Should Bond movies have been more faithful to books?

So, do you think Bond movie should have followed Fleming books in details and his chronological order?
In my opinion, they should have. Then they could use their original ideas in original plots.

This is a topic that has been discussed several times before. I think you'll find that there is a good section of folks on here would have have appreciated more faithful adaptations. In terms of period, chronology and plot.

Eon was unable to adapt the books in chronological order for reasons completely outside its control. The film rights to the first novel Casino Royal had been elsewhere sold some years earlier.

Also, in 1961, (when EON began production on Dr No to stop its option on Fleming's work lapsing), ownership of the latest James Bond novel, Thunderball, was still being decided in the courts.

And DN was apparently more budget friendly hence why they chose that title. Except for the last two titles with Blofeld, I don't think going chronological was too crucial as the books were relatively stand alone with few connections besides recurring characters. Still, it's a shame CR wasn't available, I'm very interested in how that would have turned out with Connery as the lead.

Rank Films had an option on Moonraker back in 1956, but let it lapse. That might have been interesting. The novel's plot seems ancient now, but it was very contemporary back then.

It's too bad a MOONRAKER adaptation never came up, even an updated version, instead it's spread across GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY (heck, Toby Stephens would have been fine, I can see him play the madness of Drax well), which means we'll never get a proper version out of EON.

It probably deserves a thread of its own, but this hoax was masterful:

http://iansadler.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/moonraker-the-forgotten-1956-james-bond-film/

Python wrote:

And DN was apparently more budget friendly hence why they chose that title.

Not for the giant octopus (infact it was removed).

If Broc & Saltz had tackled the octopus (quite the image, actually), it could be that would be the parasail moment of Bond #1. We wouldn't have had to wait for Fonzie to jump the shark. Easy for something like that to play like an Ed Wood movie.

As mentioned, EON would not have been able to film the books chronologically in any case.

As for content, there were many instances where a more faithful adaptation was in order. YOLT the film is a travesty next to its source material, for example.

The cinematic James Bond has charms of his own. The literary Bond may not be as grim as some Creggites would have you believe, but he was no Roger Moore regardless. One wonders if a stricter translation of the progatonist and his traits from book to screen would've led to a franchise as long-lasting and financially succesful as the one we have.

In a word 'Yes'.