tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401276.post384425637930818667..comments2023-09-23T07:23:46.408-06:00Comments on cucullus non facit monachum: James Bond versus TwilightOkiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01393689307300304035noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401276.post-20218938857717475582008-11-19T13:43:00.000-07:002008-11-19T13:43:00.000-07:00haven't seen Twilight, but it looks too much like ...haven't seen Twilight, but it looks too much like a "teenie bopper" for me to risk seeing it in the theatre... Quantum wasn't that great, so saying I'd prefer Bond over vampires doesn't say much about either oneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401276.post-64840234457747761262008-11-18T20:08:00.000-07:002008-11-18T20:08:00.000-07:00Is there any question? The reasoning of Bond has ...Is there any question? The reasoning of Bond has over Twilight:<BR/><BR/>1. Series and the following that comes with it (I guess this could be a bad thing for some, but not Bond). But I've never seen a better Bond than Casino Royale. Budget films based on books never hit it big, unless you're Harry Potter. They got so big they were out of the budget category. Look at Eragon. The Bourne and Narnia series weren't low budget.<BR/><BR/>2. Director did Bourne movies. How can this not make every guy on the planet want to see it? The women get to see Daniel Craig. The men get...bitten?<BR/><BR/>3. How many wives can talk their husbands into going to see Twilight? Obviously a lot of girls-night-outs, but I would guess it will be almost 3-1 Bond to Twilight (conservatively).Josh Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09733657052276329052noreply@blogger.com