By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Ranking The James Bond Actors

MontanaHatchet on 29 November 2009
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
I like Craig, Casino Royale was a great film, and I thought Quantum of Solace was pretty good too.

Yay, I was waiting for an excuse to do this.

Casino Royale:

  • Some two people were killed in the entire movie.
  • The plotline revolved around Poker.
  • No Q
  • Daniel Craig (yes, I know, whatever)
  • Boring villain
  • If Bond loses, he's funding terrorism! Oh, heavens, no! What if he broke a nail? This guy is rich enough to host a huge poker party in a five star hotel and bid $15 million, inviting some of the most powerful people in the world. He doesn't really need much more money.

But, it was written by Ian Fleming, so can't complain, I suppose.

Quantum of Solace:

Oh dear.

  • NOT written by Ian Fleming (but then quite a few of the films aren't)
  • Ridiculously over-the-top action
  • Bond kills everything that moves, for no adequately explored reason.
  • The evil supervillain this time is trying to dominate Bolivia's water supply. Oh, dear god! What could happen if he did that? It would be catastrophic! The price of water in Bolivia could go up, and some people might be a little thirsty! DISASTER! Besides, there is already a company with a monopoly of Bolivia's water supply.
  • Villain was about as charismatic as a brick wall.
  • NO GADGETS. Except something which resembles Windows 7 Touch, oh, and a camera phone which can identify people. Futuristic stuff. Who needs lame gadgets, like a laser watch, or jam trousers?

EDIT: Interesting thing to note: from personal experience, Americans love these two, and everyone else hates them.

 

Casino Royale

1. So we're not counting the guys killed at the embassy, or the main villain? Who are you counting?

2. The plotline revolved around a terrorist group, and one of their higher ups happened to be a big fan of Poker. At a certain point in the movie, he hosts a poker tournament.

3. Yeah, the emphasis was taken off cheesy gadgets. As much as I love Q, the overuse of gadgets with Brosnan made the movies much worse.

4. OMG DANIEL CRAIG WAH WAH WAH.

5. I thought the villain was fairly intimidating and calculating, and the emphasis was on a whole terrorist group, not just one person.

6. If memory serves, they were bidding with hundreds of millions of dollars. And the villain had lost that equivalent amount. You obviously didn't pay much attention to the plotline considering how much you're criticizing it.

Quantum of Solace

1. Ian Fleming only wrote so many books. What are they supposed to do, stop one of the biggest film series of all time?

2. No, not really.

3. Everything that moves tries to kill him. He's chasing after a terrorist organization, and a lot of times, the only way to survive is for him to kill the person THAT'S TRYING TO KILL HIM.

4. He was trying to control the world's supply of water, he just so happened to start in Bolivia because there was a man (who was trying to start a coup) that he knew he could screw with. And controlling the majority of a country's water supply, even if it's a small nation, is still favorable.

5. Well, yeah. He looked like a pedophile.

6. Gadgets sucked. The Connery films weren't crazy with gadgets, so the Craig films follow suit. I approve.



 

 

Around the Network
Rath on 29 November 2009

Favourite gadget in a Bond movie is the suitcase in From Russia With Love. It was cool.



Scoobes on 29 November 2009
Mise said:

3) Sean Connery - While just about everything Connery does is awesome, I never really felt Connery was playing Bond. Rather, he was playing Sean Connery.

You could say that about nearly all Sean Connery films!




Get your Portable ID!

kirby007 on 29 November 2009

amp, your taste is just horrible daniel crag @2? i say put nr6 there



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Scoobes on 29 November 2009
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
I like Craig, Casino Royale was a great film, and I thought Quantum of Solace was pretty good too.

Yay, I was waiting for an excuse to do this.

Casino Royale:

  • Some two people were killed in the entire movie.
What film were you watching... did you only watch the poker scenes?
  • The plotline revolved around Poker.
See previous comment
  • No Q
Because the gadgets became cheesy and crap. Invisible car anyone?
  • Daniel Craig (yes, I know, whatever)
Who actually bothered to make it look like he could have the physique of an agent, unlike that smarmy weed Pierce Brosnan
  • Boring villain
Yet he managed to give us a wonderful torture scene
  • If Bond loses, he's funding terrorism! Oh, heavens, no! What if he broke a nail? This guy is rich enough to host a huge poker party in a five star hotel and bid $15 million, inviting some of the most powerful people in the world. He doesn't really need much more money.

But, it was written by Ian Fleming, so can't complain, I suppose.

No, you shouldn't, in fact Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond is far closer to the books than any of the other actors except perhaps Sean Connery.

Quantum of Solace:

Oh dear.

  • NOT written by Ian Fleming (but then quite a few of the films aren't)
No, but he gave us the title! :P
  • Ridiculously over-the-top action
Yes, but a lot of it was still believable up until the end scenes
  • Bond kills everything that moves, for no adequately explored reason.
Except for the fact they're all trying to kill him and his desire for vengeance.
  • The evil supervillain this time is trying to dominate Bolivia's water supply. Oh, dear god! What could happen if he did that? It would be catastrophic! The price of water in Bolivia could go up, and some people might be a little thirsty! DISASTER! Besides, there is already a company with a monopoly of Bolivia's water supply.
World water supply, he was based in Bolivia.
  • Villain was about as charismatic as a brick wall.
Is this a pre-requisite for a villain, or is this some misguided pre-conception you have
  • NO GADGETS. Except something which resembles Windows 7 Touch, oh, and a camera phone which can identify people. Futuristic stuff. Who needs lame gadgets, like a laser watch, or jam trousers?
Gadgets ruined the last 2 Pierce Brosnan films, don't you think they'd want to stay away from them? Again, I bring up the invisible car. The gadgets became cheesy and really quite stale, they needed a change of tempo.

EDIT: Interesting thing to note: from personal experience, Americans love these two, and everyone else hates them.

I'm British and like Bond :P

See bolded. The new Bond is a lot closer to the way Bond originally was in the books, and this is what they were going for with the films. He wasn't supposed to have all these cheesy one liners and look like a suave but skinny weed. In fact, he was supposed to be rather muscular and rugged. It's the progression of the film series that has led to all these expectations and pre-conceptions that I think a lot of Bond fans see as a staple. These pre-conceptions ruined the last 2 Brosnan-Bond films.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
dystopia on 29 November 2009

1. Sean Connery: Because he is James Bond, the completely embodies the role and no other Bond has ever even approached what he did for the role.

2. Timothy Dalton: Believe it or not his two bond flicks were actually pretty good, much better then the farce Roger Moore's films had made of the franchise.

3. George Lazenby: He brought fresh air to the role, and his single performance as Bond was the most human, showing that Bond does have emotion.

4. Daniel Craig: More fresh air, He get's #4 basically on the strength of Casino Royale (because Quantum of Solace was pretty terrible).

5. Pierce Brosnan: He started off ok, Goldeneye wasn't great but it wasn't a bad movie either, but the subsequent movies were really terrible.

6. Roger Moore: Frankly he ruined Bond for a decade.



coolestguyever on 29 November 2009
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
I like Craig, Casino Royale was a great film, and I thought Quantum of Solace was pretty good too.

Yay, I was waiting for an excuse to do this.

Casino Royale:

  • Some two people were killed in the entire movie.
  • The plotline revolved around Poker.
  • No Q
  • Daniel Craig (yes, I know, whatever)
  • Boring villain
  • If Bond loses, he's funding terrorism! Oh, heavens, no! What if he broke a nail? This guy is rich enough to host a huge poker party in a five star hotel and bid $15 million, inviting some of the most powerful people in the world. He doesn't really need much more money.

But, it was written by Ian Fleming, so can't complain, I suppose.

Quantum of Solace:

Oh dear.

  • NOT written by Ian Fleming (but then quite a few of the films aren't)
  • Ridiculously over-the-top action
  • Bond kills everything that moves, for no adequately explored reason.
  • The evil supervillain this time is trying to dominate Bolivia's water supply. Oh, dear god! What could happen if he did that? It would be catastrophic! The price of water in Bolivia could go up, and some people might be a little thirsty! DISASTER! Besides, there is already a company with a monopoly of Bolivia's water supply.
  • Villain was about as charismatic as a brick wall.
  • NO GADGETS. Except something which resembles Windows 7 Touch, oh, and a camera phone which can identify people. Futuristic stuff. Who needs lame gadgets, like a laser watch, or jam trousers?

EDIT: Interesting thing to note: from personal experience, Americans love these two, and everyone else hates them.

This is the best post in the entire thread. I would just mention one thing as well

- There was a total of about 10 seconds of a car chase in Casino Royale before he flips his car and that's it. No more car chase. The car chases have always been epic in bond like when he controls his car via his cell phone in Tomorrow never dies, the tank scene in Goldeneye, etc.

- Also this kind of goes along with the "No Q" but it was always humourus when Q would say something like "try to bring it back in one piece Bond" and Bond would have some witty line in response.

 

You covered most of the good points though, no gadgets, boring story (10 hours of poker, 5 minutes of action), etc.

Good post.



coolestguyever on 29 November 2009
Scoobes said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Because the gadgets became cheesy and crap. Invisible car anyone? some misguided pre-conception you have

 

What? Yeah of course they're cheesy. That's the whole point! They're cool gadgets that don't even exist. What kind of a superspy doesn't have cool gadgets.



ruimartiniman on 29 November 2009

1. Pierce Brosnan
2. Roger Moore
3. Sean Connery
4. Timothy Dalton
5. George Lazenby
6. Daniel Graig



stof on 29 November 2009

All I will say is is this :Timothy Dalton was underrated and should have had a Roger Moore length run at the series.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.