Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul_Scott
many(most?) of the films never hewed very closely to the books anyway.
They could do a Live and Let Die and it would almost nothing like the Roger Moore film.
That said, it looks like they are going to try for a more serial nature to these for a while, and its a great idea.
|
Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's.. and the last half of Casino Royale are generally faithful adaptations, even though some might take a few liberties with their source novels. For Your Eyes Only does a good job of incorporating a couple stories from the short story collection of the same name and Living Daylights uses its short story as a branching off point. The first ten minutes of that film (post credits) follows the short story very closely.
Interesting I recently re-read Live and Let Die and was amazed that it actually does follow the novel quite closely in parts. Both have Bond going into Harlem with a network of Mr. Big's spies aware that he's one his way and has Bond being captured in Mr. Big's restaurant by sitting in a swinging booth, both have Bond stealing Solitaire from Mr. Big, both have villians into voodoo and both have climaxes taking place in the Carribean.
There's a scene where Bond and Solitaire are tied together and dragged by a boat over sharp coral that would later appear in For Your Eyes Only and there's a part that would end up in License to Kill where Felix Lieter gets fed to a shark, losing an arm and a leg (he'd appear in later novels with a hook for a hand) and Bond returns to the warehouse to kick some tail and ends up feeding the owner of the warehouse to the shark. I believe it's smuggled gold coins, instead of drugs that are being hidden there. License to Kill even keeps the part where Bond finds the maimed Felix with a note saying "he disagreed with something that ate him".
So Live and Let Die doesn't need to be faithfully adapted since it already has, even if it took three movies to do it!
