If you're referring to me, I'm in my 20s (although that is considered old by some). There is no "argument" to BTFO here. From my perspective, this is a discussion and an exchange of opinions that I hope remains civil.
I can't speak for others, but I'm not concerned about the "wish fulfilment" aspect of Bond...I just find the aspect of the 007 change lazy, forced and a poorly-veiled attempt by the studio at showing how diverse, aware/"woke", groundbreaking and wonderful they are by doing something that has been done before but passing it off as if it is revolutionary/original and insightful of modern social issues.
You previously stated that a virtue-signalling approach is counterintuitive as such films make less money (i.e. why would a film studio make such films knowing they'd bomb in the box office?) and I'm suggesting that such studios and staff haven't learnt the lesson yet that trying to push a weak, overdone political message doesn't sell well (i.e. they are so out-of-touch with public opinion that they think such films will sell well despite contrary evidence)...unless there is something else I'm missing in what you previously said?
So your whole argument is predicated on the assumption the studios, who pour MASSIVE amounts of money and time into market research, and have a track record of printing money with these established franchises, know less about what the market wants than you.
Got it.
Roger Moore was my favorite Bond too....... until I saw another Bond. My first exposure to Bond was Moore in Live And Let Die. I was pretty much on board with his first 3-4 movies and then things went south real quickly. Once his newness wore off I wasn't really buying into the connection between him and the role. Then I saw a couple of the early Connery bond pics and knew instantly that he was a much superior Bond. He had the suaveness but more importantly, he had the behavioral and physical heft/gravitas to make him a much more convincing and believable Bond. He made Moore look like a butler. I've never seen the Dalton Bond but I'm curious to check him out. From the very start I was never convinced Brosnan fit in the role of Bond so I've never seen the whole of any of his movies. I've seen bits and pieces of his movies and from what I've seen, I was right in my initial assessment. Then came Daniel Craig. After the opening action sequence of Casino Royale I was astounded. This was a much more grounded and gritty Bond. Gone was the campy silliness, stupid bon mots and ridiculous gadgets. This was the kind of Bond I wanted to see all along but didn't totally know it until I saw it. Connery is a close second. I would love to have seen him as he was back in the day in the type of gritty and more serious movie like those Craig appears in.For me there is only Roger Moore. End of story. He was supreme.
Lol. YMMV, even in Bond actors! I really liked Brosnan, he was kind of a cross between Moore and Connery to me.
Coming from a Cosmetologist, this might make sense to some of you: James Bond is not a blonde.
Goldeneye is his best, IMO.OK so if I wanted to give Brosnan a 2nd chance and only watched one of his movies, which one should it be?
in dollars of their time, they were huge. $20 in the 1960's was blockbuster.The financial aspect is an interesting one, studios placing their "bets" and all that. Bond movies historically haven't been block busters but they've done well. Going back a little bit...
Only time will tell how "Bond 25" does, and if the transition to the new 007 sticks
- 2006 Casino Royal $600MM
- 2008 QoS $586MM
- 2012 Skyfall $1,101MM
- 2015 Spectre $880MM
in dollars of their time, they were huge. $20 in the 1960's was blockbuster.
This could well end the Bond shavingscenesadvertisement for sponsors.
Ditto.Goldeneye is his best, IMO.
You are on a roll in this thread, lol.I dunno. They can probably make a deal with Gillette.
Goldeneye. His best movie and the best car chase in a Bond film.OK so if I wanted to give Brosnan a 2nd chance and only watched one of his movies, which one should it be?
I don't understand the whole concept of reusing agent numbers as agents pass on for whatever reason. My understanding would be that James Bond was the 7th in a line of successive secret agents and that those who followed would be 008, 009, 010 and so on up until 999 when the agency would be confronted with the pickle of having no more 3-digit numbers. ("Oh wait a minute, the next agent could be 1000!" "Put a gold star in that staffer's service file!") The number represents a specific person. Wouldn't any old person representing a specific number be like putting the cart before the horse? Maybe the movie will provide some reasonable explanation for reassigning the number (or not). In any event, I'll probably go and see the movie in the theater rather than wait for the DVD.