›

WHICH are the less important Bond films?

jonesthebond007jonesthebond007
edited February 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 16
Which Bond film/s do you see as being less important to the series?

Mod Edit - Moved from News to Bond Movies
«1

Comments

  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    Wait. 'jonesthebond007'? This could get confusing. With a name like that you should already know 'There are NO less important Bond films'. Not even 'the Welsh ones'.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 2012 Posts: 4,537
    Moost close is Casino Royale
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Never Say Never Again, View to a Kill, Diamonds are Forever, Man with the Golden Gun (except any scene with Sir Chris Lee in !)
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    Surely A View To A Kill, regardless of quality, was an important Bond film, seeing as it was the swansong for the man who played Bond the most. It was the end of an era, in many ways?
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,348
    You'll have to define "important" first. I hold the view they were all important in their times. In hindsight some of them failed (DAF, AVTAK, possibly QoS), but they were important for the attempts they sparked to change or modernize the series.
  • KanangaKananga
    Posts: 368
    DAF
    TMWTGG
    DAD
    QoS
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    The spy who loved me???? :-bd
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    All Bond films even if they are considerd good or bad, success or failure, they are all part of the series and the bad ones have contributed to the success of the good ones, so they are all important.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited February 2012 Posts: 1,986
    Less important flicks?

    In terms of (lack of) quality: DAD, TWINE, TND, TSWLM
  • 0iker00iker0
    Posts: 501
    DAD, TND, MR,
  • jonesthebond007jonesthebond007
    Posts: 16
    Interesting answers, definitely some supertalk in this discussion, I do confess this post to originally being a Partridge reference, as noticed by Jones_the_Bond and DCisaRed but now to take it seriously and be more precise, I suppose by less important it could be taken as how the film has helped the character develop, or even performances that help the actors claim to being 'The best Bond'
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    They are all important movies! There are none more or less important than the other? The entire series is a collective of movie adventures, some are more successful than others, some are more liked than others. But they are ALL important IMHO.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited February 2012 Posts: 4,813
    My vote goes to DAF. I mean when you really think about it, following OHMSS and the death of Bond's wife with, well... NOTHING--- was unforgivable. The PTS *sort of* addresses Bond's revenge for Tracy's death, but it's also pretty 'business as usual' as well. And then it's a run-of-the-mill Bond movie! Now I'm not suggesting I wanted a Bond movie that was full of moping and crying and all that, but to not address it AT ALL? Doesn't make any sense to me.
    If I had been alive back then and saw that in the theatres I would have been PISSED OFF

    Also makes me wonder: did Connery ever see OHMSS??
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    I hate OHMSS and DAF and dispise AVTAK so they are less important to me.
  • PussfellaPussfella
    Posts: 56
    Anyone who says LTK will get a slap from me
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Pussfella wrote:
    Anyone who says LTK will get a slap from me

    Or run over by an 18 wheeler ;)
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    LTK lol
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    I'd just like to request that people give a reason to back their choices
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,382
    I nominate the following for being totally unnecessary/repetitive, for not using any Fleming, and for not exploring the Bond character in a meaningful, more-than-ephemeral way.

    AVTAK, TND, DAD.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    You Only Live Twice
    Diamonds are Forever
    A View To A Kill
    Tomorow Never Dies
    Die Another Day
    Quantum

    @Master_Dahark

    no need really to give reasons and we've all elaborated to a full extent as to why we take issue with particular releases
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    YOLT
    DAF
    DAD
  • RogueThunderballRogueThunderball
    Posts: 306
    The question I ask myself is does the film add anything to the series as a whole in terms of story, character arc, iconic symbols, etc. DAF and YOLT are the entries that don't really add anything to the series in my opinion and seem the least important to me.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    No explanations needed but we can still bash a film or two? Fine.

    DAF
    TWINE
    DAD
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Sheesh, I must be crazy for asking for opinions on a forum! ;)
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    I think all Bond movies are important to the history of the series except for CR 67' and possibly NSNA because they did nothing for the series itself.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Less important. Hmm...

    AVTAK - Feels old
    TND - Entertaining but fairly by-the-numbers.
    DAF - just a bit boring and a blatant cash-in on Connery's return
    LALD - Alrite but feels a bit dry
    TMWTGG - ditto

    I'm not going to include DAD. The way I see it Die is important because it shows what happens when the series goes too far.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    they're all important, because even the bad ones are examples of what can happen if the director and producers get lazy.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    jonesthebond007 wrote:
    Which Bond film/s do you see as being less important to the series?

    Mod Edit - Moved from News to Bond Movies

    In what way are we rating their importantance?

    In regard to the mission or threat to Bond/ the world?

    In regard to how we the fans rank the films in terms of quality or their overall importance to the series?



  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    @Benny

    Imagine if you will if any of our homes were ablaze and you had to scoop up as many Bond films as you could to rescue in quick time which ones would you leave behind, that's one way of looking at it. I was thinking of all things considered, their importance or quality even, I thought straight away of a handful of titles I'd be content to leave behind to smoulder away
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    edited February 2012 Posts: 344
    This thread seems to have, perhaps predictably, become posters naming their most disliked Bond films. Surely, any film that launches a new Bond MUST almost by its definition be an 'important Bond film': it is attempting to prove, each time, that James Bond can adapt to a new era, and the character can live on and the series thrive while slightly re-inventing itself. So I can't imagine that Dr No, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, GE or Casino Royale should appear here.

    In my opinion, The Spy Who Loved Me being named is mind-blowing, considering it helped re-launch Bondmania on a massive scale in 1977. You might hate the film but, my goodness, it had a huge impact on the series.
Sign In or Register to comment.