Hawki said:
Squilookle said:
With Star Wars, it's a tough choice between New Hope and Jedi. I think the Jedi space battle is strategically the best space battle ever filmed, but I still think tactically the Yavin raid is better. Everything is clearly shown, in a perfect rising tension as the Rebels feel out their way towards their objective and mount their assault, with zero other story threads to distract from its importance to the story.
What's the difference between "strategically" and "tactically?"
I would say that Return is better "tactically" because while you're right in that ANH does a great job in building up tension, and does show the Rebels as a competent, well organized military force, part of the reason the Empire loses is that Tarkin refused to commit the Death Star's full complement of TIE fighters - part of the reason the rebels win is that the Empire is fighting with one hand behind its back. In Return, the Empire commits itself fully to the fight - in it, the Rebels' victory feels more earned.
Oh, and I feel I should give a shoutout to the Battle of Scarif. While I'm not fond of Rogue One, I think it has a stellar battle in its third act.
OK so basically- tactics are the decisions you make within the single battle itself, how you react to the enemy's attack, where you flank, positions you fire on the enemy from etc. Strategic means what the actions you perform in a battle mean to the entire war/theatre/front. For example, in WW2, the Japanese launched a carrier fleet south to capture Port Moresby- the southern limit of their battle plans. A combined US/Australian fleet intercepted it and the aircraft engaged. It was a
tactical victory for the Japanese because they dealt more damage to the Allies than they received themselves. However, it was an Allied
strategic victory, because the Japanese fleet was forced to turn around, thus saving Port Moresby from invasion.
There's not much going on strategically in ANH outside blow up the one big thing before it blows up all of us. But the attention to detail in all aspects of the attack itself are superb. In Jedi, you have to bring down the shield somewhere else to even give the space battle a chance, with the possible death of the Emperor the ultimate Galaxy wide prize. The Empire fought with it's hand tied here too, having its vast fleet hold fire for instance, and letting the Rebels find out about the tiny rear entrance to the bunker etc. Scarif was good eye candy and the shield gate was pretty cool, but compared to the other two it's fucking pathetic on every level. The rebels are running open-mic amateur night and they
still win? It's a goddamned insult to the intense battle planning in all the other movies.
Squilookle said:
I'd also rate The Spy Who Loved me and You Only Live Twice as having the best climactic battles in a Bond film.
For ranking Bond climax battles, I'd give the #1 spot to GoldenEye. Course, the game kind of helps with that, but even so, film has a great climax (also helps that I quite like the film itself, taking my #3 Bond film position).
I did actually write GoldenEye in that list, but had to remove it because there's no
battle. It's just Bond and Natalya vs everyone. It's no more an all out battle than the Archives escape was. Same goes for
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
The Man With the Golden Gun
Because it's just Bond vs Scaramanga, with Goodnight whacking one dude with a spanner and Nick Nack hiding in a boat somewhere. that's not a pitched battle at all.
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
I know I might get some heat for this, but Roger Moore was best Bond. I kind of wish they'd go back to the Moore-style camp. Better than angst, angst, violence, angst. Like every Bond post Moore it's like; "I hate my job, hate my job, hate my job... oh look, a chance to get out of a job I hate and maybe go back to the Navy, I better try as hard as I can to keep that job I hate -- *brooooooooooood*"
Moore's Bond, however? I mean, sure it's violent and kind of awful but at least looks like he's having fun.
Totally agree with Moore being great, and anyone who doesn't like him just misses out on like a third of the series right there. I must say though that Brosnan did at least avoid the brood better than everyone else post-Moore. He did genuinely enjoy himself at times. If all the Bonds had to team up, I'd imagine Moore and Brosnan would get along the best.
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
That being said I don't think Bond as a concept works outside the 60s and near 60s anymore, anyways.
Highly disagree. Bond was made for the Cold War, which got him as far as the 90's just fine. The question was asked if he was relevant anymore post Cold War, and Goldeneye proved that hell yes he was. Then 9/11 happened and the world was all about terrorism and enemies hiding in plain sight etc, and it's a no brainer that espionage is more relevant than ever. I've no idea why they even raised the relevance question at all in Skyfall- that was so stupid.
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Back when taking over the world and dictating the course of nations with SPECTRE was as if this scary thing. Then we established the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund basically guarantee incredibly fluid transactions between global financial systems, and where every nation is practically a full member.
SPECTRE won, already.
Yeah, pretty much. I don't think even the producers get what made SPECTRE so compelling back in Connery's days. It sure as hell wasn't boardroom meetings with inaudible mumbling for aaaages. It was extortion and blackmail on an international scale, with the balls to inflict massive loss of life to achieve that end, and god help any member of SPECTRE that didn't pull his or her weight...
