James Bond versus Sherlock Holmes

In My Humble Opinion
21

I usually visit this thread before caffeine. I start to read, then my eyes get blurry. Well, it’s before caffeine, my eyes are blurry, and I’ve at least scanned the posts; so let’s see if my fingers work…

I’m a big fan of James Bond (as you may know from several references in other threads – and I’ve read most of the books). I also used to read a lot of Sherlock Holmes and enjoy the series that starred Jeremy Brett.

Comparing Holmes and Bond is difficult because their cases were so different. Holmes might find out how some red-headed men robbed a bank, but Bond finds out how SPECTRE is engaged in nuclear terrorism. I think Holmes has it over Bond as a detective. He clearly figures things out much more rapidly and thoroughly. In the books and films, Bond often seems not to figure things out until it’s too late for him to avoid a situation. Holmes seems to figure out a situation and play the evil-doer into his trap.

On the other hand, Bond is better in a fight. He is a military man who went on “special missions” in WWII. (Time is a funny thing even in the Bond films. There is a headstone that says Bond’s wife was killed in 1969, but Timothy Dalton would have been a little young to wed then.) As Vinnie says, “punching out a spoiled rich boy is hardly something you can compare to the many, many trained assassins that Bond not only beat up when attacked from behind, but killed with his bare hands.”

Bond also had impressive resources behind him. He had intelligence services stationed in most places he visited and an expense account. Holmes had the Baker Street Irregulars and some personal funds.

I agree that Bond was saved by dumb luck many, many times. Holmes was a little more careful.

IMO, Holmes was the better detective and Bond was the better operative.

22

Pfah, Rathbonian heretic! Take that off, have some respect for the man!

23

First things first - he wore a deerstalker out in the country, Olentzero. Check the original illustrations that went in The Strand.

The two compare more favorably when using the books. Nothing Bond faces in the movies compares to Dr. No’s airduct of horror. It requires an iron body and a steel mind; Bond has to deduce ways out of each torture. Holmes has fared better on film, but the aging Brett wasn’t able to do some of the more physical things Holmes does in the stories. Thus, little things like the occasional beat-down or the vast array of disguises are barely mentioned.

Much as I like 007, he does have a problem. He gets captured a lot. I’ve mentioned Dr. No and his special reception. Goldfinger lugs him all over the place. Blofeld easily catches him in “You Only Live Twice.” In “Diamonds Are Forever,” he’s nabbed and stomped on by thugs in cleats. He’s at the mercy of Le Chefre until SMERSH intrudes in “Casino Royale,” and he only lives because some Russian only has orders to kill Le Chefre. And so on. Bad form, especially for an espionage agent. All too easy to shoot him full of sodium pentathol and get tons of sensitive information (that is, sensitive until Philby spilled).

I don’t recall Holmes ever getting captured. Ever. He’s too careful. He sets and baits his own traps and blandly watches his opponents blunder into them. Not as flashy, but more reliable. Holmes is who I’d rather rely on.

24

I’m sorry, but isn’t the real question: "who’s better: Sherlock Holmes or Batman?"

25

Bond is assigned to steal the Bruce Parkinton Plans.

Holmes is assigned to catch/stop him.

No funky gadgets.

Holmes has Watson to help.

Bond gets one beautiful female agent to help him.

Who wins?

26

Given your set-up, BDoT, Holmes does. Bond will be too busy banging that female agent to care about the Booth-Tarkington sub. :slight_smile:

I can’t remember much of the particulars about the sub case. Given that Bond is a cool, intelligent opponent instead of the usual cloddish second son or thick-as-shit thug, he probably would get away. Holmes would have one of those irritating cases where he deduces whodunit but is in no position to catch them, a la The Greek Interpreter.

27

In response to the people who’ve posted about wanting to see a modern version of Sherlock Holmes, I really enjoyed Zero Effect. Not an exact updating, to be sure, but a great detective story along somewhat Holmesian lines.

28

Nah, let’s allow Bond to work with Felix for this case. Those CIA guys are always a larf.

29

There is a Saturday marning cartoon series on Sherlock Holmes in future London, and it is a pretty good one as well.

Holmes is by far the best detective ever created. Better than Poirot, better than Bond, and slightly better than Velma Dinkly:).

30

I dunno… the aforementioned Batman would have given him a run for his money. Ol’ Batsy had superb senses, a finely crafted intellect, an amazing physical build, AND the common sense to use the appropriate tools to assist his trade.

31

Yeah, nothing’s more appropriate than a nitro-burning funny car. What inappropriate tools did Holmes rely on?

32

I say Nero Wolfe could wipe the floor with all of them without leaving his armchair. :wink: Holmes, too.

As for Bond, I think Archie could give him a good drubbing and would also probably steal away with the requisite female.

33

[thread hijack]

Okay – Mycroft Holmes versus George Smiley. Who’s the better leader of British government espionage?

[/thread hijack]

34

This is a strange debate. Holmes was an intellectual fantasy, something the era prized highly, while Bond and Batman are masculine fantasies, which our era prizes highly.

I think if we altered the characters so they appeared a bit more realistically, Holmes would be the only one surviving long enough to compete.

Batman would’ve been killed by any number of his villains in the past, considering how often he’s saved by pulp conventions, never mind the fact that he routinely survives explosives, hails of bullets, hordes of armed thugs, more dedicated martial artists, mental problems, etc.

James Bond suffers from the same lack of integrity, often times saved by the same pulp conventions and invulnerability. (I’m referring to the films, I’ve never read the books.)

Holmes has never been in a hail of bullets or fought off a horde of thugs. That would be stupid, he’d die, as would any man. He doesn’t get captured, he possesses all the right fears, he hedges all his bets. Now, if we altered the characters for believability, his deductions would probably falter more than they did, as he tended to draw unshakable conclusions about shaky personalities that, really, could’ve gone either way.

I just have a greater amount of respect for Holmes. Doyle didn’t stray that far from what he knew, and it came off with an air of versimilitude. Experience Bond and Batman… you know damn well the writers have no idea what it’s like to experience such things, they’re just borrowing from what other writers have scribbled down.

35

In fact, Ian Fleming was a Royal Navy Commander and was involved in intelligence operations during WWII. While the James Bond series was not autobiographical, the man knew what he was talking about.

The books do not contain the “trademark gadgets” seen in the film. I’ve read most of them, and I don’t remember Bond escaping a hail of bullets (although he was certainly shot at – and he often missed when shooting back).

36

there’s a great site that probably has this battle and many many others on it that are all hilarious. Try reading the rock, paper, scissors fight and not laugh.

You get to vote on current fights, too!

37

Have you seen the movies? Those writers sure didn’t.

38

Yeah, I have all of the James Bond films except Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again. Some of them are pretty close to the books. Dr. No is probably the closest. No “missile toppling” in the book, but the rest of it is the same. Thunderball is very true to the book. Goldfinger is close too. The Aston Martin wasn’t as tricked out in the printed version, and Goldfinger was going to use the nuclear device to open the vault at Ft. Knox to steal the gold instead of irradiating it to increase the value of the gold he had.

The Roger Moore films were more loosely based on the books.

There are a lot of details that are different. For one thing Bond uses a Beretta .25 in most of the books, but he is stripped of that and is given a Walther PPK in the first film. Felix Leiter “disagreed with something that ate him” earlier in the book series (he does appear in later books) than in the film series.

In the Roger Moore films, Bond is a “walking encyclopedia”. He’s an expert in everything. In the books he actually has to learn stuff. Bond is clearly intelligent and resourceful. Still, he does tend to blunder into things and is captured often.

I think the difference between Bond and Holmes is that Holmes’s cases are “police dramas” and Bond’s cases are “war movies”. Holmes relies on his superior intellect and Bond uses his intellect (which I think is not as developed as Holmes’s) but relies more his military training. That is, Holmes is “strategic” and Bond is “tactical”.

39

I make no observation other than to say this seems to have a surprising parallel in the Kirk vs. Piccard conundrum – okay, very different but the relative strengths are similar.

I also like Interrobang!? Mycroft Holmes vs. George Smiley hijack – Smiley, any day !