The James Bond Thread
Discussion
So said:
This. Bond films today are basically a Kay's catalogue with a (flimsy) storyline, whose principal purpose is to link shots between product placements. It's more difficult to make product placements relevant in a historic setting.
Let the cheques from bazooka joe, Bentley , woolworths and Mr's Miggin's favourite Laudanum beverage.996Type said:
I’ve posted on this before but one way around all the issues if they wanted to stay true to the original concept would be to stage the films back in the 1930’s and onwards.
The original books and short stories were a million miles away from most of the films and good in their own ways (apart from those books like gold finger or OHMSS that were plot treatments for the films from the outset and read page for page like the films).
If you get chance to see killer elite with Clive Owen and Jason Statham set in the early eighties, this is the kind of Bond film that would break the continuous need for sequential plots and the paradoxes they contain.
Fleming had such a short writing career relative to his creation and this is why the series can sometimes appear trapped at a point in time.
Agatha Christie’s characters and plots don’t suffer the same fate as they became developed over a longer period and were only meant as individual outings for the characters generally.
Put Bond back into context in the post war and you get the magic of Thunderball etc without the heavy cynicism that has grown with the competition he now faces at the box office.
DC has done a fantastic job and remains my favourite, let them make the largest film as his swan song then reset.
Steven Spielberg did a great job of this with his Bond wannabe Indiana Jones and these remain an example of how a modern action
film can be set in the past but still smash the box office.
It’s maybe too big a gamble though for a franchise that derives so much from modern product placement.
Hardly a million miles. The first five were very close to the original novels in characterisation and plot, obviously making way for some cinematic sequencies and licence when transferring from page to screen.The original books and short stories were a million miles away from most of the films and good in their own ways (apart from those books like gold finger or OHMSS that were plot treatments for the films from the outset and read page for page like the films).
If you get chance to see killer elite with Clive Owen and Jason Statham set in the early eighties, this is the kind of Bond film that would break the continuous need for sequential plots and the paradoxes they contain.
Fleming had such a short writing career relative to his creation and this is why the series can sometimes appear trapped at a point in time.
Agatha Christie’s characters and plots don’t suffer the same fate as they became developed over a longer period and were only meant as individual outings for the characters generally.
Put Bond back into context in the post war and you get the magic of Thunderball etc without the heavy cynicism that has grown with the competition he now faces at the box office.
DC has done a fantastic job and remains my favourite, let them make the largest film as his swan song then reset.
Steven Spielberg did a great job of this with his Bond wannabe Indiana Jones and these remain an example of how a modern action
film can be set in the past but still smash the box office.
It’s maybe too big a gamble though for a franchise that derives so much from modern product placement.
Halb said:
So said:
This. Bond films today are basically a Kay's catalogue with a (flimsy) storyline, whose principal purpose is to link shots between product placements. It's more difficult to make product placements relevant in a historic setting.
Let the cheques from bazooka joe, Bentley , woolworths and Mr's Miggin's favourite Laudanum beverage.
techiedave said:
Never really thought of Indiana Jones and James Bond as linked
Very curious about the 1930s reference
Looking at the Indiana Jones films now I would not see any similarity with Bond. However, when Raiders was first released, I certainly did see it as a 1930s Bond. In fact I remember my dad asking me what it was like when I returned from the cinema, and that’s exactly how I described it. Very curious about the 1930s reference
Thats probably the reaction they wanted from the teenage movie goers of the day.
AshVX220 said:
I know product placement is a huge thing, I think it first became obvious to me in i-Robot (the Audi) and in Goldeneye and the following Brosnan films with the BMW's. Somehow the Esprit and Aston's of previous Bond films didn't strike so hard (probably because I was much younger). But I do wonder, when you consider the overall cost of making a decent movie these days ($250m plus), how much is the product placement actually worth, how much do the studios get as a percentage of overall film development cost? Is it really so much that it can drive an entire franchise?
It probably helps when it comes to the advertising, which seems to double the budget for most Hollywood films.nonsequitur said:
996Type said:
I’ve posted on this before but one way around all the issues if they wanted to stay true to the original concept would be to stage the films back in the 1930’s and onwards.
The original books and short stories were a million miles away from most of the films and good in their own ways (apart from those books like gold finger or OHMSS that were plot treatments for the films from the outset and read page for page like the films).
If you get chance to see killer elite with Clive Owen and Jason Statham set in the early eighties, this is the kind of Bond film that would break the continuous need for sequential plots and the paradoxes they contain.
Fleming had such a short writing career relative to his creation and this is why the series can sometimes appear trapped at a point in time.
Agatha Christie’s characters and plots don’t suffer the same fate as they became developed over a longer period and were only meant as individual outings for the characters generally.
Put Bond back into context in the post war and you get the magic of Thunderball etc without the heavy cynicism that has grown with the competition he now faces at the box office.
DC has done a fantastic job and remains my favourite, let them make the largest film as his swan song then reset.
Steven Spielberg did a great job of this with his Bond wannabe Indiana Jones and these remain an example of how a modern action
film can be set in the past but still smash the box office.
It’s maybe too big a gamble though for a franchise that derives so much from modern product placement.
Hardly a million miles. The first five were very close to the original novels in characterisation and plot, obviously making way for some cinematic sequencies and licence when transferring from page to screen.The original books and short stories were a million miles away from most of the films and good in their own ways (apart from those books like gold finger or OHMSS that were plot treatments for the films from the outset and read page for page like the films).
If you get chance to see killer elite with Clive Owen and Jason Statham set in the early eighties, this is the kind of Bond film that would break the continuous need for sequential plots and the paradoxes they contain.
Fleming had such a short writing career relative to his creation and this is why the series can sometimes appear trapped at a point in time.
Agatha Christie’s characters and plots don’t suffer the same fate as they became developed over a longer period and were only meant as individual outings for the characters generally.
Put Bond back into context in the post war and you get the magic of Thunderball etc without the heavy cynicism that has grown with the competition he now faces at the box office.
DC has done a fantastic job and remains my favourite, let them make the largest film as his swan song then reset.
Steven Spielberg did a great job of this with his Bond wannabe Indiana Jones and these remain an example of how a modern action
film can be set in the past but still smash the box office.
It’s maybe too big a gamble though for a franchise that derives so much from modern product placement.
Casino Royale the first book (aside from a TV play) was only produced faithfully in the Daniel Craig era.
The following books in the sequence Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever shared only character names and single chapters from the films of the same name. Other sections were lifted for later films.
From Russia With Love was the first book in the sequence to be faithfully replicated in film but not until later on.
The films that preceded it therefore were out of sequence to the books so the back story jumps around a little.
dr no as the sixth book in the series (when the character was well established) was the first to be filmed. By this stage in the book sequence he’s a seasoned but flawed pro and this comes across in Connerys portrayal in his films.
The preceding books though build up to this and don’t make him out to be nearly as much a superman as the films.
I recall several sequences from these books where he is anything but the character you see on film and more a collection of Flemings own doubts and shortcomings.
Set this in period and you have a whole range of new material to go on without having to resort to warming over old plots as these were the originals.
Just my opinion of course.
In terms of Timothy Dalton, much as I like both films, License to Kill borrows heavily from the original Miami Vice season 1 pilot and original episodes from 1984, which as it dealt with drug trafficking out of Miami is not a huge surprise.
The later Miami Vice film takes cues from the TV series also so there are also similarities with License to Kill and this later film if you watch them together, going rogue / power boat to island republic to get baddy / drug trafficking / etc.
The later Miami Vice film takes cues from the TV series also so there are also similarities with License to Kill and this later film if you watch them together, going rogue / power boat to island republic to get baddy / drug trafficking / etc.
Halb said:
AshVX220 said:
I know product placement is a huge thing, I think it first became obvious to me in i-Robot (the Audi) and in Goldeneye and the following Brosnan films with the BMW's. Somehow the Esprit and Aston's of previous Bond films didn't strike so hard (probably because I was much younger). But I do wonder, when you consider the overall cost of making a decent movie these days ($250m plus), how much is the product placement actually worth, how much do the studios get as a percentage of overall film development cost? Is it really so much that it can drive an entire franchise?
It probably helps when it comes to the advertising, which seems to double the budget for most Hollywood films.AshVX220 said:
Wow, didn't realise it would have that much impact financially. I think product placement is a lot more obvious these days, or I certainly notice it more, maybe it's always been there. That said, the James Bond franchise seems to be the worst culprit, their product placement is very much in your face.
It’s been part of the franchise for a very long time. But it was more subtle in the early days. And presumably less formal in contractual terms. Companies seemed to decide early on that Bond was good for business.
I like the story of Toyota turning the 2000GT into a coupe just so that Sean Connery could fit. As opposed to Jaguar who couldn’t be bothered to provide an E Type.
If you watch the Connery era films, they did like to linger on the Sony logo.
AshVX220 said:
Wow, didn't realise it would have that much impact financially. I think product placement is a lot more obvious these days, or I certainly notice it more, maybe it's always been there. That said, the James Bond franchise seems to be the worst culprit, their product placement is very much in your face.
I only really started to notice in the Brosnan ones, when it became so blanket, it distracted from the film...BMW badges everywherethe advertising budget, I've posted this link a few times, but it's so useful. On average it's double, but when the execs don't expect much from a film it shrinks, then they think they have a megahit, like; Justice League or the Ghostbusters reboot, it can be more than the film budget..which leads to consequences.
Half in the Bag Episode 117: Box Office Number Crunching
RedLetterMedia Published on 10 Oct 2016
30mins
https://youtu.be/jLk2LBGkMd4
Halb said:
I only really started to notice in the Brosnan ones, when it became so blanket, it distracted from the film...BMW badges everywhere
That might have been the point when the product became the most important thing in the scene. Poor Desmond Llewelyn forced to lovingly describe all the features of whichever car BMW decided he would drive in that film. SpudLink said:
Halb said:
I only really started to notice in the Brosnan ones, when it became so blanket, it distracted from the film...BMW badges everywhere
That might have been the point when the product became the most important thing in the scene. Poor Desmond Llewelyn forced to lovingly describe all the features of whichever car BMW decided he would drive in that film. Halb said:
SpudLink said:
Halb said:
I only really started to notice in the Brosnan ones, when it became so blanket, it distracted from the film...BMW badges everywhere
That might have been the point when the product became the most important thing in the scene. Poor Desmond Llewelyn forced to lovingly describe all the features of whichever car BMW decided he would drive in that film. 
k OFF.996Type said:
The first sequence of original books as stated bore little relation to any of the films that subsequently carried the same name and these were then produced way out of sequence. Some of the villains names were carried over but little else would be recognisable to those familiar with the plot of the films.
Casino Royale the first book (aside from a TV play) was only produced faithfully in the Daniel Craig era.
The following books in the sequence Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever shared only character names and single chapters from the films of the same name. Other sections were lifted for later films.
From Russia With Love was the first book in the sequence to be faithfully replicated in film but not until later on.
The films that preceded it therefore were out of sequence to the books so the back story jumps around a little.
dr no as the sixth book in the series (when the character was well established) was the first to be filmed. By this stage in the book sequence he’s a seasoned but flawed pro and this comes across in Connerys portrayal in his films.
The preceding books though build up to this and don’t make him out to be nearly as much a superman as the films.
I recall several sequences from these books where he is anything but the character you see on film and more a collection of Flemings own doubts and shortcomings.
Set this in period and you have a whole range of new material to go on without having to resort to warming over old plots as these were the originals.
Just my opinion of course.
As stated, to transfer a book to a film requires changes to the storyline and character for the sake of continuity, pure entertainment and budget. How many times have we heard, of a film, that it's nothing like the book. For the above and many other reasons, it will always be so.Casino Royale the first book (aside from a TV play) was only produced faithfully in the Daniel Craig era.
The following books in the sequence Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever shared only character names and single chapters from the films of the same name. Other sections were lifted for later films.
From Russia With Love was the first book in the sequence to be faithfully replicated in film but not until later on.
The films that preceded it therefore were out of sequence to the books so the back story jumps around a little.
dr no as the sixth book in the series (when the character was well established) was the first to be filmed. By this stage in the book sequence he’s a seasoned but flawed pro and this comes across in Connerys portrayal in his films.
The preceding books though build up to this and don’t make him out to be nearly as much a superman as the films.
I recall several sequences from these books where he is anything but the character you see on film and more a collection of Flemings own doubts and shortcomings.
Set this in period and you have a whole range of new material to go on without having to resort to warming over old plots as these were the originals.
Just my opinion of course.
Shatterhand - working title of the new film which is due to start filming at Pinewood on 6th of April.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/feb/22/shatt...
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/feb/22/shatt...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff