Quote Originally Posted by 2ndclasscitizen View Post
From what I've seen in articles and interviews with the makers and Daniel Craig, that was a deliberate move in this film, to finish off what they started with Casino Royale in terms of the changes to Bond's character, and then go back the re-invented Bond from the start Royale, i.e the more realistic but still slightly superhuman hero, including the witticisms etc etc. Those really wouldn't have fit in this new movie.
I understand the need to show a new Bond & his creation, but when you strip away all elements, It lacks a certain Bond quality.

I guess the other problem I have with movies like this which, as Slick suggests, are so delibrately open to a sequel, is that Everyone knows a Bond sequel is coming - there should really be no need to lead into it. Granted the link between Casino Royale are noted, but I thought the end of that was far too open as well.

Slick mentions that this Bond is the closest in characterisation to the Fleming novels, and that has merit in theory. but the Bond 'training' concept is kind of old-hat in the movie industry these days - everyone is so keen to see where characters originate from that the concept kind of gets a bit boring......back in the day a characters motivation could be explained in one short 5 minute scene indicating why they do what they do, but instead we have to sit through what is essentially the filler between the start & conclusion films?

I feel ripped off if this is just like the Matrix Reloaded in character......