James Bond in Book vs. Film
bigbychoice
United StatesPosts: 27MI6 Agent
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?
Comments
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
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
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.
CR, MR, DAF, TSWLM, TMWTGG don't have a Connery vibe imo.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
For me, I prefer the films for their escapism and visual effects.
http://apbateman.com
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?
"Stuff my orders! I only kill professionals. That woman didn't know one end of a rifle from the other. Go ahead, tell M. what you want. If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."
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.
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.
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.