One of the things with the most potential that Casino Royale introduced to the James Bond film canon was the idea that Bond was an orphan left with little to no money, who managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps to get where he was. It was a new idea to explore, and one that – despite being such a large departure from what had gone before – fitted so damn well with the character. James Bond has always been a male power fantasy, and this bit of dialogue subtly added a clever new layer of subtext which made that aspect of him not only palatable to quote-unquote serious filmmaking and storytelling, but meant that the filmmakers could have their cake and eat it too: Bond himself was intentionally choosing to self-awarely live out the male power fantasy facade, because it’s a fantasy he had himself when he did not have that power.

And then, as much as I seriously enjoy Skyfall and SPECTRE, those two movies came along and disregarded that for the traditional billionaire-beginnings sad-rich-orphan Eton-educated unaware power fantasy Bond. Which, y’know, we already had twenty-two movies of. I’d have liked something different.

That last sentiment is, incidentally, Robert’s main problem with the return to smooth-Bond and departure from gritty-Bond (or “crunchy-Bond” as Robert subsequently neologised it, so that one’s preference of Bond style could match up with one’s preference of peanut butter) that was heralded by Skyfall. At least we can both agree that, regardless of anything else, it has hands-down the best Bond theme.