BOND POLLS 2016: The Top 10 JAMES BOND-007 Film Ranking Contest (Results: winner!, on page 60)

1535455565759»

Comments

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Excellent write up and very valid points. I applaud the direction the films have gone towards. Objectively it is a bold, and welcome, move from the clone films of Gilbert, and uninspired direction in the 80's. A big issue I have with the "soap opera" angle, and that applies with mainstream movie/tv making in general, is that there are too many cooks. The messy retconning is precisely why I avoid mainstream tv shows where it feels like character angles and plotlines are made up on the spot, rather than carefully planned out by one or two showrunners like in dramas such as Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I agree the editing in QoS is equal parts inspired and strange. I actually love the chaos of the car chase and could follow it easily yet many don't like it and find it confusing. But then there are parts I don't get what they're going for such as a cut that stuck out to me last time I watched which is the transition from Mathis' house to the plane. There's a series of quick cuts of Mathis's girlfriend, to bond drinking a cocktail to Mathis, to them on a plane. It's a weird pace and collection of shots - almost like your blu ray is skipping.

    Usually, that's what I like to call an "indie transition". I used to think that the style came from Forsters low budget sensibilities. But now I think it's just because they couldn't think of a shot to end the scene with (or just forgot to shoot one), so they just threw some inserts together.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Ladies and gentlemen....here are the winner and runner-up of this year's Ranking Contest!:

    Start Countdown: The ruthless BOTTOM 5:
    #26 placed Bond Film, 000 POINTS --> "CASINO ROYALE" (1967, non-EON film)
    #25 placed Bond Film, 006 POINTS --> "NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN" (1983, non-EON film)
    #24 placed Bond Film, 025 POINTS --> "DIE ANOTHER DAY" (2002)
    #23 placed Bond Film, 049 POINTS --> "THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN" (1974)
    #22 placed Bond Film, 049 POINTS --> "A VIEW TO A KILL" (1985)


    Start of TOP 21, the really average ones:
    #21 placed Bond Film, 060 POINTS --> "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" (1971)
    #20 placed Bond Film, 080 POINTS --> "TOMORROW NEVER DIES" (1997)
    #19 placed Bond Film, 095 POINTS --> "MOONRAKER" (1979)
    #18 placed Bond Film, 109 POINTS --> "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE" (1967)
    #17 placed Bond Film, 135 POINTS --> "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH" (1999)
    #16 placed Bond Film, 146 POINTS --> "LIVE AND LET DIE" (1973)[/color]

    Start of TOP 15, the OK ones:
    #15 placed Bond Film, 157 POINTS --> "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" (2008)
    #14 placed Bond Film, 196 POINTS --> "OCTOPUSSY" (1983)
    #13 placed Bond Film, 211 POINTS --> "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" (1981)
    #12 placed Bond Film, 217 POINTS --> "SPECTRE" (2015)
    #11 placed Bond Film, 275 POINTS --> "LICENCE TO KILL" (1989)[/color]

    Start of TOP 10, the good ones:
    #10 placed Bond Film, 304 POINTS --> "THUNDERBALL" (1965)
    #09 placed Bond Film, 345 POINTS --> "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" (1977)
    #08 placed Bond Film, 350 POINTS --> "GOLDENEYE" (1995)
    #07 placed Bond Film, 372 POINTS --> "DOCTOR NO" (1962)
    #06 placed Bond Film, 408 POINTS --> "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS" (1987)


    Start of the TOP 5, the true cinematic Bond-masterpieces!:
    5th PLACE, 419 POINTS
    > The James Bond Film "SKYFALL" (2012)
    4th PLACE, 562 POINTS
    > The James Bond Film "GOLDFINGER" (1964)
    BRONZE MEDAL, 738 POINTS --> The James Bond Film "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE" (1963)
    SILVER MEDAL, 782 POINTS ---> The James Bond Film "ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE" (1963)
    GOLD MEDAL, 866 POINTS ----> The James Bond Film "CASINO ROYALE" (2006)

    Here's the full points breakdown:
    ulwawkg.jpg

    And here an color graph overview of the total times each film got awarded points from an individual voter, including the total times a film got awarded 8, 10 and 12-pointers:
    ZmQFks7.jpg

    Lastly, here's the full comparison between this contest and @w2bond 's general Bond Ranking Topic:
    9ZFz7lR.jpg

    And another comparison with a similar contest I executed last year on the IMDB James Bond forum (full of movie fans, who aren't necessarily Bond fans):
    ut63pzT.jpg

    And what do movie critics, newspapers and entertainment outlets say?:
    Ie8Koq9.jpg

    Some key findings:
    ►► No matter if you're a die-hard MI6-forummember or a more generic movie nerd, "CASINO ROYALE" seems to be quite unbeatable. Even the 'classics' like "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE", "GOLDFINGER" and "ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE" seems to struggle against the 2006 masterpiece.
    ►► Overall, both movie critics and MI6-forummembers see "SPECTRE" as an above average Bond film, that, for now, keeps beating "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". It's now also a fierce competitor of the Moore films "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" and "OCTOPUSSY".
    ►► "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS" and "SKYFALL" in essence are sharing 5th place, especially when compared to @w2bond 's rankings. Still, "SKYFALL" manages to win from other classics like "DOCTOR NO", "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" and "THUNDERBALL".
    ►► We love Sir Roger Moore. It's still the greatest living Bond ambassador. Yet, even his best films, like "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" and "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME", struggle to get close to the TOP 5 of Best Bond Films.
    ►► Brosnan's best film "GOLDENEYE" is no match for Craig's two best films "CASINO ROYALE" and "SKYFALL".
    ►► Yet Brosnan's 3rd outing as James Bond in "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH" gets some new love in this contest. It managed to win from "TOMORROW NEVER DIES" and "DIE ANOTHER DAY".
    ►► Are Connery's best films slowly becoming a bit 'too old' for some people? Especially for the youngest Bond fans? Hence no Connery film is in the TOP 2?

    Great work once again on the poll, @Gustav

    Still hard to believe I'm the only person who has his entire top ten in the poll's top ten. I feel validated.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited November 2016 Posts: 8,009
    [Delete]
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 11,119
    For everyone in here, I made a new overview of all the points/votes allocated to every Bond film, now in order of production year :-):

    TzcRFqz.jpg

    If you look closely, until voter @Chang (65th voter), OHMSS and CR were really fighting for top spot. But the more voters joined, the more CR ran away with it.

    Also now you see clearly: The more 'green', the better the Bond film. Overall the 1960's obviously are very 'green', but so are the 2000's and 2010's....especially since Craig joined the club.

  • And again, I think this image more or less confirms why 'older' Bond films get more trouble in staying very high on ranking lists. He is a friend of mine, although certainly not as 'nerdy' as I am. He's also much younger, and just 'likes' the Bond films. He isn't a fan in any case:
    Bh7GPKk.jpg

    Hence why FRWL is therefore not able to grab the top spot?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?
  • @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.

    I can understand how the formula could get off-putting to some running through the series, but there's some movies like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM that you as a human being need to see. To understand cinema and what makes its history, you must also study Bond as one of the properties that has imprinted it the most.
  • Don't they even mention the hydrogen fuel cells at some point? I'm pretty sure they do - cos I remember thinking 'gee - wonder whether that will come in handy later?!' Much like when they mention the sinkhole when they're flying over it. And it comes in handy not two minutes later.

    It is mentioned in a single line of throwaway dialogue that the audience would expect they don't need to remember.
    GBF wrote: »
    I recently re watched all the Bond films and my Craig rankings are

    1) Casino
    2) Spectre
    3) Quantum
    4) Skyfall

    Yes at the bottom of the Craig series for multiple reasons.. I would take Spectre and Quantum over Skyfall any day.

    I never saw the hype with SF and was super disappointed when I saw it.

    I have watched it maybe 10 times by now and there are some decent parts but it's just way to bland. I think I was mainly annoyed with the whole Bond going rogue thing which has been done to death. Yes I know he goes somewhat rogue in Qos but still he goes rogue in that one and the very next film he goes rogue yet again??Quantum has one of the best car chases in movie history, the location themed music intros, action sequences, climax is super epic and the ending is perfect.

    I still don't get all the hate!

    Which climax do you mean? Sorry but I don't see neither a great climax nor any great action scene. The fight between Greene and Bond who is at least twice as strong is so extremey unexciting. In my eyes it is a very generic underwhelming action movie in the tradition of the Bourne films with an overly serious tone and without any sense of self reflexion and irony which used to seperate the Bond films from causal action films.

    I agree completely actually. I think Greene is my most disliked villain and the air about QOS is so far removed from Bond.
    The eco hotel is a self-sustainable hotel, well off the grid. For an organization like Quantum, that's highly valuable.

    The building doesn't just suddenly blow up, either. When Bond shoots the Bolivian chief of police, the driver of the jeep Bond shot him on top of careers backwards into some hydrogen fuel tanks that then explode, beginning a blast that soon overtakes the other hydrogen cans in the rest of the hotel over time, as a fire is wont to do.

    I love the sequence, especially the axe fight, as it characterizes Greene well as a wild personality and a raging maniac, which we get hints of throughout the film, like when he kills the geologist, tells Camille of the piano student he murdered as a child for insulting him, and how he nearly pushes Camille off a balcony at the party when his ego is bruised. He's a wacky, extremely volatile character that could pop off at any moment, and I like that. He's got a great ticking time bomb quality about him. Bond is obviously the better fighter in the final showdown, but when someone is coming at you swinging an axe wildly in every direction, that tends to level the playing field a bit.

    I think it's a stunningly staged sequence, and we get a moment where Bond and Camille seem dead to rights, the drama of which I feel intensely. Bond taking Greene way out into the desert and throwing him nothing but motor oil to sip on is the cherry on top of the cake, one of my all-time Bond moments.

    I just find it all so exquisite, much like the rest of the film. The care taken to staging drama and action in the context of character and character motivation dwarfs the attempts made by lesser Bond films.

    That is an excellent explanation of something that happens so quickly that it is impossible to even understand what happened. This highlights the incredible aggressiveness of the editing, which is my main problem with the film.

    It's one of the most obvious moments in the film, frankly. The camera even zooms up on the hydrogen tanks as they blow.

    It's not the point whether we get a close-up or not, the point is that it might do for shots to last more than twelve frames. Not that I dislike the finale particularly. To be honest, the editing in the film is rather divided. Some parts are very, very misguided and confusing, others are stand-out moments of brilliance with their use of flash cutting to convey emotion. This particular moment is not the latter, unfortunately.

    @IncompetentHenchman, I understand. I guess I've made such a study of this film over the years, really trying to be one of its biggest champions, that I know it better than those who aren't as enthused to always revisit it frequently.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    I'm sorry, I think I was being somewhat dismissive just because we had differing opinions.
  • @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.

    I can understand how the formula could get off-putting to some running through the series, but there's some movies like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM that you as a human being need to see. To understand cinema and what makes its history, you must also study Bond as one of the properties that has imprinted it the most.

    Purely as a Bond nerd, I agree. But still, this is a very subjective remark off course. There simply are people who like newer Bond films more than the old Bond films like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM. These were movies made in a different age, when society was very different as well. Society wasn't heavily influenced by social media or online communities, nor were people as heavily critical as compared to today. People were much 'slower' and less 'reactive' and 'tense' as opposed to the 1960's.

    Hence why the movies reflect that as well. Even I saw it when I went to @ggl007 's showing of TSWLM in Barcelona. With movies like SP, SF and CR fresh in my mind, a film like TSWLM suddenly aged heavily to me.....and not necessarily in a good way. I can 'time travel' a bit, and think/watch a movie like I'm a guy living in the 1960's or 1970's. But the abundance of 'cheese', and the absence of believable, multi-layered characters and storylines that really reflect today's geopolitical environment kind of....bothered me.

    So I can perfectly understand that therefore FRWL is more 'forgotten' by younger generations of Bond fans as compared to CR or even a Brosnan film. Age does matter. And some fans in here should ask themselves if next generations of Bond fans will still place FRWL on top of the list in another 50 years from now. Just think about it: 100 years. 'Gone With The Wind', a true classic, isn't watched anymore or shown on TV that much. Fact. Movies age....and sooner or later will therefore be forgotten. Even the oldest Bond films, regardless of the qualities it has.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I wouldn't say people's responses to movies were slower or less reactive or tense than now back in the day. When the Hays Code lifted in the 60s and drastically more adult films came out, it was probably the biggest shock to the system the industry got. It was also a dirtier business back then.

    As for FRWL, I think it has all the stuff you or anyone would want in a good Bond film. It's one of the few perfect Bond films that is artfully crafted with what could arguably be the best script and one of the best Bond performances that ever will be, in addition to all the other grand things it does. I wouldn't allow it to be forgotten, anyway, and it's helped by the fact that it's always in the top three of the vast majority of rankings anywhere that I see.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.

    I can understand how the formula could get off-putting to some running through the series, but there's some movies like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM that you as a human being need to see. To understand cinema and what makes its history, you must also study Bond as one of the properties that has imprinted it the most.

    Purely as a Bond nerd, I agree. But still, this is a very subjective remark off course. There simply are people who like newer Bond films more than the old Bond films like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM. These were movies made in a different age, when society was very different as well. Society wasn't heavily influenced by social media or online communities, nor were people as heavily critical as compared to today. People were much 'slower' and less 'reactive' and 'tense' as opposed to the 1960's.

    Hence why the movies reflect that as well. Even I saw it when I went to @ggl007 's showing of TSWLM in Barcelona. With movies like SP, SF and CR fresh in my mind, a film like TSWLM suddenly aged heavily to me.....and not necessarily in a good way. I can 'time travel' a bit, and think/watch a movie like I'm a guy living in the 1960's or 1970's. But the abundance of 'cheese', and the absence of believable, multi-layered characters and storylines that really reflect today's geopolitical environment kind of....bothered me.

    So I can perfectly understand that therefore FRWL is more 'forgotten' by younger generations of Bond fans as compared to CR or even a Brosnan film. Age does matter. And some fans in here should ask themselves if next generations of Bond fans will still place FRWL on top of the list in another 50 years from now. Just think about it: 100 years. 'Gone With The Wind', a true classic, isn't watched anymore or shown on TV that much. Fact. Movies age....and sooner or later will therefore be forgotten. Even the oldest Bond films, regardless of the qualities it has.

    Makes me feel a little melancholy...the inevitability of time, don't you think?

  • w2bond wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.

    I can understand how the formula could get off-putting to some running through the series, but there's some movies like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM that you as a human being need to see. To understand cinema and what makes its history, you must also study Bond as one of the properties that has imprinted it the most.

    Purely as a Bond nerd, I agree. But still, this is a very subjective remark off course. There simply are people who like newer Bond films more than the old Bond films like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM. These were movies made in a different age, when society was very different as well. Society wasn't heavily influenced by social media or online communities, nor were people as heavily critical as compared to today. People were much 'slower' and less 'reactive' and 'tense' as opposed to the 1960's.

    Hence why the movies reflect that as well. Even I saw it when I went to @ggl007 's showing of TSWLM in Barcelona. With movies like SP, SF and CR fresh in my mind, a film like TSWLM suddenly aged heavily to me.....and not necessarily in a good way. I can 'time travel' a bit, and think/watch a movie like I'm a guy living in the 1960's or 1970's. But the abundance of 'cheese', and the absence of believable, multi-layered characters and storylines that really reflect today's geopolitical environment kind of....bothered me.

    So I can perfectly understand that therefore FRWL is more 'forgotten' by younger generations of Bond fans as compared to CR or even a Brosnan film. Age does matter. And some fans in here should ask themselves if next generations of Bond fans will still place FRWL on top of the list in another 50 years from now. Just think about it: 100 years. 'Gone With The Wind', a true classic, isn't watched anymore or shown on TV that much. Fact. Movies age....and sooner or later will therefore be forgotten. Even the oldest Bond films, regardless of the qualities it has.

    Makes me feel a little melancholy...the inevitability of time, don't you think?

    Hehehe yes @w2bond :-P. But you do....agree with me a bit? I mean, I still FORCE those young babies to watch that masterpiece of FRWL. But outside this forum it simply doesn't work that way anymore :-). Regardless of FRWL's quality, what we are saying in here to defend the film, should still be regarded as an opinion in personal taste...and is by no means factual or objective.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    w2bond wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.

    I can understand how the formula could get off-putting to some running through the series, but there's some movies like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM that you as a human being need to see. To understand cinema and what makes its history, you must also study Bond as one of the properties that has imprinted it the most.

    Purely as a Bond nerd, I agree. But still, this is a very subjective remark off course. There simply are people who like newer Bond films more than the old Bond films like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM. These were movies made in a different age, when society was very different as well. Society wasn't heavily influenced by social media or online communities, nor were people as heavily critical as compared to today. People were much 'slower' and less 'reactive' and 'tense' as opposed to the 1960's.

    Hence why the movies reflect that as well. Even I saw it when I went to @ggl007 's showing of TSWLM in Barcelona. With movies like SP, SF and CR fresh in my mind, a film like TSWLM suddenly aged heavily to me.....and not necessarily in a good way. I can 'time travel' a bit, and think/watch a movie like I'm a guy living in the 1960's or 1970's. But the abundance of 'cheese', and the absence of believable, multi-layered characters and storylines that really reflect today's geopolitical environment kind of....bothered me.

    So I can perfectly understand that therefore FRWL is more 'forgotten' by younger generations of Bond fans as compared to CR or even a Brosnan film. Age does matter. And some fans in here should ask themselves if next generations of Bond fans will still place FRWL on top of the list in another 50 years from now. Just think about it: 100 years. 'Gone With The Wind', a true classic, isn't watched anymore or shown on TV that much. Fact. Movies age....and sooner or later will therefore be forgotten. Even the oldest Bond films, regardless of the qualities it has.

    Makes me feel a little melancholy...the inevitability of time, don't you think?

    Gone with the Wind is four hours long - play that with commercials that's over a five hour time slot on terrestrial tv for a film that's nearly eighty years old and despite being beautifully shot is a long, melodrama peppered with unlikeable characters and questionable ethics but held up as a romance for the ages. However...I take your point :-)

    I too feel melancholic that vast majority of people won't watch some classics - but then many forgotten films at the time get reappraisals later and the recognition they deserve like touch of evil, peeping tom or magnificent ambersons.

    That people won't enjoy watching The life and death of Colonel Blimp because it's old or dated is actually saddening but What I love about bond is that if someone gets into whoever bond is in thirty years time - they'll still find their way to FRWL - or some other early Bond film and fall in love with one of them. Not everyone - but full on Bond fans are completists and they'll watch all of them at least once. And if this site is anything to go by - they love making their complete and competing lists!
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Yes I do agree @Gustav_Graves, the general population will not appreciate the finer details of Bond films, mostly whether they are "good" or "bad".

    For example I will mostly watch newer films, except for some franchises or well-received films.
    Regardless of FRWL's quality, what we are saying in here to defend the film, should still be regarded as an opinion in personal taste...and is by no means factual or objective.

    Can't say I totally agree here. Someone could make a good objective argument, with evidence, why FRWL is a quality film. Using Dr No as an example, you could cite the editing, the groundbreaking bikini scene, the sets, the directorial influence of Young on Connery to bring Bond life on screen. Some statements would have to be backed up by comparing other films of the time.

    But a modern audience member may love the Halle Berry entrance and think Honey Ryder's appearance too outdated and rudimentary - so I do agree that personal taste always dominates and that can leave older films behind. Of course it is our job to educate the world on why "nobody does it better" :-)


  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    @Gustav_Graves, judging from those texts, your friend hasn't even seen most or any of the old films, and has only watched "half of one," if I'm reading that right. Get him educated, would you?

    He isn't a fan like I am hehe. But don't forget that there are millions of people who merely 'like' Bond films and who aren't die-hard Bond nerds like we are.

    But....I will educate him a bit more hehe.

    I have a couple of friends who write off the whole series as nothing but shallow repetition with no redeeming qualities. There's only so many times you can try educate some people before you just have to admit defeat and accept they'll never remember the visual pleasures a lot of these films have to offer.

    I can understand how the formula could get off-putting to some running through the series, but there's some movies like DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and TSWLM that you as a human being need to see. To understand cinema and what makes its history, you must also study Bond as one of the properties that has imprinted it the most.

    Yes, I would definitely agree there. But even then, Bond had a cultural impact that was actually larger than the films themselves - especially in the 60's around the time of TB and YOLT where you couldn't go anywhere without being exposed to it. In the larger context there was no buzz even close to that until SF. I read a great book called "The James Bond Phenomenon" by James Chapman and the overall feeling I came out with is that it's Bond's impact as a character rather than the films/plots themselves that resonate with audiences. That general feeling spread out over 50 years will eventually lead to less people being familiar with individual plots and stories - and that makes introducing people to it nowadays even harder in such a saturated market. In that respect, Bond is both the series greatest asset and ironically one of its weaknesses but thankfully the allure of the character as the former outweighs the latter.

    That being said, you're right about Bond's imprint on history. The films you listed were mostly huge trendsetters in every aspect - not just in what was made, but how it was made too. I wonder if we'll ever get back to that point.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    That being said, you're right about Bond's imprint on history. The films you listed were mostly huge trendsetters in every aspect - not just in what was made, but how it was made too. I wonder if we'll ever get back to that point.

    It will be very difficult, because as you said the market is incredibly saturated with much talent, and on the other hand mediocre products that audience will also lap up. Add to that a century of cinema and then you can understand what a difficult job the producers have.

    That's likely why the latest films have been so nostalgic.
  • w2bond wrote: »
    That being said, you're right about Bond's imprint on history. The films you listed were mostly huge trendsetters in every aspect - not just in what was made, but how it was made too. I wonder if we'll ever get back to that point.

    It will be very difficult, because as you said the market is incredibly saturated with much talent, and on the other hand mediocre products that audience will also lap up. Add to that a century of cinema and then you can understand what a difficult job the producers have.

    That's likely why the latest films have been so nostalgic.

    And can we actually prevent nostalgia from a 53 year old movie franchise?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    w2bond wrote: »
    That being said, you're right about Bond's imprint on history. The films you listed were mostly huge trendsetters in every aspect - not just in what was made, but how it was made too. I wonder if we'll ever get back to that point.

    It will be very difficult, because as you said the market is incredibly saturated with much talent, and on the other hand mediocre products that audience will also lap up. Add to that a century of cinema and then you can understand what a difficult job the producers have.

    That's likely why the latest films have been so nostalgic.

    And can we actually prevent nostalgia from a 53 year old movie franchise?

    Probably not. But we can definitely try and avoid embracing it like an ex-lover who is only back for a quickie.
  • w2bond wrote: »
    That being said, you're right about Bond's imprint on history. The films you listed were mostly huge trendsetters in every aspect - not just in what was made, but how it was made too. I wonder if we'll ever get back to that point.

    It will be very difficult, because as you said the market is incredibly saturated with much talent, and on the other hand mediocre products that audience will also lap up. Add to that a century of cinema and then you can understand what a difficult job the producers have.

    That's likely why the latest films have been so nostalgic.

    And can we actually prevent nostalgia from a 53 year old movie franchise?

    Probably not. But we can definitely try and avoid embracing it like an ex-lover who is only back for a quickie.
    :-P.

    I heard Gary Barber saying Bond #25 is now in development?
  • For everyone in here, I made a new overview of all the points/votes allocated to every Bond film, now in order of production year :-):

    TzcRFqz.jpg

    If you look closely, until voter @Chang (65th voter), OHMSS and CR were really fighting for top spot. But the more voters joined, the more CR ran away with it.

    Also now you see clearly: The more 'green', the better the Bond film. Overall the 1960's obviously are very 'green', but so are the 2000's and 2010's....especially since Craig joined the club.

    I am thinking of ranking the best predictors in this contest ;-)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,757
    I won't be in that top 10 I'm afraid but it is a good idea! ;)
  • Posts: 3,336
    Why not ;)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I'll get my speech ready, @Gustav_Graves :P
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But we weren't predicting, we were listing our personal favorites. Maybe a different terminology for that ranking would be more appropriate.

    Agree. One could rathercall the one who is closest to the overall vote "the least unique voter".
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If there is anyone whose top ten is exactly as the final outcome, I will eat my helmet.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If there is anyone whose top ten is exactly as the final outcome, I will eat my helmet.

    Get eating, @Thunderfinger. @CraigMooreOHMSS had the same top ten as the final tally.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    If there is anyone whose top ten is exactly as the final outcome, I will eat my helmet.

    Get eating, @Thunderfinger. @CraigMooreOHMSS had the same top ten as the final tally.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think it was in the same order, which I believe Thundefinger was saying. But it's not my job to defend that plank.

    If Gustav allows me to, I will re-order my top ten on the condition that @Thunderfinger posts video proof that a helmet was indeed devoured.
Sign In or Register to comment.