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
I expect Dr. No to be a bit higher because I think NTTD also made a heavy callbacks in that film and it's also significantly displayed in the 60th Anniversary (the design), it's also a bit iconic too for it being the first Bond film, OHMSS also benefitted from the NTTD callbacks, I think if not for the NTTD callbacks, OHMSS would not likely to rank up that high, maybe would end up on the middle, NTTD carried OHMSS back to popularity and made people discover the film.
Living Daylights and Licence To Kill being that high was more of Dalton surgence these days, his rise to popularity.
The Bond films in the bottom weren't suprising considering that some of them aren't that popular or either earned a bad reputation from the fandom.
And of course those Bond films at the top were the most iconic ones and those that earned the most praises from the fandom, also some of them are marked by nostalgia and generation gaps (hence why Casino Royale and Goldeneye being that high).
I'd argue, the Connery Era Bond films weren't that much popular these days, with the exception of Goldfinger, I think it's Goldfinger that carried the Connery Era Bond films, not the rest of his Bond films could do it.
Quality wise, they may be good, but in terms of popularity, they're not that much catchy as the other Bond films, particularly towards the new generation of Bond fans.
The early Connery films are definitive, IMO. After that you have the likes of OHMSS, then the Dalton era. After that it's only CR which can rub shoulders with the best.
The rest of the films range from very good & entertaining (ala LALD, TMWTGG, OP, SF), to silly and daft (MR, DAD), to downright insulting (NTTD).
I do think Octopussy and Thunderball and YOLT were better films than where they ended up, but c’est la vie.
Popularity and the general reputation of the film are the main things considered.
While some like you liked them, you maybe in the minority.
I know they were only screened for a day each, but quite staggeringly low amounts of money. You'd get that just having one decently-sized shop open for a day. I would almost expect the later films to make more just for the reason that people might only have discovered they were getting rereleases later into the run, so that would factor into it somewhat, but GF does do pretty well there. I think it generally shows what Makeshift says, which is the top films are the most popular at the moment. I do think it's especially interesting to see the Daltons so high.
A friend of mine is in his early 30s and was saying to me how he rates Craig as easily the best Bond, and I think that's not an unusual view. His portrayal just connects more with audiences now than the slightly cartoonish Connery and Moore do.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/events-uk-cinemas-all-james-bond-films-2022-box-office-success
Yes that has always bothered me. People should think a bit deeper about their favorites of everything.
As for the future of James Bond: I say kick Purvis and Wade off, same with the art house directors. Start as fresh as possible!
Mostly derogatory term, sorry. I just feel like a full on action director would be best for a while.
That's just the word, arbitrary. "Reboots are sci-fi, except when done by different authors or film companies." Everything about this sentence seems completely arbitrary to me, not to mention completely nonsensical.
Also, Adamski, can you live with the fact that in the Bond films, Blofeld met Bond in YOLT, yet they didn't know each other in OHMSS? Can you live with the fact Bond became a 00 in 2006 after having been a 00 for twenty films, something I don't see you bringing up much, if at all? Then why can't you assume the Craig films span the whole career of Bond, with Casino Royale '06 set before Dr. No and No Time to Die set after every other Bond film that has been made and will ever be made? Or did EON Productions need to save the last Bond story for last? Then I guess Arthur Conan Doyle also screwed up by writing The Hound of the Baskervilles after The Final Problem?
I don't even make the aforementioned assumption myself, but if you can live with a number of narrative inconsistencies that have accumulated in the Bond films over the years, surely you can assume No Time to Die comes last? Then your supposed sci-fi vanishes.
Oh, there's that still that pesky message at the end of No Time to Die bothering you? "James Bond will return"? That's EON telling the audience they're going to make more Bond films, so that they don't go home thinking the film series is over, or that Nomi is going to become the new protagonist, or some such other thing. It's not about story, it's not about sci-fi, it's about commerce.
I read all sorts of opinions in this forum. I agree with some and disagree with others. This one gets me more emotionally invested because I find it so patently absurd and arbitrary. In all sincerity, this also speaks poorly of me as I shouldn't even waste time reading opinions or replying to them.
I guess this is it. I've become a grouch. It's alright, @TheWizardOfIce, we don't need you back, I'll take it from here.
You are insistent that we have to take these different eras as a narrative aspect of one big film series, when they are something that exists outside the stories. EON are not plot-engineering a weird multiverse, nor some sci-fi construct you are so hang up on that has a dead James Bond brought back to life. You seem unable to understand how a company can close the books on a sequence of films and plan another one.
Let's try this. Are we talking about "James Bond 1", "James Bond 2", ..., "James Bond 25"? No, not as soon as these films are given a title. So the 15th film, TLD, can succeed the 14th film, AVTAK, and not be a sequel. This film can retain M and Q, but show a younger MP, a younger James Bond, a different dynamic between Bond and M, a more cynical Bond too, who nevertheless knows general Gogol. How is that possible?
Because that's how these Bond films work. They move from adventure to adventure with a very selective continuity at best. In fact, the series has always suffered from some dementia. It keeps things from previous films but also includes new things that couldn't logically or logistically or plausibly have been in previous films. Astrobond and Piz Gloria Bond are the same guy? Come on now.
The Bond films seem to start from scratch with every next entry, except when it's convenient to bring in characters from previous films and then that's that. Audiences have never cared, not even when Dench's M was also in CR. Different M played by the same actress, or same M in a parallel universe? Uh, not the sort of questions the Bonds encourage us to ask.
Until the Craig era happens. Tight continuity; it all comes back. Interesting experiment; a definitive first. And NTTD brings it all to a conclusion. And then the era ends, with a moment during which the anti-hero becomes the hero. Five films that tell one version of Bond's career as 007, from his beginning all the way into retirement and then one last mission to finish off the personal arc. It's the closest we have ever come to a 'journey' for Bond and I, as a Bond fan, appreciate the effort more than ever. But that journey is over now.
There will be a next time. New era, new actor. The film will not be called "James Bond 26", the sequel to "James Bond 25." That would make no sense. Instead, it'll simply be a new James Bond film, ready to excite us independent of what came before.
Apart from the Craigs, most Bond films have no order to them. You can watch TB today, TND tomorrow, and LTK the next day. And they would make sense, despite young, blonde Felix in the first, no Felix in the second, and a different, older, married Felix in the third. Well, you can watch the Craig era today, with Bond dying at the end, and enjoy TSWLM tomorrow, that Bond film in which we refer to Bond's dead wife Tracy. And if these little signs of deliberate dementia in the series bother you, well then perhaps these films are not for you.
I do think fans sometimes overestimate just how much love there is for Connery's Bond films amongst the general population, especially when younger viewers are accounted for. For many people they simply weren't introduced to Bond through these films. I've had the situation of getting friends to watch DN, TB, or YOLT and them simply not thinking much of them. Must admit I personally don't think much of TB and YOLT either and never have done, as much as I love Connery's first three films. I can understand when they're not viewed through the prerequisite lens of these being from 'the best era of Bond' with the best actor, they might simply not gel with a lot of people for various reasons.
For a lot of people, the nostalgic memories of Bond comes from watching CR in 2006, or SF in 2012. Or GE back in the 90s. So it's understandable that these films would rank higher on their re-release weekend. I've noticed during the Craig era quite a few people went back and watched the Dalton films and he's something of a cult favourite, so I can also understand why his two films performed well. The likes of TSWLM, GF, OHMSS and LALD are generally considered classics of the series anyway.
I would not give too much look into re-release earnings because near everyone owns the Bond films at home.
I think that’s very true. Older folks and fans love Connery, but I think he’s slipping a bit in popularity for general audience members.
Killing off CraigBond and sealing off his tenure as its own mini-universe basically means that Craig's character was not so much James Bond as it was an alternative take on the character. At least, that's how it feels.
This was the problem, though. There was too much experimentation and not enough commitment to the overall narrative. Bond is young in CR and QOS, then suddenly a dinosaur in SF. Bond is described as a blue collar guy in CR, but in SF we find out that he was raised in a mansion. Then SP retcons all the previous movies so that they were all a part of Blofeld's scheme. Messing with backstories and motivations at this level makes no sense when they're trying to maintain a strict continuity from movie to movie.
@peter
I've seen the Matera chase plus a few other sequences from NTTD.
Some fact checking clearly needs doing.
Some interesting take aways…
Not necessarily. From the ones I did just with a basic Google search Connery generally edges out as best (dependent on the poll) but it's often very close with Craig, so it's rarely a 90% situation. But it really depends on who's voting in these polls. Also naming the best Bond doesn't necessarily mean they had the best (or in this case most popular) Bond films.
I'd argue that while these results are not definitive, they're not surprising, and it's telling that many people flocked to see SF and CR over many of the earlier Connery Bond films.
I think Connery's Bond is still quite popular in the sense that it's a very quintessential portrayal of the character (and he's a marvellous actor). But again, from personal experience I don't find that all of his films necessarily connect with many viewers, especially given that for a majority of people going to see these films he probably wasn't their first Bond.
I mean, just from personal anecdote, I've sat with people who found DN 'dated' (one had even read the book beforehand and was disappointed with the film), TB and YOLT 'boring' (I actually agree) and DAF a sort of bizarre 'so bad it's good' experience. These are the same friends I went to see SF with multiple times when it came out, and who happen to like many of the other Bond films. Again, very subjective, but I don't think these views are as uncommon as Bond fans might think.