What kind of Bond fan are you?

1246

Comments

  • Posts: 1,143
    I'm a mix of prehaps many of the groups described, I'm more a live and let live, not live and let die type of guy ( i.e. open to any type of Bond style or situation) but if I had to pick a group that I more lean to then I would most likely choose group 2 closely followed by 3.
  • Posts: 5,808
    Group 2. My favourite movies are the ones that take the most from what Fleming wrote: FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, CR '06. And I don't like what the 70s and early 80s did to Bond (although I hold no hatred towards Sir Roger,who after all played only what the writers and directors told him to play).
  • Posts: 44
    Great thread, just discovered today. Elements of 2,3 and 4 for me.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    A sane one!
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Group 2, with some parts from group 1.
  • Posts: 774
    Group 2 and a bit of 4.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I'm a mix of 2 and 8, having got into Bond in the 90's growing up but having gone back and started at the beginning, reading all of Fleming's material and then seeing all the films too. Having most of Roger Moore's installments as my least favourite films, bar TSWLM, FYEO, and LALD, and liking all of Brosnan's films except DAD. Connery is the best Bond, followed by Brosnan, Craig and Dalton.

    Argh, can't decide which one to pick.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Couldn't give a cr*p about this labeling especially since I found some truth in 8 of the 9 boxes. :D
  • Group 7 all the way :)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    I'm in group 2.

    I do think the better films are the ones that use more of Fleming, which is why the '80s Bonds far surpass the '70s Bonds for me.

    At the same time, I don't think the Fleming books should be slavishly filmed. How would you do the Garden of Death? Or a true adaptation of FAVTAK? And then there's the film version of GF, which I think is better than the novel.

    I also think that Bond movies work best when he stays in Europe. Take TLD--great Flemingesque opening and great use of Vienna, but when he heads to Afghanistan, the film loses something. Or OP--it's no coincidence that the best moments are in Germany.

    Diversions to Asia are usually a mistake. It was novel for YOLT, but every visit since then has been worse than the one before. Ditto America. It just doesn't feel like a Bond film if he spends a lot of time there.

  • Posts: 1,492
    echo wrote:
    I also think that Bond movies work best when he stays in Europe. Take TLD--great Flemingesque opening and great use of Vienna, but when he heads to Afghanistan, the film loses something. Or OP--it's no coincidence that the best moments are in Germany.

    Disagree I think some of the best locations have been Asia. Udaipur in OP was just breathtaking and a good part of the story ie Octopussy's and the Monsoon Palace. Afghanistan was equally good exotic but with a dangerous edge. The Thai islands in TMWTGG were classic Bond territory and even Vietnam wasnt too painful in TND,

    I love Bonds incursions into Latin America as well.

  • Posts: 645
    This is Hilarious. @007RogerMoore I think your spot on with this, but I will say I'm not sure where I fit in yet.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    I'd be a number 2! veering toward number 1. Though I don't totally hate old Rog I think he stayed too long and doesn't convince as Bond. And anyone who thinks he could have stayed longer is bonkers imho.
  • Posts: 2,189
    As someone who started out as a popcorn fan, my love for James Bond has matured as it has become more comprehensive, and has left me somewhere between a 2 and a 3. To me Sean is Bond’s essence and it is impossible to top his coolness, George was a perfect clone of Sean who also managed to add his own unique touches to the role, Rog is a bit too silly for my tastes yet I still love his movies, (except for AVTAK, yuck!) Tim was too blah, Pierce was exciting and fun, and Craig is shaping up to be cool and fun and deep, (although I think his face and his hair is all wrong to be honest.) As for the books, I like them, but prefer the movies because to me Bond is a film character first, not the other way around, and this way of thinking creates an important separation between the two institutions. Flemming was great, but a bit of a dick if we’re honest, and as such I enjoy how the films have been able to scrape off some of book Bond’s less appealing traits. To me Bond is a hero, just not one in a suit of iron or with a cape. He does save the world after all, and he has flaws just like every other hero does, and that makes him interesting. Bond is a dream, a lifestyle, a compass, and a above all a guilty pleasure.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @sirseanisbond, why don't you like Dalton?
  • Posts: 2,189
    @sirseanisbond, why don't you like Dalton?

    I never said I didn’t like him. He did well because he’s a great actor, but for me he is not Bond, he’s Dalton. It’s difficult to put into words but there’s something about his movies that’s just not quite right. Don’t get me wrong, they’re great movies, but they just don’t feel like Bond movies. I think it’s like an association problem as because when I see pictures of Sean or Roger or Pierce, I see James Bond, but when I see photos of Tim, he’s just Tim to me. He never convinced me he was Bond I guess, kind’a like what I’ve been struggling with over Craig because he just doesn’t quite look right for the part IMO.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    @sirseanisbond, why don't you like Dalton?

    I never said I didn’t like him. He did well because he’s a great actor, but for me he is not Bond, he’s Dalton. It’s difficult to put into words but there’s something about his movies that’s just not quite right. Don’t get me wrong, they’re great movies, but they just don’t feel like Bond movies. I think it’s like an association problem as because when I see pictures of Sean or Roger or Pierce, I see James Bond, but when I see photos of Tim, he’s just Tim to me. He never convinced me he was Bond I guess, kind’a like what I’ve been struggling with over Craig because he just doesn’t quite look right for the part IMO.

    That's funny, to because to me he is Bond - the closest to my perception having read and re-read the books. An TLD is classic Bond.
  • Posts: 2,107
    This;

    Group 3: The conservative Bond fans
    These fans might have read Fleming, but they regard the books and movies to be two different things.


    Group 5: The popcorn fans
    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. Films like GF, TSWLM, OP, GE

    and I like Moore, Connery , Craig and Dalton in the role.

  • Posts: 2,782
    I'd say I'm a pseudo lesbian vampire on heat kinda a fan.

    8. Daltonconneryskyfallus fan. Connery is god. Dalton would have been god given two more films and dc might give us the film we've been waiting for since goldeneye.

    Love this thread idea. Makes me want to fight off some lesbian vampires.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 1,497
    Group 3: The conservative Bond fans
    These fans might have read Fleming, but they regard the books and movies to be two different things. Bond doesn´t have to be the same man in the movies as in the books. Connery is almost always these fans´ favorite Bond, with Roger Moore at either second place or shared first place. They think that the golden era of Bond from 1962-1987. LTK and Brosnan´s movies are not popular among these fans. The series might have experienced a slight raise in quality since Craig arrived, though. The movies are allowed the be OTT, as long as the standard set by the first three movies is followed. Dalton and Brosnan are not popular among these fans, especially not Dalton.

    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. Films like GF, TSWLM, OP, GE and sometimes DAD are loved by this group. FRWL is too boring and slow, and Dalton is completely wrong for Bond. Lazenby is more popular, but OHMSS is too slow, long and emotional. This group likes Craig but wants him and his movies to be more elegant.
    A Bond movie is not supposed to be too deep, even though one serious scene here and there is ok. These fans are not as conservative as the ones in group 3.

    I thought I would be the first 3 - 5 person, but SharkBait beat me to it! I think 3 and 5 go hand in hand in the sense that they celebrate the cinema Bond. To me, the cinematic Bond was something different from the books from the very beginning. I believe the signature EON touch was established in DN, and only built upon from there, faithfully staying true to this 'essence' all the way through to TLD. (though I would say it's still there to an extent in LTK).

    Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Terrence Young, Barry, Maurice Binder, Peter Hunt, Richard Maibaum etc...all came from a certain generation that was very much of Flemings. Therefore I think they understood the culture that the Bond character came from. Fleming and film-makers of that era were thus intertwined.

    I do certainly care for the books. I just haven't gotten around to reading them all yet! But it will sure be a treat. Maybe I'll move into the #2 group who knows...I doubt though I'll be a #1 purist. I just have too much fun with films like DAF, OP, and YOLT
  • Based on the descriptions on a number of the groups, did A View To A Kill mark the end of the golden era?
  • Posts: 5,634
    No

    It marked the end of Moore nonsense

    After that, Dalton came in and James Bond became serious again
  • No

    It marked the end of Moore nonsense

    After that, Dalton came in and James Bond became serious again

    Not what I asked. I like Dalton massively. I'm asking this in the context of the group descriptions at the top of this thread.
  • Posts: 5,634
    I know that, but I was right in what I said though. There can be no dispute

    Moore wasn't my favorite Bond to play the part for sure, but the seven films he did were an interesting time for the series, I suppose when he did depart in 1986 it was an end of an era so to speak. Can't see the top of the thread from here either, only the top of page four. I think the 'golden era' if you put it like that, ended in the mid 1960s for me once Connery got tired of the role, I suppose it depends on one's perspectives or age even
  • Group 3 are the Conservative Bond fans and the description states that the classic era was from Dr. No to The Living Daylights. I just wonder, just in my own head at least, whether the Dalton years were a lost era, a bridge between the 'classic' era of connery, Moore and Lazenby and the modern era of Brosnan and Craig? It's not taking it away, it's just seeing what you think of the Bond and when the start and end of an era was.
    Because some people might view Moonraker as the end of an era and FYEO as the start of an era that ended in DAD? It's horses for courses I guess :)
  • Posts: 1,497
    Group 3 are the Conservative Bond fans and the description states that the classic era was from Dr. No to The Living Daylights. I just wonder, just in my own head at least, whether the Dalton years were a lost era, a bridge between the 'classic' era of connery, Moore and Lazenby and the modern era of Brosnan and Craig? It's not taking it away, it's just seeing what you think of the Bond and when the start and end of an era was.
    Because some people might view Moonraker as the end of an era and FYEO as the start of an era that ended in DAD? It's horses for courses I guess :)

    I agree that DN-LTK is the classic era. It's the Cubby Broccoli era. There feels like a true compendium there. LTK still has the connection from the old crew: Broccoli, John Glen, Maurice Binder, Richard Maibaum, and the return of David Hedison was a nice touch. On the contrary though, the craftsmanship, writing and direction seemed to take a turn for the worse with LTK. I think this old EON crew had run out of steam, and it's probably good that they didn't make anymore (i.e. Bond 17 with Dalton in '91 in my minds eye would have felt extremely tired). TLD to me is the last 'great' Bond film, but LTK is the closing chapter on the original EON era of Bond films.

    GE was done well in re-capturing the building blocks of the classic era, but does feel like the first re-boot of the series. CR is now the second re-boot. To me it's weird to put the Brosnan and Craig films alongside those other classic era films on the DVD shelf. It's hard to even rank them among the others. It almost feels like a different series to me.
  • Posts: 299
    I'm somewhere between groups 1 & 2, but closer probably to group 2. Though i do regard Connery, Dalton and Craig almost with equal appreciation.
  • Posts: 469
    2 i guess
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 546
    2, 4, & 8
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2013 Posts: 28,694
    I find it ironic that group 9 criticize Craig and Dalton's films for lacking love, yet his adoration for Vesper was the strongest in the series this side of Tracy. As for Tim's era, you can't really expect him to go into another serious relationship when Tracy still haunts him. When Della tosses him the bouquet and Felix tells her he was once married, it is hard to fight a lump in your throat.
Sign In or Register to comment.