James Bond In Skyfall - Part 10

[hammerhedd11]

Considering your trying to be clever. No, I like post crisis Superman.

There are many literary interpretations of Superman (thousands of different writers).

There is one literary interpretation of Bond. All authors and timelines build off of one.

But what makes that different from Bond? Why can't Bond have other interpretations? Superman originated from the minds of two authors. Bond from one. What makes Bond different?

And you say you prefer Post Crisis Superman. And that's fine. But some prefer PreCrisis. And that's their opinion. And both are different interpretations with different attributes. So how can you say (the movie superman throwing a cellophane shield for example) that one is definitively wrong and the other right?

 

[ChickenScratch]

How about you wait for me to justify my likes and dislikes to strangers on the internet. I already told you what I liked, the end. Bond novels, and post crisis Superman.

 

[Octoberist]

Okay, I think ChickenScratch has very valid points, while others have good points too.

I'd say James Bond's history with the novels and the adaptations were..complex to say the least. Normally, I would say that adaptations should be as close to the original source as possible (at least in spirit) but there are exceptions. Like Blade Runner or There Will Be Blood.

I feel like Bond is just a rare and special case when it comes to the 'book vs. film' category. There's no real answer really.

 

[hammerhedd11]

How about you wait for me to justify my likes and dislikes to strangers on the internet. I already told you what I liked, the end. Bond novels, and post crisis Superman.

I was discussing with you civilly. If you have a problem justifying your ideas to the strangers, a message board on the internet might not be the place for you.

I was not asking you to justify what you liked. I was asking why you feel that there is only one correct interpretation. I understand that you like the Bond novels the best. I also like the novels more. And I would say that that Bond is the original version. But why do you feel that the movies are "wrong"?

Like it or not, Bond has grown beyond his roots as the character in the novels. Now he's been interpreted in various different ways. Why is that "wrong"?

The same with Superman. I tend to like certain interpretations of his character more than others. But the others are no more or less right.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Okay, I think ChickenScratch has very valid points, while others have good points too.

I'd say James Bond's history with the novels and the adaptations were..complex to say the least. Normally, I would say that adaptations should be as close to the original source as possible (at least in spirit) but there are exceptions. Like Blade Runner or There Will Be Blood.

I feel like Bond is just a rare and special case when it comes to the 'book vs. film' category. There's no real answer really.

I would agree, but that's a different sort of adaptation. Adapting a novel, like say Catcher in the Rye; this is one singular story, with one outcome. Superman and James Bond are serial characters, who go on to have multiple adventures. Considering James Bond movies aren't even based on Ian Fleming books anymore, and considering they are handled by multiple different "authors", they are bound to be played with and changed.

And that also brings up a good point. There Will Be Blood and Blade Runner are radically different from the source material but also praised heavily. Does that mean they are "wrong" in their execution?

 

[Marvolo]

Not to mention there is very little continuation between films and with CR rebooting it it muddies the waters even more. In a franchise like Bond none of the takes on the character are wrong. As was said, Bond has grown beyond Flemings ideas and stories and for majority of the public the films are Bond not the novels. That will only increase with time. Bond is a constantly changing property.

 

[Doc Ock]

I've always have had interest in reading the Bond novels, and do plan to get them eventually(as they keep getting put further down my reading list) but to me 007 and James Bond are the films. I see 007 more as a film franchise. I have love for the video games as well.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Not to mention there is very little continuation between films and with CR rebooting it it muddies the waters even more. In a franchise like Bond none of the takes on the character are wrong. As was said, Bond has grown beyond Flemings ideas and stories and for majority of the public the films are Bond not the novels. That will only increase with time. Bond is a constantly changing property.

I guess the correct thing to say is that there is an original Bond. And those would be the novels. He is of Fleming's creation and the most important version and should be respected. But being such a huge icon, and the nature of serial characters, it is only natural that people begin to tinker with him. So, of course, it's hard to say that, say, campy, Moonraker (film) Bond is the "standard" Bond, it is also not "incorrect" or not Bond.

I had the same issue with many fans about The Dark Knight Rises. Many people thought along the lines of Harry Knowles, who said something along the lines that this 'wasn't his Batman'. Or 'Batman wouldn't do that.' It's perfectly fine to not like Nolan's interpretation. But it's wrong to say "it's not Batman." Because what is Batman? Many of his attributes that we have come to know is far removed from his original appearance (using guns and such). So already, his "normal" version is already an interpretation from some one other than the original author. So when people begin to act like they own the character or that he can only stay one way, it's, frankly, ignorant and, most importantly, boring. I like different versions of characters. It's the only way they stay relevant and alive. Captain America for example. I'm sure if the internet was around in the 60's, fanboys would be angry that they were putting him into the present time after being frozen. Yet, this new interpretation brought a refreshing, and exciting take on the character.

 

[redhawk23]

Even the Bond of the book was influenced by the movies though. Fleming wrote in some scottish into Bond's heritage after Connery did Dr. No.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Which I guess furthers the notion that these characters are always evolving and growing, even in the matter of the original author, and saying there is one correct interpretation is a fallacy.

 

[redhawk23]

Interesting that Mendez originally thought Craig was a terrible choice to play Bond.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Even to this day, I've heard people criticize him and say that Bond isn't blond.

Which, y'know....

 

[The Englishman]

I don't have to accept a thing. Grow up and stop trying to shape my opinion.

Why is it such a huge deal with you people that I prefer the literary interpretation of the character? As I said before, you can block me if you wish but I can see Bond any way I wish and you are welcome to do the same. Your opinions or ideas about the character does not have to be mine and will not be mine. I'm not gonna come around to your way of seeing things no matter how much nerd rage you may have.

It's a Huge deal because you come in this thread and constantly slag off the films. I'm a fan of both the books and the films, why can't you be?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Interesting that Mendez originally thought Craig was a terrible choice to play Bond.

So did Campbell, no?

 

[ChickenScratch]

Nah.

 

[Octoberist]

Interesting that Mendez originally thought Craig was a terrible choice to play Bond.

Well Mendes was more...diplomatic when he said that. He thought it was a bad career move for Craig but it could've been a more passive and polite approach in saying 'He's ain't right for Bond."

 

[Octoberist]

Even to this day, I've heard people criticize him and say that Bond isn't blond.

Which, y'know....

Yeah, I never understood that argument when Moore clearly had dirty blond hair.

 

[Octoberist]

I have a question for you Bond fans:

After Die Another Day, what was the catalyst for EON to go more 'grounded' and 'back to basics' with the following film? As far as I know, it was probably due to good timing the 'Casino Royale' suit was settled but that was after 2002.

Or rather:What was EON's original intent for the next Bond if they didn't get the 'Casino' rights back? Did they have another script/treatment waiting in the ranks? At that point, Bond as a franchise was critic-proof ala Transformers because it still made tons of money especially after DAD. And it seemed like the Broccolis still wanted Pierce back for the next one...initially.

What was the change of heart? I really think it was a series of events that lead to the recasting and reboot.

 

[Marvolo]

Well Mendes was more...diplomatic when he said that. He thought it was a bad career move for Craig but it could've been a more passive and polite approach in saying 'He's ain't right for Bond."

And seeing as how Bond films were getring worse and worse mendes probably really thought it would tank Craigs career. And it may have if he had been stuck with ****** films.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Am i wrong in thinking we will eventually get to a place where they will start to remake some of the original bond films?

I really think this hollywood remake schtick will reach the bond franchise eventually and i think some executive is going to have the "radical" idea to do a remake of one of the originals at some point.

 

[protocida]

^ Probably.

There's room for improvement and modernization.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I have a question for you Bond fans:

After Die Another Day, what was the catalyst for EON to go more 'grounded' and 'back to basics' with the following film? As far as I know, it was probably due to good timing the 'Casino Royale' suit was settled but that was after 2002.

Or rather:What was EON's original intent for the next Bond if they didn't get the 'Casino' rights back? Did they have another script/treatment waiting in the ranks? At that point, Bond as a franchise was critic-proof ala Transformers because it still made tons of money especially after DAD. And it seemed like the Broccolis still wanted Pierce back for the next one...initially.

What was the change of heart? I really think it was a series of events that lead to the recasting and reboot.

From what I've heard, too much time passed, and EON rebooted with Craig; with Brosnan getting the shaft.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Am i wrong in thinking we will eventually get to a place where they will start to remake some of the original bond films?

I really think this hollywood remake schtick will reach the bond franchise eventually and i think some executive is going to have the "radical" idea to do a remake of one of the originals at some point.

I would love to see a good remake of Moonraker, Diamonds are forever, and hell, DAD could have been really good; the first 30 minutes show that.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Am i wrong in thinking we will eventually get to a place where they will start to remake some of the original bond films?

I really think this hollywood remake schtick will reach the bond franchise eventually and i think some executive is going to have the "radical" idea to do a remake of one of the originals at some point.

Why remake when they can just steal the plot like they did with You Only Live Twice/The Spy Who Loved Me/Moonraker, Goldfinger/A View to a Kill, and Diamonds Are Forever/Die Another Day?

 

[ChickenScratch]

I think they could be done as mini-series in order. Now that would be cool. Same cast from start to finish doing the stories as written. No outer space in Moonraker, no Thailand in TMWTGG, Bond getting *killed* in FRWL but miraculously surviving in Dr No.

I;m not for remakes, but if they could wrangle a way to do them as mini-series with the short stories (like QOS) falling where they should in the timeline it would be cool.