So you're so attached to the original series that you can't accept change, then? I'd love someone to break out their Batman & Robin tattoo while saying The Dark Knight should be more like that film.

Yeah, which is why I gave Casino Royale a B+ and said it was great. But I guess you didn't read that post, right?

You're the one that's saying that Casino Royale fits the profile of what a Bond film should be, so enlighten the rest of us n00bs. Because if you make a comparison chart of all 21 films, guess which one will have "N/A" or "No" all the way through?

But hey, I'm not even the die hard fan that loyal is. If you don't want to argue with a member of the "ADD generation," get owned by loyal.

And once again, for everyone's information, I really liked Casino Royale and I didn't mind the change. But if you're going to attack me for liking Die Another Day and tell me to "go back to my fuckin' gadgets" when I say that Casino Royale lacked it, I'll question whether you know anything about the Bond films at all.

Again, that's using Year One logic. What part of DAD demanded a complete franchise reboot? There's a very basic concept here. You can remove things like invisible cars and surfing and retain things like gadgets and a proper title sequence/song and fun and Bond girls...

As Timothy Dalton's work proved, a serious and joyless Bond film is a short-lived exercise.

I'd guarantee I know a bit more than you do.

Knowing you, Zing, I doubt you'd make it a half hour into Connery's early Bonds. "Where... are... the... explosions?"

yep.

craig nailed the badass part but couldnt get a handle on the suave part like brosnan, who couldnt ever get a handle on the badass part.

connery was both.

Thank You

I knew CR would be critically well received

http://www.worldofkj.com/articles/Other/007.php

I nailed it, a year in advance. And every single fear I had became a reality.

That it would be different?

...and the 'failed to excite audiences' part is bullshit, judging by Casino Royale's legs. It's also on pace to at least outgross Brosnan's first three Bonds, proving another failed prediction.

Well, not so sure it's failing to excite audiences.

It's being beaten literally by a retarded penguin.

I'd admit, it's no financial disaster. But wake me when it passes DAD's worldwide take.

[font=century gothic]Except us and that's all that matters.[/font]



[font=century gothic]A direct sequel? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.[/font]



[font=century gothic]Agree, except he'll be called Q. In DAD they made the switch. Whether or not they want John Cleese back is another story. Is he even willing to do another one?[/font]



[font=century gothic]I don't think they'll go after U2 and Paul McCartney again, but if they could get them back to do another one, that would be great.[/font]



[font=century gothic]Why start now? Did Pierce?

Just kidding. It could be just me, but I thought it looked like Craig was having more fun than Pierce did on the last two. Maybe it was just better material (Paul Haggis ).[/font]



[font=century gothic]That's just blasphemous.

Also, I'm willing to bet that even though the last four have had three, they might sneak in a couple of more during the next one.[/font]

DaD probably wouldn't have got much stick if it had been released in the 70s or early 80s I mean some of the Moore set-peices were even more OTT and it never hurt their success, but for the time of its release DaD just felt a bit to removed from reality. Royale is probably the perfect Bond for this specific time but that could change in the future. You mention the relative failure of the Dalton Bonds and i'd say the time of there release played against them just as Royale's played for it.

That said the grosses for DaD also suggest there was no need for change so its an arguement with equally valid points on both sides.

Tomorrow Never Dies opened to less money than GoldenEye. I'd take pure cash over poll position, and you would too, Loyal. You're not a box office idiot.

craig looked like he was having no fun other then kissing scenes...did he smile ONCE?

Please, you liking Casino Royale was about as likely as BKB accepting anything that happens with The Dark Knight.



Kids will see any old shit if it has a talking animal cracking jokes. Why else did Madagascar become the film to dethrone Star Wars Episode III from #1?

And last I checked, DAD and The World is Not Enough both dropped about 34% in their second weekend over Thanksgiving weekend. Casino Royale dropped 24%. Yep, audiences were so bored they're warning their friends to see it. Whooooo.

Let's see if it drops as much as TWINE (54.2%) and DAD (58.6%). Then we'll renegotiate whether or not CR left audiences bored.

Honestly Loyal, you're as fit to discuss whether CR is a hit as much as excel is fit to discuss Superman Returns' financial status.

Then you don't know me very well.

And you're probably right that you know more than I do, but I can see that this Bond film is nothing like the last 20. I can accept both sides of the arguement that it's a great new start, but at the same time, different from everything we've seen so far, without attacking people who think it needed something more (by comparing it to a film directed by the director of XXX: State of the Union).

1. What we think of as a Bond tradition, wasn't born until the 3rd film in the series, Goldfinger.

2. Moore's Bond was very different to Connery's Bond. The rough, serious and edgy Bond got replaced with an ironic, comedic, elegant mannequin. (I do think that Moore rocks, but that's besides the point). Moore got replaced with a serious, rough Dalton, who wasn't very smooth, and not much of a ladiesman.

3. On Her Majestic's Secret Service had Bond getting MARRIED, so it's not exactly first time for a real love has played a part in a Bond movie. And Living Day Lights had Bond getting laid with only ONE, more cute than hot girl in the entire film (Maybe two, if he acted really, really fast with the girl in the opening).

4. Bond movies with NO GADGETS (Excluding standard, real-world spyware): Dr.No, From Russia With Love, Man With The Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only.

5. No Q? Well, Moore's first Bond, Live and Let Die, didn't have Q either.

...As hard as it may be for some people to accept, the series has been re-invented again and again. This latest re-invention just happened to turn into both critical and commercial smash hit, with strong WOM.

(I've been a Bond fan for 22 years now, I've seen all the films, and I've read all of Fleming's original books)

Well just have to wait to see what happens at the finish line then.

But this isnt a box office thread for 007 (there are a few already).

This thread is insanity. The Bond formula, as it were, was tired. Irrelevant. It needed a shakeup. NONE of the Brosnan pictures were all that hot.

Casino Royale had more spark and excitement than any Bond film since From Russia With Love.

As I understand it, the argument being made here is "unless it's tired and exactly like the goofy ones, it's NOT Bond!"

Why does a James Bond movie have to follow a strict, lame set of criteria? The best films (From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only) tend to deviate from the formula in some way (or, in FRWL's case, exist pre-formula).

I really need to read your definition of spark and excitement.

"Not the same shit repeatedly done in multiple movies."

I didn't find it exciting in the sense of action sequences, but you know, those poker scenes were intense stuff. But that's just from a poker player's point-of-view.

so basically the entire franchise? "Same shit" is the name of the game in the world of 007.

Gadgets, girls, and the like.

Dark Shape, I think you've defined it almost perfectly. But you left out "action scenes that thrill, and a general sense of purpose and character."

As to the poker scenes, I too thought they were intense once I got over the general goofiness of James Bond playing Texas Hold 'em. But the constant cuts to Mathis informing Vesper (and, thus, the non-poker-players in the audience) what was at stake ("Bond has pushed all of his chips in. There is 150 million in the pot!") was awkward, at best.

I guess baccarat was too unrealistic.

BTW, this was the first Bond film without Moneypenny. RIP