It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
On the Craig front, dealing with an un-finished script and re-writes during filming I have to say QOS didn't turn out as badly as it may have been. Funny how they rushed QOS and as such we are very unlikely to see a Bond film have 2 year gaps ever again.
This is a tough one for me to answer. I will go with Connery trilogy as I always gain enjoyment of FRWL and GF. DN has grown on me and has climbed up my rankings.
Objection, your honor... and I know there's no accounting for taste, but I appreciate SF the most (barely) of all the Craig entries. Next would be CR and NTTD, not necessarily in that order. And between QOS and SP the jury's still out on which I prefer... they're both mediocre at best.
Roger---LALD, TMWTGG and TSWLM! A great mix as it took a few films for Roger to find his solid footing. One would argue Spy is the best of the three but LALD and even Golden Gun has it's fans.
Pierce---GE, TND, TWINE! One could argue that GE represented a peak for Brosnan as Bond. But there are fans of TND and TWINE. When you look at the trio you don't see much continuity but you do see the producers changing things up and of course Pierce's Bond is the only one to deal with a female villain.
Would you rather watch Roger's first three movies OR Pierce's first three movies
Ditto. Even though I do love CR'06 but none of Craig's follow up Bond films come close to his 1st while the Connery era as a whole is quite enjoyable and rewatchable.
Definitely Sir Rog's 1st 003. I generally prefer the "old school" Bond films on the whole.
Brosnan's three, and it's also coincidental, because I'm currently watching the Brosnan Era, and they're getting rewatchable for me nowadays, I've watched them last Friday or so, and watched them again yesterday 😅.
Actually for me, the better of the Moore Era came out later in his tenure, starting with MR (my personal pick in his tenure).
TMWTGG is my least favorite of the whole series (yes, you've heard it right), due to many things that the film got wrong, then LALD is almost close to my bottom ten, and TSWLM is in the middle part of my rankings (found LALD too overlong and slow, with never ending chase scenes like that boat chase, then there are some other chase scenes in that double decker bus, and that plane runway chase, like the majority of the film was spent in that chase scenes, then nothing happened in the film until the climax, it's just a matter of Bond having a hide and seek with the villains that gets for too long, I'd never found anything enjoyable in that film, it's the slowest paced Bond film for me (probably edging out Thunderball), it's too long and slow with nothing much happened, the only thing that's good in it is the Paul McCartney song).
Then TSWLM, I appreciate the iconic moments, but I could say that Moonraker did improved for me upon some parts, especially the characters, the characters in TSWLM were not interesting for me, and not much of a personality (Stromberg was lazy as a villain, and have no personality, just a lame version of Blofeld who just wandered inside his lair and sit on his chair commanding his henchmen, Anya had a potential as in her premise, but she ended up being passive and damsel in distress, and quite helpless, doing nothing too, added to that was Bach's monotone and wooden acting, the plot was interesting but again are rehash of YOLT, Holly Goodhead and Hugo Drax in the next film was a big improvement over these two).
With the Brosnan Era, everything is a big evolution, the Bond Girls had been given way more due and agency, and so are the villains and the plot.
So, an easy one, the Brosnan Era for me, and not close.
For sure you're not going to pit Lazenby's one against Dalton's two, right?
I'm gonna go with Moore era here, simply because they're older classics, but damn this is a close call.
So I guess it’s Brosnan for me, but it’s between two options with a couple of stinkers.
Okay lets move on to another would you rather:
This is a variation on a previous one we did.
The last time there was a female villain (antagonist) was in TWINE when Electra King showed her true colours and gave Bond a run for his money. Before that the villains were male and since they have been male. Makes you wonder why we haven't had any since. Many highlight Sophie's performance as a highlight of the film.
In the history of the franchise we haven't had a female director. There have been some good ones in history and there are some good ones now. One wonders why Patty Jenkins doesn't get considered as she proved with Wonder Woman, and to a lesser degree Wonder Woman 1984 that she can handle a big production. Kathryn Bigelow was another female director that proved she could handle action and a big production.
So I have to ask the question:
Would you rather a future Bond film feature a female villain (antagonist) or be directed by a female director?
Take this wherever you want! Would a female director make different choices and show different things within a movie? Would battling a female villain give Bond a different feel or a different vibe?
What say you mi6 community?
But if it comes to a full on suggestion, then give Won Kar Wai (male) the directing job, and have PWB as the villainess. XD