As was the Connery vrs. Brosnan page, this is more of a serious analysis than a story. James Bond is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time. Yet people often forget that bond comes in two very different major forms. There is the James Bond of the novels and the James Bond of the movies. This is an attempt to analyze them both and compare them. I'm sure that someone with more time and greater skill would be able to write an entire book on this subject. However, I am only going to focus on several main points. First, one must compare the two versions of Bond himself. The James Bond of the books is very much a normal man. Fleming makes it clear from the very first book that Bond is very much a lonely man living a very hard life. The Bond of the books often questions himself. Is it right to kill even for his country. The Bond of the novels seems to feel more remorse about his killing. Yet he is able to force that out of his mind and continue with his missions. The Bond of the books also seems to feel more physical pain. In the first book he has his testicles beaten with a rug beater and his hand cut into. In subsequent books he gets dowsed with scalding steam, has to crawl through a maze of pain, gets stomped on with football cleats, has his eye burned into with a laser, has huge wooden spikes driven through his shoulders, gets amnesia, gets brainwashed, and is nearly poisoned to death. These aren't all the examples of pain goes through, but it is already clear that the Bond from the movies doesn't suffer nearly this much, with good reason. Movie viewers don't want to see their hero beaten to a bloody pulp. It is OK to see him in pain, but for the majority of the movie Bond has to look suave and dashing. When the movie Bond is hurt, it is rare to see any signs of that pain in the next scene. The Bond of the movies questions himself less as well. The hero of a movie can't question himself without the audience starting to do so as well. Then he becomes less heroic. As Dalton once said, the Bond of the movies is much more of a super man, while the Bond of the books is a normal, even tarnished man. The purpose of the Bond movies, much more so than the Bond books is to provide an escape from everyday life. The Bond movies have to show Bond living a fantasy life. When women say they want James Bond or men say they want to be him, they are inevitably talking about the Bond of the movies. He's bulletproof, suave, and heroic. With him being a spy is glorious. No one would want to live the book Bond's life. He's a collection of scar tissue from all his injuries. He's not as suave or heroic. With him being a spy is hard, dirty work. The accomplishments of the two Bond's are different. The Bond of the books has done more, simply because there are over twice as many novels as there are movies. However, the missions in the books are usually on smaller scales than the movie missions. The entire world is always at stake in the movies and usually isn't in the books. The novel Diamonds are Forever is basically about stopping a diamond smuggling ring. In the movie Blofeld has a huge laser in the sky that can level cities. In The Spy Who Loved Me Bond saves a young woman from two men who want to kill her for insurance money. In the movie he has to save the entire world from an apocalypse caused by a mad man. In the Moonraker book Bond doesn't go into space at all, but he does in the movie. The list could go on. The movie Bond does bigger, more grandiose things than his book counterpart. Something also has to be said about the popularity of the two versions of Bond. The books are always very big sellers, but not as popular as the movies. It is said that over half the population of the entire world has seen at least one Bond movie. It is safe to say that not nearly that number has read a Bond book. The novels may have introduced Bond, but the movies made him truly famous. So which is the better Bond? It's not fair for me to say. It's an opinion. No matter what I say, people who like the movie Bond better will continue to do so, and the same goes for the Bond of the novels. Arguing isn't going to change that. As for me, it's weird, but I would rather watch the Bond of the movies even though I think the bond in the novels is much more intriguing. Why? Who knows? I will say this. If you are a fan of the movies but haven't read the books (or, less likely, the reverse) give the other version a try. Just read one or two books to see what they are like. It is definitely fair to say that each version of Bond is great for its own reasons, which are often missing from the other. One has to be familiar with both to get the most out of the wonderful character of Bond.
