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
It amuses me more to see how disturbed you are by differing opinions. What are people bolstering up or tearing down? Some communal objective end-all be-all fact about the quality of a film? What a silly notion. Are you that concerned that other people don't agree with you? Are you worried that if someone disagrees with what you see as a common fact that it will cease to be a fact in your own mind?
I'm not interested in tearing down or bolstering up. Merely comparing films from the series I love based on my own subjective opinion. I also get enjoyment out of reading others subjective opinions and how they compare similarly or differently from mine. It's interesting to see others perspective and often I end up rewatching with their thoughts and perspective in mind, which gives me a different entertaining twist on the films.
As others have stated, ranking on 'quality standards' is fruitless as you are assuming there is an objective standard. It is also an absurdity as recent generations feel the need to obsess over objective quality rather than enjoying a film. If enjoyment=objective quality for you that is fine, seems quite mundane.
To be honest, if you are only looking for the highest quality of objective 'art' (whatever that means) within a film, then you will find all Bond films are poor quality, with the exception of possibly FRWL. But that is rubbish.
There is no such thing as objectivity in film because the purpose of film is not objective. For me, the purpose of film is to entertain me for my enjoyment and happiness. Others' purpose is to watch for quality filmmaking or to be enlightened. You seem more concerned with other people's purpose and evaluation of that purpose than your own.
And now - to make sure you really love me - here's my top 5: MR, CR, FRWL, TLD, LALD :)
PTS: Tie (thanks Newman)
Title track: LALD
Title: Not sure
Main villain: LALD
Main Bond Girl: Tie
Henchman: LALD
Plot: LALD
Dialogue: LALD
Score: LALD
Settings: SP
Action: LALD
Humour: LALD
Cinematography: SP
Benign Bizarre: LALD
Suspense: LALD
Minor Characters: LALD
Glamour: SP
Bond performance: LALD
LALD 12 SP 3 Tie 3
well said. I am so bored by this "objective quality" discussions and the opinion that one film is objectively better than another film. And even if we assessed some specific citeria which could indicate a great film, probably all Bond films would fail to reach this goal. I mean has ever any Bond film won an Academy Award or any other prominent Award in the main categories (except for the visuals or the music)? Is there any Bond film in the Imdb Top250 list?
I have always only watched Bond films just because of the enjoyment (the humor, the dialouges, the villains, the glamour, the adventures, the action).
I think it's possible to rate films "objectively" I things like cinematography and music, acting, etc. However there will almost always be some subjective bias
I think it's possible to rate films "objectively" on things like cinematography and music, acting, etc. However there will almost always be some subjective bias
How is that a discussion either?
Isnt a debate when someone says 'DAD is brilliant' and then someone else responds 'No it isnt for the following reasons - Jinx, invisible car, tsunami etc etc' then the first person counters with their reasoning why they consider it to the contrary?
Merely saying 'I'm entitled to my opinion' is not an exchange of arguments, its just like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'La la la. I cant hear you.'
Of course Awards are biased but these are given by juries who usualy consist of professionals who are supposed to care about qualitative standards. One could also argue that the sum of all subjective opinions is "objectivity" and even then a film like FRWL only gets 7,5 out of 10 on imdb where only 10% of the 90 000 voters think it deserves a 10/10.
I also think that there is not so much controversity with regard to citeria such as music, cinematography. Most people say that SP has one of the worst scores but that its cinematography is great. However if a villain is good or bad does not only depend on the acting skills but also on how the character is written. Is he charismatic? Does he have enough screentime, etc.
This game should be fun where people can just indicate their personal view on a specific criteria, nothing more.
I must really have hit a nerve when you are being idiotic on purpose.
The point is not 'DAD is the best Bond film ever' but 'DAD is my favorite Bond film'. Who are we to stop someone for preferring DAD over the rest of the 23 Bond films? And before you go all obtuse again - putting DAD or AVTAK (or TMWTGG as I do) as #1 does NOT mean that someone thinks these are the 'best made film' in the series, but merely that he/she enjoys them the most.
Are you guys really acting like we should only prefer films that are universally regarded as the best made films of all time? I find DAD more fun than 'The Pianist' and could rewatch it every day, it doesn't mean that I think DAD is better. I glady give The Pianist a 10/10 in terms of film making and DAD a 1/10, yet I am not allowed to prefer the latter over the former?
I didn't know some of you took these things so seriously. Calm the hell down, please. So I guess everyone should rank their films according to IMDB ratings, RT scores and number of Oscars won?? What kind of shit is that? Yes some films are masterpieces compared to others, but everyone is free to rank the films by personal preferences, which doesn't mean shit apart from which film he/she likes the most. If you want to rank films by quality all day long why don't you join a professional movie review magazine or something? Why can't someone, on a free James Bond/general movies discussion forum be able to say that he/she prefers AVTAK to Million Dollar Baby?
What's the point in MI6community if everyone ranks everything based on ratings on IMDB, Metacritics, RT and based on Oscar wins? Those websites exist for a reason. This is a discussion forum, so this is the place to learn about various members' rankings of films according to their personal favorites/likings. Most of the best movie recommendations I've had here were based on someone suggesting movies they really liked. What you are suggesting would ban such suggestions from happening.
With what you are actually expecting from rankings on these forums, it begs to wonder if you actually understand the point of this place, or why you even joined in the first place? Did you honestly think everyone here would talk all day long about which films are factually 'the best' instead of which films they prefer (which is kind of the point of a discussion forums like this instead of professional movie reviews site)?
As most know here, I'm an action junkie, so I prefer films with a lot of action. Thus I have more fun with TND than FRWL and would rank that Brosnan film higher than FRWL. That's where you come in all angry and yell ''No! I do not accept this ranking because it is wrong, there is no way TND is better than FRWL.'' Where on earth did I say TND is better than FRWL? Of course FRWL is better, a 100 times better, all I'm saying is I prefer that Brosnan film to that Connery film. You act like it is factually wrong to have more fun with certain films more than others.
When you buy a pint of beer, can you say 'the London Pride is the best, but the Bank's Mild is my favourite'. When you eat cheese, is the Roquefort the best, but the edam your favourite?
If one movie entertains you more than another, doesn't that make it a better movie? seeing as the whole idea of a movie, is to entertain?
The point here is why do some expect everyone to rank films by movie qualities?. It would be boring after a while to always see TND below CR, or DAF below TSWLM, or LTK below SF. Listing films by personal favorites is where it's at, because then we get people ranking OP, TND, QOS, DAF, or MR in their top 5's, which makes the whole point of ranking threads a lot more fun. Some here seem to have a clear idea on the results that should come out of a thread like this, and yell heresy whenever someone posts something differently. Because apparently it's not acceptable to prefer Madonna's song to Smith's song, or TWINE's PTS to SP's PTS, or whatever.
There seems to be some here who already have a clear idea on the end results of this thread, and are expecting everyone to basically vote the same thing so that the voting results will coincide with their expectations and/or with their actual ranking of the films. Which makes this thread sound like a pointless exercise if we expect everyone to give the advantage to the same films. As if personal preferences are not allowed when doing rankings, which if true, then we should stop all ranking threads immediately.
I think you are right. But if we made a game what is our favourite dish, we would also all have very different views on it. Some people prefer fish, other like meat and some prefer vegetarian food. We would probably even state that we like some ordinary meal more than some kind of haute cuisine. Tastes are very different and therefore opinions vary. I think the same applies to Bond films. They have never been made to impress the film critics but to entertain the masses.
Totally disagree. LALD & TMWTGG are 'Moore' Bond (i.e. truer to Fleming's creation). TSWLM onwards (bar parts of OP & FYEO) are Moore playing his lighter take of the character.
Your big picture is a mirage.
When someone votes on one film on every single aspect mentioned here, I get the idea that person is just a little biased against that film. And that's fine, it's called opinion. But I don't think it's completely fair to that film. I.e. the cinematography: SPECTRE's is internationally acclaimed. I find it odd that certain person couldn't acknowledge that part. I find it personally far more interesting if people can actually make that difference, resulting in interesting discussions, instead of claiming it's all bad.
I daresay it is you who are disturbed with the reality that there ARE objective standards of quality. The fact that you cannot bowl them out only illuminates your insecurity. So much easier to just offer up an inane platitude such as "Oh, it's all just somebody's opinion!" That's the lamebrain's way out.
Ok then please tell us what defines a good score, what exactly defines a good cinematography, who is "objectively" a good villain and who is a good Bond girl... What is a good Bond performance? I don't think that there does exist any formular which we can apply for measuring whether a Bond film is good or bad. Many here really think that Bond should be like the character they have in mind when reading the novels. Some like the gritty Bond, others prefer the more ironic lighthearted Bond. You just cannot say that the one kind of Bond is objectively better than the other.
Of course the majority of people will always prefer film A (let's say FRWL) over B (let's say DAD) but even this may change over time. OHMSS and TLD are good examples for this.
Are people honestly expected to vote according to what the majority of MI6Community members like? Which totally defeats the very notion of voting.
If we follow @Perilagu's and @TheWiz' statements, this thread should factually be closed right now as the voting results was obvious before it even began, as SP will de facto win against DAF, LALD, DAD, TWINE, LTK or AVTAK since they've declared 'no aspect of these films is better than SP'.
Naturally people are offering opinions, and they can be fun to read. I'm simply saying some opinions mirror objective reality better than others. And I would also note that your certainty that, on this board, it is a slam dunk that certain films will inevitably best certain others, is off the mark. This is particularly the case with SP, which quite a few posters regard--erroneously--as a critical failure that is not a whole lot better than DAD.
And it's rich coming from you that you think DAD has a chance in winning, since you'll be coming down like a load of bricks on anyone who will vote for that film against SP. My point is not, since you are again not understanding on purpose, that some films will slam dunk win. My point is some members want SP to slam dunk win against DAD or AVTAK, and any vote not going your way will be deemed 'ridiculous' and 'erroneous', as you say. I fail to see why you and some others are participating in such thread when you already expect a certain result to happen, and will ridicule people who may change that result by not voting in your direction.
Answering the question about objectivity and Bond would require a dissertation, and I'm no longer in the business of writing and/or reading them. But I can at least provide a few points that could serve as guideposts.
First--and most abstractly--Plato, among others who have echoed him down through the millennia, believed in a higher, objective plane of reality in which all forms of our world are present in perfect and hierarchical aspect. The fact that these perfect forms exist proves that there is an objective reality, and if there is an objective reality, then opinions about forms cannot be equal in their correlation with the perfection of individual forms. Some people have opinions that veer wide of the Platonic mark, while others are much closer to it. But the important thing to keep in mind is that the perfected form, even of DAD, exists. And most of us would rightly argue that Tamahori's rendition of DAD fell far short of its Platonic ideal. Buried in that filmic mess is potentially a brilliant film, believe it or not.
As to the rest, I don't have time to go into detail right now, but critical and popular opinion in the here and now, and more important, critical and popular opinion about a given form diachronically, are reasonably good measures of merit. In other words, if a particular picture, or a particular score in a particular picture, passes the bars right now and over the longue duree, there is a very good chance that they have come reasonably close to approximating their Platonic ideal. And when it comes to musical composition, among other artistic activities, the sophistication and complexity of a given composition point to greatness. Beethoven's string quartets don't just accidentally appeal to us; their compositional sophistication confer a richness upon the works that goes a long way toward making them appealing.
As I said, this is merely the tip of a colossal and recondite iceberg, and the Internet is hardly a format that lends itself to this sort of exposition. The bite rules on the Internet, as well it should.
MI6Community is not a god damn film making study class or anything. It's a discussion forum. Thus people are expected to vote according to their personal preferences, making the exercise a lot more fun than the awfully boring idea you want where everyone votes the same thing because of whatever argument you're trying to make.
This vote is not mathematical, it's not scientific, so stop pretending it is.
Movies, especially blockbusters like Bond, are supposed to be entertaining. There is not a single fact that you can give on whether or not SP is more entertaining than DAD, MR, LALD or TND. It's all down to personal opinions. As previously noted, this is a discussion forum on James Bond. Who the hell cares about facts during a vote? People vote with their heart.
And now you are just projecting your own insecurities by bringing the subject up :).
I have no problem with anyone's views whether they attempt to present them as fact or opinion. Merely stating it is amusing how upset you are over other's views.
Again you haven't defined quality and there is no consensus agreement on quality, you've just proved yourself there is no objective status. So long as my definition of the purpose of film and your definition differ, there can be no objective result. Film isn't a mathematical equation or physical science no matter how hard you will it to be.
Heh. You understand absolutely nothing and misconstrue everything. I'm not wasting any more of my time debating a rusted pipe.
You take it on faith that Handel's "Messiah" is not objectively superior to Kanye West's latest opus; I accept that Platonic philosophy of form is likely accurate, or at any rate far more likely to be correct than your imbecilic claim that all is opinion.
PS--I am not upset with the views of others; I feel great contempt for those who, to justify their absurd opinions, claim that all is subjective, thereby rendering all argument otiose.
What an absolute load of bollocks.
Now it is clear you are trolling. From your lack of basic understanding of my post; consistently ignoring the point at hand - to your 'PS' which you purposely contradict yourself. Only an incredibly dimwitted person or a troll could make those consecutive statements. You are not a vacuous person; therefore, you must be a troll and I apologize to the mods for feeding this troll.
Back on topics, who's ready for TMWTGG? I think it could be a close one!