leviramsey Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 In fact I'd love to see many of the Fleming novels re-filmed (anything not by Fleming doesn't count for me) with Craig, sticking closer to the books - You Only Live Twice in particular cries out for it as the original film was NOTHING like the book. YOLT can't be done fully and faithfully without wrecking the series, IMO. It's tragic, but YOLT has to based around Bond avenging Tracy, which means either: quite clearly Lev you are an expert but surely with Casino Royale they effectivtly went back to the begginning and thus all the possibilities are open again However, the producers have generally avoided whole-cloth remakes of earlier films in the series (the two prominent exceptions being the pair of Moore films with little/no Fleming plots: The Spy Who Loved Me (remaking the film You Only Live Twice, even using the same director) and A View to a Kill (somewhat obviously Goldfinger)... arguably the second half of Die Another Day is a remake of Diamonds Are Forever, also). That the reboot in CR wasn't total (keeping Dench as M, most notably), I think indicates that the producers don't totally view CR as outside of the series, so why would they remake the SPECTRE trilogy (especially since they still may not have the rights to Thunderball...) if some portion of the idea that it's all one series is kicking around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 In fact I'd love to see many of the Fleming novels re-filmed (anything not by Fleming doesn't count for me) with Craig, sticking closer to the books - You Only Live Twice in particular cries out for it as the original film was NOTHING like the book. YOLT can't be done fully and faithfully without wrecking the series, IMO. It's tragic, but YOLT has to based around Bond avenging Tracy, which means either: quite clearly Lev you are an expert but surely with Casino Royale they effectivtly went back to the begginning and thus all the possibilities are open again However, the producers have generally avoided whole-cloth remakes of earlier films in the series (the two prominent exceptions being the pair of Moore films with little/no Fleming plots: The Spy Who Loved Me (remaking the film You Only Live Twice, even using the same director) and A View to a Kill (somewhat obviously Goldfinger)... arguably the second half of Die Another Day is a remake of Diamonds Are Forever, also). That the reboot in CR wasn't total (keeping Dench as M, most notably), I think indicates that the producers don't totally view CR as outside of the series, so why would they remake the SPECTRE trilogy (especially since they still may not have the rights to Thunderball...) if some portion of the idea that it's all one series is kicking around?Of course, "Never Say Never Again" was Thunderball, but that wasn't made by the Bond "establishment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 Of course, "Never Say Never Again" was Thunderball, but that wasn't made by the Bond "establishment". And considering how shit that one was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 ^^^ An advice, read the books, mate. I thought like you before, not anymore. I cant understand why reading the books would change your mind. We are basing this thread on the movies we have watched for the last 40 years. Its the idea of James Bond we have seen on the screen. Wether you have read something different in a book is totally irellevant I'd say. The new movie might be closer to the books, but its far from the charming, smooth movies we have seen for ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 ^^^ An advice, read the books, mate. I thought like you before, not anymore. I cant understand why reading the books would change your mind. We are basing this thread on the movies we have watched for the last 40 years. Its the idea of James Bond we have seen on the screen. Wether you have read something different in a book is totally irellevant I'd say. The new movie might be closer to the books, but its far from the charming, smooth movies we have seen for ages.I guess that is true for the vast majority of Bond movie fans. Personally, I read ALL the books (all the Fleming ones, that is, the rest don't count) before seeing ANY of the films - which naturally colours my perception of all things Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsjg80 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 ^^^ An advice, read the books, mate. I thought like you before, not anymore. I cant understand why reading the books would change your mind. We are basing this thread on the movies we have watched for the last 40 years. Its the idea of James Bond we have seen on the screen. Wether you have read something different in a book is totally irellevant I'd say. The new movie might be closer to the books, but its far from the charming, smooth movies we have seen for ages. Pretty much saved me writing that exact response to Pelle's suggestion. The books might be brilliant, they might be a far better character but I was brought up on Bond on film and if we're talking about who is the best of film that is where I'll be comparing them - Craig's really lacks any humour that the other films at least had some of. If we're comparing books we should be talking about the stories or if we're talking about who does the best job at matching Fleming's Bond fewer of us could answer that without the knowledge needed but that's not this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 ^^^ An advice, read the books, mate. I thought like you before, not anymore. I cant understand why reading the books would change your mind. We are basing this thread on the movies we have watched for the last 40 years. Its the idea of James Bond we have seen on the screen. Wether you have read something different in a book is totally irellevant I'd say. The new movie might be closer to the books, but its far from the charming, smooth movies we have seen for ages. Pretty much saved me writing that exact response to Pelle's suggestion. The books might be brilliant, they might be a far better character but I was brought up on Bond on film and if we're talking about who is the best of film that is where I'll be comparing them - Craig's really lacks any humour that the other films at least had some of. If we're comparing books we should be talking about the stories or if we're talking about who does the best job at matching Fleming's Bond fewer of us could answer that without the knowledge needed but that's not this question. Well, of course you both got a point there and it wasn't my meaning to sound a bit, hm, "better than you" sort of thing. As I said I thought like you before so I can't say that you're wrong in your thoughts either. Just a suggestion to read the books to see what we mean. After all the films are based upon the books and the character Fleming wrote about so I'd say there's at least a small point in judging the actors after the books if you've read them. TBF the books IMO are not the greatest books ever. Fairly good is what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted April 3, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 3, 2008 TBF the books IMO are not the greatest books ever. Fairly good is what they are. As literature for "warm-blooded heterosexual males waiting for a train", they are unequalled, really. And bringing up heterosexuality, I suppose I should ask the question: "Was Ian Fleming planning to out James Bond?" Stop guffawing for a moment. Considering the film Bond (though the literary Bond is in these respects largely similar): well-groomed, well-dressed, particular about food (any man who requires that his eggs be boiled for precisely three-and-a-third minutes), never really married (and even then you could argue that it was more out of charity and/or greed), urbane, jet-setting... he is the ultimate metrosexual. And, as Details asked a couple of years back, before metrosexual was a cliche, Is metrosexual just a sanitized word for homo? Consider for a moment the last paragraph of Fleming's The Man With the Golden Gun (the last paragraph of the Bond novels, as Mr. Mooney defines them): He said it and meant it, "Goodnight, you're an angel." At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking a "room with a view." For James Bond, the same view would always pall. And I will let an article from some years ago continue with this line of thinking: Likening Mary Goodnight to an angel coheres with the religious metaphors already considered; Goodnight is SIS, she is one of those amongst the gods whom Bond now rejoins. Additionally, the entire paragraph is possibly a remembrance of Tracy Bond, and we read “from any other woman…” as “from any other woman but Tracy….” That would be consistent with the book’s place at the conclusion of the closing trilogy, and yet the argument lacks conviction. Golden Gun is a book notable for the absence of Bond casting his mind back. To do so at the end seems out of character for the new, “cleansed” Bond of this new, dirty world. Bond has been returned to his initial silhouette, and will be coloured anew by the changed world. Are we then to read “any other woman…” as “any woman…”? If it is intended to refer to Tracy, why not mention her? Not a particularly original reading, perhaps, but is Golden Gun the Bond book in which Fleming examines homosexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 roger moore was the best bond ffs he ran across crocodile's heads and beat a man with a claw armed with nothing but a suitcase enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Adhesive Bond is always strong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Oi loike Led Zeppelin. They'm the best bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 3, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 3, 2008 He said it and meant it, "Goodnight, you're an angel." At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking a "room with a view." For James Bond, the same view would always pall. Hmmm. If Fleming was gay, maybe. But as far as we know he wasn't. I think the key phrase in the above paragraph is "the same view”. I know it could be taken to mean "just women is not enough", but I think it simply means "just one woman is not good enough". But who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 3, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 3, 2008 TBF the books IMO are not the greatest books ever. Fairly good is what they are. As literature for "warm-blooded heterosexual males waiting for a train", they are unequalled, really. Do they hold up today though? I read them in the late 1960s as a warm-blooded heterosexual 15-year-old, and they were the business. I have recently been tempted to re-read them, but I don't know what this 21st century (and now rather better-read) 54-year old would make of them. I don't want to spoil the memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts