Were that true, there would be no such thing as classics, which transcend the period in which they were created and continue to entertain audiences. It's not a question of their aesthetic or their being judged by the standards of the today but of being universal in their appeal. That's why we still celebrate The Wizard of Oz but not The Old Maid. In much the same way, Goldfinger is a classic. Octopussy is not.
A poor example, even contemporary critics weren't too fond of The Old Maid. it's hardly a fair comparison. I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make by this.
Sure some films have more lasting appeal than others, but that's more of a commentary on audiences than the films themselves. Quality is subjective, and pointing out that one film is still well-beloved while another isn't proves absolutely nothing. There are many great pictures that have since been forgotten, the fact that most people think nothing of them means zilch as far as I'm concerned.
The Wizard of Oz was a box office flop, whereas The Old Maid was a hit. Yet The Wizard of Oz endures as a classic. It resonates beyond its contemporary audience, as classic films do. It is not simply a product of its time.
Likewise, Goidfinger is a classic. The local classic film series shows it each summer to a packed theater that seats thousands. Licence to Kill, on the other hand, lies forgotten at the bottom of the bargain bin, along with the other 80s Bonds. Some fans like them. That's about it.
Of course films age. Some of them are superbly made and are still watched today and are viewed as classics. Those films have aged well. Don't get lost in semantics
It's bizarre how you state that as if it is self-evident. As far as I know, movies are not biological creatures. How exactly are commonly held opinions proof that a film has "aged"? Maybe right now the film is not well thought of, but 20 years from now may be seen as a classic. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened
Right, and if in 20 years time that film is indeed seen as a classic, then it has aged well hasn't it?
Citizen Kane was made in 1941 and is commonly referred to as the greatest of all time. It is considered a classic. That is a self evident fact. It's aged well has it not?
Or a film can be thought of highly and can lose its standing, due to its message and content. ie The Birth Of A Nation. It hasn't aged very well has it?
Of course films age. Some of them are superbly made and are still watched today and are viewed as classics. Those films have aged well. Don't get lost in semantics
It's bizarre how you state that as if it is self-evident. As far as I know, movies are not biological creatures. How exactly are commonly held opinions proof that a film has "aged"? Maybe right now the film is not well thought of, but 20 years from now may be seen as a classic. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened
It's been nearly 30 years since Licence to Kill came out. No one is touting it as a classic except the handful of fans who like it.
The 80s Bond films are very much self-aware and self-referential. You could often predict where they'd go next or what joke Roger Moore would slide in. In fact, they very much trafficked in a winking familiarity -- you didn't go to a Bond film in those days to see something fresh and challenging but to see something that went through the motions of the better films before it. This is the reason they're not classics. They represent the nadir of the series, before it tried to return to its roots with TLD and, in clumsier form, the Brosnan era. It wasn't until CR that they started to get what made the classics work so well, but then they lost sight once more after.
I suppose I meant self aware in the sense that they are not attempting to be apologetic about their sexism or flippancy like they are in latter eras. For example, Goldeneye is an incredibly self aware James Bond film. As is Skyfall.
{[]
But it's a different kind of self-awareness. The 1980s Bonds are very post modern in the sense that they rely on the audience's knowledge of what came before -- that's pretty much the only way the jokes work. TLD tries to rein that in, but the Moore films fall flat if the reputation of Bond and the films that preceded them aren't factored in. Casino Royale, by contrast, can exist entirely on its own.
The 80s Bond films are very much self-aware and self-referential. You could often predict where they'd go next or what joke Roger Moore would slide in. In fact, they very much trafficked in a winking familiarity -- you didn't go to a Bond film in those days to see something fresh and challenging but to see something that went through the motions of the better films before it. This is the reason they're not classics. They represent the nadir of the series, before it tried to return to its roots with TLD and, in clumsier form, the Brosnan era. It wasn't until CR that they started to get what made the classics work so well, but then they lost sight once more after.
I suppose I meant self aware in the sense that they are not attempting to be apologetic about their sexism or flippancy like they are in latter eras. For example, Goldeneye is an incredibly self aware James Bond film. As is Skyfall.
{[]
But it's a different kind of self-awareness. The 1980s Bonds are very post modern in the sense that they rely on the audience's knowledge of what came before -- that's pretty much the only way the jokes work. TLD tries to rein that in, but the Moore films fall flat if the reputation of Bond and the films that preceded them aren't factored in. Casino Royale, by contrast, can exist entirely on its own.
I see what you're saying Gassy Man. Fair point -{ Though you actually think that the Moore films don't stand up on their own at all? Not a big Roger fan I'm guessing? )
Likewise, Goidfinger is a classic. The local classic film series shows it each summer to a packed theater that seats thousands. Licence to Kill, on the other hand, lies forgotten at the bottom of the bargain bin, along with the other 80s Bonds. Some fans like them. That's about it.
Eh, Goldfinger is one of the weakest films in the series as far as I'm concerned, and if I was actually privy to spouting meaningless criticisms, I would say it "hasn't aged well." But as it is, I would prefer to actually address things I don't like about it instead of blowing smoke and relying on popular opinion.
Right, and if in 20 years time that film is indeed seen as a classic, then it has aged well hasn't it?
Citizen Kane was made in 1941 and is commonly referred to as the greatest of all time. It is considered a classic. That is a self evident fact. It's aged well has it not?
Or a film can be thought of highly and can lose its standing, due to its message and content. ie The Birth Of A Nation. It hasn't aged very well has it?
I've already stated I don't believe in the idea that movies age, in any case my post was merely to make a point. The point being, the currently held, common opinion is not and never will be a valid criticism of any film. Try actually critiquing the movie with specific issues, I will never be convinced by generic claims like "well, it might have been cool in the 60's but" or any such equivalent. It's laziness, pure and simple
Likewise, Goidfinger is a classic. The local classic film series shows it each summer to a packed theater that seats thousands. Licence to Kill, on the other hand, lies forgotten at the bottom of the bargain bin, along with the other 80s Bonds. Some fans like them. That's about it.
Eh, Goldfinger is one of the weakest films in the series as far as I'm concerned, and if I was actually privy to spouting meaningless criticisms, I would say it "hasn't aged well." But as it is, I would prefer to actually address things I don't like about it instead of blowing smoke and relying on popular opinion.
Right, and if in 20 years time that film is indeed seen as a classic, then it has aged well hasn't it?
Citizen Kane was made in 1941 and is commonly referred to as the greatest of all time. It is considered a classic. That is a self evident fact. It's aged well has it not?
Or a film can be thought of highly and can lose its standing, due to its message and content. ie The Birth Of A Nation. It hasn't aged very well has it?
I've already stated I don't believe in the idea that movies age, in any case my post was merely to make a point. The point being, the currently held, common opinion is not and never will be a valid criticism of any film. Try actually critiquing the movie with specific issues, I will never be convinced by generic claims like "well, it might have been cool in the 60's but" or any such equivalent. It's laziness, pure and simple
I guess you'll just have to sit back from your lofty intellectual high chair and let the lowly plebs spout meaningless, lazy drivel and rely on popular opinion )
I suppose I meant self aware in the sense that they are not attempting to be apologetic about their sexism or flippancy like they are in latter eras. For example, Goldeneye is an incredibly self aware James Bond film. As is Skyfall.
{[]
But it's a different kind of self-awareness. The 1980s Bonds are very post modern in the sense that they rely on the audience's knowledge of what came before -- that's pretty much the only way the jokes work. TLD tries to rein that in, but the Moore films fall flat if the reputation of Bond and the films that preceded them aren't factored in. Casino Royale, by contrast, can exist entirely on its own.
I see what you're saying Gassy Man. Fair point -{ Though you actually think that the Moore films don't stand up on their own at all? Not a big Roger fan I'm guessing? )
The funny thing is I'm okay with Moore as Bond, and I like the 1970s films and FYEO. But the next two are forgettable, if not abominable, and Licence to Kill was such a disappointment, a sentiment I am not alone in having. TLD wasn't bad at all, and I actually liked it best of all the 1980s films, but I don't think it's aged all that well. Overall, the 80s were the lumpiest decade for the Bond films -- only the Brosnan era comes close in rivaling it for this distinction.
I guess you'll just have to sit back from your lofty intellectual high chair and let the lowly plebs spout meaningless, lazy drivel and rely on popular opinion )
There's nothing "intellectual" about the Bond franchise. If I was some hoighty-toighly snob, I'd be talking about how much better Wages of Fear is and how the Bond movies are breads and circuses. The very core of being a Bond fan is enjoying raw entertainment and wish fulfillment. That does not mean I will make stupid statements about inanimate work of art "aging" or some such nonsense
I guess you'll just have to sit back from your lofty intellectual high chair and let the lowly plebs spout meaningless, lazy drivel and rely on popular opinion )
There's nothing "intellectual" about the Bond franchise. If I was some hoighty-toighly snob, I'd be talking about how much better Wages of Fear is and how the Bond movies are breads and circuses. The very core of being a Bond fan is enjoying raw entertainment and wish fulfillment. That does not mean I will make stupid statements about inanimate work of art "aging" or some such nonsense
Stating that a film has aged is not a stupid statement. You are completely and utterly wrong in your pretentious contention, and as tempting as it is to spend time pointing out how and why, I feel that we should just move on.
Stating that a film has aged is not a stupid statement. You are completely and utterly wrong in your pretentious contention, and as tempting as it is to spend time pointing out how and why, I feel that we should just move on.
You are completely and utterly wrong in your lazy contention that any film has "aged" but as tempting as it to spend time pointing out how and why, I feel that we should just move on.
I don't think the classics have much to do with the decade so much as the few Bond films which really pushed to be 'fantastic movies' not just Bond films
-Goldfinger
-TSWLM
-Casino Royale
-Goldeneye (I've met many non-bond geeks, who praise this as one of the best movies of the 90's)
OHMSS
A few of these films come out of a negative response from the previous movie, a desire for a new direction and when the franchise was under threat of not continuning. Classics, defined by a large majority of people who like them. Regardless of what we think of them, I've tried to think of the Bond films which get praised the most by everyone.
The rest of the films, all go down to subjective favourites, what we like.
Some people here love their Bond dark, serious and brooding. Touches of Fleming, brutal fight scenes etc.
While other's perhaps find serious one's hard to watch, seeing them as dull, done before, or taking a ludicrous plot too seriously.
LTK maybe one Bond fan's doorstop and another's prized possession.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Stating that a film has aged is not a stupid statement. You are completely and utterly wrong in your pretentious contention, and as tempting as it is to spend time pointing out how and why, I feel that we should just move on.
You are completely and utterly wrong in your lazy contention that any film has "aged" but as tempting as it to spend time pointing out how and why, I feel that we should just move on.
I don't think the classics have much to do with the decade so much as the few Bond films which really pushed to be 'fantastic movies' not just Bond films
-Goldfinger
-TSWLM
-Casino Royale
-Goldeneye (I've met many non-bond geeks, who praise this as one of the best movies of the 90's)
OHMSS
A few of these films come out of a negative response from the previous movie, a desire for a new direction and when the franchise was under threat of not continuning. Classics, defined by a large majority of people who like them. Regardless of what we think of them, I've tried to think of the Bond films which get praised the most by everyone.
The rest of the films, all go down to subjective favourites, what we like.
Some people here love their Bond dark, serious and brooding. Touches of Fleming, brutal fight scenes etc.
While other's perhaps find serious one's hard to watch, seeing them as dull, done before, or taking a ludicrous plot too seriously.
LTK maybe one Bond fan's doorstop and another's prized possession.
I'd argue the definition of a classic rises above just individual preference, which is why arguments about personally recognizing one film or another carry little weight except to those making them. It has to rise above even simple audience popularity. There has to be an even wider agreement on the impact of a particular film.
Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere. It's referenced in the reboot films more than once, as have the 1960s Bonds in general (and to a lesser degree some of the 1970s Bonds). The 1980s has been all but ignored.
Licence to Kill (and pretty much all of the 1980s Bonds) have been aborted to the ash heap of film history.
An argument for the iconic qualities of the 1960s Bonds can be made further in how they're referenced in popular culture. Perhaps the most telling is how Mike Myers chose to lampoon Donald Pleasence's Blofeld (and the various Blofeld monetary extortions in films like TB). as well as Odd Job and Goldfinger in the Austin Powers films. Even though the 1980s films were more contemporary to the Austin Powers ones and therefore more likely to be familiar to them if we're to believe the 1960s films aren't classics, he didn't choose to reference Kamal Khan, Max Zorin, or Franz Sanchez. Even the one film that arguably addresses a Moore film -- The Spy Who Shagged Me -- relies on a completely unrelated plot that takes Powers back to the 1960s.
It doesn't stop there. The few times The Simpsons has lampooned Bond, it's used references to the Connery films -- melting a Conneryeque figure in the microwave; Hank Scorpio and his laser beam in a volcanic lair; Bart swiveling around in a chair holding a cat.
These gags wouldn't work if the writers didn't assume the audience would be familiar with the classic ideas of Bond. Again, they're not talking about Brad Whittaker.
If people personally don't accept this, that's fine, but it doesn't do much to discount the obvious impact of the classic Bonds compared to the junk of the 1980s films.
Works for me )
I have so many good memories of watching these films, that I can't be objective about them.
LTK is one of my all time favourites, with FYEO being my favourite Moore Bond film.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I saw all the 80s Bonds in the theater as a teenager and young man. Each time one came out, we assumed it was the last one because the films were so tired. Intellectualizing them because of their ideas or whatever is not enough. The films were just tired, even to audiences back then. The difference was there were far fewer films released back then, far fewer cable TV channels, far fewer outlets for video rental, and no Internet to speak of. So, they coasted along as a brand. When TLD came out, there was some renewed interest that quickly waned, especially by the time LTK was released. I was a major Bond fan, as were my friends, and we thought the films were lame.
Though it's often not credited, home video is probably what saved the Bond films. People could buy or rent the classic Bond films, and then did. Even at my hometown library, the videotapes of the classic Bonds were always checked out.
It's not an issue of fashions or whatever. The 80s Moore Bonds just failed to capture the panache and imagination of the classic Bonds. FYEO was a decent enough entry because it tried to take things in a different direction, and had it starred Dalton, probably would have jumpstarted a stronger series in that decades.
The 80s Bond films are very much self-aware and self-referential. You could often predict where they'd go next or what joke Roger Moore would slide in. In fact, they very much trafficked in a winking familiarity -- you didn't go to a Bond film in those days to see something fresh and challenging but to see something that went through the motions of the better films before it. This is the reason they're not classics. They represent the nadir of the series, before it tried to return to its roots with TLD and, in clumsier form, the Brosnan era. It wasn't until CR that they started to get what made the classics work so well, but then they lost sight once more after.
Absolutely. This is why I rarely watch the Moore films because there is nothing profound, riveting or anything to keep you mildly interested unless you want to watch a couple of hours of 'contrived' humour. They remind me of that poor excuse for a comedy show called 'Friends' (all three episodes that I watched and that was three too many) - quite simply you could see the joke coming from a mile back.
I have nothing against Roger Moore but as Bond he just doesn't do it for me. As for Timothy Dalton - I have as much love for him as what Higgins does. In saying that, I thought LTK was a very, very good film but that was more to do with the story than the actor so objectively that it is one film from the 80's that I'll watch again.
As I've said previously, the best Bond films for mine were the first four (and these are the ones that in my opinion have certainly aged well) and it wasn't until CR and SF that I thought the Bond films were back to where they should be with a good dialogue and what a spy film should be about.
"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974; It's a scientific fact". - Homer J Simpson
Works for me )
I have so many good memories of watching these films, that I can't be objective about them.
LTK is one of my all time favourites, with FYEO being my favourite Moore Bond film.
I was drunkposting, give me a break. Someone should really take away my laptop after that second dose of bourbon. Anyway, it's simply a major pet peeve of mine, and I in no way intended to come off as condescending which I believe I might have. I originally intended to just be positive and not say anything, but here we are. Bygones
I was drunkposting, give me a break. Someone should really take away my laptop after that second dose of bourbon. Anyway, it's simply a major pet peeve of mine, and I in no way intended to come off as condescending which I believe I might have. I originally intended to just be positive and not say anything, but here we are. Bygones
Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere.
Gassy Man is right, Goldfinger is the only Bond film that is a classic. None of the others even come close. I don't think any will ever again either.
It's an objective viewpoint, all others are subjective and personal preference (as you can see with where GF sits in my rankings below).
Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere.
Gassy Man is right, Goldfinger is the only Bond film that is a classic. None of the others even come close. I don't think any will ever again either.
It's an objective viewpoint, all others are subjective and personal preference (as you can see with where GF sits in my rankings below).
FRWL is equally a classic. Nothing else comes close.
No film is objectively "classic"... especially since many Bond films see a resurgence years after their release. I also don't get this "aged" label considering the very reasons I enjoy watching most Bond films is the way they smother you in the eccenticities of their decades. Thunderball and Goldfinger are a joy because they are so much the 60s. Live and Let Die is fun because it is very much revelling in the 70s. And the Dalton films are damn near perfect because they take the 80s and distill it in a way only Bond can.
None of them are more classic than the other... especially since all of them have remained in the public consciousness because they are Bond.
Top Ten Bond - 10:Goldfinger 9:Thunderball 8:The Spy who Loved Me 7:For Your Eyes Only 6: Casino Royale 5:The Man with the Golden Gun 4:Quantum of Solace 3:Licence to Kill 2:Goldeneye 1:The Living Daylights
No film is objectively "classic"... especially since many Bond films see a resurgence years after their release. I also don't get this "aged" label considering the very reasons I enjoy watching most Bond films is the way they smother you in the eccenticities of their decades. Thunderball and Goldfinger are a joy because they are so much the 60s. Live and Let Die is fun because it is very much revelling in the 70s. And the Dalton films are damn near perfect because they take the 80s and distill it in a way only Bond can.
None of them are more classic than the other... especially since all of them have remained in the public consciousness because they are Bond.
One of the things that has always fascinated me about Bond is that its longevity makes the franchise a very unique historical artifact. We can gaze into the zeitgeist from one year to the next through the lens of a single film series all starring the same character. Watching the movies in chronological order is a great way to gain perspective on the cultural and socio-political shifts of the last 55 years
No film is objectively "classic"... especially since many Bond films see a resurgence years after their release. I also don't get this "aged" label considering the very reasons I enjoy watching most Bond films is the way they smother you in the eccenticities of their decades. Thunderball and Goldfinger are a joy because they are so much the 60s. Live and Let Die is fun because it is very much revelling in the 70s. And the Dalton films are damn near perfect because they take the 80s and distill it in a way only Bond can.
None of them are more classic than the other... especially since all of them have remained in the public consciousness because they are Bond.
One of the things that has always fascinated me about Bond is that its longevity makes the franchise a very unique historical artifact. We can gaze into the zeitgeist from one year to the next through the lens of a single film series all starring the same character. Watching the movies in chronological order is a great way to gain perspective on the cultural and socio-political shifts of the last 55 years
This is essentially my contention. Films age and are often dated to the period that they are made in. This is not necessarily a negative, and in some instances it's a positive, like the Goldfinger, Thunderball example. They scream sixties, they are dated to their era, and if you have a particular fondness for that period, they are enhanced and have therefore aged well. The same goes for Live and Let Die, which, largely due to its blaxploitation vibe, which is a sub genre of film that is associated highly with the early 70s, is incredibly dated to that period. That might be a positive or a negative for you depending on tastes, but the film has aged.
The same came be said of other films in other genres. Manhunter is a prime example of a film that is dated. Elsehwhere you can find Sci-fi films that attempt to predict technologies and get them wrong as the future that they are predicting arrives, they are also dated. Back To The Future Part II is an example of this. 2001: A Space Odyssey is another. A brilliant film and one of my all time favourites, however in some respects the film is dated (in its portrayal and predictions of technologies and space travel) and thus that component of the film has aged.
As stated above, one of the pleasures of Bond is observing the socio-political shifts throughout the films. That I feel is also an indicator that Bond films have aged. Sean Connery's misogyny is incredibly dated now, and is a component that ages his films. Juxtapositionally, Dalton's Bond is more monogamous, and is thus more in line with cinema trends of the present day, that element of his Bonds haven't aged that much. Again, this is not necessary a bad thing. I for one greatly enjoy seeing Sean and Rogers sexist humour on display, however it is an outdated element of the series and it is something that ages them.
I remember Diabolik stated in an earlier comment that you need to put yourself mentally in the era that the film was made so as not to view it through a modern gaze, and that once you do this that no films age. This I feel is in itself, a concession that films indeed do age. For if you have to perform a mental exercise to pretend that you're watching a film from the 40s in the 40s and completely take away a modern perspective, then obviously the film has aged to some degree. No matter how much mind trickery you perform, It is I feel impossible to view a film or another historical artifact without looking at them through present time to some extent. As I said, some films age better than others, some are enhanced by their era that they're made in, some suffer.
Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere.
Gassy Man is right, Goldfinger is the only Bond film that is a classic. None of the others even come close. I don't think any will ever again either.
It's an objective viewpoint, all others are subjective and personal preference (as you can see with where GF sits in my rankings below).
Am I missing something here? You have Goldfinger ranked 17th.
"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974; It's a scientific fact". - Homer J Simpson
The same came be said of other films in other genres. Manhunter is a prime example of a film that is dated. Elsehwhere you can find Sci-fi films that attempt to predict technologies and get them wrong as the future that they are predicting arrives, they are also dated. Back To The Future Part II is an example of this. 2001: A Space Odyssey is another. A brilliant film and one of my all time favourites, however in some respects the film is dated (in its portrayal and predictions of technologies and space travel) and thus that component of the film has aged.
Moreso than any other, I think Logan's Run fits your criteria. Its "datedness" is really what makes it so memorable today, more than anything else. 3 more years till Carousel for me
As stated above, one of the pleasures of Bond is observing the socio-political shifts throughout the films. That I feel is also an indicator that Bond films have aged. Sean Connery's misogyny is incredibly dated now, and is a component that ages his films. Juxtapositionally, Dalton's Bond is more monogamous, and is thus more in line with cinema trends of the present day, that element of his Bonds haven't aged that much. Again, this is not necessary a bad thing. I for one greatly enjoy seeing Sean and Rogers sexist humour on display, however it is an outdated element of the series and it is something that ages them.
I remember Diabolik stated in an earlier comment that you need to put yourself mentally in the era that the film was made so as not to view it through a modern gaze, and that once you do this that no films age. This I feel is in itself, a concession that films indeed do age. For if you have to perform a mental exercise to pretend that you're watching a film from the 40s in the 40s and completely take away a modern perspective, then obviously the film has aged to some degree. No matter how much mind trickery you perform, It is I feel impossible to view a film or another historical artifact without looking at them through present time to some extent. As I said, some films age better than others, some are enhanced by their era that they're made in, some suffer.
All respect to peoples own opinions -{
You make some good points, and it while it may be impossible to transport yourself completely to another time, I would argue that still, the more films from that time you watch, the easier it is. A person that is used to modern movies will naturally be predisposed to dismissing styles and ideas that are "antiquated" from their perspective. However, if you are someone that has seen a considerable number of movies from that time period, you will not only be likely to accept common cliches, but actually welcome to anything. Films only age according to expectations.
Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere.
Gassy Man is right, Goldfinger is the only Bond film that is a classic. None of the others even come close. I don't think any will ever again either.
It's an objective viewpoint, all others are subjective and personal preference (as you can see with where GF sits in my rankings below).
Am I missing something here? You have Goldfinger ranked 17th.
I can't speak for him, but I would guess that the distinction lies between objective evaluation and subjective enjoyment. Personally, I would consider Goldfinger among my least favorite Bond films, but nevertheless acknowledge it is one of the most well-made.
Comments
Likewise, Goidfinger is a classic. The local classic film series shows it each summer to a packed theater that seats thousands. Licence to Kill, on the other hand, lies forgotten at the bottom of the bargain bin, along with the other 80s Bonds. Some fans like them. That's about it.
Right, and if in 20 years time that film is indeed seen as a classic, then it has aged well hasn't it?
Citizen Kane was made in 1941 and is commonly referred to as the greatest of all time. It is considered a classic. That is a self evident fact. It's aged well has it not?
Or a film can be thought of highly and can lose its standing, due to its message and content. ie The Birth Of A Nation. It hasn't aged very well has it?
But it's a different kind of self-awareness. The 1980s Bonds are very post modern in the sense that they rely on the audience's knowledge of what came before -- that's pretty much the only way the jokes work. TLD tries to rein that in, but the Moore films fall flat if the reputation of Bond and the films that preceded them aren't factored in. Casino Royale, by contrast, can exist entirely on its own.
I see what you're saying Gassy Man. Fair point -{ Though you actually think that the Moore films don't stand up on their own at all? Not a big Roger fan I'm guessing?
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
I guess you'll just have to sit back from your lofty intellectual high chair and let the lowly plebs spout meaningless, lazy drivel and rely on popular opinion
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
Stating that a film has aged is not a stupid statement. You are completely and utterly wrong in your pretentious contention, and as tempting as it is to spend time pointing out how and why, I feel that we should just move on.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
-Goldfinger
-TSWLM
-Casino Royale
-Goldeneye (I've met many non-bond geeks, who praise this as one of the best movies of the 90's)
OHMSS
A few of these films come out of a negative response from the previous movie, a desire for a new direction and when the franchise was under threat of not continuning. Classics, defined by a large majority of people who like them. Regardless of what we think of them, I've tried to think of the Bond films which get praised the most by everyone.
The rest of the films, all go down to subjective favourites, what we like.
Some people here love their Bond dark, serious and brooding. Touches of Fleming, brutal fight scenes etc.
While other's perhaps find serious one's hard to watch, seeing them as dull, done before, or taking a ludicrous plot too seriously.
LTK maybe one Bond fan's doorstop and another's prized possession.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
8-) 8-)
Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere. It's referenced in the reboot films more than once, as have the 1960s Bonds in general (and to a lesser degree some of the 1970s Bonds). The 1980s has been all but ignored.
Licence to Kill (and pretty much all of the 1980s Bonds) have been aborted to the ash heap of film history.
An argument for the iconic qualities of the 1960s Bonds can be made further in how they're referenced in popular culture. Perhaps the most telling is how Mike Myers chose to lampoon Donald Pleasence's Blofeld (and the various Blofeld monetary extortions in films like TB). as well as Odd Job and Goldfinger in the Austin Powers films. Even though the 1980s films were more contemporary to the Austin Powers ones and therefore more likely to be familiar to them if we're to believe the 1960s films aren't classics, he didn't choose to reference Kamal Khan, Max Zorin, or Franz Sanchez. Even the one film that arguably addresses a Moore film -- The Spy Who Shagged Me -- relies on a completely unrelated plot that takes Powers back to the 1960s.
It doesn't stop there. The few times The Simpsons has lampooned Bond, it's used references to the Connery films -- melting a Conneryeque figure in the microwave; Hank Scorpio and his laser beam in a volcanic lair; Bart swiveling around in a chair holding a cat.
These gags wouldn't work if the writers didn't assume the audience would be familiar with the classic ideas of Bond. Again, they're not talking about Brad Whittaker.
If people personally don't accept this, that's fine, but it doesn't do much to discount the obvious impact of the classic Bonds compared to the junk of the 1980s films.
I have so many good memories of watching these films, that I can't be objective about them.
LTK is one of my all time favourites, with FYEO being my favourite Moore Bond film.
Absolutely. This is why I rarely watch the Moore films because there is nothing profound, riveting or anything to keep you mildly interested unless you want to watch a couple of hours of 'contrived' humour. They remind me of that poor excuse for a comedy show called 'Friends' (all three episodes that I watched and that was three too many) - quite simply you could see the joke coming from a mile back.
I have nothing against Roger Moore but as Bond he just doesn't do it for me. As for Timothy Dalton - I have as much love for him as what Higgins does. In saying that, I thought LTK was a very, very good film but that was more to do with the story than the actor so objectively that it is one film from the 80's that I'll watch again.
As I've said previously, the best Bond films for mine were the first four (and these are the ones that in my opinion have certainly aged well) and it wasn't until CR and SF that I thought the Bond films were back to where they should be with a good dialogue and what a spy film should be about.
2 classics right there -{
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
No worries my friend -{
Gassy Man is right, Goldfinger is the only Bond film that is a classic. None of the others even come close. I don't think any will ever again either.
It's an objective viewpoint, all others are subjective and personal preference (as you can see with where GF sits in my rankings below).
"Better make that two."
FRWL is equally a classic. Nothing else comes close.
None of them are more classic than the other... especially since all of them have remained in the public consciousness because they are Bond.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
This is essentially my contention. Films age and are often dated to the period that they are made in. This is not necessarily a negative, and in some instances it's a positive, like the Goldfinger, Thunderball example. They scream sixties, they are dated to their era, and if you have a particular fondness for that period, they are enhanced and have therefore aged well. The same goes for Live and Let Die, which, largely due to its blaxploitation vibe, which is a sub genre of film that is associated highly with the early 70s, is incredibly dated to that period. That might be a positive or a negative for you depending on tastes, but the film has aged.
The same came be said of other films in other genres. Manhunter is a prime example of a film that is dated. Elsehwhere you can find Sci-fi films that attempt to predict technologies and get them wrong as the future that they are predicting arrives, they are also dated. Back To The Future Part II is an example of this. 2001: A Space Odyssey is another. A brilliant film and one of my all time favourites, however in some respects the film is dated (in its portrayal and predictions of technologies and space travel) and thus that component of the film has aged.
As stated above, one of the pleasures of Bond is observing the socio-political shifts throughout the films. That I feel is also an indicator that Bond films have aged. Sean Connery's misogyny is incredibly dated now, and is a component that ages his films. Juxtapositionally, Dalton's Bond is more monogamous, and is thus more in line with cinema trends of the present day, that element of his Bonds haven't aged that much. Again, this is not necessary a bad thing. I for one greatly enjoy seeing Sean and Rogers sexist humour on display, however it is an outdated element of the series and it is something that ages them.
I remember Diabolik stated in an earlier comment that you need to put yourself mentally in the era that the film was made so as not to view it through a modern gaze, and that once you do this that no films age. This I feel is in itself, a concession that films indeed do age. For if you have to perform a mental exercise to pretend that you're watching a film from the 40s in the 40s and completely take away a modern perspective, then obviously the film has aged to some degree. No matter how much mind trickery you perform, It is I feel impossible to view a film or another historical artifact without looking at them through present time to some extent. As I said, some films age better than others, some are enhanced by their era that they're made in, some suffer.
All respect to peoples own opinions -{
Am I missing something here? You have Goldfinger ranked 17th.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier