GOLDENEYE (1995) vs SKYFALL (2012)

Only watched Skyfall so my votes for Skyfall.

- TAS

watch goldeneye fantastic film also, very similar plot line to skyfall too. not sure which i prefer.

This. Also I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who thinks Daniel Craig is the best Bond.

Sure - thanks for the recommendation, I'll check out Goldeneye ^^

- TAS

Wow - seriously? Is it the hair colour that puts people off?

- TAS

no... i probably do to

Most of the criticism is because of how the films are too "Dark" and "Gritty" and don't fit the atmosphere of the previous movies and the original books (Honestly I feel this criticism is irrelevant since the Bond films have MASSIVELY outgrown the novels).

Personally, I think the darker and edgier approach is better. I tried watching the earlier movies, but I couldn't take them seriously (I did enjoy them, though).

@goonage:

Well... people... vulnerable to change as per usual.

- TAS

@goonage: Actually, the Daniel Craig Bond is the most faithful to Ian Fleming's original novels. They have always been dark and gritty, and someone along the lines of Craig is always who he'd envisioned in the role (Bond was partially based on Fleming himself, an officer for the British naval intelligence). Fleming was notorious for hating the casting of Connery, actually.

Anyways, Skyfall is a much better film, but Goldeneye definitely has its charm. Still goin' Skyfall.

@jaken7: That's what I heard other people complaining about. I never read a single Bond book, so I can't judge.

Bump

- TAS

GoldenEye was very good but SKYFALL was even better. SKYFALL dove into Bonds psyche and was more personal, while GoldenEye was just a good action flick.

Casino Royal Stomps both

Let's be honest. Skyfall was a good movie, but it was a not a James Bond movie.

Sure, give me the argument that the Daniel Craig James Bond series is a new interpretation of the character, etc. etc. etc.

But relative to the larger body of work, Skyfall, like License to Kill (1989), shouldn't be considered James Bond movies because they follow a different framework to previous Bond films.

So, to conclude, Skyfall: Great movie, but not so great James Bond movie.

@goonage: you're not alone man Craig KILLS as Bond. Goldeneye was good though, I liked Brosnan too.

framework be f__king damned the character and style is the same, ignorant fool

thats like saying the burton or nolan batman movies are not batman films cus they did something different from the adam west series

Both in my mind are crap. If its not Roger Moore, its not Bond.

Not the same comparison. At. All.

It also appears that you have a chip on your shoulder...calm the heck down.

Skyfall.

Skyfall. Craig is the only Bond I like.

Skyfall.

Brosnan is a joke.

no its exactly the same your saying a character is no longer the same character if they take it seriously if it was more fun to begin with, my argument is the exact same just reversed.

like if they made guardians of the galaxy a hardcore epic tense suspense film like pandorum (2009) it would STILL be guardians of the galaxy

Skyfall fo sho!

@sinestro_gl: Would you care to explain your perspective, or are you just going to continue being cryptic and then post condescending gifs in response when someone calls you out?

While I really enjoy Goldeneye, Skyfall's my favorite Bond movie. I cannot f###ing wait to see what Sam Mendes does for Bond 24.

If you gave a little bit of thought to the subject matter, you'd realize that your example is not the same.

I'm comparing films within the same franchise, whereas you're comparing different ones across television and film. For instance, my example would be like comparing Superman (1978) to Superman IV (1987). Your example would be akin to comparing Superman (1978) to the Adventures of Superman TV show from the 1950s.

Your example is nonsensical.

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but I cannot accept it when you make ridiculous comments in a futile attempt to shoot down my own personal opinion...and guess what, my opinion remains the same.

I will now accept apologies from you for having wasted my time writing the above.

@jaken7: The above also applies to you.

Skyfall.

Skyfall. Truly a fantastic film.

Can't tell if this is ignorant or trolling.

SKYFALL reverts back to the classic formula, a male M, Moneypenny, the original M office, Aston Martin DB5, etc. If anything, it is very faithful to Bond. The Bond with lame gadgets and over the top story-lines is more of an insult.

but the craig films are in a new continuity to the prior films, the dalton & brosnan where so from moore also

@movieartman: The Dalton version is much closer to the source material than either Moore or Brosnan. So is Craig, actually.

i agree i was just saying its not one long continuity like the guy i was arguing with was saying, craig firmly started over and the the others pretty much do to.

ceptions are connery, lazy & moore all fit together

...as you were saying?

A male M? Yes...for the last 2 minutes of the movie, and as we all know, all characters in the movie prior to the last two minutes are irrelevant ***rolls eyes.

Whether or not you think that "lame gadgets and over the top story-lines" are faithful adaptions to Ian Flemming's work, that is not the point that is being raised at all. The point that I was making was which film is, not the better film, but the better Bond film.

Bond movies, apart from the Craig films, makes use of plenty of gadgets, which is a defining characteristic of the James Bond film franchise. Think of jet-packs, underwater cars, voice changers, flamethrower spray cans, ski-pole guns, dart guns, x-ray glasses, and so many more. These "lame gadgets" were common in the Connory era, the Moore era, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, like it or not.

So before you disgust me any further and accuse me of being ignorant, you should perhaps familiarize yourself with the film adaptations of the books you seem to love so much, so that you may join in this conversation about the much-loved James Bond film franchise - although I highly doubt that you could ever lower yourself to watch any film that 'insults' the sacred pages of the Bond novels.

1. They are not irrelevant; they are inter-connected to the story-line before being set up for a larger role

2. The better Bond film, is a film closer to the source material. Not the train wreck trope which is Bond using over the top gadgets, cheesy lines and inane storylines. That is fantasy wank which has stemmed from deviating heavily from the original source material. Ian Flemming's work is the original James Bond. That is the work that Dalton and Craig honour by presenting a darker, tougher and more brutal James Bond, with less silliness involved.

The lame gadgets became the trope after Goldfinger, the first three Connery movies were the actual great Bond films, after that, James Bond was a cash grab. Craig's version is more faithful because it returns to the original source material, not the lame deviation which destroyed it.

Your responses make no sense. You are entitled to how you judge Bond films for yourself, but seriously, your responses show that you either haven't watched many of the Bond films, if any, or are just a pretentious individual.

Arguably, Dr. No is the only Bond film from the Connery era that didn't have as many gadgets as later films, so praising 'From Russia with Love' and 'Goldfinger' for the reason that they didn't have "lame gadgets" is horse ***t, because they sure as hell did.

For the sake of argument, lets go along with your reasons, and I'll demonstrate why it doesn't make sense. According to you, prior to the Craig films, all James Bond films, apart from the first three were bad. We can agree that the subsequent 16 films evolved from the first 3. This would mean that the common factors of a Bond film would more likely be found in these 16 most recent films. You can say that these were bad films to have featured James Bond, but you cannot say that these were bad Bond films.

Once again, the issue for dispute is not how well the films adapted the source material.

@sinestro_gl: I have watched them all. If you think that the lame gadget fest with the over the top plot is James Bond, then you are simply accustomed to the cash-grab.

From Russia with Love and Goldfinger introduced some okay gadgets, but the storylines were actually interesting. The first film has the benefit of the doubt, but the next two films had entertaining yet not too silly storylines which worked well. The Roger Moore films, were garbage. And took the name of James Bond to new levels of crap.

No, I am not arguing that all films before Craig were bad, allow me to elaborate:

• Dr. No
• From Russia With Love
• Goldfinger
• The Living Daylights
• Liscense to Kill
• Casino Royale
• Skyfall

Are the only great Bond films. They stuck to the source material, though the first three were further away from it, they introduced the world of James Bond while featuring engaging storylines without the tropes. And Dalton/Craig captured the essence of the character that Fleming envisioned.

@frozen: Again, we're arguing different things, so I think it's best that our exchange ends here. I respect your opinion, but it doesn't change mine.

Good day.