The chief reasons that the movie really worked for me are basically threefold. First, the movie avoided almost every opportunity it had to become "cartoony". The cutesy bimbo and villain names were toned down, the gadgets were not so advanced as to be absolutely silly, and the bad guys were generally believable as bad guys, rather than comic book super-villains. For example, the bad guy’s main thug is strong without being super-human and he is immoral rather than maniacally evil. Thus, he makes a much more believable foe than, for example, "Jaws" in the earlier Roger Moore Bond films. Similarly, the hokey plot devices of GoldenEye (single-use satellite weapons, giant dish arrays hidden under Cuban lakes, etc.) are generally avoided for a plot based on misdirecting the diplomats and armed forces of actual nation-states. Second, Pierce Brosnan, after a somewhat stiff portrayal of Bond in GoldenEye, has become the definitive James Bond—more polished and aristocratic than Sean Connery, stronger and less smarmy than Roger Moore, more dashing than George Lazenby, and much, much more interesting than Timothy Dalton (not to mention being a better actor than all the James Bonds (from Peter Sellers to Woody Allen) put together in Casino Royale). The tag lines as one finishes off an opponent are a staple of Bond and other action films and Brosnan manages to say them credibly—without seeming silly or cruel or embarassed. Instead, he just seems unflappably cool. Lastly, the Bond Girls have finally graduated to being Bond Film Women—capable of handling action themselves without making Bond look like a male chauvinist pig.

Now, before all you "Sean Connery is the real James Bond" people get upset, let me mention a few things. One, a young Roger Moore was intended to be the first Bond (but could not get out of his TV show "The Saint", much as Pierce Brosnan had to bow out in favor of Timothy Dalton when "Remington Steele" was renewed). Two, Sean was not even the second choice, but was eventually selected partly because he came at a good price. Third, all of this controversy about who is the best James Bond makes for a really good analogy to tournament role-playing games, where a whole passel of players play the same character at different tables of the same tournament or in various rounds of a multi-round tournament. Let’s face it, those character sheet backgrounds and character interaction notes are great and pretty essential for a good tournament, but they can only scratch the surface of building a full personality and character. It is up to you, as a gamer, to flesh out the character with accent and tone, catch-phrases and minor bits of business, running jokes and pet peeves, and constant real-time in-character conversations with PCs and NPCs alike. What approach you take and how successful you are is mostly up to you, but is also influenced by the ability of the other players, the style of the GM, and the plot of the module, just as the performance of an actor in a movie is affected by his or her co-stars, the director’s vision for the film, and the script the actor is given. (Do you think Roger Moore liked some of those stupid lines he was given?) One great thing about playing in multi-round tournaments or GM’ing the same event multiple times is that you get to see what other people do with the same role, maybe the same character you played in an earlier round. Not only is this incredibly interesting and sometimes entertaining, it is also a very good way to learn how to be a better role-player. In a single round tournament, players are sometimes to quick to say "Oh, of course, he won, because he had the best character to play." While that can be true, it is often just an excuse for not playing your own character as creatively and intensely as possible. All these actors played Bond—some succeeded and some failed (I imagine George Lazenby sitting by his phone for years, waiting for a call to return.) When you see different people play the same character (some better, some worse, some just differently) and you see players playing different characters win the same tournament module, you realize that anyone can do well with any character at any time—if they’re a good role-player.

The other gaming-related aspect I want to bring up about Bond movies is the tone of the series as it relates to the tone of various role-playing game systems. I have been fairly critical of a number of allegedly serious spy and action movies I have seen for glaring credibility issues and plot problems (for example, Mission Impossible, an atrociously bad movie), yet I am a bit of a fan of Bond movies, which are notoriously hokey and even sometimes downright silly in their gadgets and plots. Why? Because Bond films simply do not purport to take themselves too seriously. This same distinction exists in spy role-playing games, such as Top Secret and James Bond. Top Secret really takes itself seriously as an espionage game (though one wonders why six or so spies would ever be assigned a joint mission), with realistic equipment, unforgiving combat and wound rules, etc. You screw up in Top Secret and your group is likely dead or captured—no luck rolls here. On the other hand, you have James Bond, with gizmos, arch-villains, and "hero points" galore. Despite Victory Games assertion that "James Bond is a serious role-playing game", it is a beer and pretzels game—no question about it. It even has seduction rules (although you’re supposed to roll dice for the stages of seduction, it is always good to have the PCs role-play their suggestive looks, opening lines, and witty repartee—it can be hysterical). In role-playing, playing to the tone of the game is critical—that’s why you can have "horror" games that range from Vampire to Call of Cthulhu to Chill to Bureau 13 to It Came From the Late, Late Show—same genre, different tone. While a silly tone, like Bond, can credibly become more serious, even a little silliness (anything more than comic relief) quickly ruins a serious movie or game.