[octex]

Some of the older films are embarrassingly campy and do not age well.
*************************
I read the Bond books when they first came out in paperback in 1960s-70s. The Connery movies tracked closely to the written books, which contained some of the campy innuendo.

The Roger Moore movies were more loosely tied to the script, and not as good. Brosnan was good. The guy that wore the kilt in one movie was a loser; he knew it and quit. I’ve seen one Craig movie and wasn’t impressed.

I suppose we’re different generations.

[needmorePaine]

I read the Bond books when they first came out in paperback in 1960s-70s. The Connery movies tracked closely to the written books, which contained some of the campy innuendo.

The Roger Moore movies were more loosely tied to the script, and not as good. Brosnan was good. The guy that wore the kilt in one movie was a loser; he knew it and quit. I’ve seen one Craig movie and wasn’t impressed.

I suppose we’re different generations.

I never read any of the books, so I don't have that perspective. It may be generational thing, but I don't have a bias against older films in general. There was a time when they were all I watched. Most Bond films, regardless of the actor, just never really clicked with me until this latest iteration.

[xp38]

Connery movies sort of tracked the books but here is my take.

Dr. No...maybe 3/4 of the book
From Russia with Love... 2/3 of the book
Goldfinger...2/3 of the book
Thunderball...1/2 of the book
You Only Live Twice....only the Japan setting is the same
The first movie to basically toss the book aside completely
Diamonds are Forever...same as You Only Live Twice apart from the theme of diamond smuggling and character names there is no relation to the book.