How faithful is each Bond film to the source material?

Absolutely_Cart

For those Bond fans out there who have read all the books and watched all the movies, can you rate each Bond film in terms of its accuracy to the book?

You don't have to rate all of them and you don't have to provide a long explanation for any of them, but whatever you can provide would be helpful to me and the Bond community as a whole.

Here's a 5-pt scale
5 - Near perfect accuracy
4 - Very accurate with some creative tampering
3 - Artistic freedom was taken liberally but the majority of the film is accurate.
2 - Mostly inaccurate, but it still keeps some of the core ideas.
1 - Aside from a few motifs, way way off from the source material.
0 - Story is completely original

Feel free to use your own metrics if you want to, though.

Here's a list of the bond Films, for your convenience.

Dr. No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
Thunderball
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Diamonds Are Forever
Live and Let Die
The Man with the Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
Moonraker
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
A View to a Kill
The Living Daylights
License to Kill
Goldeneye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Casino Royale
Quantum of Solace - 0/5
Skyfall - 0/5

AlphaOmegaSin

Dr No - 4
From Russia With Love - 4
Goldfinger - 4
Thunderball - 4
You Only Live Twice -2
On Her Majesties Secret Service - 5
Diamonds Are Forever - 1
Live And Let Die - 3
The Man With The Golden Gun - 1
The Spy Who Loved Me - 0
Moonraker - 1
For Your Eyes Only - 4
Octopussy - 3
A View To A Kill - 1
The living Daylights - 3
License To Kill - 2
Goldeneye - 0
Tomorrow Never Dies - 0
The World Is Not Enough - 0
Die another Day - 1
Casino Royale - 4
Quantum Of Solace - 0
Skyfall - 0

Absolutely_Cart

Omega: Based on your ratings, it looks like the series started out by-the-book. Then, with Roger Moore, it got a bit more "creative" and strayed away from the source material. Perhaps because Moore had a say in editing the scripts to make him a gentler kinder Bond.

And during the Brosnan/Craig years with less source material left to follow, they decided to make original.

Would be curious to hear the reasons why the lower rated films are inaccurate (aka what they missed and what they added), but I don't want to take up too much of your time if you are busy.

AlphaOmegaSin

I gave DAD a Score of '1' because it has some Elements of the Moonraker Novel in there -{

Firemass

How would you factor in bits of Fleming novels that were used in other films of a different title?

Octopussy should certainly rate higher than a 1 considering Roger Moore summarized the entire short story of Octopussy in the film, plus used the entire short story of Property of a Lady for the auction scene. PLUS the backgammon scene was taken from the Moonraker novel.

Absolutely_Cart

Here's my personal call (it's purely arbitrary), but if it has a lot of elements of a Fleming story in it, it at least deserves a 1 or 2.

I don't think Octopussy should get a low score purely because it's not titled "Octopussy + Property of a Lady + Moonraker bit".

AlphaOmegaSin

Just remembered that I've given Octopussy a higher Score.

Firemass

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Omega: Based on your ratings, it looks like the series started out by-the-book. Then, with Roger Moore, it got a bit more "creative" and strayed away from the source material. Perhaps because Moore had a say in editing the scripts to make him a gentler kinder Bond.

This post is a good example of how Moore gets unfairly bashed by prejudiced Bond fans. You are conveniently overlooking how You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever strayed far away from the Fleming novels. You are also ignoring several coldblooded Roger Moore moments that in no way portray him as a "gentler kinder" Bond. In fact, I consider him the most ruthless Bond of the series.

Slapping Maud Adams around and almost breaking her arm, pushing the Thai boy into the river, slapping tie away from dangling henchman, executing Stomberg at the dinner table, kicking the car off the cliff, shooting a young Russian solder in the head at close range, etc etc

Charmed & Dangerous

I'm not sure the films moved away from the source material in the Moore years because of any intervention by Sir Roger. It's more to do with how the world we live in and, in turn, the tastes if cinema goers changed. The harder- edged films of the sixties were not what audiences wanted to see in the seventies when economies were struggling; audiences wanted more fantastic, comedic films. And the early films were made within a few years of the novels, but obviously as more time goes by, The films have to stay more relevant.

Btw, AOS, you nailed it with your rankings -{ though I'd say Casino Royale is closer to a 5 than a 4, but that's just my opinion.

AlphaOmegaSin

I gave CR a '4' because of the exclusion of SMERSH and the Cane now being a Poison Drink -{

Absolutely_Cart

Firemass:

I'm not really making any statements, as I've only watched half of the Bond movies and read none of the Bond books. I'm just questioning and interpreting the other statements other users have been making.

It's interesting that people call him both the most polite Bond and the most ruthless. I've read articles saying that Connery's aggressive behavior is more tolerated because he has a dark caveman-like demeanor baked into his DNA, so it was in his nature. But the moments when Moore gets violent, I've heard, felt way out of left field because it goes against his polite character.

Again, purely what I heard.

Blackleiter

Firemass wrote:

You are also ignoring several coldblooded Roger Moore moments that in no way portray him as a "gentler kinder" Bond. In fact, I consider him the most ruthless Bond of the series.

I don't think it's unfair or prejudiced at all to note that the overall tone of the Moore films started to move further and further away from the source material. While it is true that Moore has a few seemlngly "coldblooded" moments, it is very difficult, at least for me, to reconcile them with so many other moments that are very light-hearted, sometimes bordering on cartoonish. I understand that Moore's humorous, more fantastical take on Bond has many fans, and I say more power to them even if I don't share their preference. But it is very difficult for me to see how Moore's Bond can be viewed as being more ruthless than say Connery or Dalton or Craig. I realize that's your opinion, and I respect it, but I don't see it.

Firemass

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Dr No - 4
From Russia With Love - 4
Goldfinger - 4
Thunderball - 4
You Only Live Twice -2
On Her Majesties Secret Service - 5
Diamonds Are Forever - 1
Live And Let Die - 3
The Man With The Golden Gun - 1
The Spy Who Loved Me - 0
Moonraker - 1
For Your Eyes Only - 4
Octopussy - 3
A View To A Kill - 1
The living Daylights - 3
License To Kill - 2

Nice work. Based on your ratings I would make some slight changes:

Thunderball down to a 3. They kinda skimmed over WHY Bond was sent to Shrublands. Also Domino's brother was killed off in favor of a plastic surgery clone. In the novel, Jack was a hot-headed young pilot who took a bribe. Much more believable and added an interesting dynamic to the story. Was EON afraid to make her brother a "bad guy" ? Bond never gets onboard a submarine in the film.

OHMSS down to a 4. The PTS was taken out of sequence from the novel and thus didn't make a whole lot of sense. I also don't recall Tracy being kidnapped by Blofeld or ever setting foot in the Piz Gloria.

DAF up to 2. Bond following the pipeline of diamond smuggling was very similar.

TMWTGG up to a 1.5 or maybe 2. They kept Scaramanga's character fairly intact, including his background story and 3rd nipple.

TSWLM up to a 1. The henchmen were used in the film. Also, Captain Carter and being onboard the submarine feels like an unused portion of the Thunderball novel. Re-programming the missiles to destroy each other is similar to the ending of the Moonraker novel, although it's surprising they would be mining from Moonraker since the film had yet to be made.

AVTAK - Did you rank it a 1 because of the horse racing scenes were similar to those in DAF novel?

TLD - Hard to rate. Love the first half. Is there anything related to Fleming in the 2nd half of this film ?

Barbel

One of the main reasons why the films moved further away from the novels in the Moore period was that they were running out of usable material. The TMWTGG novel, for instance, doesn't have as many good and filmable scenes as, say, GF, plus of course his later films came from short stories rather than full-length novels, those having been used up.

Firemass

Barbel wrote:

One of the main reasons why the films moved further away from the novels in the Moore period was that they were running out of usable material.

The real mystery to me is why YOLT strayed so far from the novel compared to the first four films. If YOLT was deemed un-filmable at the time, why not simply pick a different novel? Especially since YOLT is the sequel to OHMSS and not the other way around.

Barbel

Firemass wrote:

why YOLT strayed so far from the novel compared to the first four films. If YOLT was deemed un-filmable at the time, why not simply pick a different novel? Especially since YOLT is the sequel to OHMSS and not the other way around.

It was originally intended to film OHMSS straight after TB, but from what I understand the snow conditions weren't right at the time it was to be filmed. That, plus 007's huge popularity in Japan, brought YOLT into play.
During location scouting in Japan, Broccoli & co could not find a castle that matched Fleming's description in the novel but were very taken with the volcanoes they did spot.

Thunderpussy

I see from an earlier post Absolutely_Cart that you say you've only seen half the films and have read None
of the Books. So I was wondering what's the interest in how close the film is to the Book ? are you planning
to read them in an order of how close they are to the movie ? .................... Just curious

Barbel

For what it's worth, here's a few reasons why the film order is different from the books for the first few movies:

DN- they did not have the rights to CR, of course, and the plan originally was to film TB... until the notorious legal problems (Kevin McClory) began. There were financial reasons (tax breaks/subsidies) why filming is Jamaica was desirable, so DN was chosen.

FRWL- JFK had named this book as one of his favourites on a well-publicised list.

GF- had US settings, which would help Eon break into that lucrative market in a big way (which did indeed happen).

TB- McClory approached them with an offer which seemed desirable, since it would prevent him staging a rival production.

YOLT/OHMSS- as above, post 16.

DAF- the plan was to replicate GF: US settings, diamonds replacing gold, Connery back, Shirley Bassey singing the theme, Goldfinger's twin brother...

AlphaOmegaSin

Barbel wrote:

Firemass wrote:

why YOLT strayed so far from the novel compared to the first four films. If YOLT was deemed un-filmable at the time, why not simply pick a different novel? Especially since YOLT is the sequel to OHMSS and not the other way around.

It was originally intended to film OHMSS straight after TB, but from what I understand the snow conditions weren't right at the time it was to be filmed. That, plus 007's huge popularity in Japan, brought YOLT into play.
During location scouting in Japan, Broccoli & co could not find a castle that matched Fleming's description in the novel but were very taken with the volcanoes they did spot.

Apparently there are no Castles near the Coast in Japan.

When I did my List, I admittedly only thought of the basic Plot line of each Film.

Firemass

Barbel wrote:

DAF- the plan was to replicate GF: US settings, diamonds replacing gold, Connery back, Shirley Bassey singing the theme, Goldfinger's twin brother...

Another mystery is why didn't EON make a faithful adaptation of DAF in a similar tone to the OHMSS film. With Connery back in the fold the film was practically guaranteed to be a big success. (without additional ingredients of humor)

Blackleiter

Firemass wrote:

Barbel wrote:

DAF- the plan was to replicate GF: US settings, diamonds replacing gold, Connery back, Shirley Bassey singing the theme, Goldfinger's twin brother...

Another mystery is why didn't EON make a faithful adaptation of DAF in a similar tone to the OHMSS film. With Connery back in the fold the film was practically guaranteed to be a big success. (without additional ingredients of humor)

I'm with you on that one. -{

AlphaOmegaSin

Firemass wrote:

Barbel wrote:

DAF- the plan was to replicate GF: US settings, diamonds replacing gold, Connery back, Shirley Bassey singing the theme, Goldfinger's twin brother...

Another mystery is why didn't EON make a faithful adaptation of DAF in a similar tone to the OHMSS film. With Connery back in the fold the film was practically guaranteed to be a big success. (without additional ingredients of humor)

The Cannonball Train Scenes with Connery would have been one of the greatest Scenes in the Series -{

Absolutely_Cart

So based on the above opinions, it looks like:

Faithful
Dr No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
Thunderball
On Her Majesties Secret Service
For Your Eyes Only
Casino Royale

Kinda Faithful
You Only Live Twice
Live And Let Die
Octopussy
The living Daylights
License To Kill

Unfaithful
Diamonds Are Forever
The Man With The Golden Gun
Moonraker
A View To A Kill
Die another Day

Original
The Spy Who Loved Me
Goldeneye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Quantum Of Solace
Skyfall

Virgil37

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Dr No - 4
From Russia With Love - 4
Goldfinger - 4
Thunderball - 4
You Only Live Twice -2
On Her Majesties Secret Service - 5
Diamonds Are Forever - 1
Live And Let Die - 3
The Man With The Golden Gun - 1
The Spy Who Loved Me - 0
Moonraker - 1
For Your Eyes Only - 4
Octopussy - 3
A View To A Kill - 1
The living Daylights - 3
License To Kill - 2
Goldeneye - 0
Tomorrow Never Dies - 0
The World Is Not Enough - 0
Die another Day - 1
Casino Royale - 4
Quantum Of Solace - 0
Skyfall - 0

That's a great list you came up with. I noticed that generally the closer to 5, the better the movie, with the classics (DN,FRWL,GF,OHMSS) and CR topping most "best Bond movies" lists (not ajb007 members, but general public and movie critics). The closer to Fleming, the better.

And one intriguing question. How close to Fleming, 0 to 5, do you think will be SPECTRE be?

AlphaOmegaSin

When you think about, even the completely original Stories have SOME Elements from the Books. The Goldeneye Satellite is rather similar to the Satellite System in For Special Services -{

As for SPECTRE being a faithful Adaptation? I hope Blofeld is more like in Novel Counterpart this time

DEFIANT 74205

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Dr No - 4
From Russia With Love - 4
Goldfinger - 4
Thunderball - 4
You Only Live Twice -2
On Her Majesties Secret Service - 5
Diamonds Are Forever - 1
Live And Let Die - 3
The Man With The Golden Gun - 1
The Spy Who Loved Me - 0
Moonraker - 1
For Your Eyes Only - 4
Octopussy - 3
A View To A Kill - 1
The living Daylights - 3
License To Kill - 2
Goldeneye - 0
Tomorrow Never Dies - 0
The World Is Not Enough - 0
Die another Day - 1
Casino Royale - 4
Quantum Of Solace - 0
Skyfall - 0

I have to agree with this. I think you've got it pretty much spot on there.

Thunderpussy

I'd agree with most of AOS's list except I'd give SF (1) as the idea
Of sending Bond on a mission when he's not ready, almost a
" Kill or cure" mission. Is similar to TMWTGG ?

AlphaOmegaSin

This is the most that People have agreed with me ) -{

Virgil37

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

When you think about, even the completely original Stories have SOME Elements from the Books. The Goldeneye Satellite is rather similar to the Satellite System in For Special Services -{

As for SPECTRE being a faithful Adaptation? I hope Blofeld is more like in Novel Counterpart this time

You're right, even completely original stories have some good bits However, the closer to Fleming, the better the film in general.

I also hope that Blofeld is closer to Fleming. That's the general consensus, SPECTRE will be a 1 or a 2 even with Blofeld in it. I wouldn't be so sure.

Absolutely_Cart

Pretty much. 3+ if it's based on a real Fleming story. 2, if it incorporates some real Fleming scenes. And 1, if at least has some themes and motifs from Fleming's stories.

Virgil37

The ones who read the draft say it's a 1. I still wouldn't be so sure, as it's a first draft. It'll probably be 2-ish/3-ish.