Favourite James Bond Movies and How They Affected the Series

Hello Everyone :hugs:,

I’ve been a long-time fan of the James Bond series, therefore I’ve been studying the films and how they’ve affected the franchise differently throughout time. I thought it would be fascinating to consider our favourite 007 flicks and what makes them stand out in light of the current conversations regarding the character and stories’ possible evolution.

For my part, I’ve always been fascinated to “Casino Royale” (2006) because of its realistic reimagining of the character and the way it gave Bond a new outlook. It stood apart from the rest of the franchise because of the action, character growth, and emotional stakes it included. The 2012 film “Skyfall,” on the other hand, really connected with me since it examined Bond’s past and how it affected his present. The soundtrack and cinematography were excellent!

I want to know what your personal favourites are, everyone. Which James Bond films, in your opinion, had the biggest influence on the series? Are there any particular scenes or ideas from those movies that you can relate to? In addition, do you believe that Bond’s representation has changed for the better or worse throughout the years? :thinking:

Last but not least, do you believe that the popularity of the most recent Bond generative ai films will be built upon in the upcoming films, or will the traditional formula be returned? :thinking:

I look forward to hearing your opinions and views! Thanks in advance for your time.

5 Likes

Welcome, EllisV_60!

My personal favorites are from the first three eras: FRWL, TSWLM, MR and TLD.

They all influenced the series (narratively, commercially and as entries negotiating the balance between essential elements and new ideas), but in the long run, I guess, the most influential Bond films are GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, GE and CR since they all gave the blueprint for what is now considered a typical Bond film.

Has Bond´s representation change for the better or the worse? After SKYFALL I thought that the Craig era had changed it for the better - but now I believe the chosen path has led into a blind alley, and it apparently is extremely difficult to find the new way home.

As for the generative ai films - I don’t know what that is. But the traditional formula is probably something that is so much the DNA of these films that it can’t nor shouldn’t be changed.

4 Likes

Welcome to our community! I look forward to your contributions on here. As for your questions, I’m a big Craig and Dalton fan. My personal favourites are Casino Royale, The Living Daylights, Skyfall, For Your Eyes Only, No Time to Die, Goldeneye, and the first 3 Connery movies. I love some aspects of License to Kill. Like you, I have very much enjoyed the turn to realism (though as others have noted it’s still not that realistic) and I have also liked the more serious tone of the movies during the Craig and Dalton eras.

It will be interesting to see where the films will go from here and when they will begin again. I would like to see the films retain the seriousness of the Craig/Dalton eras but with a little more levity and Bond enjoying the life he has chosen (he can still question it and not like parts of the job (e.g., killing in cold blood). I think there is a near consensus among fans on the board that they would like to see films where it’s not personal (i.e., Bond is given a mission and completes that mission with no personal angle).

A recent topic on the board has been Bond enjoying a luxurious lifestyle. That is not as central for me. I think Bond should look cool, dress well, and enjoy good food, drink and sports cars. But I think there needs to be some limits to this. When he’s out in the field it should not suggest he brought 5 suitcases of clothes, nor should he look like he is living a life similar to a trust fund playboy. Bond, in the novels, also puts limits on indulging too much. If remember correctly, in Goldfinger he refuses a cigar and Cognac.

My biggest wish is probably a film on a smaller scale - not necessarily in terms of number of countries visited but in terms of the scale of the plot. I don’t think Bond should be literally saving the world every film. I would like to see real threats on a smaller scale . If I had my wish, make the next movie focused around something like SMERSH under modern day Russia. Major plot issues not to touch upon: moles, the threat of a nuclear weapons and crazed billionaires with an outrageous plot (e.g., Powerful man likes fish…. Let’s destroy the world). Another issue to avoid,- super hero Bond. Bond should be extraordinary but still a man. He should not know everything or perform actions that are physically impossible.

The Craig era touched upon a lot of previous films. Some on here disliked that immensely. I enjoyed it but would scale it back significantly. Any references to previous films should be very, very subtle easter eggs IMHO.

Finally, there are two personal angles I would like to see touched upon in the next series of films.1) Show us where Bond lives and a little of his relations ship with his housekeeper May (I think her character would need updating but retaining a motherly affection for Bond). 2) The films have never really explored Bond’s relationship with Tanner who, in the novels, is Bond’s best friend (correct me if I have this wrong as it’s been a while since I read Fleming). It would be great if they could delve in this area of Bond’s life as it was only hinted at in Skyfall. Both of these personal areas would need to fit into the film. No sense trying to force them in.

Some of my thoughts. Welcome to the board. I look forward to reading your posts.

4 Likes

Welcome Ellis! And thank you for the questions.

My favorite Bond movie? Hmmm. Will have to think on it, and get back to you. :slight_smile:

6 Likes

And welcome from me too, @EllisV_60.

My favourites in the series tend to move with the years. In the 70s I used to prefer the big spectacle of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER. Later I drifted towards the down-to-earth approach of the FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE school.

And yet, the one film I loved throughout the decades - and is possibly the one I never tire of - combines both extremes of Bond, the large scale and the thriller elements: ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE.

What used to be the ugly duckling of 1969, seldom talked about and forgotten until Roger Moore showed himself to be touchy about being a widower, turned into the overbearing figure of the Craig run. They tried in vain for an inverted remake, twice. Effectively NO TIME TO DIE was simply ‘what if…Bunt had shot Bond, not Tracy?’

Why, of course then the series would have ended 1969.

For the future one would expect - hope for - a newly invigorated relaunch. Ideally one that is thrilling, entertaining and connects with audiences in a way that would justify more. More of not the same.

6 Likes

I wholeheartedly agree with you, @Dustin. I saw OHMSS opening weekend with my Dad at the age of 7. I’m sure that nostalgia is a factor in my love for it, but over the years I have grown to genuinely appreciate it for its many rewarding attributes. And I am a huge fan of Lazenby’s portrayal in it. I think perhaps since his continued success as an actor was a non-starter for the most part, his performance in OHMSS carries no pre or post perception baggage. He simply IS James Bond in the movie. And his physicality is unmatched by anyone save Craig. And then there’s that score, for my money Barry’s crowning achievement.

7 Likes

Agreed.

I had limited interest in OHMSS as a youngster because it wasn’t Sean or Roger. If George only did one it couldn’t have been that good. But when I was in the process of buying the films on VHS I was taken by the cover art and was compelled to give the film more serious consideration. From there the rest is history. It’s one of the biggest revelations as Bond fan to realise there’s actually a ton of things that appeal to your sensibilities, especially when you get older and start appreciating the books a lot more. Being one and done to me now means I’m wanting more, but it will never come. That hunger has lasted for the rest of my life.

7 Likes

Now a more serious response to your questions Ellis.

As the old hands here know, I love and am a tireless advocate for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, which is my favorite Bond film. I enjoy how it is both a Bond movie, and a 1970s movie, capturing the uncertainties/upheavals of the times, while still maintaining the Bond template. I love the way the film combines Bond with 1970s malaise.

Roger Moore is my favorite Bond since there was always a sense of performance to his depiction. His was the most meta- Bond (following the lead of Connery Bond 2 in DAF–distinct from Connery Bond 1 of the first five films).

I think that in some ways, all the movies since have been a response to Moore Bond and his films: Dalton and Craig a repudiation of them, and Brosnan a cautious embrace of them, albeit with an actor not as suited to light comedy.

7 Likes

This is absolutely true. It’s fitting that the longest era casts the longest shadow. I do believe we should move towards the Moore era again, because surely we all need to be entertained these days. There’s enough hard violence, swearing and tragedy in our lives already without having to sit down and watch more of it on the big screen. Content like The Penguin, while good, does become draining. I’m kind of over it.

6 Likes

Welcome!

I agree with @MrKiddWint , DAF is the most influential Bond movie after Goldfinger.
What it did was say " we cannot continue in the same vein as ConneryBond but younger, as it didn’t work on a commercial level, and like the old ideas of sequels Tarzan for example, the returns diminish and cheapen.
To achie e longevity we need to parody ourselves, and give the audience a spectacle, put on a show. Let’s let everyone in on the joke.
This was no mean feat considering the actor was essentially paradying himself.
The movie paved the way for Roger Moores tenure, and without DAF the series would have been finished in the seventies.

3 Likes

But wasn’t this already said by Hamilton years earlier about “Goldfinger”, I believe so.

3 Likes

Hamilton did say about GOLDFINGER that if Bond was going to be a Superman, then the films needed to have interesting villains, and he set the template with GOLDFINGER.

What happens with DAF, in my opinion, is a meta-element enters the filmmaking, and the spectacle becomes self-referencing. In Hamilton’s favor, his own cynicism played well with this meta- sense, and helped make DAF an apropos film for the 1970’s, just as previous Bond films had been suited for the 1960s.

I would argue that demonstrating how a Bond movie could be relevant to a time of creation distant from the origin moment of the franchise, lit the way forward for the series, and ensured its continuation.

Franchise born with DN. Template set in GF. Template adapted for future use with DAF.

Thunderball–$141,200,000
You Only Live Twice–$111,600,000
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service–$82,000,000
Diamonds Are Forever–$116,000,000

4 Likes

Welcome Ellis.

In a series this long, “favorite” for anything is a moniker that can be permanently on the move. I decided a long time ago that I’ll always answer FRWL to favorite film so that I can get the “favorite” stuff out of the way and get on with the discussion.

I’m going to make the case that it’s OHMSS that weighs heaviest on the series. A terrific film (as many have pointed out it’s a great film that just happens to feature a character known as James Bond). A terrific adaptation of a wonderful book (as Benson pointed out Maibaum improves on the source by more effectively entwining the love story and the mission). I could go on but that’s unnecessary in the company of this here board!

It’s a film that the originally did not sit comfortably in the “popular” view of the series, and one could interpret that EON for awhile regarded it as an illegitimate or stepchild rather than blood. What is DAF but an attempt to put as many miles as possible between the series and OHMSS?

But as the public came around then the series was littered with shout-outs, the Sir Rog era tipping its hat in TSWLM and then going all in with FYEO. TD took a whole film trying to pay homage, and the Brozza era (notably when P&W came aboard) trying to tie itself to a single entry a dozen films earlier. And then DC and the whole NTTD as OHMSS alter ego (unnecessary as CR is the best way to remake OHMSS as an emotional cinematic journey).

It’s almost as if, to butcher the family metaphor, that once the prodigal son was welcomed home, he became head of the household.

It’s not for me to speak for or psychoanalyze EON, but its relationship with OHMSS far outweighs any of the others (yes, GF too, because just wanting to replicate it is not as complex as how OHMSS has gone from back of house to front).

OHMSS has affected the series the most…deeply.

9 Likes

Bravo! Beautifully articulated and I agree completely.

5 Likes