If the names Maibaum and/or Mankiewicz come back, we can expect to see many deep and long discussions, both scientific and metaphysical.
5 Likes
I’m looking forward to exploring this new Q series with an open mind. Could it fall flat on its face? Sure, but at this point in the literary franchise’s history, I’m certainly open to more experimentation. Keep in mind, we’ve had more than 60 (!) Bond novels so far (I’m including novelizations, Young Bond, etc…), many of which do adhere rather strictly to formula, so I don’t see something inherently problematic with taking a risk every once in a while (especially when there are so many traditional Bond adventures already).
As for the argument that IFP have “abandoned” actual Bond stories, I find that claim perplexing. Since 2011, we’ve had:
- Deaver’s Carte Blanche
- Boyd’s Solo
- Four more Young Bonds from Cole
- Three Horowitz novels (which are among my favorites), the most recent of which was published just two years ago, as Dustin mentioned above.
- Higson’s return with a modern Bond adventure just last year
That totals 10 Bond-centric novels in 13 years (again, not counting Sherwood).
Yes, the pace has slowed down somewhat since the Gardner / Benson years, but I (respectfully) find some of the claims on this thread to be just a tad overblown. Unless, of course, we are conflating EON with IFP and somehow allowing our feelings about the former to dictate our feelings about the latter.
1 Like
Which one?
4 Likes
They haven’t been interested in the James Bond character in quite some time. Since this regime took over at EON, pretty much all they’ve done with the films is to ask out loud whether or not Bond is relevant anymore in these times. That and the elevation of the side characters who have always been in the background to essentially become almost co-leads, and now these characters are beginning to take over the literary franchise, it’s clear that Bond is no longer the main attraction in this new extended universe, if he’s even considered a part of its future at all. Perhaps we’ll see Q taking over as the new “007” in “Bond” 26.
1 Like
Very true.
NTTD was the very epitome of that, with the women (the other 007 and Madeleine) being the actual real leads.
Up to the point where the last sequence of the franchise is a scene devoted to Madeleine driving Bond’s car and telling her daughter about a man whose “name was James Bond”. Clearly past tense. Clearly James Bond has been made irrelevant, redundant, and even executed.
I positively loathe what Craig’s run did with the character and what can be considered as EON’s betrayal. Cubby would never had let this happen.
Unfortunately, the latest publishing stints tend to go the same route. Sure, we’ve had the terrific Horowitz novels. But that’s all, and they’re drowned into a sea of “everything but James Bond” Bond-verse things.
3 Likes
I don’t necessarily consider the Young Bond novels to be the main course. The problem with the main novels (going back to 2008) is the wait times are getting longer, like the films. We are averaging about 3 years between novels: Devil May Care (2008), Carte Blanche (2011, +3), Solo (2013, +2), Trigger Mortis (2015, +2), Forever and a Day (2018, +3), With a Mind to Kill (2022, +4). 6 main novels in 14 years (16 now). It just seems that IFP aren’t prioritizing them like the used to. We haven’t had a novelization of a Bond film since 2002 (and I would have loved novelizations of the Craig films). With no new film seemingly on the horizon at all, IFP seems to also be deprioritizing Bond in favor of side stories. This, after Horowitz had arguably the best 3 book run since Fleming himself.
EDIT: One thing I didn’t mention was that Devil May Care was, itself, 6 years after the last official Bond novels of The Man with the Red Tattoo and Die Another Day.
3 Likes
I hear you about the longer gaps between main novels, theSpectre. Perhaps I’m less bothered by it because of the size of the back catalogue (I started reading the continuation novels years ago and still have a few left to go), or because a novel typically takes me longer to finish than does a movie (even when I love the novel) so the “immersion time” per book is greater (if that makes any sense). Put these two together and I don’t really feel like we are being deprived of literary Bond adventures.
I also sometimes wonder if “one novel per year” (as was the case with Gardner and Benson) was ever an ideal pace to begin with. I’m very happy with the Benson run, but that last half of Gardner’s tenure was tedious.
Regardless, I respect your view on this issue, theSpectre, I guess I’m just somewhat taken aback by the generally negative tone these forums have taken in recent months (I don’t mean you, I’m just speaking in general).
2 Likes
As I do, yours. For the most part, the community here is far more accepting of opposing viewpoints than elsewhere. I don’t want a return to the one novel per year cadence. Gardner certainly ran out of steam about halfway through his run. Benson’s latter half was not nearly as strong as his first 3 novels. Though I do like The Man with the Red Tattoo and I believe it’s much stronger than Doubleshot or Never Dream of Dying. I think a 2 year cadence would be fine. Give enough time for the novels to breathe and enough time to properly craft a good story. I’d even accept 3 years. I just want some kind of road map.
2 Likes
My ideal release schedule would be a novel every other year, along with a film every other year, alternating years. Then we’d have a new release to look forward to and discuss every year (without feeling inundated with too frequent releases in either category). One can dream.
2 Likes
Ideally, yes. But realistically, no. I’m afraid the best we can hope for (and should reasonably expect) is a new Bond film every three years. That’s not too much to ask. As for the novels, I like the idea of a new (adult) Bond novel every year (or at the very least either an adult or young Bond novel a year), but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards anymore. But every other year is certainly doable. Or even two every three years–i.e. between 007 films would be great.
1 Like
I’d like to see novelizations make a comeback. Having novelizations of the Craig films could have helped with the dry spell during his tenure. Of course, that would mean EON and IFP playing nice with each other which I don’t see happening any time soon.
4 Likes
Everyone has great ideas and wishes. They are similar to mine. I wish for a year and a half at least between 2 books. Realistically, that’s what I believe IFP would do. I’d like to see 2 Bond books a year: adult Bond and a spinoff book. I think that the main reason why we didn’t see novelizations of Craig’s movies is also because of major script changes. IFP and EON need each other more than they realize. We know that we are getting at least 2 Q books. An adult Bond novel could easily fall in there. Also, I think Kim Sherwood is done after book 3. I’m just thankful that IFP is trying some new.
Regarding the novelizations, I don’t think it’s just EON and IFP. I don’t remember the last time I saw a movie novelization outside of the Star Wars films (Or at least one that’s written for adults). And even the sequel trilogy novelizations came out long after the films were out. In the days of spoiler culture, the novelizations are just another potential leak in the eyes of the studios. So I don’t foresee those coming back anytime soon.
3 Likes
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had one, even written by Quentin Tarantino himself. He’s talking about doing another for his movies.
Right, but that one wasn’t actually a direct novelization but a retellling and vast expansion of the story and came out two years after the film. And was written by Tarantino as opposed to a hired author like most novelizations. It’s the exception not the rule.
1 Like
Movie novelizations are definitely still a thing, just not as popular. Godzilla vs Kong The New Empire even had one. The Halloween Ends one is actually really good.
Re: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - I vote that not being a novelization. It’s its own thing. Very different from the movie.
2 Likes
Pulp Fiction has one, I believe.
Huh wow, I stand corrected. I used to work in a book store about 10 years ago and remember noting that movie novelizations had sort of gone away, but maybe they’re back now.
2 Likes
An amalgamation of Llewelyn and Whishaw? How on earth is that supposed to work? 
I mean, its not like saying “I’m going to write/play Bond as a mix of Connery and Moore”, because I don’t think that the two Q’s are even supposed to be the same character. Whishaw’s Q is never referred to as Major Boothroyd, as far as I’m aware, and in Skyfall, there’s a mention of him being the new Quartermaster, which to me implied that some version of Major Boothroyd was the previous Q.
Mind you, I’m not opposed to this novel. Hell, I might even pick it up out of curiosity. I think everyone would be happier about this expansion of Bond’s univere if it also came with the promise of more of Bond himself.
4 Likes