Why Faithful 007 Fleming Adaptations Might Be Harder Than You Think
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- For a long time James Bond fans have been talking about going back to the original Ian Fleming works and adapting them more faithfully for the screen, however, might it be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'?
If you'd like to support the channel then please follow the link below:
/ calvindyson
Also feel free to follow me on other social media:
/ calvinmdyson
/ calvindyson
I was hoping you'd mention my favourite 'Goldfinger' change - in the film Goldfinger has stolen a nuclear weapon to irradiate the American gold reserves and increase the value of his own gold (which is genius), whereas in the book he's stolen a nuclear weapon to blow the doors of Fort Knox and steal the gold (which is a bit stupid).
Very late but actually the book is equally stupid. Irradiating the gold would achieve nothing because the stock market doesn’t trade the literal commodity. The US government could just cover it up and it would change nothing.
That's why he's such a great villain - he subverts what you might expect him to do and goes for the more clever strategy. I don't like it when people cite Goldfinger's plan is to steal all the gold, which has seemingly the way most think the plot went. As a result, a lot of films/tv shows that parody the film involve a plan just to steal it.
According to Richard Maibaum, after finding out it would take 12 days and hundreds of men to move the Gold (I read somewhere else they'd need 100 trucks, to be driven across America without detection), it took him and the other writers 10 days to come up with a solution.
I totally thought he would mention that too!
I love the scene where Bond thinks he has Goldfinger dead to rights, only for the latter to let him know his REAL plan. That scene ALONE makes Goldfinger awesome.
I think it would be really neat if they did a 50's/60's reboot of Bond mainly for the reason that they can get around the whole "it's the 21st century and secret agents should be obsolete" conflict. It would just be a lot more fun to forget about all that.
Edit: There's also the potential that they still set it in modern day but drop that whole conflict anyway. I'd be down for that.
Just use The Man from Uncle, or Atomic Blond as an example.
Now I want a movie where Bond spends the whole time looking for the perfect fish for Mr. Goldfinger’s dinner.
Bond to Stromberg : "Ballseye , Fish Finger" (cut dialogue)
That sounds like The Hildebrand Rarity....
@@postersandstuff We need a Bond Villain called Findus Fishfinger
I think the reason Casino Royale is so lovingly embraced by Bond fans and non-bond fans is because it adapted the book very closely but also modernized it and added to the story in such a way everyone could relate.
Yes. What struck me quite powerfully was that it worked extremely well as a stand-alone thriller. The central character could almost have been anybody. And yet it also made perfect sense as a James Bond film (being based on the first Bond novel obviously helped with that!). It was really the perfect way to introduce Daniel Craig's take on the character. (Bit of a tangent here, but I thought it telling that Roger Moore was very evidently a big fan of Craig's Bond, despite their apparent chalk and cheese interpretations.)
Agreed I think it’s the best bond film not only as an adaptation and modernisation but just as a film
They should be looking to this film when continuing the series post Craig
I hear you, it's a winning formula, stay as close as possible to the books but just modernise them.
Death Grips Well, no point praising things that don’t exist.
@@RealRoknRollr3108 And as the only ones not to have whole or partial plot adaptations are The Spy who Loved Me, You Only Live Twice and Man with the Golden Gun, anyway...
A Bond TV adaptation set in their respective eras in which the books were written would be an interesting idea. Not an entirely necessary one but interesting nonetheless
I always wanted bond to go back to a 60s, explicitly cold war setting. Bond doesn't have to always be contemporary...
If they did a return to the Cold War setting, I’d like to finally see SMERSH be adapted. Movie fans don’t even know SMERSH predates SPECTRE & Quantum as the main evil organization antagonist to Bond. In the novels, Mr X (Live and Let Die), Hugo Drax (Moonraker), Le Chiffre (Casino Royale), and Rosa Klebb (From Russia With Love) were all members of SMERSH.
I want HBO to produce a TV series about an older version of the grumpy "book Bond" where James, as the last surviving misogynist dinosaur of the cold war era,
has to survive in the social media age without putting a silenced bullet in the skull of everyone who annoys him.
Isn't that just Curb Your Enthusiasm?
7:29 That sounds like a really cool idea! Of all the options, this is the one I’d go with, perhaps as a serialised TV series.
But I think it’d need to be its own distinct entity, avoid a lot of the elements from the mainline film series so it feels more like its own thing and not just a spin-off.
I am really scared of Bond's future if I'm honest it feels like PC culture will strip away the hard arsed Bond character with woman no longer falling at his feet. Before people begin to start calling a stupid kid a sexist misogynist dinosaur I hope people understand that the Bond series is an escapist fantasy and Bond himself is really what every man wants and hopes to be with the glamours suits, fast cars and the multitude of woman falling at his feet. If you strip away all this, what makes Bond different from any other character. Getting rid of the Bond trademarks just makes him another spy it's his cool character the smart suits, the girls, the cars which are how many people define Bond. I don't want a 50s/60s era Bond film i want the 50s/60s Bond In our current world anyways rant over please feel free to pick apart my views in anyway shape or form 😂
Personally, when I think of a "more faithful adaptation" I really just want to see the smaller scale international detective vibe that you get in the books. Its just Bond and a mystery solved over the course of a film or TV season.
I also think with the modesty of locations. For instance Moonraker taken place entirely in England, and mainly in rural Kent. There's few big action sequences.
@@davidjames579 Exactly, there's multiple books where Bond only takes a few shots the entire run of the story. Gadgets (if any) are simple as well...a gun and a radio
@@davidjames579 I wish Moonraker was faithful of the book. It was perfect
@@daidoexposure The radio adaption was faithful but even that had to add some extra stuff to get to 90 mins.
After so many years of plots on an epic scale, a tv series focusing on Bond doing traditional spy work would be refreshing. The series could be something akin to Danger Man but with a tad more sex and violence.
Or just remake Dangerman ?
The series Ace of Spies and 1980s Sherlock Holmes series would be a good reference point.
No. Movies are better.
@@mirekg5704 Not always. Just ask Stargate & Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans.
Bond is an agent, not a spy. He is more about killing people and preventing things than intelligence.
My problem with the films going back to the 50s after Craig is done is that it feels really gimmicky to me, in a way that the Bond series has largely avoided up until now. I mean, of course there are some instances (e.g. ‘Moonraker’ being all sci-fi to capitalise on the ‘Star Wars’ craze) but, for the most part, Bond films are made today in the same way they were in 1962: set in the present, reflecting the zeitgeist of the times they were made in, with Q technology that’s one step into the future (enough to feel exciting whilst still feeling plausible). And because of that, while all the eras of each Bond actor have been different in tone from the rest, together they still feel like a cohesive entity. And I like that! One could argue (and I think some do) that Craig has been the most gimmicky era thus far - abandoning many of the core Bond elements and reinventing itself to fit in with the Jason Bourne/Nolan Batman style of action films popular in the ‘00s - but to me, it felt like a natural evolution of the series after the absurdity of ‘Die Another Day’.
So I suppose my problem with going back to the 50s is that it doesn’t feel like a natural evolution, it feels like a novelty, going against the ethos of how Bond films have been made since 1962.
Besides, what do you do after Bond #7 has left? Keep it in the 50s? Because, like all gimmicks, it seems exciting and new at first but people soon grow weary of it. And then what? Either go back to normal or find a new gimmick. The former would only highlight how much of a novelty the decision to go back to the ‘50s was, the latter would mean every new Bond actor has to be a total reinvention of the character, which would ruin that sense of cohesion that I like so much about the series thus far.
Once again, we’re on very similar pages it seems! I think you summed up really well that it’d feel like a gimmick and at this point not a natural thing for the film series to do. I’m pretty sure if Bond were to be spun out into a franchise like Marvel we’d already have seen either a short film, a spin off tv series or something along those lines that would have scratched that itch for the Bond fans wanting it.
@@calvindyson exactly, while I love the current James Bond style heavily based on current action film trends, I would love to have a good old style James Bond with over the top characters and gadgets back (one of the reason why I love the first Kingsman, because it was exactly that and it worked beautifully). But it would be to jarring for the films to do that, so I'm totally down for the idea of doing that on spin off animated or live action series.
I wouldn't advocate the films going back to that era. A Netflix series would be perfect and Bond's adventures could be tied to key events during the cold war.
it's kind of funny how you say an older type bond film would feel gimmicky considering the daniel craig era is a rebooted version of the character, which i always felt was very gimmicky to begin with and a product of this horrible era of film in general, where they just keep rebooting the old rather than coming up with something new....craig is just connery light...he's not even dalton light for that matter....i would love for this to all be bond's dream while he was in a coma after die another day....
It would be cool to see a modern bond set in the 1960's; you could do some jokes regarding gadgets that are super futuristic to them but commonplace to us - but with the swinging hippies etc; it might just end up feeling way too close to Austin Powers / MIB 3. And like you said what happens in the next film, is he suddenly back in 2020? Then the film after do we see a cyberpunk 2060 bond starring a 007 with implants?
We need more Bond cookery scenes, like in A View to a Kill.
Maybe even a web series where James Bond is the host of a foodie show?
I agree completely, if a "truly faithful" adaptation happened it would have to be TV and the setting in the 50s would probably be necessary because I picture a modern day voice over aspect just seeming off...it would need that noir feel to work (maybe). Even then, I'm not sure it would really hit with audiences...basically Anthony Bourdain and then he shoots someone in the end.
Remember the voice over from the movie Momento? They didn't feel clunky, I think that style of combination voice over and character action could work. The trouble is that the subject matter Fleming seems to monolog alot about is food but that could be a seriously entertaining gimmick - if Bond were a noir-level food critic comparing every dish to some private, impossibly high standard of academically niche excellence while sitting through a villain's arcane speech while dangerous weapons are trained on him, that could almost make up for it. Maybe the reflection of the book is that men of Bond's stature do that kind of inner monolog to keep calm?
The unheralded genius and soul of the film series was Richard Maibaum. He found ways to continually maintain Fleming’s intent and strengthen it for a film vision. Along with the legendary initial team the character was brought to life in a remarkably vivid way for 1962 but with some alterations that were intended to sand off some rough edges while becoming more appealing to a worldwide market. Broccoli was especially adamant about appealing the American market by making 007 tougher to be more in line with popular detective characters so US audiences would buy in.
The importance of these decisions are crucial as they made and set the film character in stone-and most important of all was having Terence Young’s direction. Without Young, Bond would not be he character we know and the series would have never gotten off the ground. He is the most key figure in the series creatively without question.
Fleming was heavily influenced by Chandler and the film series most deviates and loses out on having his remarkable dry wit and observational musing-but Maibaum and others quickly realized how this would not necessarily translate to the screen well.
My biggest complaint and really the only one is that they continually downplay and devalue the female characters in order to focus on Bond alone and maintain the image of him being a womanizer which is not what the novels indicate at all. For once I’d love to see a true Fleming heroine brought to life as vividly as the novels. In the early films I think Young and everyone else used the increase in conquests to maintain the same level of sensuality as the novels but use the cinematic shorthand of the ladykiller to do so whereas the novels are actually much more of St. George rescuing the fair maiden from the dragon.
I do disagree that the novels are short on humor. Fleming’s prose is always wickedly hysterical sometimes in a sort of naughty way but always hyper intelligent and almost bemusedly detached-something which Dalton picked up on and audiences at the time had no clue of.
I thought Dynamite's Casino Royale graphic novel was pretty faithful to the book, as were the BBC Radio Drama adaptations of the novels.
there is live and let die out there as well now from dynamite.. waiting for moonraker
@@nihits I wasn't crazy about Live and Let Die's art.
@@SolarDragon007 I was a little disappointed in LALD's artwork from dynamite. There were some things they did that wasn't accurate to the original novel. They made Mr. Big look like a Black "Kingpin" from Spiderman by having him completely bald with healthy looking skin, when in the novel Mr. Big had little fluffs of brown & gray hair above his ears and grayish black skin from all the terrible heart attacks he suffered. Also, they made Bond wear a white/tan bulky diving suit with the large brass/copper helmet when in the novel he wore a black skin tight rubber diving suit. Those were the only 2 I could remember off the top of my head.
Screw the movies: a high quality mini-series, set in the late fifties -- make it effectively a period drama.
I agree. I'm fed up with the films, make it a series.
There is no way you can do a 100 % faithful adaptation of LALD these days.
95% they sure could
The BBC Radio adaptation was better than the novel. The writer of that radio play omitted all the racist crap.
There was no way you could do a 100% faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die when it was written.
I've just finished reading that book and what I would do is cut some of the more racist dialogue, Get rid of the part where Mr. Big releases Felix, re arrange the events in the Florida section so that Bond investigates the fish warehouse finding lighter brutalized then kills Robber and returns home to find Solitaire missing all on the same night, then finally I would possibly think about combining Quarrel and Strangways into one character.
I absolutely love, love, love this type of video. Such an interesting discussion. I thought about the same thing when reading the books. Absolutely great content. Been here since the my weekly bond days.
hey that was a great video. thank you. as a fan of the bond films and the books, every bond fan who hasnt read the books should give a couple a try.
Thanks very much for this! I’m glad you liked it! I hope my love of the Fleming books did still come through... I was a bit nervous id come across too negative which isn’t my intention, just that the books and the movies are awesome in equal measure for different reasons. I completely agree with you, every Bond fan should at least try reading a couple of the books if not commit to reading all of them!
I agree that a TV adaptation of Fleming's Bond would be the best way to go.
I've really enjoyed the Alex Rider series on Amazon Prime lately which has taken the Horowitz novel and updated it a bit for modern (and futuristic) technology.
As for the main series, I'd like to see Bond spy adventures set in the Cold War era where espionage was at its peak. Not necessarily based on the Fleming source material, but just set in that era where Bond is performing at his peak
Great video! A mini-series or animated format would be interesting for the books as a more direct adaptation. But admittedly, I like to see my blockbuster Bond and notice the Fleming threads weaved through the plot in nods and inspiration.
Thanks, Terrance! Sounds like we’re very much on the same page with this. I kinda like the main film series to keep doing what it’s doing and maybe branch off into other forms of media for experiments with the format etc
I would like to see Shatterhand’s Garden of Death used at some point. I couldn’t believe that wasn’t in YOLT, when I first saw the film. But by then I was use to not seeing favourite scenes in the films. As you say, plenty of unused material to inspire future screenwriters.
nihits , sort of, but Scaramanga’s Fun House was an abomination (my opinion), a proper, full-on GoD would be awesome!
@@SuperGrumpyDaddy scaramangas fun house was more of Spectreville from Diamonds are forever
Was kind of hoping the newest film WILL use the Garden of Death. That and the period Bond was amnesiac and brainwashed for at time, both have major potential...
YOLT the film and YOLT the novel are two completely different stories, with only a few elements retained but twisted beyond recognition (Bond being presumed dead and becoming Japanese). It wouldn't have made a lot of sense to include the Garden of Death. But it would be great stuff for new adaptation, probably best not set in Japan.
I agree with Calvin here. I'm not really interested if they choose to adapt Fleming beat for beat - I'd actually prefer it if they just cannibalised unsused elements from the Fleming and continuation books (*cough* Colonel Sun *cough cough*), my main concern is more about the tone. You don't want it too light otherwise you get the Moore Bonds, which I personally don't care much for, and you don't want it too dark otherwise you get the Craig Bonds, which is admirable but not always necessary. A neat juxtoposition between the two would be both welcome, and stay true to the spirit of Fleming even if it's period accurate or not. The best example for me being Dalton's The Living Daylights.
That being said it would be cool to see a rendition set in the original path of the Cold War, and you could probably make a thrilling story if it's an adaptation or not. The same thing happened with Sherlock Holmes thanks to the Rathbone/Bruce movies and the Cumberbatch series where he was modernized in contemporary era but others were still creating new stories for him based in his original Victorian London, it can't hurt to go back to the well and put Bond directly in the timeline of the Cuban Missile Crisis or the JFK assassination and such.
If you did want to adapt the novels faithfully then TV networks or streaming services would probably be the best option, as they are more liable to take a few risks when producing content. They can also be made on a smaller budget, so it's not a huge dent in the profits if they decided to pull the series.
Faithful book adaptations would work as Sunday evening BBC programmes rather than movies
I'm not sure I would even want an accurate Fleming movie because can you Imagine the amount of bad press the misogyny and sexism would get
There is that too! I didn’t touch on it really in this video but I think it links in with the whole issue of likability. Not to say a protagonist needs to likeable (Bond of the books arguably isn’t), but it helps if you want a mass appeal hero and obviously if you did a faithful adaptation of something like Live and Let Die in this day and age it’d be bound to generate some negative press.
Well just be aware that as an agent of a colonial power , he’s actually a villain that happens to be against villainous billionaires from time to time
Ho! Yeah, for sure. Novel Bond has not aged well.
The more Hollywood eschews the majority the more box office billions will evaporate. Subtle heterosexuality expressed with wit/charm/humor needn’t be automatically “problematic” and render a protagonist instantly unlikeable. Of course it’s primarily jejune envy as in “why isn’t Bond liking a person who resembles me more?” or “why can’t I pull like Bond?” Instead of any deep-seated problem with society as a whole. Basically if an insufferable youth with green hair has a problem with your movie the more money its going to make.
@@Reprodestruxion Villain is a HUGE overstatement.
A tv show might work. But i dont think a big movie would.
I'm in two minds about this. I think a Netflix/Amazon Prime style series set in the '50s with retro tech and show how a Bond villain plot would work in that setting. But I fear a spin-off series could undermine the movie series. One of the great strenghts of the movie series was its ability to adapt and remind relavent.
A lot of people mistake fidelity for copying. Personally I rank Casino Royale (2006) as one of the most faithful adaptations behind possibly only On Her Majesty's Secret Service and maybe From Russia With Love. Not because it has more of the book in it than Goldfinger, Doctor No or Thunderball but because it gets the core of the book right apart from the mechanics of the plot (agent/blunt instrument falls deeply in love, is betrayed, is left full of pain and rage with no immediate outlet except a desire for revenge). Casino Royale is a great adaptation because what it adds is in service to the plot (involving Bond in the reason Le Chiffre needs to stage a card game to get his money back? Sure. Put Bond in a situation where he knows Vesper has betrayed him but is unable to either kill or save her? Absolutely!).
Something like adding Bond going into the vault at Fort Knocks isn't a case of the film-makers veering away from Fleming but adapting the book well for a visual medium (a room full of gold is better visually than a yard outside it)
Even though some books are better than others, I would argue the core story to any of them is interesting and works (hell, a lot of the fanbase still couldn't accept a Bond film with a female lead almost 60 years after the books did it!). The Diamonds Are Forever film did not improve on the book by putting the climax on an oil-rig with Blofeld instead of the Spectresville train with the Spangs, the Man With the Golden Gun film was not better for not being about Bond trying to redeem himself after getting brainwashed and You Only Live Twice film wasn't better for not being about loss and revenge in a castle of Death (in my opinion). I'm not saying you can't like the films or that each of those books was a masterpiece, but each had ideas and narrative threads a good adaptation could have used for a great film (like Casino Royale did in 2006).
Same thing goes for the sexual politics. Was Fleming the best writer of female characters ever? No. Did he write female characters that were important parts of the plot, brought their own skills to the table and often saved Bond's life more than he saved theirs? Yes. (and that's more than i can say for many of the films!) Again using Vesper, possibly the only female lead the film-makers added rather than subtracting to, she does most of what she did in the book, just with better lines and more conflict with Bond. It's not a slavish copy of the book, but it's an almost perfect case of adaptation.
Such a good point about books being able to have the freedom of internal thoughts and protracted dialogue. This is why screenwriters exist. :)
Why not just adapt the 007 comic books namely "Serpent's Tooth" which is an 80s old school Timothy Dalton style Bond movie just in comic book form.
This may be contentious, but actually I really hope that No Time To Die is the last James Bond film. As much as I love this character and franchise, I really do feel that the arc has stretched itself to the limit. This would be such an opportunity to make one last great Bond film and end the series on a definitive high note, with more of everything Bond than we have ever experienced. In all fairness, the trailer does seem to promise more action and more genuine Bondishness than we have seen for a long time, and I would rather revel in one final glorious adventure and walk away satisfied than stand waiting for the "James Bond will return" to appear in the hope of better things to come. I really don't want to have to adapt to another actor trying to step into Bond and Craig's shoes to squeeze a product of the past into a skewed and fanciful image of the modern world, just to appease the juggernaut corporate love of money that is pushing the industry relentlessly onwards.
I think, finally, that it's time to say well done, you good and faithful servant, and goodnight, and let you walk away knowing that the world will always remember your name.
Bond. James Bond.
TBH I thought that when watching DAD, and not being a great fan of the Craig films (though Skyfall was pretty good), part of me thinks that should still have been the case.
All very well said, Calvin. A screen adaptation of a novel can never be, and should never be, exactly the same as the novel. However, I'd be happy to see new screen adaptations of Fleming's books A James Bond TV series or animated series set in the 1950s and '60s could be interesting. Although no doubt the character of Bond in that series would be somewhat similar to how he is in the films. After all, every new adaptation is influenced by the ones that went before. .
How close an adaptation do you think Quentin Tarantino's Casino Royale would have been? The book brought exactly to life or a Tarantino movie which just happens to have Pierce Brosnan in it?
Knowing Tarantino, I think he’d have likely had a lot of his own ideas so it would have strayed somewhat from the book. Much like 2006 CR I would have thought he’d have started with the book as a base and then added to it. Buts that’s just my hunch! I’d have loved to have seen his CR with Brosnan but I’m too happy with the Craig version to get too upset about it!
Hard to say. Tarantino sure has shown in past with movies like Jackie Brown and to some extent The Hateful Eight that he is capable of making a flick with his signature style pulled back.
@@calvindyson Tarantino has stated he wanted to film in Black And White (love your modulation of the Bond clips to that btw), set in the 50's (with Brosnan in it it would be separate universe to his previous films), and with voice-over by Bond. So sounds like he might have been going for keeping it like the novel. Tarantino seems to have a thing for British spy stories as he was looking to do an adaptation of Len Deighton's Game, Set And Match trilogy a while back. I think if Kill Bill was made as a homage to Shaw Brothers martial arts film, then I think T could be just as faithful to Fleming.
Tarantino making a Bond movie would be amazing and weird to conceive lol
Styles may clash but let's see
Absolutely agree, but we do need a real attempt to adapt Moonraker for the screen.
The film should be called “Warhead” since that word’s referenced in the novel. Change Drax’s name of course but leave Gala Brand intact.
I think it's the best of his books.
Do you really want to see a bridge table for half a movie? Be careful what you wish for, lol! :-)
It’s a shame that they called the 70’s movie “Moonraker.” Except for a couple of gut-clenchingly cheesy moments, it was a good movie, but failing to adapt such a great book (while using the title to draw Bond audiences) diminishes it so much...
Fleming's books were fanatasic but a faithful adaption would suit a TV show more [the 50's Casino Royale adaption, Dr No was based on a TV movie-planned as a pilot for a show-pitch by Fleming].
I think when fans say that they want a full-on, Fleming era Bond film, they’re mainly after the feel and tone of the novels, not direct adaptations. I’m personally not that fussed on whether the films do end up going in that direction, but I think I’m more sold on your idea of having the Fleming books adapted into direct-to-video animations. The style that DC have adopted for their recent animated adaptations of the Batman strips would be the perfect environment for a more loyal realisation of the Fleming books, and to be honest, I think it would truly enhance and enrich the 007 franchise. ‘Moonraker’ would be my first choice for this category, because although films like ‘Die Another Day’ have expanded upon the premise of the novel, nothing has ever come remotely close to Fleming’s original vision, and it would just be wonderful to finally see it on screen. Obviously you would need to tweak parts of it here and there and include some more action sequences to warrant a mainstream approach, but I honestly don’t see why it couldn’t work in practice.
Another great video as ever, Calvin. Keep up the great work.
It would be difficult to do. Fleming's writing could be very misogynist, but that in turn is hard to square with the intersectionalist-Marxist turn in modern media.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the Bond copyright expires in 2034. After that, Fleming’s stories are public domain and EON no longer has the only say as to what a Bond adaptation should be like*. After all, Sherlock Holmes is public domain and as well as the faithful adaptations of Conan Doyle’s work, we’ve also had Holmes in the present day (Sherlock), Holmes in present day NYC (Elementary), Holmes in the Future (Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century), Holmes as an anthropomorphic dog (Sherlock Hound), Comedy Holmes (Holmes and Watson), the list goes on. So, come 2034 we might get someone trying to 1:1 adapt Fleming, along with an anime where Bond’s brain is removed and put into a robot body.
*I say this, but the legal information page of Bond books say that “James Bond and 007 are registered trademarks of Danjaq LLC”, so I guess Danjaq might use this to kibosh anyone else trying to adapt “James Bond”, but then surely that goes against the whole point of the public domain - I don’t know, I’m not a legal expert. I suppose we’ll see what happens come 2034.
Yeah it’ll be weird when the copyright does laps on Bond. I’m no expect by any stretch but considering all the limitations etc that were placed on Never Say Never Again when that was in production and they had the legal right to adapt one of the books because so much iconography for the film series is owned by EON it’ll be really interesting to see what comes about when anyone can use James Bond 007 (but not the logo as we know it etc)
I look forward to the character being public domain. The Broccolis are a big reason why the films are so plagued with problems. They're clearly out of ideas, steam or care.
Didn't Disney just use their mega billions to lobby Congress to change copyright law specifically for them? I imagine the Bond producers probably have enough clever lawyers to work this out.
In fact reading up on the topic it seems that every time Mickey Mouse has neared copyright expiration US copyright laws have been changed. Mickey next becomes public domain in 2023, Disney will never allow this to happen so in all likelihood Eon have nothing to sweat as Disney will take care of it for them.
Wow! if there really is only 14 years left of copyright then I think thats changed my opinion on EON selling the franchise on; If they are going to do it this would be the time to maximise the return. But does Barbara want to carry on making 'The Rhythm Section' type films till she retires or would she want to see out the franchise up to the copyright expirary?
I would like to see a literal adaptation of, The Spy Who Loved Me. I think having a Bond movie with no James Bond until he rushes in at the to save the girl would make a very interesting TV anthology type movie. Great for Netflix or Amazon Prime
Adapting flemings political views faithfully would lead to the cancellation of the entire franchise
If all adapations were like Casino Royale I wouldn't have a problem. The details they changed from the book made more sense for the flim in 2006. The book was still a good read.
What I'd do for a bond film:
-Action Packed opening
-Henchman with a chainsaw for an arm
-Fun and creative plot/villain
-The whole of act three in a lovely spa resort in the middle snowy plains, with the villain dispatching of failed henchmen and suspected spies by boling them in a sauna and throwing them off the cliff.
-A car chase with Bond on a gadget filled lawnmower
-A mutli use gadget
Just a fun and exciting bond film with a little bit of emotional punch aswell.
You forgot sharks with laser beams,
The Lawnmower sounds like lots of potential fun, it really reminds me of Moonraker.
So you want Ash VS Bond?
You made a really excellent point about how much the books take place inside of Bond's head. A load of Bond voiceover wouldn't make for a very compelling movie...at all. Personally I'd have loved to have seen them go back to the time the novels were written with Casino Royale. When people watch the older Bond films with younger audiences & a bit comes up that raises eyebrows we can always say "it was a product of its time". They had a perfect opportunity to "take us back to where it all began" in 1953 & it would have given us more leeway in terms of Bond being able to remain an antihero. There's really nothing I can recall from the books to suggest he was ever intended to represent any societal ideal & yet a casualty of doing Bond films in present day is that we expect Bond to change with the times. Why? He's not a role model. The next movie could have been a more faithful remake of Live & Let Die & when you consider all the bits from that novel that they sprinkled throughout other movies later it seems they knew that the book had scenes they didn't use that would work well in a movie. And yet when you rip those scenes out of the Live & Let Die book (like the shark scene in the For Your Eyes Only film) and just stick them in a different movie, it can come off like "Oh yeah that was a memorable scene from a great book & you made a lesser movie out of it". Live & Let Die is one of my favorite novels & the movie just changes the whole plot around way too much for my liking. At times it feels like changes were made just for the sake of changes & levity & the end result bares too little resemblance to the book. For instance, I love the way voodoo elements in the novel were more of a smokescreen whereas the movie ends with a shot that asks me to believe in immortality. And that moment replaces a really thrilling climax with palpable danger in the novel.
I enjoyed the books very much and had wondered what an 'accurate' Netflix tv adaptation could be like; I say Netflix because they've got the money and the huge global exposure, but also because it throws out the need for scheduling blocks (ie 45 mins for tv or 2 hours for film) to squeeze the product into, they could make each story as long as they needed to be to do it properly, and likewise, split it into as many parts required to do so, not unlike chapters in a book. But then I started thinking along your lines tbh.
Books are a thought based medium that you can pick up and put down at any time where your own mind is the director. Films and tv are visual and auditory mediums, where you are spoon fed what happens at a much faster rate in a shorter space of time. It's kind of like saying I wish my train could be more like a car or vise versa, when really, they are both valid, but essentially completely different forms of transport and experiences. Why would you want one to be the other? Why not enjoy the merits of both depending on which is better suited to your needs at the time? There is no one size fits all for all this stuff. Nor is there really any need for one. The wider the medium source the better I think. Posters, artwork, music, toys and gaming too; it's all good.
The books, particularly the earlier ones, are very different to the films: which is good for the books, but not for the films. Bond films are basically a gun barrel intro, followed by what is essentially a James Bond short story in itself, followed by a highly creative credit sequence with unique theme song, that leads onto a larger James Bond story that often expands on the initial short story. Which usually goes along the lines of M sending Bond on a mission that involves pretty girls, fast cars, Q gadgets, exotic locations, planes, trains, a bit of snow, dangerous henchmen, preferably with some kind of deformity or seemingly supernatural ability about them, a genius megalomaniac of some kind with a custom built lair, complete with monorail and legion of badly trained goons. Add to that a bit of well timed and delivered comedy, suspense, a twist, and lots of guns and explosions, and you pretty much have your standard Bond film formula that works. I would like that to continue tbh. The ones that deviated from that, I didn't enjoy (Quantum Of Solace springs to mind: where the henchman's deformity or seemingly supernatural power was ... that he wore a tupe? If he threw it in a decapitating manner, like Odd Job's hat for instance, that would have at least been something! But no, it was just a wig that rolled off when he fell down the stairs this one time. Oh the entertainment value ...)
To re live the books in quick visual format, you already have the John McLusky cartoons done for the Daily Express in the 60's. These do a fantastic job of it and being comic strips, are easily consumed in a short space of time (rather than a book). Comics can even take advantage of thought bubbles, like as you say, films and tv just cant do without something like a narrator talking about his thoughts - but then what do you have happening on screen whilst that is going on? It just wouldn't work with Bond - it's not the Shawshank Redemption. And, films and tv compete in a whole different market to books, and if they don't compete, they die. Simple as that. Goldeneye(fantastic film ... of which there is no book) did a good job of using the other characters to convey Bonds thoughts - M berating his misogynist ways at the start, 006 asking if his drinking and need to womanise is a desperate attempt to silence the screams of all the men he's killed. Killing is always the last resort for Bond in the books. He doesn't like it but understands there is sometimes no choice. There are better ways to do thought in film than narration.
Personally, I would like to see the return of better, more memorable henchmen in each new film. I actually liked Mr Hinx; I thought he was the best henchman since Onatopp, who was the best since Jaws, Nik Nak and Baron Samedi, and obviously Odd Job. Deformities and peculiar abilities were part of all Flemming's bad guys in the books. Even the girls; Honey Ryder had a broken nose, Domino one leg shorter than the other. But Flemming wrote these in as qualities rather than imperfections.They add so much punch to the characters. There's so much fun to be had with this, that the Craig era has all but killed off. I think the comedy needs to return too, perhaps not to Roger Moore levels lol, but certainly inject more fun into the brand again. I don't want James Bond to be Jason Bourne: I find Bourne films boring. I want to be uniquely entertained, not bored.
To me, the films have added so much to the Bond brand over 60 years. It's no longer just a stretch of books from the 50's and 60's. Trying to turn the films into another brand or even a whole different medium altogether, just doesn't add up.
I don't want to see the day a bond films ends with, "James Bond WON'T return" ...
One of your best videos yet. I feel like the closest we’ll get to proper true-to-the-books adaptations for now is the BBC radio series starring Gustav Graves himself as James Bond, but that’d be a hell
of a place to start and I wouldn’t mind Toby Stephens as Bond in a TV series.
I think in general there should more accurate book/comics/graphic novels just to get a real idea of their vision also for people like me who are a little too anxious to sit still and read
Read books ffs. Broaden your horizons beyond what the media spoonfeeds us.
Hehe, I’m honestly a little surprised with “Good evening Mr. Bond fans” having become intro that the outro hasn’t similarly become “Goodbye Mr. Bond fans.” 😅
Releasing the next 3 movies set in the 1950s-1960s and then returning to modern era could offer:
1) possibility to have once again "traditional missions" behind enemy lines against state run enemies (perhaps even communist Chinese which seems a tabu in modern bond movies)
2) highlight classic bond style and apparel in a way perhaps the original bonds could not offer due to small budgets
3) shift focus from all this metoo / woke topics that is just a endless rabbit hole if not addressed now (no need to return to sexist bond girls but you know what I mean)
4) Opportunity to ask Martin Campbell to return to directing one more time due to unique setting of the 1950s-1960s
5) This era had great spy cities such as Wien, Tallinn, Helsinki that were on some way off limits as filming locations back in the day compared to now
Has Martin Campbell ever said he wanted to do a period movie? He has said introducing a new Bond is what excites him but his Casino Royale film was contemporary rather than period.
Not going into 3 in depth-as you say it's a rabbit hole-but I do feel the need to point out that films always reflect the time they were made [like Bond being far more promiscuous in Connery's 60's films than in the 50's books as it was a more liberating time]. Regardless of when it is set, it's still a 2020's film.
I actually think the Casino Royale movie is better than the book.
If your referring to the Daniel Craig film, not the psychedelic spoof.
@@davidthomas283 That film doesn't exist.
@@WH250398 C'mon it's "glorious shit"
@@WH250398 The 1967 Peter Sellers Comedy?
Honestly I'd like to see a James Bond film doing the Archer thing where it seems to be set in a particular time period but uses gadgets, weaponry etc from a different one. E.g. set in the 60s with gadgets from the 80s and weaponry from now
No.
It was refreshing to see some elements of the YOLT novel appear in No Time To Die that were never used in the 1967 film.
When will the next re ranking of the bond movies be. After no time to die?
I surely don't speak for everybody but I think when most people say they want a Bond more similar to the books, they just mean they want a film more grounded on reality, like Casino Royale or OHMSS. I mean, pretty much every movie nowadays are action flicks with a lot of special effects that something like Die Another Day just doesn't cause the same impression as it did 20 years ago.
I'm also not sure how it would turn out, but with a well written script it could be something akin to Logan or Joker, which are more serious takes on characters that were given lighter adaptations in the past.
Not my cup of tea though, I'd rather have Die Another Day 2 lol
There is a Dynamite series trying to replicate all bond novels faithfully to graphic novels, so far they have got to Live And Let Die, but haltered due to COVID. Waiting for Moonraker to show up.
I would personally love to see an animated Bond Netflix show.
Have you seen the animated Bond fan film, In Service Of Nothing, about a retired and jaded Bond? th-cam.com/video/-wOhtAtastk/w-d-xo.html
i'd say do it with an archer-like style
TLM Productions Bond Series:
1. Moonraker
2. Dr No
3. From Russia With Love
4. Goldfinger
5. Thunderball
6. 007 in New York
7. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
8. You Only Live Twice
The films would have a very strict continuity.
Something I would like to see would be to draw elements of the novels and reintroduce items like the Crime organisation run by Tracey's father as a recurring thing.
Love the Garden of Death part in “You Only Live Twice”. My personal Bond Book is “Moonraker” Ok you would have to change some things. I remember seeing the film and read the book and was surprised how the book wasn’t like the film and was way better - not a fan of the film adaptation of Moonraker - it’s a good for what it is but not my fav.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Calvin, I wholeheartedly agree with you ! Great analysis and insight into the books, Bond, and the films (except for being a MOOREite, hahaha) wonderful job, bro!
Just started getting into your page and love it. My opinion it really took me awhile to get into Daniel Craig’s Bond. I’ll explain more in a minute. I’m just now reading the books. My Dad got me into James Bond from the early Sean Connery days. So I’ve always been a movie Bond guy. I’ve also liked him as the confident, well dressed, loves his women, not afraid of danger super spy with all the cool gadgets from Q. The original movie Q will forever be Q to me as well. So Sir Connery, lazerby, Sir Moore, and Brosnan, will always be the Bond I love seeing in the movies. Honestly if the Bond in the books is kinda whiny and such I won’t like that. I however am only on the second book. Now like I said before Craig really grew on me and he had some moments of the other Bonds I love. Dalton still had Q and some classic Bond feel to it. I truly feel yes maybe use pieces and concepts from the movies but not completely follow the movies. Alright thanks for your cool show. Talk more on other topics I’m sure.
I think the simplest explanation for /not/ doing a faithful adaptation is that modern attitudes, e.g. to race and gender, are much different and faithful adaptations /should/ show the original attitudes. However there would be widespread criticism to such a portrayal from those who know no better, so it would flop. Heck you'd struggle to get it past the financial backers who probably have those attitudes and don't think historic accuracy would sell.
Wasn't Archer meant to be a some what realistic portrayal of what it would be like to be around Bond in real life? Maybe not from the book but a guy like him in a normal setting would probably be unbearable.
I enjoy the books a lot more than most movies. Bond in the books is a lot more human. He isn't perfect. He makes mistakes (And pays for them.) He isn't fearless. Drinks and smokes too much for his health. Ignores good advise given to him at times because he thinks he knows better. And after Tracy gets killed, he really suffers from depression.
I have the whole collection of Bond books in the first British Edition.
Dang
They should adapt the young bond novels.
A very interesting video. It punctures the romanticism of “Fleming’s Bond”. I don’t think there will ever be a James Bond TV series, as it would dilute the brand.
The literary bond's fastidiousness always struck me as funny, I mean he not only has to have his eggs cooked in a particular way, but they have to be served in a certain type of plate. Though it's funny on the page, I have to agree with Calvin, I don't think I'd invite that type of guy to the cookout.
A TV Series with the look of Fay Dalton’s drawings and written by Anthony Horowitz.
I think what people mean by wanting to see a more faithful adaptation is basically seeing the story of the novel in question told more closely to how it was told in the novel. Connery's first films and Lazenby's film were relatively faithful adaptations, they followed the basic story structure and only took liberties where it seemed necessary. Or at least necessary at the time. Replacing SMERSH with SPECTRE was their way of getting these films screened in the Soviet Union, otherwise they probably would have perceived it as anti-Soviet propaganda. I'm not sure if you noticed when reading the novels, but other liberties were done to throw off viewers familiar with the books. In the Dr. No novel, Bond smuggles a table knife at the dinner table. Bond in the film, Dr. No notices him pocketing it. In From Russia With Love, Bond's metallic cigarette case saves him from Red Grant's bullet. But in the film, Grant confiscates it. This changing things up was done to give viewers who had seen the novel a new sense of suspense "Oh dear, what is he gonna do now?"
When you read the novels that were changed up so drastically, you start to see unused story potential and ways it could have been worked into a new film or at least could have been incorporated somehow in the film that took its title. Like Quantum of Solace, the dialogue between Bond and the Governor could have easily been attributed to Bond and Mathis during their scene on the plane - after all, the entire conversation starts with Bond musing on the idea of marrying an air hostess. Alternatively, it could have been worked into the party scene later in the film. While there is no action in the short story, it does allude to Bond settling down at the party after having blown up a rebel ship with a thermite bomb. While we don't see it in the short story, such a bombing could have been put in the film. Alternatively, they could have just done what they did in For Your Eyes Only - mix and matching stories together to create something new. The Quantum of Solace discussion would have worked great as build up for an adaption of the Hildebrand Rarity because we see the Law of the Quantum of Solace in action. Hell, if they wanted to get creative, they could even have made Krest's ship the boat carrying enemy rebels that Bond destroys with the thermite bomb.
A way I think of writing a more accurate Bond would be to lichen Bond to Magnum P.I where hearing him complain about the ridiculous shit he gets into is half the fun. Also a lot people don't realize that Fleming never wrote Bond as a hero is you don't believe me watch his talk with Raymond Chandlar about there characters.
They shrink JB and his crew in a submarine that will hunt down and destroy all Covid . What a Fantastic Voyage that would be. Mr Bond.
There are so many great non Fleming novels that would make fantastic movies. Devil May Care springs to mind.
I know you can't adapt a story from one medium to another without making significant changes, and I've seen screen adaptations of several of my favorite books that made me say "Oh, yes! That's so much better!"
I just wish they hadn't made so many _pointless_ changes to the books. Why couldn't Rosa Klebb be a real SMERSH officer? Why did she have to defect and start working for Blofeld? In fact, why is EVERYONE in the movies working for Blofeld? He only got three books and only one of them showed him running a shadowy organization by proxy. If there's a race among literary villains who played modest recurring roles in a long-running franchise to be the most overexposed and overused character in that franchise's adaptations and spinoffs, then he's breathing down Moriarty's neck.
I suspect they wanted to avoid making the Russians the main villains for political reasons, so just swapped SPECTRE for SMERSH in all of those films.
Spectre being in the plot in From Russia with Love adds another layer to the plot and makes it even better than the book-both the Soviets and West are being manipulated leading to interesting scenes [like Red Grant having to save Bond's life in the gypsy camp].
@@jamesatkinsonja Eh, it was done better in _Colonel Sun._ But you don’t want to make the USSR look foolish or easily duped, the genre depends on their being able to menace as often as needed.
@@supperrooms8437 Sorry for the extremely delayed reply here, I tend to hate when people do that to me.
I do vaguely remember something about their wanting the films to remain timeless at some future date when a pro-Western Kremlin was going to make the world all warm and fuzzy. Well if so, that was six decades ago and I still can’t advise holding your breath.
@@supperrooms8437 Not so much political reasons but for commercial ones: Saltzman/Broccoli wondered about selling their films to the Soviet Union some time in the future. Not neccessarily a pro-Western "warm and fuzzy" Kremlin but one that was open to showing films from the West in detente style.
What's the track playing at the start here? It sounds like a softer version of the Thames chase music? Awesome stuff!
Loved the vid, Calvin, and you made some interesting points. I think Goldfinger got the balance right, there was still plenty of Fleming in it but it was glitzed up for the cinema. It's such a pity Moonraker was not made at the same time instead of the abomination we got in 1979. I can just picture in my mind the Moonraker in its silo with its reflective chromium finish. A thing of both beauty and terrifying menace. It would look amazing on the big screen. Personally, I'd love to see Bond filmed as a period piece against the back-drop of the Cold War. Not so far fetched. Sherlock Holmes was updated, but the Victorian/Edwardian era will always be his natural home just as the 50s/60s are for Bond. I think the film-makers of the future will have no hesitation in putting Bond back in his natural time.
Great video
A faithful adaptation would disappoint action fans. What was exciting 70 years ago won't cut it today.
Hmmm, Casino Royale wasn't a very elaborate plot or exotic - less so than almost all Fleming Bond novels - but EON made an excellent modern-day updating of that movie. So, I don't agree with you that you'd have to have a narrator to verbalize his thoughts.
You should do a reaction video to the channel Epic Rap Battles of History’s video on James Bond vs Austin Powers if you haven’t already seen it. Just for a laugh.
I think it would be fantastic as a tv show. Set it in the 60s/70s/80s.
There is a James Bond radio drama where they adapt different books. Thought you ought to know
I love those books but truthfully in today’s world straight adaptations would be just too small for the big screen and would not be able to compete with the big budget blockbusters of today.
Of course,we here in the Bond community would love to see a 1950s period 007 but general audiences probably wouldn’t.
The James Bond of the films,as you mentioned,is firmly established and is quite different from the novels so they should just stick with what has worked.
There is,however,a lot of Fleming sequences and material they haven’t used yet such as Shatterhands garden of death or Dr No’s obstacle course (complete with giant squid!)
-that would be FANTASTIC on screen so if they sprinkle a bit of that with the cinema 007 I think we’d all be fine with that!
I would love a modern take on the originally conceived Bond in the 1950-1960s. Of course we could still have time appropriate gadgets :)
The last couple of times I've read the novels I've thought about them as a faithfully adapted miniseries, like something the BBC would make. Adapting them as animated films is an excellent idea! I never would've thought about that. You're right about how super faithful adaptations might not work as well as we'd think. Almost the first half of FRWL seems to be the story of Red Grant. Very fascinating and well-written, but not particularly cinematic. And sometimes, like you said, the film improves on the novel. Like OHMSS. The film ups the stakes by having Tracy's kidnapping being the catalyst for Bond and Draco's raid on Piz Gloria. In the novel she's waiting safe and sound back in Munich or someplace. And Bond doesn't even really participate in the battle; as soon as they arrive at Piz Gloria he goes chasing after Blofeld in the bobsled. But some of the novels could provide excellent "faithful adaptations," especially Moonraker.
Yeah I think TV would be more suited for such adaptations given the lack of scale in the Fleming plots compared to where the films ended up. A mini series of Moonraker would be something I’d love to see... Stylishly animated of course!
Goldfinger made an interesting improvement. The screenwriter noted that Fleming's plan for Goldfinger to rob Fort Knox would require hundreds of trucks to transport the gold. Not something you could make an easy getaway with.
So he changed the plan to Goldfinger setting off a Nuclear bomb to make the American's gold untouchable, and raise the worth of his (while doing the North Koreans/Chinese a favour as well).
The BBC would not be able to make them because of a) the cost, and b) the fact that it is run by people who make Phoebe Waller-Bridge look like a Conservative.
Don't we already have an Archer?
For a second, I thought that was Mark Kermode at 0:28
He’s got the right face and glasses, but he’s lacking the proper Kermodian quiff.
Kermode doesn't age. He's looked the same since the 1950's.
I’d really love an animated Bond series, especially in this glorious age of animation!
Closest thing to a 60s-set Flemingy Bondy TV series is probably Danger Man, especially the 50-minute episodes
It's interesting that Patrick McGooghan was approached to play Bond (he said no as he didn't like the books).
I wouldn't mind a gritty low tech version of Bond set in the past, but of course with enough trimming so that the adaptation is a neat package rather than meiandering.
What I advocate is not faithful adaptations of Fleming, but I think, having killed Bond now, it might be cool to next do a period piece from the 50's or early 60's. You can make use the Cold War as the backdrop and make an exciting thriller with lots of gadgets if you like, but just dial it back a bit and have some fun in the period in which Fleming wrote. The recent novels doing this have adopted a more psychological approach to Bond than Fleming ever did, but with plots that work during the Cold War. I think that would be one way forward for Bond.
I think keeping the films fresh and constantly rebooting is the right approach, but a streaming (Netflix etc) series could really have a go at a faithful, beat for beat adaptation of the novels. Streaming services seem far more willing to take risks with producing shows with a slower pace, less action, and less likeable lead characters. Sounds ideal for the novels.
Netflix, Amazon and Apple have tons of money and seem quite willing to take chances, while movie studios are cautious over being too un-commercial. There's a lot you can't do in a 300 million dollar movie (unless it's Apple, who gave Scorsese 200 million to do a drama film). I think the only film director who has shown they can get a blockbuster budget movie made exactly their way is Christopher Nolan. So if he does get his chance with Bond....
I'd like to see a faithful adaptation of The Spy Who Loved Me where the first hour is a young woman's series of disappointing relationships and then Bond turns up halfway through the film and fights a couple of gangsters in a motel.
Fleming would only let EON use the title for Spy and would not let them have the rights to the plot.
There's actually the Audio versions of the book but BBC did make radio plays of the bond novels cutting out alot of the fluff
I think this video will help people to continue to get it wrong about what the Bond books are vs. the movies. The 60s films, save for You Only Live Twice, are all faithful adaptations of Ian Fleming’s books. You seem to be misunderstanding what an adaptation of a book to movie actually is by medium. Tweaks are just that, tweaks. The Bond character of the first two movies is Ian Fleming’s Bond. I would love to see a faithful adaptation of Casino Royale set in time period. That doesn’t mean a beat by beat, narrator version, it means the 60s film adaptations, but set in 50s.... put that on Netflix, sign me up! I also love the modernization version of CR which demonstrates if you stick with characters, plots, elements and spirit of Fleming, you get the best Bond movie since OHMSS. Much better than the fan fiction screen writing we waded through with Brosnan films and part of Craig’s.
1:40 the radio adaption of Goldfinger stuck to the book and the conclusion was far less exciting without going into Fort Knox. They also kept the bit with Goldfinger hiring Bond to work for him which even Goldfinger later on admits was a stupid idea!
Goldfinger really slipped up there when he could have just killed Bond or kept him as a prisoner if he wanted to interrogate him. Also who was going to be his PA prior to Bond?
Most excellent observations sir. 😸 I think the only thing I could request is a remake of Moonraker with a faithful adherence to the actual plot...rather than the semi-70’s Battlestar Galactica cheese that we actually got from the movie.
American Psycho had a voice over and worked quite good. New Bond movies could be made with his voice over.
It's quite amusing, that American Psycho is probably the closest we'll get to a movie of Fleming's Bond.
I'd set Bond in the 50s and 60s, with someone like Tarantino or Nolan directing and writing the story!!! I would love to see what they make out of Bond, and how they capture the tone of the time...
I would like to see Bond in WW2
@@Desmond9100 Check out the Dynamite comics James Bond series Origin then. It is set during World War II and follows Bond's time with the Royal Navy and his early introduction to the skills he would use at MI6 later. The artwork is quite good and the writer Jeff Parker really does a good job filling in the blanks left by Ian Fleming( Fleming never went in depth with Bond's time in the Royal Navy apart from some memories in a few of the novels, and then in You Only Live Twice in the obituary chapter where he shares some new details). Plus it really does a good job of using the period setting quite well.
@@user-si9fx4xb6v Thanks for the tip
No.
With Amazon owning MGM, I think it's a virtual certainty that we see a Bond series on Prime. Such a series of necessity has to be massively lower budget than the films (probably something like a tenth , tops (1/20 is more likely) of the per-minute cost of the films), and I think EON would insist on it being absolutely separate from the "canonical" film series (partly because the production values would be so far below what the film series has) if it featured Bond.
So that leaves character spinoffs (had there been prestige cable dramas or streaming twenty years ago, maybe the talked about Wai Lin or Jinx spinoffs would have actually happened) from the film series as a possibility, but there aren't many candidates: something like Trevelyan post-defection also taking revenge on the Soviets (hastening the fall of the USSR) and then building the Janus organization, with the series ending as Ourumov is recruited to steal the GoldenEye or a heist series featuring Octopussy's circus are maybe the only ones that readily come to mind. Against that alternative, period adaptations of the novels, with a less likable Bond seem a bit more viable.
I'd love it, but first refusal sits with EON. And they've been reluctant to this kind of thing. But you never know. Especially if Michael and Barbara step down/back, and Michael's sons run EON.
Bentley!!!! - Wanna Blower Bentley!
...with an ejector seat
The one thing that quite annoyed me with the Bond movies is that the movies are out of book order which made them seem quite jarring when you look at the actual order. But I learnt to get used to it and I now I quite like the order that it is in.
I’ve always wondered why they adapted the books out of order. I get they couldn’t start with ‘Casino Royale’ in 1962 because they didn’t have the rights, but they could’ve easily gone to ‘Live and Let Die’ and continued from there.
BenCol Yes! That would have been a good order to go for!
_Live & Let Die_ is so racist that there would be no way of adapting it to the screen without any changes (and adapting it in the '60's would provide a whole other can of scorpions to avoid, as the '60's hod the civil rights movement happening in it.)
Also, the book's bad guy, Mr. BIG (Bonaparte Ignace Gallica) was a KGB/SMERSH agent, a detail that would have to be changed for a mid-'60's movie adaptation, as Cubby Brocolli forbade the U.S.S.R. to ever be used as a villain in the movies-he wanted them to be seen in Russia one day, would you believe it?
Neville6000 Very true..
It really only annoyed me with OHMSS because they didn’t lightly adapt the book to alter the fact that Bond and Blo had met in the previous movie. I get they wanted to adapt the book as closely as possible and I respect that, but to mess up their own movie series continuity...not great.
Would you like books about James Bond, not written by Ian Fleming, to be adapted to film?
For example, the Miss Moneypenny series as it would be interesting for that character to get more development perhaps.