46 replies to this topic

[Bucky]

I know a lot of people have general opinions about which they prefer personally, the books or the movies, but I am not sure if there is a thread where opinions are given on a film by film basis. I decided to even include the films that have nothing in common with Fleming's story and only uses the title.

 

Prefer the book:

Dr. No

Thunderball

You Only Live Twice

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Diamonds are Forever

Live and Let Die

The Man with the Golden Gun

Moonraker

A View to a Kill

Casino Royale

 

Prefer the movie:

From Russia with Love

Goldfinger

The Spy Who Loved Me

For Your Eyes Only

Octopussy

The Living Daylights

Quantum of Solace

 

[tdalton]

I think the novels are preferable to the films in just about every instance.  The only film that I can think of that I'd take over the novel would be Live and Let Die.  The rest of them, I'd say that the novel wins out, in some cases, such as Casino Royale, You Only Live Twice, and The Man With the Golden Gun, the novel wins out by a very considerable margin.

[Grard Bond]

The movie of Goldfinger is way better then the book.

All the so called faults are taken out of the story. They just made it better!

You actualy see Jill covered in gold, Tilly is much earlier out of the story (she was not needed for the story anymore) Goldfinger is not going to take the gold from Ford Knox (that would take days), but want to have a nuclearbomb going off in Knox, you have the fight with Oddjob and the fight in the plane with Goldfinger.

[Bucky]

Goldfinger and From Russia with Love are probably the only two that are adaptations where I prefer the films to the books. Goldfinger mostly for the same reasons Grard Bond listed above and From Russia with Love because of the way that SPECTRE was added into the story and was playing the Russians and British against each other.

[freemo]

Prefer the film:

 

GOLDFINGER (though I really like the book as well)
THUNDERBALL

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

 

That said, I think those more in it for the books are unfairly dismissive of some of the films. DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE are rather faithfully to the source material (and though both films have fourth quarter fade-outs, they also show plenty of imagination of their own), and GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL are as good if not improvements over their respective books. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE drifts away literally (though not nessecarily thematically), but to be fair they did look for the type of castle that Fleming descibed in Japan, and OHMSS I don't think any "purist" could be disappointed with. The 70s saw EON move away from the books, as "James Bond Film" was now it's own concept, but they weren't allow to do THE SPY WHO LOVED ME anyway, and I love what they came up with instead.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Casino Royale - tie

Live And Let Die - book

Moonraker - book

Diamonds Are Forever - film

From Russia With Love - book

Doctor No - book

Goldfinger - film

Thunderball - book

The Spy Who Loved Me - film

On Her Majestys Secret Service - tie

You Only Live Twice - book

The Man With The Golden Gun - film

[Walecs]

B stands for Book, M for Movie.

 

B Casino Royale - The book, but I enjoy the second half of the movie very much.

B Live And Let Die - The book is amazing, I hate the movie in everything.

B Moonraker - Ok book, terrible movie, except for Jaws character.

M Diamonds Are Forever - I hated this book, enjoyed the film. I hate the fact it's not a direct sequel to OHMSS, but as movie itself is great.

B From Russia With Love - Both are great, but I slightly prefer the book over the movie, especially the ending.

B Dottor No - Amazing book, movie is ok. Why did they remove the giant octopus?

B Goldfinger - I probably am the only one who prefers the book and finds so many plot holes in the movies.

M For Your Eyes Only - I like FYEO and Risico short stories, but in this case movie is better.

B Thunderball - I found the underwater parts boring, rest is good.

B The Spy Who Loved Me - Amazing book, terrible movie. But can we seriously compare them?

B On Her Majesty's Secret Service - The book is slightly better then the film, but the latter is fantastic as well.

B You Only Live Twice - I consider the novel one of the best, and the movie one of the worst.

M The Man With The Golden Gun - The first third of the novel is very good, but that's it. I liked way more the film.

B Octopussy and Quantum of Solace- The movies are a pain to watch for me. I liked the short stories.

B The Living Daylights - Good movie, better short story.

M A View To A Kill - Both are okay.

[OmarB]

The books are always better, even the other authors.  The movies put me to sleep.  Still have not seen Skyfall in a single sitting, it took me 3 evenings.

[Bucky]

The books are always better, even the other authors.  The movies put me to sleep.  Still have not seen Skyfall in a single sitting, it took me 3 evenings.

 

I think this is kind of funny because when I was little I would be so excited Christmas Eve night that I could not fall asleep so I would put on a James Bond movie and usually fall asleep before the end of the pre-title sequence.

[Revelator]

Casino Royale - Good Bond movie, but it adulterated every major setpiece in the novel (subbing poker for baccarat, lightening the torture scene, making Vesper's death an action scene, cutting the debate on the nature of evil). The book is ultimately more substantial, though Vesper has more character in the film.

Live And Let Die - The film is letdown--drab drug smuggling plot instead of glorious pirate treasure, Kotto's measly Kananga versus the book's monstrous Mr. Big, low-budget climax instead of keel-hauling.

Moonraker - The movie is a fun dumb romp, but the book has a better Drax, more believable scheme, and Gala Brand.

Diamonds Are Forever - The movie devolves into an utter mess and unforgivably turns Tiffany Case--one of Fleming's best heroines--into a bimbo. The book's versions of Shady Tree and Wint and Kidd are more memorable, and Spectreville would have better served the climax than an oil platform.

From Russia With Love - Hard to decide. The book is more tense (especially on the Orient Express) and harder-edged, but the film has a smoother plot.

Doctor No - Film is much, much tamer than the book: the obstacle course of death is the merest shadow of its original.

Goldfinger - For the first time, the film is better and improves on the book in every way (showing Jill's golden death instead of describing it, actually taking the viewer inside of Fort Knox, giving Goldfinger a plausible reason to keep Bond around, subbing a laser for the buzzsaw, doing more with Pussy Galore, saving the plane-suction death for Goldfinger and giving an ingenious new one to Oddjob, we could go on and on...).

For Your Eyes Only - The film does a good job incorporating FYEO and "Risico." I prefer the film's version of the latter and the original of the former.

Thunderball - The film is bloated, its plot is needlessly complicated, and its Domino is bland next to the original.

The Spy Who Loved Me - No point in comparing the book and film, since the latter is not an actual adaptation.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service - The second time where the film clearly improves on the book. It gives more time to Bond and Tracy's courtship, gives Bond and Blofeld a face to face meeting, and integrates the book's separate plotlines by having Blofeld capture Tracy.

You Only Live Twice - The film is another fun dumb romp, whereas the book is a fertility myth, travelogue, resurrection fable, and thriller.

The Man With The Golden Gun - Fleming's worst, but still better than the film. His Scaramanga is a thug, but more threatening than Lee's. Bond's assassination attempt on M is sorely missed, Goodnight is not a bimbo in the original, and with a few improvements the book would have made a good film--see the comic strip version for evidence.

Octopussy  - The film is more of a take-off than an adaptation.

The Living Daylights - The film does a good job with the adaptation, but the story benefits more from having space of its own, rather than being the first part of a film.

Edited by Revelator, 28 February 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[saint mark]

Casino Royale - The book the movie lost to much of the strenght and the sinking house did spoil it majorly for me

Live And Let Die - The book is great, Roger did have an excellent opening movie with this but it nowhere matches the books strengths.

Moonraker - Great movie, an overrated and totaly cliche book with some great chapters but overall a poor 007 outing,

Diamonds Are Forever - The book is good and the movie enjoyable, both a too little in common for my taste.

From Russia With Love - Both are great

Doctor No - Good book and one hell of an introduction to the world of 007 in the guise of Sean Connery.

Goldfinger - Great book and a movie that sets the franchise and manages to improve on some of the books weaker logic.

For Your Eyes Only - I like the short story but the movie is far better

Thunderball - great book and excellent movie

The Spy Who Loved Me - Surprisingly good and different book by Fleming, the movie is the reinvention of 007 and is a blast, nothing in common.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Both are brilliant

You Only Live Twice - decent book soso movie.

The Man With The Golden Gun - The book is better than the movie.

Octopussy - great short story and a brilliant movie 

Quantum of Solace - Great short story another experiment by Fleming, the movie is awefull also known a s Quantum of Bourne.

The Living Daylights -  Great short story, the movie was so-so

A View To A Kill - Great short story and a fairly good movie.

 

Edited by saint mark, 28 February 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[tdalton]

Having just read Casino Royale over the past few hours, I've got to say that the film definitely pales in comparison.  The opening half of the film very much clashes in tone with the story that is told in the novel, and the reboot nonsense that is presented in the film has no basis in the novel.  Bond is not a rookie in this novel, and openly talks about having chased spies before the Casino Royale mission.  Vesper is a much more compelling character in the novel, and the way the character is written in the film sharply contrasts with what Fleming wrote on the page.  The film would have been much better off had it axed an action sequence from the beginning of the film and used that time to show Bond and Vesper at the seaside villa (or the Venice equivalent) and how their relationship deteriorates over the course of a week as Vesper's psyche crumbles).

[BoogieBond]

Of my favorite novels, I am also fond of the adaptions. Live and Let Die, Thunderball, OHMSS and YOLT are great. LALD and YOLT, I think are superior to their film counterparts, TB and OHMSS are a tie.

 

MR is an excellent book, the film is bonkers, and a completely different kettle of fish, but fantastically entertaining in its own right.

CR and TLD are a tie, equally good film and book.

DAF, DN, OP, AVTAK and TMWGG I think are better books.

FRWL, FYEO and GF I think are very close, but the films might be a smidgen better than the books.

[billy007]

The average 007 fan is a movie fan not a literary fan. You need to read Fleming's novels to get the concept of 007's job,lifestyle,women etc. Dalton tried, but the general movie public wasn't ready for his interpertation(he was before his time) Craig must be doing a good job if SKYFALL has matched THUNDERBALL in ticket sales

[delfloria]

The books are always better, even the other authors.  The movies put me to sleep.  Still have not seen Skyfall in a single sitting, it took me 3 evenings.

Then you probably the SKYFALL novel better as well. Didn't do anything for me though.

[Odd Jobbies]

I'm afraid the books win hands down. But, Craig and Mendes have finally begun to close the gap.

 

ETA: Fleming's only!

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 14 March 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Guy Haines]

My preferences, book -v- films

 

Casino Royale - between the book and the 1954 & 1967 films, no contest. The book. A tie, however between book and 2006 film.

 

Live And Let Die - book.

 

Moonraker - book, by a very wide margin!

 

Diamonds Are Forever - tie. DAF the movie isn't the best movie, I think, but DAF the novel isn't among my top five novels either.

 

From Russia With Love - book, narrowly.

 

Dr No - book, again narrowly. Wins out because of the obstacle run scene.

 

Goldfinger - film. I love the book, but Goldfinger's Fort Knox bank raid is utterly implausible. The film picks up on this.

 

For Your Eyes Only - not a real comparison, but as it was the first Fleming book I ever read, I go with the book.

 

Thunderball - book. I like the film though.

 

The Spy Who Loved Me - film.  Again, not really a fair comparison. I have to plump for the film. A Bond novel written from a female viewpoint was an interesting experiment, but it seemed to me to be two thirds "reader, he seduced me" (or worse) and final third "spy who loved me". The Moneypenny Diaries show that a Bond adventure be seen through the eyes of a female character.

 

O H M S S - book, narrowly.

 

You Only Live Twice - book, though again I like the film, different though it is.

 

The Man With The Golden Gun - book, but it isn't Fleming's best, for understandable reasons, and I prefer Christopher Lee's take on Scaramanga.

 

Octopussy & The Living Daylights - films - they only take one episode from the book and expand it. Interesting short stories though.

 

Quantum Of Solace - film. Can't really compare with the short story.

 

A View To a Kill - again, the two don't compare, but the film could have been better.

[Odd Jobbies]

My preferences, book -v- films

 

Casino Royale - between the book and the 1954 & 1967 films, no contest. The book. A tie, however between book and 2006 film.

 

Live And Let Die - book.

 

Moonraker - book, by a very wide margin!

 

Diamonds Are Forever - tie. DAF the movie isn't the best movie, I think, but DAF the novel isn't among my top five novels either.

 

From Russia With Love - book, narrowly.

 

Dr No - book, again narrowly. Wins out because of the obstacle run scene.

 

Goldfinger - film. I love the book, but Goldfinger's Fort Knox bank raid is utterly implausible. The film picks up on this.

 

For Your Eyes Only - not a real comparison, but as it was the first Fleming book I ever read, I go with the book.

 

Thunderball - book. I like the film though.

 

The Spy Who Loved Me - film.  Again, not really a fair comparison. I have to plump for the film. A Bond novel written from a female viewpoint was an interesting experiment, but it seemed to me to be two thirds "reader, he seduced me" (or worse) and final third "spy who loved me". The Moneypenny Diaries show that a Bond adventure be seen through the eyes of a female character.

 

O H M S S - book, narrowly.

 

You Only Live Twice - book, though again I like the film, different though it is.

 

The Man With The Golden Gun - book, but it isn't Fleming's best, for understandable reasons, and I prefer Christopher Lee's take on Scaramanga.

 

Octopussy & The Living Daylights - films - they only take one episode from the book and expand it. Interesting short stories though.

 

Quantum Of Solace - film. Can't really compare with the short story.

 

A View To a Kill - again, the two don't compare, but the film could have been better.

 

Bang on, in every respect!

[MHazard]

For me, the books are always better than the movies, but of course, I'm a reader.  I've seen them all and they're are certain movies I can't stand (Hello Roger Moore) and certain ones I can't stop watching.   As a book guy first and committed Fleming fan the movies I can't stop watching are:

 

Dr. No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, OHMSS, Diamonds Are Forever and Casino Royale.  I just got my copy of Skyfall and it probably will be added to the list.  Yes, I know that the movies of DAF and YOLT have nothing to do with the books but they have Sean in them and he's generally just tremendous.  I also think The Living Daylights, QOS, and Never Say Never Again are quite watchable, but except for QOS (which disappoints in so many respects) I haven't bothered to buy a copy.  Thoroughly unwatchable Bonds for me are Moonraker and A View to a Kill.

 

Anyone who has subjected themselves to my film or literary criticism I'm sure won't be surprised.  Anyway, even for films I love like OHMSS, CR, and Goldfinger, if you're a reader, the book is always better. 

[billy007]

Other members have stated this so i'll just reinforce their opinions.
Goldfinger movie is slightly better than Goldfinger book simply because you have 007 discovering Jill dead covered in gold paint instead of having Tilly tell him about her death after the fact.

[Guy Haines]

Other members have stated this so i'll just reinforce their opinions.
Goldfinger movie is slightly better than Goldfinger book simply because you have 007 discovering Jill dead covered in gold paint instead of having Tilly tell him about her death after the fact.

Agreed. It is one of the "iconic" moments in the Bond film series. But as I've stated above, the film improves on the book because of Goldfinger's bank robbery scheme which the more you think about it, the more implausible it is. The planned use of a stolen "clean" atomic bomb did it for me - just to blast the Fort Knox gates!

 

The only drawback of the film's planned use of an "atomic device" inside Fort Knox is that it undermines Goldfinger's "love" of gold. Then again, as he says himself, irradiating the US gold supply would increase the value of his gold at least ten times. There's "love" and there's unsentimental business sense!

[plankattack]

Book v Film, winner listed and why:

 

DN - A terrific read, though the film does a great job of establishing the cinematic series

 

FRWL is a tie!!! Yes, Plankattack, for only the umpteenth time on the forum cannot make up his mind!! The book is a great read but the film is my favourite of the whole series. The book is both helped and hurt (hedging again...!!) by sidelining Bond for a chunk

 

GF - The film. The atomic bomb plot makes the difference

 

TB - OMG, another tie. The book moves so well, but the film gets better by the year

 

YOLT - Book. Garden of Death. Nothing more needs to be said

 

OHMSS - A tie! Seriously! Plankattack you gutless twat! Have an opinion. Maibaum gets away with linking both halves of the plot. Tracy ending up slap-bang in the middle of it with Bond never once feels contrived. Yet as a kid the book brought a tear to my eye even though I'd already seen the film, and that says something about how good the book is.

 

DAF - A dull goalless draw, though the book hits the post and had a stone-to-rights penalty appeal turned down. I don't find it a particularly engaging read; the film is funny but there's not a lot there either

 

LALD - The film wins but for purely sentimental reasons. My first exposure to Bond, full stop

 

TMWTGG - Book by a mile.

 

TSWLM - It's the film, because, heretic that I am, I've never read the book. I don't doubt that it's fascinating as a creative experiment by Fleming, but I have no interest in said experiement

 

MR - Blades, the paper roll crashing the Bentley. How can a pidgeon and Dolly even come close?

 

FYEO - close here, but I'm going with film. It's my favourite of Sir Rog's performances, and his portrayal of an aging 007 is as good as DC's interpretation of a Bond suffering from "ennui"

 

OP - I have little time for either, I'm afraid

 

AVTAK - The short story, but we're at the point that comparisons here are worthless

 

CR - Book, but just. In the same way that DN the film is loved as the first, CR the book is the same. You can debate DC's portrayal all you like, you can argue that what's added at either end is extraneous, you can yell from the back that this isn't the Bond "we all know and love etc", but when the opening credits came up, I felt the same jangling of the nerves that I felt as a 7-yr old watching LALD, and for that I'm more than ready to forgive EON for quite a bit of rubbish we've been served over the years (and rubbish that I love!!!)

 

DAD - What's that you say? Not based on Fleming? Blimey, I never knew that......    

[billy007]

Why did the card game in movie CASINO ROYALE have to be poker?

[Guy Haines]

Why did the card game in movie CASINO ROYALE have to be poker?

As has happened before in the Bond films, I think the screenwriters were latching on to a recent trend - the popularity of Texas hold 'em poker. Certainly at the time of CR 2006's release there had been late night TV shows about it, online gaming based on it and so on. At least it was a game of cards, and not a computer wargame such as the one in NSNA!

[tdalton]

Why did the card game in movie CASINO ROYALE have to be poker?

 

My guess would be that EON, much like when they changed Licence Revoked to Licence to Kill, figured that the audience wasn't intelligent enough to understand a game as ridiculously simple as baccarat.

 

They could have really gone to greater lengths to be more faithful to Fleming's novel by not only including Baccarat but also keeping the scene from the book where Bond explains the game to Vesper over dinner, instead of the insipid psycho babble that we got aboard the train.

[FlemingBond]

i found that card game hard to follow, because i didn't follow texas hold em

 

the Bond movies of the 60s were done so well with the music and everything, i'll try to rank them as best i can. some are fairly even in my mind

 

Dr. No--book narrowly

From Russia with Love- Tie i think

Goldfinger...Movie...it just seems to simplify the plot

Thunderball----Tie

You only Live Twice....Book

OHMSS.....Tie

Diamonds are Forever.....Book

Live and Let Die....Book

The Man with the Golden Gun---Book

TSWLM----Movie

Moonraker....Book

For your eyes only....Movie

Octopussy...Movie

AVTAK.....Movie

The living Daylights...Movie

Casino Roayle....Book

[Professor Pi]

Why did the card game in movie CASINO ROYALE have to be poker?

 

My guess would be that EON, much like when they changed Licence Revoked to Licence to Kill, figured that the audience wasn't intelligent enough to understand a game as ridiculously simple as baccarat.

 

They could have really gone to greater lengths to be more faithful to Fleming's novel by not only including Baccarat but also keeping the scene from the book where Bond explains the game to Vesper over dinner, instead of the insipid psycho babble that we got aboard the train.

 

If characers like Le Chiffre and Bond did exist in 2006, they'd most likely be playing Texas Hold 'Em poker, not Baccarat.  Fleming himself might have made the same editorial choice. It's an updating in the adaptation, much like eliminating SMERSH in favor of the 'organization.'

 

What is more of a pity is losing the 'nature of evil' speech.  It could have even been in Quantum of Solace, given what they did with the Mathis character.  That really would have defined Daniel Craig's Bond and his motivations and character in his remaining films.

[tdalton]

 

Why did the card game in movie CASINO ROYALE have to be poker?

 

My guess would be that EON, much like when they changed Licence Revoked to Licence to Kill, figured that the audience wasn't intelligent enough to understand a game as ridiculously simple as baccarat.

 

They could have really gone to greater lengths to be more faithful to Fleming's novel by not only including Baccarat but also keeping the scene from the book where Bond explains the game to Vesper over dinner, instead of the insipid psycho babble that we got aboard the train.

 

If characers like Le Chiffre and Bond did exist in 2006, they'd most likely be playing Texas Hold 'Em poker, not Baccarat.  Fleming himself might have made the same editorial choice. It's an updating in the adaptation, much like eliminating SMERSH in favor of the 'organization.'

 

What is more of a pity is losing the 'nature of evil' speech.  It could have even been in Quantum of Solace, given what they did with the Mathis character.  That really would have defined Daniel Craig's Bond and his motivations and character in his remaining films.

 

I'll agree on the second point.

 

They should have kept the "nature of evil" speech, much as they should have left the torture scene intact, and much as they should have stuck with Fleming's characterization of Vesper instead of what they ultimately went with, amongst other things.  The film Casino Royale seems like it's more an adaptation of the Cliff Notes of the novel rather than an actual adaptation of the novel, IMO.

Edited by tdalton, 16 March 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[Professor Pi]

The film Casino Royale seems like it's more an adaptation of the Cliff Notes of the novel rather than an actual adaptation of the novel, IMO.

 

 

Anyway, I don't think I've answered this thread...

 

Goldfinger was the only one where I thought the movie was vastly better than the book.

 

For Your Eyes Only deserves credit for integrating short stories and unused parts of the Live and Let Die novel into one story.

 

A View to a Kill has more of Gardner's first four novels in it than Fleming's From a View to A Kill, and it's the only one of John Glen's directorial efforts to not have incorporated Fleming's short stories or unused portions of novels.

 

While Licence to Kill is not an actual Fleming title, it's the film that for me best captures Fleming's spirit.  For example, after he kills Sanchez Dalton evokes the exhaustion that envelopes Bond upon exerting himself to complete a mission.  It also captured the brutality found in the books.

 

The same could be said for the movie Quantum of Solace, but since that title's re-publication in 2008 includes all of Fleming's short stories, I'll go with the book.  I've read somewhere that the character of Camille came from some of Fleming's notes for an unused novel.

 

While I've read them all, Casino Royale, the QoS short story, and The Man with the Golden Gun are the only ones I've read twice.  In fact, Golden Gun was the first one I read as that was the one movie I hadn't had a chance to see when discovering Bond in the late 70s.  Then my mom gave me a Fleming Omnibus with FRWL, CR, LALD, DAF, DN, and GF in a successful effort to get me to read more.  Been meaning to re-read them in order with the perspective of advanced years.

 

One thing I've felt the movies have never gotten completely right is Bond's relationship to women--his staying in touch with Gala Brand, the fact that he lived with Tiffany Case for a while after DAF.  Also, after Vesper Lynd's betrayal, the whole character arc of Bond re-learning to love and trust again with each relationship until when he finally meets Tracy and then Kissy.  They could explore that with the rest of the Craig films, as we've seen that aspect of Bond's character change from film to film.

[billy007]

Regarding 007's relationship(s) with women.
Moonraker book mentioned he was having affairs with 3 separate married women at same time. J. Pearson expanded on idea in his "fictional" biography of 007.
D. Craig mentioned his preference for married women during his brief tryst with Solenge in CASINO ROYALE.
Would movie fans want this idea to continue?