I'd just like to say that Tuuka's post on page 2 of this thread owns.

And I love Casino Royale, go fuck yourselves.

I'm no bond afficiando, but... I don't think Craig is THAT far removed from the past Bonds.

shhh, let the adults talk. Here's $5, go rent Chasing Liberty.

Bitch. After seeing First Daughter and What a Girl Wants, I would never rent an identical movie like Chasing Liberty!

But anyways, Craig to me seems far removed from Brosnan and the invisible car/overload of gadgets, yes. But I don't know if that's a bad thing, I'd take the basics Bond approach of CR over the glossy overexposure of DAD any day. He's still the same character, he's still badass, tough,... this one has just reinvented him as a more Fleming-esque serious character, with a much better film cinematically. If you take away the Bond franchise history, and look at it in direction, acting, screenplay, plotline, emotional factor, this film is the most well-made Bond in decades. And I guess that's the way I look at it, because I'm fairly in-experienced in the Bond world, but anyways. After 20 movies, I don't think taking a more serious, technically-sound approach to the Bond series is much of a bad thing... this is just a new take on the man, and so far people seem to be embracing it.

But like I said I'm not a bond loonie, so I'm not as attached to the "formula." So change probably comes easier to me.

But would you take CR over Goldeneye?

Yes, but that's more of a case of CR being one of my favorite action/spy films ever than anything against Goldeneye, which I still did love.

While I love the New Bond I'd be 100% certain that if Bond 22 follows the same route there will be more then a few people clamouring for Gadget/Nympomaniac/Quipworthy/Suave Bond to return. The public are fickle like that.

Still as long as we don't get something like a modern version of A View to a Kill i'll be relatively happy.


Oh and even thou you asked Shack I'll answer as well.

It would depend on the mood I'm in at the time. Both are great film's with CR for those moments when you feel slightly serious and poo faced and need real world action while Goldeneye is when you just need to relax and have a bit lighter entertainment.

Not a fan of the Brosnan's following Goldeneye by the way, they seemed fun but mostly forgettable. I can't remember anything about The World is Not Enough, all I can remember is a standard spy/save the world plot, I don't even remember what it was about past that, just remember lots of explosions and gunplay. If that's the formula... then I'm not a fan of the formula.

It's more of a silent backlash now. If CR doesnt pass DAD globally, then I'd expect Bond 22 to return to its roots. Box office, thus far, seems to be in CR's favour.

Im pretty sure he smiled when he switched the bomb onto the other guy, when he was tortured, and many times throughout the film.


This is such a pointless thread that has nothing to do with opinion. It seems if you think Connery is the best Bond you love this movie, If you loved Roger Moore your not into it that much. And I hate to say it, but its almost a certainty that Casino Royale will pass DAD and could be the first Bond to hit 500 WW.

Ill keep in mind that I thought Goldeneye was Great and Brosnan nailed it, shitty scripts hurt him despite being a very good mold of Bond.

It's not a pointless thread. It's what I would do for Bond 22. Pretty simple actually.

And I love Connery's Bond films and CR, not a fan.

The only thing missing from CR that I was a bit annoyed at was the almost complete absence of the classic Bond theme music. We get it at the end and thats it. It would have enhanced the already great action sequences if it had been included.

Exactly, which is why it is pointless. As in there is no point. There is nothing good to come from it at all except argument. You may be a huge bond fan, but just becuase you've seen the films 50 times each instead of someone seeing them 5 times each doesnt mean you know the best about Bond.

If you've ever read the novels Casino Royale and the Connery films were the truest of what Bond is suppose to be like. Theres been great things to come out of the less deep films, but that doesnt mean Bond has never been dark before. But like said, I wouldn't say Casino Royale is much different then the best bond films, it merely has more substance then most of them.

And I dont think Bond 22 is a direct sequel. Many have just been calling it Bond 22 or the sequel to Casino Royale to say that its the next Bond flick.

Do you like A View to a Kill?

As I mentioned in another thread, there's clearly a segment of moviegoers interested in this type of generic spy action movie, I just don't know why it has to use the Bond brand name. The producers could make a second whole franchise and leave the true Bond alone...

Gadgets.. There has to be Gadgets..

Not a fan. Moore looked too old for starters.

Who the hell is the true Bond? Jesus, Connery's Bond and Moore's Bond were completely different from each other.

Watching the James Bond series is like eating a carrot. When you start off, its nice and cool, fresh and tastes good.

But after you're done repeatedly chewing on the same crap again and again, you want to throw it away and try something else.



Yea ... I went there!

And came back.

Yea. ..

But Casino Royale doesn't even believe in its own premise.

And because of that, it's the best Bond film in four decades.

so says you and a few million people.

And so says you and about 5 other people who think otherwise

oh but it does ... it does.

Note to self: Don't hire The Dark Shape as future producer of Bond series...

Great. Go chew on some other series for a while. Leave the Bond carrot for those of us who love it's crunchy orange goodness...