23 replies to this topic

[Bondpurist]

How much where Fleming's novels like the films? Should the films have been more like the novels? This thread is just for general discussion concerning the novels' relation with the films.

[rafterman]

I like how the films diverged from the books, but my favorite films are the closest to the books, go figure.....I like the unique approach they have, making stuff up, taking what they like, this pick and choose way of doing it so that ideas are used in new ways....a little more fun than seeing the exact book on screen...

[zencat]

The films DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and OHMSS follow the books of the same name very closely. THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER are similar, but have some substantial differences. The rest are VERY different.

I don

[RossMan]

One thing that really gets me irritated about the Bond movies are unfaithful adaptions of the Fleming novels. The movies that do follow the books I find to be the best of the earlier Bond movies. Anytime they throw away a Fleming plot, the story they come up with is vastly inferior to the original. Of course some of Fleming's weaker novels may not have made good movies, DAF or TMWTGG (disapointed to never have seen a brainwashed Bond attempting to kill M on screen) may not have made good movies, but they could have slightly modified rather than be completely discarded (they could have had SPECTRE be responsible for brainwashing Bond, then have him go after Scaramanga, who could have been a SPECTRE agent or something).

What is the point of adapting a book to a movie if you're not even going to bother using the original material anyway? (A problem I have with many books, look what they did with Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears).

I think that Thunderball or Goldfinger is as far a Bond movie should stray from the book.

[RevolveR]

Bondpurist, I'm not trying to make you angry, but you are WAY too obbessed with Fleming and his novels. The movies are there own catagory. They do not have to follow Fleming's books, they are just slightly based on his work. He may have been a good writer, but there is no way a modern Bond movie could be strictly based on his books

[mi6spy005]

I'm surprised no one has caught two other similarities between the novel MOONRAKER and the movie.

1) Gala Brand, like Holly Goodhead, is working undercover at Drax's facilities, although Gala is merely a secretary.

2) Drax tries to kill Bond and the girl by the lift-off blast of the Moonraker rocket in the book as well.

Whether or not they're merely coincidental, I don't know.

[Spectre001]

Originally posted by RevolveR
Bondpurist, I'm not trying to make you angry, but you are WAY too obbessed with Fleming and his novels.  The movies are there own catagory.  They do not have to follow Fleming's books, they are just slightly based on his work.  He may have been a good writer, but there is no way a modern Bond movie could be strictly based on his books

You sure RevolveR? I think this is a legitimate question...and a good one too!! The films and books that I most like are the ones where the film and the book are both similar (DN, TB, OHMSS, FRWL, GF).

From the ones that were different:

Films I liked better than the novel: TSWLM, FYEO, TMWTGG

Novels I liked better than the film: MR, DAF

Un-decided: YOLT, LALD, OP&TLD (haven't read yet)

[boeserzwilling]

I try to keep the novels and the movies in different universes. I put the novelisations into the movies-universe so that those worlds don't collide, comics can be found in both worlds. That's the way my brain works. But in every universe James Bond is always the same character.

[WarBird]

I think they should be. For example, in Dr. No should have died under a pill of bird poop instead of falling in the reactor, and after when Bond comes out of the "tourter tunnel" he should have been meet by a squid or something instead of a soon to be occupied hallway.

[Turn]

Originally posted by WarBird
I think they should be.  For example, in Dr. No should have died under a pill of bird poop instead of falling in the reactor, and after when Bond comes out of the "tourter tunnel" he should have been meet by a squid or something instead of a soon to be occupied hallway.

I don't know that those things would have worked. Particularly that early on in the series. They were trying to keep it real and the squid seems more fantasy based, even for Fleming. And burying a villain under the bird dung would have actually seemed more appropriate in a Moore movie.

I do agree that the torture tunnel could have been a lot more interesting. Water and hot metal aren't the most most threatening obstacles. Especially for a guy like Bond.

[Thunderbird]

I agree to a great extent with boeserzwilling, but I tend to place the Bond of the films in a different catagory to the Bond of the books. Almost seeing them as a different person somehow.

More differences:

The overwhelming majority of Bond books bear little or no resemblance to the films, with the exception of the title, odd scene, character name, or rough allusion to the plot. Some only share the title and villain's / herione's name.

As stated in my Ian Fleming article (on the front page), the Bond film franchise has evolved reflecting the times in which the films are set.

Examples of how the books differ from the films:

1. The Bond books do not start with a set-piece pre-credits action sequence.
2. As I said there is very little humour, except the odd very dry remark or situation in the later novels.
3. The books are actually more realistic (I know I know, far-fetched, but not as far-fetched as the films).
4. The Roger Moore phase portrayed 'M' as being openly and unneccessarily hostile to Bond, which he rarely was really.
5. Bond never threw his hat on the hat-stand.
6. Bond never smoked cigars, only cigarettes, at an alarming rate of between 50-70 a day.
7. Bond rarely drank his trademark Vodka Martinis, he was more of a classic Martini man (Gin), or a scotch drinker. Tattinger champagne appealed to him but he was no gourmet.
8. Blofeld never had a cat, or one eye, and was married.

[Felix's lighter]

I always found it funny how Licence To Kill is the movie the adaptation of The Man With The Golden Gun should have been. They both involve Bond gaining an rqually-skilled enemy's trust by way of his wits. Personally, I liked Fleming's TMWTGG a lot better than the ridiculous movie of the same name, and I think it would have been a lot better film if they had just stuck to the source material.

[Felix's lighter]

"Water and hot metal aren't the most most threatening obstacles. Especially for a guy like Bond."

Huh? Fleming sure made it sound like a threatening obstacle - in fact, I'd say that part of Dr. No is one of his finest pieces of writing.

[jwheels]

I don't think many people would like the Bond movies as much if they were exactly like the books. Fleming's Bond was ruthless, a drinker, smoker, he wasn't swave or 'sexy' like the actors made him to be, he didn't want to go on the assignments, he only did because it was his job. He was scared, especially the 3 inch verticle scar on his right cheek. Even Fleming himself said that Bond he wrote about would be more like a villian in the Bond novels instead of the hero. That's what I like about Fleming's Bond, he more of an antihero than anything else.

[Felix's lighter]

I dunno. Fleming's Bond was suave and sexy but it's hard to tell because most everything is told from his point of view. But it's pretty obvious in "The Spy Who Loved Me" (the book) that Bond was viewed as quite a charmer when the point of view is shifted to a woman.

[mi6spy005]

In addition, he didn't mind most of the assignments he gets. He just doesn't like the assassination assignments (e.g. The Living Daylights) or the seemingly very easy ones (e.g. Dr. No). Not to mention he gets bored out of his mind in between assignments. He lives off of danger and excitement.

[00Twelve]

I always thought that Fleming's novels royally whipped their cinematic counterparts, in terms of plotline and seriousness. I know of course how much fantasy has to be in the films, but I am more of a fan of the less campy, funny and silly films, such as Connery's and Brosnan's, because they have a good balance of seriousness and comedy. Some of the unused plot elements of the novels were just great, like the assassination attempt on M, the castle of death, the mob of DAF, the scenes in Goldfinger's home, and even down to things such as Bond cleverly examining his fruit basket in DN, which made the character seem more cautious and professional.

I like that Die Another Day finally used the basic storyline of MR, a plot sorely missed in the MR film. (There were also shades of it in GoldenEye, by the way.) I also wish they would try to bring back Felix with a more modern way of replacing his lost limbs (Though in the film LTK, he only lost his leg).

There are also plenty of ways to update some of the characters and use them, such as Le Chiffre(we won't even get on to the huge outcry for a CR movie), The Robber, The Spang Bros., or Dr. Shatterhand(at least the name...).

I thought that though some of the novels were quite dated, they offered more suspense than the films and could be updated decently with modern technology.

But that's just me.

[00Twelve]

BTW, don't get confused, I didn't mean that Connery & Brosnan's films are the campy ones (except DAF), but the ones with good balance.

[KMHPaladin]

Originally posted by Thunderbird
8. Blofeld never had a cat, or one eye, and was married.

Blofeld was married? Thunderball explicitly states that Blofeld "had never been known to sleep with a member of either sex."

I completely agree that the books are superior to the movies. I honestly wish the movies could have more closely paralleled the books, including the ordering, and I agree with the posters above who put book-like movies like OHMSS at the top.

[jwheels]

Felix's lighter, mi6spy005 I agree with you. The Bond girl in The Spy who Loved Me (Vivian Mitchell?) did find him sexy. If it wasn't for him being swave enough to convince her, she could just have thought he was another hoodlum. I forgot that Bond hated being stuck in his regular routine when not on an assignment, but he also considered leaving the service in Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I thank the both of you for reminding me aspects about Bond that i had forgoten.

[mi6spy005]

You're welcome. It's what everyone's here for.

Also, if I recall correctly, in OHMSS, Bond got sick of the tediousness of Operation Bedlam and its failure to turn up any real results.

[00Twelve]

Speaking of Bond's turbulent relationship with MI6, another thing that I thought was great about Casino Royale is reading the assignment that earned Bond his 00 status and his regret over the assignment. If they don't adapt the whole story for film (BUT THEY SHOULD!!!), then I'd at least like to see a flashback or a monologue describing the events of that assignment in a movie (Hopefully while Pierce is still around too).

[General Koskov]

For me, the books and films are in the same category. Thus, I can't stand films which toss away a good book and leave it to be picked apart and put in several different films.

This 'problem' escalates when novelisations are written. If MR's plot was taken for Bond 21, and Benson novelised it, then there would be two books with the same story. How cheap is that?

Does anyone else think Benson should try to write these as 'standalone' books which would be as different as Fleming's were from their films (not MR different, but GF different)? Or do you like reading nearly the exact same events. I don't. I'd prefer if Benson took the basic plot and did his own thing with it so I would not be reading a glorified screenplay.

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by KMHPaladin
[B]Blofeld was married?  Thunderball explicitly states that Blofeld "had never been known to sleep with a member of either sex."  

You are correct, however of course by YOLT Blofeld had married Irma Bunt.

There you go.