"I don't even know what 'Ad Hominem' and 'Falacious' means
"
Ad hominem: you attack the eprson and not the argument.
"In any case, i wasn't caricaturing anything. You were the one who used the words re-start, re-boot and prequel, none of which, perhaps for the exception of 'prequel', can be used for this film.""
You said that I probably wanted big action, explosions, etc. I quote: "We'll still see big explosions and bond kicking ass, which i assume is what you're most interested in." Therefore, it was an ad hominem argument, based on fallacious assumptions.
"Well what are you so bloody worried about then? I can't understand why you think seeing a Casino Royale type Bond will ruin the character forever."
I am worried about a team that considered casting a Croatian as Bond, and a 22 years old boy. Which also considered bringing back Brosnan and ditching this "prequel" idea that they were so found of to get the franchise back on solid ground. I am worried about a team that then said they wanted a 28 eyars old Bond, and that previously said that they were going back to the essential, authentic Bond when they made Die Another Day. A team that considered making a Jinx spin-off.
"To be honest, he isn't entirely that different from post Casino Royale Bond."
Yes, but we know Bond as an established character, and for forty years. I am nto saying it cannot work, but there are risks, such as confusing the audiences, or messing even more with continuity.
"This film is going to be grittier, which means one step forward to the real Bond, which means more character."
They sad DAD was going to be grittier.
"We still see a drinking, smoking, womanising, ruthless killer of a man who likes Golf. He is an established 00 Agent in CR, just like he is in Dr.No, Thunderball etc. The noly difference is that he falls in love, it goes wrong and he becomes even harder than he was before. It's not Bond Begins. In the novel, this is about his 3rd yr in the Service. I don't see the problem."
We don't know yet how it will be developed in the movie.
"Even if it was a re-boot, do you think this will ruin an already dwindling franchise? In financial terms, the franchise is as strong as ever, certainly, but if audiences are made to watch crap like DAD for longer then that'll drop away. After some crap films Batman re-booted, and that worked wonders and gave credibility to the franchise. "
The Batman franchise didn't make as many films and the Bond movies, and it wasn't as much of a phenomenon as a whole.
"I'm not a connaisseur and i didn't invent anything. I replied to that one post of yours without distorting a single piece of it."
You DID say I wanted stupid one liners and dumb action. That was being intellectually dishonest to try to destroy my argumentation.
