Has anyone ever tried promoting a television series on James Bond? Would it work as a series even if a storyline continued over a number of episodes?
A couple of times Fleming was involved in exactly that. Nothing happened, and he used the potential plots as written stories. Much later Anthony Horowitz would take more of Fleming's unused TV ideas and do the same
Sometimes here we've discussed whether or not we'd like to see this, and more than once it's been suggested that we'd like to see a mini-series adapting a Fleming story faithfully and in period. MR is a good example since the film has very little in common with the book.
I have also thought that eventually the films of James Bond would become a canon separated entirely from the books without their own continuity and universe. Perhaps when one day all the films will be rebooted
I think as long as EON owns the rights this won't happen. When Amazon bought MGM's share a couple years ago, there was speculation they might try to develop spinoff properties in an expanded universe, like how some Marvel comics characters have tv series while the movies are still being made, or various Star Wars TV series. Or create a prequel TV series like Amazon's own Rings of Power.
anyway Barbara and Michael said so long as they were involved thered be no TV series or spinoffs or expanded universes, Amazon may own half the rights but EON retains creative control. There was a thread or two about this, the quotes should be in one of those.
Us fans however do like to fantasize about such a TV series. how would you envision an imaginary Bond TV series @Dovy ?
I think this has already happened, long ago. Far more people have seen the films than have read the books, so for them the films are canon. Its only us minority who read who see the books as real and the films as mere adaptations, and even most of us separate them into two different things. Refer again to @Barbel 's Canon thread I linked you to a while back.
I was just thinking that over time the films themselves would have their own self-contained relevance without any connection to the books themselves. Beyond that a television series could establish some aspects that create continuity and consistency among the filma which didn't exist originally. (At least we saw an attempt at consistency at the start from Dr. No to FRWL)
I'm not sure what you mean by "relevance", but the films certainly are self-contained. You don't need to have read the books to understand any of them, and they start contradicting the books as soon as Dr No says he works for SPECTRE. Despite all your questions @Dovy I don't think the answer to any of them is "well you have to read the book".
You haven't read the books have you Dovy? are you going to now that youve seen (almost) all the movies? (I believe you still havent watched the "funny" version of Casino Royale)
You're right. I haven't read any and haven't seen David Niven in CR. Anyway, I just meant that the film versions would have their own life with no connection to the books, which most people probably never have read....
Warn me before you watch CR67 so I can have a few answers ready. It's going to be a long story.....
Amazon have shown that they can produce a good version of a book with their adaption of the first Jack Reacher novel. I think the Bond series would lend itself well to be a TV series if it was made in period and one a year was to be produced.
I don’t know, if they made, say, Goldfinger set just five years before the film, so the fashions and looks aren’t wildly different, with pretty much the same story only with a less creative villain’s plot, no Connery, no laser beam, no John Barry, no Ken Adam, a girl getting covered in gold paint but we never see it, a slightly less cool Aston Martin which doesn’t do anything, no James Bond theme, no gunbarrel, no Brownjohn titles with golden girls… I think I would turn it off and watch the film instead. I don’t see the point.
A faithful version of Moonraker where we watch Bond playing bridge in silence for an hour? They’re great novels, but they need adaptation to hit the screen, and that’s happened in most cases, and really well. Jack Reacher wasn’t a 100% faithful, period correct adaptation either.
From what I’ve seen of reaction to the Craig films and what’s wanted from the next one, fans really don’t like continuity for some reason. They seem to want them to be standalone.
I agree with @emtiem, the film of GF improves on the novel.
Agreed with @emtiem too, I could also easily say the same for books like Live And Let Die (given the heavy racism of the book; the film was somewhat lighter in that regard), The Spy Who Loved Me (told from a POV of a woman; and we all know how the film turned out) sometimes the films straying for the books makes for the better.
Or sometimes other aspects of the books that's improved in the films, yes the Goldfinger plot, Dr. No's death, Tracy's characterization and the romance in OHMSS, or Tatiana Romanova being active at the Third act of FRWL.
I just want to point out that in recent years BBC has produced a series of radio plays more closely adapting the novels.
We discussed them in this thread, if interested in post 10 @Barbel provides hyperlinks to all the plays so far which someone has upload to youtube so you can listen too
obviously not the same as a teevee series but halfway there
If a James Bond TV series is ever made I hope the series will be (almost) seperate from the movies. I've already suggested a series about a 00-agent working undercover in SPECTRE and/or a series about Bond's experiences in WWII.
Yeah they're what drives my thinking in many ways; they're interesting kind of conversation pieces, but if I want to experience Thunderball it's the book or film I reach for and never the radio play. They're halfway between both and not as interesting as either, although I appreciate them being there.
I agree with this, rather than the Fleming novels, I'm interested in exploring some other aspects of Bond's workplace or the character itself.
It’s been talked about before on here but a Felix Leiter series would be a good start for a Bond Universe.
I would definitely loved to see that!
What would Felix do?
My spin-off idea would be about following Scaramanga through his career. He’s got an iconic gun which is something cool for the series, he basically lives like Bond in his world, is suave and sophisticated, uses cool gadgets, but he’s more amoral and is Bond’s opposite number in many ways, so a series about him would tickle many of the same points of enjoyment as watching 007 himself. He could even occasionally work on the side of the angels: as long as he’s paid I doubt he minds. And the show already has a title.
Or another movie spin-off which I feel like has more of a setup than a Felix one: Tiger and Aki fighting enemy agents from their Tokyo base, with all of their crazy gadgets and huge funding they have behind them (Tiger’s train etc.).
Reading the Dynamite comic stories about Felix Leiter, makes me imagine and have interest on how would that show turned out.
I am curious though, what does it do with Felix? For me he's just not a very interesting character; he works well as Bond's friend but he doesn't have a hugely distinct or memorable character. If it's just a Bond surrogate going on the same sorts of missions as him and fighting similar baddies I don't quite see the point.
I’d love to see Pearsons 007 biography turned into a period TV series.
I think that book was a mistake and I don't think it should be used for TV.
I disagree, since its episodic nature makes it ideal for TV.
Where does the idea of expanding the 00 notion stand in the filmed creation environment, either with BB and MW or among others? Such as Kim Sherwood and others like her, and do BB and MW have any views about Kim Sherwood etc ?
do you mean Pearson's Bond Biography?
why do you feel its a mistake?
I agree with @Barbel , a teevee limited series is the perfect medium for adapting that book. Theres a dozen or more short adventures in it that Pearson just barely sketched out, could each be expanded to an episode linked by an older Bond reminiscing.
I'd get rid of the conceit Bond is a real person and Fleming's books are works of fiction within his world. Too confusing for teevee. And some of Pearsons's adventures aren't that interesting, or otherwise problematic. They could be changed just like the films change Fleming, and/or replaced by something completely original. Definitely keep the adventures that are based on some clue Fleming gave such as the 1939 Monte Carlo mission, give those priority.
I don't understand. Are you saying that expanding the 00 world beyond and without James Bond is a "mistake"?? Why? Bond emerged 70 years ago from Fleming and 60 ago from Broccoli and Saltzman. Can nothing change after all this time? I suppose one could argue that such a direction would make 00 in such films the same as the Man from UNCLE so what would be its special character?
To me the issue isn't finding the right venue for Pearson's Bond Biography. I think the whole thing was a mistake because it doesn't expand Bond's story or dogs deeper -Pearson destroys it. To get more than a little pretensious: Pearson's biography's relationship to Fleming's or the cinematic Bond can maybe be compared to Dan Brown's "Da Vinci code"'s relationship to Christianity. It wants to offer a new and fresh perspective, but it only picks the source it apart and makes something new that's completely at odds with the original.
Calvin Dyson made the point I'm trying to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCs2j9c3zDA
I'd honestly love MORE Bond content. A TV show would be great.