Has the use of the Colonel Sun torture scene in Spectre set a precedent for future James Bond Films?

Obviously the use of the torture scene and the verbatim dialogue was a big step forward in the use of the Continuation Bond novels in the official Bond film series. From reading an article in MI6 Confidential magazine I understand that the use of the Colonel Sun torture scene in Spectre was out of desperation more than anything as they couldn't make the scene effective enough, so they decided to go back to the books again. Happily, the Kingsley Amis Estate even got a mention in the credits as well as (presumably) some remuneration for the use of the torture scene. Perhaps, then, they will only use the Continuations when they are caught between a rock and a hard place in the writing of their screenplay?

So, what do we think? Will there be more overt (as opposed to covert) use of the Continuation Bond novels in the future of the James Bond films series or not? Has the use of the Colonel Sun torture scene in Spectre (2015) set a precedent for future Bond films?

Will they continue to strip mine Colonel Sun or will they move on to the John Gardner novels and beyond? It has been argued by zencat of The Book Bond blog (and others) that the Bond films have already been mining the Continuation Bonds for years, only in a more covert sense.

I personally welcome more use of the continuation novels in the Bond films, along with the use of unmined original Fleming material. Other franchises don't seem to have any problem in using the equivalent of the Bond continuation novels - see the use of the villain Bane in the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Bane was a character who did not come from the original 1930s or 1940s Batman comics but only came along in the comic Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1 (January 1993).

So why don't Eon use the continuation novels more?

Will they just use Colonel Sun in the future as it was published fifty years ago (in March 2018) as it is set in the Fleming timeline more rigidly than what came after (Gardner, Benson and Deaver)? It is also as close to official canon as it is possible to get for a continuation Bond novel.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this fascinating subject.

It was just about the worst scene in that travesty of a film, so I'm not sure I'd want it held up as a precedent.

It was so bad that it took me a moment to realize they were using CS. Which is really a new benchmark as they're gone out of their way to not use any continuation materials when it could have been a huge help.

Do I welcome it? Absolutely as there is a great deal of fantastic material whether adapted as entire stories or the usual series piecemealing of different novels.

Will it work in this day and age-heck no! Not with the way they seem to not know at all what they are doing.

Benson's books read like unproduced screen treatments at times and could easily be made into a film. For years I've felt he would be the best person to collaborate on a story treatment. Gardner's best books are ripe for adaptation and his lesser books are still full of great scenes that would be great on the screen.

IMO an easy fix would be to do a reversion/revisit of what CR 2006 tried to do by making a straightforward Licence Renewed adaptation perhaps with some other novels worked in to flesh out the admittedly straightforward plot. There is a reason why Cubby nixed the prequel idea when the writers wanted to do it in 1986-it's just not good. It's not interesting, it's not right, and it ultimately is not the character and not fulfilling to an audience. Bond in Fleming's CR is almost fully formed and by the novel's end he is truly formalized.

Or since Eon is seemingly open to using the oldest and most obvious suggestions these days in terms of story, casting etc. why not just make the Everything or Nothing movie? It's essentially the fifth Brosnan film we never got, fully formed and an improvement on everything post-DAD in every way DESPITE being an EA game from 2004! And the fact that Willem Dafoe didn't get to be a flesh and blood villain is downright criminal.

CJB wrote:

It was just about the worst scene in that travesty of a film, so I'm not sure I'd want it held up as a precedent.

On the contrary, I thought it was the best scene in the film. Kingsley Amis' writing no doubt helped it along.