I subscribed. Nice video with many points I agree with. If I were to think of an interesting title for Bond 26 it would be, Flemingway, to be a nod to Ian Fleming himself. Martin Campbell is my number one choice for director. Henry Cavill is my top choice as the actual 7th James Bond.
Hey, thank you so much for the support! Flemingway is an interesting title, I have not heard that one before. Glad to hear another is on the Martin Campbell / Henry Cavill train!
@@ZevStellar The Stonehenge Jiggy is so weird. I THINK the reason it's just sitting there is cuz it's supposed to be your reward for making it all the way to the opposite corner of the map from where you originally started. But it's still weird that the orange Jinjo is slightly harder to obtain than the Jiggy itself. If it were up to me, I would have put the Mumbo Token where the Jiggy is (cuz everyone always misses it and has no idea where to look for it) put the Jiggy where the Jinjo is, and then put the Jinjo where the Mumbo Token is. The Jinjos make audible noise, so that would actually give you a clue to look behind the monument.
That..... that is genius. See this is the high-quality thinking I love. You improved on the original game design of those three collectibles significantly. I really like the idea about the jinjo making the noise and moving the mumbo token because people always miss it (raises hand). And then the new jiggy location is nice because you get to use the new move Bottles gave you. Two thumbs up!
If Bond cannot be successful while being portrayed as a three dimensional human being then the obvious question is how do you account for the success of Daniel Craig and Casino Royale?
Hey, that is a good question! I think Casino Royale is a very interesting film in the Bond canon, especially comparing it to this one. Both were firsts for a new actor and both were directed by Martin Campbell. It's an excellent film, I'd say it's probably the best film of any Bond movie. However, I'd argue that it - and QoS alongside it - follow the Bond formula the least of any of the movies. 2 Main reasons it is great that are popping out are the 1) script + 2) direction. And for the script, I'd say --> if you make a Bond movie that lacks the DNA of the Bond formula, how different can it be before it is merely Bond in name alone? CR did humanize Bond by giving him a love story, and that betrayal and lesson is the most interesting part of the movie. I think the producers wanted to chase that further humanization, and then doubled-down on that with the future Craig movies. And the ones that leaned in to this were quite bad (Spectre and No Time to Die). So the more they did it, the worse the result was. Neither of those films are going to be remembered as anything substantial in Bond-lore when placed next to the likes of Goldeneye or Goldfinger.
Thank you. Unfortunately, I grew up during and had to endure the Roger Moore era languishing for another to replace him. I never saw him as the man I wanted to be and the one who women actually wanted to be with. Too campy. I also viewed Lazenby and Dalton as a placeholders. Brosnan was the bond I actually wanted to play the role. Craig the flawed emotionally brooding Dalton. Both he and Brosnan lived by the script and died by the script.
In keeping with films that are influential to the franchise as a whole. Maybe Casino Royal or On Her Majesty Secret Service? Personally, I'm always interested in the historical events of the time that caused the franchise to move in a certain direction and the choices made along the way that impacted production.
@@marquiswallace9957 Both great films and would be a good choice to look at! Assuming you mean Craig Casino Royale and not Peter Sellers Casino Royale. That film was.... interesting
