Thoughts on where bond 25 will sit in the rankings.
You'veHadYourSix
Posts: 79MI6 Agent
Obviously we wont know till its out but
Id be interested after all thats happen thus far with production, where
Bond aficionados think it will rank?
I'm calling top 3.
Of course everyones opinions can differ with bond which is what makes it so interesting.
)
Yet there is often a minority which favour OHMSS, FRWL, GE, CR or even some love OP and AVTAK.
Personally my favourite is LTK probably because i saw it when i was slightly too young and was blown away by tim dalton firing a harpoon gun into a plane and surfin on the water.
And martin kamens score goes into full swing.
Id be interested after all thats happen thus far with production, where
Bond aficionados think it will rank?
I'm calling top 3.
Of course everyones opinions can differ with bond which is what makes it so interesting.
)Yet there is often a minority which favour OHMSS, FRWL, GE, CR or even some love OP and AVTAK.
Personally my favourite is LTK probably because i saw it when i was slightly too young and was blown away by tim dalton firing a harpoon gun into a plane and surfin on the water.
And martin kamens score goes into full swing.
Comments
OHMSS, FRWL, CR.. surely you mean a majority?! -{
Yep i do indeed the red kind.
Out of interest whats your number 1 bond film currently & where do you rank S.P.E.C.T.R.E?
1) OHMSS
2) TSWLM
3) FRWL
4) GF
5) CR
18ish) SPECTRE
:007)
I'll hold you to that mr martini
And if your right you can say i told you so.
Good ranking. Is it just me or does majesty's get better with age.
Definitely gets better with age. Growing up, I struggled with it, mainly because I grew up with Roger as Bond in the 70's/80's and he was all I knew. I always remember as a child waiting for the Bond movie on Bank Holiday Monday and if it was anything other than Roger Moore, I would be a bit disappointed
Your top 5?
I find it difficult to imagine B25 being as good as CR, considering that one smacked it out the cricket grounds. Same with Connery's first four - they are pretty much the untouchables. We'll see in eleven months. Over the years, I seem to have conditioned myself to not over-hype a film immediately following the first viewing. For me, this means B25 can only get better with each watch! -{
WooHoo!
Based on how much? Nothing!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Was going to say the same. All we got on this movie are a few BTS-shots. Can‘t really make anything out of that.
So it‘s nonsense...or black magic.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
After loving bond for years i actually sat down the other day and tried again for the second time to finally rank them.
My top five we're.
1:) LTK- set pieces are awesome, even though people criticize it for its tv feel i can over look that.
One of the most badass villains in sanchez also a great henchmen in benico del toro.
Really like the story to this one penned by old Mickey G.
2:) OHMSS- For me no bond film is shot better, just listening to peter hunt talk on the commentary and you know this guy knows what hes doing (I think this is like cary funkunaga, those that have seen true detective, maniac or beasts of no nation).
Most impactful bond ending for me it even sits above casino.
3) LALD- probably in joint first for my favourite bond song. Everytime i hear it gets me pumped. A feeling i'd be keen for with bond 25.
Favourite scenes
Alligator scene is badass and its followed up immediately by the boat chase and damn i love george Martin's efforts on the score throughout but i love that boat chase cue most of all when it kicks off.
4) TWINE- Brosnan is my bond, i watched all the bonds equally and love them all. But i think there is something often said for the actor who is bond when your young and first getting into bond.
The music in this film is f#@*in amazing (id be happy to see david arnold make a return for b25) i'll often just put it on when im in the car or playing a game or acting like alan partridge and pretending to be bond around the house.
Some of my favourite cues. Gunbarrel/bond has left the building, pipeline, cavier factory and submarine.
First bond where M is in real danger an original concept at the time.
Great real villian in Elektra great henchman in robert carlyle.
If im in the mood for some all out bond i'll often go to this one just because its alot of fun.
5) GF- its been said many times but this cemented the bond forumla.
Great bond, great villain, great henchman, great bond girl, great score, great director, great script, great theme song GOLDDDDDFINNGGERRRR.
Did you prefer skyfall or spectre?
If you were to base it on matt s. comment, where do the previous craigs land for you?
close to SF and I'll be very happy.
Spectre and quantum rank lower for you?
I can see it holding similarities with skyfall.
As lindus sandgren is director of photography and his style and look is incredible just like roger deakins.
Plus good writers like casino, obviously casino had a lot of fleming original matetial.
The cast look real interesting, its kinda cool how you can't just tell straight away who will be playing who like you could with spectre.
Im actually hopeful that its going to be equally as good as casino and shock alot of people. Because everytime someone says something negative about bond 25 i just remember hey we've been here before with casino royale.
For what its worth, I dislike almost all modern movies, in any genre - we are dealing with over 100 years of cinematic history - and a modern film has to be something completely extraordinary to surpass what was innovative and supremely satisfying decades ago yet still consistently holds today. Same applies specifically to Bond. With an honourable nod to the CR reboot, Craig's run has generally fallen very short of the very best for me, so I don't hold my breath.
I feel the same way about modern movies. More specifically movies made in the 21st century. When there's a revival of a classic character like Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Robin Hood, etc there seems to be too much of an obvious attempt to reinvent the character in fear that contemporary audiences won't appreciate it. That said, some of the magic and integrity gets lost.
With Bond, I think such larger gaps between films result in nearly every entry attempting to re-introduce the character to new audiences. Let's just get on with it.
CR is the only Craig film that tends to make my top 10. Occasionally I'll fit SF in there if I'm feeling generous, but TBH I've gotten burned out on seeing personal Bond stories. I've gotten tired seeing the Aston Martin in every film and having the gunbarrel tampered with in some way. My hunch is B25 is next in line for the same kind of aid.
Unless Cary manages to give the film a classic Bondian vibe and still make it fresh, I'm predicting the film to rank around number 20 or so.
Out of interest what are your top 5 bond movies?
That said, and based only on what little we know so far, I'd say outside the top 10 and probably in the mid-range. Cary Fukanaga hasn't done anything remarkable that I've seen, and Purvis and Wade by themselves seem to produce pedestrian product. The combination doesn't speak volumes to either creativity or ingenuity.
That said, a lot could change. Fukanaga may try harder and not just produce a ponderous TV show. Purvis and Wade might be helped out by Phoebe Can't-Remember-Her-Last-Name. Craig may approach the project less as an actor wishing to push acting and social justice boundaries and more as an actor wishing to push story-telling boundaries. It could turn out to be greater than the sum of its parts.
But the title doesn't bode well for great advances in moviemaking.
This title represents what Bond is now all about (and has been since the Brosnan era). Bond is about making money rather than creative films. The title is a marketing decision rather than a creative one, and thus we can probably expect many parts of the film to be sold to the highest bidder. People have complained to me that Bond is now a fashion show more than anything else. While Bond has always been stylishly dressed, the thought put into the clothing is made more public than it used to be.
Bond has always been about making money and very little else. Cubby discovered a formula that sold and milked it for years. If anything, Babs has shown a willingness to play with the formula in ways her father never did. The results have been mixed. But let’s not pretend like Bond used to be high-minded cinema. The old films are better, but that’s primarily because Fleming’s source material was good rather than due to the brilliant film making of yesteryear. Casino Royale - the best Bond film since TLD - is proof of that.
Does anyone go to a Bond film expecting “great advances in moviemaking”? Bond hasn’t been in theaters for 60 years because it’s groundbreaking. Quite the opposite, I think.
I'm not pretending it was ever anything but about making money, but in the Brosnan era new ways of making money arose.
Quantum Of Solace was relatively decent filler, but felt a bit rushed and incomplete (and it wasn't the film's fault). SPECTRE was a solid product and felt more complete, but despite sharing the same cast and crew as Skyfall, felt contrived and lazy ( ie. an apartment building is getting demolished and Bond lands onto a comfy couch, the Roman car chase felt a bit too sedate and was used for info dumping, Bond shoots one fuel valve and Blofeld's entire elaborate, high tech desert complex blows up, etc).
My main fear for No Time To Die is that's going to feel like a tired, passionless, and cobbled together movie like X-Men: Dark Phoenix, due to the delays and shifts in production.
The reason we don't go into a Bond film anymore expecting "great advances in filmmaking" is because we know the producers are going to play it safe, either by sticking predictably to a paint-by-numbers formula or by copying what other movies are doing, like the vastly overrated Skyfall.
"Great advances in filmmaking" doesn't mean they suddenly turn Bond into an arthouse film -- though Quantum of Solace seemed to have aspirations in this regard -- nor that they toss out all the elements that define Bond. It means that they take the genre elements and do something fresh and successful with them. They take risks that pay off. Editing a movie so that it appears to be having an epileptic seizure is not fresh, as the Bourne movies recently did that; having a villain who has plans within plans within plans is not fresh since The Dark Knight recently did that; making Blofeld Bond's "brother" is not fresh because Austin Powers recently did that.
To each their own about the older films, though I find the movie making far superior to the "TV show with a bigger budget" approach of modern filmmaking, and the Connery Bonds certainly were "high-minded cinema" enough to not only be copied multiple times by other flims but to create an entire genre of their own that ran popular throughout the 1960s. They created genuine suspense, were sweeping and visually interesting, featured some great toys and gadgets, and were written far more sharply than any Bond films of the past 40 years -- the Dr. No dinner scene puts to shame all of the villain reveals of the last 40 years, including that yammering speech about rats Silva gives in Skyfall.
So, when one refers to "great advances in filmmaking," it mean to establish Bonds as the leader again, and not merely as a tired follower. It means taking calculated risks that work to establish a new standard for the genre to follow rather than stunt casting and minutia, like giving Madonna a cameo, (gasp) letting a Bond girl be older than Bond, or making Moneypenny Black. I've not problem with any of these "risks," but they're certainly not the sort of thing that the genre now uses as a benchmark.