Book or Movie

edited March 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 2,491
i dont think this was started so here it is.
what do you preffer more 007 books or 007 movies?
and what you expect more Carte Blanche or Bond 23.i think this will be win for Bond 23 but what do you prefer James Bond books or James Bond movies?


  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    I suppose the inner snob in me will always say the original books are better, but it was the films that first attracted me to the world of Bond. Also it's fair to say that while all the films regardless of how you rank them are produced to a very high standard (excluding DAD obviously ;-)) this has not always been the case with some of the continuation novels. There are many of the later John Gardner and all of Raymond Benson's (spit!) books that just have almost zero creative value.
    So on reflection I would have to say that I like both mediums and feel they should both be embraced by anyone interested in James Bond.
  • Posts: 19,339
    The movies for me,although i like the books occassionally,i'm mainly reading non-fiction history all the time,so the films are a welcome bit of fun.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i like both... but i'll probably always prefer the films over the novels - as they were my first exposure to the world of Bond..

    but I do like the Fleming novels thus far - i haven't made it all the way through - i'm still way back on Moonraker.. but i loved Casino Royale and Live And Let Die.. and it's fun to read them, and find out where they got certain sequences for some of the movies - like the bit where Bond and Solitaire are dragged behind Mr Big's boat - obviously used later for the film For Your Eyes Only...... it's like playing connect the dots :)
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    I find the movies mostly better, just a few books like Live and Let Die and Dr No is better then the films. And of course You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever which in my opinion would be done " properly ". They had a great oportunity to make something really good with You Only Live Twice, but no.

    And for your other question, i have higher expetations on Bond 23. I don't even know if Carte Blanche will be translated to swedish... :-S
  • edited March 2011 Posts: 107
    They're just different, like Peking duck is different from Russian caviar, but I love them both.

    EDIT: Might a mod move this to… well, here's a conundrum. Where does this thread belong?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    The novels, it's true Bond and something the films can only hope to be - but maybe one day, there'll get there.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 23,524
    Quoting Samuel001: The novels, it's true Bond and something the films can only hope to be - but maybe one day, there'll get there.
    They could easily get there right now. There's tons of material still left untouched. As if they are actually afraid to touch it, not knowing how to handle those book chapters when writing a script. I mean, where's my MR? Where's my TMWTGG? Where's my YOLT? These three books alone could provide the backbone for at least two films. And it's too bad they can't film TSWLM. Think of what a great opening act that story could make when handled correctly.
  • Posts: 91
    Quite, Dimi! I'd love to see a true (ish - perhaps without the moustaches!) MR.

    I don't have a preference for book or film - if we're talking Fleming. Anyone else and it's the films hands down for me. They are very different, and a lot of the quirks (read sexism, and general political un-correctness) of Fleming's writing we'd never get to see on screen. That was my issue with Faulks' writing as Fleming was that he didn't go there hard enough with the 50's attitudes.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    That is one of the reasons I don't read anyone besides Fleming, @Dusty. I really think he's the only one who had a complete vision of Bond in his fingers. Most other writers, I feel, analysed Bond in his various elements and aspects and tried to force a bit of everything in their books, making Bond a product of literal engineering, a sum of the parts if you will. Fleming breathed Bond and his world, he lived Bond through the books.
  • DiscoVolanteDiscoVolante Stockholm, Sweden
    edited March 2011 Posts: 1,347
    Quoting JobeGDG:
    EDIT: Might a mod move this to… well, here's a conundrum. Where does this thread belong?

    I thought the same thing now when coming in to move it ;)
    Fits better in Bond Movies than Fan Creations anyway, so I'm moving it there.
  • Posts: 91
    Yes, couldn't have said it better myself @DarthDimi! Though I have to say that while the films do that putting a bit of everything into Bond, it comes off just so much better as part of the transition to the screen rather than - as you say - an over-analysis in the literary sense.
  • edited March 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Hmm...tricky really. My heart would probably say the films as, like so many others have said, they are what exposed me to Bond. The (original) books however provide more of an insight to Bond, are (largely) better written and certainly a must for any serious Bond fan.

    If push came to shove however i think I'd say the films, as they have been a part of my life for a lot longer than the books. They bring back a lot more happy memories.
  • Posts: 92
    All I can say is that the Moonraker book is far better than the film.
  • Got to say, seeing is believing. Films Bring it to life
  • Posts: 7,653
    All I will say is that the books and the movies are two seperate mediums/universes for me and both have their pull.
    I think the popularity with the Ian Fleming novels these days has a lot to do with the popularity of the movie series. People are curious as what this Feleming fella actually wrote. They either like him or are terribly upset that the novels are quite something else. The movie series is still something special that every so many years seems to reinvent itself and can actually change the game once more. That said the quality of the earlier movies can still compete easily with quite a few actioners these days.

    I did read the books before I even knew there was such a thing as a movie series. Was quite surprised by the difference (Moonraker being the first movie I saw) but found the series lovely on their own merits. They occasionaly steer away from the 007 as written in the Fleming books but they still created a rounded well recognisable character that has been around for a long time and will be around for quite a while to come.

    I quite comparing the novels with the movies simply because only Connery & Lazenby actually remained close to the Fleming stories. The later movies had Fleming pieces but less of a complete tale.
    My biggest dissapointment is CR that managed to mess up the great ending of the book, the death of Vesper. The book is vastly superiour in story when compared with the movie.
  • 007InVT007InVT Classified
    Posts: 893
    The books by far are better. A few movies are great and I could watch early Connery all day, odd viewings of Dalton, Moore, more so Daniel Craig but they always will date much more quickly. The books date much more slowly even after all this time.

    I just want the films to stay true to Fleming's character, so to the continuation novels.
  • Posts: 12,506
    In all honesty seeing as i have not read any of the books? I obviously have to go with the movies.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    You should definitely check them out @Rogue if only to see how it all started!
    SaintMark wrote:
    All I will say is that the books and the movies are two seperate mediums/universes for me and both have their pull.
    I would have to agree with this. I love them both for what they are and couldn't pick just one!
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 546
    I love both! I love Ian Fleming's novels & the Bond films. There are some differences from Fleming's novels & the Bond films. Ian Fleming's novels had a more dark & serious tone to them & Fleming added some great one-liners, but there wasn't a lot of humor in the novels. You get more humor in the Bond films.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Bond is my favourite film series while there are plenty of non Bond books I prefer to the novels.

    The films have more variety. The films are more fun. The films made a huge impact on the world of cinema (without Bond we wouldn't have Indiana Jones, Nolans Batman as well as countless parodies, 60s spy films, big films starring Sean Connery, etc).

    Don't get me wrong Flemings books are great, very well written, and I prefer some to the film versions, but they haven't aged brilliantly and most of them can't match the brilliant entertainment the films have provided me for almost all my life.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I love the books but if I have to choose, then I choose the films.
    I do enjoy both tremendously, though.
  • Posts: 66
    I am a huge fan of both the novels and the films. Both have their own issues in regards to being dated. However, if I had to make a choice I'd go with the books, they have a more consistent tone from one to the other. Unlike the films; which (as much as I love them) change tone from actor to actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.