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

This article is clearly about the *movie* version of James Bond, proving that once again Hollywood is quite capable of destroying a perfectly good character by going completely over the top. The *book* version of James Bond (yes, there was a whole series of books, written by Ian Fleming, for the illiterati among you) was not nearly so unbelieveable as the movie version, especially in the early books, some of which were quite good action novels and character studies. But I'm sure most people familiar with Mr. Bond have never even opened one of the printed versions of his history.

This is true... well, I've never read the books myself, but my dad is always going on about how much better the books are so it must be true.

This is nearly always the case... can anyone think of a film which is better than the book it was based on, I wonder?

If you've ever tried to read anything by Dostoevsky (this only happens under compulsion), you'll know that it's impossible to make a film that's worse than one of his books.

I've read ALL the real Bond books and they are better from one point of view. 007 is a much more human character for instance.

But the movies, which don't come from Hollywood BTW, are meant to be something else. They are pure escapism.

Did you know that the opera "Carmen" was panned by the critics for being too like real-life when it first opened?

I like the new (Pierce Brosnan) Bond movies and they're not hindered by having to bear even a passing resemblance to books of the same name. Roll on 19 November, I say.

BTW did you know that Ian Fleming also wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", which is also much better than the film.

This "Hollywood" vs Art discussion has cropped up in several places so maybe it's time for someone to write the article. I'll contribute but I don't have time to do the thing properly so somebody else best do it.

Oh yes, I quite agree that the movies are good for what they mean to be...especially now that they've passed completely beyond the Fleming canon and are off into their own world entirely.

I just wish they'd not used the name, that's all. Then again, I'm a curmudgeon.

Stanley Kubrick is the only director I know of that has even reached anywhere near the quality of the books he adapts. Take 2001, Clockwork Orange, and The Shining for example.

I've read 'Dr. No', 'Moonraker', and some of 'For Your Eyes Only'. They were all good, but I'm also a fan of the movies. 'For Your Eyes Only' was exceptionally good considering that it compiled all three short stories in the book into one coherent plot. My personal favorites among the movies are the first three which followed the books pretty closely. 'From Russia With Love' had an intricate plot and was fun to watch.

In the beginning of Dr. No 'M' chides Bond for sticking with his Beretta and makes him turn it in for the Walther. His point is the Berettas have a tendency to jam, which landed Bond in the hospital for several months. But the lead article is right, he never seems to get mortally wounded in the movies.

The only movie I can remember in which a Bond car was blown up unscreen was 'For Your Eyes Only' - the anti-theft device was triggered. But 'Q' is always on Bond's case about tearing up equipment.

My main complaint about the movies is that the villain always has a massive schmeme of world domination that could not go unnoticed but always does. What ever happened to petty tyrants? The earlier movies and the two Timothy Dalton movies were a little better in the villain department, but you had Timothy Dalton trying to be Bond. (He never looked like he was having fun)

I don't think you can really count 2001 as an adaptation, since the book was written while the movie was being produced particulary to be the book version of the same story. Somewhere I read that Clarke said the book should come out as "by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, based on the movie by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke", with the same credits but rehearsed on the movie.

For a faithful movie, take a look at The Eiger Sanction -- almost all the dialogue is word-for-word from Trevanian's book. Unfortunately it turned out a lousy movie anyhow.

Nearly every vehicle Bond enters in "Goldeneye" blows up. They even mention it in the dialoge. I can't remember whether his car does. I know that the car gets trashed pretty well in Goldfinger, too. I've not actually read the books, but everything I've heard agrees with you. In the "Movies Better than the Books" category, M*A*S*H actually seemed to get better the more times it was incarnated (book was a great concept but not that well written, the movie was smoother, the TV series was more in depth). Maybe someone should think of a major broadway musical? No.

The most 'faithful' I've ever seen has to be 'The Bourne Conspiracy' from Ludlum. One caveat however, as 'faithful' as it is, the definitely picked the wrong actor to play the lead part.

On a tangent, another complete failure for convincing lead had to be Taipan from Clavells' work, he totally destroyed the image of the character in the book.

I did however like the choice for the sequel 'Noble House' who turned out to be none other than .....

Pierce Brosnan.

Funny how it all sort of connects together, eventually. And with a lot of research. I mean a LOT of research.

In 'Goldeneye' his Aston Martin stays intact and the BMW Z3 doesn't even get a scratch. You do have a point about 'Goldfinger' (technicality I referred to no other vehicles being 'blown up' onscreen, not wrecked). In 'You Only Live Twice', the lousy remake of Thunderball, he lays his cycle down and in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' his fiancee's car gets pretty rough.

Some of the dialog in 'Goldeneye' refers to earlier James Bond movies to try to help 'authenticate'it. They did a lot of the same in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' when George Lazenby took over, although with a heavier hand.

'You Only Live Twice" was a wonderful, relatively early bond flick. You're thinking of "Never Say Never Again", which was the "Thunderball" remake several years later (and not in the official series).

You must have watched a different "The Shining" than I did. I saw it several years after having read the book and the discrepancies were glaring even then.

Personally I think it's amazing the number of people who get "you only live twice" mixed up with "Never say never again". The titles sound nothing like each other.

The books are cool, especially when you discover in Goldfinger that Pussy Galore is the leader of a Harlem based lesbian crime gang called "the cement mixers"; true... I swear.

What REALLY? No kidding? No smile?

Hi,

Remeber there were 2 versions of The Shining. I agree the original was good and the 2nd maybe not so good. The orginal starred Jack Nicholson. Remember the famous "Here's Johnny"-line? He won an Oscar for this role I think. I want to read the book eventually.

Hollywood methods are always bigger is better, you'll find much quality in low budget independant pictures like "Pi".

Ciao
Ramon

My boyfriend's mum looks just like Shelley Duvall in "The Shining". It's rather scary...

That's funny, my girlfriend's mum looks just like Pussy Galore -- or so I would imagine. I don't have a girlfriend.

That's funny, my girlfriend's mum looks just like Pussy Galore -- or so I would imagine. I don't have a girlfriend.