A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

Die Another Day was an all time unadjusted Top 5 Bond film in the U.S. and the previous 3 were all top 10. It made $456 million worldwide. To put that in perspective that's more than any X-Men film, more than Batman Begins or Superman Returns, and more than XXX or Bourne by a huge margin. Bourne Supremacy 2 years after DAD made $288 million. Every Brosnan Bond film has trounced that.

So why are they Bournifying Bond? I guess it is hard to figure out if it's not about money and popularity.

The lament on the various boards is that Bond is supposed to be suave and not thuggish; the few people that have actually read the original book by Ian Fleming disagree (although Fleming's original distaste for Connery has to be squared with this). My main problem, more than taken care of by the presence of Eva Green, is FUCKING TEXAS HOLD 'EM at a European casino? Come ON!

Fleming's Bond was bought up in upper middle class privilege, like Fleming. His parents died in a climbing accident in Chamonix, they weren't hit by a truck on the way to the factory. He was educated abroad and fluent in French and German before the age of 11 and after his parents died he attended (the very exclusive and expensive) Eton and Fettes. He may have been a thug and a killer on the inside but he supposed to be a gentleman on the outside. It's that dicotomy that makes the character unique.

Or rather did. Texas Hold'em for Bond sucks.

My list is almost the same as yours, just sway Brosnan with Dalton. :D

I meant SWAP, sorry.

My breakdown of Dalton versus Brosnan is that Dalton was a better Bond, but Brosnan had the better movies (especially performance by the supporting cast). Truth be told, I'm not sure that memory would hold up to careful scrutiny (In this part of the world, the only Bond movie I've been able to find in the shops is Die Another Day, which was pretty weak).

Lazenby was a complete cipher. I've described that movie as "Diana Rigg as James Bond" but truth be told she doesn't manage to outshine him. Roger Moore at least managed to do something with the part.

I'd probably pop Damon's Bourne in above Moore/Lazenby, but not by very much. Damon turned Bourne into a pretty generic character, I thought.

But I'm happy to trade some sauve for more dangerous, provided the supporting cast doesn't collapse.

I realize I wasn't very clear. None of the Brosnan films were as profitable as the Bourne movies. Both Identity and Ultimatum were budgeted at $75 million. TWINE was over twice that, and all the latest Bonds had budgets well over $100 million. They made money, but when your overhead is approaching $200 million, making $400 million worldwide isn't that impressive.

Casino Royale's reported budget is $72 million. If that isn't Bourne-ifying, I don't know what is.

Fleming's Bond is a woman-hater and borderline sociopath. My problems with Moore and Brosnan are that these aspects of his personality are barely even touched upon. I never said Bond was supposed to be a working class hero, but I'm hoping Craig can bring a little more depth to the character.

But yeah...Texas Hold'Em is ridiculous.

If making 400 million plus wasn't impressive then why would a studio make another Batman which made less than that and cost more than DAD? Or another X-Men, when none of them have made as much worldwide as DAD? The idea that the latest Bond movies haven't made EON and MGM a mint holds no water. The idea that they were in any kind of nose dive is ridiculous. If they weren't very profitable Sony wouldn't have wantd the franchise so badly. No one wanted it pre Goldeneye. Even McClory had stopped threatening to make a Bond film then.

Casino Royale's budget is a reported $150 million according to the September spread done in Entertainment Weekly. It's closer to 72 million in British poounds than US dollars. The budgets are so high compared to Bourne because the recent producers fee is very large -- a reported $30m of the production budget. So it may look like a Bourne but it still costs like a Bond.

If making 400 million plus wasn't impressive then why would a studio make another Batman which made less than that and cost more than DAD? Or another X-Men, when none of them have made as much worldwide as DAD? The idea that the latest Bond movies haven't made EON and MGM a mint holds no water. The idea that they were in any kind of nose dive is ridiculous. If they weren't very profitable Sony wouldn't have wanted the franchise so badly. No one wanted it pre Goldeneye. Even McClory had stopped threatening to make a Bond film then.

Casino Royale's budget is a reported $150 million according to the September spread done in Entertainment Weekly. It's closer to 72 million in British pounds than US dollars. The budgets are so high compared to Bourne because the recent producers fee is very large -- a reported $30m of the production budget. So it may look like a Bourne but it still costs like a Bond.

Moore's Bond I'd contend starts off as more of a misogynist than any other Bond. Have you watched LALD and TMWTGG recently? He has nothing but contempt for the women he uses and has sex with. The problem was it just made him unlikeable and it was changed by TSWLM. Fleming's Bond was a sexist but not a mysogynist and he was at heart a romantic though he lied to himself about it a bit.

Fleming's Bond also while a killer did not like cold blooded murder. He was a professional doing his job, like Bond tell's Kaufman in TND -- in one of the many scenes where Brosnan is ruthless and deadly efficient (and more than a bit personal). I think one of the standout things about Brosnan's Bond is his professionalism. He's a hedonist but he always has his eye relentlessly on the mission. I also think Brosnan and Dalton brought a gravitas and depth to the character, more so than Connery -- and that their contributons to the character are being sadly devalued in the attempted Craig hype.