There is a disconnect between the film Bond and the literary Bond which is their contemporaneity. I don't suffer from that.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
What I've appreciated about the 'Bond' films is there's always been a subtle social relevance to them. They've always commented on the times.
I was lucky enough to make four Bond films. It finished in rather shambolic fashion, but I have no bitterness, no resentment.
A Bond movie falls into a specific genre, and you have to provide certain elements. You must respect the fact it's essentially about girls, guns, gadgets, and big action.
Some writers get snooty about what happens when their books are adapted to film, but I don't feel that way.
In all my 'Bond' films, everything you see there is fantastically real.
I know it's surprising, but there is a generation of people who haven't seen a Bond movie. They have no idea what it is. I want to entertain them as much as anyone else.
Usually when you watch a film, you're just sort of biting your nails about things you could have done differently.
I felt 'Quantum of Solace' completely lost its way. We were lucky on 'Casino Royale:' it was the origin story of Bond. Bond had the one and only affair that meant anything to him, and affected him throughout the rest of the series.
People's behaviour towards you changes when your films don't work. It's a painful period.
You do a James Bond film, you're being part of an anachronism, a tradition.