Bond...James Bond

wow no link for this yet? Happy times indeed!

Cool deal. I still need to try out that Bloodstone game.

Its nice to see Bond going forward, only mostly cause they have been making the movies so long it would be a shame to see it die. However Craig is really not my idea of Bond. I know a ton of people like him and the new style of his bond movies, but it just doesnt feel as cool as the older movies IMO.

The new movies are much more IMO like Bond meets Bourne. Which on there own i also liked the bourne movies, but they werent bond or vice versa in my mind.

I'm excited. I think Craig is my favorite Bond. To me he plays the sort of new take on the character perfectly.

Casino Royale was an excellent movie IMO, one of my favorite action films really. The Bond franchise had gotten sort of formulaic and stale so they came up with a more gritty, realistic take on the character and I liked seeing a younger, head strong bond with a lot to learn still in action.

I just hope they show Bond as a character growing more into the role of the Double 0 Agent, keeping the sort of more realistic, intense take but also moving him forward, otherwise they end up with no character growth and it'll get stale again.

Quantum of Solace wasn't as good, but I think a lot of that was due to the writers strike. Anyway I'm glad another is coming soon!

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but does anyone else miss the more campy, goofy James Bond movies? I mean when I think James Bond I think of an impossibly good looking man matching wits with impossibly devious masterminds by using physically impossible gadgets in order to escape impossible scenarios and bedding a frankly impossible amount of impossibly attractive women along the way. This whole trend of making Bond more gritty and realistic has made for some good movies (well, movie, singular. Casino Royale was pretty good. I thought Quantum of Solace blew) but they don't really feel like James Bond movies. More like generic spy thrillers. Anydangways, given the box office returns of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace I doubt they are going to go back to the old campy style any time soon but I hope they do come up with a stronger plot this time. (Seriously, the plot of Quantum of Solace revolved around a guy who wanted to steal half of Bolivia's water supply. I don't mean to come off as cruel, but why should I care?)

I'm a fan of Craig as Bond. They have had a subplot going with the previous two films with Bond wanting revenge on the mysterious organization that has agents everywhere. I'd like to see more of that, and more of Craig's Bond, growing into the James Bond that we enjoyed from Connery.

I'll watch it so long as the story is decent and the action is good. The last one I didn't like as much as Casino Royale, because it felt too much like a Borne movie, what with Bond essentially getting chased throughout the whole film in every possible way.

If we must have a "realistic" Bond, I've long felt that the movies should follow the early books more closely. The novel Casino Royale, for instance, relies on Bond's experiences as an agent during World War II for much of its narrative force. What I guess I'm suggesting is that I'd like to see a "historical" Bond movie, though I'm probably alone in this.

The only Bond movie I've ever genuinely enjoyed is For Your Eyes Only, and although I really like Craig I thought his two flicks were terrible, so I'm indifferent as to whether the franchise continues. I'm happy for those of you who like them, though.

I'm a fan of the kind-of-campy take the Pierce Bronsan had on the character but they just went waaaay overboard with all the gadgets and stuff. That's one of my reasons for liking the newer films with Craig; less gadgets.

I've always liked Pierce Brosnan's take on the character, but that's probably cause that's the one I grew up with. I'm also in the minority in that I liked Quantum of Solace more than Casino Royale. But, that said, I'm glad the franchise is continuing. Life just wouldn't be the same without a Bond movie every couple of years or so.

The Bond I saw most when growing up was Roger Moore. For some reason his Bond films were always on TV at the time.

I'll say Connery was easily the best bond. I'd also say Dalton was the worst.

Moore had his moments, but also had some pretty awful movies.

Brosnan, I actually really liked as Bond, but half his movies were complete crap, and only one did I really like (Goldeneye).

Craig is batting .500 so far, but I will give a pass on Quantum due to the writers strike. I think Craig does a good bond, though a bit unconventional.

I'd rate Connery as #1, with Moore and Brosnan a tie at #2. Craig is #3, Dalton #4... and don't forget #5 George Lazenby!

While each actor has a range of quality from awesome to bad, the only one I refuse to watch when it is on is Connery's Never Say Never Again. The gawd awfulest remake I've ever seen... all of the rest I will at least keep on while I'm goofing around. My favorites are Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Goldeneye.

my 2 INF, YMMV

George Lazenby was a good Bond. But the public liked Connery and didn't like the switch in actors, especially to an unknown. It also didn't help with him with the character going full Scott with Kilt with the funnier accent while he was undercover.

Now Moore had a great deal more exposure here in the US and the UK as The Saint so if you were going to change leads, changing it to someone people know and accept in those roles is a plus.

Moore got way too campy and world ending for my taste. I prefer spy vs spy and cold war espionage stories over disaster averting stories like The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker and A View to a Kill.

As for Brosnan, people in the US wanted him after Moore due to his popularity in Remington Steel. But due to commitments the studio was forced to pick another and went with Dalton, who tried out to replace Connery years before.

I'll say that Lazenby is the worst Bond. That movie just sucked and he was annoying. Connery is the best.