Amph 60+ Years of James Bond 007

He may not have been my favourite Bond but there some films from his era I still enjoy: The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only. But I found his films ether fell into the bizarre (Live and Let Die, Moonraker) or just plain forgettable. So, easily one of the lesser 007s but I was fortunate enough to have a chance encounter with the man when he last visited Melbourne.

 

Unfortunate news. I didn't like his Bond films, but his meta commentary on the Bond series was always insightful.

 

One thing that the Moore-era Bonds did better than almost anything else were the stunts. I know Goldeneye tried to replicate that off the bat, with the bungee jump at the beginning, but I think they quickly gave up thereafter once CGI became more en vogue?

TMWTGG car flip (first CAD-stunt in Hollywood).
LALD had the boat jump and the crocodile walk.
TSWLM had what I consider to be the second greatest stunt of all time -- the Union Jack ski jump.
And there were a lot more, no?

One of the reasons I loved Casino Royale as much as I did was because of the opening stunt sequence -- believe that was all stuntmen and minimal CG (if any), plus Foucan himself?

 

And the stunts are largely superficial and unnecessary today. The most gruelling stunt I can think of is probably the rooftop chase in Siena, but it's less flashy and more intense.

 

I disagree, in that there's something to knowing that, say, Tom Cruise is being lifted in the air on an Airbus plane vs. a lot of the wire-fu/CGI-fakery that goes on nowadays. Knowing that the Bond films planned a truly bugnuts stunt -- because that was the only way to do it back then -- was incredibly daring at the time.

Nothing will ever, in my opinion, beat Raiders of the Lost Ark on this of course.

 

Other Bonds pay tribute

 

Did a re-read of Moonraker--just finished it an hour or so ago. I feel like this one is a really underrated Bond novel. I harsly ever hear or see it come up in conversation when talking about the original Bond novels.

Everything about this book works for me--how the issue seems so small and personable at first what with M asking for Bond's help in outing Drax as a cheater--only later on the small issue grows into a larger one when the Moonraker becomes endangered.

Drax is an interesting villain for Bond, as Bond frequently finds himself torn between admiring Drax's merits and being disgusted by his want to cheat. Bond is blind to what is really going on because of these mixed feelings, and he even beats himself up a little bit for not shunting aside his admiration for Drax in order to get a clearer, less biased picture of the events going on at the ICBM site.

And Bond himself as a character seems to get a lot more time to shine in this novel. I feel like Fleming really hit his stride with the Bond character in this novel.

Moonraker will always be a novel I regret has not been made into a movie​ that doesn't suck. Sure, plot elements from the novel were recycled for movies like Goldeneye and Die Another Day, but it would be nice if we could eventually get the concise Moonaker adaptation that is akin to Craig's Casino Royale.

 

Actually it's the only Feming Bond novel I've read precisely because I'd heard it was considered the best of the Bond novels.

 

I am beginning to think it is the best. It has everything you would want in a Bond story, and it does everything right--IMO of course.

It is a toss up between this and From Russia, With Love for me as the absolute best Bond book at this time.

Sent from Hell--depending on whether or not it exists.

 

OHMSS you guys. For best novel.

 

The Bourne Identity

 

It's not even that great a novel, so pretty standard dp4m troll.

Meaning, failure.

 

I read The Bourne Supremacy once, many, many years ago; I thought it was exciting but cringingly melodramatic and po-faced. Even so, I'd rate it higher than the one John Gardner 007 novel I read, which was worse in every regard. I generally don't find spy novels very interesting compared to sci-fi/fantasy novels, though I absolutely eat up good spy movies/TV series. Probably the best spy novel I've read is le Carre's The Honourable Schoolboy, which I hope doesn't get butchered into a movie - multi-part TV adaptation or nothing as far as I'm concerned.

I enjoyed Moonraker, though Bond was ridiculously shallow throughout (I can definitely see what might have inspired the creators of Archer).

 

Yes, that entire trilogy of le Carre's - the so called Karla trilogy - is an amazing set of spy novels. They almost did film the Honourable Schoolboy, after they did Tinker, Tailor (the TV series, not the shallow film) but troubles in Asia meant they couldn't. Joss Ackland played Westerby in Tinker, Tailor and would have been perfect as the Honourable Gerald Westerby, blundering about Hongkong with Craw or into Thailand chasing Riccardo.

Here he is with Smiley:

 

Whilst reading the book I couldn't help picturing him as James May. Ackland was good though - got the attitude right. Tinker, Tailor is one of the greatest TV adaptations ever, imo. Superb in every regard. The film, as you say, is shallow in comparison.

I really don't know who I'd cast as Westerby today - he'd need to convince as a former public schoolboy and have the physical size, because Westerby is a big lad which gives him an advantage in physical scrapes. Stephen Graham was just so totally wrong (I seem to remember they kind of combined Westerby with Sam Collins) it was like the movie was intentionally screwing it up to make a point.

One of the things that le Carre I suspect gets right is the repressed emotion of the characters in the Circus. In the BBC series the only characters within the Circus who lose their cool and show emotion are Percy, who's weak and a fool, and Guillam, who's tendency to overreact (by Circus standards) marks him to the professionals as dangerously unstable. In the recent Bond movies Dench's M has often lost her temper publically in a way that I think would be considered a loss of face - not something someone working in the British establishment would do, imo. I don't think the Americans get that, and of course the films are aimed at them to a certain extent. Shouting just isn't something someone at that level would stoop to if they had any self-control I would have thought. Not a big thing, but I notice it.

 

Since we're talking about non-Bond stuff, I feel duty-bound to recommend at least trying the severely underwatched "The Sandbaggers."

It's pretty much the anti-Bond, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Worth a look if you can find it.

 

Got all three series on DVD. It is excellent despite its very limited budget. The worst episodes are the two or three the series creator didn't write himself (he went missing before all the third series episodes had been written).Greg Ruka's comic book Queen & Country is heavily influenced by the series, I believe.

 

I suffered through watching that, so others can too.

I still reckon Craig will be back for another go, mainly because no one would want Spectre as their last word on Bond.

 

I did try but gave up at Dan Stevens .

anyway - I thought Craig said he was coming back . did the cheque bounce ?

 

I don't think any decision has been made yet. I don't think they know who the next distributor is now the Sony deal has ended, and they'll need to know that so they can work out which products to feature prominently in the story; who plays Bond will come a distant second to important stuff like that.

And I think Dan Stevens is great, but I don't think he's right for today's idea of Bond (i.e. more tough-looking than pretty). Stevens is great as a psycho in The Guest, though, and has been totally killing it in Legion.

 

Correct... as far as we know, Craig has not decided yet. He and the producers all seem to be in wait and see mode, which seems tricky because the writers are apparently working on the next movie now (we discussed that before).

 

This is mostly just repeating every dumb fancasting that's been batted around, and they remain laughably dumb (Andrew Lincoln, really?). I didn't expect the inclusion of Jack O'Connell, though. I actually rather like him for the part, but he's a bit young now. I wouldn't be surprised if they came back to him in ten years, though, as the guy after the next guy. If Craig does one more before bowing out he may be worth looking at then, too.

I am more and more thinking Craig will be back, though, if just because EON seems terrified of moving on from him. They love the success they've had with him, they don't want it to end, and above all they seem very frightened that they won't be able to catch that lightning in a bottle again.

 

Well, they better pull off something better than Spectre if they bring back Craig. Otherwise I think they should just leave that plot dangling and move on.


Anyway, I am delving into the post-Fleming authored Fleming-Bond books, meaning specifically Colonel Sun, Devil May Care, Trigger Mortis, and Solo. Was wondering if we can get a good discussion going on about the merits/faults of each one. The one I am starting with is Solo, because it is the only one available to me at the moment.

These continuations have--from the looks of things--gotten high praise from reviewers, but I value the opinions of my fellow Bond fans on here: what did you think?

 

You're very right to avoid John Gardner and Raymond Benson.

Colonel Sun is a fine novel, but it's a little dry.

Devil May Care is completely terrible, which you'd expect when you marry Sebastian Faulks and Bond. I love Birdsong, it's one my favourite books, but he's not a Bond writer.

Solo is quite good, as is Trigger Mortis, but they both suffer the issue of the stories not being wish fulfilment of the author. Fleming was living out lurid fantasies as Bond; Boyd and Horowitz aren't.

Avoid Carte Blanche, it's awful.