> Kevin wrote:
>

>> Casino Royale starred such luminaries as Peter Sellers, David Niven and
>> Woody Allen. It was a total parody of the novel. The James Bond movies
>> in
>> general bore very little resemblence to the novels by Ian Fleming. The
>> Bond
>> of the novels was a professional killer, the best in the world, who had
>> no
>> problem killing women, if required. He was not a nice person. He was a
>> product of the British Intelligence agencies of WWII. Remember that
>> these
>> books were written in the fifties and early sixties.

>
> As an aside:
>
> There is also yet-another-version of Casino Royale performed twice in
> the late 1950's as a live teleplay on CBS (I believe only one
> performance of this survives as a recording). This time, Bond is
> American and CIA but it follow the novel better than the pig's ear of a
> parody film.
>
> You make a good point about the Bond films differing from their source
> material. The closest any film portrayal has come to Flemming's
> original character is probably "On her Majesty's Secret Service", and
> even that's pretty tenuous.
>
> Here's a hypothetical: What if the new Casino Royale was done as a
> Cold War period film instead of a contemporary thriller? It would be a
> proper reboot, with a setting and characters that suited the times.
> While die-hard Bond fans would be pleased as punch you can bet the
> casual consumer would be bored to tears wondering when Bond is going to
> pull out a gadget or the baddies are going to steal some WMD's. When
> it comes down to being faithful to the source material versus the
> money, the money will win every time ( or at least that's what
> Hollywood thinks, and I personally think they underestimate the
> intelligence of their audience).
>
> So let's turn this around to Star Trek again. What kind of 'reboot'
> would people prefer? One that remains faithful to TOS but makes some
> small updates, or a total wipe of the slate with a fresh new
> perspective and design?
>
> The fan in me would like the former, and that's sort of what we were
> getting in the last Season of Enterprise (and it failed for way too
> many reasons to get into here). The adult realist in me thinks that
> the latter is better for the long term health of the franchise.
> There's a third option that Paramount seems reluctant to consider,
> which is to push onward with another Trek Series set in a later century
> than the TNG era. My feeling is that any series set later would fall
> into the same trap that Enterprise fell into: The writers and designers
> who cut their teeth on TNG-era stuff will get lazy and fall back to old
> habits -- and we end up with mediocre rehashed stories that would have
> been poor episodes of TNG or Voyager.
>
> One last point... at the time ST:TMP was being made, the update to the
> sets of the Enterprise was considered to be a reboot of sorts. They
> intended to show what the inside of the Enterprise *really* looked
> like. Of course, no one expected people to feel nostalagic for the
> original TOS-era set. The first time they slipped and acknowledged
> that the interior design and uniforms looked like they actually did in
> TOS was "Relics" -- and that was pure fan service.
>