No.
This is Ludacris.
THAT is ludicrous.
But I digress. The first two Bond films pretty faithfully follow the books on which they're based. They do take some dramatic license, introducing SPECTRE and the like, but for the most part, they're pretty faithful. It's only when you hit Goldfinger that you REALLY hit the 1960s Movie Bond in full force (although plot-wise it follows the book pretty well).
Don't get me wrong. I like the early Bond movies. I love the 60s Bond, with ninja commando raids, evil faceless villains petting persian cats, even the quips. But that formula got really really tired by the time they hit DAD, and it was taken to RIDICULOUS extremes.
I think that what I missed from the Bond books is not so much the absolute 1:1 parallel between the books, but rather the closer portrayal of the literary character. Yeah, the gadgets are cool sometimes, but if Bond just has a gadget for LITERALLY every situation (And he always seems to) and knows all manner of esoteric knowledge about...whatever...then he ceases to be someone who impresses with heroism. What I love most about the literary Bond is the following:
1.) He's tough and resourceful. He almost NEVER has gadgets. Watch Dr. No for the best showing of this. Bond's escape from his cell is the kind of stuff I'm talking about, or when he plucks one of his own hairs, licks it, and sticks it to his closet door just so he can see if it's been disturbed when he returns. No scene of Q saying "Now, pay attention 007. This device is an ultraviolet motion sensor. You can plug it into your attache case's USB port to determine whether anyone has tripped it within the last 48 hrs." Just resourcefulness.
2.) He's ruthless...but not impervious. The quips in the 60s films were put in, as I understand it, largely because they helped soften the blow of what was -- at that point -- pretty violent stuff. In only ONE of the movies does Bond REALLY seem ruthless, and that's Dr. No where he points out that the dude he's up against has a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol -- then shoots him -- and says "And you've had your seven." (Implying that he knows the gun's empty.) But that's not the same as saying something like "Next time, keep your powder dry" or decapitating the guy and saying "Not a great way to GET A HEAD in life" or somesuch nonsense. Part of why Austin Powers 1 was so good was that it parodied this thing PERFECTLY.
Moreover, the books really get across that Bond DOES feel this stuff. He's not JUST a ruthless killing machine...although part of him might prefer that. In some ways, he really hates himself and his job, but he's also driven by duty and the thrill of it. That leaves him in constant conflict, internally, which is why he indulges in the finer things in life -- to forget.
Brosnan, I thought, really captured this well. Sure, he comes across like a goofy schoolboy, or a ruthless killer at times, but once in a while the armor came down and you got to see who he really was. I think Brosnan was really trying to get more of that into the films (DAD missed that entirely, though).
Anyway, it's true that Casino Royale done in the 60s would've been.....slow and dull. Nothing like the 60s Bond films we saw. Even the movie version we have now sexes it up quite a bit with a LOT more action than is in the book. That was fine with me, though. They still captured the character and most of the book's important plot points fantastically well.
