18 replies to this topic

[FOX MULDER]

Simple question: if no James Bond film had ever been made, do you think the books would still be popular today?

 

And do you think the books - and perhaps Fleming himself - would be seen in a different light without the 50 years of cinematic Bond...?

[MkB]

Yes and no, IMHO. 

 

Yes, they would be popular among a limited category of readers: people who appreciate spy novels as a genre, beyond the appeal of cheap dime novels sold to kill time in railway stations. The same people who still read Eric Ambler today would probaly read Fleming too.

No, because of course the books would not be popular at all in a general audience. I cannot see how they could appeal to, say, a contemporary 15-yr old who would never have been impregnated with the films. 

 

And I do think they - the books and their author - would be seen in a different light without the films. A much dimmer, feable light. 

[plankattack]

I definitely think the popularity of the films has kept interest high in the original works. Without the easy accessibility of both cinema and TV, literary works in general move in and out of the public consciousness, and without the films, the Bond series would have been no different. Whether it be Sherlock Holmes, Jane Austen, the 30s-50s West Coast private eye novels, or even Shakespeare, all would have their popularity ebb and flow.

Thanks to the continuity of the film series, Fleming's name has constantly been in the public eye, attracting new fans on a regular basis. I'm not sure any other literary series can claim that benefit.

[delfloria]

The real question is................................ If there were no Bond films how would it have changed your life?

[AMC Hornet]

Being borderline OC, I would have found something else to obsess over.

 

Lessee, 1971...I was already crazy about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, so I probably would have become more focused on Jules Verne, and the film versions of all his work, so I probably would have received a more classical education than I have. I might have become a teacher sooner, and there would be less caviar but even more French wine in my life than there already is.

 

I probably would have learned more French than just "Le partie continuez" and "Ou-est la salle prive?"

 

My first wife might not have divorced me (when she did), so I probably would not have met the woman who loves me now.

 

And here at the "CaptainNemo.net" forums, I'd be saying that, without Jules Verne, I probably would have obsessed over those Ian Fleming books that my brother regarded so highly...

[Trevelyan 006]

I've never really thought about it before...

 

I'm not sure I would've been introduced to the books, as my first encounter with anything Bond-related was with GoldenEye 64.

No film, would've equaled no game adaptation.

 

What a void in my life no-Bond would cause . Good lord.

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 14 December 2012 - 03:24 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

I agree, in that the books would be popular amongst a certain generation and those who enjoy spy novels, but my introduction to Bond was via a VHS of 'Licence To Kill' - cinema and home media reach so many more ages, sexes and cultures so I feel the films have helped a great deal introduce people to the books which in turn has helped those appreciate Fleming's works.

[Walecs]

I've never really thought about it before...

 

I'm not sure I would've been introduced to the books, as my first encounter with anything Bond-related was with GoldenEye 64.

No film, would've equaled no game adaptation.

 

What a void in my life no-Bond would cause . Good lord.

Same. If it wasn't for that game, I would have never watched GoldenEye, and then never read Bond books. And my life is not complete without Bond books.

[Dustin]

Yes and no, IMHO. 

 

Yes, they would be popular among a limited category of readers: people who appreciate spy novels as a genre, beyond the appeal of cheap dime novels sold to kill time in railway stations. The same people who still read Eric Ambler today would probaly read Fleming too.

No, because of course the books would not be popular at all in a general audience. I cannot see how they could appeal to, say, a contemporary 15-yr old who would never have been impregnated with the films. 

 

And I do think they - the books and their author - would be seen in a different light without the films. A much dimmer, feable light. 

 

 

This.

 

We mustn't forget: Fleming wasn't the first to tackle the spy novel, people like Ambler (though never really writing about 'real' spies), Buchan, Sapper came before him. He wasn't even the first to introduce a super spy with a code designation, Jean Bruce beat him to that with OSS 117. The difference was Fleming had the tremendous luck his work was filmed at exactly the right time, when the world was craving a new type of hero, exciting, adventurous, sexually innovative and more or less 'amoral' in the context of the then-prevailing zeitgeist. The impact of DR NO and subsequent films was amplified by that timing, a new character hitting exactly the sweet spot of pop culture. Without that - not just the films but the timing of churning them out when they had the most effect - Bond and Fleming would be names discussed in the 'Other Spies' section of the Codename Eric forums.    

[Pussfeller]

Of course, the series could potentially have found wider fame in other ways. It could easily have become a TV series.

[Dustin]

Of course, the series could potentially have found wider fame in other ways. It could easily have become a TV series.

 

Possible. Though the TV series of the time used to be - and perhaps still are -  far from being so influenced by a single writer. Standard procedure was not to buy the rights to an existing character but to develop a fresh format from scratch. At least once the radio serials - Lone Ranger, The Shadow and so on - had all seen their move to the new TV format. Perhaps 'Commander Jamaica' might have taken off then, who knows? Or Fleming could have become more involved with THE MAN FROM UNCLE, though I'm not sure such projects would really have kept him interested in the long run. In the end he was a lone worker who once a year sat down and cooked up a thriller from the notebooks he filled the rest of the year over. 

[Pussfeller]

I was thinking more along the lines of a series adapted from the novels well after they were written, not necessarily with any active involvement by Fleming. Like the Poirot series, or the A&E Nero Wolfe series. These were produced with no involvement from the authors, who were long dead. Considering Fleming's early death, something similar might have happened with the character of James Bond. Instead of an ageless film series, it might have become a TV period piece, closely connected with the early Cold War period in which the novels themselves are set.

[Dustin]

Ah yes, that's definitely a possibility. Could have happened as early as the seventies, like the Peter Wimsey adaptations. Though  probably with much more studio work than we've come to expect from the Eon films.

[MkB]

That's quite true, the books could have been adapted for a TV series. But TV series are more dated than films, they are not repeated on TV as often as the Bond film are. I don't see how a Bond TV series could have become as deeply rooted in popular culture as the Bond films are - and therefore the popularity of the books would not be anything near what it is nowadays. 

 

Let's keep in mind, though, that even if Bond novels enjoy a tremendous popularity for 60 yr old pulp spy novels, they are not classics either: they are more prominent in British culture maybe, but in the rest of the world few people read them, and even among us Bond fans many are simply not interested in reading the books. The balance of popularity between books and films is much in favour of the films for Bond, compared with Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter for instance, for which I suspect the balance is more in favour of the books. 

[FOX MULDER]

I was thinking more along the lines of a series adapted from the novels well after they were written, not necessarily with any active involvement by Fleming. Like the Poirot series, or the A&E Nero Wolfe series. These were produced with no involvement from the authors, who were long dead. Considering Fleming's early death, something similar might have happened with the character of James Bond. Instead of an ageless film series, it might have become a TV period piece, closely connected with the early Cold War period in which the novels themselves are set.

 

That sounds really good. Hypothetically, I may have even enjoyed a Bond TV series more than the movies we got. Certainly, there would be more to get your teeth into. Look at Poirot - there must be 50 or 60 episodes, a lot of them full-length (90 minutes). We may have had a lot more Bond if it had been a TV series instead of a movie series.

Edited by FOX MULDER, 14 December 2012 - 08:05 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Sooner or later, somebody in the film or television media would have come across the Bond books. But the adaptations made probably wouldn't have been in the same mould as those we are used to. As others above have said, maybe a TV series set in the cold war of the 1950s. Or, as with the BBC series "Sherlock", a fairly faithful adaptation set in contemporary times.

 

But it wouldn't be the Bond we know from the films we've seen. That pattern was set in 1962 when two producers cast a Scottish actor respected in his profession but not yet a star, hired a director who smoothed over the Scotsman's rougher edges, and made a movie which had critics and preview audiences chuckling at bits which initially weren't meant to be laughed at. Men met moment, and the rest is history.

[seawolfnyy]

Sooner or later, somebody in the film or television media would have come across the Bond books. But the adaptations made probably wouldn't have been in the same mould as those we are used to. As others above have said, maybe a TV series set in the cold war of the 1950s. Or, as with the BBC series "Sherlock", a fairly faithful adaptation set in contemporary times.

 

But it wouldn't be the Bond we know from the films we've seen. That pattern was set in 1962 when two producers cast a Scottish actor respected in his profession but not yet a star, hired a director who smoothed over the Scotsman's rougher edges, and made a movie which had critics and preview audiences chuckling at bits which initially weren't meant to be laughed at. Men met moment, and the rest is history.

Well said. However, if there were never any films made I don't think there would be many who know who James Bond is. Without the films, the novels would've lost their luster and the series would've died in 1964.

[Sherlock]

Another possibility:

 

What if the novels progressed first into television? I'm not talking about the abbhorant Barry Nelson '53/54 abomination either. Like the Granada Sherlock Holmes series, but set in either the late fifties or even sixties.

 

Let it be somewhat a precursor to the movies.

 

 

But then again, we'd never have Sir Sean, George, Sir Roger, Timothy and even Pierce to cheer for, much less fifty great years of great cinema....

[seawolfnyy]

I'd rather not think about life without the Bond films. I enjoy them far too much.