36 replies to this topic

[double-O-Durg]

I dunno if this has been discussed before but I was watching Thunderball straight after reading the book and it got me thinking which film was the most faithful adaption of Flemings work??

[Qwerty]

I'd personally say On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

[marktmurphy]

Thunderball isn't far off at all, but I suppose OHMSS is the closest to Fleming we've seen.

Interesting how all the close adaptations usually make significant improvements on the plots! OHMSS being a case in the point- the plot actually connects and makes sense in the film; Bond agrees to see Tracy again for Draco in return for info on Blofeld's location- in the film he gets it and finds a lead taking him to Sable Basilisk- in the book it goes nowhere and SIS sit on their hands for a couple of months until the Royal College of Arms conatct them! Rubbish!

[Harmsway]

Umm... I'd say DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL, or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

[K1Bond007]

I'd go with Dr. No or OHMSS.

I'd also throw in The Living Daylights, if you really think about it. From a certain point of view anyway...

[tdalton]

I'd go with Dr. No or OHMSS.

I'd also throw in The Living Daylights, if you really think about it. From a certain point of view anyway...

I think I'd have to say that out of all of the full length novels, OHMSS is the most faithful adaptation. But, you're right, TLD did a very good job of incorporating the short story as a good launching point for the film as a whole.

[Genrewriter]

I'd say OHMSS and FRWL.

[crheath]

I would say script and plotwise, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, along with FRWL.

Other ones that you could say are faithful to Fleming are FYEO and LTK since they take sequences from different books.

[Mr. Somerset]

Moonraker easily.


Just kidding. FRWL and OHMSS. THUNDERBALL as well.

[dinovelvet]

Lot of votes for FRWL, but I have to disagree on that one. Gone is a lot of stuff from the first third of the book which is all about Grant's training and background, and SMERSH coming up with the plot to kill Bond (of course, they had to change it to SPECTRE for the film since SMERSH was dead by then, so those tweaks are understandable). But FRWL the film throws in a lot of extra action and explosions, like the whole planting a bomb in the embassy, detonating it, and then escaping with the Lecter, when in the book Tanya just takes it and gives it to him. And none of the last 20 minutes of the film from Grant's death onward is in the book, save for the finale with Klebb, which has been rewritten to give the film a happy ending.
Dr.No isn't particularly faithful either. No bird dung, no giant squid, no 'endurance test' for Bond (instead the film makes Dr.No look inept by putting Bond into a cell which just happens to have a large grate through which he can escape into some tunnels), and they wrote in a lot of other stuff like Professor Dent, the radiation samples, Miss Taro, etc. I was surprised in the book by how early on Bond gets over to Crab Key.
So this leaves us with the only faithful Fleming adaptations being OHMSS and TB. And isn't it odd that the 1967 comedy CR is actually more faithful to Fleming than the 'serious' adaptations of YOLT, DAF, LALD, MR, and TMWTGG were?

[doublenoughtspy]

OHMSS is the most faithful. Benson details why in the Bedside Companion - and mentions that director Peter Hunt does the best job of capturing Fleming's world.

I agree with Dino - a lot of people think FRWL is close - but it really isn't. Changing the villains from the KGB to SPECTRE is more than cosmetic imho.

[Arch Stanton]

I'd also throw in The Living Daylights, if you really think about it. From a certain point of view anyway...

If you're bringing in the short stories, Risico was adapted pretty much scene-by-scene in it's part in For Your Eyes Only.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I'd definitely say OHMSS is the most faithful novel adaptation.

[Pussfeller]

OHMSS, obviously. But I think TB and FRWL were fairly close, though they could have been closer. And of course, DAD was a pretty faithful (albeit awful) adaptation of Fleming's MR (and much more faithful than the 1977 adaptation was).

Perhaps a more interesting question might be... which film is the least faithful adaptation of Fleming? My money would be on TMWTGG, which borrowed two characters (Scaramanga and Goodnight) and trashed everything else.

[Bryce (003)]

I'd say OHMSS and FRWL.

Me too.

Although, the runner ups are TB, DN and Goldfinger up until Bond sneaks into Auric Enterprises (sans the PTS).

[Double-Oh Agent]

Put me down for On Her Majesty's Secret Service as well.

Least faithful, I would say, is The Man With The Golden Gun.

As for most faithfully adapted short story, I'd go with Risico (in For Your Eyes Only).

[dinovelvet]

Perhaps a more interesting question might be... which film is the least faithful adaptation of Fleming? My money would be on TMWTGG, which borrowed two characters (Scaramanga and Goodnight) and trashed everything else.

TSWLM But obviously that one doesn't really count.

I'd say Moonraker. TMWTGG at least keeps the character of Scaramanga more or less faithful to the book; they have the same background, with the circus and elephant story, and he, er, uses a golden gun. Drax in the film bears no resemblance to his namesake in the novel other than being the villain, and none of the plot shows up in the film at all.

[spynovelfan]

I'd say Moonraker. TMWTGG at least keeps the character of Scaramanga more or less faithful to the book; they have the same background, with the circus and elephant story, and he, er, uses a golden gun. Drax in the film bears no resemblance to his namesake in the novel other than being the villain, and none of the plot shows up in the film at all.

Sure it does:

Sir Hugo Drax is regarded by M as an important and respected ally (he mentions in the film that he has played bridge with him).

A crime affects Drax's operation: in the book one of his staff is killed in a pub brawl; in the film one of his shuttles is hijacked.

Bond is sent to Drax's factory, and is welcomed - in a standoffish manner - by Drax as a representative of MI6. Another allied agent - a beautiful woman - is already on Drax's staff. Bond teams up with her.

It becomes apparent that Drax is the villain, and that he wants to destroy London/the world (book/film). Bond and the female agent are placed under the Moonraker, where they will be burned to death when it is launched. They escape and defeat Drax.

Obviously, there are also massive changes to it, but I don't think it's true to say that *none* of the book is in the film.

[David Schofield]

I'd say Moonraker. TMWTGG at least keeps the character of Scaramanga more or less faithful to the book; they have the same background, with the circus and elephant story, and he, er, uses a golden gun. Drax in the film bears no resemblance to his namesake in the novel other than being the villain, and none of the plot shows up in the film at all.

Sure it does:

Sir Hugo Drax is regarded by M as an important and respected ally (he mentions in the film that he has played bridge with him).

Sorry, Spy, its Frederick Gray who has played bridge with Drax.

[spynovelfan]

Sorry, Spy, its Frederick Gray who has played bridge with Drax.

Really? I was sure it was M. Anyway, point stands. I don't see why the film version of Drax is seen as so dissimilar to Fleming's creation - the film version of Mr Big didn't have a greyish tinge to his skin, nor was his head football-shaped; Blofeld wasn't bald in the books, nor was he a cat-owner; Scaramanga is meant to be 35 with reddish hair in a crew cut and long sideburns, etc. The *essence* of Fleming's character - a rich arrogant man with extravagant tastes of unknown origin who is respected by the Establishment but who is in fact a megalomaniacal villain - is in the film. I think some of his speeches are very Fleming indeed: 'see that some harm comes to him', for example.

[David Schofield]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='20 April 2006 - 11:13' post='545594']
[quote name='David Schofield' date='20 April 2006 - 09:48' post='545593']
Sir Hugo Drax is regarded by M as an important and respected ally (he mentions in the film that he has played bridge with him).
[/quote]

Sorry, Spy, its Frederick Gray who has played bridge with Drax.
[/quote]

Really? I was sure it was M. Anyway, point stands. I don't see why the film version of Drax is seen as so dissimilar to Fleming's creation - the film version of Mr Big didn't have a greyish tinge to his skin, nor was his head football-shaped; Blofeld wasn't bald in the books, nor was he a cat-owner; Scaramanga is meant to be 35 with reddish hair in a crew cut and long sideburns, etc. The *essence* of Fleming's character - a rich arrogant man with extravagant tastes of unknown origin who is respected by the Establishment but who is in fact a megalomaniacal villain - is in the film. I think some of his speeches are very Fleming indeed: 'see that some harm comes to him', for example.
[/quote]

Sure, just being pedantic, Spy

But of course, you're right - the movie's are cinematic interpretations of Fleming - with the execption of TSWLM and AVTAK - rather than literal interpretations of them.

And as you point out, the Drax of Moonraker has the flavour, and pretty much role, of the Fleming original: conversely, the extras added to the movies - I think the best examples are the post Grant death scenes in FRWL and TLD after Koskov's escape - while clearly not in the novels, have the same flavour and easily could have been in the Fleming original.

[Loomis]

Obviously, there are also massive changes to it, but I don't think it's true to say that *none* of the book is in the film.

Agreed. And I feel the same way about YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, another film routinely slammed as a travesty of the Fleming novel.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Perhaps a more interesting question might be... which film is the least faithful adaptation of Fleming? My money would be on TMWTGG, which borrowed two characters (Scaramanga and Goodnight) and trashed everything else.

Agreed, for least faithful I'd go with MWTGG as well. (Assuming that we're not counting SWLM since it makes no attempt to use the book at all)

[Loomis]

Perhaps a more interesting question might be... which film is the least faithful adaptation of Fleming? My money would be on TMWTGG, which borrowed two characters (Scaramanga and Goodnight) and trashed everything else.

Agreed, for least faithful I'd go with MWTGG as well.

I wouldn't. But don't get me started on how that (wondeful) film is actually jam-packed with "Fleming elements".

Least faithful? It's gotta be THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, surely?

[spynovelfan]

Yes, I'm surprised at how widespread this idea of Fleming as being some kind of gritty writer seems to be. He loved the bizarre, the fantastic, the extravagant. I think sculptures of sumo wrestlers coming to life is a very Flemingesque idea, for example. I also think the film MOONRAKER is pretty faithful to the *spirit* of Fleming. A faithful adaptation, set in England alone, would have been commercial suicide - so why do so many Bond fans insist on saying that's what they'd have wanted to or now want to see (contrarian lot! )? I reckon the idea of a villain wanting to conquer space is pretty much on the money. Not so sure about the Jaws sub-plot.

Re FRWL, the Russian thriller writer Julian Semyonov came up with a brilliant additional twist which I think is on a par with making Goldfinger turn the gold radioactive rather than steal it. In his novel TASS IS AUTHORISED TO ANNOUNCE, the hero - KGB agent Vitaly Vsevolodovich Slavin - discusses film-making with a CIA agent:

"You know, if I was a director, I would make a film. Or not so much make as finish one off. Take From Russia With Love

[David Schofield]

[quote name='spynovelfan' post='545607' date='20 April 2006 - 12:01']

"You know, if I was a director, I would make a film. Or not so much make as finish one off. Take From Russia With Love

[spynovelfan]

Well now you're talking about a CR and OHMSS downbeat ending. I wonder how that at the end of FRWL would have fitted with Connery as mega-cool Bond: had he bceome too smug invulnerable by then, or was he "human" until TB?

Well, it might have dented the super-coolness, yes. It's not overly bleak, though, is it? I don't think it would have had the reaction in cinemas OHMSS got. Perhaps more like that of the original novel - what the hell happens now? I think they could have filmed that and made it work, too. Have the usual line on the end credits changed to: 'Will James Bond return?' Perhaps if it had been the fourth or fifth one they'd filmed...

That said, its a very original thought - and one's views of Bond can become quite jaded without such. At the very least I will never watch the end of FRWL in quite the same way again... imagine, MI6 discover she's a Soviet agent and in 2006 she's a wizened old dear, Klebb-like in an unknown British Government institution....

LOL. They can't do it now - how do you handle the age thing? But what a kicker it could have made three or four films down the line! A defector turns up and says: 'You know that Tatiana Romanova...?'

[David Schofield]

Well now you're talking about a CR and OHMSS downbeat ending. I wonder how that at the end of FRWL would have fitted with Connery as mega-cool Bond: had he bceome too smug invulnerable by then, or was he "human" until TB?

Well, it might have dented the super-coolness, yes. It's not overly bleak, though, is it? I don't think it would have had the reaction in cinemas OHMSS got. Perhaps more like that of the original novel - what the hell happens now? I think they could have filmed that and made it work, too. Have the usual line on the end credits changed to: 'Will James Bond return?' Perhaps if it had been the fourth or fifth one they'd filmed...

Bleak? No not overly but it WOULD dent the coolness. Consider OHMSS is bleak because of the tragedy - Tracy is dead - but of course the reason for that is that Bond married first BEFORE taking care of Blofeld: IF FRWL had finished with Tatiana having played Bond along and the Soviets achieved their aims, again Bond would have looked, OHMSS-like, bloody stupid.

As you say, more like the original creation, then, than the cinematic one...

[spynovelfan]

Bleak? No not overly but it WOULD dent the coolness. Consider OHMSS is bleak because of the tragedy - Tracy is dead - but of course the reason for that is that Bond married first BEFORE taking care of Blofeld: IF FRWL had finished with Tatiana having played Bond along and the Soviets achieved their aims, again Bond would have looked, OHMSS-like, bloody stupid.

As you say, more like the original creation, then, than the cinematic one...

Yes, he seems much slower in the novel to realise who 'Nash' is. I suppose you're right that it would dent the coolness, but wouldn't we be as taken aback as him, and so forgive him? I think it would have worked as a cliffhanger and would also have elevated Bianchi's performance considerably. 'Ah, so she was just *pretending* to be the innocent bimbo...'

I think they should remake it. With Tarantino directing. If they do, I'll sue.

[David Schofield]

I think they should remake it. With Tarantino directing. If they do, I'll sue.

Why not a sequel, directed by Tarantino? Starring Pierce, of course.