Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond
Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233134] Do, 09 März 2006 06:51
WQ  
>From http://filmforce.ign.com

Haggis on Casino Royale
Plus, new set pics!
by Stax

March 8, 2006 - MTV interviewed Paul Haggis shortly after he won Best
Original Screenplay and Best Picture for his film Crash wherein he
spoke about his involvement with Casino Royale. "They sent me a script,
a very good script, and asked me to think about the character and
re-conceive the character of James Bond. I took 10 weeks on that,"
Haggis revealed.

"It will be completely different [from the 1967 spoof]. You know, it
takes James Bond from the very first Ian Fleming book, Casino Royale,
when he becomes James Bond - when he gets his 'Double 0' status,
which means he has two kills, and therefore has his license to kill,"
he explained. "But all the bells and whistles, all the things that Q
used to give him, the gadgets, those are all gone. So you deal with the
character as an assassin and what it feels like to be an assassin. And
I ask the question, 'Why does he treat women the way that he treats
them?'"

Haggis added, "So I've either helped to re-energize this series, or
I've just ruined James Bond for everybody forever."

--- To even suggest or kid that the possibility exists that Haggis
may've ruined Bond for everybody forever is a bit alarming. If I were
convinced that I had done a great job on the script, I'd never suggest
or kid about ruining Bond forever. I guess he's not convinced in his
own work on it.
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233135 ] Do, 09 März 2006 07:23
ahk  
>Haggis on Casino Royale
>Plus, new set pics!
>by Stax

>March 8, 2006 - MTV interviewed Paul Haggis shortly after he won Best
>Original Screenplay and Best Picture for his film Crash wherein he
>spoke about his involvement with Casino Royale. "They sent me a script,
>a very good script, and asked me to think about the character and
>re-conceive the character of James Bond. I took 10 weeks on that,"
>Haggis revealed.

Do very good scripts get rewritten?

>"It will be completely different [from the 1967 spoof]. You know, it
>takes James Bond from the very first Ian Fleming book, Casino Royale,
>when he becomes James Bond - when he gets his 'Double 0' status, which
>means he has two kills, and therefore has his license to kill," he
>explained. "But all the bells and whistles, all the things that Q used to
>give him, the gadgets, those are all gone. So you deal with the character
>as an assassin and what it feels like to be an assassin. And I ask the
>question, 'Why does he treat women the way that he treats them?'"

Hm. I suppose he could have meant something a bit different than the way
it got written down. The "it" either refers to the script he received or
his prediction of what the movie will be like, so "when he becomes James
Bond" and the rest of it refers to the script, not the novel.

Why he treats women the way he does? The answer to that question won't be
terribly Fleming-esqe, I suppose.
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233136 ] Do, 09 März 2006 08:51
JHause  
Yup. Having just won the Oscar for Best Screenplay, and being nominated
last year, Haggis is incredibly insecure. If only he could find some
validation...
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233143 ] Do, 09 März 2006 11:36
Mac  
Adam H. Kerman wrote:


>> March 8, 2006 - MTV interviewed Paul Haggis shortly after he won Best
>> Original Screenplay and Best Picture for his film Crash wherein he
>> spoke about his involvement with Casino Royale. "They sent me a
>> script, a very good script, and asked me to think about the
>> character and re-conceive the character of James Bond. I took 10
>> weeks on that," Haggis revealed.
>
> Do very good scripts get rewritten?

All the time. Not always for the good.
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a
pimple on a date night."
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233145 ] Do, 09 März 2006 11:46
booby  
Producers and directors also rewrite scripts during actual filming. For
example, Lee Tamahori suggested having a car chase in DAD's Ice Palace.
That wasn't in Purvis and Wade's screenplay. Even if Haggis' version
of the screenplay is good, the producers can change dialogue and scenes
if they so wish.

MMC
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233148 ] Do, 09 März 2006 12:01
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- To even suggest or kid that the possibility exists that Haggis
> may've ruined Bond for everybody forever is a bit alarming. If I were
> convinced that I had done a great job on the script, I'd never suggest
> or kid about ruining Bond forever. I guess he's not convinced in his
> own work on it.

Jeez, it was just a self-deprecating joke on Haggis' part. In fact,
if he was *seriously* worried that he'd ruined the franchise, I doubt
he'd even have said it.

Best

Phil

(If he'd instead said 'I think I've done a great job and have
re-energised the series', what's the betting that people would be
attacking him for his pomposity?)
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233150 ] Do, 09 März 2006 13:05
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> Why he treats women the way he does? The answer to that question won't be
> terribly Fleming-esqe, I suppose.

Isn't it arguable that this subject is addressed implicitly in
Fleming's work? Think about it from the point of view of somebody
who's totally new to Bond and is reading the novels in sequence -
the kind of reader for whom Fleming was writing in the 1950s. Bond is
genuinely in love with Vesper and is even contemplating marriage IIRC.
After her death, he shies away from any such serious commitment for the
most part, the only exceptions being Tiffany and Tracy. (I'm not
counting Kissy for obvious reasons.) Even the last two pages of CR
suggest that Vesper's death has made Bond consciously harden himself,
and that it has taught him not to drop his emotional guard so easily
again. Fleming is never so crude as to say 'Bond once had his heart
broken badly, and that's one reason why he avoids long-term
commitment,' but I think the implication would be there for anybody
who was reading the novels in the order they came out.

Best

Phil
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233152 ] Do, 09 März 2006 14:13
Mac  
>> March 8, 2006 - MTV interviewed Paul Haggis shortly after he won Best
>> Original Screenplay and Best Picture for his film Crash wherein he
>> spoke about his involvement with Casino Royale. "They sent me a
>> script, a very good script, and asked me to think about the
>> character and re-conceive the character of James Bond. I took 10
>> weeks on that," Haggis revealed.

Reminds me of a story told by screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo
Mandel about a re-write they had to do: Take a script and change
one character completely without affecting the structure of the
script or the other characters within.
--
--Mac

"Wait a minute! Why don't they just mix the mayonnaise with the
tuna in the can... HOLD THE PHONE! Why don't they just FEED the
tuna fish mayonnaise!"
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233155 ] Do, 09 März 2006 15:25
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Reminds me of a story told by screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo
> Mandel about a re-write they had to do: Take a script and change
> one character completely without affecting the structure of the
> script or the other characters within.

I think it was William Goldman who told a story about being asked by a
film's producers to make a character 'more likeable'. He took
the script away, changed the direction 'Enter Bill, a 29-year-old
computer programmer' to 'Enter Bill, a likeable 29-year-old
computer programmer', resubmitted it, and was told in all seriousness
by the producers that whatever he'd done to the script, it was a vast
improvement on the previous version.

Possibly apocryphal, possibly misremembered, but a nice Hollywood story
all the same...

Best

Phil
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233157 ] Do, 09 März 2006 15:54
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
> > Reminds me of a story told by screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo
> > Mandel about a re-write they had to do: Take a script and change
> > one character completely without affecting the structure of the
> > script or the other characters within.
>
> I think it was William Goldman who told a story about being asked by a
> film's producers to make a character 'more likeable'. He took
> the script away, changed the direction 'Enter Bill, a 29-year-old
> computer programmer' to 'Enter Bill, a likeable 29-year-old
> computer programmer', resubmitted it, and was told in all seriousness
> by the producers that whatever he'd done to the script, it was a vast
> improvement on the previous version.
>
> Possibly apocryphal, possibly misremembered, but a nice Hollywood story
> all the same...

--- I wonder if that's what took Haggis 10 weeks to do - to simply
change the CR script from 'Enter Bond, a 38-year-old secret agent', to
'Enter Bond, an arrogant 38-year-old secret agent', making everyone
believe that he had done a terrific job on it. Nice way to earn a 5 or
6 figure salary.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233158 ] Do, 09 März 2006 16:00
WQ  
WQ wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> > Mac wrote:
> >
> > > Reminds me of a story told by screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo
> > > Mandel about a re-write they had to do: Take a script and change
> > > one character completely without affecting the structure of the
> > > script or the other characters within.
> >
> > I think it was William Goldman who told a story about being asked by a
> > film's producers to make a character 'more likeable'. He took
> > the script away, changed the direction 'Enter Bill, a 29-year-old
> > computer programmer' to 'Enter Bill, a likeable 29-year-old
> > computer programmer', resubmitted it, and was told in all seriousness
> > by the producers that whatever he'd done to the script, it was a vast
> > improvement on the previous version.
> >
> > Possibly apocryphal, possibly misremembered, but a nice Hollywood story
> > all the same...
>
> --- I wonder if that's what took Haggis 10 weeks to do - to simply
> change the CR script from 'Enter Bond, a 38-year-old secret agent', to
> 'Enter Bond, an arrogant 38-year-old secret agent', making everyone
> believe that he had done a terrific job on it. Nice way to earn a 5 or
> 6 figure salary.

--- Oh, and to add to that, I wouldn't be surprised if the Goldman
story was true. I recall an interview with CBS programmer Mike Dann
who, back in the 60s, showed the pilot for The Munsters sitcom to then
president William Paley. Paley hated it and ordered Dann to make
drastic changes. The problem was, as Dann put it, there was no time to
do any changes [for whatever unexplained reasons], and so Dann simply
waited a while before showing the same episode to Paley. Paley must've
been in a much better mood that day because he told Dann, in all
seriousness, that whatever changes were made in the show certainly
improved it. I think there are a lot of sleepwalkers in the business.
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233160 ] Do, 09 März 2006 16:40
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- Oh, and to add to that, I wouldn't be surprised if the Goldman
> story was true. I recall an interview with CBS programmer Mike Dann
> who, back in the 60s, showed the pilot for The Munsters sitcom to then
> president William Paley. Paley hated it and ordered Dann to make
> drastic changes. The problem was, as Dann put it, there was no time to
> do any changes [for whatever unexplained reasons], and so Dann simply
> waited a while before showing the same episode to Paley. Paley must've
> been in a much better mood that day because he told Dann, in all
> seriousness, that whatever changes were made in the show certainly
> improved it. I think there are a lot of sleepwalkers in the business.

Yeah, sometimes an exec's ignorance or incompetence can work to an
artist's advantage. Hanna and Barbera used to say that the only
reason they got away with some of the stuff they did in the great
'Tom and Jerry' cartoons of the '40s and '50s was that their
producer Fred Quimby was completely clueless about comedy. They'd
show him their latest short, through which he'd sit without even
cracking a smile, and at the end he'd ask them if what he'd just
seen was funny: if they assured him that it was, he'd OK it for
release.

That's exactly what you want in a producer. It's the ones who
*think* they know what they're talking about who are dangerous.

Best

Phil

(Of course, it can work to one's disadvantage as well. An actor
friend of mine, now in his 60s, was in Agatha Christie's last stage
play, the text of which was so poor that the cast took it upon
themselves to rewrite it. Dame Agatha came to the final dress
rehearsal, and as Bruce left the stage after delivering a very witty
exit line which he'd written for himself, he heard Dame Agatha say
proudly to her companion 'What a marvellous line! Aren't I a
clever girl?')
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233162 ] Do, 09 März 2006 17:02
Tom Zielinski  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1141916452.170425.295160 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


> I recall an interview with CBS programmer Mike Dann
> who, back in the 60s, showed the pilot for The Munsters sitcom to then
> president William Paley. Paley hated it and ordered Dann to make
> drastic changes. The problem was, as Dann put it, there was no time to
> do any changes [for whatever unexplained reasons], and so Dann simply
> waited a while before showing the same episode to Paley. Paley must've
> been in a much better mood that day because he told Dann, in all
> seriousness, that whatever changes were made in the show certainly
> improved it.



Reminds me of something Joe Walsh related about the recording ot the Eagles'
"Hotel California." He and Don Felder wrote the opening (and ultimately
highly acclaimed) notes and guitar solo for the title track, and played them
for Don Henley. Henley was unimpressed, saying "I know you can do better",
asked them to work on it and then left for dinner. Felder and Walsh sat
around smoking marijuana for three hours waiting for Henley to return, they
then played exactly the same arrangements as they had earlier. Henley
declared it "genius" (much to Felder's and Walsh's amusement), and now the
song is part of rock history.



Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave..."
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233167 ] Do, 09 März 2006 18:03
Tom Zielinski  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:47ao0qFeos01U1 [at] individual.net...
>
>>> March 8, 2006 - MTV interviewed Paul Haggis shortly after he won Best
>>> Original Screenplay and Best Picture for his film Crash wherein he
>>> spoke about his involvement with Casino Royale. "They sent me a
>>> script, a very good script, and asked me to think about the
>>> character and re-conceive the character of James Bond. I took 10
>>> weeks on that," Haggis revealed.
>
> Reminds me of a story told by screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo
> Mandel about a re-write they had to do: Take a script and change
> one character completely without affecting the structure of the
> script or the other characters within.
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Wait a minute! Why don't they just mix the mayonnaise with the
> tuna in the can... HOLD THE PHONE! Why don't they just FEED the
> tuna fish mayonnaise!"


Ahhhh "Night Shift." I always liked that movie. A time when I even
considered Shelley Long to be hot.

I'm glad Haggis has had input into CR. I'm also glad he mentioned it was a
very good script to begin with. Were it not, he was not obligated to state
that it were.

All is well.




Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that Haggis has written (or co-written) the screenplays for the last two
Academy Award winning "Best Pictures"...it is not fantasy to think that the
screenplay of Casino Royale will be terrific..."
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233169 ] Do, 09 März 2006 18:15
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> That's exactly what you want in a producer. It's the ones who
> *think* they know what they're talking about who are dangerous.

Not all producers are dangerous.

Robert Evans (not the most modest man on Earth, I know) takes
credit for demanding Francis Coppola recut and lengthen THE
GODFATHER after the director had delivered a gutless 2-hour
version. AFAIK, Coppola has never denied it.

And Cubby wasn't exactly a dimwit either...

--
--Mac
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233195 ] Do, 09 März 2006 22:09
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>>Why he treats women the way he does? The answer to that question won't be
>>terribly Fleming-esqe, I suppose.

>Isn't it arguable that this subject is addressed implicitly in
>Fleming's work? Think about it from the point of view of somebody
>who's totally new to Bond and is reading the novels in sequence -
>the kind of reader for whom Fleming was writing in the 1950s. Bond is
>genuinely in love with Vesper and is even contemplating marriage IIRC.
>After her death, he shies away from any such serious commitment for the
>most part, the only exceptions being Tiffany and Tracy. (I'm not
>counting Kissy for obvious reasons.) Even the last two pages of CR
>suggest that Vesper's death has made Bond consciously harden himself,
>and that it has taught him not to drop his emotional guard so easily
>again. Fleming is never so crude as to say 'Bond once had his heart
>broken badly, and that's one reason why he avoids long-term
>commitment,' but I think the implication would be there for anybody
>who was reading the novels in the order they came out.

I didn't read the novels in the '50's, but I did read them in order,
mostly. I make it a practice to track down books by the author if I've
seen a movie adaptation (particularly when I've disliked the movie).

Did Vesper ruin all women for Bond? Before Bond fell in love with Vesper,
his attitude was somewhat paternalistic, if not mysoginistic. That seems
to be an inate part of Bond's character that had nothing to do with
Vesper. Undoubtably it's a defense mechanism to protect him from the
betrayal of love (not the betrayal of espionage, although they are one and
the same to Bond). That aspect of Bond's character has universal appeal
because most men are like that much of the time, and many women think men
are like that all of the time.

My interpretation is that Bond classed his relationship with Vesper as a
"bad outcome" from the "cost of doing business", similar to the physical
abuse he suffered in most of the novels and the periods of hospitalization
in about half of them. The betrayal of love may hurt longer. Still, he
doesn't shy from confronting the bad guys, or women.

Now, in _Casino Royale_, if Bond had met Rosa Klebb or the movie Mary
Goodnight (whom we decided to blame on Tom Mankiewicz, right?), he would
have become a monk.
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233211 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 01:19
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> Did Vesper ruin all women for Bond? Before Bond fell in love with Vesper,
> his attitude was somewhat paternalistic, if not mysoginistic. That seems
> to be an inate part of Bond's character that had nothing to do with
> Vesper.

True, there is that line about the cool exterior which Bond feels he
would like to shatter roughly (paraphrasing wildly, I know), which
suggests that he's far from being a sensitive new man type. My
interpretation is that despite Bond's essentially sexist POV, Vesper
manages to get under his skin in a way that few women had before, and
after her death and betrayal of him, he closes up emotionally once
again. Maybe he just reverts to type at the end of CR, but I think
there is a journey there which informs some of what happens in the
later novels.

> My interpretation is that Bond classed his relationship with Vesper as a
> "bad outcome" from the "cost of doing business", similar to the physical
> abuse he suffered in most of the novels and the periods of hospitalization
> in about half of them. The betrayal of love may hurt longer. Still, he
> doesn't shy from confronting the bad guys, or women.

Again, in CR he seems to dwell on these issues more, and his reaction
to the period of hospitalisation in the novel is far more than a
philosophical attitude that this is just an occupational risk. He
takes it in his stride far less than he seems to in later books.
Perhaps that's colouring my interpretation of his relationship with
Vesper.

> Now, in _Casino Royale_, if Bond had met Rosa Klebb or the movie Mary
> Goodnight (whom we decided to blame on Tom Mankiewicz, right?), he would
> have become a monk.

LOL!

'Say goodbye to it, Bond.'
'You know what, Le Chiffre? After Rosa and Mary, I really don't care
if I never see it again...'

Best

Phil
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233213 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 01:38
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>>Did Vesper ruin all women for Bond? Before Bond fell in love with
>>Vesper, his attitude was somewhat paternalistic, if not mysoginistic.
>>That seems to be an inate part of Bond's character that had nothing to
>>do with Vesper.

>True, there is that line about the cool exterior which Bond feels he
>would like to shatter roughly (paraphrasing wildly, I know), which
>suggests that he's far from being a sensitive new man type. My
>interpretation is that despite Bond's essentially sexist POV, Vesper
>manages to get under his skin in a way that few women had before, and
>after her death and betrayal of him, he closes up emotionally once
>again. Maybe he just reverts to type at the end of CR, but I think
>there is a journey there which informs some of what happens in the
>later novels.

I have trouble picking out a consistent story arc with respect to
development of the Bond character throughout the novels. We've discussed
how Fleming tinkered with the back story from time to time. Hell, Bond has
gotten younger in the later novels!

>>My interpretation is that Bond classed his relationship with Vesper as a
>>"bad outcome" from the "cost of doing business", similar to the physical
>>abuse he suffered in most of the novels and the periods of
>>hospitalization in about half of them. The betrayal of love may hurt
>>longer. Still, he doesn't shy from confronting the bad guys, or women.

>Again, in CR he seems to dwell on these issues more, and his reaction to
>the period of hospitalisation in the novel is far more than a
>philosophical attitude that this is just an occupational risk. He takes
>it in his stride far less than he seems to in later books. Perhaps that's
>colouring my interpretation of his relationship with Vesper.

I suggest that a lot of this has to do not with Bond's attitude toward
women, but Fleming's immediate attitude toward women while writing a
particular novel.

He did have a healthy relationship with Tracy, so Vesper couldn't have
wounded him permanently.

Tiffany? Hm. The movie character's multiple personalities seems to have
driven the novel character out of mind. You'll have to remind me.
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233215 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 02:06
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> I have trouble picking out a consistent story arc with respect to
> development of the Bond character throughout the novels. We've discussed
> how Fleming tinkered with the back story from time to time. Hell, Bond has
> gotten younger in the later novels!

I think Fleming vacillates a lot about the idea of whether the novels
represent a consistent and sequential arc. Sometimes he'll make direct
references to previous books, other times he'll include material which
is downright contradictory. At times Bond is eternally a
late-thirty-something who doesn't bear any real psychological scars
from his previous exploits, at others he's dealing directly with the
consequences of what had happened in his last adventure. Most
unsatisfactorily of all, in TMWTGG he starts as a brainwashed Soviet
assassin, and with no apparent transitional period, he's completely
back to his old self again.

I do think, however, that CR has more elements than most Bond books
which tell you where this guy came from, what formed him, and what is
going to influence his future attitudes.

> I suggest that a lot of this has to do not with Bond's attitude toward
> women, but Fleming's immediate attitude toward women while writing a
> particular novel.

That may well be true. Hate to read too much into it, but CR, written
by a confirmed bachelor as he was more or less coerced into marriage,
is probably very telling in psychological terms.

> He did have a healthy relationship with Tracy, so Vesper couldn't have
> wounded him permanently.

True. However, I think it might be telling that Fleming makes his most
(only?) direct reference to Vesper and her fate in OHMSS. It seems to
me that he's saying that Tracy has been the first girl Bond has met
since the CR affair who could measure up - who could lay Vesper's
ghost, so to speak.

> Tiffany? Hm. The movie character's multiple personalities seems to have
> driven the novel character out of mind. You'll have to remind me.

The first scene in which she appears in the movie is the closest to the
Tiffany depicted in the book, I think. Fleming provides more details
of her post-novel relationship with Bond than he does about any of the
other girls in his books, but I think that's partly to set up the plot
of FRWL a bit better. I think Bond's relationship with Tatiana works
slightly better if he's single and has recently broken up with somebody
than if he's got several married women on the go as in MR.

Best

Phil
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233244 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 12:23
Garmt de Vries  
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:06:34 +0100, phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com
<phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote:

> However, I think it might be telling that Fleming makes his most
> (only?) direct reference to Vesper and her fate in OHMSS.

There's also a reference in GF. Bond thinks he's dead, and wonders if
he'll meet Vesper, and how he should introduce her to his new girlfriend.

--
Garmt de Vries
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233249 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 13:02
phil.gerrard1  
Garmt wrote:

> There's also a reference in GF. Bond thinks he's dead, and wonders if
> he'll meet Vesper, and how he should introduce her to his new girlfriend.

Good call, Garmt - I'd forgotten that one. Interesting that
Vesper's reaction to his being with another woman should be among
Bond's first thoughts under the circumstances.

Best

Phil
Re: Haggis on CR: Re-energized or Ruined Bond [message #233260 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 14:05
Tom Zielinski  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1141952794.462625.160030 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Adam wrote:

>> Tiffany? Hm. The movie character's multiple personalities seems to have
>> driven the novel character out of mind. You'll have to remind me.
>
> The first scene in which she appears in the movie is the closest to the
> Tiffany depicted in the book, I think. Fleming provides more details
> of her post-novel relationship with Bond than he does about any of the
> other girls in his books, but I think that's partly to set up the plot
> of FRWL a bit better.


Exactly right. Though it is interesting that Fleming wrote that Bond and
Case were talking of marriage in the FRWL novel.



Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that union would have been utterly doomed from the git go..."
Vorheriges Thema:Craig speaks
Nächstes Thema:Newest Bond fan on the block
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 15:26:48 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05620 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered