How would the Blofeld appearing throughout, sometimes featuring the same actor and sometimes not.
Subsequently, it's not surprising that the Bond movies have taken a scattered approach to adapting Fleming's books, with Dr. No acting as the first film, but the sixth novel. Most cinematic adaptations of literary works follow a logical progression, whether that be entirely chronological or adding a prequel after the fact, such as The Hobbit releasing after The Lord of the Rings. However, the order of Bond's adventures in book form paint a very different arc for the character, and it's interesting to think how differently the movie franchise would've developed if the series order had been more faithful.
Here's how the James Bond movies would've released if they'd adhered to Fleming's original order:
- Casino Royale (2006)
- Live And Let Die (1973)
- Moonraker (1979)
- Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
- From Russia With Love (1963)
- Dr. No (1962)
- Goldfinger (1964)
- Quantum Of Solace (2008)
- A View To A Kill (1985)
- For Your Eyes Only (1981)
- Thunderball (1965)
- The Living Daylights (1987)
- The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
- On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
- You Only Live Twice (1967)
- The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)
- Octopussy (1983)
Although the Bond movies do omit several long-running arcs and moments of continuity by releasing in a different order. For example, Fleming's You Only Live Twice picked up in the aftermath of Tracy's death with a disheveled and broke Bond, but there's no real sense of this in Connery's version of the film or Diamonds Are Forever, which followed Tracy's death on the big screen.
The revised order perhaps also highlights how the James Bond movies have benefited from their looser adaptation order. By skipping the Casino Royale origin story and diving straight into a 3 movie run of Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger, the films dived into the meat of the story, and the books that more heavily influenced Sean Connery's interpretation of 007. Fleming's Dr. No was criticized at the time for a perceived increase in sex and violence - Eon built an entire franchise upon it.
A non-linear approach to adapting the books also helped Bond's longevity on the big screen. Without a strict chronology to maintain, the changeover between actors was less noticeable than it would've been if each movie directly bled into the next. More importantly, the loose structure meant that the transition into mostly original stories during the Pierce Brosnan era wasn't as problematic as it could've been. Sooner or later, Eon were going to run out of James Bond stories to adapt, and producing the books out of order meant fans were more willing to accept films not derived from books at all. The transition would've surely been trickier if the Bond movies have followed a strict serialization, and has allowed a more prolific (and lucrative) release schedule.
