>>96932482
>The Craig era films were objectively better as actual films.
Sides: orbiting Mars
>The stunts
Very uneven, very depends on the movie. Compare Skyfall and QoS
>the writing
Shit in every single one. It can't be funny, even when it tries (and fails), and it can't be serious, either. Then there is all the trend-chasing of other movies
>the production values were all better
You mean production budget? They are actually comparable, because inflation is a bitch.
You mean sets and props? Sorry, Brosnan wins as long as there is no CGI present (and it was shit back in his era, too, so it's not mere age)
>I won't fight you on that
Good, because that's the most important aspect of those movies. Moore movies were all cheesefest and gonzo, and yet are some of the best of them all, BECAUSE they are cheesefest and gonzo.
> if you can get past the cartoon-tier plots.
Why would I want to get past what's the meat and gravy?
Also:
>Russians trying to melt global economy, end up ruining their own irreplaceable assets
>Media mogul makes a living doing fake news and deliberately inciting polarising politics
>A little skirmish on the global oil market to get rich and also get rid of a pipeline that could hurt your profit
All three of which became very real, very soon.
Can't wait for Korea-Korea Hyperwar