For me as a whole ( many people use that term about me) for an all in one
Finished product QOS, sounds the most consistent to me. No tender pieces, then
a bit of technofunk chase music ? It's a more precise arrangements of music, but
once again only my opinion
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,927Chief of Staff
When I say QoS should be longer, I mean there should be a few more minutes added to clarify what's going on in some scenes:
The scene where Mr. White escapes and people are being shot, or the really expensive action scene where Bond and the enemy henchman are swinging from a rope in a tall building.
You see...I'm not really sure just exactly what you are missing from those scenes...?...I'm not the sharpest tool in the box but I can follow them quite easily...
I've always said I would have liked another 20 mins (at least)...but that was to flesh the story/characters out more...
I've always said I would have liked another 20 mins (at least)...but that was to flesh the story/characters out more...
No problem there, but what I really would have preferred was less work on the editing. In the scene where Mitchell helps Mr White escape, it is confusingly edited to appear as if M got shot (on first viewing, anyway). In the boat chase, exactly how the anchor works is very unclear. And so on
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,927Chief of Staff
I've always said I would have liked another 20 mins (at least)...but that was to flesh the story/characters out more...
No problem there, but what I really would have preferred was less work on the editing. In the scene where Mitchell helps Mr White escape, it is confusingly edited to appear as if M got shot (on first viewing, anyway). In the boat chase, exactly how the anchor works is very unclear. And so on
I don't 'see' the M possibly getting shot part...although I know others have mentioned this before...
The boat anchor hasn't ever made any sense...I've no idea what it's suppose to 'catch' on ?:)
I would also have liked the Mathis death scene cleared up...I'm all for not spoon feeding the audience, but a little more clarity on whether he's a double agent or not would have been good
I spent ages trying to figure out the Anchor scene,
( even asked the question as a thread) many ideas
but no definitive answer .... So I gave up worring about
It, and just accept " Bond did something clever " )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
IMHO he's definitely not a double agent, and Bond knows that too.
As for M getting shot- anyone I've seen the film with definitely gets that impression (she's seen to fall after a gunshot) and I must admit I did too on first viewing. Yet five minutes later she's alive & well in Craig's apartment so obviously not.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,927Chief of Staff
As for M getting shot- anyone I've seen the film with definitely gets that impression (she's seen to fall after a gunshot) and I must admit I did too on first viewing. Yet five minutes later she's alive & well in Craig's apartment so obviously not.
I just thought she banged her arm running away - up the steps and down the corridor...didn't even begin to cross my mind that she may have been shot, not until someone mentioned it on here...
IMHO he's definitely not a double agent, and Bond knows that too.
As for M getting shot- anyone I've seen the film with definitely gets that impression (she's seen to fall after a gunshot) and I must admit I did too on first viewing. Yet five minutes later she's alive & well in Craig's apartment so obviously not.
I also thought it looked like she got shot.
I'm with AC on the editing in the action sequences. The quick editing gives the confused and overwhelmed feeling that so much is going on, and that's probably the feeling one would get actually being there. But it doesn't give us a chance to appreciate the scenery or the cinematography. It's like someone is trying to show me a photo album, but they flip through the pages too quickly. It's not a fun experience, and it's really just annoying. It just makes QoS unwatchable for me.
So if even the QoS defenders don't know what's happening in certain scenes (eg anchor) it make it easier for me to defend its bottom tier ranking )
Hey, if you can explain every loophole in your favourite Bond films then I'm all ears )
I stopped defending QoS years ago...there isn't a need too...it's just a bloody good Bond film -{
You know what? I have 10 films left until I reach QoS so I will reserve judgement until then. A couple of my ranks have surprised me so far (eg MR is ridiculous but fun) so who knows where QoS will place this time? -{
No need to defend it. I'll have a harder time defending OP than you have of defending QoS )
So if even the QoS defenders don't know what's happening in certain scenes (eg anchor) it make it easier for me to defend its bottom tier ranking )
Hey, if you can explain every loophole in your favourite Bond films then I'm all ears )
I stopped defending QoS years ago...there isn't a need too...it's just a bloody good Bond film -{
You know what? I have 10 films left until I reach QoS so I will reserve judgement until then. A couple of my ranks have surprised me so far (eg MR is ridiculous but fun) so who knows where QoS will place this time? -{
May I suggest you watch QoS immediately after CR ?
Nothing wrong with Moonraker...sometimes you just want to sit back and enjoy a bit of Bond fun -{
I think it just reminds you of being a kid...well, erm...that's IF you were a kid back then )
Hey, if you can explain every loophole in your favourite Bond films then I'm all ears )
I stopped defending QoS years ago...there isn't a need too...it's just a bloody good Bond film -{
You know what? I have 10 films left until I reach QoS so I will reserve judgement until then. A couple of my ranks have surprised me so far (eg MR is ridiculous but fun) so who knows where QoS will place this time? -{
May I suggest you watch QoS immediately after CR ?
Nothing wrong with Moonraker...sometimes you just want to sit back and enjoy a bit of Bond fun -{
I think it just reminds you of being a kid...well, erm...that's IF you were a kid back then )
I was a kid when GE came out. I'm watching in order and boy am I loving the 80's, all 5 of them
Anyway it's not the action or plot or characters or inconsistencies or script, etc etc I didn't enjoy about QoS. It's not a fun film, and as you said we love a bit of Bond fun! Isn't that why we got into the series at first, I don't think anyone read the books first and thought, hey it would be great if there was a film series that encapsulated the character of Bond as written in the books! There's a twinkle missing in QoS that's present in the others, whether it's FRWL or OP.
Nothing wrong with Moonraker...sometimes you just want to sit back and enjoy a bit of Bond fun -{
I think it just reminds you of being a kid...well, erm...that's IF you were a kid back then )
I think it has to do with the tone of the film. Bond is grieving, hurt and
angry, so not a lot of room for humour or fun. Although QOS has its lighter
Parts ( not just Field's tan lines ).
It is a darker, grittier story, similar to LTK, and like that film more in tone
To the Bond of the books, who was very human, with all the weaknesses
and fears we all have.
Absolutely nothing wrong with not liking it thought, as we all have different
Tastes, but luckily with Bond. There is at least one film to match any of our
moods. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Here's a point of view from someone who hasn't seen CR:
When I saw QOS in the cinema, I did (unsurprisingly) find it a little hard to follow; I did find it quite watchable nonetheless.
I re-watched only recently, and found it to be a very solid series entry; and the CR references didn't bother me a bit! When viewing in this instance, I was looking at the film as "just another Bond film", and not a "follow-up". Well, did it deliver! DC was on form, there was wall-to-wall action, and the cast looked great. B-)
So does QOS actually work as a stand-alone Bond film? It most certainly does. -{
"Well, he certainly left with his tails between his legs."
Here's a point of view from someone who hasn't seen CR:
When I saw QOS in the cinema, I did (unsurprisingly) find it a little hard to follow; I did find it quite watchable nonetheless.
I re-watched only recently, and found it to be a very solid series entry; and the CR references didn't bother me a bit! When viewing in this instance, I was looking at the film as "just another Bond film", and not a "follow-up". Well, did it deliver! DC was on form, there was wall-to-wall action, and the cast looked great. B-)
So does QOS actually work as a stand-alone Bond film? It most certainly does. -{
Why haven't you seen CR? How many Bond films haven't you seen? Just curious...
May I suggest you watch QoS immediately after CR ?
I just watched them in reverse order. This is my takeaway: CR is a smooth and pretty production with peerless editing and excellent music. The card game is arguably the best part of the movie, and the dialogue 'twixt Bond & Vesper is priceless. However the parade of action scenes seems to go on a bit too long, the '64 Aston is shoehorned in, and Vesper's death is over the top (they look at each other with such feeling... regardless of the fact that you can't really SEE well underwater in less than well-lit circumstances with your naked eyes.... ). QOS OTOH is a lightning strike tour de force that feels far more organic & freeform forsaking formula for on the fly creativity & directness.
I'll take QOS over CR any day.
This isn't comprehensive, but here are my thoughts on some pros and cons of QOS...
Some Cons...
I'm bothered by how M is written in QOS; the inconsistency of her stance on Bond either side of his overpowering of her men in the hotel lift is a jarring and unconvincing reprise of hackneyed themes left over from the Brosnan era (and earlier): i.e. 'Rein in Bond!' vs. 'No, trust Bond!' Can't she just make up her mind?! I know it might be said that in QOS M has to play off her instinctive trust in Bond against the expectations/disapproval of her government superiors, but even so the apparent wavering of her opinion in the hotel sequence just isn't well handled.
The lack of clarity about Mathis's true identity/allegiances is a serious problem for me - not a thrilling enigma, just clumsy. Also, his demise is unworthy of a character who'd been a likeable Fleming regular and so well cast by Martin Campbell. And forgive me if I'm being thick, but how exactly - just in terms of plot - has Mathis ended up in the boot of Bond's vehicle, beaten up, before the corrupt officers murder him?
I haven't much to add to criticisms about the frenetic editing of the main action sequences, other than to say that as a viewer it would have been great to have been given a firmer handle on what was going on at different points, and to have been given a little longer to take in the spectacle. I like David Arnold's work on the music of QOS overall - it's largely in sympathy with the film, with some nicely moody/retro Barryesque touches - but I think that Arnold didn't always achieve quite the right tone when trying to match traditionally strident/triumphalist/quasi-Wagnerian Bondian scoring to the film's grittier and unconventionally edited action set pieces (especially where incidental civilian and emergency services casualties contribute a sobering level of seriousness to the violence).
Some Pros...
I find that QOS grows on me with every new viewing; I enjoy the movie's photography, and even the outré theme song gains appeal over time.
Greene is a satisfying villain, I think. Although OP is a very different kind of Bond film, Greene reminds me somewhat of Kamal Khan, except he's a lot sleazier. He out-sleazes, too, other Bond villains whose plans fall short of world domination - e.g. Kristatos and Whitaker - and I'd rank him above any of the Brosnan villains. I'd have to agree that the film's way of handling his demise is original and suitably creepy.
I like how Camille is a sort of darker take on FYEO's Melina Havelock - and as a character who's been scarred in her past she's treated by Bond far more respectfully than the abused Severine in SF. I haven't read much favourable commentary about Medrano as a secondary villain, but I think he's situated in interesting ways and well played: he's a credibly nasty nemesis for Camille. Also, Leiter is positioned interestingly: the understated tension between him and the deeply unpleasant Beam adds a further layer to the film.
It's a minor thing and the old films are guilty of it too but the repetition in the script really bugs me ....
"Get in. Get in" the Ford Ka
"Get in. Get. In." the taxi
"Get in. I said get in" the VW.
(I took this business with Camille as a cute if rather pointless nod to Aki in YOLT, who told Bond to "Get in!" her car to escape in two different sequences. Back in 1967, there might have been some sexist/racist joke under the surface re. a woman in the driving seat and taking charge. For anyone watching QOS and not picking up on the intertextual reference, I can see why this repeated dialogue might seem irritating.)
Finally, a thought about QOS as a sequel.... I wonder whether, in a sense, this is the first Bond film to see itself as much for the era of DVD/Blu-Ray as for the cinema. For cinema-goers who hadn't watched CR since its original screening in cinemas, many of QOS's precise continuities with that earlier film might have seemed confusing because memories of the details of CR might have been blurred/muddied in time. It's maybe hard for serious fans to take this on board, but would CR's Mr White really be such a memorable character if you were only a casual fan and hadn't seen CR since its first screening a couple of years before? The 'reveal' of Mr White at the end of QOS's PTS would have been an anticlimactic 'Who's he?'/'So what?' moment for many in the audience who'd had no idea or couldn't remember who the character was. (Although Kronsteen refers back to Doctor No near the beginning of FRWL, no one who'd have seen DN would have had difficulty remembering who HE was!) If, however, QOS is experienced as home entertainment and seen shortly after CR on DVD/Blu-Ray, the Vesper/Mr White/Mathis continuities can be tracked in the same way as arcs across episodes of TV series purchased in bundles or as box sets. This would also have been true for anyone who'd made a point of watching CR again at home shortly before going to see QOS for its debut in the cinema... but only particular sections of the overall audience would have been committed enough to do that and, as I've argued, not all the continuities are especially well written anyway. Heck, the main reason I've just given my QOS disc another spin is as 'prep' for the forthcoming SP (knowing, as I do, that Quantum is the closest thing we've had to an 'executive'-style SPECTRE since TB/NSNA!)
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
You summed up the pros and cons of QoS quite well, people's rank of the film just depends on which side of the fence they sit on. While I acknowledge what they were trying to go for and there are glimpses of a great film throughout, it misses the mark on so many fronts.
It's a minor thing and the old films are guilty of it too but the repetition in the script really bugs me ....
"Get in. Get in" the Ford Ka
"Get in. Get. In." the taxi
"Get in. I said get in" the VW.
I just thought it's a bit lazy. It comes from having the same scriptwriters. Doesn't affect viewing experience much.
It's like:
- "Science was never my strong point" (Blofeld/Scaramanga)
- "I wouldn't dream of it" - Brosnan/Craig -
- "I need to know that I can trust you" - CR/QOS
- "What did you expect a (bloody) apology" - DAD/SF
Your last paragraph is interesting, direct sequels doesn't work very well in cinema as people watch and forget. It's different to TV shows which develop the character more and have a devoted following.
Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Craig's 007, I prefer this movie to CR, crazy as it may seem. I feel Craig truly became Bond here, in CR I think he did a good job but I prefer his performance here. Gotta love this line: "If they wanted his soul they should have made a deal with a priest.".
Love the dogfight btw, I like it when Bond goes airborne.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Craig's 007, I prefer this movie to CR, crazy as it may seem. I feel Craig truly became Bond here, in CR I think he did a good job but I prefer his performance here. Gotta love this line: "If they wanted his soul they should have made a deal with a priest.".
Love the dogfight btw, I like it when Bond goes airborne.
Comments
TWINE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDxOXGtqSs
CR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_RWubuQMtc
TND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9XKEykVixE
Finished product QOS, sounds the most consistent to me. No tender pieces, then
a bit of technofunk chase music ? It's a more precise arrangements of music, but
once again only my opinion
You see...I'm not really sure just exactly what you are missing from those scenes...?...I'm not the sharpest tool in the box but I can follow them quite easily...
I've always said I would have liked another 20 mins (at least)...but that was to flesh the story/characters out more...
No problem there, but what I really would have preferred was less work on the editing. In the scene where Mitchell helps Mr White escape, it is confusingly edited to appear as if M got shot (on first viewing, anyway). In the boat chase, exactly how the anchor works is very unclear. And so on
I don't 'see' the M possibly getting shot part...although I know others have mentioned this before...
The boat anchor hasn't ever made any sense...I've no idea what it's suppose to 'catch' on ?:)
I would also have liked the Mathis death scene cleared up...I'm all for not spoon feeding the audience, but a little more clarity on whether he's a double agent or not would have been good
( even asked the question as a thread) many ideas
but no definitive answer .... So I gave up worring about
It, and just accept " Bond did something clever "
As for M getting shot- anyone I've seen the film with definitely gets that impression (she's seen to fall after a gunshot) and I must admit I did too on first viewing. Yet five minutes later she's alive & well in Craig's apartment so obviously not.
That's always been the impression I've had - I think
I just thought she banged her arm running away - up the steps and down the corridor...didn't even begin to cross my mind that she may have been shot, not until someone mentioned it on here...
I also thought it looked like she got shot.
I'm with AC on the editing in the action sequences. The quick editing gives the confused and overwhelmed feeling that so much is going on, and that's probably the feeling one would get actually being there. But it doesn't give us a chance to appreciate the scenery or the cinematography. It's like someone is trying to show me a photo album, but they flip through the pages too quickly. It's not a fun experience, and it's really just annoying. It just makes QoS unwatchable for me.
Hey, if you can explain every loophole in your favourite Bond films then I'm all ears
I stopped defending QoS years ago...there isn't a need too...it's just a bloody good Bond film -{
You know what? I have 10 films left until I reach QoS so I will reserve judgement until then. A couple of my ranks have surprised me so far (eg MR is ridiculous but fun) so who knows where QoS will place this time? -{
No need to defend it. I'll have a harder time defending OP than you have of defending QoS
May I suggest you watch QoS immediately after CR ?
Nothing wrong with Moonraker...sometimes you just want to sit back and enjoy a bit of Bond fun -{
I think it just reminds you of being a kid...well, erm...that's IF you were a kid back then
I was a kid when GE came out. I'm watching in order and boy am I loving the 80's, all 5 of them
Anyway it's not the action or plot or characters or inconsistencies or script, etc etc I didn't enjoy about QoS. It's not a fun film, and as you said we love a bit of Bond fun! Isn't that why we got into the series at first, I don't think anyone read the books first and thought, hey it would be great if there was a film series that encapsulated the character of Bond as written in the books! There's a twinkle missing in QoS that's present in the others, whether it's FRWL or OP.
Sadly, no.
angry, so not a lot of room for humour or fun. Although QOS has its lighter
Parts ( not just Field's tan lines
It is a darker, grittier story, similar to LTK, and like that film more in tone
To the Bond of the books, who was very human, with all the weaknesses
and fears we all have.
Absolutely nothing wrong with not liking it thought, as we all have different
Tastes, but luckily with Bond. There is at least one film to match any of our
moods. -{
+1 -{
When I saw QOS in the cinema, I did (unsurprisingly) find it a little hard to follow; I did find it quite watchable nonetheless.
I re-watched only recently, and found it to be a very solid series entry; and the CR references didn't bother me a bit! When viewing in this instance, I was looking at the film as "just another Bond film", and not a "follow-up". Well, did it deliver! DC was on form, there was wall-to-wall action, and the cast looked great. B-)
So does QOS actually work as a stand-alone Bond film? It most certainly does. -{
Why haven't you seen CR? How many Bond films haven't you seen? Just curious...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
CR is a smooth and pretty production with peerless editing and excellent music. The card game is arguably the best part of the movie, and the dialogue 'twixt Bond & Vesper is priceless. However the parade of action scenes seems to go on a bit too long, the '64 Aston is shoehorned in, and Vesper's death is over the top (they look at each other with such feeling... regardless of the fact that you can't really SEE well underwater in less than well-lit circumstances with your naked eyes.... ).
QOS OTOH is a lightning strike tour de force that feels far more organic & freeform forsaking formula for on the fly creativity & directness.
I'll take QOS over CR any day.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Some Cons...
I'm bothered by how M is written in QOS; the inconsistency of her stance on Bond either side of his overpowering of her men in the hotel lift is a jarring and unconvincing reprise of hackneyed themes left over from the Brosnan era (and earlier): i.e. 'Rein in Bond!' vs. 'No, trust Bond!' Can't she just make up her mind?! I know it might be said that in QOS M has to play off her instinctive trust in Bond against the expectations/disapproval of her government superiors, but even so the apparent wavering of her opinion in the hotel sequence just isn't well handled.
The lack of clarity about Mathis's true identity/allegiances is a serious problem for me - not a thrilling enigma, just clumsy. Also, his demise is unworthy of a character who'd been a likeable Fleming regular and so well cast by Martin Campbell. And forgive me if I'm being thick, but how exactly - just in terms of plot - has Mathis ended up in the boot of Bond's vehicle, beaten up, before the corrupt officers murder him?
I haven't much to add to criticisms about the frenetic editing of the main action sequences, other than to say that as a viewer it would have been great to have been given a firmer handle on what was going on at different points, and to have been given a little longer to take in the spectacle. I like David Arnold's work on the music of QOS overall - it's largely in sympathy with the film, with some nicely moody/retro Barryesque touches - but I think that Arnold didn't always achieve quite the right tone when trying to match traditionally strident/triumphalist/quasi-Wagnerian Bondian scoring to the film's grittier and unconventionally edited action set pieces (especially where incidental civilian and emergency services casualties contribute a sobering level of seriousness to the violence).
Some Pros...
I find that QOS grows on me with every new viewing; I enjoy the movie's photography, and even the outré theme song gains appeal over time.
Greene is a satisfying villain, I think. Although OP is a very different kind of Bond film, Greene reminds me somewhat of Kamal Khan, except he's a lot sleazier. He out-sleazes, too, other Bond villains whose plans fall short of world domination - e.g. Kristatos and Whitaker - and I'd rank him above any of the Brosnan villains. I'd have to agree that the film's way of handling his demise is original and suitably creepy.
I like how Camille is a sort of darker take on FYEO's Melina Havelock - and as a character who's been scarred in her past she's treated by Bond far more respectfully than the abused Severine in SF. I haven't read much favourable commentary about Medrano as a secondary villain, but I think he's situated in interesting ways and well played: he's a credibly nasty nemesis for Camille. Also, Leiter is positioned interestingly: the understated tension between him and the deeply unpleasant Beam adds a further layer to the film.
(I took this business with Camille as a cute if rather pointless nod to Aki in YOLT, who told Bond to "Get in!" her car to escape in two different sequences. Back in 1967, there might have been some sexist/racist joke under the surface re. a woman in the driving seat and taking charge. For anyone watching QOS and not picking up on the intertextual reference, I can see why this repeated dialogue might seem irritating.)
Finally, a thought about QOS as a sequel.... I wonder whether, in a sense, this is the first Bond film to see itself as much for the era of DVD/Blu-Ray as for the cinema. For cinema-goers who hadn't watched CR since its original screening in cinemas, many of QOS's precise continuities with that earlier film might have seemed confusing because memories of the details of CR might have been blurred/muddied in time. It's maybe hard for serious fans to take this on board, but would CR's Mr White really be such a memorable character if you were only a casual fan and hadn't seen CR since its first screening a couple of years before? The 'reveal' of Mr White at the end of QOS's PTS would have been an anticlimactic 'Who's he?'/'So what?' moment for many in the audience who'd had no idea or couldn't remember who the character was. (Although Kronsteen refers back to Doctor No near the beginning of FRWL, no one who'd have seen DN would have had difficulty remembering who HE was!) If, however, QOS is experienced as home entertainment and seen shortly after CR on DVD/Blu-Ray, the Vesper/Mr White/Mathis continuities can be tracked in the same way as arcs across episodes of TV series purchased in bundles or as box sets. This would also have been true for anyone who'd made a point of watching CR again at home shortly before going to see QOS for its debut in the cinema... but only particular sections of the overall audience would have been committed enough to do that and, as I've argued, not all the continuities are especially well written anyway. Heck, the main reason I've just given my QOS disc another spin is as 'prep' for the forthcoming SP (knowing, as I do, that Quantum is the closest thing we've had to an 'executive'-style SPECTRE since TB/NSNA!)
I just thought it's a bit lazy. It comes from having the same scriptwriters. Doesn't affect viewing experience much.
It's like:
- "Science was never my strong point" (Blofeld/Scaramanga)
- "I wouldn't dream of it" - Brosnan/Craig -
- "I need to know that I can trust you" - CR/QOS
- "What did you expect a (bloody) apology" - DAD/SF
Your last paragraph is interesting, direct sequels doesn't work very well in cinema as people watch and forget. It's different to TV shows which develop the character more and have a devoted following.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Love the dogfight btw, I like it when Bond goes airborne.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS