›

Bond Movie A vs. Bond Movie B (Diamonds Are Forever vs. The World Is Not Enough)

1…8687899192…153

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Getafix, but it isn't the same. To enjoy something is not the same as to hate it. Just because I have a few complaints about the film doesn't mean I hate it, it's just how I feel. Relax.

    Same here.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    You'll all be glad to hear that I have been (positively) shocked into a state of silence.



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    You'll all be glad to hear that I have been (positively) shocked into a state of silence.

    Great, and we didn't even need a fan and tub filled with water.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Getafix wrote:
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    @Getafix Goldfinger is just a plain and simple, dull and boring James Bond release. I'm a big fan of Bond as we all are, but the truth be told, it's a wasted two hours of some watchers time as Connery spends half the duration sitting around or looking bored, it only livens up at the end when they arrive at Kentucky and the Fort Knox finale, but it is a rather long wait until the end, Blackman's Pussy Galore character does nothing at all to liven things up and just weighs it down with some more banal and uninteresting scenes and character, I really fail to see the furore this 1964 release causes sometimes

    Errr... yeah. Right.

    Just as long as you ignore a magnificent Barry song and score, beautiful iconic title credits, possibly the best PTS in the series, a endless string of classic lines, Connery at his physical peak, the DB5, Gert Frobe, Oddjob, some of the most iconic and memorable production designs ever from Ken Adam (including the laser room, ranch and Fort Knox sets), some of the best Bond girls AND vintage scenes with Q, M and Moneypenny.

    TLD is absolutely one of my favourite Bond movies but there is no conceivable way in which I could ever describe it as superior to GF.

    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    I think quite a few people round here like myself are sick of seeing it regarded as the best Bond ever, film critics are so clichéd when they review it and go on about it being the quintessential 007 entry. As for SC at his physical I'd argue that would be FRWL, that fight with Grant knocks the one with Oddjob into a cocked hat.

    Yes it does have a great score and one of the best PTS' of the series but after that with the exception of tense enjoyable meet up with Auric and the laser table sequence, GF sends me to sleep. Adam's work goes without saying he always excels. TLD is much better paced and as TD being better than SC in the film maybe not as comfortable in the role but much more IF like, the way Sean is in FRWL. Both FRWL and TLD have a nice cold war feel, GF just reminds me of Austin Powers these days.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    GF just reminds me of Austin Powers these days

    Oh dear, the Bond snobs have come out ;)

    I don't think GF is the VERY best Bond film quality wise (that goes to FRWL) but it's certainly ONE of the best and has a firm spot in my top 5 along with FRWL, OHMSS, CR and GE.

    SC is more charismatic than Dalton (I couldn't care about being more Fleming-like)
    Gert Frobe, while not my favourite villain, makes more of an impression than the miscast JDB.
    Honour Blackman beats Mariam D'Arbo hands-down
    Jill Masterson
    Jill Masterson
    Shirley Eton
    Shirley Bassett

    Last time I saw GF I really enjoyed it and it certainly did NOT send me to sleep

    GF is well regarded by the critics for a reason - because it's good.

    I've also read Dalton considers GF to be one of his favourites too.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    But that doesn't explain why the same people enjoy the likes of FRWL or TLD. Both those films also have a "slower" more leisurely pace.

    I came to Bond via TV/DVD (or in my case Nintendo) yet I consider GF to be one of the best.

    For the record I don't think the film is "perfect" though. There are flaws.

    I always find the final countdown on the atom bomb amusing - the numbers and ticks make no sense.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    Why is everyone assuming we are mindless drones who need our James Bond films to be like 'Transformers' or else we will complain that it's stupid, boring, and slow?

    I never said anything about it being too slow or boring, just that it's slow in comparison to TLD, is all. It's still an excellent film. I just don't see why people make such broad, insane assumptions about the generalization of people, when I'm not in that boat of a comparison in the slightest.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    BAIN123 wrote:
    [
    I came to Bond via TV/DVD (or in my case Nintendo) yet I consider GF to be one of the best.

    .

    I am discussing those who don't like it. Not those who do...

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    [
    I came to Bond via TV/DVD (or in my case Nintendo) yet I consider GF to be one of the best.

    .

    I am discussing those who don't like it. Not those who do...

    I suppose some people just consider it too "cheesey" and too "kid orientated". However compared to later entries its pretty moderate.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    I love 'oldies'. By the way, they're classics. Just because I find GF stagnant at times doesn't mean I don't like slowly progressive or complex films.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't understand some people's obsession with 'seriousness', as if Bond would ever have survived had the films just been straight-faced, conventional thrillers.

    Ian Fleming frowns on you.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Agent007391 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't understand some people's obsession with 'seriousness', as if Bond would ever have survived had the films just been straight-faced, conventional thrillers.

    Ian Fleming frowns on you.
    Precisely. Bond might not have been around as long, but at least the character wouldn't be trashed.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Agent007391 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't understand some people's obsession with 'seriousness', as if Bond would ever have survived had the films just been straight-faced, conventional thrillers.

    Ian Fleming frowns on you.

    Well I'd hardly call fighting a giant squid, a character named "Pussy Galore" or going into a "Castle of Death" conventional yet Fleming came up with all of those.

    While they were more "grounded" compared to most of the films there was still a "quirkiness" about them that made them different (and popular).
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Agent007391 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't understand some people's obsession with 'seriousness', as if Bond would ever have survived had the films just been straight-faced, conventional thrillers.

    Ian Fleming frowns on you.

    Well I'd hardly call fighting a giant squid, a character named "Pussy Galore" or going into a "Castle of Death" conventional yet Fleming came up with all of those.

    While they were more "grounded" compared to most of the films there was still a "quirkiness" about them that made them different (and popular).

    The difference being that Fleming always found a way to explain or make us accept his quirkiness, while the films (Guy Hamilton's specifically) all feel like "You will accept this because we say so", which just makes me want to punch someone.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited June 2012 Posts: 12,837
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    I've read the book (which I actually like better than the film, my favourite one out of the Bond books I've read), and I still think TLD is better and GF is good but a bit boring.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    I've read the book (which I actually like better than the film, my favourite one out of the Bond books I've read), and I still think TLD is better and GF is good but a bit boring.

    Have you read CR?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    I've read the book (which I actually like better than the film, my favourite one out of the Bond books I've read), and I still think TLD is better and GF is good but a bit boring.

    Have you read CR?

    Yep. I've read CR, MR and GF. I need to start reading TB soon, I want to get througthe Blofeld trilogy.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2012 Posts: 4,043
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    I didn't come to it through the DVD's I'm 40 years old and first saw it on T.V back when Bond films were a rarity on British TV, 2 a year if you were lucky so don't tar me with that brush. I've probably been a Bond fan a lot longer than many on this forum. I admit I'm not enamoured as I was as young boy by the series but I certainly didn't just get into these films in the last decade, I have a 35 year history with Bond long before the bloody internet turned all of us into experts.

    For sometime I've felt GF was not all the great entry it's made out to be if that makes me a Bond snob then so be it. I much prefer the return of Mr Young for Bond 4.

    As for not liking slow paced films I think you'll find I was commending a slow paced film in the films you've watched thread, I've no problem with a slower pace but GF just about stops at times, FRWL is the Bond film that should get the quintessential 007 tag not GF.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    I mean seriously, what on earth is going on around here?

    They should read the book. It puts flesh on the characters. They might find it more interesting then.

    My theory is that this generation who came to it via DvD or TV isn't used to the slowness. They aren't used to the story unfolding at a leisurely pace. They want zap! pow! Now!

    Also it hasnt got the freshnes it had for us oldies. Mainly because being a blueprint its been copied so many times before.

    I've read the book (which I actually like better than the film, my favourite one out of the Bond books I've read), and I still think TLD is better and GF is good but a bit boring.

    Have you read CR?

    Yep. I've read CR, MR and GF. I need to start reading TB soon, I want to get througthe Blofeld trilogy.

    Damn, you're beating me. Too many other fantastic books to read.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I've never understood why GF gets the bashing it does on these boards.

    Bond actor - GF
    Bond girl - GF
    Song - GF
    Baddie - GF
    Action - Hmm...TLD (but a close call)

    Can't agree on the action being a close call, I'm afraid. I mean Goldfinger only boasts Fort Knox really. Everything else, when compared against TLD's super-charged and energetic action, doesn't make the cut. In fact, GF is one of those Bond movies which doesn't hold much action to its name, while TLD is chock-full of entertaining action left and right.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    As much as it pains me to choose I'm going to have to go withThe Living Daylights.
    GF is a great Bond film, and if you would've asked me a year ago I would of picked it, but it's moved down in my ranking system over the past year.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Despite it being from the classic era GF gets beaten by TLD as it is just an all round better film.

    P.S I never found Flemings books to be particulary grounded in reality, GF is still a good adaptation of the source novel.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    The Living Daylights, please
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    GF- 12 votes
    TLD- 22 votes

    And '80s Dalton trumps '60s Connery!

    Next round: Live and Let Die vs. Moonraker
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    LALD.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    MR

    The more enjoyable film IMO. LALD has Jane. MR has everything else. ;-)
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    LALD
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Nice to see TLD pick up a win.

    Anyway, LALD. I love most of MR, I just hate what they did to the Jaws character, really drags the film down imo. LALD is a little outdated, but it's still a fun film, with Roger giving a great 1st performance.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Live and Let Die

    Better 007 performance: LALD
    Better Villains: LALD
    Better Soundtrack: LALD
    Better Pace: LALD

    And on side notes, LALD also does not include half the cheese that MR does.
Sign In or Register to comment.