An adaptation completely botches the original theme and message

[u/Morr4Seiya]

Mulan(2020)-They give Mulan superpowers which is not only lame it goes against the message of the original about equality and struggle,plus they removes Shang because apparently having Mulan date her superior was "problematic" even though Shang genuienely respected Mulan and their rank was never brought up

I am Legend(2007)-You know why the story is called "I am legend"? SPOILER ALERT the protagonist is the actual monster,humanity is gone and the vampires have a actual society and the protagonist kills and terrorize them

Animal Farm(2026)-On the very slim chance that Andy Serkis ever sees this,here's the thing Andy,Animal Farm was not a children work it was not supposed to have a happy ending,you never heard of cautionary tales before?

[u/Salty-Spring7096]

James Bond in the novels: A blunt instrument in the hands of British intelligence. Morally ambiguous, often brooding and fatalistic about his unattached lifestyle and his short life expectancy as a disposable asset. Themes include the morally questionable nature of Cold War espionage and Britain's changing status in a postwar world.

James Bond in the films (up until the Craig era): Cool spy man with crazy gadgets and a babe on each arm. Themes include lasers, cackling villains, scantily clad women, and how awesome it is to be a spy.

[u/YsengrimusRein → u/Salty-Spring7096]

Someehere in the middle is the Timothy Dalton films who, so far in my experience with the Fleming novels (I've just started reading them; I'm on Diamonds are Forever), does sort of capture that a bit better than some.

[u/Baby__Keith → u/YsengrimusRein]

Goldeneye is also in that realm too, it's quite literally all about the things OP has listed.

[u/Salty-Spring7096 → u/Baby__Keith]

Not remotely

[u/Baby__Keith → u/Salty-Spring7096]

Okay well let's see:

• A blunt instrument in the hands of British intelligence and morally ambiguous✅ (the entire St Petersburg sequence)
• Often brooding and fatalistic about his unattached lifestyle ✅ "kill her, she means nothing to me"
• Themes include the morally questionable nature of Cold War espionage ✅ (literally the plot)
• Britain's changing status in a postwar world ✅ (his entire first discussion with M)

[u/Salty-Spring7096 → u/Baby__Keith]

Driving a tank through St. Petersburg is blunt, to be sure, not sure where you're getting morally ambiguous unless you mean the collateral damage? But that scene's over-the-top nature perfectly illustrates the kind of shenanigans that are exclusive to movie Bond.

As for your second point, I think it's clear he was bluffing. And that's your sole example of that the entire film.

Your third point makes zero sense. Or did you miss that the film takes place after the cold war had ended? They do reference Trevalyan's people being screwed over but that's politics, not espionage.

The fourth, same thing. "Postwar Britain" in this context means "the decade or so immediately following WW2", which is when the books take place. Not the mid 90s where Britain is in a very different situation.

[u/Baby__Keith → u/Salty-Spring7096]

Damn, you very quickly went from "not even remotely" to "yeah, but" lol

Driving a tank through St. Petersburg is blunt, to be sure, not sure where you're getting morally ambiguous unless you mean the collateral damage? But that scene's over-the-top nature perfectly illustrates the kind of shenanigans that are exclusive to movie Bond.

Yes, driving a tank through a populated city in order to achieve the government's aims is generally considered morally ambiguous, in any universe.

And no, the over-the-top shenanigans aren't exclusive to the movies at all. In the books, Bond completes a death trap obstacle course in Dr No and is literally brainwashed into a KGB assassin in Man With The Golden Gun and tries to assassinate M 😂

And that's your sole example of that the entire film.

No, it was one example and there's plenty in the movie. He leaves Trevalyan behind for dead and later asks him if he is supposed to feel sorry for him when he's told Trevalyan's parents were driven to suicide by the British government. He brags about giving Valentin Zukovsky his limp and M explicitly says he has a cavalier attitude towards life.

Your third point makes zero sense. Or did you miss that the film takes place after the cold war had ended? They do reference Trevalyan's people being screwed over but that's politics, not espionage.

LOL, surely you're not being serious at this point. The espionage of the Cold War didn't end in 1989 ffs, the movie is deeply rooted in the intelligence world of the Cold War, it's quite literally central to the plot. Spies subverting governments being "politics not espionage" is maybe the dumbest thing I've read this week.

But regardless, the idea that the movies can be marked down compared to the novels because they don't take place in an ultra-specific time period is just bizarre.

[u/Salty-Spring7096 → u/Baby__Keith]

"Not remotely" still fits. None of your examples are really close at all to what I was talking about. I'm not repeating myself, it's clear you don't understand the original post. Bye.

[u/These_Ad3167 → u/Salty-Spring7096]

You know when you throw a hissy fit and block someone because they've utterly schooled you on the points, that they can't see your last reply right? Lol