No, my name's just James Bond.

Agreed. One thing that make Bond memorable throughout the years aside from the ladies, i think, is that particular line. But, even if it is omitted, it shouldn't be a major problem.
 
You have to wonder at what point it stops being 'James Bond'.


No Q, no Moneypenny, no catchphrase, different character emphasis, less gadgets etc, etc...


We know that they heavily followed the Bourne styling for Casino Royale. But taking away all these things - whats the point in it being Bond.


Might as well have a secret agent called Jake Stone done in the style of Bourne.
 
Why do that? The Bond name guarantees ticket sales. It's a fine line between pleasing the Bond fans and getting back the ones who stopped watching when the franchise became ridiculous. You need to have enough factors in the movie for it to be identified as a Bond film, whilst being refreshingly new, and breaking new ground.

I have to say, it looks like they're taking a step in the right direction.
 
I wouldn't say the choice not to crowbar tired catchphrases into a film just out of habit is a problem personally... I don't think it will anything detract from the film.
 
Back
Top