I guess it's pointless to attempt to keep this discussion balanced...
"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
Without a doubt, Casino Royale is the superior film. Better looking, better scripted, better acted, better sounding, and better directed. It is a grown-up, character-driven action film whereas Goldeneye is barely a film, by comparison amateurish and predictable.
"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
Well certainly no two Bond fans are going to agree on the exact same movies, actors etc being better than others. And it is no different with these two.
GoldenEye holds my top spot. Number 1 reason is it was the first Bond film I had ever seen. It's tank chase through St. Petersburg is easily one of my top favorites out of the franchise. A villain that is an equal to Bond? I accept that. i like the presentation of this film. I like how both the new M and Natayla grill Bond for being a "relic" sort of fitting for how the idea of Bond coming back after such a long hiatus was met with skepticism, mainly because of how much the world had changed since the previous one. While I don't love the entire soundtrack, there are some highlights in the background music for me. Case in point the music that plays both when the chopper is stolen and when Natalya is emailing Boris and then the music that plays when the GoldenEye is set to destroy the Severnya facility and then stolen, it's also used on the train while Bond is cutting through the floor and Natalya is spiking Boris and again when Boris is trying to fix the satellite and the grenade pen.
Casino Royale I didn't care for at all when I first saw it. I simply wasn't ready for that type of change to the role at the time. But hearing friends and such talking about it, I decided to give it another try, and the more I payed attention to it the more I liked it. I liked that M's role was changing from simply giving Bond his orders to going out on the field....You could see in TND, World and Die Another Day that her role was changing. The foot chase at the start was good as was the airport chase, both dragged on a little long though. I do like that it kind of settles down when it comes time for the poker game, at least in some spots.
In the end I like both GoldenEye and Casino Royale. Both are in my top three of my list.
1, GE 2, CR 3, SF 4, TWINE 5, Spectre 6, TMWTGG 7, DAD 8, LALD 9, AVTAK 10, LTK 11, Octopussy 12, Moonraker 13, TLD 14, GF 15, QOS 16, Tomorrow 17, FYEO 18. TSWLM Not seen much: Dr. No, Russia, Thunderball, Twice, Majesty.
1: Brosnan 2: Craig 3: Moore 4: Dalton 5: Connery and 6: Lazenby
It's prob better to keep the discussion subjective, as attempting to cross over into the realm of objectivity complicates things a bit.
Plus, Campbell had more technology to make CR than he did to make GE, so we need to bear that in mind when comparing the movies.
You can tell when comparing the image definition of the films, for example. CR has a much sharper definition due to the technology available when it was made.
"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
It's prob better to keep the discussion subjective, as attempting to cross over into the realm of objectivity complicates things a bit.
Plus, Campbell had more tecnology to make CR than he did to make GE, so we need to bear that in mind when comparing the movies.
You can tell when comparing the image definition of the films, for example. CR has a much sharper definition due to the technology available when it was made.
CR certainly looked better than GE. The satellite in GE looks atrocious! Nothing in CR looks fake.
Keep fighting, Agent Purple ! -{ even if you are the only one saying
something. It doesn't mean you're wrong. {[]
Well said, TP- and more power to you, Agent Purple: keep it coming!
+1 {[] No opinion is invalid. Both of these films gave the franchise the needed voltage to keep the heart beating. I smile a great deal whenever I watch GE.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Plus, the idea of Bond being a rookie OO in his late thirties, combined with the building sinking sequence just irks me a bit.
Bond being given 00 status in his late 30s makes perfect sense in today's world. I thought they updated that brilliantly from the 1950s, when a 20 something was considered just as adult as a 40 something. What wouldn't have made sense at all is a baby faced 23 year old Henry Cavill being given 00 status after supposedly a few years climbing the stairs. When did he start? at 17? 18? They made the right choice going with Craig.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Plus, the idea of Bond being a rookie OO in his late thirties, combined with the building sinking sequence just irks me a bit.
Bond being given 00 status in his late 30s makes perfect sense in today's world. I thought they updated that brilliantly from the 1950s, when a 20 something was considered just as adult as a 40 something. What wouldn't have made sense at all is a baby faced 23 year old Henry Cavill being given 00 status after supposedly a few years climbing the stairs. When did he start? at 17? 18? They made the right choice going with Craig.
A fair point. Bond would have spent some years in standard intelligence work, after the SBS and before '00' status, according to his records posted on the official website when CR was released.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm trying to recall, but I thought the novel takes place 12 years after WW2, which Bond is supposed to have served in. That would easily place him in his 30s, and if I recall correctly, double-Os are retired soon after.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Yeah, 35-ish, which was Fleming's perpetual ideal. And Craig being 38 in CR doesn't necessarily make Bond 38. [Detractors insert here ]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig being 38 in CR doesn't necessarily make Bond 38. [Detractors insert here ]
Certainly: Craig looking 63 in SF doesn't necessarily make Bond 63.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Righto
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
On Bond being made a 00 in his mid 30s, I guess any agent
would have to have a bit of experience, before gaining the
00 status ?
As for Craig looking 63, I hope I look that good when I'm
63, as I certainly don't look that good Now ! )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
On Bond being made a 00 in his mid 30s, I guess any agent
would have to have a bit of experience, before gaining the
00 status ?
As for Craig looking 63, I hope I look that good when I'm
63, as I certainly don't look that good Now ! )
Promotion to Commander RN , Lt Colonel, Wg Cdr equivilent, is on average 34, so late 30s for Bond starting as 00 is about right.
I'm trying to recall, but I thought the novel takes place 12 years after WW2, which Bond is supposed to have served in. That would easily place him in his 30s, and if I recall correctly, double-Os are retired soon after.
But we also don't know how old Bond was when he became a OO. They retire at 45.
On Bond being made a 00 in his mid 30s, I guess any agent
would have to have a bit of experience, before gaining the
00 status ?
As for Craig looking 63, I hope I look that good when I'm
63, as I certainly don't look that good Now ! )
Promotion to Commander RN , Lt Colonel, Wg Cdr equivilent, is on average 34, so late 30s for Bond starting as 00 is about right.
Ian Fleming was a Commander at 31, so I'd assume he had the same intentions for Bond.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
By the way: I have relocated the Official Dossier (as approved and compiled on behalf of Eon Productions) on Cmdr James Bond, which I fully transcribed from the CR website back in '06.
It's fascinating reading. If anyone would like a copy, just PM me your email address! Cheers!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
The market has changed so much since the start of the series, begining with the symbiotic successes of the Fleming books with the films, then with the introduction of the merchandizing of toys and fashion accessories in the 60s, TV broadcasting rights in the 70s, home video in the 80s, video games in the 90s...so on and so forth that it's no surprise that SPECTRE was supposedly given the largest Bond movie budget ever (?) and because it's ultimately business that rules the day, it was ultimately business that were the "whys" that shaped GE and CR.
Much of this insight is featured in the GE issue of MI6 Magazine and James Bond: The Legacy 007 by Bruce Scivally and John Cork (two things I wish about this book, that they update it into the Craig era and offer a smaller, less graphic version so I don't have to lug it around in public). It's interesting how from the very beginning, whichever production team had been very intentional on how they produced every film, whether it was the introduction of a new Bond actor, the amount of political content to include or keep out, humor, even pop-culture phenomena like Evel Knievel and Star Wars. Whether each individual decision was wise or not is a different story, but with certainty each one was done with the best intentions and collectively, they've ensured the series' survival for 50 years.
Regarding the contexts of GE and CR, yes, it's been mentioned here that the production of each one necessitated the solving of specific problems facing the producers, which was to solidify Bond's relevance to a waiting audience (GE) and to reinvent Bond's relevance to both new and (old) tired audiences. With GE, Michael and Barbara, still not producers "in their own rights" were intent to be true to Cubby's vision while he was still alive, whereas with CR, they took radical risks that arguably wouldn't have been approved by Cubby...and that was a good thing. My point is, as the series languished in dearth during the Brosnan era as the new leaders of EON relied on formula to keep the series going, the decision for a reboot necessitated the kitchen sink. Apart from the said technological advances between the 2 movies, they spent an extraordinary amount of money on CR ($150 mil adjusted to $117 mil in 1995), almost twice as GE ($60 mil in 1995)...therefore, understandibly so, there was much riding on the success of CR on the part of Sony and EON for the finances of the studio and vigor for the series, not to just count Michael's and Barbara's continued professional success but also their professional reputations as the heirs of EON. I think that these important facts should tell us that when comparing these two movies, it isn't a case of competing Bond actors that we tend to devolve into doing, just as it was when Moore's OP triumphed over Connery's NSNA in 1983...it was all about production.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I love both films, though lately I've been appreciating the Brosnan era more. Even in 1995 I vividly remember the model effects not being up to par with, say MR or even TB. Didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film, though. In some way's CR has the advantage as it was my favorite Bond novel, and I had always wanted to see a good adaptation done. Martin Campbell did a fine job on both films and I can only imagine how, say DAD or QOS might have been improved had he been in the captain's chair for those.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I love both films, though lately I've been appreciating the Brosnan era more. Even in 1995 I vividly remember the model effects not being up to par with, say MR or even TB. Didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film, though. In some way's CR has the advantage as it was my favorite Bond novel, and I had always wanted to see a good adaptation done. Martin Campbell did a fine job on both films and I can only imagine how, say DAD or QOS might have been improved had he been in the captain's chair for those.
After about 30 years, I rewatched Reilly: Ace of Spies and I didn't realize that Martin Cambell directed several of those episodes; that series was excellently done and holds up well today. I think t was an honor for Campbell to be tapped as EON's go to guy for the delicate and strategic situations involving GE and CR in the scheme of the Bond series' history.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
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
Without a doubt, Gassy! {[]
something. It doesn't mean you're wrong. {[]
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
GoldenEye holds my top spot. Number 1 reason is it was the first Bond film I had ever seen. It's tank chase through St. Petersburg is easily one of my top favorites out of the franchise. A villain that is an equal to Bond? I accept that. i like the presentation of this film. I like how both the new M and Natayla grill Bond for being a "relic" sort of fitting for how the idea of Bond coming back after such a long hiatus was met with skepticism, mainly because of how much the world had changed since the previous one. While I don't love the entire soundtrack, there are some highlights in the background music for me. Case in point the music that plays both when the chopper is stolen and when Natalya is emailing Boris and then the music that plays when the GoldenEye is set to destroy the Severnya facility and then stolen, it's also used on the train while Bond is cutting through the floor and Natalya is spiking Boris and again when Boris is trying to fix the satellite and the grenade pen.
Casino Royale I didn't care for at all when I first saw it. I simply wasn't ready for that type of change to the role at the time. But hearing friends and such talking about it, I decided to give it another try, and the more I payed attention to it the more I liked it. I liked that M's role was changing from simply giving Bond his orders to going out on the field....You could see in TND, World and Die Another Day that her role was changing. The foot chase at the start was good as was the airport chase, both dragged on a little long though. I do like that it kind of settles down when it comes time for the poker game, at least in some spots.
In the end I like both GoldenEye and Casino Royale. Both are in my top three of my list.
1: Brosnan 2: Craig 3: Moore 4: Dalton 5: Connery and 6: Lazenby
Plus, Campbell had more technology to make CR than he did to make GE, so we need to bear that in mind when comparing the movies.
You can tell when comparing the image definition of the films, for example. CR has a much sharper definition due to the technology available when it was made.
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
CR certainly looked better than GE. The satellite in GE looks atrocious! Nothing in CR looks fake.
Well said, TP- and more power to you, Agent Purple: keep it coming!
+1 {[] No opinion is invalid. Both of these films gave the franchise the needed voltage to keep the heart beating. I smile a great deal whenever I watch GE.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bond being given 00 status in his late 30s makes perfect sense in today's world. I thought they updated that brilliantly from the 1950s, when a 20 something was considered just as adult as a 40 something. What wouldn't have made sense at all is a baby faced 23 year old Henry Cavill being given 00 status after supposedly a few years climbing the stairs. When did he start? at 17? 18? They made the right choice going with Craig.
A fair point. Bond would have spent some years in standard intelligence work, after the SBS and before '00' status, according to his records posted on the official website when CR was released.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Certainly: Craig looking 63 in SF doesn't necessarily make Bond 63.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
would have to have a bit of experience, before gaining the
00 status ?
As for Craig looking 63, I hope I look that good when I'm
63, as I certainly don't look that good Now !
Of Beatles puns.
Promotion to Commander RN , Lt Colonel, Wg Cdr equivilent, is on average 34, so late 30s for Bond starting as 00 is about right.
But we also don't know how old Bond was when he became a OO. They retire at 45.
Whoops...just missed that
Ian Fleming was a Commander at 31, so I'd assume he had the same intentions for Bond.
It's fascinating reading. If anyone would like a copy, just PM me your email address! Cheers!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Much of this insight is featured in the GE issue of MI6 Magazine and James Bond: The Legacy 007 by Bruce Scivally and John Cork (two things I wish about this book, that they update it into the Craig era and offer a smaller, less graphic version so I don't have to lug it around in public). It's interesting how from the very beginning, whichever production team had been very intentional on how they produced every film, whether it was the introduction of a new Bond actor, the amount of political content to include or keep out, humor, even pop-culture phenomena like Evel Knievel and Star Wars. Whether each individual decision was wise or not is a different story, but with certainty each one was done with the best intentions and collectively, they've ensured the series' survival for 50 years.
Regarding the contexts of GE and CR, yes, it's been mentioned here that the production of each one necessitated the solving of specific problems facing the producers, which was to solidify Bond's relevance to a waiting audience (GE) and to reinvent Bond's relevance to both new and (old) tired audiences. With GE, Michael and Barbara, still not producers "in their own rights" were intent to be true to Cubby's vision while he was still alive, whereas with CR, they took radical risks that arguably wouldn't have been approved by Cubby...and that was a good thing. My point is, as the series languished in dearth during the Brosnan era as the new leaders of EON relied on formula to keep the series going, the decision for a reboot necessitated the kitchen sink. Apart from the said technological advances between the 2 movies, they spent an extraordinary amount of money on CR ($150 mil adjusted to $117 mil in 1995), almost twice as GE ($60 mil in 1995)...therefore, understandibly so, there was much riding on the success of CR on the part of Sony and EON for the finances of the studio and vigor for the series, not to just count Michael's and Barbara's continued professional success but also their professional reputations as the heirs of EON. I think that these important facts should tell us that when comparing these two movies, it isn't a case of competing Bond actors that we tend to devolve into doing, just as it was when Moore's OP triumphed over Connery's NSNA in 1983...it was all about production.
After about 30 years, I rewatched Reilly: Ace of Spies and I didn't realize that Martin Cambell directed several of those episodes; that series was excellently done and holds up well today. I think t was an honor for Campbell to be tapped as EON's go to guy for the delicate and strategic situations involving GE and CR in the scheme of the Bond series' history.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2