Best Bond film?

ID · Post by ID » Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:25 pm

OHMSS I think. Closely followed by FRWL and Goldfinger.

Harvey Wallbanger · Post by **Harvey Wallbanger** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:07 pm

FRWL is the all time fav
with the Spy who Loved me in second place.

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:38 pm

FRWL is probably the best Bond film of all time. My fav though is LALD closely followed by OHMSS and GF

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:25 am

CR, closely followed by OHMSS, LTK, FRWL and GF.

Post by **James** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:22 pm

Die Another Day. Only joking. OHMSS. Casino Royale is a seperate entity not unlike NSNA. An attempt to reset the James Bond character for people who don't like James Bond films into a generic action goon.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:34 pm

James wrote:Die Another Day. Only joking. OHMSS. Casino Royale is a seperate entity not unlike NSNA. An attempt to reset the James Bond character for people who don't like James Bond films into a generic action goon.

Ironically, that's how I felt about the Brosnan films all this time. I didn't feel he was playing James Bond, but some generic action goon, who attempted to copy Connery and Moore in one awful mix, which didn't quite come off.

Craig's Bond takes us back to how Bond should be (the gritty Dalton, Lazenby, Connery films).

Dcbn · Post by **Dcbn** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:04 pm

From Russia With Love.

Jack Wade · Post by **Jack Wade** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:19 pm

James wrote:Die Another Day. Only joking. OHMSS. Casino Royale is a seperate entity not unlike NSNA. An attempt to reset the James Bond character for people who don't like James Bond films into a generic action goon.

What?! Do you know what you're even talking about? CR is an attempt to bring back down-to-earth and return him to how Fleming described him in the books. Last I checked, Brosnan's "generic action goon" which was primarily evident in DAD was about as far from Fleming as you can get and really could've devasted the franchise creatively had Eon chose to continue down that route.

Back on topic, FRWL is the best.

1. FRWL
2. OHMSS
3. CR
4. GF
5. TLD

Post by **James** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:12 am

Oh for f**k's sake. Fleming did not describe James Bond as a shortish, big-nosed gentleman with wrinkles, a creepy smirk, no eyebrows and a blonde crewcut.

Jack Wade · Post by **Jack Wade** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:35 am

James wrote:Oh for f**k's sake. Fleming did not describe James Bond as a shortish, big-nosed gentleman with wrinkles, a creepy smirk, no eyebrows and a blonde crewcut.

Oh for f**k's sake, Fleming did not ever say James Bond should be 50+ driving around in invisble cars, battling Koreans that underwent gene therapy to become white, or fly airplanes into laserbeams from outerspace.

I don't think you realize how truly pathetic it is to hate Craig because of his hair color and supposed ugly face which has been overwhelmingly praised by female audiences. Do you guys realize that critics (who know much more about movies than you) make fun of you guys for your pathetic beliefs on Craig?

Oh well, the critical and financial success of CR is enough to dispose of your arguments.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:49 am

These MI6 people are so easy to wind up!

Jack Wade · Post by **Jack Wade** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:52 am

carl stromberg wrote:These MI6 people are so easy to wind up!

Hey, it's something to do. Can't always be agreeing with the vast majority of Bond fans who accept Craig has Bond. Gotta mix it up sometimes, right?

Post by **carl stromberg** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:59 am

Keep on topic please - this is a thread about the best Bond film not about how Fleming described Bond!

Post by **Dr. No** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:54 am

Live and Let Die almost never like Moore’s Bond, for some reason this one has a special place

Also Jane Seymour was great.

Runners up
Thunderball
Dr. No
Livingdaylights
Goldeneye

Jedi007 · Post by **Jedi007** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:19 pm

Oh for f**k's sake, Fleming did not ever say James Bond should be 50+ driving around in invisble cars, battling Koreans that underwent gene therapy to become white, or fly airplanes into laserbeams from outerspace.

I don't think you realize how truly pathetic it is to hate Craig because of his hair color and supposed ugly face which has been overwhelmingly praised by female audiences. Do you guys realize that critics (who know much more about movies than you) make fun of you guys for your pathetic beliefs on Craig?

Critics praise how the movie was done, not how the character was supposed to be.

And it not just the "ugly face" we are talking about here, it is everything. From looks to how James Bond should act to what is his personal background.

And Fleming doesn't also say that Bond should look like 50 year old who looks like a body builder and can jump off cranes. He doesn't also say that the world James Bond was in was fantastical and it can be rebooted, unlike Batman's DC Universe setting.

Back to the topic...

The Living Daylights

OHMSS
FRWL
GE
LTK

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:17 pm

Jedi007 wrote: Critics praise how the movie was done, not how the character was supposed to be.

And it not just the "ugly face" we are talking about here, it is everything. From looks to how James Bond should act to what is his personal background.

And Fleming doesn't also say that Bond should look like 50 year old who looks like a body builder and can jump off cranes. He doesn't also say that the world James Bond was in was fantastical and it can be rebooted, unlike Batman's DC Universe setting.

Who said Fleming wouldn't agree with a reboot? CR is based on the novel Fleming wrote. The only reboot attempt is showing Bond on his first assignment and making mistakes, something that happened in the novel too....

Jack Wade · Post by **Jack Wade** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:39 pm

Jedi007 wrote:
Oh for f**k's sake, Fleming did not ever say James Bond should be 50+ driving around in invisble cars, battling Koreans that underwent gene therapy to become white, or fly airplanes into laserbeams from outerspace.

I don't think you realize how truly pathetic it is to hate Craig because of his hair color and supposed ugly face which has been overwhelmingly praised by female audiences. Do you guys realize that critics (who know much more about movies than you) make fun of you guys for your pathetic beliefs on Craig?
Critics praise how the movie was done, not how the character was supposed to be.

And it not just the "ugly face" we are talking about here, it is everything. From looks to how James Bond should act to what is his personal background.

And Fleming doesn't also say that Bond should look like 50 year old who looks like a body builder and can jump off cranes. He doesn't also say that the world James Bond was in was fantastical and it can be rebooted, unlike Batman's DC Universe setting.

Actually, critics have praised how the character was supposed to be. They praised Craig's Bond as returning back to earth after Pierce's Bond who just strutted around in a suit and blew a bunch of stuff up.

James Bond acts in CR how Ian Fleming described him. I really don't understand how you guys don't see this.

Craig doesn't look 50. LOL, what a dumb thing to say.

I'm pretty sure most military types (Bond was in the Navy) have built bodies so I don't see what the big deal is. Craig doesn't look anything like a bodybuilder... go look at what a bodybuilder looks like. Craig just looks like a guy that's built.

Fleming says Bond can't jump off a crane? LOL WTF? Why not? It's not like he jumped off, landed on it with a perfect 10, straightened his tie, and then took off in an invisible Aston Marton.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the last statement. The movies made Bond fantastical... that will never change. The only thing that will change is how "fantastical" each movie will be. That element will always be there. And yeah, the whole reboot thing doesn't make sense. I don't think Fleming would be objected to showing film audiences how Bond got his license to kill and became the man we all know.

Jedi007 · Post by **Jedi007** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:34 am

Who said Fleming wouldn't agree with a reboot? CR is based on the novel Fleming wrote. The only reboot attempt is showing Bond on his first assignment and making mistakes, something that happened in the novel too....

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the last statement. The movies made Bond fantastical... that will never change. The only thing that will change is how "fantastical" each movie will be. That element will always be there. And yeah, the whole reboot thing doesn't make sense. I don't think Fleming would be objected to showing film audiences how Bond got his license to kill and became the man we all know.

Who said Fleming WOULD agree with a reboot? And no, this reboot changes everything; from his looks to his attitudes to his background setting and even his supporting characters. Bond is a cold war agent, that's how Ian Fleming wrote him; not a modern Americanized version of EON.

Ok, let's say Brosnan's was brought into a modern age, but still he was a cold war agent. A "relic of cold war" as said by his lady M. His background was a reminder of the films and actors who have come before him.

It is also possible that the number of years between the Cold War Era and the Modern Era was lessened within 9, 1 year even just a month. This is fiction; however, being fictional doesn't mean that the forward movement of time isn't present. It doesn't also mean that something happened within the universe that causes James Bond to be suddenly moved into the present day or rather a parrallel world that has no connections with the past suddenly existed. This isn't just like DC (Detective Comics) Universe, but the reboot of James Bond looks just like it.

Jack Wade · Post by **Jack Wade** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:57 am

Jedi007 wrote:
Who said Fleming wouldn't agree with a reboot? CR is based on the novel Fleming wrote. The only reboot attempt is showing Bond on his first assignment and making mistakes, something that happened in the novel too....

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the last statement. The movies made Bond fantastical... that will never change. The only thing that will change is how "fantastical" each movie will be. That element will always be there. And yeah, the whole reboot thing doesn't make sense. I don't think Fleming would be objected to showing film audiences how Bond got his license to kill and became the man we all know.

Who said Fleming WOULD agree with a reboot? And no, this reboot changes everything; from his looks to his attitudes to his background setting and even his supporting characters. Bond is a cold war agent, that's how Ian Fleming wrote him; not a modern Americanized version of EON.

Ok, let's say Brosnan's was brought into a modern age, but still he was a cold war agent. A "relic of cold war" as said by his lady M. His background was a reminder of the films and actors who have come before him.

It is also possible that the number of years between the Cold War Era and the Modern Era was lessened within 9, 1 year even just a month. This is fiction; however, being fictional doesn't mean that the forward movement of time isn't present. It doesn't also mean that something happened within the universe that causes James Bond to be suddenly moved into the present day or rather a parrallel world that has no connections with the past suddenly existed. This isn't just like DC (Detective Comics) Universe, but the reboot of James Bond looks just like it.

But who said Fleming wouldn't want a reboot? Why wouldn't he want to show audiences how Bond gained his license to kill? Why wouldn't he want to show what's behind the character... something he talks about in his books?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:24 am

Jedi007 wrote:
Who said Fleming wouldn't agree with a reboot? CR is based on the novel Fleming wrote. The only reboot attempt is showing Bond on his first assignment and making mistakes, something that happened in the novel too....

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the last statement. The movies made Bond fantastical... that will never change. The only thing that will change is how "fantastical" each movie will be. That element will always be there. And yeah, the whole reboot thing doesn't make sense. I don't think Fleming would be objected to showing film audiences how Bond got his license to kill and became the man we all know.

Who said Fleming WOULD agree with a reboot? And no, this reboot changes everything; from his looks to his attitudes to his background setting and even his supporting characters. Bond is a cold war agent, that's how Ian Fleming wrote him; not a modern Americanized version of EON.

Ok, let's say Brosnan's was brought into a modern age, but still he was a cold war agent. A "relic of cold war" as said by his lady M. His background was a reminder of the films and actors who have come before him.

It is also possible that the number of years between the Cold War Era and the Modern Era was lessened within 9, 1 year even just a month. This is fiction; however, being fictional doesn't mean that the forward movement of time isn't present. It doesn't also mean that something happened within the universe that causes James Bond to be suddenly moved into the present day or rather a parrallel world that has no connections with the past suddenly existed. This isn't just like DC (Detective Comics) Universe, but the reboot of James Bond looks just like it.

Bond films have always evolved with the times, set in the present climate they are in. They've never been set in 1952.

It's the one reason they have stayed successful, and relevant!

And with today's climate, post 9/11, we are suddenly in an era very similar to the Cold war again, only this time a different threat. So Bond suddenly looks more relevant now than he has ever done.

Or do you think the producers should ignore the current 9/11 terrorist threat, and still pretend Bond is fighting a Cold War with SMERSH...?