I enjoy the movies in themselves, and the books in themselves, but I don't... I'm not sure how to phrase it. I don't have A Single Vision of what Bond's like, and anything else is a travesty. I grew up seeing the Connery on TV, Moore in the theaters, and reading the books, so maybe that's why. The media coverage at least makes me somewhat interested in seeing Casino Royale. Which is a change from the past decade or so, when my reaction was more, "I'll watch it on TV if it's on and I'm bored."

I'm not sure what there is in that article that suggests he'll just blush and stammer in front of girls. The reporter sums things up by saying he "dislikes violence," because it's attention-grabbing, but the director says "Bond finds violence hard to take, he won't admit to that." Which makes significantly more sense.

As I was reading in this thread, I wondered if they might not have done better taking a more Poirot like approach to Bond, and just kept it 1965 all the time.Mind you, it's too late now, but...you know in the best Poirot adaptations it's always the thirties

I enjoy immensely a tortured, fallible hero.

BUT.

I'm all about the cheesy Bond. It's a guilty pleasure. Staying up late to watch TBS's Bond marathon with my dad the one summer we had cable.

But movie Bond is cheesy antiheroes, archaic womanizing (that my inner feminist horks a hairball at,) smooth and FABULOUS, fantasmic explosions and above all, GADGETS.

So I might enjoy this "new" Bond on its own, as a troubled, breakable hero. But it isn't the Bond of me and dad and popcorn and summer nights.

No wonder people thought Domenic West could play *that* Bond. Because he sounds like McNulty in better clothes.

I'm all about the cheesy Bond. It's a guilty pleasure. Staying up late to watch TBS's Bond marathon with my dad the one summer we had cable.

But movie Bond is cheesy antiheroes, archaic womanizing (that my inner feminist horks a hairball at,) smooth and FABULOUS, fantasmic explosions and above all, GADGETS.

I'm the opposite of this. I want Connery/Fleming Bond, basically. For me, the Roger Moore cheese-o-rama (and it wasn't all cheese, but mostly) was a long, dark teatime. Bond set the template for a lot of the dark spy vs spy stuff that other films use (the Jason Bourne films, for example). Bond is a stone killer, and should be ruthless, tough and vicious. In totally beautiful settings and he should have his mind messed with by stunning women.

The daffy, gadgetty Bond has been way overdone, and if the films have any life left in them at all, they need to get back to the anti-hero roots.

Who's seen Dave Chappelle's Block Party? Here's the thing, I'm torn about taking the boys to it with my friend and her son.

Reasons for include the fact the Dave is one of the funniest men on the planet. Also the boys have the big rap music love.

Reason against is my fuddy duddy nature that makes me cringe at language, particularly around the boys.

My Brooklyn bred bestest GF doesn't have the language fear as she tells her son to do his fuckin' homework. I get that we have different takes on this issue.

The rating is R for language. Is it overwhelming? Yes, I know they hear it all day at school, but not so much with me.

Ugh, I know it's good stuff. Thoughts?

My thinking on James Bond is that he can be anything you want -- but only one thing at a time. I remember the first Pierce Brosnan Bond, and it was like, here are the hoops you have to jump through, one two three: "shaken not stirred," Aston-Martin, inappropriate kissing, okay now you can have a plot. Have fun!

Lame.

Reinventing Bond is a matter of picking a vision -- any vision -- and sticking with it. Jason Bourne is basically one spinoff aspect of Bond (smooth killer with a complex); the Harrison Ford Jack Ryan is another (revenger and patriot). If they've picked Casino Royale to work from, then at least it implies they've chosen a vision. Probably not the same as Ian Fleming's vision, because, hello to the OTT self-flagellation, but something to put their backs up against.

And they did, with 15 minutes of the second half gone, stand-off Tyrone Dalton weaved his way over the try line for what was to be the only try of the game. ...

Let's not forget the Extreme Bond of Triple-X Vin Diesel, or the M:I franchise.

I think seeing a movie with liberal use of the F word is fine, so long as your boys know the limits. I remember my parents taking me to see the play "Hair" when I was 12. There is swearing and nudity in the play and I know they were nervous, but I felt sophisticated and mature that they trusted me to know where to draw the line. Make it about their maturity, and imply strongly that maturity means knowing the difference between what's onscreen and what they use in conversation and I think you'll be fine.

I saw "Splash" when I was about seven, and that's got full-frontal nudity in it. My parents rented it, and it was understood without having to say so that, yes, this has some Objectionable Content, but it's okay, because we're watching it with you. Having your parents there keeps things in perspective a bit, I think, particularly if you know they're not going to join you in a chorus of F-bombs later in the night just because you've seen a swearin' picture (as opposed to seeing it with your friends, which would guarantee that sort of thing).