Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

007 Movies vs. 007 Books

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 007 Movies vs. 007 Books

    It turns out that the Roger Moore's 1979 movie Moonraker has almost nothing to do with Moonraker the 007 novel by Ian Fleming. Almost nothing except for Drax the villain, Bond and rockets.

    In the paper novel Drax runs a company that participates in a military program codenamed Moonraker. The rocket built for this program is basically an upgraded V-2 ballistic missile featuring a special fuel additive monopolized by Drax. It's a military ICBM program, not a space flight program.

    There is no space shuttle fleet, no space station and no plan to destroy humanity although Drax does plot to destroy London.

    I wonder how faithful to Fleming's novels the remaining movies are?

    Had Ian Fleming (died 1964) seen the movie he would have probably screamed in terror...and passed out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker

    Last edited by MonsterZero; 23 Feb 07, 03:21.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Virtually none of the movies were like the books and none that came out after his death had any resemblance to the books (other then the titles).
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

    Comment


    • #3
      Roger who?

      I remain in denial regarding any body but Sean Connery.
      The "real Bond movies" came out while I was in high school and were regarded as nothing short of wonderous.
      They started a huge wave of secret agent stuff, some of which were pretty cool.
      Mike

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Truong-si View Post
        Roger who?

        I remain in denial regarding any body but Sean Connery.
        The "real Bond movies" came out while I was in high school and were regarded as nothing short of wonderous.
        They started a huge wave of secret agent stuff, some of which were pretty cool.
        im with you on that! Sean Connery was the only Bond that can have the title "Bond"
        I am a simple man. I am by no means smarter than the average man. I am average...yet genius.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know, Pierce Brosnan did pretty good. His performances suffered from bad writing, not bad acting. The Roger Moore movies were just so increadibly bad, I wondered how the franchise survived.

          However, I read Octopussy as a kid, and Casino Royale. Then I saw the movies and wondered if the writers had ever heard of Ian Fleming.

          Comment


          • #6
            Even the character, Bond, is different from the movie version. The closest are the three early Sean Connery--Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and in part in Goldfinger. Fleming's Bond is what he actually saw in service--pathological killers in harness who are extremely self-confident, quick studies in information and situations, mysognists, physical with high tolerance for pain.... Any actor playing Bond has to look like they have been kicked down some stairs. Haven't seen the new movie yet, curious to judge the latest Bond.
            Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 26 Feb 07, 07:32.
            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not really looking forward to this "new" Bond very much.
              i yam what i yam and thats what i yam!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Terry Patterson View Post
                I'm not really looking forward to this "new" Bond very much.
                I've watched the movie Casino Royale. It's surprising in that it followed the book pretty closely in terms of plots (plus some extras thrown in, not surprising considering that the original was actually a short story). Other than this latest movie, those that followed the books most closely were the first few Sean Connery films, before the whole thing got hijacked by too much gadgets, stunts and special effects.

                When it comes to books I actually liked the James Gardner ones better than the Ian Fleming ones. One reason was that James Gardner seemed to have a good idea of his guns, unlike Ian Fleming, who made some rather odd choices, such as using a .25 Beretta, and then a 7.65mm PPK.



                In Dr No, Ian Fleming did give Bond a .38 S&W Centennial, and on other occasions, Bond did use a Colt 1911, which I thought were good choices, but it was the PPK that became the signature Bond gun.


                James Gardner gave Bond a number of firearms, such as the VP-70 and the FN M1903 (!), before settling on what I thought was a very good choice, the 9mm ASP, a heavily customised S&W M39 pistol.



                In the movies, Bond nowadays carried the Walther P99. Not a bad gun at all, but I thought they should give him something more compact and easily concealed under a well tailored tuxedo. After all, the P99 has a compact version, which is pretty good too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Casino Royale was actually a full-length Bond book by Fleming, and the first one published as such. I read it when it came out, it was my and everyone else's introduction to Bond, and it defined the Bond character quite clearly. A cruel, hard drinking, fast living, gambling, womanizing professional killer who expected each day to be his last and did not expect the chance to die easily or without pain. He didn't crack jokes, and he hated change in his equipment or his routine.

                  Although the Broccoli sprouts made a big thing out of Moneypenny, they forever ignored his faithful and long-suffering housekeeper, the only woman who could and did give him a royal ass-chewing when he needed it and got away with it.

                  The only Bond film to stick closely to the concept, and to do it very well, was From Russia With Love. No gadgets except actual equipment, a great villian without a lot of hype and horse manure,some decent acting and some great scenery.

                  As for the Bond character, Sean Connery always was and still is Bond. The rest are just pretenders.
                  Last edited by Mountain Man; 02 Mar 07, 12:09.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Call me what you will, I've always had a soft spot for Roger Moore. Thats what I grew up with.

                    The Fleming books really had nothing at all to do with the films. For your eyes only, for example was accually a collection of short stories. I suppose all things considered, his Bond is a trifle dated. The aforementioned title had bond dealing with an assassin killing NATO motorcycle couriers, had MI5 sneak
                    Bond into Batista's Cuba to knock off a Nazi with the assistance of a Cuban rebel group headed "by some chap named Castro".
                    Delegate, MN GOP.

                    PATRIA SI, COMUNISMO NO

                    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/p...?id=1156276727

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X