BOND POLLS 2015: Best Bond-films "GoldenEye" until "Skyfall" •••FINAL RESULTS•••

Gustav_Graves

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

Yes, thank you @jobo. Please leave the personal insults out of this debate. If this thread continues on it's present course, warnings will be handed out.

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Thanks for the graph @Gustav_Graves. So i'm a remarkable poster? It's like being in the Groovy Gang, i'm going to wear that like a badge of honour. :D

Or you can wear a badge behind your back saying "I hate Craig, I hate Craig!" :-P

Matt_Helm

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Matt_Helm wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Matt_Helm wrote: »

1.Gala - basically sexually assaulting her in the sea.
I don't remember Moonraker very good, but I am quite sure he didn't screw her. So I am not quite sure what you mean.

Brilliant.

The guy who is berating others for not comprehending Fleming openly admits he doesnt know what hes talking about! For your passing information, to quote Bond's resignation letter, (dont worry Matt_Helm I dont expect you to get that OHMSS reference. It takes a reasonable knowledge of Fleming which you have just stated that you lack) Bond and Gala are swimming in the sea whereuopn Bond dives under the water and then launches himself from below on an unsuspecting Gala like Jaws (the shark, not the dentally challenged killer) and kisses her against her will. Thats sexual assault my pedigree chum. Well it is in the civilised world.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

2.Tiffany - shagging someone who was raped as a teenager.
That's exactly my point. If I remember correctly he approaches her very slowly, eager not to hurt or shy her away. He even gets engaged with her! Do I need to say more?

Simply put - Bond wont turn down a bit if it is offered but hes not a rapist. Severine offered it on a plate, Tiffany didnt. Had Tiffany been gagging for it when Bond first meets her in her lingerie and had said 'Please save me from those beastly Spang brothers - I'llk do anything Mr Franks' I dont think the literary Bond's strong ethics would have prevented him from slipping her one. The fact that they got engaged is utterly irrelevant. How do you know he wouldnt have wound up marrying Severine if she hadnt had her face blown off?

Matt_Helm wrote: »

3.Tania - shagging a girl who was being forced into it by her paymasters.
He doesn't know that. To him she's a girl that has fallen in love with his "movie star looks" and he admits to Kerim loving her.

I'll concede that at the time Bond doesnt know she is doing it under duress. However the paragaon of ethical virtue you seem to be claiming Fleming's Bond is doesnt seem to have much problem with being sent out to pimp for England and certainly doesnt suffer much in the way of a moral quandary when he's faced with Tania wearing stockings, choker and nothing else.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

4.Viv - shagging a girl who is probably suffering PTSD after nearly being raped.
Pardon? The girl sing sinking in the man's arms,who has just saved her from a threat is a theme as old as storytelling itself.

I appreciate from your statement above re MR that you arent too conversant with Fleming so allow me to outline precisely what happens in the story. Viv is just an ordinary girl who has nothing to do with the world of espionage or violence that Bond inhabits. She is attacked by two odious thugs and is on the verge of being raped when Bond walks in and kills the two bad guys. Then what does Mr Ethics do next? Thats right folks - bollocks to calling a social worker or a psychologist to discuss Viv's trauma - he just shags a vulnerable girl who is probably in a state of shock. Hard to imagine the first item in the police handbook on how to deal with victims of sexual assault being 'take the victim to a spare cabin and give her a good seeing to'.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

5.Tracy - shagging a girl who is suicidal.
And of course he falls in love with her. He even marries her! Notice a trend?

See Tiffany above. Yes he marries her. But he shags her a whole lot earlier. Had she died the day after they went to bed at the start of the book I presume you would have been appalled at Bond's ethics at once again getting a vulnerable woman to give up the goods? And had Severine survived long enough for Bond to marry her the fact he shagged an ex-child prostitute early doors wouldnt matter any more?

For the record, although I agree with Gustav Graves and Dr Gorner that the scene is a good one and the duelling pistols/William Tell act with Severine is quite Flemingesque, I do feel the fate of Severine is rather clumsily handled. After setting her up very nicely in the casino scene I fear Mendes realised they had backed themselves in a bit of a corner with her as he really wanted M to be the focus of the story and Severine at that point became excess baggage for the plot. Hence they rather hastily get rid of her without really thinking it through properly.
And indeed if Bond has the measure of the goons then why not do it before Severine is killed? Although of course maybe he has calculated that he needs Silva to have discharged his weapon already? In any event this is where SF goes of the tracks a bit with its logic - although lets be fair we are nowhere near to DAD levels of awfulness.

As for the 'waste of good scotch line'? I can take it or leave it. And at the end of the day Bond has known Severine for what? Not even 24 hours? Just because he shagged her doesnt necessarily mean he should be mourning her does it?

Matt_Helm wrote: »

Also, about DAD ( and again I'm talking roughly about its first half). Well, what Bond is doing is just where I see the place of 00 agents. Infiltrating and eliminating a threat or annoyance for the UK. Many of the tasks we see Bond doing especially in the various PTSes are actually handled by the able guys of the SAS and SBS. Not so approaching the target on a "social" level, infiltrating and finally killing it.
So I fail to see the "absolutely unfleming " argument here. Also compared to some other PTS (like TND for instance) I see DADs almost a low key.

Care to back pedal any further?

From an inital position of 'DAD is better than CR and SF' (not to mention GE and TND), you are now limiting yourself to the first half and mostly the PTS, no doubt to avoid risking charges of enjoying the invisble car, 'Yo Momma' and the parasurfing? Presumably by tomorrow you will be just down to the gunbarrel (which would actually make more sense than a lot of your other arguments - a GB with a CGI bullet is still better than no GB Mr Mendes. And one with the classic design rather than this god awful one we now seem to be stuck with I might add) in an attempt to extricate yourself from your increasingly ludicrous position.

So now it appears you are basing your entire case that DAD is the third best film since 1995 on the fact that Bond sneaks about a bit like Andy McNab in the PTS? Feeble? Just a tad.

I dont think anyone ever said that DAD was completely bereft of any good moments or any link to Fleming, and yes the PTS is not too bad (although not sure how Flemingian having Bond hanging ten is - but I'll let that go as it is the best stuntwork in the film) although I'm hardly shooting my wad over it either. An over choreographed Vic Armstrong chase and 'saved by the bell' is hardly Rick Sylvester going off the edge of the Asgard now is it? But if, as you seem to be trying to say, Fleming is your criteria for what makes Bond then how can you rate DAD above CR solely for this given that the second half of CR is practically the book as written?

Your argument doesnt even stand up to the most basic logic.

Bond 'infiltrating and eliminating a threat or annoyance for the UK' in the PTS of DAD should be lauded and means its completely Flemingesque apparently. But I guess that Fisher and Dryden cant be as big a threat or annoyance for the UK as Moon then because Bond does exactly the same thing in the CR PTS but apparently he doesnt do it in a sufficiently Flemingesque way for you to rate it.

So if we subtract the 'infiltrating and eliminating a threat or annoyance for the UK' PTS from both films what are we left with? On one side a film that is the closest direct adaptation of a Fleming novel since OHMSS and on the other a pile of crap with only the most superficial links to Fleming.

If you dont like Fleming and prefer CGI action fests with cardboard characters and horrendous dialogue then why not just admit it rather than attempt to contort the flimsiest arguments into justification. You'd gain a whole lot more respect (well not. But you take my point).

DAD first.
From the very first moment I posted my ranking there had been some short reasoning right next to it and that's how it read:
"strictly for its first half. Up until to Bond gets introduced to the "Vanish" this
Is quite sound 007 style to me"

I am guessing you didn't notice it because you were to busy ecstatically clapping your shoulders congratulating yourself for your superior intellect and taste ( somehow reminds me of the English national football team, which travels to each and every tournament as a self declared favourite just to become humiliated shortly afterwards by just whatever team they meet first on the pitch.)
About Fisher and Dryden. If you had not only thought about it within your obviously narrow means,but applied rationale as well you might come to the conclusion, that probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden,just to get a picture of how much damage he has done.
Btw, if you had used just a bit of intellect while reading CR you might have wondered if Flemings criteria to become a 00 weren't a bit arbitrary. You get an elite agent just by killing two people in the line of duty. A bit chicken and egg,don't you think? You have to kill to become promoted to kill. Sounds like a job advertisement in search for a psychopath, especially if you take into consideration CR's PTS. M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets ( in case of Dryden without ANY need ) and gets promoted for it. Really?

About me not remembering much of MR. Well apart from CR,LALD and FRWL (which I reread in the "finally someone is doing Flemings genius justice" craze after CR came out )I have read my Bond novels between age 10 and 12 and apart from the just mentioned exceptions never got back .Why you ask?
Well, because Fleming is a quite mediocre thriller writer, much more aching to the likes of Sax Romer and John Buchan ( which is exactly why HIS Bond would have shown deepest disgust after the killing of Severigne).He excels when it comes to travelogue (there is 2nd to none),but his story development and especially the way he lets get Bond go after his business are quite ridiculous. Just rereading the three novels I just mentioned confirmed to me how much of a moron bond is in the novels). But as long as it might be a ago, even then I got the thrust of Flemings work, which is so much more white knight than blunt instrument. Stone cold killer? You must be kidding me. He is much closer to a marshmallow then a stone. If you want to see guys handle their job professionally,clever and tough minded I would recommend to you the works of Donald Hamilton and Len Deighton (also I suspect you might be better off with the works of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor)

I won't go into your other arguments, which strike me as even more clutching for straws than those I just dwelled upon, but let me recommend you again to improve greatly on your comprehension level. Just reading alone doesn't make the cut. Any second grader can read words but this doesn't mean he understands the sentence.
Oh yes,just one more thing. Bond had a problem with pimping for England. He thinks about it all the time while flying to Istanbul.

The last two nights I have been at work so didnt mind trying to wrestle with your inanity but I'm really not going to do it on my own time - especially as you seem to be spiralling ever further off the sanity piste so I'll be brief tonight as you are clearly beyond reason.

Even with my 'narrow means' I can discern that I am beaten by a superior intellect but I'd be grateful if you could furnish me with how you arrive at the conclusion that 'probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden' or 'M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets'? Where does it mention this in the script?

Dryden himself admits that if M was sure he was dodgy she would've sent a double o to take him out. So M has no interest in interrogating Dryden and Bond is just obeying orders in putting him down. But obviously your higher consciousness can read things not in the script so that they can support your tenuous theories.

As for the rest of your incoherent drivel that is like reading one of Balje's posts after he has spent all day in an Amsterdam coffeeshop; I really cant be bothered to go through it pointing out the inconsistencies and chasms in logic.

I will just wonder, given your clear contempt above for Fleming's writing and the universe he created, why you are even here?

Anyway I am quite happy to continue existing in my stunted state of retardation if joining you on your cloud of enlightenment and mental superiority means I rate DAD above CR. That fact will be on your headstone, not mine old son.

I'd still be interested (well amused) to hear how you can justify DAD being a better film than CR but as I've asked you to do this already and you've just flatly ignored me I dont hold out any hope.

I'm a little surprised that you cant recall more about MR though? You read it when you were 12? Surely your powers of recollection can extend to remembering a book you read less than a year ago? Maybe you should get yourself checked for Alzheimers? It might explain a fair bit.

You:
I'd be grateful if you could furnish me with how you arrive at the conclusion that 'probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden' or 'M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets'? Where does it mention this in the script?

M.H.:
Script? I'm talking about what should be (and probably is )standard procedure for every intelligence agency around the globe. If you have identified a leak you want and need to know what has flown through it. So bond must have been sent to research, because we know if she wanted to have Dryden killed she would have sent a 00.

You:
Dryden himself admits that if M was sure he was dodgy she would've sent a double o to take him out. So M has no interest in interrogating Dryden and Bond is just obeying orders in putting him down.

M.H.:
Pardon??? So because she is not sure that he is bent she simply decides to have him killed by a rookie? Good luck she died at the end of SF because who knows how many good and innocent MI6 agents would have come to dead if this was her standard procedure when she had a hunch. No wonder you rank Skyfall so high. To you everyone's permanent incompetently behaviour at MI6 probably is just another day in the office.


You:
I will just wonder, given your clear contempt above for Fleming's writing and the universe he created, why you are even here?

M.H.:
After all this writing of mine I shouldn't need to explain, but obviously I'm more a fan of the creature Richard Maibaum and Terence Young tweaked for the silver screen.
Also - now brace yourself -there is a rumour going round, that there might be people contributing to this very forum who haven't even read each and every Fleming novel and still dare to call themselves Bond fans. Imagine that!


You:
I'd still be interested (well amused) to hear how you can justify DAD being a better film than CR but as I've asked you to do this already and you've just flatly ignored me I dont hold out any hope

M.H.:
Since I already have (en detail I might add) I will put it very simple. The part of DAD I like to me feels more "bondian" than the parts I enjoy in CR.


You:
As for the rest of your incoherent drivel that is like reading one of Balje's posts after he has spent all day in an Amsterdam coffeeshop; I really cant be bothered to go through it pointing out the inconsistencies and chasms in logic.

I'm a little surprised that you cant recall more about MR though? You read it when you were 12? Surely your powers of recollection can extend to remembering a book you read less than a year ago? Maybe you should get yourself checked for Alzheimers? It might explain a fair bit.

M.H.:
Judging from these cheap shots you must be feeling quite desperate.



You:
Even with my 'narrow means' I can discern that I am beaten by a superior intellect ...

M.H.:
More (dare I say much more) able men than you have suffered defeat from me,so don't worry (although you should be used to it anyway ). ;) :D

Have a nice day

TheWizardOfIce

Matt_Helm wrote: »

You:
I'd be grateful if you could furnish me with how you arrive at the conclusion that 'probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden' or 'M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets'? Where does it mention this in the script?

M.H.:
Script? I'm talking about what should be (and probably is )standard procedure for every intelligence agency around the globe. If you have identified a leak you want and need to know what has flown through it. So bond must have been sent to research, because we know if she wanted to have Dryden killed she would have sent a 00.


You:
Dryden himself admits that if M was sure he was dodgy she would've sent a double o to take him out. So M has no interest in interrogating Dryden and Bond is just obeying orders in putting him down.

M.H.:
Pardon??? So because she is not sure that he is bent she simply decides to have him killed by a rookie? Good luck she died at the end of SF because who knows how many good and innocent MI6 agents would have come to dead if this was her standard procedure when she had a hunch. No wonder you rank Skyfall so high. To you everyone's permanent incompetently behaviour at MI6 probably is just another day in the office.

Its getting quite tiresome now.

The whole point of the CR PTS is that Bond becomes a double O by completing 2 kills - hence the '007 Status Confirmed' in the title sequence; or did you think that was just Kleinmann pissing about? Clearly he is doing this under orders or are you under the impression that M promotes him for just randomly killing people? I agree that in the real world you might think MI6 would want to interrogate Dryden but in the Bond world M just wants him executed. I guess this is just another flaw inherent in Fleming's ludicrous Bond universe.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

You:
I'd still be interested (well amused) to hear how you can justify DAD being a better film than CR but as I've asked you to do this already and you've just flatly ignored me I dont hold out any hope

M.H.:
Since I already have (en detail I might add) I will put it very simple. The part of DAD I like to me feels more "bondian" than the parts I enjoy in CR.

Well when you say you've covered it en detail (sic) I presume you mean the bit where you said you liked the PTS when Bond is sneaking about? Sorry to break it to you but the title of the thread is 'Let's rate the Bond-films from "GoldenEye" until "Skyfall" ' not 'Cherry pick your favourite scenes'. Try practicing what you are constantly preaching about 'reading and comprehending'.

You have to accept all the good bits and the bad bits when rating films as a whole (which is what the thread title asks you to do - do you see what I did there? I read the thread title and I comprehended it). So when I put CR and SF quite highly I have to do this in the full knowledge that if I do I am signing up for the 'My little finger' line, the deux ex machina stupidity of the defibrillator sequence, the total collapsing of logic in the plot when Silva gets to London, the annoying DB5 fan wank and a far shittier GB (and annoyingly in the wrong place) than DAD.

Similarly when you rate DAD so highly you have to sign up for Jinx, the invisible car, Madonna cameo, Jinx, Madonna song, Toby Stephen's hammy overacting, Jinx, crappy CGI finally, Mr Kil, shoehorned references to all the other films, Jinx and hands down the most embarrassing effects sequence ever committed to celluloid. And not forgetting Jinx.

If you want to start a new thread called 'Random scenes in crap films that, taken in isolation, are very Bondian' be my guest but thats not what we're discussing here. The scenes with Lazar and Bond dining with Scaramanga are very good, Bondian if you will, but that doesnt erase the Kung Fu schoolgirls, JW being pushed into a canal by an elephant, the slide whistle over the car jump and Goodnight's arse bumping into things - hence TMWTGG is regarded as one of the worst films and rightly so. You cant use a handful of decent things in DAD - and it does have them; the Pikelet, Brosnan's performance (possibly his best), the driving stunts - as an apology for the rest of the crapfest it descends into.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

You:
Even with my 'narrow means' I can discern that I am beaten by a superior intellect ...

M.H.:
More (dare I say much more) able men than you have suffered defeat from me,so don't worry (although you should be used to it anyway ). ;) :D

(Best Brosnan impression, ironically during a scene in one of your favourite films): Oh very good.

Anyway fun though this has been Mr Helm I think its time to put an end to it as although we are both enjoying ourselves people here seem to prefer a nice sanitised forum where you just post your list 1 to 7 and no one dares question it for risk of causing offence. Apart from anything else I appear to be literally the only one who seems to take issue with you rating DAD higher than CR and SF so I have to question is there any point in being here? (I mean on this forum obviously - I'm not going to top myself; much as I'm sure you'd like to think your attempted insults about my parentage, intelligence and semi racist comments about England might have me crying into my duvet like a 12 year old girl who has just heard One Direction have broken up).

mcdonbb

One Direction broke up? :(( ...being sarcastic btw.

chrisisall

mcdonbb wrote: »

One Direction broke up? :(( ...being sarcastic btw.

That's nothing to be sarcastic about. Back in 1979 a kid killed himself because they cancelled Battlestar Galactica. Who knows what terrible fallout this break-up will cause.
/:)
Personally, I am devastated.

Getafix

Tragic that it had to come to an end. Do you think they'll reunite for one last tour of their old classics? We may have heard them a thousand times before but as the end beckons I'm suddenly overcome with a wave of nostalgia.

I'm referring to @matt_helm and @thewizardofice of course! Fabulous show you two! I can't believe you didn't both rehearse that?! You must have been practicing for quite some time!

chrisisall

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

mcdonbb

I have only a vague idea whom One Direction is/was... but someone losing a life no that is tragic.

Boy bands welcome sarcasm though...

chrisisall

mcdonbb wrote: »

someone losing a life no that is tragic.

The kid should have hanged on for Galactica 1980.
8-|

Getafix

And the reboot. Supposed to be excellent.

chrisisall

Getafix wrote: »

Supposed to be excellent.

Fine beginning, sad ending. He didn't miss much. If reincarnated, he's 34 or so now. Wonder if he has the Blu Ray of the Galactica theatrical movie...
Wow, way off topic here.

:-O

Luv4Moonraker7

1) Casino Royale 2) Quantum of Solace 3) Skyfall QOS is a bit underrated & Skyfall is a bit overrated. 4) Goldeneye 5) The World is not Enough 6) Tomorrow Never Dies & last and certainly least lol is Die Another Day.

chrisisall

Luv4Moonraker7 wrote: »

2) Quantum of Solace 3) Skyfall

QOS above SF? I would agree, but that won't make you many friends around here... B-)

Getafix

QoS is just more entertaining that SF. It's not a classic but I definitely prefer it.

If I am truly honest though, none of the Craig films rank amongst my favourites. I rate DC, admire large parts of CR, actually rather enjoyed QoS, but was unimpressed by SF. I think it's really DC himself who has supported these three movies though, none of which are quite as good as they should/could have been.

I was really hoping SF would be that third time lucky absolute blinder and I know many people think it is just that, but I'm still waiting for DC to make the truly great Bond film I think he's capable of. He just needs the plot, screenplay, co stars and direction. Haven't given up hope on Mendes, who I think is a very hit and miss director. I think Mendes will really want to top SF. Hoping he does.

MayDayDiVicenzo

Getafix wrote: »

If I am truly honest though, none of the Craig films rank amongst my favourites.

Add me to that.

bondjames

Getafix wrote: »

I think it's really DC himself who has supported these three movies though, none of which are quite as good as they should/could have been.

SF has its flaws, but it get things right on many levels too, keeping in mind the kind of audience (ADD/ADHD in many cases) that it needs to appeal to. I agree though that it is for the most part Craig & his outstanding performances that have held these movies together. If not for him, they would be looked upon quite differently...

Although I was disappointed at the time, I'm quite happy they did not go for runner up Henry Cavill (Campbell's #1 choice). His acting skills really leave something to be desired vs. Craig.

Chiraz

1. Casino Royale
2. Skyfall
3. Goldeneye
4. Tomorrow never dies
5. The word is not enough
6. Quantum of Solace
7. Die Another Day

Matt_Helm

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Matt_Helm wrote: »

You:
I'd be grateful if you could furnish me with how you arrive at the conclusion that 'probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden' or 'M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets'? Where does it mention this in the script?

M.H.:
Script? I'm talking about what should be (and probably is )standard procedure for every intelligence agency around the globe. If you have identified a leak you want and need to know what has flown through it. So bond must have been sent to research, because we know if she wanted to have Dryden killed she would have sent a 00.


You:
Dryden himself admits that if M was sure he was dodgy she would've sent a double o to take him out. So M has no interest in interrogating Dryden and Bond is just obeying orders in putting him down.

M.H.:
Pardon??? So because she is not sure that he is bent she simply decides to have him killed by a rookie? Good luck she died at the end of SF because who knows how many good and innocent MI6 agents would have come to dead if this was her standard procedure when she had a hunch. No wonder you rank Skyfall so high. To you everyone's permanent incompetently behaviour at MI6 probably is just another day in the office.

Its getting quite tiresome now.

The whole point of the CR PTS is that Bond becomes a double O by completing 2 kills - hence the '007 Status Confirmed' in the title sequence; or did you think that was just Kleinmann pissing about? Clearly he is doing this under orders or are you under the impression that M promotes him for just randomly killing people? I agree that in the real world you might think MI6 would want to interrogate Dryden but in the Bond world M just wants him executed. I guess this is just another flaw inherent in Fleming's ludicrous Bond universe.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

You:
I'd still be interested (well amused) to hear how you can justify DAD being a better film than CR but as I've asked you to do this already and you've just flatly ignored me I dont hold out any hope

M.H.:
Since I already have (en detail I might add) I will put it very simple. The part of DAD I like to me feels more "bondian" than the parts I enjoy in CR.

Well when you say you've covered it en detail (sic) I presume you mean the bit where you said you liked the PTS when Bond is sneaking about? Sorry to break it to you but the title of the thread is 'Let's rate the Bond-films from "GoldenEye" until "Skyfall" ' not 'Cherry pick your favourite scenes'. Try practicing what you are constantly preaching about 'reading and comprehending'.

You have to accept all the good bits and the bad bits when rating films as a whole (which is what the thread title asks you to do - do you see what I did there? I read the thread title and I comprehended it). So when I put CR and SF quite highly I have to do this in the full knowledge that if I do I am signing up for the 'My little finger' line, the deux ex machina stupidity of the defibrillator sequence, the total collapsing of logic in the plot when Silva gets to London, the annoying DB5 fan wank and a far shittier GB (and annoyingly in the wrong place) than DAD.

Similarly when you rate DAD so highly you have to sign up for Jinx, the invisible car, Madonna cameo, Jinx, Madonna song, Toby Stephen's hammy overacting, Jinx, crappy CGI finally, Mr Kil, shoehorned references to all the other films, Jinx and hands down the most embarrassing effects sequence ever committed to celluloid. And not forgetting Jinx.

If you want to start a new thread called 'Random scenes in crap films that, taken in isolation, are very Bondian' be my guest but thats not what we're discussing here. The scenes with Lazar and Bond dining with Scaramanga are very good, Bondian if you will, but that doesnt erase the Kung Fu schoolgirls, JW being pushed into a canal by an elephant, the slide whistle over the car jump and Goodnight's arse bumping into things - hence TMWTGG is regarded as one of the worst films and rightly so. You cant use a handful of decent things in DAD - and it does have them; the Pikelet, Brosnan's performance (possibly his best), the driving stunts - as an apology for the rest of the crapfest it descends into.

Matt_Helm wrote: »

You:
Even with my 'narrow means' I can discern that I am beaten by a superior intellect ...

M.H.:
More (dare I say much more) able men than you have suffered defeat from me,so don't worry (although you should be used to it anyway ). ;) :D

(Best Brosnan impression, ironically during a scene in one of your favourite films): Oh very good.

Anyway fun though this has been Mr Helm I think its time to put an end to it as although we are both enjoying ourselves people here seem to prefer a nice sanitised forum where you just post your list 1 to 7 and no one dares question it for risk of causing offence. Apart from anything else I appear to be literally the only one who seems to take issue with you rating DAD higher than CR and SF so I have to question is there any point in being here? (I mean on this forum obviously - I'm not going to top myself; much as I'm sure you'd like to think your attempted insults about my parentage, intelligence and semi racist comments about England might have me crying into my duvet like a 12 year old girl who has just heard One Direction have broken up).

"semi racist comments about England" ????
Feeling a bit touchy,don't you?

Getafix

bondjames wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

I think it's really DC himself who has supported these three movies though, none of which are quite as good as they should/could have been.

SF has its flaws, but it get things right on many levels too, keeping in mind the kind of audience (ADD/ADHD in many cases) that it needs to appeal to. I agree though that it is for the most part Craig & his outstanding performances that have held these movies together. If not for him, they would be looked upon quite differently...

Although I was disappointed at the time, I'm quite happy they did not go for runner up Henry Cavill (Campbell's #1 choice). His acting skills really leave something to be desired vs. Craig.

I think Cavill would have been awful - another Brosnan. To her eternal credit Babs persisted and got her man. An excellent, dare I say it, 'inspired' choice. However, I'm still waiting for him to get the perfect screenplay, plot and director. I'm ever hopeful, and I do think this next film should be a step up from SF. It's just the return of P+W that worries me.

Gustav_Graves

bondjames wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

I think it's really DC himself who has supported these three movies though, none of which are quite as good as they should/could have been.

SF has its flaws, but it get things right on many levels too, keeping in mind the kind of audience (ADD/ADHD in many cases) that it needs to appeal to. I agree though that it is for the most part Craig & his outstanding performances that have held these movies together. If not for him, they would be looked upon quite differently...

Although I was disappointed at the time, I'm quite happy they did not go for runner up Henry Cavill (Campbell's #1 choice). His acting skills really leave something to be desired vs. Craig.

I am going to make a quick list here. And go back into the time tunnel to the moment in which I saw the Bond film for the very first time. And then especially which scenes truly stood out for me:

--> GoldenEye: I saw it in December 1995 with my mum & dad and brother in a small cinema (I was born on a farm, so not many cinemas in the Eastern Part of Netherlands). A cinema where you still got served by a waitress and where it was possible to smoke.
Stand out scenes: The main titles. I was really astonished by these visuals combined with the song. Like this: :-O. Then the tank chase. As a 14 year old kiddo I really disliked the PTS.
--> Tomorrow Never Dies: I saw it in December 1997 with two school buddies. In the same smokey and small event cinema.
Stand out scenes: The gunbarrel! My, I thought I heard the loudness of "Thunderball" :-O. Such exquisit music. Then I loved the parking garage chase. I liked it more than the tank chase from GE. And I couldn't left the cinema during the end titles, because I was tunned about this song. But my friends wanted to leave :-(.
--> The World Is Not Enough: I saw it in December 1999 with my brother, my school buddy friend Jeroen and my dad. My dad had a severe headache that evening, which was kinda sad :-(.
Stand out scenes: The gunbarrel again. I also remember the 75th anniversary MGM logo very well. But movie-wise I was really impressed by the snow scenes, its music and the freeski-fall. But I was younger back then. No, as of today, I am more critical about the inclusion of snow scenes and how forced they felt.
--> Die Another Day: Actually, I saw it on a DVD download first. I was very very angry that the premiere for The Netherlands that year was postponed all the way to January 2013. I was disappointed about it on my TV, when I saw it.
Stand out scenes: No clear stand-out memories here. And then in January I saw it on cinema screen. In a very big cinema. And again....this Bond film for me failed with clear stand out scenes that can have "evergreen status".
--> Casino Royale: I was doing my one year internship in 2006 in London. I remember this very very well. I bought a lot of these comic books and Fleming's novels. I was very happy when I heard that the last Fleming novel would be properly adapted. So off course I first read the Ian Fleming novels and the Titan comic books. And I especially studied "Casino Royale".
Stand out scenes: In all honesty? The torture scene. It literally grabbed me by the balls. It was intense acting between Mads & Daniel. The combination of suffering and emotions must have had millions of cinema visitors attached to their seats with super glue. It had OHMSS-esque romance. And this wun-der-ful extended casino experience (the poker game). I left the cinema, with a cute date at that time ;-), and I was flabbergasted. Completely "wow-ed". Poor date :-P.
--> Quantum Of Solace: December 2008, with my parents and brother. Right before Christmas. I remember I really had some issues with my studies and I was kind of depressed psychically. I remember, like always, that my dad completely loved it! He left the cinema and honestly thought this was the best Bond cinema experience for him since GoldenEye. I completely disagreed.
Stand out scenes: The PTS. Although too short and rather.....sick-making, I liked it. Apart from that....I.....I just don't remember any stand out scenes.
--> Skyfall: November 2012, watched it with my ex-boyfriend. As he has been several times to China, he was stunned by the aerial shots of Shanghai. He actually thought the aerial shot of Macau was very accurate. Then later, in December I watched it again with my mum & dad. My dad didn't like it so much as QOS, but he was impressed by the villain. My mum couldn't watch the scene where Silva put out his prosthesis jaw: "I can't watch...ughhh!".
Stand out scenes: The introduction of Silva. Absolutely magnificent. Very Doctor No-esque. And then the following scenes introducing the psychotic Tell game. Truly amazing....and as memorable as the torture scene in CR. I also remember very well, that Dutch audiences where Playboy-whistling the two girls at the start of the impressive main titles. Especially the girl pointing the gun at us. Wun-der-ful.

M_Balje

That not happend much that somebody dislike the pretitles of Goldeneye. But what you don't like about it. Atleast i am very clear/fair about CR that i think it is to violence.

Gustav_Graves

M_Balje wrote: »

That not happend much that somebody dislike the pretitles of Goldeneye. But what you don't like about it. Atleast i am very clear/fair about CR that i think it is to violence.

Uhm, I said I was astonished by it. That means that I was impressed by them. I loved them. Know your English vocabulary ;-)

Thunderfinger

To be fair, you wrote that you disliked the pre title sequence.

Gustav_Graves

Thunderfinger wrote: »

To be fair, you wrote that you disliked the pre title sequence.

Aaah sorry! I wrote it wrong, I understood it wrong I mixed up "Main Titles" with "Pre Titles". Yes, I wasn't impressed by it. I remember at age of 14 lots of laughter when Bond "catches the plane". At that age for me it already looked quite fake. But the main titles? I loved them....

Thunderfinger

You and me both. The PTS is as bad as the MTS is good.

doubleohdad

MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

If I am truly honest though, none of the Craig films rank amongst my favourites.

Add me to that.

You support OP and it's ilk but waver on these Craig films?

MayDayDiVicenzo

doubleohdad wrote: »

MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

If I am truly honest though, none of the Craig films rank amongst my favourites.

Add me to that.

You support OP and it's ilk but waver on these Craig films?

Erm, dude, Octopussy is just below Skyfall and Casino Royale in my ranking, which are no. 11 and 12 respectively, so don't give me that crap.

And yes, I'll take Connery, Brozzer, Moore and Dalton over Craig. Problem?

doubleohdad

Your opinion, but most o the world thinks CR and SF are significantly stronger films than OP, and I've just gotta chuckle at your assertion that Craig is the worst Bond.

RC7

doubleohdad wrote: »

Your opinion, but most o the world thinks CR and SF are significantly stronger films than OP

'Most of the world thinks'. Gotta chuckle.

MayDayDiVicenzo

doubleohdad wrote: »

Your opinion, but most o the world thinks CR and SF are significantly stronger films than OP, and I've just gotta chuckle at your assertion that Craig is the worst Bond.

Now that's where you go wrong. I don't have a "worst" Bond. Stop making these ridiculous claims (although Lazenby seems to have slipped your mind?). There isn't a bad Bond, imo, I just enjoy some performances over others.

And I, along with other members of this forum, will laugh at your preposterous posts on this forum thus far.

"most o the world thinks CR and SF are significantly stronger films than OP"- this is why I can't take anything you post seriously.