Be thankful that we have a pair of great films to enjoy. If that means that the makers skip a couple of the "usual suspects" we come to expect in a regular Bond film, I think the sacrifice is worth while.

Be thankful that we have a pair of great films to enjoy. If that means that the makers skip a couple of the "usual suspects" we come to expect in a regular Bond film, I think the sacrifice is worth while.

Typo :)

Typo :)

now lets apply this to bond

2006 casino royale came out… which was in a sense a different take and in a way a
reboot of the franchise since the peirce brosnon ones went terribly down hill after
golden eye which ironically is the same director as casino royale….

all i am saying is people should stop nit picking and go with what is given, cause
nothing is going to change, this isnt sean connery bonds, or roger moore bonds,
cause thats been done… why do something or even take from something that has
already been there.

they have done a splendid and fantastic job tipping there hats to the old bonds
already they kept money penny in there, and he still drinks like a alcoholic, and he
still bangs girls like a pimp. Its just daniel craig is doing it more edgy and ruff and i
personally think the more hardcore badass bond applies to real life more, then
some over the top super agent who does everything all smooth and never once gets
fucked up, sure you know daniel craig isnt gonna die but he does get messed up
and is always in trouble.

now lets apply this to bond

2006 casino royale came out… which was in a sense a different take and in a way a
reboot of the franchise since the peirce brosnon ones went terribly down hill after
golden eye which ironically is the same director as casino royale….

all i am saying is people should stop nit picking and go with what is given, cause
nothing is going to change, this isnt sean connery bonds, or roger moore bonds,
cause thats been done… why do something or even take from something that has
already been there.

they have done a splendid and fantastic job tipping there hats to the old bonds
already they kept money penny in there, and he still drinks like a alcoholic, and he
still bangs girls like a pimp. Its just daniel craig is doing it more edgy and ruff and i
personally think the more hardcore badass bond applies to real life more, then
some over the top super agent who does everything all smooth and never once gets
fucked up, sure you know daniel craig isnt gonna die but he does get messed up
and is always in trouble.

Just a thought I may be wrong, anyone?

Just a thought I may be wrong, anyone?

If we became familiar with the Adam West Batman tv series first and never decided to look at the original material, which accounts for the general Bond fans who have never read the Bond books, you would constantly have this argument as to what Batman (or in this case Bond) is suppose to be.

The same thing is going on with Star Trek and how the fans are reacting to the trailer. A lot of fans talk about how the trailer’s cheap because it’s filled with sexual themes, action, and pulpy space adventure, but if you think about the original series and what it was all about, you would realize that there was sex, action (well not much, remember that crappy fight scene that Ben Stiller was watching in Tropic Thunder?), and it was suppose to be a pulpy sci fi adventure.

Maybe Wikipedia’s lying to me (which it could be) but Roddenberry probably had Flash Gordon in mind (the same way Lucas had Flash Gordon in mind) when he decided to make the series.

The main point I’m trying to state here is that we have a lot of people complaining about what things are suppose to be to the point where they would not be happy unless they directed their own beloved franchise and destroyed it on their own time. There are so many better things to argue about that could lead to a better solution to all of the world’s problems, and if a franchise is worth so much to you, you have every right to go down to California and picket or flood the e-mails and write to your local congressman, or threaten sponsors or whatever.

Screw this, I’m gonna read a book.

If we became familiar with the Adam West Batman tv series first and never decided to look at the original material, which accounts for the general Bond fans who have never read the Bond books, you would constantly have this argument as to what Batman (or in this case Bond) is suppose to be.

The same thing is going on with Star Trek and how the fans are reacting to the trailer. A lot of fans talk about how the trailer’s cheap because it’s filled with sexual themes, action, and pulpy space adventure, but if you think about the original series and what it was all about, you would realize that there was sex, action (well not much, remember that crappy fight scene that Ben Stiller was watching in Tropic Thunder?), and it was suppose to be a pulpy sci fi adventure.

Maybe Wikipedia’s lying to me (which it could be) but Roddenberry probably had Flash Gordon in mind (the same way Lucas had Flash Gordon in mind) when he decided to make the series.

The main point I’m trying to state here is that we have a lot of people complaining about what things are suppose to be to the point where they would not be happy unless they directed their own beloved franchise and destroyed it on their own time. There are so many better things to argue about that could lead to a better solution to all of the world’s problems, and if a franchise is worth so much to you, you have every right to go down to California and picket or flood the e-mails and write to your local congressman, or threaten sponsors or whatever.

Screw this, I’m gonna read a book.