's good news! Thanks for getting the quote, Zencat! As I just wrote in the other thread, I like the idea of "unsticking" Bond from time and continuity. I hope they continue to give us new projects set in both timelines--or any time! Bond himself transcends any particular time period. He works well in the Cold War, but he can also work out of it. If they continue doing standalone novels by big authors, I hope each author gets to choose when he wants to set his book. Fifties or Sixties or now or even Seventies or Eighties if they so desire! If they're all one-shots, what does it matter? I feel freed by this notion as a fan, like I don't have to trouble myself with continuity issues at all. It's nice not to worry about that stuff!

[Jeff007]

Thanks for that zencat!

[Double-Oh Agent]

Thanks zencat. Good quote from Corinne Turner. It's interesting that IFP plans to keep giving us Bond in current times and in the past. It's probably a good idea in that it gives them some flexibility on where to put Bond and it also pleases both sides of the fan base (Cold War Bond or modern Bond). As long as future authors don't cross over previous author's works with their plot timelines, I have no problem with it.

[zencat]

It is a good quote. Sort of reassures us while still keeping things mysterious (and keeps all options open). Corinne is terrific. Very accessible and friendly.

[Matt_13]

Great news Zen, especially if it means we get more Higson.

[Trident]

[[dark]]

Nice work, zencat. Glad to hear IFP don't have some bold new plan consisting only of products that are inconsistent with their quality output over the past few years - and Devil May Care.

Speaking of which, I'll be intrigued to see how much Devil May Care plays a role in IFP's future marketing strategies. It's neither an Ian Fleming original nor a part of this new, contemporary series (or what I'm assuming will be a series of some sort). That sort of leaves it in limbo - not that everyone hasn't already done well enough out of it, I suppose.

[Trident]

Nice work, zencat. Glad to hear IFP don't have some bold new plan consisting only of products that are inconsistent with their quality output over the past few years - and Devil May Care.

Speaking of which, I'll be intrigued to see how much Devil May Care plays a role in IFP's future marketing strategies. It's neither an Ian Fleming original nor a part of this new, contemporary series (or what I'm assuming will be a series of some sort). That sort of leaves it in limbo - not that everyone hasn't already done well enough out of it, I suppose.

Oh, I do think DMC's status is clear enough, the centenary tribute to Ian Fleming. Period. Not much more to say about it. In 98 years it's bound to get company by the bicentenary tribute, which hopefully will turn out to live up to the occasion.

Until then it's better left well alone.

[zencat]

Good question about DMC. Because of the different publisher and "writing as Ian Fleming" experiment, it could become an odd man out like the Pearson book.

[zencat]

Can a mod move this into the new Jeffery Deaver section? Not sure where it belongs exactly, but why not there as it is Project X inspired.

[MattofSteel]

Nice work, zencat. Glad to hear IFP don't have some bold new plan consisting only of products that are inconsistent with their quality output over the past few years - and Devil May Care.

Speaking of which, I'll be intrigued to see how much Devil May Care plays a role in IFP's future marketing strategies. It's neither an Ian Fleming original nor a part of this new, contemporary series (or what I'm assuming will be a series of some sort). That sort of leaves it in limbo - not that everyone hasn't already done well enough out of it, I suppose.

Oh, I do think DMC's status is clear enough, the centenary tribute to Ian Fleming. Period. Not much more to say about it. In 98 years it's bound to get company by the bicentenary tribute, which hopefully will turn out to live up to the occasion.

Until then it's better left well alone.

I've never really understood all the DMC hate, personally. It's definitely plodding in spots, and can't quite decide whether it wants to be a film, or a novel. But I certainly thought it was far from unpalatable.

There's a difference between imitation and emulation, in my book. Whereas the Craig films have thus far done a phenomenal job of emulating the Connery films and Fleming literature, DMC perhaps just tried to imitate a little too closely?

I wouldn't say the pacing, etc. of Fleming's novels was exactly rocket fast in comparison to DMC. Always got the impression Faulks wrote a 1950s novel fifty years too late - intentionally.

Ah, well. Deaver will no doubt actively try and avoid similar criticism.