Does it matter if the "novel Bond" and the "movie Bond" are different?
mrbain007
Posts: 393MI6 Agent
Ok so a few years ago I picked up the Casino Royale book for the first time having grown up on the films. I read the novel and really enjoyed it, although I was suprised at the sombre tone of the story (particularly the ending).
Since then I have read most of the original Fleming adventures and although they were more larger-than-life than CR, they were still told with a straight face. Bond likewise had a darker, more complex side to him and was much less humourous .
So why then do I still favour PB, SC and RM over TD and DC? (Don't get me wrong I think they all did a great job in their own way) Maybe the first 3 had a "sparkle" the others didn't quite have? Maybe the films have created their own identity and Bond SHOULD be a little bit brighter than he was in the novels.
I'd like to know your thoughts
Since then I have read most of the original Fleming adventures and although they were more larger-than-life than CR, they were still told with a straight face. Bond likewise had a darker, more complex side to him and was much less humourous .
So why then do I still favour PB, SC and RM over TD and DC? (Don't get me wrong I think they all did a great job in their own way) Maybe the first 3 had a "sparkle" the others didn't quite have? Maybe the films have created their own identity and Bond SHOULD be a little bit brighter than he was in the novels.
I'd like to know your thoughts
Comments
There's a case to be made that the Bond film series wouldn't have lasted as long as it has if it had reflected faithfully the darker, more complex and sombre tone of the novels. Certainly this was one of the main points the team on DN felt to be essential in creating the "pilot" film - the one-liners, for example.
The films have certainly created their own identity, and have continued as long as they have because in their way they vary the Bond character to reflect changing times, to suit the current actor, and (let's be honest) to latch onto filmic trends (eg MR vis-a-vis "Star Wars").
From time to time the films do dip in to the tone of the novels, it's all part of the cycle. A big, splashy OTT film with very little from Fleming is often followed by a smaller-scale one with strong ties to the source.
Jimmybondi
It comes down to whether you like laughing. I mean, the films are more fun, and fun is more fun than misery. What's more, you can argue that Fleming slightly struggled with the genre at times, failing a bit with stuff like DAF, TSWLM, and getting writer's block before the Blofeld trilogy. When the films started at least they knew what they were dealing with and hit the ground running.
The books are written for lone men really, the films are crowdpleasers and so have a jolly uplift that strays into MR territory at times. But comedy stands up to repeat viewing more than straight thrillers imo.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Jimmybondi
IMO the IF Bond was someone you envied as well as someone you could identify with. For some reason I didn't always get that impression with TD or DC.
I know he gets a lot of criticism (maybe he isn't as tough as Bond was in the novels) but IMO Ian Fleming would have admired Pierce Brosnan's portrayal (even if he may not have always liked some of his gadget heavy movies). PB was someone who was troubled but charasmatic, vulnerable yet worldly-wise. Also, he had that "verve" and was close to the David Niven like figure IF initially wanted.
Thank you! {[]
Strangely when I read several of the novels Connery did come into my head several times - maybe that was because many of his movies were based on the books. He had that slighly aggressive quality to him but was also incredibly charasmatic.
I also think there was something very politically incorrect about his Bond (i.e. more in tune with the Fleming era). He was someone who clearly enjoyed casual sex and (probably) wouldn't have thought twice about jumping into bed with a married woman. However he was also a fiercely determined figure aswell.
Thats why I usually like to think of the literary Bond and the movie Bond as existing within 2 different universes:
The novel Bond was born in the 20's, went to Eton (briefly), liked scrambelled eggs, lived in Kensingston, had a housekeeper called May etc. Now he would probably be dead.
The (official) movie Bond was "born" in 1962 and is almost 50 years old yet hasn't aged a bit
I don't subscribe to the notion of political correctness. Bond was a heavy smoker and a womansier, his views on women will not be acceptable today, but quite frankly, so what? That's the Bond character, as it is written. No one is perfect, Bond has his vices, smoking, drinking and sex is part and parcel of the Bond character.
I agree that the novel Bond and the movie Bond are different, but I don't believe they should be. I'm all for bringing back a Bond that's more Fleming-like.
With the darker stories (I've only read TSWLM, TB and YOLT) all of the snarkiness and darkness rarely lets up and loses its sting over time. I agree with the original producers that Bond stories works better balanced with more colorful gadgets, scenery, excessive taste and more redeemable characters. My favorite "serious" Bond film is LTK because it takes the standard revenge/gore film of the 80s and elevates it with espionage, gadgets and bigger action. Sadly, Dalton's Bond never resembled the Bond's that came before him and no one paid attention to that great film.
I think Sean is the best Bond yet because he came from a time where you could slap a girl on her ass and wear your manliness proudly, but he also turned on this charm and wit that is out of this world. Pierce was the next closest at this. Roger has the least to do with Fleming's Bond, as he is a complete gentleman to everyone, loves a cheeky joke and doesn't mind looking like a bit of a fool from time to time. Roger was an excellent hero and pretty much sold the idea that James Bond could be anyone we needed him to be.
You named the lightest episodes in Fleming's canon, especially You Only Live Twice. The Spy Who Loved Me was don to earth but it hardly could be considered "dark". There are tons of examples of just plain silly and over the top stuff in Fleming's work, the giant squid in Doctor No and Goldfinger's deep fetish with gold. The only aspect of Bond that was really dark was Bond himself but to balance the nature of the novels, the locales are beautiful and the villians were usually very bizarre.
After all DC has done Bond in more or less the same way he was in books, so now at long last we've got a 'proper' Bond for the movies
However if I had things my way I'd also have the films set in the 1950s/1960s as that was the era in which the Fleming novels were written.
It would help make the films feel a bit more different as it's not every day that you see an action movie set in the past!
(Needless to say I'm really looking forward to July for 'The First Avenger: Captain America' as he's my fave superhero, and it's set in the 1940s!)