ummmmmmmmmmm....no, he didn't kinda save it. Every Pierce Brosnan Bond had outgrossed the last, with his last being significantly the largest, beating down upstarts like xXx like it was a punch drunk bum.

BROSNAN AND TARANTINO EVEN CONCEIVED THE IDEA OF DOING CASINO ROYALE!!!

I guess you didn't watch Die Another Day. Just watch the torture scene during the opening credits. You are so far off base and don't know James Bond's appeal, obviously.

That is an all too common phenomena these days...

Even the producers got off track with it. I'm glad that they realized that it has to go back to formula. Be a bit wittier. Fantastical elements like secret lairs and whatnot. Gadgets! The very things that seperate James Bond's style from a basic action flcik, which Casino Royale was too much of.

Who woulda thought that James Bond as an IT specialist trying to defeat a (gasp!) banker coulda ever gone wrong?

But obviously Casino Royale was beloved. Look at the RT reviews and at the movie's legs...

you're expecting mav to use logic lecter. come on you know better than that

I always use logic, and that's why so many get so bent out of shape when I rub in the victories, because they know they used the "Mav's not being logical" lame ass line.

Anybody can post links to back them up anytime they wish, but we know nobody can.

RT scores are the result of predictable sheep. Casino nRoyale had great legs for the same reason. How come box office only equal quality when it's convenient?

easy, when a film has good legs its usually considered a fan pleaser.

That isn't an answer to the question I asked.

seemed to sum up your answer pretty well to me.

I'm shocked that the Doc would try to use RT & BO as proof of the quality of a movie!

In this age of trained seal marketing, the correlation is slim to none (and Slim just left town)...

i'm always fascinated by the people who come to argue a film's quality and how its not as good as it is but then proceed to shoot down every piece of evidence a person can provide, randing from BO, to critic scores to their own opinion to those of people around them ...

when the only thing they themselves are hanging out to is the fact that they personally disagree on something. thats it. nothing else.

its all too common. i've heard the same argument concerning films such as citizen kane, same when it comes to saying armeggedon is great. anything you throw at them will be belittled but all they're really holding onto is their own opinion .. absolutely nothing to back them up.

discussing a film's quality is quite retarded. either go with the concensus and agree you're in the minority who feels differently (which you have every right too ... it is quality and it is different for person to person) or stop discussing it.

The primary concern here isn't so much quality, but rather how well it follows the Bond film formula. Anyone can make a generic spy thriller and have it judged independently, but Bond films are part of a long-standing series whose charms rely heavily on respecting the conventions of it's heritage. If the new Indiana Jones movie, all of a sudden turned into an urban ROM-COM, I'm sure there would be similar discussions amongst the long term fans...

Way to go and insult yer own forum there, bABA!

Taking a look back at this thread, it seems more to me that Casino Royale is being called an inferior movie because .. and i quote



Now you may argue that your agenda here is discussing going back to the formula. However, in saying all that you guys have continously implied the following:
- That Casino Royale, was in some way or the other, seen as lesser cause it didn't follow the formula
- That casino royale, due to its detraction from the formula, somehow suffered in terms of quality, BO, Critics, with fans, and with general audiences.
- That Casino Royale, if loved by fans, are obviously not good fans to begin with.
- That Casino Royale, is only likable by those that have a shepp mentality.
- That Casino Royale, if it goes back to its route, will be rectifying an error that existed in the Casino Royale to begin with that the producers were aware of, caused them harm.

To that, i would throw back the same argument you guys keep throwing at those just cause you know it can't be won.
- The above claims are either false
- the above claims are not quantifiable in anyway.

Casino Royale detracted from the original formula. its quite obvious it did. Casino Royale, at a stretch, can be said to reinvigorate the franchise only cause there was potential for failure, not cause the earlier films in any way were destroying it. however, neither of the above claims can be used to belittle the film because

- it did make good money
- it did have good legs
- it had critic support
- and argue all you want, audiences enjoyed it and accepted Craig as Bond, even though they all started with much negativity.

The fact that the entire Bourne Franchise took a shit on the Bourne formula does not stop the Bourne film franchise itself from being a good series. Same applies here.

Grades at WOKJ
Grades at BOM
RT
Metacritic
IMDB
Box-office legs
Worldwide legs
Yahoo Grade (?)

What do you offer against that?

Usually, just a personal opinion.

These are all forms of popularity.

Popularity ≠ Quality

Instead we have discussion and debate.

you missed lecter's point.

I took his point to be his concluding question: "What do you offer against that?' - - which I answered.

What did you take to be his point?

Lecter's point is that beyond doing an entire survey of every person across north america, he has provided you alist of links from where we has been able to provide some group concensus on the film. you may not consider it as enough but that is what he can offer you.

To argue your point, either provide places from where he CAN give you data to prove his point or instead, prove your point by providing a list of links as well, that support your argument. Because as it stands right now, it seems lecter's opinion on the quality of the movie is closer to the consensus on how people feel about the film, even if you do think that the sample size is very small).

Even if you could survey every person in the world who's seen a movie, it still would not determine the movie's quality. It remains a measure of popularity.

The quality of artistic endeavors, such as movies, is not quantifiable into "data".

No. I keep mentioning consensus.

also, if we are talking about quality not being quantifiable into 'data', then people really need to stop talking about how bad or how uneventful casino royale is.