> > This is certainly interesting to hear. I've read Casino Royale, Live and let die, Moonraker and Octopussy and the Living daylights, and liked them all very much. I'm very interested in seeing film adaptions of them. (As you all know, some of the films with the same names have little to do with the books.)
>
> Except for Casino Royale, which is soon to be remedied, virtually all of the *filmable* material in Ian Fleming's novels was filmed in one form or another, even if the original story was hacked up and distributed amongst different films. The film of "Live and Let Die," for example, left a lot of material out, but much of it was later used in the film "Licence To Kill."
>
> For "A Living Daylights," you're in luck. A lot of Fleming enthusiasts call the first half hour of the film to be the most faithful, in spirit, of any of the adaptations. Then the film progresses where the short story leaves off. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend seeking it out. There are a lot of varying opinions about Timothy Dalton as Bond, but he's the closest to the books and gets a lot of kudos from fans of the novels.

I would certainly call most of the book version of "Moonraker" filmable. The book and the film don't have anything in common. The new film could have good action scenes at the Blades club and at Hugo Drax's fortress. And the threat of having London eradicated by a nuclear missile will certainly provide a thrill.

"Octopussy", OTOH, is a much shorter and calmer book with less action. I of course wouldn't mind having it filmed too, but would enough people want to go to see a film about some crazy British colonel feeding his fish at the seashore?