Watched this for the first time. I thought it was pretty good. Did reviewers hate it because it wasn't avengers?

Watched this for the first time. I thought it was pretty good. Did reviewers hate it because it wasn't avengers?

everything after blofeld's reveal is kind of shit, he went from being a mysterious villain to a jealous stepbrother who created an entire evil spy network to get back at James.

Also those fucking loafers man..

Too many plot contrivances and reveals out of nowhere.

>The villain is Bond's evil adopted brother
Fuck off. Its too similar to the last movie, where Bond and his family's past get brought back in a positive way, to combat a 21st century cyber terrorist. This movie has a lot less going on and holy shit, how long are they going to spend in that fucking hotel room?

>>an alcoholic sex addict kills for the Queen

bravo

It was all stale

Queen AND country, pablocito

How to fix: reveal that the 'James Bond' moniker is a code name, explaining how the character has lived through so many eras. Boom, Idris for black-Bond, Tilda for she-Bond

But 007 is the code name.

...

As a movie next to Casino Royale and Skyfall, it fell shockingly short. As a stab at a more classic Bond story with Daniel Craig and the 'grittier' version of the setting it was a lot of fun. Also, stunningly well shot. It just looked like a big budget movie. You could see where the money went.
That's been broken for a long-ass time.

Why do we NEED a black Bond, specifically?

Just make Idris 008.

You could have a code name that's actually a name though. Why the hell would spies use their real names anyhoo

Bond is too rapey

>That late Amazon redelivery you had last month? It was me James!

>childhood nemesis out of fucking nowhere

City porn wasn't as good as the last few movies

if you're not 007, you're 00-dead

Better idea, make more movies with his Bastille Day character.

I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me. Bond is who he is and it would be weird coming off Craig's Bond, which is arguably the only one to really capture the core of the original book character even with some modern alterations.

Explain how the character, a "relic of the Cold War" as Judi Dench called him in Goldeneye, is still alive in the present.

Why not just keep the James Bond movies set in the 60s?

>reveal that the 'James Bond' moniker is a code name

Skyfall implied that when Naomi Harris introduces herself as Moneypenny and Ralph Finnes becomes M after Judi Dench dies

Because right now, if you make a period piece about ANY TIME other than the modern age and don't make confronting racism the centerpiece of your movie, you're racist.

Spoiler You're a stupid nigger

I've seen some stupid theories in Bond threads but you just won the award for complete fucking retardation.

Why can't you mongs get it through your heads they are just fucking movies that scale with the times, why are you approaching Bond movies ares as historical dramas instead of a fiml series that replaces actors as they get older/contracts expire?

MOVIES

THEY ARE FUCKING MOVIES

>Skyfall
The movie literally reveals that 'Bond' is his legit family name, there is even a shot of his father's tombstone

No, they hated it because it's a contrived, dull, and convoluted piece of shit.

Casino Royale > Skyfall > Quantum of Solace > Spectre

is bond dead, lads?

This
Continuity is a mistake
Canon is a mistake
Cinematic universes are autistism

I enjoyed it.

Having said that, I do think it was a bit disjointed in the sense that it was "they did this, then they did that, then this, then that..." so that the overall gestalt of the film was not very cohesive. But in general, a solid action film -- just that the motivations were never really established or fleshed out enough to care about.

>Also, stunningly well shot. It just looked like a big budget movie. You could see where the money went.
This.