All the stuff that makes your treatment interesting - the continuation aspect, Bond worrying about ageing, the darkness and violence - there are glimpses of all of that in the novel, but it's hardly necessary to adapt that novel to have or have had those elements.
I'm trying to show how tricky I think it would be to make what was effectively a lengthened novella by Amis into a decent Bond film. And what happened to Tanner's advice that he was in an end-game of office politics, and would face dire consequences if he was to screw up? I know your treatment's just a post, and you made it a while ago, and it's not set in stone. Bond decides to go to Greece after all."Īs a reader/viewer, I'm just thinking 'Well, that whole China thing was a waste of time, then, wasn't it? Bond messed up (very unlike him) - should have just gone to Greece like everyone said.
"After various escapades in and around the Chinese capital (including a couple between the sheets with Jenny Li), Bond discovers that Sun may be in Greece and may have been involved in M's kidnapping. He follows the lead despite all the clues saying Greece, and then: But, like the book, there needs to be at least some half-decent reason for him to go to China. The book has just two, effectively: London and an island that could really be anywhere - there's no very convincing reason for it to be off Greece in the book it's a neutral place between two others to hold a conference. That episode is necessary, perhaps, because it adds a much-needed other location. Instead, he wants to follow a lead to Beijing." "All clues point to M having been taken to Greece, but Bond suspects that the people behind the kidnapping are trying to get him to walk into a trap. In your treatment, you have Bond go to China, which is not in the book: It's no closer to it than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was, really. Your treatment could work very well - but it's got very little in common with COLONEL SUN. I can't see how you could stretch the book out into an exciting full-length feature without radically changing it. What memorable scenes would there be from an ultra-faithful film adaptation, the ending excepted? The good thing about the book is Amis' prose. Bond could be called John Smith for all the Bond stuff he does. The villain never moves, and his plot is pretty small potatoes. Would you even want one, though? Quite apart from the dated plot (Sino-Soviet split, 1967-68), it wouldn't be terribly exciting on film. It's not as though anyone's expecting an ultra-faithful CASINO ROYALE, eh, old man?
0 kommentar(er)
