#07 choose two of the four options! Four pairs of six Bond films. See page 13 for details.

BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 Army hospital Moudon
edited March 25 in Trivia & Games Posts: 8,339
CHOOSE two OF four OPTIONS and explain your decision if you like.

This time: Choose two of those:

Option One:
GF - DAF - TMWTGG - TLD - TWINE - SP

Option Two:
TB - TSWLM - AVTAK - LTK - DAD - SF

Option Three:
FRWL - OHMSS - LALD - FYEO - GE - QOS

Option Four:
DN - YOLT - MR - OP - TND - CR

Imagine you could only watch one set of films and the other set never ever again.

Done so far:
#01 CR/SP...or...QOS/SF
#02 DN/GF/YOLT...or...FRWL/TB/DAF
#03 70s/80s/10s...or...60s/90s/00s
#04 GE/DAD...or...TND/TWINE
#05 TLD/LTK...or...OHMSS
#06 LALD/MR/FYEO/AVATK...or...TMWTGG/TSWLM/OP/AVTAK
«13456714

Comments

  • Posts: 8,541
    Tough choice for me, as I regard them both as fantastic actors not just
    As Bond, but I'd have to give Connery the edge ..... Just. ;) as as far as
    Bond actors go, I regard him as " The origin of the species " :D
    I'm certain plenty will disagree. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames Some men are coming to kill us. We're going to kill them first.
    edited August 2015 Posts: 14,215
    The thing about these kinds of threads for me is they normally aren't even close, and this is one of those cases:

    Sean Connery - by far.

    No one combined the effortless humour/charm (although Moore matched him here I think) with the screen gravitas (again Moore matched him here), with indisputable credibility as an OHMSS agent (Craig/Dalton/Lazenby match him here) with good looks (arguably all the actors) and believable physical capabilities (Craig & Lazenby surpass him here, with Dalton probably on par) as Sean Connery.

    Craig is an excellent James Bond. Very credible in the role (except, from my perspective, in the womanizing/charm areas where he doesn't appear so) and a superb actor.....he's proven that in 3 films.

    However, there is only one king who sits on top of the heap, and that is Sir Sean. Irrefutably, imho. The original, and still the best. ^:)^
  • Sean Connery because his Bond was dangerous, smooth, charming, handsome, confident, intelligent, and also believable. Daniel Craig's Bond is almost as good as Connery but his Bond lacks the charm that Sean Connery had.
  • Posts: 9,987
    Connery because he did this:

  • Posts: 532
    Assuming time and year made are not issues and we're just talking persona here,
    is it conceivable that the newly minted, rough edged Bond (Craig) eventually becomes the Bond played by Connery. Again, persona, since the actual physical features of both actors are quite different.

    I like both actors. While their portrayals are different, they are both convincing.
    The reality is Connery is well-suited to those early films, whereas Craig is well-suited for the current Bond direction. Could they have been interchangeable? It doesn't matter, because their films are forty years apart. It didn't happen, it couldn't happen.

    The newer films are much better made. They don't have the gaffs and the sped up film
    that plague the early Bond films. But I give the razor thin edge to Connery as my favorite Bond actor, even though Casino Royale has moved into first place among my favorite Bond films.



  • Posts: 8,748
    This is a very difficult choice! :-?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 1,028
    Can't compare, really; Sean Connery helped shape the character of James Bond for film alongside Ian Fleming, which all other actors portray.
    Having said that I prefer to watch Daniel Craig's films more often than not.
    I prefer Connery's Bond, and Craig's Bond films, I suppose.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!
    edited August 2015 Posts: 13,181
    There's a lot of those vs. threads

    Indeed, and given how pointless they are, we are constantly hoping that we don't see more of them.

    Plenty of threads where "your favourite Bond" can be discussed. Why single out this pair in a whole new thread?

    You can make about 20 pairs with all 6 Bond actors. Must we have 20 threads just for that? When in so many other threads we have already discussed our favourite Bond about a 100 times?

    Same as with the movie 1 vs movie 2 threads. I'm not even going to calculate how many pairs can be made out of 24 movies. We can litter the place with it. Again, so many existing threads, perfectly suited for the discussion. But because of all those spin-off threads which end up being the same thing over and over again, it becomes messy, no-one can find the right one because, well, there are too many, and so on.

    Please folks, given how many years the forum's been around, understand that almost every conceivable Bond related topic has somehow been given its own thread somewhere already. And if you have something personal to write or to share, reserve one thread for that. One thread for your essays. One thread for the Bond questions. One thread for the versus games, one thread for your fan art. ... That way we avoid two things:

    1) that threads have at most 10 posts in them before dying a slow death
    2) that we have too many threads so it becomes impossible to find the right one for your discussion

    Take the Bond vs Bond thing for example.
    Week 1: Connery vs Lazenby
    Week 2: Connery vs Moore
    ...

    and after the final week, everyone can respond freely. You new on this forum? Want to discuss Lazenby versus Dalton? Fine. Add a post and talk all you want. Just don't start a new thread for it.

    How about the "not so loved Bonds"? How many of these "Which is worse: DAD or QOS", "Why is QOS hated?", "Is DAD getting more praise now?", "TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK: which is Moore's worst Bond?" ... threads have we seen already? Be creative please. Instead, prepare one thread: "the lesser loved Bonds" and keep it open for all relevant discussions. Play with it:
    Week 1: name your bottom 5 Bonds
    Week 2: DAF vs TMWTGG
    Week 3: Has your opinion on DAD changed?
    ...

    At least then we have a go-to thread. Now we have 50 go-to threads. So people can't decide any more. So they just make ANOTHER one! Can we please avoid that. Just edit the title and stay within the same thread. Help us to organise this forum. We appreciate your input. Our forum has the richest content of all the Bond forums around and all because of your wonderful contributions. All we ask though, is to please help us organise things and keep them organised.

    Thank you.
    Still love you. :D
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 Army hospital Moudon
    edited August 2015 Posts: 8,339
    I can understand your point to a point.

    So to discuss Craig vs Connery specifically is not possible unless one of the original poster of such thread edit their initial post.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,104
    Sean Connery
    He is the perfect Bond : cool,sexy, threatening, great sense of humor and very belivable as a ladies man.
    He can be very fleming style but can also be the more cinematic Bond
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CA
    Posts: 17,010
    @DarthDimi good post. In the relatively short time I've been a member I've noticed the difference. It's too exhausting to go through the titles of all of the new threads, much less get involved in more than a couple.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 395
    Thanks for the tip on sticking to existing threads if possible. Amazing how much has already been covered here. I've yet to make an original comment or ask an original question. But like NicNac, I'll get you yet. :D
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #BlackPantherSoLit #WakandaForever
    Posts: 9,745
    Szonana wrote: »
    Sean Connery
    He is the perfect Bond : cool,sexy, threatening, great sense of humor and very belivable as a ladies man.
    He can be very fleming style but can also be the more cinematic Bond

    That about sums it up perfectly.
  • Posts: 3,130
    Well said @DarthDimi
  • DragonpolDragonpol Twitter: @Dragonpol, Writer @ The Bondologist Blog: http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk
    Posts: 9,783
    This versus That. Surely we can come up with better more substantive posts than that?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Thunderworld
    Posts: 18,757
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    This versus That. Surely we can come up with better more substantive posts than that?

    This.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Twitter: @Dragonpol, Writer @ The Bondologist Blog: http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk
    Posts: 9,783
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    This versus That. Surely we can come up with better more substantive posts than that?

    This.

    You never miss a trick, pal! :))
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 1,028
    Just have a "Compare and Contrast" thread for the actors, and a separate one for the films, and weekly or so update it with a new topic (like Daniel Craig vs. Sean Connery) as they do in the James Bond Debate thread, for example.
    Seems pretty simple
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 Army hospital Moudon
    edited October 2016 Posts: 8,339
    .
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.
    Posts: 24,462
    Other threads like this most certainly got complaints. We've had many duplicate/unnecessary threads pop up over the last few weeks/months; not that I'm taking a dig at the thread you've created, it's just that we've had the same type of threads created numerous times over the years, and it gets out of hand. Just like @DarthDimi stated. You could make endless combinations of threads based on comparing films (we actually had a thread hosted by @00Beast a long while back that went on a simple voting system where we would vote for one of two films every couple of days, but it sizzled out, as well) or actors or directors or what have you, so it is better to maximize such a thing.

    Let me speak with some other mods to decide on whether or not we should do huge threads for these topics, or if we should just resort to the threads of old that have been created a few times over.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CA
    edited August 2015 Posts: 17,010
    What I noticed is that there are several members that have been on here less than two months that have already started 7 to 10 threads, and that's on track for close to 60 threads by an individual in a year. I've been here a little less than two years and have started 22, which is more than most people traditionally have started in that amount of time, and I was feeling guilty that that number was obnoxious. Slow down everyone.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CA
    Posts: 17,010
    And I'm not trying to condemn or embarrass those new members, they obviously came on here with excitement and good faith, it was just never made clear not to overload the boards in such a manner.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 Army hospital Moudon
    edited August 2015 Posts: 8,339
    I've started 6 so far, the elimination game not counted.

    I like to contribute actively, I believe I have started some good threads.
    But I can see now that it is unwanted or maybe I have to be on this site a certain amount of time to "earn" the right to make new threads.
    I get the point that duplicate threads are an annoyance though.

    I'll restrain myself of opening new threads. It is enough fun to read all the fabulous stuff on this site and comment on that.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CA
    Posts: 17,010
    It's not an "earn" thing, it just is too many too fast in general on here. The threads that last are the broader ones, that can change focus over time. As stated above, one "VS" thread that changes every week would be great.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 Army hospital Moudon
    edited October 2016 Posts: 8,339
    CHOOSE ONE OF TWO OPTIONS and explain your decision if you like.

    This time: Choose between keeping CR and SP or QOS and SF
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your family
    Posts: 6,829
    I couldn't pick.
  • bondjamesbondjames Some men are coming to kill us. We're going to kill them first.
    edited October 2016 Posts: 14,215
    EDIT:

    Sorry for the misunderstanding @BondJasonBond006 .

    I'll go with QoS and SF in this instance, and it was a very difficult choice to make.

    Although CR is a brilliant film, I'm not too keen on SP (to put it mildly). Moreover, I like both QoS and SF for different reasons. Both are absolutely stunning to look at (beautiful films). One is heavy on the action and a bit light on character development, and the other is completely the opposite, being very strong on character interaction. So they are a yin and yang as it were. Both films are incredibly well acted as well.

    Most importantly, I like to watch both these films quite often. They are both a breeze to get through. I'm not one who finds SF melodramatic in the slightest. Bardem's camp sees to that.

    So sadly, much as I love CR (and especially Mads, Eva, Caterina, Giancarlo and Jeffrey), I have to sacrifice it, because two is most definitely better than one, no matter how exceptional that 'one' is.

    With deep regret. Over and out.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 Army hospital Moudon
    Posts: 8,339
    @bondjames
    I altered the title and the post.
    It was unclear, my mistake.
    Maybe you will edit your post as well and choose anew :) Thank you.
  • Posts: 6,225
    Can I choose CR and QoS if that was the case would be a easy question to answer, though as I really don't like SF I'll choose CR and SP
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CA
    edited October 2016 Posts: 17,010
    That choice sucks (obviously that's the point, I guess)! On paper you would think I'd go with QOS and SF, as they, being 10 and 12 in my rankings, respectively, average 11. CR is 4 and SP is 24, averaging 14.

    But CR has become such an essential component in the tapestry of this franchise, and the chances of screwing up that one remaining original novel were so high, I cannot see taking it away. So:

    CR/SP
Sign In or Register to comment.