h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post appeared in the 'Sexism' conversation however I felt it was interesting enough to place as a seperate topic that others can add to:


The overwhelming majority of Bond books bear little or no resemblance to the films, with the exception of the title, odd scene, character name, or rough allusion to the plot. Some only share the title and villain's / herione's name.

As stated in the article, the Bond film franchise has evolved reflecting the times in which the films are set.

Further examples of how the books differ:

1. The Bond books do not start with a set-piece pre-credits action sequence.
2. As I said there is very little humour, except the odd very dry remark.
3. The books are actually more realistic (I know I know, far-fetched, but not as far-fetched as the films).
4. The Roger Moore phase portrayed 'M' as being openly and unneccessarily hostile to Bond, which he rarely was really.
5. Bond never threw his hat on the hat-stand.
6. Bond never smoked cigars, only cigarettes, at an alarming rate of between 50-70 a day.
7. Bonbd rarely drank his trademark Vodka Martinis, he was more of a classic Martini man (Gin), or a scotch drinker. Tattinger champagne appealed to him but he was no gourmet.
8. Blofeld never had a cat, or one eye, and was married.

The reason that the films bear no relation to the books, is because the books are far to intelectual(bad spelling) to be adaquatly put on screen

I agree with that too.

You have not realized the many othe mishaps and revamping of the books in the films.

Not to mention the complete plot twist of Moonraker.

You have not realized the many othe mishaps and revamping of the books in the films.

Not to mention the complete plot twist of Moonraker.

You have not realized the many othe mishaps and revamping of the books in the films.

Not to mention the complete plot twist of Moonraker.