What kind of Bond fan are you?

2456

Comments

  • edited March 2012 Posts: 940
    A bit of 1 and 2, I guess...
    (minus some of the rubbish they both say!)
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Really none of these are spot on with who I am, but having to pick I would go with most of 5 with hint of 4 and 8.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Great thread idea!

    For group 1 you read my damn mind, but I am also in group 2, so I'm between the spectrum that 1 and 2 offers. I am definitely more 2, but 1 has a few tidbits I care for. And naturally I am fully group 4. Just look at my golden profile picture. Connery is without a doubt the definitive blueprint that every actor should follow. Rest assured if I was trapped in a room with a group 5 or 6 there would be sheer bloodly murder and the police would have to make extra room for me at the closest precinct. ;)
  • Posts: 1,082
    Great thread idea!

    For group 1 you read my damn mind, but I am also in group 2, so I'm between the spectrum that 1 and 2 offers. I am definitely more 2, but 1 has a few tidbits I care for. And naturally I am fully group 4. Just look at my golden profile picture. Connery is without a doubt the definitive blueprint that every actor should follow. Rest assured if I was trapped in a room with a group 5 or 6 there would be sheer bloodly murder and the police would have to make extra room for me at the closest precinct. ;)

    I will clone myself. Me and my clones will live with you for the rest of your life. How about that?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2013 Posts: 28,694
    Great thread idea!

    For group 1 you read my damn mind, but I am also in group 2, so I'm between the spectrum that 1 and 2 offers. I am definitely more 2, but 1 has a few tidbits I care for. And naturally I am fully group 4. Just look at my golden profile picture. Connery is without a doubt the definitive blueprint that every actor should follow. Rest assured if I was trapped in a room with a group 5 or 6 there would be sheer bloodly murder and the police would have to make extra room for me at the closest precinct. ;)

    I will clone myself. Me and my clones will live with you for the rest of your life. How about that?

    Did you read my post? I'll be in jail for killing all of you so you couldn't follow me anywhere. I imagine a lot of Connery and Craig fans will be there too now that I think about it. But in retrospect I'd rather be in jail than be a Moore fan. ;)
  • Posts: 4,762
    Mix of 5, 6, and more heavily, 8. Some of the aspects don't apply in the groups, but it's generally close.
  • Posts: 562
    I fall in mainly with Group 2, but with a heavy dose of Group 1.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited March 2012 Posts: 2,252
    I'm in group none of the above. I find a quantum of solace or moore in all the movies :)
  • Posts: 5,634
    One Two and Nine rang most closest for me, although four was accurate to a degree, but took no attention of 'hair on chest and super physique'
  • Posts: 4,762
    w2bond wrote:
    I'm in group none of the above. I find a quantum of solace or moore in all the movies :)

    Ah-ha, nice one!
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Groups 2, 4 and 9.

    I feel following Fleming was a good idea in the earlier films, but as time has passed, some of Fleming's writings became outdated. Keeping the basic concepts was smart, but a modernization was needed (CR).

    I still feel Connery is the best Bond. Craig has the potential to at least equal Connery. Craig will get the chance that Dalton didn't get.

    I feel Dalton and to a lesser extent Craig don't get the praise they deserve. Connery and Moore do have warranted criticisms, yet deserve their place in Bond cinema history. Though not entirely his fault, Brosnan was the anti-Bond.
  • Posts: 501
    I belong to Group 3
    I've read the novels, however, I think that films and books aren't the same, mainly because of the times when the films are set is different to the times when the novels are set. I said once that Connery and Moore were both the best Bonds, that they were both sides of a coin (someone compared it to Harvey Dent), and that the worst Bond, again, not Actor is, Dalton. It fits entirely. Craig wasn't mentioned, but I like Craig a lot...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited March 2012 Posts: 7,567
    I looked through this and just as I was about to announce I was the first to declare GROUP 3 my colleague @Oiker0 (above) gets there before me.

    The novels are a different entity in my small world, and I have read none of them more than twice (CR maybe 3 times). I'm a Bond- film man myself, Connery is my favourite and Moore I like alot. Dalton is my least favourite. My only difference is that I don't dislike Brosnans films as such (TND is my guilty pleasure), I just don't rate them as much as the era up to (and including) 1987.

    Soooo GROUP 3.

    Very good thread by the way
  • Posts: 11,189
    NicNac wrote:
    I looked through this and just as I was about to announce I was the first to declare GROUP 3 my colleague @Oiker0 (above) gets there before me.

    The novels are a different entity in my small world, and I have read none of them more than twice (CR maybe 3 times). I'm a Bond- film man myself, Connery is my favourite and Moore I like alot. Dalton is my least favourite. My only difference is that I don't dislike Brosnans films as such (TND is my guilty pleasure), I just don't rate them as much as the era up to (and including) 1987.

    Soooo GROUP 3.

    Very good thread by the way

    I think I'm in the same position as you Nac. I've read nearly all the books (except TSWLM and the short stories) but no more than twice I'm sad to say.
  • Posts: 1,492
    I am stunned how people prefer the films rather then the books. I can understand the attractions of the big screen but the books are something else - beautifully descriptive in places, fast paced and sharp in dialogue.

    I find the same with LOTR where people say "Oh I have seen the film, I dont need to read the books" and they miss out on the rich prose of JRR Tolkien.

    I suppose I am of the generation who enjoyed picking up a book.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:

    I suppose I am of the generation who enjoyed picking up a book.

    That's the sad truth @actonsteve.

    I remember once being mildly teased by my friends because I was reading Casino Royale on a coach journey back from the airport. Their mentality was "you've seen the film so why should you read the book". I love my friends but privately they're fools :p
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 128
    I'd say I'm mostly group 3, but with a bit of 2 and 4 I guess. Connery set the standard for me and I think that the films that kept close to the novels are the best.

    I've never been able to understand people who think they don't need to read a book if they've seen the film. It's one of the necessary evils of film adaptations that changes have to be made to translate a book to the screen - or in the case of some Bond movies its only the novel's title that survives. So just watching the movie means you can miss out on sub-plots, scenes and characters that enrich the story.

    In the case of Bond the great advantage the books have for me over the films is the fact we can read what Bond is thinking so we get a better understanding of his character. A friend of mine who isn't a Bond fan said that, based on the few movies he'd seen, Bond was an arrogant jerk. But he read FRWL and because he could get a better sense of Bond's doubts and dilemmas the Bond he was reading was anything but a jerk.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Cipher wrote:
    I'd say I'm mostly group 3, but with a bit of 2 and 4 I guess. Connery set the standard for me and I think that the films that kept close to the novels are the best.

    I've never been able to understand people who think they don't need to read a book if they've seen the film

    It's easy to understand really. The people who say that don't read much if at all.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Just see it this way - I am almost certain a lot if not the majority of people isn't even aware of the fact, that there are books. Ian Flemmings in the credits, but do people really take notice. I didn't when I started watching the films...
  • Posts: 11,189
    Germanlady wrote:
    Just see it this way - I am almost certain a lot if not the majority of people isn't even aware of the fact, that there are books. Ian Flemmings in the credits, but do people really take notice. I didn't when I started watching the films...

    That's another thing that annoys me - when people spell Fleming with 2 "M"'s ;)

    I see it all the time on Youtube
  • Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Just see it this way - I am almost certain a lot if not the majority of people isn't even aware of the fact, that there are books. Ian Flemmings in the credits, but do people really take notice. I didn't when I started watching the films...

    That's another thing that annoys me - when people spell Fleming with 2 "M"'s ;)

    I see it all the time on Youtube

    :\"> See, I am not into him.
    I really believe, that the Novels are for the hardcore fans, whereas the film Bond is for the rest and trust me, they couldn't care less, what Fleming wrote. They just go by what pleases them at a certain time and then move on.
  • Posts: 128
    BAIN123 wrote:
    It's easy to understand really. The people who say that don't read much if at all.

    Of course. Reminds me of a Bill Hicks bit where he was eating in a cafe reading a book and the waitress asked him "Why are you reading?"

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,686
    Germanlady is right - a large majority of the general public has never read any Fleming novel, or even heard of them.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Germanlady wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Just see it this way - I am almost certain a lot if not the majority of people isn't even aware of the fact, that there are books. Ian Flemmings in the credits, but do people really take notice. I didn't when I started watching the films...

    That's another thing that annoys me - when people spell Fleming with 2 "M"'s ;)

    I see it all the time on Youtube

    :\"> See, I am not into him.
    I really believe, that the Novels are for the hardcore fans, whereas the film Bond is for the rest and trust me, they couldn't care less, what Fleming wrote. They just go by what pleases them at a certain time and then move on.

    I would recommend anyone who likes Bond to read the books at least once. Personally I'm probably a little more partial to the films as I grew up with them and watched them over and over again (who doesn't think of SC, RM or PB when they hear the name James Bond) - but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the books for what they are which is highly entertaining, imaginitive pieces of writing. In many cases I've found the books are actually better quality-wise to their film adaptations.
  • Posts: 128
    Germanlady wrote:
    :\"> See, I am not into him.
    I really believe, that the Novels are for the hardcore fans, whereas the film Bond is for the rest and trust me, they couldn't care less, what Fleming wrote. They just go by what pleases them at a certain time and then move on.
    Fair enough - you're a "5" after all - but like Bain123 says you're missing out on some really great, entertaining stories.

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited March 2012 Posts: 4,416
    From some groups i pick some thing:

    From Group 1: Since Daniel Craig playing Bond Criticise the movies more.

    From Group 3: Bond doesn´t have to be the same man in the movies as in the books.
    The books are the source that's how i see it. Since QOS i like the idea there look back to the novels. I like the idea if true that there let Bond fall a litle bit to let him straight up again. That's what i believe, i don't believe in the reboot/remake. Why i miss this a litle bit with the Brosnan era.

    From Group 5: The popcorn fans
    These are fans, and many cinema goers, who don´t care and sometimes don´t even know about the books at all. They think that a Bond movie is supposed to be a popcorn movie with escapism and Connery, Moore or Brosnan as Bond. Bond is supposed to be played by a star with charisma and charm.

    I care about the books, but the it be the movies what turn me in to a Bond fan.

    I like TSWLM, OP, GE and with the first viewings i loved DAD. GF is too boring and slow. FRWL belongs to my favorite movies.

    A Bond movie is not supposed to be too deep, even though one serious scene here and there is ok. OHMSS, OP, TLD and QOS are deep and also why like them and whyle OP be on the edge of something, iam a litle bit afraid Skyfall or Bond 24 not cross the line like that but going over the edge.

    Group 7 with a twist: The diplomatic Connery fans
    These are fans, and often former Roger Moore fans, who have a special place in therte heart for Connery. He is a guilty pleasure for them. They say that Connery is just as good, to be on the right side of the law, so to say. But deep down they like Moore the most.

    Group 8: A transatlantic 1990´s Bond
    A group that emerged during the 1990´s, when GE was released to be exact. Love Brosnan to a lesser degree with DAD. They like the action aspect of 007 and strong characters. Yes i like to see strong famale chacters, but i also whant to see stronger chacters in general. I care for the older movies, GE has achieved legendary status. The rest of what you wrote with group 8 i disagree with. Die Hard/24 elements is not why i watch Bond and why a part of my dislike of Casino Royale and the people who liked that mabey also don't bother about the airplane scene in DAD or the casting of Ralph Fienes or Michael Madsen. From Ralph Fienes i give him a litle bit of doubt til i have seen the first footage. But Madsen in the first place already should not be in a Bond movie.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I'm not sure really which group I belong to, obviously Rog is my favrouite but Connery is also immense and I admire Dalton's portrayl a lot, Brosnan I am fairly neutral on.

    I have read a few of the novels and I like some of the more serious films and the more bonkers ones, so!

    Maybe if there was a lover of all things Bond group!
  • Posts: 11,189
    In regard to the threads question I have no idea, I grew up with Broz so maybe group 8? Then again I do have a bit of group 2 in me aswell.

    While I enjoy Fleming I wouldn't put myself in group 1
  • Posts: 6,601
    Cipher wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    :\"> See, I am not into him.
    I really believe, that the Novels are for the hardcore fans, whereas the film Bond is for the rest and trust me, they couldn't care less, what Fleming wrote. They just go by what pleases them at a certain time and then move on.
    Fair enough - you're a "5" after all - but like Bain123 says you're missing out on some really great, entertaining stories.

    OK, I will try to get my hands on one to start with...
  • I'm in Group 1. There's something about the novels that the films struggle to capture. FRWL, OHMSS, TLD are the best films and the Moore/Brosnan eras were a waste of time.
    BUT I'm pro-Craig and CR is also one of the best.
    B-)
Sign In or Register to comment.