The books always make a point that Bond can’t kill in cold blood. It’s even mentioned in Fleming’s TSWLM in a conversation with Vivienne. TWINE tried to incorporate this in the movie when first facing Renard, but as Bond himself is saying it in exposition, it doesn’t come off well as unprompted dialog. I’m not sure Fleming’s Bond would let go of Trevelyan in GoldenEye either. But the films have made the character more ruthless at times, and Craig’s comment of “I wouldn’t be very good at my job if it did” when Vesper asks him if killing all those people bothers him doesn’t seem like something the literary Bond would say, other than to cover up his outward feelings about it. But the way he leaves Dominic Greene in the desert with a fatal choice definitely feels like the most Bondian instance in all of QoS. And the irony of the villain who tried to stockpile water resources dying of thirst in the desert or drinking oil is deliciously ironic.
But Craig’s Bond is blatantly lying - there was a whole sequence because Bond was REALLY bothered by it, it involved some very heavy drinking.
Yeah. It’s interesting to juxtapose that following the PTS where the first is disturbing, but the second is … “considerably.”
He’s also trying to act cool and suave whilst attempting to seduce Vesper.
I would go with OHMSS also. Though I was shocked and very pleased, to see how much of CR followed the book…including the infamous torture scene.
Then why choose poker instead of baccarat? A novice can learn the rules of baccarat in 20 minutes.
How long does it take to learn poker?
Because it’s very dull to watch- entirely a game of chance as it is. May as well do a raffle for an hour.
Yeah, there’s no suspense in baccarat. Can’t play the man as opposed to the cards. Wouldn’t be as long a game the way poker was.
And also, they said Texas Hold 'Em was a popular game so the card players at least could follow.
At the time there was a surge of online casinos and they in turn made a push for promoting Texas Hold’em as their starter drug with celebrity events (Boris Becker being one of the protagonists). Suddenly you could buy books teaching you the basics and the theory of calculating the odds, something professional players know for ages. Some people even started making a career of it.
Since those days the scene has calmed down significantly. Most of those trying to eke out a living from it went packing again and it’s largely the hardcore fanbase that keeps an interest in events and tournaments; people who were likely fans of poker long before CASINO ROYALE.
Priceless.
I watched OHMSS again last night, and it seems more relevant and realistic than ever. Even when Sir Hilary first visits de Bleauchamp’s lab, there is what appears to be a model of the coronavirus on Blofeld’s desk!
As Dr. No was the last book I read recently I can see he correlation between the two. Both plots share the fantastical elements, and the Honey and Quarrel characters match up as well. However the film portrays Bond to be more of a cold-blooded killer because the novel lacks the Professor Dent murder. Although this necessary to establish his character. Connery’s charm offsets this issue of course, and Bond at this point in the novels is absence of a charming personality when compared to Connery.
Yeah, he shoots him in the back like three times after Dent goes down.
Once. The third shot ended up on the cutting room floor.
Looking through You Only Live Twice again recently, a book I can’t get enough of, I paid particular attention to Bond’s sense of humour. It feels more pronounced here than in the Fleming’s other works. I’m inclined to say this flippant Bond is the closest he got to resembling the movies - which inverts this thread’s topic. Here are some examples:
- He said cheerfully, ‘Well, Blofeld, you mad bastard. I’ll admit that your effects man down below knows his stuff. Now bring on the twelve she-devils and if they’re all as beautiful as Fraulein Bunt, we’ll get Noel Coward to put it to music and have it on Broadway by Christmas. How about it?’
- ‘I suppose you know you’re both mad as hatters.’
- He fingered his chin. ‘Suppose you haven’t got your razor handy? Must look my best on the scaffold.’
- ‘It’s always exciting starting a new life. Anyway, who’s afraid of the Big Bad M.? Will you come and lend a hand on my chicken farm?’
- ‘Does Bondo mean a pig or anything like that in Japanese?’
- Bond said, ‘Now listen, Tiger, I’m sure this pretty girl and I will get along very well indeed. But just tell me what the menu is. Am I going to eat her or is she going to eat me?’
- ‘Yes, master,’ said Bond sarcastically.
- ‘I have made a mistake. It crossed my mind that honourable Japanese lobster might not like being eaten alive. Thank you for correcting the unworthy thought.’
I think it’s both interesting and appropriate this takes place in the book where Bond is undergoing his strongest emotional turmoil. The humour then takes the form of a defence mechanism that masks his feelings, and also serves to balance out the overall tone. The passage where Bond realises Shatterhand is Blofeld perfectly captures this. Tanaka notices his friend’s sudden raw animalism, and recites a proverb. Bond retorts “good old Basho!” to break the mood and any possible suspicion.
Purely from memory, I think all of the actors have brought a part of Fleming’s Bond to the screen, I was 10 when LTK came out, it was the first Bond that I was aware of being in production, I remember when it was being called License Revoked and being slightly shocked and disappointed at the released title, what struck me when watching it was how closely the fight in the Wavecrest warehouse resembled the passage in LALD, I was reading the novels at the time. For me then Dalton was the perfect Bond when looking for the proper Bond, but now I can at certain times each actor has nailed Bond down, I would say now though I personally appreciate seeing Craig get a battering, I always kind of felt Bond was sometimes the underdog, like when he was getting a battering in LALD and he has to resort to using the bracelet of his Rolex as a knuckle duster, or at the end of YOLT when he is hanging on to the balloon and he just can’t do it anyway more. And then yes there is as someone already said the flippant humourous side of Bond, that sense of Irony which predates Connery, Bond smiling to himself at the Hell is Here sign in MR.
That being said my top few would be OHMSS, Thunderball, Goldfinger, Dr No, From Russia With Love. Parts of For Your Eyes Only, License to Kill, although Living Daylights was based on a short story I feel as though this is a very Fleming film. What about Roger Moore being Gardeners Bond in AVTAK, for me this was Rogers least Fleming film and I always feel Brosnan is more Benson than Fleming. Not that those are bad things.
Goldfinger can’t be accurate to the book bc GF doesn’t throw Oddjob a cat to eat, Bond doesn’t think Koreans are lower than apes and he doesn’t have a Jordan Peterson-esque rant about gay people being the result of giving women the vote… probably for the best
It’s definitely one of the most faithful adaptions. The sequencing is different in a couple of places but just about everything that happens in the book also happens in the movie. The lack of a proper filmic continuation doesn’t bother me that much - it is what it is. The journey continues by reading Fleming’s You Only Live Twice, which I don’t think would work as well in live action as it does in print.
I think it was Fleming’s nod to Connery’s performance. He made Bond more like Connery