›

Bond movie ranking (Simple list, no details)

1…112113115117118…242

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think my little NSNA-promotion in the Big Bond Contest topic paid off :-P.
    Trying to influence the voting eh GG? Are you not supposed to be neutral?

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    NicNac wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think my little NSNA-promotion in the Big Bond Contest topic paid off :-P.
    Trying to influence the voting eh GG? Are you not supposed to be neutral?

    That was not my intention really :-). But I do think the film deserves a bit more praise. Official or not official, it still is a film featuring Ian Fleming's James Bond 007. Moreover, taking into account the absence of typical formula items like a gunbarrel sequence and Bond music with Monty Norman's theme tune, it did set a standard that CR and SF more or less followed up. These official films were deliberately steering away from the formulario approach, whereas NSNA had to do it because of legal problems. So in hindsight NSNA set a standard ;-). Also, Connery's portrayal as an aged 007 works much better than Roger Moore, which age problems were seen as a problem. We still have to see an official Bond film in which Bond really is written as a 55+ James Bond. Could be interesting. Lastly, Barbara Carrera's and Klaus-María Brandauer's portrayals as villains were completely fun and intense. Carrera even got a Golden Globe nomination for her role, which many fans in here tend to forget.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,226
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think my little NSNA-promotion in the Big Bond Contest topic paid off :-P.
    Trying to influence the voting eh GG? Are you not supposed to be neutral?

    That was not my intention really :-). But I do think the film deserves a bit more praise. Official or not official, it still is a film featuring Ian Fleming's James Bond 007. Moreover, taking into account the absence of typical formula items like a gunbarrel sequence and Bond music with Monty Norman's theme tune, it did set a standard that CR and SF more or less followed up. These official films were deliberately steering away from the formulario approach, whereas NSNA had to do it because of legal problems. So in hindsight NSNA set a standard ;-). Also, Connery's portrayal as an aged 007 works much better than Roger Moore, which age problems were seen as a problem. We still have to see an official Bond film in which Bond really is written as a 55+ James Bond. Could be interesting. Lastly, Barbara Carrera's and Klaus-María Brandauer's portrayals as villains were completely fun and intense. Carrera even got a Golden Globe nomination for her role, which many fans in here tend to forget.

    Well said, Gustav! In addition GE has several elements that owe itself to NSNA. The laser watch, obviously, Onatopp is in the same mold as Fatima, and the concept that the M we know and loved has been replaced. I don't count Robert Brown as it has never been made official he was Hargreaves replacing Miles. If so, OCTOPUSSY did absolutely nothing with it. GE and NSNA make it very clear from the get go that this is a new M that doesn't abide by Bond's ways.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited September 2016 Posts: 2,252
    This is my subjective list done giving scores to individual elements. I need to revise the scoring system, but currently the lowest score is 12. This does not represent what % I give the film, the numbers are relative. The second bracket shows my actual ranking using another method.

    1. OHMSS (76.25) (5)
    2. OP (73.25) (2)
    3. CR (71.5) (3)
    4. FRWL (70.5) (4)
    5. TLD (67.25) (1)
    6. GE (62.25) (6)

    7. DN (60) (10)
    8. MR (60) (11)
    9. FYEO (59.75) (7)
    10. LTK (58.75) (13)
    11. TSWLM (57.5) (8)

    12. AVTAK (57.25) (15)
    13. TB (54) (19)
    14. TND (49) (9)
    15. DAF (45) (12)
    16. GF (42.5) (16)

    17. YOLT (42) (14)
    18. TWINE (37.5) (21)
    19. LALD (37) (20)
    20. TMWTGG (34.5) (17)
    21. QOS (34.5) (22)
    22. SP (34.5) (24)
    23. SF (34) (23)
    24. DAD (30.5) (18)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There is no such thing as objective lists here. If there were, they would all look the same.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited September 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    There is no such thing as objective lists here. If there were, they would all look the same.

    There's this one though. A collection of rankings from Movie Critics & Entertainment Websites (so editors who aren't necessarily Bond fans). All of them included the last Bond film. It took me a while to compile the list, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what the media thinks of the Bond films:
    rK63E0e.jpg

    I know, it's still not objective ;-). But it gives you an idea (The higher the ranking, the lower the points tally).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    There is no such thing as objective lists here. If there were, they would all look the same.

    I wouldn't say that's true. I will say, however, that objectivity is largely impossible to possess. It's just a word people use to sound more special of opinion than they really are.

    If I had to make a list of my favorite films and movies I think are the best, there would be massive parallels, because our minds naturally see what we like as the best; it's a human reaction. It's damn hard to look at a subjective medium like film and truly think without bias. Near impossible, as I said.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Nice list GG, I have a list of over 300 random rankings (non Bond forum) and you know what? The ranking is not much different to your small sample. Even when spectre first came out and I only had about a dozen MI6C rankings, the general consensus is about the same.

    There are slight differences between the "film critic" and Bond forum lists, such as higher placement of GF and lower for OHMSS/TLD for film critics.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    w2bond wrote: »
    Nice list GG, I have a list of over 300 random rankings (non Bond forum) and you know what? The ranking is not much different to your small sample. Even when spectre first came out and I only had about a dozen MI6C rankings, the general consensus is about the same.

    There are slight differences between the "film critic" and Bond forum lists, such as higher placement of GF and lower for OHMSS/TLD for film critics.

    What surprises me time after time, how easily two Craig films are giving some of the biggest Connery classics a hard time. I mean, look at one of my favourite Brosnan films, GE. Are SF and CR then films that are making Connery forget a tiny bit?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    There is no such thing as objective lists here. If there were, they would all look the same.

    I wouldn't say that's true. I will say, however, that objectivity is largely impossible to possess. It's just a word people use to sound more special of opinion than they really are.

    If I had to make a list of my favorite films and movies I think are the best, there would be massive parallels, because our minds naturally see what we like as the best; it's a human reaction. It's damn hard to look at a subjective medium like film and truly think without bias. Near impossible, as I said.

    Exactly. What s objective is a subjective assessment.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Nice list GG, I have a list of over 300 random rankings (non Bond forum) and you know what? The ranking is not much different to your small sample. Even when spectre first came out and I only had about a dozen MI6C rankings, the general consensus is about the same.

    There are slight differences between the "film critic" and Bond forum lists, such as higher placement of GF and lower for OHMSS/TLD for film critics.

    What surprises me time after time, how easily two Craig films are giving some of the biggest Connery classics a hard time. I mean, look at one of my favourite Brosnan films, GE. Are SF and CR then films that are making Connery forget a tiny bit?

    That is because they are still "new".
    In 10 years the picture will look different again. Especially once a new actor has taken over.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2016 Posts: 28,694
    The 60s, and specifically Sean's first four movies, will always be special additions in the franchise, for obvious reasons. It's just that of the new group, CR happens to be what I imagine to be the perfect Bond film, and I know many feel the same way. I don't know when we'll ever see anything near like it after this point, just like some say FRWL or GF never met an equal film that could match what it brought to the table. Some say SF is the one-off runaway hit, but I think that honor should go to CR. I can't see anything ever knocking it out of my ranking, honestly. Somehow, all the elements I look for in a Bond film came perfectly in line during that production and what we got in the final product has no adjectives worthy of properly describing it.

    It'll be interesting to look back on these films once we're all using walkers, laid up in retirement homes fighting over the last carton of week old prune juice and likely still moaning about which actor is going to be Bond if 007 #12 drops out. By that time someone will likely have found a way to implant the memories, thoughts and feelings of notable people from history into robots or the brains of humans, and we can get Ian's conscience back to write more Bond novels for us, or at least get him working on the screenplays for Bond films #43, 44 and 45.

    In between waits for the movies we could all meet up to have races on our hover boards.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Good thought but Mr Fleming's brain will have decayed long ago, unless he had it cryogenically preserved
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited September 2016 Posts: 2,252
    This is the summary of the non-forum rankings (376 sample size)

    1. CR (7689^)
    2. GF (7663)
    3. FRWL (7227)
    4. SF (7140^)
    5. GE (6729)
    6. OHMSS (6371)

    7. TSWLM (6233)
    8. DN (5832)
    9. TLD (5152)
    10. LTK (5116)
    11. TB (4893)
    12. SP (4849^)
    13. FYEO (4617)

    14. YOLT (4501)
    15. LALD (4477)
    16. TND (4006)
    17. TWINE (3496)
    18. OP (3381)
    19. TMWTGG (3302)
    20. QOS (3265^)
    21. MR (2859)

    22. DAF (2779)
    23. AVTAK (2615)
    24. DAD (1993)

    ^Many of these rankings were done pre-SP/SF so these films are projected numbers especially for SF/SP

    Notes
    - CR is on a roll and leads in both the Bond forum and non-forum ranks
    - The top five are largely the same between MI6C and this list, except TLD replaces SF in the Bond community
    - Octopussy ranks lower in the general community (by 3 spots)
    - Otherwise it's surprisingly similar

    One day I will upload the graphs and box and whisker charts
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    FRWL - GF - OHMSS - TSWLM - GE - CR - SF

    Those 7 lead in any compilation of rankings and the more you add the more clear that picture gets.

    5 out of 6 actors have at least one movie in the eternal classics section.

    Shame Dalton wasn't appreciated more, he is my favourite.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Those 7 lead in any compilation of rankings and the more you add the more clear that picture gets.

    Yep. And you don't even need many rankings for that trend to appear

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Nice list GG, I have a list of over 300 random rankings (non Bond forum) and you know what? The ranking is not much different to your small sample. Even when spectre first came out and I only had about a dozen MI6C rankings, the general consensus is about the same.

    There are slight differences between the "film critic" and Bond forum lists, such as higher placement of GF and lower for OHMSS/TLD for film critics.

    What surprises me time after time, how easily two Craig films are giving some of the biggest Connery classics a hard time. I mean, look at one of my favourite Brosnan films, GE. Are SF and CR then films that are making Connery forget a tiny bit?

    That is because they are still "new".
    In 10 years the picture will look different again. Especially once a new actor has taken over.

    I remember very well how CR was hailed in 2006 as the 'Best Bond Film since Connery's GF'. But...we're 10 years further now. And it's still rocking the charts. Something GE never did, even not when the movie critics released their reviews back in 1995. Most reviews were about the relief that Bond was finally back after 6 years.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    1. The Living Daylights
    2. Licence To Kill
    3. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    4. From Russia With Love
    5. Tomorrow Never Dies
    6. For Your Eyes Only
    7. The Spy Who Loved Me
    8. You Only Live Twice
    9. Octopussy
    10. The World Is Not Enough
    11. Spectre
    12. Dr No
    13. GoldenEye
    14. Live And let Die
    15. The Man With The Golden Gun
    16. Die Another Day
    17. Skyfall
    18. Goldfinger
    19. Moonraker
    20. Thunderball
    21. Casino Royale
    22. A View To A Kill
    23. Diamonds Are Forever
    24. Quantum Of Solace

    That ranking will likely remain until I have another Bondathon (whenever that'll be).
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Both CR and SF break from the Bond formula trend which tbh had been getting a bit stale. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bond formula, but the films were lacking some inspiration despite the inventive stunts and action sequences in the 80's. CR reinvigorated the franchise by being bold and it paid off.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Nice list GG, I have a list of over 300 random rankings (non Bond forum) and you know what? The ranking is not much different to your small sample. Even when spectre first came out and I only had about a dozen MI6C rankings, the general consensus is about the same.

    There are slight differences between the "film critic" and Bond forum lists, such as higher placement of GF and lower for OHMSS/TLD for film critics.

    What surprises me time after time, how easily two Craig films are giving some of the biggest Connery classics a hard time. I mean, look at one of my favourite Brosnan films, GE. Are SF and CR then films that are making Connery forget a tiny bit?

    That is because they are still "new".
    In 10 years the picture will look different again. Especially once a new actor has taken over.
    Agreed. Connery on top is the only everlasting certainty in the Bond world.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    It didn't need to go so far away from the Bond formula. They could have made CR to DAD, what TLD was to AVTAK. But instead, they threw out the baby, the bathwater, and the bath itself.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,020

    GE was never hailed as being as good as GF but it was HUGELY POPULAR and still is.
    To say people only liked it because they were relieved that Bond is back is rubbish.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It was greeted so warmly and enthusiastically for three reasons. First, yes, the six year gap. Secondly, the general audience choice (the popular choice) finally got the role that the they had been expecting for eight years, and he gave them just what they wanted in a Bond (Remember, Roger was beloved but getting old and hackneyed, Timothy was never embraced. Brosnan was almost like a Roger reset, but younger and sharper). The third was that for the first time in a long time a 007 film felt like an A-list project and production: It was big and grandiose, the fun had returned, some actors of note were added in, and it felt far more Bondman (in terms of audience perception and expectations) than any movie since MR. Even I (who was not excited about Pierce's ascension to the role, and was not even really interested at that point) appreciated that last part. If someone else remembers it differently, chime in, but that was the vibe. No internet, so you just picked up on what people around you, in print and on television were saying.
    Excellent assessment. This is how I see it too.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    GE is one of the most popular and appreciated Bond films world-wide in the last 40 years, a title that only TSWLM, CR and SF can also claim, from the last 17 Bond films made since Moore took over in 1973.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I hate it, but it s true.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,226
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It was greeted so warmly and enthusiastically for three reasons. First, yes, the six year gap. Secondly, the general audience choice (the popular choice) finally got the role that the they had been expecting for eight years, and he gave them just what they wanted in a Bond (Remember, Roger was beloved but getting old and hackneyed, Timothy was never embraced. Brosnan was almost like a Roger reset, but younger and sharper). The third was that for the first time in a long time a 007 film felt like an A-list project and production: It was big and grandiose, the fun had returned, some actors of note were added in, and it felt far more Bondman (in terms of audience perception and expectations) than any movie since MR. Even I (who was not excited about Pierce's ascension to the role, and was not even really interested at that point) appreciated that last part. If someone else remembers it differently, chime in, but that was the vibe. No internet, so you just picked up on what people around you, in print and on television were saying.

    Well said. One cannot emphasize enough just how big an event it was to have Bond back on the screen in GE. It was very much loved and Pierce was immediately embraced.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I hate it, but it s true.

    When Thunderfinger is agreeing with something regarding GE/Brosnan, then it's definitely true.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Remember that Allah is also very popular.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,020
    My current ranking is as follows and I wanted it to be the final "Jason's Bond film ranking" for 2016, but I still am not sure about a few things.

    1 SP
    2 GE
    3 TLD
    4 OHMSS
    5 CR
    6 OP
    no doubt whatsoever about the Top 6

    7 FRWL
    8 GF
    it seems impossible to decide which one is better, always the one I'm watching I find slightly better than the other! how do you rank them and with what reasoning?

    9 QOS
    in 8 years this film constantly went up from 19 to 8, that's as far as it will go though

    10 TND stayed always on 9 or 10 in my yearly official final ranking

    11 FYEO
    12 TSWLM
    13 MR
    Roger Moore gives me the most headache with ranking. While OP clearly is up there, his other 4 movies FYEO, TSWLM, MR and LALD are almost impossible to get into an order.

    14 LTK this is wrong, how it got down here I have no clue, I must have been in a bad mood I guess. So this has to be corrected at least.

    15 DAF I only discovered my love for it a couple of years ago. 15 seems right and the only way will be up if it will move again.

    16 LALD as LTK this seems way to low in my ranking, but where to put it...

    17 DAD if anything this should go up a bit, somewhere near MR perhaps, but it's tricky.

    18 DN the reason I want to rethink my ranking. Just seen it and it's bloody perfect. At this moment I want to have it near FRWL/GF but hey it's crowded at the top!

    no doubt about my bottom 6, the order within them may change but none of them will ever go further up than 19.
    19 TB
    20 YOLT
    21 AVTAK
    22 TMWTGG
    23 TWINE
    24 SF

    so you see I am struggling, I admit I'm a bit obsessed with rankings and I want them to be reflecting how I feel about the films in each year.

    11 to 18 is the problem, 8 films that I consider flawless in the sense that I fully enjoy them and can with ease look over any minor issues they may have.
    Ranking them though is a nightmare.

    Maybe you can help me?

    There are a few possible orders I can think of:

    FYEO-LTK-DN-TSWLM-DAF-LALD-MR-DAD
    or
    LTK-DN-TSWLM-FYEO-LALD-DAF-MR-DAD

    deciding things is difficult for me, my star sign is virgo with ascendent virgo! so there you go...
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited September 2016 Posts: 19,339
    If i had to choose between those films,it would be,as of my mood today:

    LTK-TSWLM-DN-LALD-FYEO-MR-DAF-DAD
Sign In or Register to comment.