Incidentally, the name comes from a short story by Ian Fleming, though I doubt much (if any) elements of that story will be retained for the movie. Bond was just a secondary character in it. It opens immediately after the events of Casino Royale. I'll be first in line for this.
I tmay be un007 like, but at least the movies appear to have some substance again not just a bunch of extremely bad CGI effects and product placements. I loved CR and I think the new direction is a breath of fresh air that has been needed since Connery left the role. They can name it 007 takes it in the two hole if they want. If it means it is going to be a great story that develops the series and character in a way true to the Fleming novels then I am all for it.
The Mother (55 yrs old) & Father (69 yrs old) of the house I lived in last year in Buenos Aires had a problem with Casino Royale. The said "It wasn't a Bond film." They thought that the movie was good, but it just wasn't a Bond film. James Bond doesn't get tortured. He doesn't get his ***/balls smashed in. He's suave, debonaire, gets the ladies, and kills the bad guy. He doesn't get the **** kicked out of him. I agreed to a certain extent, but I also pointed out that the series had been lagging for a long time and that the Bourne movies were doing so well that they had decided to make Bond into a character more like Jason Bourne and a film more like the Bourne series. She still didn't like it being a "Bond" film. And she's a huge Pierce Brosnan fan as well. Señora Macchiavello encanta Pierce Brosnan.
Bond Trivia: Which was the only movie NOT named after an Ian Fleming book or short story? After posting your answer, right click on your mouse, and drag it over the space below (no cheating) Answer: "License to Kill" -- The movie was entitled "License Revoked" throughout production and early in marketing, but, according to rumor (or perhasp urban legend), it was changed because US test audiences didn't know what "revoked" meant.
The John Gardner books blew. I snagged a few at a Friends of the Houston Library sale and they were terrible.
James Bond is dead. The current owners of the franchise don't understand Bond. Nothing wrong with their movies, they are fine. They just aren't James Bond movies. I mean you might make a real moving story about James Bond becoming a transexual and all of the aspects of such a difficult life choice. Might be a great movie. Win Oscars. It just wouldn't be a James Bond film anymore than if you had named Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones by that name.
Excuse me. I'm the expert. And though I don't love the name, I look forward to the upcoming installment. While a part of Bond's personality has been clearly left out of the most recent 007 movies, I still appreciate them as being better than 95% of the junk that gets thrown on the big screen.
To compare the Bourne movies to 007 isn't really fair considering how much better the Bourne movies have been...
Some of you guys should read a freaking book once in a while. CR was proabbly the most true to the books as any 007 movie ever made. That chararcter is almost exactly the one we knoew from the novels and I am really happy they took him back to his roots.
The Bourne movies went from great to ok to a crappy bunch of stunts strung together by a plotline that would make a porn writer laugh. The last Bond movie was a decent action film but it was not a Bond movie. This guy playing Bond wants a Bond to run around without guns! He wants him to kiss other men!