Sunday, 18 October 2015

Darwin Cooke paints Bond

James Bond homage painted by Darwin Cooke. A print is available here.

6 comments:

teeritz said...

I love his work. His "Parker" series is beautiful. Thanks for the heads-up!

Anonymous said...

Excellent work, Mr. Cooke!

Simon said...

Must admit - I don't 'get' that.

Where is the front of the car?

David Morefield said...

Cooke's a genius, but I agree with Simon this isn't working for me. I don't know what kind of car that's supposed to be...it doesn't look like the DBV...but whatever it is it should have a front end. Also no idea on the location?

Looks to me like a Photoshop manip, and not a great one. That said, I'd love to see Cooke draw Bond in his signature style. If they'd let him adapt the Fleming novels like he's done the "Parker" series, I'd be over the moon!

teeritz said...

The photo that this artwork is based on doesn't shown the front of the car, based an the angle it was do taken from. Google "Sean Connery Aston Martin" and the original photo should show up. It's a pretty famous image, taken in the Swiss Alps when Bond is driving to Goldfinger's factory.

David Morefield said...

I'm familiar with the photo (it's a favorite), but Cooke's changed the angle of the car and altered (or botched) other details so it doesn't resemble the DBV. Yes, the nose is obscured by Connery even in the original, but here he's closer to the windshield, which means the hood has to be shorter. Also note the increased height of the roof (which almost seems to slope upwards toward the rear) and the altered angle of the car body, as suggested by the slope of the wheel well. What we have here is a shorter car with a higher roof. If anything, it looks like a MIni Cooper.

For a while I wondered if Cooke was trying to change the film car into a DB3, to match Fleming's novel. I still haven't made up my mind.

Happy if it works for some folks, but again I'd have preferred an original take on 007 in Cooke's usual art style. If want this image, I've got my copy of the photo. And it's "accurate" by definition. :-)