Agree about Goldfinger. Moonraker made an awful lot of money.

My take after reading those is that the films are generally better works, but the other thing that's worth remembering is that Eon was out of the business of "adapting" Fleming novels after _Live and Let Die_. The follow-up (_The Man With The Golden Gun_) shares a title with a novel, but little else, and after that the films are mostly just a pastiche of whatever's-hot-in-Hollywood (e.g., _Moonraker_ having a space battle) and story elements pulled from lesser Fleming works and short stories.

The exception obviously is the _Casino Royale_ with Daniel Craig, which most fans view as one of the best Bond films. I've forgotten the specifics, but that book was unavailable to Eon for decades due to some copyright and licensing shenanigans.

> The exception obviously is the _Casino Royale_ with Daniel Craig, which most fans view as one of the best Bond films. I've forgotten the specifics, but that book was unavailable to Eon for decades due to some copyright and licensing shenanigans.

Some info on the copyright issues here [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(1967_film)

Daniel Craig's more bitter Bond is far closer to the Bond of the original books. Dark, morose, bitter, at times very disenchanted (several resignation letters, if not resignations), spends time alone with a bottle, womanizing in the "not sexy" way...

I am not interested in a different Bond. The entire point of Bond is that he is a male fantasy. There is no need to make a different Bond.

Entertainment is full of brooding losers - thats not what the fans want.