Chicken or egg? How do you 'see' Bond?

Charmed & Dangerous

How many of us read the Fleming books before seeing the films? And how do we now "see" Bond?

I find it interesting that I got into Bond via the films and then started reading the novels. But now one of the key elements in a Bond film for me is how close to Fleming it depicts Bond's character, lifestyle etc. Reading comments from many members here, I don't think I'm alone.

So when did my view or understanding of the Bond character become overtaken by the novels rather than the films? You'd think it would be the other way round.What is it about the novels written 60-odd years ago that still draws us in so deeply? Or is it just me?

Napoleon Plural

I did start reading the novels as a teen - you could pick up lovely old Pan paperbacks at local 'antique' aka junk shops around my town for just 10p or so. They were on the next level, more adult in every way ie mention of sex and violence, also 'boring' or hard to follow plot and few jokes, from a young uns' perspective.

Not sure I really wanted Bond to be more like that on screen though, as you did get the sense he wasn't much of a laugh, and I liked the jokes from Connery and Moore a lot. What's more, when they did try to be more like Fleming, as with FYEO, the botched it in my view by retaining MR-style sight gags, having lacklustre villains, undynamic direction and rubbish like Bibi the teen nympho and that fat women adjusting her chest in TLD. Plus these rather earnest, soppy moments.

Silhouette Man

I saw most of the films, then read the novels, but am a Fleming prst always looking for the connections back to Fleming - Skyfall was very Flemingesque, pleasingly.

DEFIANT 74205

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

How many of us read the Fleming books before seeing the films? And how do we now "see" Bond?

I find it interesting that I got into Bond via the films and then started reading the novels. But now one of the key elements in a Bond film for me is how close to Fleming it depicts Bond's character, lifestyle etc. Reading comments from many members here, I don't think I'm alone.

So when did my view or understanding of the Bond character become overtaken by the novels rather than the films? You'd think it would be the other way round.What is it about the novels written 60-odd years ago that still draws us in so deeply? Or is it just me?

I also got into Bond through the films before I picked up the novels. And like you, I also believe THE key element for a Bond film is how accurately the character is portrayed vis a vis the original source material from Fleming.

When did my view of the Bond character become overtaken by the novels? As soon as I found out that the novels were the original version, not the films, and that Ian Fleming created the character, not Sean Connery, Terence Young or EON. From that day forward, I started looking at films in a different light.

It was still early in my Bond fandom, and I had yet to see every film, so I didn't have to particularly re-evaluate how I felt about each film once I had discovered the novels. I remember from an early age, I had already seen The Man With the Golden Gun and Thunderball - they are the two that I most vividly remember, so they also happened to be the first two books that I read. It surprised me that in the novel, Bond's duel with Scaramanga was so much more gruesome than what was depicted in the film, but in a funny sort of way, I enjoyed that darker aspect of Bond's character.

James Bond is meant to be an adult adventure played with a straight face. I don't mind the odd one-liner to liven the mood up in films, but there are times when it goes too far.