Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien
That's your opinion, & of course are entitled to it, but for me a Bond film just isn't the same without the gadgets. [or Desmond Llewelyn's portrayal of Q]
I admit that bit was a little OTT, but not enough to put me off adding it to my collection.
I've seen Bourne 1 & 2, & they were enjoyable enough in their own right, but to me Bond should stay "Bond", if you see what I mean.
I wasn't a huge fan of Casino Royale either.
|
I am the opposite. I could watch them to waste a few hours, but they were never anywhere near a "must see" film for me. Now this Bond was a "must see" after seeing the last one. I really enjoyed the new one as well.
It would be interesting to see what people's reactions would be to the two new films, if Casino Royale was the very first Bond film made and it didn't have all the expectations that it had. What I mean is that Bond has a set checklist of what to expect and fans may feel let down because certain things were not done, whereas if the list were not there because, they may have loved the film. The film in itself, taken on it's own may be good, but because it didn't follow the franchise rules...
Who knows? That is just my opinion.