James Bond in Book vs. Film

bigbychoice

Ive always watched James Bond. Never read it. Being born in the late 80's and growing up in the southern United States, I'd never heard of James Bond until I was in my early teens. But the film version was so awesome to me. James Bond, the vision of cockiness and swagger who always had a way out. Invincible. Never a coward and always took it on the chin. But upon reading the books, I see a completely different person. A suicidal James Bond? No way. He always had a way out. I guess what I'm saying is, I know the books started it all and thats where the movies come from, but I want to remember and see him how the films make him out to be, Connery style. Not the books. Which do you prefer?

James Suzuki

Probably what u said because I've watched the film before reading the books. The Bond film that struck me was FYEO. Im not into the books that much, I've only read Moonraker, From Russia with love and Goldfinger

The Domino Effect

The books are Bond for me. Bond is a real person with foibles, prejudices and weaknesses. He's a skillful, well-trained, world-weary professional. He had his luxuries (albeit different luxuries than those that most of us would opt for today) , his exotic travel (even more exotic when you think how difficult and expensive world travel was then) and his beautiful conquests. He's also a man of the reconstructive post-WW2 and Cold War eras when the world was a different place and one that's very difficult for those of us who weren't alive then to relate to and understand. I love the movies and they provide wonderful escapism, but whereas each movie lasts 2 hours-ish, I am lost in each book for days, completely immersed in Bond's problems and triumphs with my (rather too vivid) imagination running riot.

I'd hate to lose either, but despite loving the movies for their wonderful entertainment and having watched each one countless times, the books will always be my first choice.

JADE66

The Domino Effect wrote:

The books are Bond for me. Bond is a real person with foibles, prejudices and weaknesses. He's a skillful, well-trained, world-weary professional. He had his luxuries (albeit different luxuries than those that most of us would opt for today) , his exotic travel (even more exotic when you think how difficult and expensive world travel was then) and his beautiful conquests. He's also a man of the reconstructive post-WW2 and Cold War eras when the world was a different place and one that's very difficult for those of us who weren't alive then to relate to and understand. I love the movies and they provide wonderful escapism, but whereas each movie lasts 2 hours-ish, I am lost in each book for days, completely immersed in Bond's problems and triumphs with my (rather too vivid) imagination running riot.

I'd hate to lose either, but despite loving the movies for their wonderful entertainment and having watched each one countless times, the books will always be my first choice.

I agree completely. I saw the films first as a child, then I grew up and read the books and Bond became a human being I could identify with and cheer for, even if I didn't always like him. I will always love the films(most of them). I will always treasure the books. If you want to know Bond, really know him, you have to read him. ;)B-) 7

DEFIANT 74205

The Domino Effect wrote:

The books are Bond for me. Bond is a real person with foibles, prejudices and weaknesses. He's a skillful, well-trained, world-weary professional. He had his luxuries (albeit different luxuries than those that most of us would opt for today) , his exotic travel (even more exotic when you think how difficult and expensive world travel was then) and his beautiful conquests. He's also a man of the reconstructive post-WW2 and Cold War eras when the world was a different place and one that's very difficult for those of us who weren't alive then to relate to and understand. I love the movies and they provide wonderful escapism, but whereas each movie lasts 2 hours-ish, I am lost in each book for days, completely immersed in Bond's problems and triumphs with my (rather too vivid) imagination running riot.

I'd hate to lose either, but despite loving the movies for their wonderful entertainment and having watched each one countless times, the books will always be my first choice.

I agree with that too. I got into the films before (if only just) I started reading the books. I think the books portray Bond as more of a "real" person rather than a super-hero. Bond is an ordinary man, trained to do an extraordinary job. The books is a way of getting to know Bond as a person rather than as an 'invincible' super-hero.

The essence of the James Bond character is in the books - specifically, the novels that Fleming wrote. He created the character, therefore what he says about Bond in his novel is ... well, the law according to Bond, for want of a better word.

Napoleon Plural

Some books have a more Connery vibe than others. OHMSS, as by then Fleming has seen Connery in one movie - shame he wasn't in OHMSS the film. TB, because Fleming was pitching it as a movie and making the hero more celluloid friendly. Maybe the book Dr No too.

CR, MR, DAF, TSWLM, TMWTGG don't have a Connery vibe imo.

thesecretagent

I've seen all the films more times than I care to remember, and I've read all the Fleming books once. I liked the books very much, but felt they trailed off towards the end, the last few being a bit repetative. I enjoyed the literary Bond, but let's be brutally honest, Fleming was far from a gifted writer and I often wonder whether he would even get published today, the modern competition as it is.
For me, I prefer the films for their escapism and visual effects.

bigbychoice

Even though I'm not a big fan of the books like I said, the good thing is that, thanks to the movies, when I read them I can picture anyone of the Bonds in the books. Think about it- Connery in a Roger Moore role? I liked Connery the best so naturally hes the Bond of choice. I admit thats pretty great that the Connery Bond never ends in my head thanks to the books, but in the films Bond doesnt have all the complications. I dont WANT to connect with him as a normal person because he's not supposed to BE a normal person.

osris

When I read the books I can’t envisage Connery in my mind, as Bond in the books is quite an unassuming and thoughtful person. He hasn’t the confidence, charm or the machismo of Connery, and is less of a ladies man. This discovery was quite a shock to me on first reading the books. The Bond of the films and Bond of the books are totally different characters. The films make you want to aspire to be Bond, the books don’t.

JohnNintendoNerd

osris wrote:

When I read the books I can’t envisage Connery in my mind, as Bond in the books is quite an unassuming and thoughtful person. He hasn’t the confidence, charm or the machismo of Connery, and is less of a ladies man. This discovery was quite a shock to me on first reading the books. The Bond of the films and Bond of the books are totally different characters. The films make you want to aspire to be Bond, the books don’t.

Is this kind of like how Batman movies and Batman cartoons make people want to aspire to be Batman but in reality you really wouldn't want to be Batman?

osris

JohnNintendoNerd wrote:

osris wrote:

When I read the books I can’t envisage Connery in my mind, as Bond in the books is quite an unassuming and thoughtful person. He hasn’t the confidence, charm or the machismo of Connery, and is less of a ladies man. This discovery was quite a shock to me on first reading the books. The Bond of the films and Bond of the books are totally different characters. The films make you want to aspire to be Bond, the books don’t.

Is this kind of like how Batman movies and Batman cartoons make people want to aspire to be Batman but in reality you really wouldn't want to be Batman?

I’ve not seen the batman movies or read the cartoons, believe it or not.

With the Bond in the books, there is nothing about him that I, or any one else, isn’t already—or can be. Apart from his job as a secret agent, there is nothing remarkable about him.

But with the Bond in the films, few can be like him, therefore he is a more challenging and interesting role model.

mrbain007

Having grown up watching them keenly I will always love and cherish the films. However the books provide a great insight into the "original" sophisticated yet flawed agent.

I'd argue that both the books and the films are meant to be "escapist" as, in each case bond leads a very privelidged, indulgent lifestyle that few of us can relate to (particularly back in the 50s and 60s). However 1 format is much less fantastical than the other.

In short I enjoy both but for different reasons.

CmdrAtticus

The books..the films...the books..the films. This will be an ongoing question for as long as both exist.
Being probably one of the few "seniors" among ABJ members (I was born in the late 50's), and having been lucky enough to have seen every film in the theaters from the beginning, it gives me another perspective. I was a young lad when I first saw Dr. No, so I did not entertain the idea of reading Fleming - the films were just another type of action-escapist fare for me. Then....my testosterone kicked in and it transformed my thinking enough that I realized I should read the novels. I was totally taken in by Fleming's work from the first page I read. His style and ability to capture a scene (thanks to his journalist experience) involved me like few novelists could. I disagree that he was "far from a gifted writer", and that is not a personal opinion. Most academics agree that Fleming was gifted. If not, his work would not still be popular. Sure, his books don't sell in large numbers today and have not for years, but that is not because Fleming was a hack writer. It has more to do with what drives the fiction market today and how removed the world is from the time the novels took place. Readers can relate to the characters and the plots in the novels to a degree but the actual time in which they were placed is quite different than what this contemporary generation of readers are familiar with.

As far as his books "trailing off towards the end" and getting "repetative, I would agree to that to some extent and I believe it has a lot to do with his personal life and health. If he had been younger when he started or had a healthier lifestyle, his last novels would have been more engaging and less repetitious and he probably would have written many more. However from reading his biographies it sounds as if he was beginning to tire of Bond (at least in novel form) and may have been more interested in just creating script outlines for the film series - which appears he really enjoyed. That way he could have spent less time writing and just enjoying his life and celebrity status and leaving Bond to the cinema.

I believe that that most of the novels are better than the films because they take you mentally into the time and places Bond is inhabiting where as the films mainly entertain us visually with there humour and action and style. The films closest to the novels always have that extra "Fleming spark" that engages are imagination and lets us dip are toes into the real world of espionage and the global politics that go on in the shadows, and the rest are good enough to keep us digging into our popcorn and make us smile as they flit across the screens.

Thunderpussy

Having read the Books many times,I enjoy them,they give you an insight in to what Fleming had in mind for Bond. But I Simply prefer the movies, The escapism, spectical and ( My personal favorite) The fantastic action and Stunt Work. I tend to read More modern Thrillers/ Horror novels now.