›

Bond Movie A vs. Bond Movie B (Diamonds Are Forever vs. The World Is Not Enough)

1…101102104106107…153

Comments

  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    00Beast wrote:
    In short, every day or two, there will be two Bond movies on the table, and you just pick which one you think is best. Also, give some reasons why you would pick that one over the other, but if you don't want to, that's fine. Sometimes I don't really know why I like one more than the other, I just do!

    Okay, the first two we'll pick are two of the Connery classics, From Russia with Love vs. Thunderball. Take your pick!

    Having only recently joined in this conversation I thought I'd go back to the beginning and have a look at those I've missed. Having seen this one I've just got to have my say - hope that's not out of order!
    From Russia With Love still the best and the one others are measured against. I do like TB but it's not really in the same class.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    It's pretty evident that For Your Eyes Only is our winner! LALD sure did take a beating on this one, I mean wow! Hahaha.

    New match-up: Tomorrow Never Dies vs. Quantum of Solace

    Two of the most action-packed Bond movies with shorter run times. Take your pick!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,504
    This one is pretty tough, but I think I'm going to have to go with QoS.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    TND. Slicker, better Bond, better action, better locations, much better editing, imo just an all round better film. The Kaufman scene alone beats anything in QOS.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Creasy47 wrote:
    This one is pretty tough, but I think I'm going to have to go with QoS.

    Creasy! Say it isn't so! Craig over Brosnan! AAAHHHH! Hahaha, just messing, I'll let it slide this one time, hahaha.

    As for me, I say Tomorrow Never Dies. #4 in my rankings, and proud of it! Overall, it beats QoS in soundtrack, locations, Bond himself, and the villains.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,042
    TND. QOS has better character development but an underdeveloped plot, and inferior action. TND is a modern action vehicle that sidesteps development of character in favour of some super action sequences and a decent villain, and the plot feels a little more complete than that of QOS, despite the latter having deeper characters.

    It's a close one, depends on my mood. Right now, TND takes it.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    TND by a hair. I have TND at #12 and QOS #14. And not because Brosnan is a better Bond =))
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND. Slicker, better Bond, better action, better locations, much better editing, imo just an all round better film. The Kaufman scene alone beats anything in QOS.

    Now that I thoroughly disagree with.

    1. Bregenz Opera House
    2. Interrogation of Yusef Kabira
    3. Finale with M

    All more powerful than a simple kill. Although the Kauffman kill is definitely one of Pierce's finest moments in the role.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND. Slicker, better Bond, better action, better locations, much better editing, imo just an all round better film. The Kaufman scene alone beats anything in QOS.


    Put me down for the same. TND.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,504
    @00Beast, I'm sorry! I do have favorites that triumph some of the Brosnan films - definitely not GE - but this one barely beats it. I still love TND!
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited July 2012 Posts: 1,874
    Tough. But I find QoS confused and confusing, awful shaky camera work and quick edits, but there is a good film in there, somewhere.
    TND is IMO Brozzers finest 007 outing (closely followed by TWINE) and I quite enjoy watching this one, plus it has a great, and believable Bond girl in Michelle Yeoh and the excellent 'they'll print anything these days' quip! Plus the Kaufman scene is great and you can really believe in that moment the PB is JB. So for me it's got to be Tomorrow Never Dies.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Hmm, these films keep chopping and changing for me. I once did a session where I watched the opening 40 mins of each. Quantum is probably the deeper film but TND is just a bit more...fun dare I say, despite its cheesiness.

    Both are ranked in the lower half for me but if I were pushed to rewatch one I'd probably say TND - only just though. Soon I'll probably say Quantum.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Quantum of Solace.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    In case anyone wonders where I rank Craig vs Brosnan films-

    2. Casino Royale
    11. GoldenEye
    12. Tomorrow Never Dies
    14. Quantum Of Solace
    20. The World Is Not Enough








    22. Die Another Day (or DOE, Dying Of Embarrassment to be in the theater watching a Bond film even worse than Moonraker)
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND. Slicker, better Bond, better action, better locations, much better editing, imo just an all round better film. The Kaufman scene alone beats anything in QOS.

    Now that I thoroughly disagree with.

    1. Bregenz Opera House
    2. Interrogation of Yusef Kabira
    3. Finale with M

    All more powerful than a simple kill. Although the Kauffman kill is definitely one of Pierce's finest moments in the role.

    The opera house scene is one of my favourites out of the entire series, but I prefer the Kaufman scene. Not much for the finale to be honest. I do like the Mathis scenes though, shame he got killed off.
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    And not because Brosnan is a better Bond =))

    I think he was (could change depending on how Craig is in SF), and so do others, I don't see what's so funny about thinking that.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    QoS
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited July 2012 Posts: 28,694
    It is Bond and Kaufman up against the brilliant scenes with Bond and Mathis, the amazing opera scene, and of course the astounding interrogation of Yusef and Bond's "I never left". QoS, easily the deeper, more profound, and overall better film.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TND. Slicker, better Bond, better action, better locations, much better editing, imo just an all round better film. The Kaufman scene alone beats anything in QOS.

    Now that I thoroughly disagree with.

    1. Bregenz Opera House
    2. Interrogation of Yusef Kabira
    3. Finale with M

    All more powerful than a simple kill. Although the Kauffman kill is definitely one of Pierce's finest moments in the role.

    The opera house scene is one of my favourites out of the entire series, but I prefer the Kaufman scene.
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    And not because Brosnan is a better Bond =))

    I think he was (could change depending on how Craig is in SF), and so do others, I don't see what's so funny about thinking that.

    I'm just being facetious. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    But since you're a fellow Daltonite (I would have rather swapped DAD for another Dalton film in a no-brainer deal over the magnificent classic that is CR), I wonder how in blue hell you could prefer a second rate Moore (Brosnan) over Craig, who is much more like Dalton and taking what Dalton did and expanding it to another level?

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    QOS maybe flawed but it's not utterly hopeless like TND, seriously after GE tried to change things this just went back to same old same old and Jonathan Pryce must rank as one of the all time worst villains of the series, just woeful!
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Shardlake wrote:
    QOS maybe flawed but it's not utterly hopeless like TND, seriously after GE tried to change things this just went back to same old same old and Jonathan Pryce must rank as one of the all time worst villains of the series, just woeful!

    Do you like him less than Renard or Graves?

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    QOS maybe flawed but it's not utterly hopeless like TND, seriously after GE tried to change things this just went back to same old same old and Jonathan Pryce must rank as one of the all time worst villains of the series, just woeful!

    Do you like him less than Renard or Graves?

    With the exception of Bean and I wasn't that enamoured with him, all of Brosnan's villains were awful, Graves was utter rubbish and Carlyle was totally wasted with Renard but something about Pryce's portrayal and trying to be sinister makes his adversary stand out, Graves might be worst but whenever I see TND it's his villain which is the most infuriating.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    But since you're a fellow Daltonite (I would have rather swapped DAD for another Dalton film in a no-brainer deal over the magnificent classic that is CR), I wonder how you could prefer a second rate Moore (Brosnan) over Craig, who is much more like Dalton and taking what Dalton did and expanding it to another level?

    I would rather have swapped DAD too, but in the thread where I said that, somebody said that the legal troubles that stopped a 3rd Dalton film eventually lead to CR, which is why I said that. Swapping DAD wasn't really an option.

    Part of my trouble with Craig is I haven't seen him play fully formed Bond yet, which is why I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do with SF. I do like him though and I think he did a great job in CR, and although not as good, QOS.

    As for why I prefer Brosnan, well first I don't see him as a second rate Moore. Brosnan I think did a great job, especially since Dalton left such a tough act to follow. Brosnan I think combined the best bits of each Bond. He had the comedic side of Moore, the more serious side of Connery, and in some scenes you can even see a bit of Dalton.

    I think he was a great all rounder, and he pulled it off easily, he always seemed really comfortable in the role, going to see his films at the cinema was always enjoyable (apart from DAD's second half). I loved his Bond and I wish he'd done one more.
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    I don't understand how any one who doesn't like GF is a Bond fan. It makes absolutely no sense at all. GF turned Bond movies into a global phenomena. Without it we would not have 50 years of films.


    I don't understand this comment. You're actually declaring that in order to be a Bond fan, one has to like GOLDFINGER? Oh Please! Give me a break! Those of us who dislike GF are entitled to our own likes and dislikes, thank you very much.


    Seriously, you rate GE more highly than GF?

    I certainly do. GF had one of the worst plots I have ever encountered in a Bond movie.
  • GrindermanGrinderman
    Posts: 165
    TND tries to be nothing more than a generic, 90's action film. It succeeds, sure, but there's little glory in clearing a bar that you've set so low. Yet of all the Brosnan films, I find myself watching this one more often than the others (well, its a close race between this and GE) because it is such a action-packed romp.

    By contrast, QoS really tries to take the franchise into uncharted territory. It explores the character of Bond in a very new (and I think bold) way. Unlike a lot of Bond films, Bond isn't just a cool guy in a tux, he's a 3-dimentional character in this one. I like that. also, unlike a lot of posters here, I think Greene is a great villian. He's just so.....slimey. I also loved the scenes with Mathis and think the relationship between him and Bond could've been a great one to explore - had they not killed him off, of course. Great fight scenes, emotional resonance, and they still found a way to work in the tuxedo scene. A winner al the way around.

    Although I really like both films, the edge goes to Quantum of Solace.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Shardlake wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    QOS maybe flawed but it's not utterly hopeless like TND, seriously after GE tried to change things this just went back to same old same old and Jonathan Pryce must rank as one of the all time worst villains of the series, just woeful!

    Do you like him less than Renard or Graves?

    With the exception of Bean and I wasn't that enamoured with him, all of Brosnan's villains were awful, Graves was utter rubbish and Carlyle was totally wasted with Renard but something about Pryce's portrayal and trying to be sinister makes his adversary stand out, Graves might be worst but whenever I see TND it's his villain which is the most infuriating.

    Sean Bean was definitely the best Brosnan villain, and had some great chemistry with Famke Janssen that didn't hurt.

    I like Robert Carlyle and Toby Stephens in other roles, but they were both wasted by poor scripting.

    What I like about Pryce is he has a manic, egomaniacal edge a little reminiscent of Berkoff and Walken. And plays it with a sense of humor like Walken played Zorin. He was having fun with it all and I could feel that come through. Carlyle and Stephens tried to capture an edge but failed in the same comparison. I loved how he gave the order to have Paris killed like he was ordering a sandwich for lunch.


    thelivingroyale wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    But since you're a fellow Daltonite (I would have rather swapped DAD for another Dalton film in a no-brainer deal over the magnificent classic that is CR), I wonder how you could prefer a second rate Moore (Brosnan) over Craig, who is much more like Dalton and taking what Dalton did and expanding it to another level?

    I would rather have swapped DAD too, but in the thread where I said that, somebody said that the legal troubles that stopped a 3rd Dalton film eventually lead to CR, which is why I said that. Swapping DAD wasn't really an option.

    Part of my trouble with Craig is I haven't seen him play fully formed Bond yet, which is why I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do with SF. I do like him though and I think he did a great job in CR, and although not as good, QOS.

    As for why I prefer Brosnan, well first I don't see him as a second rate Moore. Brosnan I think did a great job, especially since Dalton left such a tough act to follow. Brosnan I think combined the best bits of each Bond. He had the comedic side of Moore, the more serious side of Connery, and in some scenes you can even see a bit of Dalton.

    I think he was a great all rounder, and he pulled it off easily, he always seemed really comfortable in the role, going to see his films at the cinema was always enjoyable (apart from DAD's second half). I loved his Bond and I wish he'd done one more.

    Fair enough. I can understand anyone who feels they need to see Craig in a traditional Bond setting before expanding their opinion.

    You just named the biggest problem I have with Brosnan. He (well it could have been the tick the box approach the scripts generally took that sabotaged his efforts) was too busy combining everyone else and failed to establish his own identity. He tries to be Moore more than anyone in my eyes but lacked the skill to pull it off on a continuous basis. Maybe you understanding how I categorize the 6 Bonds will help you to understand why I feel Craig is already superior to Brosnan even as a "rookie Bond", which was the idea.

    THE CONNERY BONDS-

    Connery- The classic cinematic Bond. The Bond acknowledged by all who came after, and rightly so, as the ideal.
    Dalton- The classic literary Bond
    Craig- The most physical Bond, the successor to Connery and Dalton in terms of portrayal and character style, and to Lazenby in physicality. A very ideal blend.


    THE LITE BONDS-

    Moore- The classic "Bond Lite". Took Bond in a different and even lighter direction than Connery's last effort to avoid the comparisons and skeptics. And very successful at it to the tune of keeping the franchise going strong. He's not my ideal Bond like the first three, but he's his own Bond and no one is like him.
    Brosnan- Tried to be Moore but is a second rate version. Like I said, he nor any other Bond can match Sir Roger for smug and smarmy charm. Pierce himself said this, and I think it is more telling and overrides the opinion of his fanboys- "I never quite nailed the role". What makes people think they know more than he did about it?


    THE ACTION HERO BOND-

    As least George knew he was no actor at the time and realized his best bet was to use action to "fake it until he made it". He had nads the size of grapefruits, just like myself. I have to respect him for that.







  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Tomorrow Never Dies FTW!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing I see where you're coming from, but you said yourself that Craig has Dalton/Connery style portrayal and Lasenby physicality. Isn't that sort of what Brosnan did (blending the styles).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing I see where you're coming from, but you said yourself that Craig has Dalton/Connery style portrayal and Lasenby physicality. Isn't that sort of what Brosnan did (blending the styles).
    I never saw Brosnan as a physical presence, especially after GE. With Sean and Dan, Dan especially, I was certain they could mess you up if given the opportunity. I think that stems from the presence they have, that intimidation, and one I feel through Tim's eyes when he played Bond. There are more than a few times where I see Tim, and you really feel a danger behind him.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Interesting match up. Therr are several similarities between these two in tone and style. QoS for me though.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing I see where you're coming from, but you said yourself that Craig has Dalton/Connery style portrayal and Lasenby physicality. Isn't that sort of what Brosnan did (blending the styles).

    Brosnan was never that physical especially compared with others.

Sign In or Register to comment.