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
A shame horrors like Midsommar, The Lighthouse and Midsommar didn't even get a chance.
True. Here is the point: the naysayers on this thread continue to present arguments in a way that suggest we are all delusional (if we really liked SF, nevermind ranking it #1), and they are the ones who see the light. It's a bit of an arrogant position, really.
In and of itself, BO don't say much about quality. In and of itself, award nominations don't say much about quality. In and of itself, RT scores din't say much about quality.
But when a film hits big on all three. It's pretty damn difficult to argue that the film is actually lousy and that that is the real truth.
Lol. And you say its the naysayers that are arrogant. Your last sentence reeks of it.
The Oscars are no longer the benchmark for quality, as Hollywood has turned crazily PC pretentious. Likewise the critics are no longer trusted either (Last Jedi), and when these two go hand-in-hand, its a fairly safe bet to say large BO numbers are attached too, in an era where crappy Marvel franchises dominate at the BO, so again not a good indicator in my book.
To think that your opinion holds more sway over Bond fans who don't like SF, because of the `big 3' is arrogant.
I couldn't care less about reviews or BO takings when it comes to a Bond film I like or dislike. I love LTK, yet this has absolutely nothing to do with the `big 3' (and which co-incidentally didn't score very well on any of the big 3's). So going by my reckoning, I should ignore the `big 3' because they got it so wrong on LTK....and SF.
Debating whether we like it or not is fine because we can agree to disagree.
But, I'm a fan of SF and i love the film, yet if I answer the question honestly then its a no from me. It isn't the best Bond film.
You didn't understand what I just posted. I am not the outlier, here. And I get it: sometimes being the contrarian is a bit of a challenge, and that's part of the fun. But most people, when taking such a position, at least understand their position. You seem unwilling to make an argument that concedes this point. And even here, you are suggesting that all of the critics and all of the crowds of theatergoers are bonkers, and it is you who is the "Apostle of Skyfall truth." It doesn't work that way. ;-)
I am with you.
I've never argued SF is rubbish. In some respects I can see it's well made. It's the way it's told and some aspects of the plot I don't like. I watched it recently and parts of it are good. But over all it doesn't work for me.
You don't say, you learn something new everyday.
I'll concede here to see the positives in SF. Technically its well shot, even if I personally don't like the arty Shanghai fight (give me the bloody, gritty CR stairwell fight any time), it attempts character depth, it tries to keep the film based in a sense of seriousness, of reality, and tries to peel back the layers of Bond himself, what made him, where he came from.
For that the film has to be applauded, because the biggest sin for me in a Bond film is making it too light-hearted, too camp, too OTT, too gadgety, too much CGI (basically everything that is wrong with DAD).
At least SF is none of those things, and for that I can concede and give it some praise where its due.
I agree with this.
But not everyone agrees, hence the title of this thread.
Either FRWL or GF. Usually its one of the these films that tops most lists.
And I can see the argument for either - FRWL is the closest adapted Fleming novel, and GF is the perfect combination of Fleming and cinematic Bond.
TWINE wins, everything else loses, nuff said... close thread.
For me, TB is the perfect combination of Fleming and cinematic Bond, while GF tilts a little more on the cinematic side and FRWL on the adapted Fleming side. Between the beloved FRWL and GF, FRWL is definitely more loved on our site while GF is a little more loved by casual fans.
;)
The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.
That’s an excellent Top 5!
2. CR
3. FRWL
4. SF
5. SWLM
No. 5 might change to TB, I'm not so in love with Spy anymore despite it being my favourite Rog and also being my very first Bond and on the big screen.
I'm not one for nostalgia, it has to stand up now for me and as much as I'd like I can't see these films through the same eyes that I did when I was much younger.
OHMSS though has always been a constant, childhood love and now my favourite, FRWL I've always liked a lot, it is has just become even more liked as I've got older.
With the rather extreme exception of SPECTRE I've totally embraced this current era and can't wait for No Time To Die, much of the issues some have don't bother, the obvious ones and the nitpicking.
I think they know they've got to deliver and although my feelings on the last film, a part of me admires them to going back to it and saying no we can do something really interesting with this.
As much as some of us just want a straight up entry from DC it isn't going to happen. It is one of the hallmarks of this era. A separate entry to end his run would just feel strange.
This is why those that want that strategy should be pleased that this will be a full stop and possibly with a Fleming inspired close off to the era, it looks a possibility now.
We start with a new Bond, drop into a young but established one and maybe they can return to how things were with the recasting of the actor with no explicit explanation for it.
I guess we'll see.
You see, this is why I can't stop you and @Benny from fighting in the mod room. Bond does that to a man.
It's like road rage.
I consider SF a stand alone. Yes, while Silva had "ties" to Blofeld and Spectre, in some way, I really don't see the film fitting the immediate continuum of CR to QoS, and SP to NTTD.
- and I also liked the correlation with Connery's era. The idea of two films dealing with SPECTRE (DN, FRWL/CR, QOS), a standalone (GF/SF), and then we meet SPECTRE (TB/SP) again, and then now we up the stakes with SPECTRE once more (YOLT, NTTD).
But more importantly it was kinda unnecessary.
+1
And even if he aided SPectre with his actions in the long run, it was made very clear that he had personal reasons to do what he did, so it's almost irrelevant whether he worked for Spectre or not.