An interesting Question
AlphaOmegaSin
EnglandPosts: 10,926MI6 Agent
Reading through some of the Books again has got me thinking, do you think there are People out there who love the bond Novels but hate the Films?
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Comments
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
leave whole chunks of the books out, or don't show scenes she feels are really
important to the story. Fans, what an odd bunch we are.
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
As an aside, I made a rare dip into an ITV showing of a Bond on Saturday & watched YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. I must be mellowing as I get older as I thoroughly enjoyed it.
That musht be why Chineshe girlsh tashte different from all other girlsh.
There are also those of the current generation who like the films a lot but are not much into reading and if they did read any of the novels would find it difficult to relate as they are of a different time period.
There may be some purists out there who put up the novels to some high standard and think the whole series has nothing to do with them, but I think there numbers would be quite small.
There are some who think that novels and films are two different animals that have nothing in common so they should be viewed on their own merits. I'm not one of those. It's true films contain mainly the most dramatic and visually appealing parts of novels, but they still are able to capture the plot, pace and emotions of the story even though it's compressed (if done by masterful filmmakers). Novels are an author's solo performance. Films take that solo and incorporate it into a larger orchestral work performed by a combination of many talented artists.
Older and wiser, my friend! -{
I doubt that anyone who loves the novels could "hate", or even dislike, all films when so many of the films kick-off point is to adapt the original novels for the screen - DN-TB plus OHMSS and CR - or take the Fleming James Bond character - Tim, Brozza and Craig - and, with differing degrees of success, try build contemporary interpretation of the Fleming character.
And even when Fleming and his Bond is jettisoned totally - YOLT and Rog's efforts - the films are surely viewed as harmless, light hearted pieces of entertainment, however much a wasted opportunity...
Flemings rich, descriptive style is so pleasurable to read. The character of Bond as depicted in the movies is no less entertaining, for the most part, but they are much different.
Twitter: @FlemingsBond
That happens with the vast majority of films.Its all due to where reading a book can take your mind.You watch the film adaptation then feel let down by how it comes across on screen made it on screen.
Im a massive Bond FILM fan...But for me the books arnt all that enjoyable.So the narrative doesnt take away from the film version.
I loved LOTR but could never get into the books, but a mate who was a huge fan of the books moaned like a bitch with a skinned knee about how much was missing in the films.
Think he overlooked the fact that if everything was included the films would be extended from 4hrs to 6 years. C'est la vie.
As for bond, I love the films and have never read any of the novels, not even a page. This makes me a non-bond fan apparently.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
That makes you a Bond film fan. Nothing wrong with that!
Fleming started the character out as basically a shadow of a man for the readers to tag along with through the first novels up to FRWL (where he got tired of him and killed him off) and fleshed him out by giving him his personal tastes. He then brings him back him back in DN & GF and gives us more outlandish villains and plots. He then penned FYEO, with its short stories he hoped would give TV or film producers the idea of putting Bond on celluloid. This is when Broccoli & Saltzman decided to make DR. Then came TB and the whole lawsuit with McClory and Fleming's failing health. He then decided to try a new tack with TSWLM but it did not thrill the public and critics, so he sent Bond back after Blofeld in OHMSS (which thrilled everyone) and now EON's making FRWL and the whole series is going to take off, but...
Fleming's health is really at it's lowest and he's tiring of writing Bond so his attitude is reflected in YOLT. He gives Bond amnesia and a life with Kissy but leaves the story open ended as to whether he will return or not. It should have given him some down time so he could relax but the public wants more because of the films and they're making GF so he does TMWTGG, but you can tell that his spirit is not in it and of course he dies before final editing. Fleming's downhill bout with his health and his on/off boredom with Bond is so reflected in the novels.
The films of course are pure escapist fun and keep Bond for the most part as the shadow we follow in the first novels. It's only films like OHMSS, Dalton's, bits of Brosnan's and all of Craig's that we see the character arc of Bond from the later novels. It's ironic, as the aspects of those films many dislike because they focus somewhat on the real personal trauma and cost of Bond's work reflect how Fleming was feeling near the end of his career and life. Most of the worldwide audience just want to have fun in the films. Oddly, Bond's novel career wasn't about fun. It was about death and pain and survival and only living well as possible because death was always waiting around the corner. EON turned those negative bits into fun by not taking them seriously. Now with the reboot they are treating a lot of those bits more serously, and I suppose that's why with the next installment many want to go back to just having a bit of fun.