Carte Blanche: Sir Miles Messervy or Barbara Mawdsley?
#1
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:07 AM
We also know that M will appear but will it be Ian Fleming's Sir Miles Messervy or Raymond Benson and EON Productions' female M, Barbara Mawdsley?
My guess is that Jeffery Deaver will return to Fleming's M but it's documented that Ian Fleming Publications (formerly Glidrose) asked Benson to feature a female M to mirror Judi Dench's M in the film series. Will they keep that stipulation or allow Jeffrey Deaver to go strictly off of Fleming?
What are your thoughts?
#2
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:10 AM
#3
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:13 AM
You make a valid point but I don't think Jeffrey Deaver would opt to invent an M character over just using Fleming's Messervy.I have a feeling Deaver will return Bond to his roots and give 007 a male superior. That being said, who knows if the character will actually go by the name "Sir Miles Messervy"?
#4
Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:21 AM
#5
Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:03 AM
I'm inclined to think that we'll get a male M who is Messervy, but for the sake of "continuity" I'd rather not get a return of Messervy in the present day.
#6
Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:05 AM
How much baggage must Deaver bring over from Fleming: can we have a new M, male, female, or Maudsley - or must it be Messervy at IFP's insistence? I assume IFP won't make Deaver be a slave to recent (Benson) continuity, but as you say, IFP wanted a female M and it fitted in with Messervy's ageing and retirement. (And, of course, years before Gardner ha retired Boothroyd, though Benson brought him back...)
Will Deaver be allowed to bring Bond into 2011 alone without the baggage of Messervy, Moneypenny and Boothroyd? Would any "Fleming/Bondian" flavour be missing if they weren't present? Not so if the latest movies are anything to go by.
My hope is that this is the route that is followed; no Penny, no Q and a brand new 2011 M, James Bond the only constant. (helps us continuity freaks that way, too )
#7
Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:21 AM
Me too. This is IFP's chance to deliver the literary equivalent of Casino Royale - shed all the baggage of awkwardly name-dropping previous characters and incidents (Fleming or otherwise) and start anew.My hope is that this is the route that is followed; no Penny, no Q and a brand new 2011 M, James Bond the only constant.
Devil May Care's novelty factor (a direct follow-up to Fleming's books, released as a centrepiece to the centenary celebrations) did IFP well in 2008, but if they want to solidify Bond as a literary force to be reckoned with in the long run, now's the time to start.
#8
Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:25 AM
Me too. This is IFP's chance to deliver the literary equivalent of Casino Royale - shed all the baggage of awkwardly name-dropping previous characters and incidents (Fleming or otherwise) and start anew.My hope is that this is the route that is followed; no Penny, no Q and a brand new 2011 M, James Bond the only constant.
Devil May Care's novelty factor (a direct follow-up to Fleming's books, released as a centrepiece to the centenary celebrations) did IFP well in 2008, but if they want to solidify Bond as a literary force to be reckoned with in the long run, now's the time to start.
Agreed.
That approach must surely make it easier for Deaver, leave him with less cliched responsibilities, and his own blank sheet.
All that's left then for him to decide is how many of the 50s elements of Bond's personality - attitudes, boozing, etc - it is necessary to bring to 2011, and how many to leave behind so that the feel of Bond and falvour of Fleming isn't lost.
Simple...
#9
Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:37 AM
I don't know. It would seem that there needs to be some MI6 connections to the past otherwise it's like a completely rebooted literary Bond with 007 in a completely different universe so to speak. I'm inclined to think that Moneypenny and Bill Tanner will remain to keep things somewhat familiar. However, I would not be at all surprised if we get a new M and/or Q/armorer character.
Me too. This is IFP's chance to deliver the literary equivalent of Casino Royale - shed all the baggage of awkwardly name-dropping previous characters and incidents (Fleming or otherwise) and start anew.My hope is that this is the route that is followed; no Penny, no Q and a brand new 2011 M, James Bond the only constant.
Devil May Care's novelty factor (a direct follow-up to Fleming's books, released as a centrepiece to the centenary celebrations) did IFP well in 2008, but if they want to solidify Bond as a literary force to be reckoned with in the long run, now's the time to start.
Agreed.
That approach must surely make it easier for Deaver, leave him with less cliched responsibilities, and his own blank sheet.
All that's left then for him to decide is how many of the 50s elements of Bond's personality - attitudes, boozing, etc - it is necessary to bring to 2011, and how many to leave behind so that the feel of Bond and falvour of Fleming isn't lost.
Simple...
#10
Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:07 AM
Well said. Put me down for a brand new M, too. They could have a different take on Moneypenny (Villiers, anyone?) and a few other characters, but I would be fine with them being rested. Q is nowhere to be seen in the Craig era, and the sky hasn't fallen in.Will Deaver be allowed to bring Bond into 2011 alone without the baggage of Messervy, Moneypenny and Boothroyd? Would any "Fleming/Bondian" flavour be missing if they weren't present? Not so if the latest movies are anything to go by.
My hope is that this is the route that is followed; no Penny, no Q and a brand new 2011 M, James Bond the only constant. (helps us continuity freaks that way, too )
This is IFP's chance to deliver the literary equivalent of Casino Royale - shed all the baggage of awkwardly name-dropping previous characters and incidents (Fleming or otherwise) and start anew.
Devil May Care's novelty factor (a direct follow-up to Fleming's books, released as a centrepiece to the centenary celebrations) did IFP well in 2008, but if they want to solidify Bond as a literary force to be reckoned with in the long run, now's the time to start.
Full agreement with both of you.That approach must surely make it easier for Deaver, leave him with less cliched responsibilities, and his own blank sheet.
All that's left then for him to decide is how many of the 50s elements of Bond's personality - attitudes, boozing, etc - it is necessary to bring to 2011, and how many to leave behind so that the feel of Bond and falvour of Fleming isn't lost.
#11
Posted 29 May 2010 - 10:13 AM
I would also welcome a deviation from the (holy?) intro/briefing-with-M-at-HQ/fist-steps-on-the-assignment/routine. Does it have to play out this way every time? Could Bond get into an adventure on his own? By chance perhaps? For once a case of the right guy at the wrong time at the wrong place? I would like to see something along those lines for a change.
#12
Posted 29 May 2010 - 10:57 AM
However I don't feel a reboot necessarily means going back to a 'younger Bond' as a fresh recruit to the 00 Section which is the route the Casino Royale film went...instead Bond should be presented as he always is-a veteran secret agent in his mid to late 30's, MI6's finest operative with years of experiance under his belt. Does that 'experiance' include taking on a certain Goldfinger or Blofeld? That can be left up to the readers imagination...But there would be no overt references to events and characters from Flemming's novels.
At the same time however, certain aspects of the original novels can and should be imported. Should Bond drink vodka martinis? Yes. Should he have a Scottish housekeeper May? Yes. Are his two closest allies in the intelligence business Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis? Yes. Should his backstory include his parents dying in a climbing accident and having served in the Royal Navy as a Commander and killing two people in cold blood to earn a 00 number? Yes.
#13
Posted 29 May 2010 - 11:30 AM
I would also welcome a deviation from the (holy?) intro/briefing-with-M-at-HQ/fist-steps-on-the-assignment/routine. Does it have to play out this way every time? Could Bond get into an adventure on his own? By chance perhaps? For once a case of the right guy at the wrong time at the wrong place? I would like to see something along those lines for a change.
Certainly happy with any of that, though whether Deaver feels obliged to use certain checklist tick boxes as the M briefing I guess depends on the overall freedom IFP had given and whether there is any "mandate" he has to follow.
I do want a book without the recent "PTS scene" concept and one in which the book revolves arouns Bond; Benson and Faulks had Bond missing far too often and many unnecessary expositional extraneous scenes, particularly in Benson (usually so it gave him the opportunity to name check his American Bond Foundation pals ).
A book in which James Bond drives the action, please, Jeff. You know, about him.
#14
Posted 29 May 2010 - 12:17 PM
A basic mutual understandig of not to kill off any main characters, write a thriller and avoid travesty should suffice, I think.
#15
Posted 29 May 2010 - 12:48 PM
At the same time however, certain aspects of the original novels can and should be imported. Should Bond drink vodka martinis? Yes. Should he have a Scottish housekeeper May? Yes. Are his two closest allies in the intelligence business Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis? Yes. Should his backstory include his parents dying in a climbing accident and having served in the Royal Navy as a Commander and killing two people in cold blood to earn a 00 number? Yes.
I'm not sure all of that is necessary. I'm not bothered about May, Felix or Mathis; and the killing two people thing isn't exactly sacred to me. Was that in the book? I don't remember.
I would also welcome a deviation from the (holy?) intro/briefing-with-M-at-HQ/fist-steps-on-the-assignment/routine. Does it have to play out this way every time? Could Bond get into an adventure on his own? By chance perhaps? For once a case of the right guy at the wrong time at the wrong place? I would like to see something along those lines for a change.
Certainly happy with any of that, though whether Deaver feels obliged to use certain checklist tick boxes as the M briefing I guess depends on the overall freedom IFP had given and whether there is any "mandate" he has to follow.
It's funny, but when I think of some of the poorer films (LTK, TWINE) they actually have the better plots. LTK as a novel would work quite well, I think (and not the novelisation).
There's more you could do with Bond than briefing/bad guy it's true. The CR film showed that and it surprised a lot of people.
As for M; yeah give him a new M. A young, David Cameron-style one!
#16
Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:17 PM
#17
Posted 29 May 2010 - 02:01 PM
As for M; yeah give him a new M. A young, David Cameron-style one!
Well, if Deaver's swatting up on things English for the book lets him look into British current affairs, perhaps he'll have his Cameron-M have a Nick Clegg sidekick, rather like Villiers.
You know, to carry his coat/take the when it hits the fan.*
* delete as one personally understands Nick Clegg's role to really be.
#18
Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:00 PM
At the same time however, certain aspects of the original novels can and should be imported. Should Bond drink vodka martinis? Yes. Should he have a Scottish housekeeper May? Yes. Are his two closest allies in the intelligence business Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis? Yes. Should his backstory include his parents dying in a climbing accident and having served in the Royal Navy as a Commander and killing two people in cold blood to earn a 00 number? Yes.
I'm not sure all of that is necessary. I'm not bothered about May, Felix or Mathis; and the killing two people thing isn't exactly sacred to me. Was that in the book? I don't remember.
Maybe May and Mathis are expendable but I think it would be great to have some kind of link to the original series. Plus, Mathis is a character whose recently gotten a lot of exposure in the Daniel Craig Bond films and hes one of Bond's oldest allies so it would be a nice idea to use him. Leiter of course I think is a must.
As for the killing 2 people thing...yeah its in the Casino Royale book...I always liked the idea of Bond having to 'earn' the license to kill by demonstrating his willingness to kill in cold blood...it shows basically the extent to which he was willing to go to become the super-agent that he is today
#19
Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:23 PM
#20
Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:45 PM
In contrast, MI5 have had two females in charge - Stella Rimington and Eliza Manningham Buller - in the last twenty years alone. But they've got a man at the moment, Manningham Buller retired in 2007.
#21
Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:53 PM
#22
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:43 PM
#23
Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:46 PM
#24
Posted 29 May 2010 - 05:53 PM
#25
Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:01 PM
Not for "Moriarty", hopefully?
Not for 'Mom', hopefully!
#26
Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:13 PM
#27
Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:22 PM
Not for "Moriarty", hopefully?
Not for m'booey, hopefully.
#28
Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:56 PM
I knew that was coming.Two words: Admiral Hargreaves.
#29
Posted 30 May 2010 - 12:10 AM
#30
Posted 30 May 2010 - 12:59 AM
The James Bond series, books and films, do not have a tremendous amount of elements which have been strictly adhered to. Basically, it amounts to a handful of characters--Bond, of course, M, Q (Boothroyd in the books), Moneypenny and Bill Tanner in MI6, Felix Leiter, and only a few Gardner creations (Flicka, Beatrice and Ann Reilly). Truthfully, the presence of MI6 characters should not hinder any novel, as their role may only be limited to a few sentences (aside from M). Indeed, I would argue that they MUST be in the book--at least M and Moneypenny, and Boothroyd should equip him. After all, their presence is a comfort to the reader in signifying that he is indeed reading a James Bond book.
It should have no effect whatsoever on the overall plot of the book, and Jeffrey Deaver should have no problem in telling the story he wants to tell.
If I remember correctly, Raymond Benson was given the option of keeping or rejecting any and all Fleming and Gardner elements that he wanted. Out of respect to them, while he did not constantly mention all that has come before in his writing, he did not deliberately contradict any of those elements. Instead, he paid tribute to both men by mentioning characters they created and even bringing some back. The only contradictions that I can recall is that he "demoted" Bond to being a Commander after Gardner made him a Captain. Raymond told me that he explained that as being a temporary promotion, and the simple fact is that calling Bond a Commander certainly sounds cooler. Also, he simply did not mention the confusing and odd structure that MI6 had under the MicroGlobe One that Gardner had set up in SeaFire (and if I remember correctly, was barely mentioned in Cold Fall--and in a letter that Mr. Gardner wrote to me after I had written to him reviewing SeaFire, alarmed at the change in MI6's structure, he assured me that he did so to reflect the real structure of the SIS in the 1990s, and that he was personally appalled by this, but that was neither here nor there.) Raymond always showed his predecessors respect.
I have no reason to expect that Mr. Deaver will not show the same respect. He need not slavishly adhere to continuity, but he should not contradict it. He should also feature the characters I mentioned, just to let the reader know that this is still James Bond.
As for M, if the book is indeed present day, then it should be Barbara Mawdsley, or a new M, male or female, with some brief mention that the new M is a replacement. The other Ms can cameo, as Sir Miles did brilliantly in The Facts of Death, if Mr. Deaver wishes, but there is certainly no need for it.
Here's hoping that this book is at least as good as Gardner and Benson, and head and shoulders above the mediocrity of Devil May Care!
Edited by Bill, 30 May 2010 - 01:02 AM.