Maybe the Movies made the Books? ...
craigisbond
Posts: 16MI6 Agent
I was reading a post by MrsDalloway on why there were apparently unnecessary changes done in the CR movie, as compared with the book. And indeed, a lot of posters here are very well read in the Bond books. That's all well and fine, but I'm under the impression that although Bond came from the books, the movies are what actually popularized Bond and got other people to reading the books afterwards.
I wanted to do a poll to see what percentage of people actually read a James Bond book before ever seeing a James Bond movie. I have a feeling that unless you were growing up in the 50's before the 1st movie was made, you probably saw the movie first like everyone else.
Anyway, my point is that maybe the movies are the definitive source for the Bond mythos more than the books. It's not like Lord of the Rings, where multitudes have read the books way before Peter Jackson's version ever came out. The LOTR cartoons that came out in the 70s(80s?) did not make Lord of the Rings the universal success it would be; I think those were even commercial failures. The legion of LOTR fans would make the movie a success. The LOTR fans were, long before the movies, fans of the books first, and that's why they wanted the movie to stay as true to form as the books.
Debates on the best Bond are always about the actors and their eras as Bond, and for most of the general public, they don't compare their choices with the Bond of the books; they just say Connery, Moore, Brosnan, etc.
I'm part of the general public, and I've actually never seen an original Bond book in the bookstores here (I'm not from the U.S.); I never knew how many books Mr. Fleming wrote, that there were other official Bond writers after him. To me, James Bond was Moore ... funny, never breaks a sweat, always in bed with a new sexy girl, and his most dangerous enemy was .... Jaws, hehehe.
So maybe what I'm saying is that it's not as important to get every detail as authentic as the books, as long as they make very good Bond movies; it might not even be that important to use the official Bond books written by Mr. Fleming and the other official writers in new movies. Indeed, it might be time to do away with the books and just look for really talented writers with great new stories to tell of Bond.
Gosh, that was long, sorry.
I wanted to do a poll to see what percentage of people actually read a James Bond book before ever seeing a James Bond movie. I have a feeling that unless you were growing up in the 50's before the 1st movie was made, you probably saw the movie first like everyone else.
Anyway, my point is that maybe the movies are the definitive source for the Bond mythos more than the books. It's not like Lord of the Rings, where multitudes have read the books way before Peter Jackson's version ever came out. The LOTR cartoons that came out in the 70s(80s?) did not make Lord of the Rings the universal success it would be; I think those were even commercial failures. The legion of LOTR fans would make the movie a success. The LOTR fans were, long before the movies, fans of the books first, and that's why they wanted the movie to stay as true to form as the books.
Debates on the best Bond are always about the actors and their eras as Bond, and for most of the general public, they don't compare their choices with the Bond of the books; they just say Connery, Moore, Brosnan, etc.
I'm part of the general public, and I've actually never seen an original Bond book in the bookstores here (I'm not from the U.S.); I never knew how many books Mr. Fleming wrote, that there were other official Bond writers after him. To me, James Bond was Moore ... funny, never breaks a sweat, always in bed with a new sexy girl, and his most dangerous enemy was .... Jaws, hehehe.
So maybe what I'm saying is that it's not as important to get every detail as authentic as the books, as long as they make very good Bond movies; it might not even be that important to use the official Bond books written by Mr. Fleming and the other official writers in new movies. Indeed, it might be time to do away with the books and just look for really talented writers with great new stories to tell of Bond.
Gosh, that was long, sorry.
Comments
I know Fleming's books came first... I know Fleming CREATED Bond...
You have 3 schools. The casual Bond fan who loves the films when they come out, the Bond fan who owns and watches the films (or watches them when they are running a marathon on TV) and the more hardcore (for lack of a better word) fan who has read the books, watches the films, looks for differences and nit-picks everything and bemoans the fact that the films don't properly portray Bond (save for a few exceptions)
Plus, 007 was a more consistant literary character. The films have been pretty uneven in his portrayal.
Let's remember that there would be no James Bond movies if the Ian Fleming books hadn't appeared first and hadn't been best-sellers.The first four Bond films(Dr.No,From Russia With Love,Goldfinger,Thunderball) and the sixth(On Her Majesty's Secret Service) are to large degrees faithful to their source material: in the sense that a good portion of each of the books they're based on actually appears on the screen.Each of these films was different from the other in terms of their unique plots and distinctive locales.These five films are the movies that influenced the rest of the series.
Many of the other films use only a few things from Fleming--sometimes little more than character names along with the presold titles.And they repeat elements from the prior films while adding a few twists.They aren't especially original because they all follow a preestablished formula.Some of these movies are good and some aren't--and that's directly traceable to the skills of the various screenwriters involved.Many of these Bond films are as faithful to Ian Fleming's stories as most of the Tarzan movies are to Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan novels,meaning that aside from the hero's name and locale--not at all.
I really respect good screenwriting and I even enjoy reading screenplays-but I'm the last person to advocate that the Bond series become the sole province of screenwriters and that Ian Fleming's books be ignored entirely.
I realize that many of the people who attend the Bond movies don't care who created James Bond or if there are any books featuring the character.They go to see the expected formula unfold in the theatre.To a large degree they want explosions and car chases and unbelievable villains bent on world domination.They want a 007 who never gets a hair mussed,never runs out of bullets and always has a joke on his lips.Many of these filmgoers will never read a Fleming novel--nor want to.I think that's too bad, but I also understand that there's no rule saying moviegoers need to know anything more about a character than what they'll see on the screen.Oftentimes a one diminsional character sufices.Again,that's too bad--for the individuals who willingly ignore the Fleming books.
As a longtime fan of Ian Fleming's novels and of the movies that made a conscious effort to reflect his vision,this saddens me.Frankly,I prefer the literary 007 over the majority of the cinematic iterations(particularly Moore and Brosnan) and like to think that there's plenty of room in this world for both Ian Fleming's books and the 007 movies to coexist.
I'll always believe that it'd be a terrible shame if all the public ever knew about James Bond is what a team of screenwriters-often individuals of questionable talents working at the whims of their employers- came up with.
But the books were wildly popular before the movies. Most of them had been written before Dr. No was released. But I'm sure the films and books fed off each other.
Bond for me was the Cool movie guy who inexplicable change his face three times (back then i didn't knew Lazemnby and i'm talking before 1994) and had a lot of movies that were broadcasted by cable every day for two weeks, who never loose a fight, never lose his hair and always used amazing toys and ended with a different woman kissing and sleeping (eughh - back then-) so, i was a kid but wanted to be him... the name was Moore, Roger Moore and his voice was amazing (i will give you a link in the future where you can hear his voice in Latin America dubbing)
when i realized there were books (1998 or something), i was studying the WWII and the Cold War era , so Bond got something i didn't understand before: Sense. he was a real person who happen to have a real job (ok, not so real but you get my point), he became interesting for something more than the stuff showed in TV. My interest grew.
Back in 2001 i finally got a book in my hands (ok, i wasn't desperately looking for it, is more like it found me): Live and Let Die. ED. Oveja Negra (black Sheep) an used book with (wait...yes) Moore in the cover... i wasn't the best reader in service but i read it in two days. i got a surprise with it.
First: it was WAYY TO DIFFERENT TO THE MOVIE, in fact, yes, better. so i hunt every Fleming book i could get (luckily i found 14 by a new ed. R.B.A. hardcover and i'm still looking for the rest of the non-canon series)
Ok, enough the lovely flasback, let's get back to business
The books give me a Bond who happend to have the stuff that i loved in the first place when i was a kid (girls-guns-gadgets) but it was deeper, it had some things i wasn't aware: Bond thinks... Bond Feels...Bond lives. here is when i made my Bond change No more Moore or Brosnan, instead Connery and Dalton.
in the movies we don't know a mayor thing about Bond, his mission, his girls, Q joke, Moneypenny flirt... we get a mayor glimpse in the villian rather than Bond himself (hence Casino Royale) but the books shows Bond's Fears, bond's inner head... and the book themselves are well written, have a great narrative (even Flashbacks that maybe only happened in OHMSS, and voice-off which luckily we will never see in a movie ever*)
So, the movie Bond is a little reference about the one the books created, like the things we want to see or believe, but is not all.
The books are far from being used (especially regarding Bond) and that info must be used in order to bring a better character into life.
* I'm not being sarcastic, i really mean it, i don't wanna see a Bond Voice-off.
I can understand that the books will give the characters much more depth that most movies will not be able to properly portray, because of the constraints of the medium. I think it's a good marriage, though; for depth of character, and breadth of story, read the books; for visually stunning action and stunts, watch the movies.
Well, maybe that's what I don't appreciate as much yet ... because I've never read the books, the characters and plots are very simplistic, and I really only watch Bond for the action ... the cool moments. Maybe I'll happen to see one of the books and try it out.
What I'm sensing you're all saying is that even if the movies never happened, the books would've still been embraced by fans generations later, like with Tolkien, Assimov, etc. Yes? At the very least, I'm sure they compare favorably to the later spy authors ... Ludlum, Clancy, etc.
Since all his novels, though, were already made into movies (at least by the titles), I wouldn't really want any of them remade; I'm looking forward to new stories. Are the official Bond books not written by Fleming really good? If not, I say get new stuff by new, good people. I want a Bond for the future. I don't want a remake of Dr. No, From Russia, etc.
I've also read that Thunderball started out as a screenplay first before becoming a novel, then becoming a movie, so maybe screenplay writers are a viable choice.
The books are the essence of Bond. But since the movies came along, a lot of stuff that may not originally be Bond may have become Bond. Do the books have all the outrageous gadgets, humour, and ridiculously funny female names?