# James Bond Novels vs the Films?



## brianrowe (Mar 10, 2011)

I've always been curious, as a big fan of all the James Bond movies, how the Ian Fleming novels compare. I haven't read any, but are they worth checking out for fans of the film series? My favorite of the movies is Goldfinger... is the book similar or vastly different? Anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I read 3 or 4 of them (the original Ian Flemming books, not any of the later continuation stories or movie novelizations written by others), but quite some time ago. I remember reading _Casino Royale_, _Moonraker_, and _The Man With the Golden Gun_. In general, the only similarities with the movies were character names and sometimes a general plot line, but the novels were more realistic and serious in tone. I guess I wasn't blown away by the books though enjoyable enough that I read more than one, but then they're not really my genre.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

In the Fleming novels Bond is darker and more dangerous and less humorous. I read a bunch of them a long time ago and they were a real fun read at the time. Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, Live and Let Die etc. The movies, though popular, homogenized Bond. Try one.


----------



## Rogerelwell (May 19, 2011)

...and don't remember they were written quite some time ago, for a different audience, really.  The language, etc. would be a little different to what you would see today.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

The Bond novels are quite different from the films, more serious and even quite dark at times. Bond is more human in those novels, not the superman of the films. He's not necessarily a nice person and a terrible snob, but then he isn't particularly nice in many films either. Some Bond novels follow the plot of the respective film very closely (From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service), some are completely different (The Spy Who Loved Me, Live and let Die, You Only Live Twice).

_On Her Majesty's Secret Service_, the two Timothy Dalton films and the Daniel Craig films are probably the closest in tone to the novels, so if you like those you should be okay with the books. Meanwhile, the Roger Moore films are probably furthest away in tone and style from the books.

Finally, the novels were written in the 1950s and early 1960s. Fleming was good at writing description, so you get a nice snapshot of what passed for jet set high life in the 1950s. On the other hand attitudes regarding race, gender and sexual orientation are seriously dated and may offend. The pacing is also very different from what you would expect from a contemporary thriller. Some of the books start with several pages of scenery description, the others start with Bond drinking, feeling depressed and reflecting on his life, i.e. the complete antithesis to how a modern thriller would start.

I'd suggest you try one and see how you like it.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

The novels are better then the movies. I own them all in paper form. Bond is very,very scary in the novels. M and comp spend a good amount of time worrying about what would happen if Bond were to lose it. The last two movies have done a much better job of portraying Bond closer to the Bond in the novels. As bad as a movie as it was, Tim Dalton's second Bond flick was the first of the Bond flicks where Bond was actually the Bond from the books. Dark, dangerous, and willing to go to all ends in order to take care of the people he loves.


----------



## jeffyo (Feb 21, 2012)

Ian Flemming was a great character himself.   William Boyd, the fine British novelist, if slate to write the new James Bond novel.   Interesting side-note, if you read or saw the television production of Boyd's  "Any Human Heart" there is a very thinly disguised Ian Flemming character in the novel and television production.


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

Haven't read the Bond novels since I was in high school in the sixties -- Signet published the whole series when the movies were first taking off. The books were darker and grimmer -- and better -- than the films.

A while back the Canadian magazine Maclean's published a brief appreciation of Fleming by Mark Steyn, and it's worth a look. Find it at:
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061204_137272_137272


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

jeffyo said:


> Ian Flemming was a great character himself. William Boyd, the fine British novelist, if slate to write the new James Bond novel. Interesting side-note, if you read or saw the television production of Boyd's "Any Human Heart" there is a very thinly disguised Ian Flemming character in the novel and television production.


To make this ever stranger, one of the leads in the TV production of _Any Human Heart_ is Matthew McFadyen who initially became well known playing a spy in the early seasons of _Spooks_ a.k.a. _MI5_.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> the two Timothy Dalton films and the Daniel Craig films are probably the closest in tone to the novels, so if you like those you should be okay with the books.


Those are my favourites, so I guess I should read the books


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

The differences between the Fleming novels and the various movies are remarkable--it's almost hard to believe it's the same character. While the movies are pretty much straight actioners, the Bond of the novels is more introspective (he assumes he will be dead by the age of 45); more addicted to gambling, cigarettes, and booze; crueler, more ruthless, more hedonisitc; and spends most of any year in complete boredom, waiting for a special job to come his way.

The writing style, naturally, is very old-fashioned (for example, in _Goldfinger_, Fleming details a golf match between Bond and Goldfinger almost stroke by stroke and it goes on for pages). There's much less action than in a modern thriller novel.

To my mind, while Sean Connery was the coolest Bond, he was less the Bond of the books than Pierce Brosnan, but Daniel Craig seems to capture the cruelty--for lack of a better word--that the Bond of the books embodies (although to me, he comes off as more of a street thug than Bond should be).

The books are definitely worth reading--just be prepared for the old-fashioned writing style.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Tim and Daniel do a great job of walking that fine line between cruelty and loyalty. M is played closer to the books in Tim and Daniel's version of the movies as well. M is shown as following orders in tracking Bond down but at the same time doing what he/she can to protect Bond and let him do what he needs to do because M trusts Bonds instincts. 

Connery's initial Bond was right on the mark. There is that scene in Dr. No where he is waiting in the dark and just shots the dude that is perfect. Unfortuently, they moved away from that in the later movies. Pierce had moments where he looked like he was close to the books, the beach scene in Goldeneye where he explains why he is going to kill his former friend and Die Another Day had some great moments, but they kept bringing Pierce back to something closer to Roger's goofy, witty Bond. 

I think that if they moved too quickly from Roger's silly Bond to Tim's serious Bond and that the viewers were not ready for the serious, deadly, cruel Bond. I also think Tim got stuck with a couple of bad scripts. Pierce was a nice inbetween Bond that allowed for Daniel's Bond to come into play. You needed someone to soften the move.


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

Connery's second Bond film, From Russia with Love, was also fairly close in tone to the books.  And if there was ever a better Bond film villain than Robert Shaw in FRWL I can't think of who it was.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I haven't read any of the books, either, but I have read about them.  It appears like most of the movies change the plots from the novels.  Goldfinger, I read, was pretty close to the book, but most of the Roger Moore movies, for example, were vastly different.  The one that actually followed the book closest, of the older Bond movies, was On Her Majesty's Secret Service...the Lazenby movie.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Casino Royale is not that far off. The card game is different, the villian is a terrorist and not Communist but overall the plot is pretty close to the book.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I was stunned that the film version of _Casino Royale_ even included the torture scene, which so freaked me out the first time I read the book that I didn't think it would ever make it to the screen.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

I so loved that scene. Naked Daniel Craig (sigh)


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

I think its nice to see (and arguably, ironic), that after all these years the Bond films with Daniel Craig, have taken not only the original fans of the books (pre-films)but nearly the entire spectrum of the fan base that has followed the films all these years BACK to the core of what the character is, as originally written. A ruthless killer who plays hard and works even harder.

I applaud bot the producers and Craig with this latest 'era' in the franchise. While Moore (most especially Moore's films), Dalton and Brosnan, at their time, were well produced and popular, the action has grown more realistic, the girls, over time, have become women with brains instead of bimbo 'Bond Girls' and the character himself seems to finally be settled into his role.

I'm enjoyng it all.
As many of you should know, Craig's third film, Skyfall, arrives in November and he is contracted for one more. Maybe the producers can entice him into at least a few more.

I fear after that the mood wil swing back again and we'll lean toward a more "Moore-ish" style of film. But then, thats still a bit into the future

Meantime: Welcome back Mr Bond.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

And the Ian Flemming books are going to be published under Amazon Publishing for the next 10 years. This could be very interesting.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Oh, Prof you beat me to it
Here is the article link

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/amazon-acquires-license-to-james-bond-novels-for-digital-and-print/#more-257931


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> Some Bond novels follow the plot of the respective film very closely


Of course you mean, "some Bond movies follow the novels...." 

It'll be interesting to see how Amazon handles their exclusive deal on the Bond books. Will B&N hold out and still refuse to carry them in their b&m stores? Will the ebooks be loss leaders to sell Kindles? Will they be in the Kindle Owners' Lending Library? And of course, what will the price be for 50-year-old novels that will soon be going out of copyright in some countries?


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

The Bond Novels have been around long enough that I doubt that there is much demand for them. Not to mention, they are easily found at used bookstores.


----------



## Martin OHearn (Feb 9, 2012)

One trademark of the novels that the movies can't take the time to set out is the detailed backstory of the villain. Fleming's Goldfinger and Blofeld are much more memorable than the movie versions.


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

Actually, I prefer Fleming's short stories about Bond.

What's very interesting is that by the time he finished _From Russia With Love_, he had become tired of what he called "Bonds and bombs and blondes" and killed Bond off at the end of the book (as apparently he also did with _You Only Live Twice_), but the popularity of the character was too great!


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

The closest Bond film to the books was _On Her Majesty's Secret Service_, which recreates the novel scene for scene, and wisely too -- it was the best of Fleming's Bond stories, far more human than the others. But _Diamonds Are Forever_ wasn't a great novel, and the movie version is actually a whole lot better.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

The Spy Who loved me is night and day different from the book to the movie.


----------



## henryandhenrybooks (Sep 6, 2011)

Great topic!

Like most, I love James Bond and have seen every film made.
Unfortunately I've only read two novels, Dr. No, and Thunderball, many years ago.

I'm going to have to go with the films.  Interesting the way they've gone through
so many changes with different Bonds and different tones depending on the era.
They seem to be emphasizing a "tougher" Bond these days.

Can't wait to see the next flick later this year!


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

I think I'm going to re-read Fleming's Bond series from start to finish (with the excepton of _The Spy Who _ _Loved Me_, which, to me, anyway, is not a Bond book). Although I did stumble across an old copy of _From Russia, With Love_, opened it at random and found the prose very old-fashioned!


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

brianjanuary said:


> I think I'm going to re-read Fleming's Bond series from start to finish (with the excepton of _The Spy Who _ _Loved Me_, which, to me, anyway, is not a Bond book). Although I did stumble across an old copy of _From Russia, With Love_, opened it at random and found the prose very old-fashioned!


I guess I read so many books from the first half of the twentieth century that the prose being old fashioned just slips right past me. I don't really get a sense of age until I read work from the late 1800s or very early 1900s.

Mike


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

Essay by Fleming on his writing method. http://pjparrish.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-to-write-thriller.html


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2012)

They're still a lot of fun. The latter day Casino Royale actually captures the first book fairly well, even with the adjustments to bring it up to modern times. Very curious to see if the Thomas & Mercer rereleases go for a retro look.


----------



## JRWoodward (Apr 26, 2011)

The novel Bond has a deep streak of sociopath, which is critical to understanding his character. The movie Bond never catches that -- you get hints from Connery and Dalton and now from Craig, but never the full Bond persona. 

BTW, does anybody remember Fleming's children's book? Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! (Look it up if you don't believe me.)


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

I have never read or seen the movie but I know of it. I think that will change as we are starting to have kids.

Bond in the books is very, very scary. I would not call him a sociopath, there are many times were he risks everything to protect M, MOney Penny, and his house keeper. He tends to be very protective of the people in his life which indicates that he has feelings and can make strong emotional attachments with people, not the trait of a sociopath. 

The books also make mention of the death of James parents and his school years. It is sparse but it gives you an appreciation for his sense of isolation as a child and why he forms tight bonds with very few people. With that background, Liscene to Kill makes more sense. Bond going rogue to take on Felix's attackers is 100% in character but only if you have read the books. People did not get that piece of Bond who had only seen the movies because the movies don't focus on exactly how seriously he takes those relationships until after Liscene to Kill.

When they bring on Pierce, they start to focus more on the bond between M and Bond, making it more the Mother/Son type thing that I think they were worried about doing when M was a man in the movies. It seems like they were more comfortable allowing a female be more protective than a man. Later Pierce films have Pierce actvily working to save M, can't remember the title but there is the one where M is kidnapped by the dude with the nuclear submarine.  It sets up Daniel's Bond for having a far closer connection with M and actually joking that she thinks that she is his mother in Quantum of Solace. 

But all of that is in the books. Colenel Sun, the first book written by someone other than Flemming, is based on that exact premise. Bond goes rogue to save M.


----------



## Roger Cave (May 17, 2012)

I've read a number of the Bond books in recent years, and I've probably not much to add over what other here have.

Couple of things, the books are set I think in the fifties, so the language and the aspects of life that are written about are like a window in time. Yes, there are a few comments in the books which we would now find offensive, but take them for what they are, frozen from an earlier time.

The books are not like the films, no gadgets etc. As others have said, the new Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and On her Majesty's Secret Service are probably closest. The Spy Who Loved me is a short story and has no relation to the film. Quantum of Solace is the same, it's a short story, which isn't actually about Bond.

Bond himself is much harder in the books, probably closest to Daniel Craig's version of the character in the newest films.

They are all relatively short books, a couple of hundred pages, but well worth the time to read.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

The Gardner books were pretty well done, well until they got silly and focused on economic stuff.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

ProfCrash said:


> With that background, Liscene to Kill makes more sense. Bond going rogue to take on Felix's attackers is 100% in character but only if you have read the books. People did not get that piece of Bond who had only seen the movies because the movies don't focus on exactly how seriously he takes those relationships until after Liscene to Kill.


This was very much my reaction to Licence to Kill. When I first saw the film around the time it came out, it was my least favourite Bond film, because it was simply so different from the other films and much too violent for my taste. But once I read the books, I could appreciate _Licence to Kill_ a lot more and it's probably my favourite non-Connery Bond film now.



> But all of that is in the books. Colenel Sun, the first book written by someone other than Flemming, is based on that exact premise. Bond goes rogue to save M.


_Colonel Sun_ was written by Kingsley Amis, who was a huge Bond fan and one of the first "literary" writers to take genre fiction seriously, so it's well worth seeking out for that reason alone. I wish they would film that one some day, but Martin Amis is probably being difficult about it.


----------

