"I'm glad to see a vote of confidence from Craig. I think he knows the mechanics of a good Bond film. His physicality really brings a good deal to the role. Would you have expected Brosnan to take any lumps?"
Here's another good sign. In fact, I think it's a [i]great[/i] sign.
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/1665/bondbudgetjf9.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=115&i=bondbudgetjf9.png][IMG]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/1665/bondbudgetjf9.b14e30360c.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
It's the budget for all the Bond films, 1 through 22 (not adjusted for inflation). Hope that shows up. If not, just copy & paste the URL into a new window.
Now, I know what the purists are going to say...something like "Die Another Day got more $$$ than Casino Royale, and it should be obvious which one is the better movie." Point taken. A big budget doth not a good movie make.
But look at it from the point of view of the producers. To take Bond on this new direction in the first place, they had to be extremely committed to it before even writing the first few pages of the script. Since then...has anything happened that would reasonably shake them from it? Fan reception of Brosnan's last was mixed, at best...the same cannot be said of Casino Royale. We, the fans, like what they did, and they damn well know it.
It's an important point to consider when they're risking this much loot. Granted it isn't much of a risk at this point. But when you're starting to throw around a quarter billion dollars, it's time to stop throwing in whistle sound effects, Tarzan yells, and double-taking pigeons. I'm pretty sure the money will be spent wisely. (Er, after the Aston Martins have all been fished out of the water.)
It seems the folks who said James Bond was old & tired back in '89, might have spoken too soon. It almost looks like Bond film budgets might be a possible cause of global warming.
