Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple
It was all about product placement when Brosnan was Bond, and the reason he was sacked, which clearly pissed him off, was because he was a cunt.
|
That may well be the case. At the end of the day though, I'm a far bigger fan of Roger Moore's Bond than i am of Sean Connery's. Brosnan clearly followed the Moore line while Craig, I suppose, is more Connery-like.
Edit:
On another note, entirely unrelated to who's actually playing Bond, one of the things I think has marked the decline of the whole series in recent years is the way in which its traditional focus on exotic locations has been undercut by a general increase in travel, since circa the 1980s. There's simply not the same excitement in 2009 in watching Bond's adventures in a country like Bolivia that there might've been, say, thirty years ago when the idea of travelling to such places was highly unlikely (beyond being involved with some kind of military service). Now a place like Bolivia is just a backpack excursion away. As such, I think Bond has lost that sense of geographical mystery that it relied on so much for its success early on. I remember being fascinated, watching Octopussy, of its visions of India, a country that, at the time, I had little hope of ever seeing. If anything, Bond is now a victim of the world becoming a lot smaller than it was during its heyday.
Not necessarily a big deal, but I'm drunk and it's a point that seems important to me right now.