> where is [...] the spectacular but not unrealistic script, etc ?
It's much more realistic now, but that's part of the problem.
The Bond we remember is a remnant from the 60s (I know it's older), with that era of geopolitics, scifi (and sex-/racism), complete with razor frisbee hats, cyborgs, zero gravity laser battles, and a super villain dying through floating up to the ceiling and popping like a balloon.
I loved those movies too, and while I didn't like the direction at the time, GoldenEye was a perfect update to that genre (at the time). While I think Casino Royale was a great movie, it was not a great Bond movie.
I have yet to see the new one, but the first Kingsman movie is the best Bond movie since GoldenEye, by bringing the elements that make a Bond movie to modern filmmaking.
Oddly when I first saw the movie version of Moonraker that scene shattered my suspension of disbelief.
Up until that film most Bond gadgets had been reasonably believeable as achievable by a sufficiently funded organisation. But suddenly secret fleets of Shuttles, space stations and laser-equipped Space Marines? Nope.
It's much more realistic now, but that's part of the problem.
The Bond we remember is a remnant from the 60s (I know it's older), with that era of geopolitics, scifi (and sex-/racism), complete with razor frisbee hats, cyborgs, zero gravity laser battles, and a super villain dying through floating up to the ceiling and popping like a balloon.
I loved those movies too, and while I didn't like the direction at the time, GoldenEye was a perfect update to that genre (at the time). While I think Casino Royale was a great movie, it was not a great Bond movie.
I have yet to see the new one, but the first Kingsman movie is the best Bond movie since GoldenEye, by bringing the elements that make a Bond movie to modern filmmaking.