Sure, the movies were predictable, and you knew what was going to happen, but they were fun. These new Bond movies are just trying too hard to be more than what they really are. They've become Bond movies for people who hate Bond movies.
shareAgreed. They certainly aren't Bond movies for people who love Bond movies any more...
share90% OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE BOND MOVIES ARE DEAD NOW..WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
shareI must be a ghost.
shareYOU KNOW MATH?...I SAID 90%.MY DAD IS STILL ALIVE AND A FAN AS WELL.GOOD LUCK TO YOU.
shareNo I don't know math, i know mathematics.
"90% OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE BOND MOVIES ARE DEAD NOW..WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?"
So are you saying that 90% of all James Bond fans are dead. Then by that there are only 10% of Bond fans alive, not much of a fanbase is it.
Casino Royale - $599,045,960
Quantum of Solace - $586,090,727
Spectre - $880,674,609
Skyfall - $1,108,561,013
Those 10% must really be rewatching those films.
Your statement is nonsense and you go straight on the offensive due to the reason you can't back it up at all.
Personally i like Casino Royale and Skyfall but i agree with the OP that they need to return to the tried and tested formula of Bond taking on some maniacal villian.
THOSE ARE THE "NEW" BOND FILMS.THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE OLD BOND FORMULA....YOUR WHOLE POST IS NONSENSE CHIEF.
shareI'm replying to you, not the film, not the franchise, just you.
90% OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE BOND MOVIES ARE DEAD NOW..WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
Your statement which i showed is complete nonsense but like i said you can't back it up so are now moving the goalposts, good luck with that, just makes you look more foolish.
WHY WOULD FANS OF THE NEW "REBOOTED" VERSION OF BOND BE DEAD...TWO SETS OF PEOPLE NIMROD.THE FANS OF BOND(BEFORE THE REBOOT)(PARENTHESIS ARE FOR SLOW PEOPLE WHO NEED EVERYTHING EXPLAINED) AND FANS OF THE NEW BOND STYLE.OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME CROSSOVER BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING OLD BOND FANS ARE OLD OR DEAD.MOVING GOALPOSTS...FOOLISH RHETORIC.
shareI do find the argument that they had to change the films due to the "modern" audiences looking for something fresh amusing. The Bond films started in the 60s - So what about the audiences in the 70s, 80s, 90s, early 00s? Were they all just the same dudes from the 60s going to see them? π Of course not! Was the Box Office dropping off? No it was not...
So what - they had to change tact for Casino Royale or they'd have lost their audience due to the "special" mid-2000s crowd?! Absolutely b*llsh*t!
[deleted]
The films did change in the '70s and afterwards. The originals are a product of their era just as much as the later ones are. If they made a Bond film today that was similar to those with Roger Moore or Sean Connery, it would be laughed out of theaters, because those sorts of films just aren't made anymore. That's the reason the films continue to succeed-- they change with the times.
shareYes that's true that they were always products of their era. However if you look at the tone of say YOLT / DAF it's very close to TSWLM / Monnraker, which again is a very close match to say DAD.
And DAD certainly wasn't metaphorically "laughed out of theatres" being the highest grossing Bond at that time. So that's kind of why I was saying it's a ridiculous assertation to say what was ok in 2002 was never going to work in 2006...
And I said metaphorically there because I certainly believe that you should literally be laughing out of theatres at the end of a Bond - Roger Moore's "British End" ups should be as ever present as stopping the bomb / nuclear device countdown on "007" π
I agree. Since 2006 the Bond films feel more like Jason Bourne rather than James Bond who we know and love. I hope when Daniel Craig leaves the role they go back to the Bond formula. The producers should just let Bond be Bond again. There's absolutely no shame, nothing inherently less sophisticated, in returning to the classic Bond template. Look at the 'Mission: Impossible' films. They're flourishing doing exactly what made Bond historically popular: outlandish spectacle, preposterous gadgets, all played with a charming sense of ridiculous. Also 2015's 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' proved that a Roger Moore Bond film still works in the 21st Century. So there's no excuse for the producers.
shareCasino Royale also isn't aging as well as people thought it would. It's not a classic by any means. The Craig era has been a huge disappointment.
I'm not sure that Eon can recreate the formula at this point though. The Brosnan era was also a huge disappointment even though it followed the traditional formula.
If some bland, vanilla weightlifting bro with no style like Richard Madden becomes Bond, then I will finally give up on this series for good.
Is the Brosnan era really a disappointment. The Brosnan era gave us 'GoldenEye' which is one of the best Bond films.
shareI'm not a GoldenEye fan. I think people are really just remembering the video game being good. I've watched GE three times in the past year, and it's dropped very far down my ranking list with each viewing, now easily in the bottom half overall for me. I was actually quite surprised by that because I also seemed to remember thinking it was one of the better ones.
share