Interesting Statistic

Harry Palmer · February 2007

Prompted by a number of recent topics about the popularity or otherwise of certain Bond films I decided to work on the following statistic.

I took a sample of 54 (randomly selected) lists of favourite Bond movies from this forum (see the "compare favourite films" under everybody's username).

I picked the first 10 placings from each list and assigned points accordingly. Each first preference was given 12 points, the second-placed film 10 pts, the third 8, and so on. Here's the complete progression: 12;10;8;7;6;5;4;3;2;1

Finally I summed up all the points and came up with the following statistic which ought to reflect the average preferences of the members of this forum. (Whether you consider 54 lists a statistically relevant sample is a fair question. Initially I planned on a 100 but it was more difficult than I imagined to actually find 100 different members who had filled in their list of favourites.

Anyway, the winner and runner-up are not very surprising. Here are the results:

DN: 185 pts
FRWL: 392
GF: 419
TB: 176
YOLT: 72
OHMSS: 305
DAF: 41
LLD: 89
TMWTGG: 31
TSWLM: 197
MR: 20
FYEO: 155
OP: 81
AVTAK: 20
TLD: 188
LTK: 134
GE: 167
TND: 36
TWINE: 110
DAD: 20
CR: 282
NSNA: 12

Comments?

In Order of preference:

GF: 419
FRWL: 392
OHMSS: 305
CR: 282
TSWLM: 197
TLD: 188
DN: 185
TB: 176
GE: 167
FYEO: 155
LTK: 134
TWINE: 110
LLD: 89
OP: 81
YOLT: 72
DAF: 41
TND: 36
TMWTGG: 31
MR: 20
AVTAK: 20
DAD: 20
NSNA: 12

DEFIANT 74205 · February 2007

Thanks for that. It was very interesting indeed, although I think if someone was so bored to have the time and energy, it would obviously be more accurate if more samples were taken.

I'm aghast that such pathetic crap like DAD ranked higher than NSNA, although I wonder how many people left out unofficial Bond films in their ranking (Perhaps the scores would be more accurate if you only included official films). I've only left out one of the non-official ones (the 1954 version of Casino Royale) because I haven't seen it, therefore I am unable to make a judgment.

crawfordboon · February 2007

Oh come on Defiant, even DAD was better than the truly dire NSNA. If you were to read my list, you would fine CR 2006 at the very bottom, beanath both DAD and NSNA!

A very worthwhile project, must have taken ages, well done. Though if you could rank them in order of preference, not chronology, that would make it perfect.

Harry Palmer · February 2007

Thanks for the comments, guys. In response to Crawfordboon's suggestion I'll edit the post, and list them in order of preference.

JennyFlexFan · February 2007

AVTAK at only 20? I'm also surprised at how low GE is.

crawfordboon · February 2007

HERE IS the list based on IMDb ratings:

CR: 282 7.9
GF: 419 7.8
FRWL: 392 7.4
DN: 185 pts 7.2
TSWLM: 197 7.1
YOLT: 72 6.9
OHMSS: 305 6.9
TB: 176 6.9
GE: 167 6.9
FYEO: 155 6.8
LALD: 89 6.8
DAF: 41 6.7
TLD: 188 6.6
TMWTGG: 31 6.6
OP: 81 6.5
TND: 36 6.4
TWINE: 110 6.3
DAD: 20 6.2
MR: 20 6.1
NSNA: 12 6.0
AVTAK: 20 6.0

Interestingly, none fall below 6, which means they are al lrated as 'good' or above.

heartbroken_mr_drax · February 2007

^^ Interesting, IMDb has a pretty smart rating for movies, there arent just idiots on there voting for say Scary Movie etc....

But a list that is'nt a surprise, even with comparison to IMDb.

crawfordboon · February 2007

IMDb isn't 100% reliable, however. It does tend to be biased towarsd new movies, which get exaggerated scores (either good or bad). I believe this is the case with CR's 7.9, which I feel is a good 10-15 points too high to be accurate.

00Goldeneye · February 2007

Hey! Thought LTK was going to lower, I guess not.

)

Mr Martini · February 2007

crawfordboon wrote:

HERE IS the list based on IMDb ratings:

CR: 282 7.9
GF: 419 7.8
FRWL: 392 7.4
DN: 185 pts 7.2
TSWLM: 197 7.1
YOLT: 72 6.9
OHMSS: 305 6.9
TB: 176 6.9
GE: 167 6.9
FYEO: 155 6.8
LALD: 89 6.8
DAF: 41 6.7
TLD: 188 6.6
TMWTGG: 31 6.6
OP: 81 6.5
TND: 36 6.4
TWINE: 110 6.3
DAD: 20 6.2
MR: 20 6.1
NSNA: 12 6.0
AVTAK: 20 6.0

Interestingly, none fall below 6, which means they are al lrated as 'good' or above.

Where is LTK?

crawfordboon · February 2007

Oops, must have left it out! I think it got somewhere between 6.2-6.4.

CasinoChris75 · February 2007

Sticks and stones will brake my bones, but Harry Palmer's statistic will never hurt me, for I am a proud supporter of The Man With the Golden Gun.

zooeyhall · February 2007

It seems like OHMSS has improved with age! It is 3rd in the website poll and in the top 10 on IMDB. Peter Hunt should be proud!

OHMSS is on the top of my list, probably in a tie with TSWLM and OP. I'd say my second string is AVTAK and TB.

I am wondering why opinions on OHMSS have improved so dramatically over the years. Was it too different and sophisticated when it came out, and people appreciate it more today for those qualities? Or does it reflect dissatisfaction with Bond films that came after?

Loeffelholz · February 2007

zooeyhall wrote:

I am wondering why opinions on OHMSS have improved so dramatically over the years. Was it too different and sophisticated when it came out, and poeple appreciate it more today for those qualities? Or does it reflect dissatisfaction with Bond films that came after?

I think it was too jarringly different from the other pictures; especially the tragic ending.

I think, first of all, it's a very good story---one of Fleming's best, IMO. Second of all, I think its notable departures from Bond's Precious Classic Formula are more forgiven in the Modern Era, where (perhaps), after 20+ pictures, an element of weariness over the predictability of the Bonds might have settled in. This accounts in part, I believe, for the recent thunderous success of CR.

I've been saying for over a year that CR and OHMSS are 'sister films'---two sides of the same coin. But CR has one thing OHMSS doesn't: an excellent actor in the lead.

JennyFlexFan · February 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've been saying for over a year that CR and OHMSS are 'sister films'---two sides of the same coin. But CR has one thing OHMSS doesn't: an excellent actor in the lead.

So... tempted... tripe... noooooooo.

JennyFlexFan · February 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've been saying for over a year that CR and OHMSS are 'sister films'---two sides of the same coin. But CR has one thing OHMSS doesn't: an excellent actor in the lead.

So... tempted... tripe... noooooooo.

I will say something. I agree that George Lazenby was not an experienced actor when he portrayed Bond. I doubt that he could be considered just as good Craig. However . . . I refuse to accept the common belief that his performance in OHMSS was terrible. In fact, I was surprised by how good his performance was, considering his inexperience. Nor do I believe that Lazenby's appearance either ruined or was a blight in OHMSS.

I guess that I'm getting sick and tired of people claiming that Lazenby's peformance was terrible, as if it were a fact, and not an opinion. And I don't care how many Bond fans have this "opinion". It is one that I do not share.

I agree Fish, and seeing as how Craig was a real actor and Lazenby was just starting out, I was more impressed by Lazenby's performance in OHMSS than Craig's in CR.

Hopefully I won't fall off the face of the earth for this comment but I'll just do this as a precaution. {:)

Dan Same · February 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've been saying for over a year that CR and OHMSS are 'sister films'---two sides of the same coin. But CR has one thing OHMSS doesn't: an excellent actor in the lead.

Well, I will simply say that IMO, Craig wasn't as bad as Lazenby. :v

Fish1941 wrote:

I guess that I'm getting sick and tired of people claiming that Lazenby's peformance was terrible, as if it were a fact, and not an opinion. And I don't care how many Bond fans have this "opinion". It is one that I do not share.

It isn't a fact by any means and I don't believe that people state it as if it is a fact. Personally, I do think that Lazenby's performance was terrible, with two exceptions; his physicality which I think was great, and his handling of the final scene which I consider to be masterful.

superado · February 2007

IMO, because Lazenby was able to deliver in a most unique stage of life for Bond, marriage, is pretty good, esp. when considering that the storyline deals with a Bond at the top of his game and has been around the block (taking the clue from the novel, reflecting on his experiences). At his age then, 29, I think he could have made a great, novel-faithful CR, judging from his Casino scenes, the sequences in the Hotel (Splendide) and the extra-ordinary, life-defining romance, coupled with the cinematic qualities that went into OHMSS.

Napoleon Plural · February 2007

It's not a well crafted film for Lazers though imo. He seems quite cocky and naive, rather like Bond should be in CR in fact... while Craig in CR seems quite cynical and weathered, as Bond should be in OHMSS imo...

I don't really buy the chemistry between him and Rigg... she seems to know more about life than him, so he can't really 'save' her. The script is written more for the cynical, devil-may-care Connery, who should be cast up against a blonde imo. Someone more exotic and damaged...

superado · February 2007

Napoleon Plural wrote:

It's not a well crafted film for Lazers though imo. He seems quite cocky and naive, rather like Bond should be in CR in fact... while Craig in CR seems quite cynical and weathered, as Bond should be in OHMSS imo...

I don't really buy the chemistry between him and Rigg... she seems to know more about life than him, so he can't really 'save' her. The script is written more for the cynical, devil-may-care Connery, who should be cast up against a blonde imo. Someone more exotic and damaged...

Yeah, imagine Connery against Tippi Hendren or Catherine Deneuve as a novel Tracy?

) Foolishly tossing around blonde personalities of that time who could do neurotic, I momentarily forgot about Marnie!

But that reversal you mentioned, NP, makes sense, doesn't it?

crawfordboon · February 2007

I thought Rigg's performance was massively overrated, she had none of the personality and warmth that she had in The Avengers, and lacked much chemistry with Lazenby (probably due to their rows during filming). I know it's a different role but a more Emma Peel-esque Tracey would have boosted the film IMO.

Lazenby is better than people say as Bond, I would say he exuded more charisma and charm than either Dalton or Craig, his sense of humour, phsyicality, and smug attitude helped him in the role I'd say, like a halfway house between Connery and Moore (which of course he was, sort of).

Krassno Granitski · February 2007

crawfordboon wrote:

I thought Rigg's performance was massively overrated, she had none of the personality and warmth that she had in The Avengers, and lacked much chemistry with Lazenby (probably due to their rows during filming). I know it's a different role but a more Emma Peel-esque Tracey would have boosted the film IMO.

Total disagree. #1 among all Bond women. I thought they got along splendidly.

Lazenby is better than people say as Bond, I would say he exuded more charisma and charm than either Dalton or Craig, his sense of humour, phsyicality, and smug attitude helped him in the role I'd say, like a halfway house between Connery and Moore (which of course he was, sort of).

Well said and agree 100%

Moore Not Less · February 2007

crawfordboon wrote:

I thought Rigg's performance was massively overrated, she had none of the personality and warmth that she had in The Avengers, and lacked much chemistry with Lazenby (probably due to their rows during filming). I know it's a different role but a more Emma Peel-esque Tracey would have boosted the film IMO.

Massively overrated, no. Overrated, yes. For the most part, Diana Rigg was not as Emmappealing both in terms of acting and sexiness as she was in The Avengers.

As for the rows. I am not certain they actually happened. Were'nt they made up by the media?

Moore Not Less · February 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

For the most part, Diana Rigg was not as Emmappealing both in terms of acting and sexiness as she was in The Avengers.

Why was Diana Rigg supposed to be “Emmappealing” in OHMSS? She was playing a character other than Emma Peel.

Yes, I know she was playing a character other than Emma Peel. And I did not say that she was supposed to be Emmappealing in OHMSS. I was just comparing her performance and looks in OHMSS to those in The Avengers resulting in the opinion that for the most part she was better in terms of her acting and appearance in The Avengers.

Dan Same · February 2007

Moore Not Less wrote:

For the most part, Diana Rigg was not as Emmappealing both in terms of acting and sexiness as she was in The Avengers.

I agree. As much as I love Tracey in OHMSS, I don't think she was nearly as good (both in terms of sexiness and acting ability) as in The Avengers. Diana Rigg remains IMO the sexiest female character of all time. Tracey is fantastic but I don't think she's as irresistable as the magnificent Emma Peel.

Agent Wade · February 2007

I must say how interesting it is that what once started as a thead about stats has become increasingly more specific to that of the performance of Diana Rigg.

(And I would so totally tap that in OHMSS.)