How did EON films distort the image of the literary Bond?

[nanolark]

It's obvious that the disparity between the literary and cinematic Bond is considerable. How exactly, would you say, did the producers change Bond?
I was considering several aspects (generalized):
- breaking with the original plots
- the physical image
- making Bond a classless hero (due to target audience - young
- focusing on gadgets, car chases, explosions and 007's sexual permissiveness
- making Bond a global hero (in a sense he became to protect every country that needs help)
- introduction of the "three-girl formula" (I doubt it was in the novels)
- introduction of the elements of feminism (perhaps? In here, I was thinking how Moneypenny changed. It's especially visible at the time of Brosnan's acting. The famous "You've never had me" scene")

In general, to me, Dalton's era was closest to what Fleming created. Sadly, after Roger's times, it seems that viewers were not interested in more complex and..let's say 'gloomy' Bond.

Although I was considering writing about it for some time now, I still feel like I'm missing something. Please, feel free to disagree and add your own ideas.

By the by...If you haven't seen it..
In here lecture on Bond you can find a very interesting, in my opinion, lecture by professor Jeremy Black (the same one who wrote The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen)

[John P. Drake]

I disagree with Bond being a classless hero in the films. Quite the opposite. He was a confused character in the books, and sometimes depressed. I'm glad Terence Young and Sean Connery collaborated in creating a more self-confident and almost invulnerable James Bond for the film series... which, sadly, has been jettisoned with Craig's portrayal.

[Kristatos]

I disagree with Bond being a classless hero in the films. Quite the opposite. He was a confused character in the books, and sometimes depressed. I'm glad Terence Young and Sean Connery collaborated in creating a more self-confident and almost invulnerable James Bond for the film series... which, sadly, has been jettisoned with Craig's portrayal.

I think the tendency to make him something of a know-it-all in the films is kind of a British middle-class idea of what an upper-class person is like. That ability to nibble a bit of caviar and tell instantly what part of the Caspian it comes from is something that most Britons imagine is taught at Eton and Oxford, though I'm sure it isn't really.

[Veronica]

I don't think him recognizing brandies and caviar is a part of his "high class" education. I think that's a part of his character of who he is. I think that's just amusing. Bond knowing on what temperature sake should be prepared...
I feel the know-it-all Bond was Moore's Bond and I think he pulled that off fantastically. For example when Stromberg asks him what kind of fish is that and now you think "crap, now he will realize Bond is not a sea expert..." and then Bond says the latin name in the end adds."Beautiful but deadly." I feel after Moore Connery is the closest to that expertise in various things.
That infamous "Beatles" dialogue in Goldfinger.

[Count_Lippe]

I was just going to say the same thing as Veronica, the know-it-all stuff is because he is Bond and not because he is of a certain class.

Most of the time it was done in a humorous manner too, like when he comments on the brandy in GF for example.

The comment on Royal beluga and being an expert on lepidoptery in OHMSS came across a bit silly though.

Some things are very silly and cheesy in that particular film unfortunately, I posted a thread on this once.

[The Saint 007]

I feel the know-it-all Bond was Moore's Bond and I think he pulled that off fantastically. For example when Stromberg asks him what kind of fish is that and now you think "crap, now he will realize Bond is not a sea expert..." and then Bond says the latin name in the end adds."Beautiful but deadly." I feel after Moore Connery is the closest to that expertise in various things.
That infamous "Beatles" dialogue in Goldfinger.

Agreed. Connery's Bond was a bit of a know-it-all, but Moore's Bond took it a step further with being an expert on things like nuclear power, space travel, etc. I've always liked the scene in The Man With The Golden Gun where M asks Bond what he knows about Scaramanga, and then Bond thinks for a second before he proceeds to ramble off every bit of information known about Scaramanga.

[Count_Lippe]

As for the original questions.

- breaking with the original plots
= I think this had to be done many times to make the stories work as motion pictures.

- the physical image
= I think Dalton is the closest to the physical image of the literary Bond, he didn't have a scar on his cheek though like Bond is supposed to have.

- making Bond a classless hero (due to target audience - young
= Bond is not exactly a classless hero in the films, even if he is not stereotypical upper class.

- focusing on gadgets, car chases, explosions and 007's sexual permissiveness
= The early films were not focused entirely on action and gadgets. There was sex and sexy girls though, just like in the books.

- making Bond a global hero (in a sense he became to protect every country that needs help)
= Maybe, I'm not sure though.

- introduction of the "three-girl formula" (I doubt it was in the novels)
= It wasn't in the novels.

- introduction of the elements of feminism (perhaps? In here, I was thinking how Moneypenny changed. It's especially visible at the time of Brosnan's acting. The famous "You've never had me" scene")
= Yes the Brosnan era, before this there were some strong female characters but this was not exactly feminism though.

[Count_Lippe]

Moore's Bond took it a step further with being an expert on things like nuclear power, space travel, etc.

I think Holly Goodhead was the expert on space travel in MR, that's why Bond could ride along on the space shuttle?

I've always liked the scene in The Man With The Golden Gun where M asks Bond what he knows about Scaramanga, and then Bond thinks for a second before he proceeds to ramble off every bit of information known about Scaramanga.

This is because he has read Scaramanga's file and has a good memory, not because he is a know-it-all.

[The Saint 007]

I've always liked the scene in The Man With The Golden Gun where M asks Bond what he knows about Scaramanga, and then Bond thinks for a second before he proceeds to ramble off every bit of information known about Scaramanga.

This is because he has read Scaramanga's file and has a good memory, not because he is a know-it-all.

For me, it was sort of on the know-it-all side for the fact he brings up every little piece of information almost like a computer. That wouldn't be done in the new Bond films.

[Veronica]

I feel the know-it-all Bond was Moore's Bond and I think he pulled that off fantastically. For example when Stromberg asks him what kind of fish is that and now you think "crap, now he will realize Bond is not a sea expert..." and then Bond says the latin name in the end adds."Beautiful but deadly." I feel after Moore Connery is the closest to that expertise in various things.
That infamous "Beatles" dialogue in Goldfinger.

Agreed. Connery's Bond was a bit of a know-it-all, but Moore's Bond took it a step further with being an expert on things like nuclear power, space travel, etc. I've always liked the scene in The Man With The Golden Gun where M asks Bond what he knows about Scaramanga, and then Bond thinks for a second before he proceeds to ramble off every bit of information known about Scaramanga.

Moore took it a step further just like he took everything a step further because for him it was all so outrageous. I also always like in GF how Bond goes on about the brandy and M says:"Colones Smithers is giving a lecture 007". As well as the "diamonds" speech in DAF. Connery and Moore were like that because you could say these two were definitions of "Bond is a fantasy figure" stuff. You could make that argument for Brosnan but it was somehow hinted that he had his demons underneath(the scene where he drinks vodka,the scene on the beach,"This is a game I can't afford myself to play" etc.). And it was hinted more than once that his weakness are women...it's like it went both ways with him-he easily seduces women but he was also seduced as well(Elektra). That never happened with Connery or Moore. When Bond says something about brandies and food or architecture its there for audience to say:"Well of course he knows that. He is Bond." And I have to say my favourite moments are when you comment on stuff with "Only Bond could do that!"

[Kristatos]

I don't remember him being like it in the books, though. He was very particular in his tastes, but it comes across as mildly OCD rather than as the result of superior knowledge.

[Count_Lippe]

I don't remember him being like it in the books, though. He was very particular in his tastes, but it comes across as mildly OCD rather than as the result of superior knowledge.

That's right, the literary Bond was perhaps a bit too fussy about his food, drinks, clothes, etc. He wasn't a know-it-all though.

This idea of Bond having superior knowledge all the time came in the transformation of the character on film.

The cinematic Bond was a super-cool superman compared to the literary Bond, even in the early films.

In the Roger Moore films it was exaggerated even more, with 007 escaping impossible situations like the ski jump in Spy or the freefall in MR, or being even more of a know-it-all, like you say.

All this was toned down somewhat when Dalton took over.

[commander0077again]

I don't think him recognizing brandies and caviar is a part of his "high class" education. I think that's a part of his character of who he is. I think that's just amusing. Bond knowing on what temperature sake should be prepared...
I feel the know-it-all Bond was Moore's Bond and I think he pulled that off fantastically. For example when Stromberg asks him what kind of fish is that and now you think "crap, now he will realize Bond is not a sea expert..." and then Bond says the latin name in the end adds."Beautiful but deadly." I feel after Moore Connery is the closest to that expertise in various things.
That infamous "Beatles" dialogue in Goldfinger.

In the TSWLM novel by Christopher Wood, the lion fish 'pterois volitans' (may be misspelt) happens to be the one fish Bond knows the latin name... probably because it's such a novel fish. When Stromberg points to the fish, he heaves an inner sigh of relief. I can vouch for this, because after reading that book I was in the Philippines in the high-rise dining room of a business magnate, (on a deadly mission) and at the entrance was a large aquarium, with -- you guessed it -- the beautiful, ugly fish with the deadly spines. And of course, I couldn't help myself and remarked to my friends, "pterois volitans." Of course, they remarked, "You ninny!" Btw, a similar thing happened when someone was explaining Belgian block marble; and then I found myself in the foyer of another Bond villainess. I looked down at the floor and said, "Belgian block marble!" She was very impressed. The Bond girl with me was likewise (the villainess was her rather terrible grandmother. This granny treated most of her own family like dirt, but this Bond girl was her favorite niece. With my block marble expertise, Granny gave me a suave rating. Right now I'm reading a bio of author Iris Chang, who committed suicide. She was unconventional in some ways, and was not afraid to ruffle feathers. After hitting it famous with her book 'The Rape of Nanking' she was at Hugo Puck's restaurant with a NY Times food critic, who was blanding about wine. She said, "I actually prefer grape juice." He was so affronted he left the table. Actually, Bond should do something like that one day.
DAF has Bond in full expertise with M on sherries* and in the finale with Wint and Kidd. *Bond strikes a believable note with "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" summing up his precious stones expertise.