18 replies to this topic

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I've seen alot of posts here from more "refined" fans of Bond, criticizing the masses and their perception of James Bond, and even certain eras and elements in the series from not being "truly" Bondian. The "Fleming purists" seem to have little interest in goofy gadgets, playful banter with Moneypenny and Q, one liners, and outrageous stunts. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were NOT the real James Bond (I actually had a guy in a bookstore say this to me about the latter when I bought the GOLDENEYE and TND novelizations, with Pierce on the covers.) People who hate Daniel Craig must hate Fleming's James Bond since he is the truest to his vision.

All are common complaints. But I have a question for everyone here:

How did you honestly first discover James Bond? Did you first hear about him and become a fan through reading the Fleming books? Or did your interest first get piqued by the lighter exploits of the Broccoli films?

If it was the latter, then the filmmakers must have gotten something right. So most of the hardcoere fans have dabbled in, and enjoyed both, but let's face it, with out the film series, I think Bond would probably be looked back on as another little-known,dusty old pulp hero. The Eon series really brought new life into the franchise, and has given it the kind of immortality that has put 007 up there with such cultural icons as Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman or Mickey Mouse.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate Fleming's work (how can a Bond fan, not?) and I think the film series should always fall back on it when things get too out of hand, but without Eon, the work of Albert R. Broccoli, his family, and Harry Saltzman, with their innovative ideas to make the character more accessible to the common man, most of us wouldn't be here talking about Bond, today.

[eddychaput]

I started a post already asking when and how people first discovered James Bond.

[Bill]

My first exposure to Bond was watching Goldfinger on cable television along time ago, and it made an impression. I was probably ten years old, and my dad suggested that I watch it. Still, it was Moonraker in 1979, the first Bond film I saw on the big screen, which really ingrained 007 into my brain. I was inspired to track down as much information about Bond as I could--going to the library and taking out Fleming novels as well as a used book store where I bought most of the Signet paperbacks for about 30 cents each!

For Your Eyes Only followed in 1981 and by that time I had a far better handle on the character.

Now, do I prefer literary or cinematic 007? Truthfully, I love both of them, and I have no problem seeing both as equally valid interpretations of 007. And, when you come right down to it, the first 20 films did not differ all that much in the portrayal of the core characters from the books. I am talking about Bond, M and Moneypenny. Yes, Bond flirted much more with Moneypenny in the films then books. And while Moore may be the lightest of the Bonds, he is also quite serious when he needs to be. And each of his films features such moments--e.g., confronting Rosie at her betrayal in Live and Let Die, the dinner scene with Scaramanga in The Man with the Golden Gun, discussing the attempt on his life to Anya in The Spy Who Loved Me, the centrifuge and its aftermath from Moonraker, kicking the car off the cliff in For Your Eyes Only, the reaction to Vijay's death in Octopussy, and his reaction to Tibbet's death in A View To A Kill. There are far more examples of this. Moore's Bond is equally as valid as any of the others as Bond, and I have no problem seeing any of the first five actors as Fleming's James Bond.

Where the films do differ from Fleming is with the last two. Now Daniel Craig is excellent as James Bond, and his portrayal alone is also a valid interpretation. Casino Royale is one of the most faithful adaptations of Fleming on screen--except for a few things. As good as Judi Dench is, her presence flies in the face of the character of M as Fleming conceived it. (Her presence in the Brosnan films was explained as a replacement for the old man, and as a successor, not a substitute, she worked fine in the films, and Fleming's literary successors easily fit her into continuity--with John Gardner setting up the need for a new M with the old man's illness and then retirement in his latter two novels and introducing her in his GoldenEye novelization and Raymond Benson really expanding her character in his books. He also use the old M to wonderful effect. Film and literary Bond work hand in hand in the Brosnan era--with Benson going so far as to give Bond a P99 in his books to use in conjunction with the PPK.) The updating of Bond's adversaries from the Russians in the 2006 Casino Royale to the terrorists is also understandable, but the vague explanation of who the terrorists were kind of robs the film of the epiphany that Bond had at the end of the book to devote his career to fighting Soviet totalitarianism. No such revelation is present in the film.

Now that brings us to the most prominent of 2008's Bond output--Devil May Care and Quantum of Solace. I went into great detail about how I felt Quantum of Solace was the worst film in the series in these forums, and do not wish to reiterate that here. However, one thing I mentioned which really bothered me in the film and which I was equally bothered with in Devil May Care, is the portrayal of the United States of America. While Ian Fleming may have put us down with a little snobbery from time to time, there was never any doubt in all of his books and stories that he thought the relationship between Britain and the United States was sancrosanct and very rarely, if at all, were they at odds with each other (Bond's mission in You Only Live Twice, trying to get the Magic 44 in should be seen as an attempt to assert a little British independence from the US's dominance in the Pacific). The same theme of the special relationship between our countries continued in all of Fleming's successors--until Sebastian Faulks.

Faulk's murky portrayal of the CIA jars with all we have seen before. In QOS, with the CIA apparently in bed with Quantum and going so far as to put a hit on Bond, it jars even more. Now, it could be seen that it was all the work of the head guy down there and not the agency itself, as M herself tells Bond that he was replaced at the end, apparently by Felix, but the whole situation stinks.

Now, there will be some who will argue that this is the way things are in the real world. I respectfully disagree. Bond has always been a champion for freedom--especially as an ideal. The United States was always Bond's ally in the struggle for that freedom. That was Fleming's vision--and EON's as well. 2008 was an aberration to the way Bond had been portrayed before. Hopefully, it will be the only one and Bond will once again be fighting for liberty shoulder to shoulder with the US.

Having said all of that, I seriously doubt that our current President believes in the value of fighting for our freedom. If things get as bad as they could, given Obama's beliefs, it may not be the best of ideas for Bond to be pursuing the interests of his Administration if they seek to undermine us on the world stage.
Where that will leave Bond will be interesting, to say the least.

Bill

[Turn]

How did you honestly first discover James Bond? Did you first hear about him and become a fan through reading the Fleming books? Or did your interest first get piqued by the lighter exploits of the Broccoli films?

I first got interested because of the films. Considering I was just a toddler when I first saw the films and the black and white trading cards, the books didn't play into it much.

However, I was aware of the books at a very young age. I remember my uncle, who took me to the early films and owned those trading cards, buying all the Signet paperbacks at a sale one time. Although I couldn't read them, I looked at those drawings with pictures of beautiful women and some action, occasionally a still from one of the film tie-ins.

Really, the films helped the novels and vice versa. Okay, more people discovered the character through the films, considering it's easier to watch movies than for some people to pick up a book. But it's really a case for both being of equal importance to the other. At least in my view.

One of the fun things about being a Bond fan is the many choices you have for enjoying the character. You have six different film interpretations (more if you count CR '54 and '67), the Fleming novels, the continuation novels, Young Bond, etc.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I started a post already asking when and how people first discovered James Bond.

That was a good post, but you asked which was the first movie people saw. I'm curious if people discovered the character from the films or the books first, and which they prefer. All have been great responses!

[Major Tallon]

I first got interested in Bond as a young teen by seeing an ad for the premiere of Dr. No in a Chicago newspaper. Everything about it was ultra-cool, from the 007 gun logo, to the images of Connery (and the girls!). And, oh yes, there was mention of an author's name that sounded pretty interesting -- Ian Fleming.

I didn't get to see the movie, of course, nor its followup, From Russia With Love. I did, however, get to start reading the books. Wow! Though I knew very little about the exotic locales or about the drinks, clothes, or merchandise that were so much a part of Bond's world, I was completely hooked.

Even at that early age, however, I saw something in these books that really drew me in. It was the writing, the ability to make the most unlikely scenarios plausible, the characterizations, and, most crucially, the depiction of Bond himself that I found captivating. I didn't see my first Bond film, Goldfinger, until I'd been through about half of Fleming's novels. I enjoy the movies, and I downright love many of them, but I can do without many of the silly puns, silly gadgets, and silly situations.

Fleming purist? Yep, that would be me.

[zencat]

Can't I like them both equally?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm surprised nobody's brought up Saltzman's Bond...

(To define: The Bond of OHMSS and LALD.)

[Jim]

Now, there will be some who will argue that this is the way things are in the real world. I respectfully disagree. Bond has always been a champion for freedom--especially as an ideal. The United States was always Bond's ally in the struggle for that freedom. That was Fleming's vision--and EON's as well. 2008 was an aberration to the way Bond had been portrayed before. Hopefully, it will be the only one and Bond will once again be fighting for liberty shoulder to shoulder with the US.

Hmm. I read Bond as a far more ambivalent creature than this, uncertain whether he is actually doing "right". From memory, there's plenty in Casino Royale where Bond internalises the purpose and outcome and effect of what he does without evidently coming to a clear resolution on anything very much, but doing it all the same. As a result, he is substantially more interesting than a simple "defender of freedom" whatever that may actually be. As you observe, freedom may indeed be an ideal, a perception and therefore malleable to an individual view, but I don't consider it reprehensible or anti-Bond in some way to examine how that ideal is achieveable in reality. I'm not wholly convinced that Ian Fleming's vision is as stated - I never had the opportunity to talk to him, admittedly - although it is interesting how anti-British Bond can be. Moonraker can be read as a pretty sour assessment of the unquestioning blank stupidity of banal patriotism. Admittedly, From Russia with Love is expressly anti-Soviet but there's nothing markedly "fighting for freedom" in there either. And, given that Fleming gives us very little if damn all of a portrayal of the upper echelons of the CIA, that Leiter is a decent man if a bit-part player doesn't give a huge insight into whether Fleming believed that character's superiors to be eminently resolute and square-jawed and super and sunshiney. In presenting a fictional ideal of a British spy and an ideal of an American spy he doesn't have to, but given that there's palpable contempt in some of the "office scenes" for the business Bond is involved in, there's little reason to believe that a description of the workings of the American government would be more generous.

The ambivalence on display in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace I see as visual/structural representations of the internalised conflicts otherwise described as Bond's reflective thoughts on the page; as such, that's the Fleming I understood I was reading, anyway. Admittedly it's not "Zorin done bad things, kill him: freedom! Yay!"

Otherwise we seem to be slipping into "America: Yeah!" territory.

I do realise that the more palpable criticism on show is, itself, within works of fiction. Neither Devil May Care nor Quantum of Solace are documentaries and may be as far from the truth as something ostensibly less critical. But a diverting lie, nonetheless.

...he thought the relationship between Britain and the United States was sancrosanct and very rarely, if at all, were they at odds with each other (Bond's mission in You Only Live Twice, trying to get the Magic 44 in should be seen as an attempt to assert a little British independence from the US's dominance in the Pacific).

I think it's more that he thought that the relationship between Bond and Leiter, as ideals of their type, was sacrosanct rather than overtly that of their countries. "A little British independence" would be appropriate given that Britian is an independent nation. It's an interesting point you raise though - You Only Live Twice, whilst not turning in upon itself like so much tiresome Le Carre, does seem to demonstrate a more jaded view of international relationships, inevitable by shifting Bond into a diplomatic rather than "Kill! Bang!" mission when the writer could probably get away with something a little more blunt even if there are, as I suggest, some tremors in there.

Having said all of that, I seriously doubt that our current President believes in the value of fighting for our freedom. If things get as bad as they could, given Obama's beliefs, it may not be the best of ideas for Bond to be pursuing the interests of his Administration if they seek to undermine us on the world stage.
Where that will leave Bond will be interesting, to say the least.

Oh I see, it's an Obama thread. Good disguise. Yay freedom. Happy Birthday.

Can't I like them both equally?

Quite. Differing aspects of the same thing, recently brought a little closer together but even when miles apart, no less enjoyable. Appeal to different parts of me. Won't say which parts.

How did you honestly first discover James Bond? Did you first hear about him and become a fan through reading the Fleming books?

The books, yes. The films are fun while they're on and I'd miss them if they went.

[Safari Suit]

If I had to choose between being unable to ever watch the films again or being uable to ever read the books again I would choose the later, as I would miss the films more.

[Trident]

While Ian Fleming may have put us down with a little snobbery from time to time, there was never any doubt in all of his books and stories that he thought the relationship between Britain and the United States was sancrosanct and very rarely, if at all, were they at odds with each other (Bond's mission in You Only Live Twice, trying to get the Magic 44 in should be seen as an attempt to assert a little British independence from the US's dominance in the Pacific). The same theme of the special relationship between our countries continued in all of Fleming's successors...

In my opinion Bond's view of the United States in general and the CIA in particular is a little more ambivalent than a mere display of Anglo-American hooray-patriotism. While there can be little doubt that Fleming realized the 'special relationship' he also recognized the USA as an independent sovereign country that has independent sovereign interests on it's diplomatic agenda. Interests which may not always coincide with British interests. A part of Fleming's work is based specifically on diverging interests between the British end and that of her closest ally. Think of the Moonraker affair, a means for Britain to free its defence from US and NATO dependence. Or, even more specific, think about Bond's assignment in 'Diamonds Are Forever' where Bond works undercover in the States to stop the diamond smuggling. An assignment that normally would be a case for the police, both in GB and the United States. Apart from

'The only way to get to the bottom of the business is to follow the pipeline to America and see where it goes to there.And the FBI won't be much help to us, I'm afraid. It's a very small part of their battle with the bigtime gangs. And it's not doing any harm to the United States. Rather the reverse if anything. It's only England that's the loser.'

M's words; 'Diamonds Are Forever', Ian Fleming, p. 19/20

In fact, there is nothing much 'sacrosanct', neither in life nor in diplomatic relations. And especially not in the espionage game. Bond knows how bitter it would be for M to ask Hoover to pick Britain's chestnuts out of the fire. And goes about his assignment. For it's Britain's chestnuts, and he has to pick them.

Also the CIA aren't depicted as 'friends' per se. Leiter is Bond's friend, the CIA isn't. Bond acknowledges their resourcefulness, expertise, superior funds and manpower. They are allies. But they are still just a large organization that has its own means, its own goals, its own internal conflicts.

'The man from the Central Intelligence Agency was due in by Pan American at 1.15. His name was Larkin, F. Larkin. Bond hoped he wouldn't be a muscle-bound ex-college man with a crew-cut and a desire to show up the incompetence of the British, the backwardness of their little Colony, and the clumsy ineptitude of Bond, in order to gain credit with his chief in Washington.'

Thunderball, Ian Fleming, p.158

To the more squeamish amongst us, this may almost sound a little anti-American, doesn't it? Yet one can hardly call Fleming anything like anti-American. So what did he do here?

He drew a quick sketch, a caricature of a pompous, overconfident CIA official glancing down on the rest of the world with a mixture of despise, pity and ignorance. That's of course a crass prejudice. But nonetheless the way Bond thinks at this moment. Bond has a prejudice there. And he should know better, having had first-hand experience with the CIA, shouldn't he? His relieve when finding out the CIA has sent for Felix Leiter is considerable.

I think with showing at least a little more ambivalence in his works, Fleming has moved the thriller genre a big step from the old black vs. white routine and has introduced a more reality-based concept to this still phantastical field. And that may be part of what makes up the fascination of Bond. It's fairy-tales for grown-ups that have moved beyond the too-simplistic settings and conceptions.

[David Schofield]

On the USA, didn't Fleming say something like:

"They had gone from youth to responsibility without a period of maturity"

Which is a pretty accurate reading, really. And pretty much reflected in his Bond novels.

[dee-bee-five]

How did you honestly first discover James Bond? Did you first hear about him and become a fan through reading the Fleming books? Or did your interest first get piqued by the lighter exploits of the Broccoli films?

Was taken to see the pictures as a kid first (the latter Connerys) and fell in love with the character/film. Got a bit older and started reading the Fleming books. Realised the book were superior to the films but that did not diminish my love of the film series, or my appreciation of the exceptional professionalism of the Broccoli family, one jot. Bottom line: I'm a Fleming fan first, a Bond film fan second. But no other franchise/character/film/TV series that I enjoy has ever remotely approached the love I have for both.

[Jim]

On the USA, didn't Fleming say something like:

"They had gone from youth to responsibility without a period of maturity"

Which is a pretty accurate reading, really. And pretty much reflected in his Bond novels.

Yes, quoted in The Hildebrand Rarity (Bond recalls an aphorism along those lines: if the aphorism was actually Ian Fleming's, that breaks that fourth wall something rotten).

Interesting little article here; not saying I agree with all of it, but an amusing diversion.

http://www.allbusine.../3584037-1.html

[David_M]

I have to agree that without the films, I likely would never have gotten into the books. I also think Harry and Cubby knew exactly what they were doing when they tweaked the Fleming formula and introduced humor, sci-fi elements (like the laser and missile toppling) and so on.

"Fleming's Bond" may fit perfectly in this modern era of cynicism, despair and man's inhumanity to man, but the audiences of the early 60s responded better to high adventure, posh living, glamorous travel and eye-popping spectacle, not to mention a comparatively well-adjusted hero more likely to pop a wise crack than a benzedrine pill.

I still enjoy the Fleming novels and indeed they're among the very few books I go back and re-read multiple times (with most books, once is enough). But as Safari Suit said, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd take the films in a heartbeat. Well, the first 15 or so, anyway.

[HildebrandRarity]

Now that brings us to the most prominent of 2008's Bond output--...xxxxx xxx xxxx xxx...Quantum of Solace. I went into great detail about how I felt Quantum of Solace was the worst film in the series in these forums, and do not wish to reiterate that here. However, one thing I mentioned which really bothered me in the film xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, is the portrayal of the United States of America. While Ian Fleming may have put us down with a little snobbery from time to time, there was never any doubt in all of his books and stories that he thought the relationship between Britain and the United States was sancrosanct and very rarely, if at all, were they at odds with each other (Bond's mission in You Only Live Twice, trying to get the Magic 44 in should be seen as an attempt to assert a little British independence from the US's dominance in the Pacific). The same theme of the special relationship between our countries continued in all of Fleming's successors--until xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx.

Faulk's xxxxxx. In QOS, with the CIA apparently in bed with Quantum and going so far as to put a hit on Bond, it jars even more. Now, it could be seen that it was all the work of the head guy down there and not the agency itself, as M herself tells Bond that he was replaced at the end, apparently by Felix, but the whole situation stinks.

Awww...How sad that your university thesis fails to take into account thngs like the world changing significantly since the 1950s and things like Tony Blair being left to embarrasingly twist in the wind when UK residents found out that the CIA duped them into thinking that there were w.m.ds. in Iraq.

Shame that you fail to truly line up the relationships in Quantum Of Solace, which aren't as clear cut as you imagine them to be.

Shame too that you have such a digital/binary mind set when it comes to the subject, where everything is either 1950s black or white...with zero room for the greys of current reality where neither your enemies nor your capital know any borders.

It's really too bad that you seem to be stuck in a different time. Luckily for the majority of fans, Eon have done well to move forward with two of the best James Bond movie of the entire series.

[plankattack]

Like many, I saw a film first and then read the books, and like pretty much everyone else, I've got my own idea of what constitutes a "Bond-film" and the Bond that I'm most comfortable with. And because I'm someone for whom film and tv are the primary sources of entertainment, the old "who do you see when you read the books" question is answered thus "Whoever was Bond in the movie of that name" regardless of how much the film has taken from the novel.

It's conventional wisdom that EON have taken some real liberties with the character, (especially during Sir Rog's tenure, and to an extent during Brozza's but my point isn't about the actors) but I do feel that some of the original adjustments made in the 60s were vital to the character's longevity - for better or for worse in these times, cinematic heroes achieve greater heights of popularity than literary ones.

Taking the character and some of the prose, the decision to dial back a touch of the snobbery (at times almost racism) was a good one; to play up the consumerism of the character, his personal style, was also a plus. But ultimately the decision to add some of the humour was the best. Wasn't it SC's wife who told him not to do it if there wasn't at least a measure of self-effacing humour about the DN script? When Bond says to the on-lookers that "they were on their way to funeral" is as funny a moment as when literary-Bond meets Tanya for the first time in FRWL and comments/thinks to himself that the reason he doesn't put product in his hair like a Russian man is because "he washes'!

The throwaway assessment of the literary Bond is that he's a dour, humourless man, but anyone who's read any of the books knows that that's far from the truth - he makes himself laugh, alot - but irony and making yourself laugh can be very hard cinematic tricks to pull off, so the choice was made to make the audience laugh. But humour in a moment, and being funny are two very different things, and as someone who cringes at the pun festivals that are TMWTGG, TND, and DAD, the most outrageous thing that EON have got wrong with the character over the years is that.

So who do I like more? Well, I can't say either, because the cinematic Bond has at times been terrific - SC/Maibaum in FRWL is an even better character than the outstanding Bond in FRWL, the novel, but the SC-Bond of DAF is, while funny and charming, not a touch on the literary character. Sir Rog Bond in OP is a disgrace to the character, yelling like Tarzan and mucking about with Q, yet Sir Rog's portrayal of an aging-Bond in FYEO is at times as good a stab at the literary Bond as anything TD and DC have done.

So I can't answer cleanly - it all depends on the performance.

Edited by plankattack, 29 January 2009 - 04:45 PM.

[dogmanstar]

Ooooh, Sophie's choice, eh? I came to Bond through MR and FYEO and then read all the Fleming novels. I cannot choose. Any Bond film is something I am interested in and I realize that some of Fleming's novels if adapted totally faithfully--time period, plot, etc. would probably flop (You couldn't really make a faithful adaption to DAF or MR, could you?--both would seem horribly dated and the movie going public would wonder if EON had lost their minds). So, I'm a definate fence sitter on this one.

[dee-bee-five]

Having said all of that, I seriously doubt that our current President believes in the value of fighting for our freedom.

I trust him to do so more than his dangerous and idiotic predecessor who only seemed to believe in fighting for what preserved the interests of his neo-Conservative puppet masters.

Oh, and given Fleming's warm friendship with JFK, I suspect Fleming himself would have liked and respected Obama more than the appalling Bush...