This story came through my news feed, so I clicked it open.
The Strangest Change James Bond Made To Felix Leiter
Isn't What You'd Expect
Diamonds Are Forever made the 007 source novel wackier, sillier, and more over-the-top, except when it came to James Bond's confidante Felix Leiter.
BY CATHAL GUNNING
The James Bond movies changed the character of Felix Leiter in Diamonds Are Forever, but not in the way that viewers might have expected. While Daniel Craig’s 007 movies were darker and grittier than most of Ian Fleming’s original James Bond novels, this was not always the approach that the creators of the spy series took when adapting the author’s work to the screen. For decades, the James Bond movies were significantly sillier and more far-fetched than the books they were inspired by, with some 007 movies borrowing little more than a title from their source novel.
The tl;dr is this: The author makes no effort to acknowledge, or is perhaps unaware, that Diamonds Are Forever the movie preceded Live and Let Die the movie, whereas in the novels it's the other way around. So he writes an entire article around the fact that Felix in Diamonds Are Forever the movie has all his arms and legs, that he lost in Live and Let Die the novel, even though Live and Let Die the movie was filmed two years after Diamonds Are Forever.
Notwithstanding -- and this is the a kicker -- Leiter doesn't get maimed by a shark in the movies at all. In Live and Let Die the movie, Leiter spends most of his time in some sort of CIA computer room. I don't think he meets Bond face to face at all, much less a shark.
So basically, this guy muses for 900 words about how Felix Leiter's "character" was changed, because something that happened in a 1950s book isn't reflected in a 1970s movie about a different book. It would have been weirder if Felix showed up maimed in Diamonds Are Forever, because movie-goers had never seen the shark scene, and never would.
I can't even wrap my brain around that.
I got so angry at how this guy was misinforming an entire generation that I almost emailed ScreenRant. Am I overreacting, Legionnaires?
Replies
Captain Comics said:
Umm ... yes, he does. In License to Kill, the Bad Guy has Felix Leiter taken to an aquarium and dunked into a tank with a shark*. I vividly remember that when Bond found poor Felix, there was a note attached to his mangled body reading "HE DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING THAT ATE HIM."
So the hole in the article is that it doesn't even mention License to Kill or what transpired therein.
*What kind of shark? Here, Wikipedia fails us. One entry states it's a tiger shark; a different one states it's a great white shark.
"I got so angry... Am I overreacting...?"
First of all, calm down, take a deep breath. Feel better now?
"In License to Kill, the Bad Guy has Felix Leiter taken to an aquarium and dunked into a tank with a shark"
I'm glad you pointed that out, Kelvin, because every time I get ahead of the discussion Cap says, "I'm not there yet!"
(BTW, that note you mention is right out of the book.) Still, I'm sure it even matters in light of the article. Not only are the books the books and the movies the movies, but comparing Diamonds Are Forever (Connery) to Live and Let Die (Moore) to License to Kill (Dalton) is comparing apples to oranges to coconuts in the first place.
"I can't even... tl;dr"
That's how I intend to approach it... and I suggest you do the same.
(Don't tell him about Quarrel and Quarrell, Jr.... his head would explode.)
Correcting everyone that is Wrong on the Internet can be a rabbit hole that you never come out of.
Am I overreacting, Legionnaires? - Yes? But, everyone gets worked up over something that others don't. There was a movie (I don't remember which), that character smoked a different brand than he did in the book. It really bothered me, even though I knew there was a 95% chance this was done because the brand used in the movie paid to be there. It still ticked me off.
Travis Herrick (Modular Mod) said:
I know what you mean. I just read the casting notices today for a planned TV series version of the wonderful newspaper comic strip JumpStart: Ryan Michelle Bathé co-stars as Marcy, with Terry Crews as Joe, parents of two teenagers.
Wha -- ?
I've always liked Ryan Michelle Bathé, but In the comic, Marcy and Joe are at least 10 if not 15 years younger than she and Terry Crews, and their children are not teenagers.
But, as noted above, books are books and movies are movies, and along that vein, comic strips are comic strips.
I actually saw License to Kill at some point, but had forgotten it. But since it was also released later than Diamonds Are Forever, my complaint still stands: The writer is arguing that the character should reflect changes that haven't happened yet, and negatively characterizing Diamonds Are Forever for this. It displays an incredible ignorance of the film series (much less the books). And yet he's (presumably) paid to write about them.
He's spreading misinformation. Grrr.
ScreenRant is a sister site of CBR. Trust me, if he's getting paid, it ain't much.
ClarkKent_DC said:
Umm ... yes, he does. In License to Kill, the Bad Guy has Felix Leiter taken to an aquarium and dunked into a tank with a shark*. I vividly remember that when Bond found poor Felix, there was a note attached to his mangled body reading "HE DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING THAT ATE HIM."
So the hole in the article is that it doesn't even mention License to Kill or what transpired therein.
*What kind of shark? Here, Wikipedia fails us. One entry states it's a tiger shark; a different one states it's a great white shark.
As evil as it is, the note is very clever, and was the brain-child word-for-word of Fleming. In the novels, it was left by Mister Big in Live and Let Die, which was the second novel. The next time he appeared in the book series he had a hook for a hand and an artificial leg. (My favorite teacher in high school had a hook for a hand.) Being a (sorta) recovering continuity freak, I really appreciated Fleming’s respect for continuity.
I’m not saying he did, but the Screenrants writer could have written his article based upon random internet posts without reading any of the books or seeing any of the movies.
As for the shark, I'd be surprised if Fleming ever heard of a great white shark. Most people never heard of one before Jaws (1975). Now we have them off our California beaches courtesy of climate change. Our cold sea water is the only thing that keeps the hurricanes on Mexico's west coast from continuing up California's west coast.
"What kind of shark?"
The book (Fleming's Live & Let Die) doesn't specify. Ourobourous Worm and Bait deals in a variety of fish. According to the man Bond consulted at the Eastern Garden Aquarium in Miami, "They got sharks. Big ones. Do business with foreign zoos and suchlike. White, tiger, even hammerheads. They'll be glad to help you." Later, when Bond maneuvers his opponent into the same trap Leiter fell into, "Bond could hear something stirring down there, awakened by the light. A hammerhead or a tiger shark, he guessed, with their sharper reactions."
A hammerhead or a tiger shark, he guessed, with their sharper reactions.
Tiger shark makes a lot of sense. When I was growing up, that was the one we kids thought was cool and dangerous. IIRC.
Our cold sea water is the only thing that keeps the hurricanes on Mexico's west coast from continuing up California's west coast.
But for how long? "Tornado Alley" used to be in the Oklahoma-Kansas-Nebraska area, but we in the Mid-South (Ark-Tenn-Miss) just experienced waves of supercell activity. A variety of articles informs me that, thanks to climate change, "Tornado Alley" is moving East, to where I live.
ScreenRant is a sister site of CBR. Trust me, if he's getting paid, it ain't much.
This made me laugh.
I’m not saying he did, but the ScreenRants writer could have written his article based upon random internet posts without reading any of the books or seeing any of the movies.
That's how it read to me, and it's one reason I grew agitated. I used to spend more time researching my column than I did writing it.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next