›

Diamonds Are Forever vs. Octopussy vs. Quantum of Solace

2»

Comments

  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @TheWizardOflce: Yes, I see what you mean. Thanks for bringing the whole sets thing to my attention! I had no idea about that. However, I still love DAF, even if the action is lackluster.
  • JinxJinx
    Posts: 102
    QOS
    OP
    DAF
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Well for a start the Whyte House and Whytes villa are both real buildings and I'm pretty sure the oil rig was too (in fact I'm 100% sure - no production company is going to build a full scale oil rig) so even if they are awesome (debatable) as you state Ken Adam seems to have let his creative standards slip somewhat since YOLT by just searching through Tatler to find suitable venues. The only sets worthy of note are the penthouse interiors (both Blofelds and Bonds) and the plastic surgery clinic and none of these are even as good as his work in DN never mind GF and YOLT. We know however that Ken hadnt jumped the shark as he was back with a bang for TSWLM and MR, leading me to conclude he was allowed to put in less than 100% on DAF like quite a few others. The film was made as the EON partnership was starting to break up so its likely Cubby and Harry had other things on their minds.
    I would also include the Ken Adam designed Morton Slumber's mortuary as a memorable set-piece. Sure it's low-key but fits the style of the film well. I agree, I think Ken Adam's contribution doesn't quite stand out as it did in YOLT, GF, and DN. But I have a feeling that budgetary constraints due to the Connery payroll could have cut into the production design budget, that's pure conjecture of course but seems plausible.

    But I would also argue that there's nothing wrong with location shooting to convey time and place. To me, the Vegas settings from the Hilton to Circus Circus to the Fremont Street backdrop used for the car chase in addition to the mid-century design of the Elrod House used for Whyte's vacation home, all add to the outlandish tone of the setting for the film.
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    Posts: 546
    OP
    QOS
    DAF
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    QOS
    OP








    DAF (I'd have it lower, but the mods wouldn't be pleased.)
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited March 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Octopussy is miles ahead of the other two. Diamonds is just crap imo and while I enjoy Quantum more than I used to, I still rank it fairly low and it can't touch OP.

    OP





    QOS
    DAF
  • W_PPKW_PPK
    Posts: 172
    1. Quantum of Solace.
    2. Octopussy

    3. Diamonds are Forever.
  • Batman23Batman23
    Posts: 72
    1. Octopussy ( I actually liked this one)
    2. Quantum of Solace
    3. Diamonds are Forever

    2 and 3 are awful.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2013 Posts: 13,356
    The powers that be, like all these threads here:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2274/bond-movie-a-vs.-bond-movie-b-thunderball-vs.-skyfall
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,838
    NicNac wrote:
    1. OP. It's lush and lovely at times, mainly exciting with terrific stunt work. Good acting despite the awful V J Amritraj (as good an actor as he was tennis player ie below average). The most glamorous looking Bond since OHMSS.

    2. QOS. Simply because Craig is so good. The film has its faults but at least it moves forward coherently (the plot, not the editing!)

    3. DAF. The most frustrating thing about DAF is that so much of the film is done well, with fine dialogue and acting. The problem is the film shows the first signs of the complacency of a series that has no obvious rivals in the action/adventure genre. The action lacks punch and excitment, the script and plotting is clumsy in places, and the film as a whole is unforgiveably dull for long stretches.

    Not much between 2 and 3 for me.

    This said it all for me.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    1. OP. It's lush and lovely at times, mainly exciting with terrific stunt work. Good acting despite the awful V J Amritraj (as good an actor as he was tennis player ie below average). The most glamorous looking Bond since OHMSS.

    2. QOS. Simply because Craig is so good. The film has its faults but at least it moves forward coherently (the plot, not the editing!)

    3. DAF. The most frustrating thing about DAF is that so much of the film is done well, with fine dialogue and acting. The problem is the film shows the first signs of the complacency of a series that has no obvious rivals in the action/adventure genre. The action lacks punch and excitment, the script and plotting is clumsy in places, and the film as a whole is unforgiveably dull for long stretches.

    Not much between 2 and 3 for me.

    This said it all for me.

    I concur. DAF also fails to continue on from OHMSS in any conceivable way, never bothering to allude to Tracy or her death and Bond's sadness and anger over it. Instead, the film acts like she and the love Bond had for her never even existed. A hell of a thing to do to the one woman Bond gave his hand in marriage to, eh?
  • ultraboxultrabox
    Posts: 194
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    1. OP. It's lush and lovely at times, mainly exciting with terrific stunt work. Good acting despite the awful V J Amritraj (as good an actor as he was tennis player ie below average). The most glamorous looking Bond since OHMSS.

    2. QOS. Simply because Craig is so good. The film has its faults but at least it moves forward coherently (the plot, not the editing!)

    3. DAF. The most frustrating thing about DAF is that so much of the film is done well, with fine dialogue and acting. The problem is the film shows the first signs of the complacency of a series that has no obvious rivals in the action/adventure genre. The action lacks punch and excitment, the script and plotting is clumsy in places, and the film as a whole is unforgiveably dull for long stretches.

    Not much between 2 and 3 for me.

    This said it all for me.

    I concur. DAF also fails to continue on from OHMSS in any conceivable way, never bothering to allude to Tracy or her death and Bond's sadness and anger over it. Instead, the film acts like she and the love Bond had for her never even existed. A hell of a thing to do to the one woman Bond gave his hand in marriage to, eh?

    I couldn't think of anything to add to the last post but Brady hit the nail on the head. The fact that DAF follows OHMSS is such a crime. The series made a leap forward (or simply continues the greatness that it was producing) and DAF brought it back two steps. I often wonder what OHMSS would be with Connery - it would probably be my favorite of the series - and what's the next movie? Just a half bag attempt, a movie to sell movie tickets and nothing more. I don't fault them for bringing Connery back, but you'd think they'd do something special, especially knowing it was a one off. DAF is a culmination of missed opportunities.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ultrabox wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    1. OP. It's lush and lovely at times, mainly exciting with terrific stunt work. Good acting despite the awful V J Amritraj (as good an actor as he was tennis player ie below average). The most glamorous looking Bond since OHMSS.

    2. QOS. Simply because Craig is so good. The film has its faults but at least it moves forward coherently (the plot, not the editing!)

    3. DAF. The most frustrating thing about DAF is that so much of the film is done well, with fine dialogue and acting. The problem is the film shows the first signs of the complacency of a series that has no obvious rivals in the action/adventure genre. The action lacks punch and excitment, the script and plotting is clumsy in places, and the film as a whole is unforgiveably dull for long stretches.

    Not much between 2 and 3 for me.

    This said it all for me.

    I concur. DAF also fails to continue on from OHMSS in any conceivable way, never bothering to allude to Tracy or her death and Bond's sadness and anger over it. Instead, the film acts like she and the love Bond had for her never even existed. A hell of a thing to do to the one woman Bond gave his hand in marriage to, eh?

    I couldn't think of anything to add to the last post but Brady hit the nail on the head. The fact that DAF follows OHMSS is such a crime. The series made a leap forward (or simply continues the greatness that it was producing) and DAF brought it back two steps. I often wonder what OHMSS would be with Connery - it would probably be my favorite of the series - and what's the next movie? Just a half bag attempt, a movie to sell movie tickets and nothing more. I don't fault them for bringing Connery back, but you'd think they'd do something special, especially knowing it was a one off. DAF is a culmination of missed opportunities.

    Well put, and I wholeheartedly agree. We get some underwhelming Bond in YOLT, but with OHMSS there is great promise that is again lost in DAF. While I don't mind George in OHMSS, being that he is neither bad at all or a complete marvel, Sean would be interesting to see in the role. George being dubbed doesn't help him out in the least, and seeing his lips often go out of sync with the dialogue spoken by Baker takes you right out of the film. For all the hell I give him for his personal flaws, George didn't drop the baton Sean passed on and had some quite stellar moments. He was a convincingly smitten Bond, good fighter (though the editing in the fights isn't my favorite) and he plays the devastated widower brilliantly too. He had some great successes in the role despite not being a trained actor and no matter how I personally feel about him I must give him his due. Possibly the biggest single missed opportunity of the franchise is not having George in DAF where we could have gotten a hell of a revenge flick ending with an epic battle with Bond and his MI6 support against Blofeld and his men. The big finale could have been a head to head face off between both men where Bond takes him out within an inch of his life, finally delivering some karma to Blofeld after he made it seem like Bond's world was falling to pieces around him.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    1) Qos - Just a smidge over OP. Despite it's flaws I still like this film.
    2) OP - Moments of greatness and moments of absurdity. This movie has a little bit of everything.
    3) DAF- A couple of good moments but just all around uninspired.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    OP takes an easy victory here.

    DAF is probably the runner up just because of the wit in the script, otherwise a pretty poor effort.

    QOS brings up the rear, a poor second film for Craig.
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 514
    1) Quantum of Solace
    2) Diamonds are Forever
    3) Octopussy
  • CharlesDreyfusCharlesDreyfus
    edited March 2013 Posts: 55
    Great thread. I actually think these are maybe the three most underrated films among Bond fans. Certainly none of them are particularly amazing movies, but many Bond fans consider these three among the absolute worst of the series, while for me they're pleasant diversions with some genuinely terrific moments.

    1) QOS - Parts of it are beautifully shot, and the commentary on American imperialism is really ballsy. I'm also a fan of the Mathis death scene, which I think is a terrific character moment for Craig's Bond. I enjoy this one more each time I watch it, although Greene is a weak villain and the finale bores me (a common problem in Bond films).
    2) DAF - Connery is so damn fun in this one (just thinking of him saying "Klaus Hergescheimer" makes me grin). This is my favorite "guilty pleasure" Bond, combining my love of 1960s Vegas culture with my favorite 007, Connery. Bonus points for Jill St.-John as the (admittedly annoying but) super-duper-hot Tiffany Case, and some of the greatest Bond sets ever (come on, who hasn't wanted to stay in that INCREDIBLE Ken Adam Vegas hotel suite, or Willard Whyte's house?). Points off for the worst Felix Leiter of all time.
    3) OP - In my book, this is one of Moore's best - in fact, I think it's nearly as good as FYEO. While OP has more low points (mostly during the goofy "safari" sequence), I think it's actually got a much better espionage plot than the overrated FYEO. Many fans criticize it for putting Bond in clown makeup, but I think that's actually a really terrific suspense sequence. Also one of the series' best uses of Gogol. Unfortunately, the typical Roger Moore silliness does bog this one down in parts.
Sign In or Register to comment.