Great news for James Bond fans - November 2012!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Come on guys, they're just films, fictional films. Just enjoy them for what they are - sure this one will go along the lines of all previous films -

Bond in some predicament, escapes, visits M, flirts with Moneypenny, annoys Q, travels world, kills some people, sneaks in somewhere with some pretty girl who he shouldn't really be with, kills some more people (with new gadget), saves her, she saves him, kill some more people whilst escaping/chasing someone, back to M, told off, does it again, insuniation of shagging girl, end theme, Bond will return in...

If you don't like them, don't watch them, but they are just for entertainment, not factual tours of baddies lairs or invisible cars.

No, they're not factual and they are formulaic, but some of them are still better than others. I think you have to go all the way back to Goldeneye (Sean Bean FTW) to find the last Bond film that really measured up.

[Sailor Steve]

The ones I like best are the ones that stick closest to the original books. So Connery's first four and Craig's first are my favorites. The rest?

[JSLTIGER]

The best two Bond films IMHO were Goldfinger and Goldeneye. Definitely the most compelling stories, the best writing, and I think the best actors to play Bond. Craig is OK, but he lacks a certain measure of panache that both Brosnan and Connery had that made Bond, Bond.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The ones I like best are the ones that stick closest to the original books. So Connery's first four and Craig's first are my favorites. The rest?

I don't know of any Bond movies that were faithful to the Ian Flemming books.

I still enjoy the books, they were way more believable than the movies.

[Sailor Steve]

I thought Dr. No followed the book quite faithfully, including the scene of Bond barfing after nearly being stung by the scorpion in bed. From Russia With Love took a few liberties, but they didn't want the Commies to be the bad guys anymore so they changed a few things. Goldfinger took even more liberties, but the basic plot was still there. Same with Thunderball.

I hated that Casino Royale updated the story, since my preference would be the 1950s Cold-War story of the original, but since that's not going to happen, I was just glad that they had the basic story in there. I even liked the idea of his crash being due to the girl herself rather than caltrops on the road.

The funny thing is that On Her Majesty's Secret Service was probably more faithful to the book than any of them, and it also gets my vote for the worst of them all. Its only redeeming feature was Diana Rigg.

[Platapus]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the more faithful ones.

It is one of my favourites next to From Russia with Love. But I have to agree that OHMSS is not a very good Bond Movie.

I too was very disappointed in the "new" Casino Royale. The book is one of the better ones in the series and would make a great book. But it would not have enough action and special effects for today's audiences.

The Ian Flemming books make great travel/waiting room books. Easy to read, fast paced stories, and entertaining. Can't ask for much more from a fiction book.

[XabbaRus]

I thought Dalton was underrated. He was more like how Bond the character should be.

Can't stand Connery but that is as an actor, I like the movies he was in, but don't rate him as best Bond. Daniel Craig is the one for me.

I thought Roger Moore was good as he clicked that it had got a bit absurd and played to that.

Goldeneye is one of my favourites, spoilt only by Onnatop.

Quantum was weird....

Moonraker is fun.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I thought Dalton was underrated. He was more like how Bond the character should be.

I agree. Problem is the movies were poorly written and boring, and that wasn't his fault. Kind of like the George Clooney Batman.

Can't stand Connery but that is as an actor, I like the movies he was in, but don't rate him as best Bond. Daniel Craig is the one for me.

As I said, Connery's movies were closest to the books they were based on, and it was still within the actual time-frame. Fleming was still writing the books when the first movies were made. Ian Fleming said he like Sean Connery in the role.

I thought Roger Moore was good as he clicked that it had got a bit absurd and played to that.

Connery and Moore were friends, and it was Sean who suggested that Roger replace him. I thought Moore was great as a spy, but too smooth for the role. James Bond can fit into polite society as part of his cover, but at heart he's little more than a cold-blooded killer.

Again, it's all in the writing. The Moore movies were to 'gadgety' for my taste.

Moonraker is fun.

Silly fun, yes, but a real perversion of what Bond was supposed to be. That said, Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me were far and away the worst of the books, and as much as I hate the movies, they were actually better than the books.