58 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

Who will get the blame?

If Casino Royale is a darker, grittier, edgier, more "realistic" Bond movie (which I am 110% in favor of), and it takes in, say - 25% less at the box office than DAD - then how will Michael Wilson & Barbara Broccoli react? How will Sony react?

Will they blame Daniel Craig for being unappealing and not winning over audiences? Will they blame the screenwriters? Will they blame Martin Campbell?

Will they just attribute it to the new direction in that grittier, more realistic style?

I've noted that my concerns about hiring Craig have nothing to do with his acting abilities - I expect him to be good on that front - but my concerns have everything to do with his inability to carry a movie, even a James Bond movie (with a built in audience) at the box office.

I don't want to see Michael and Barbara (and Sony) decide that another over the top Bond film is the cure to sagging box office numbers if CR doesn't match up to DAD's take.

So, IF Casino Royale disappoints at the box office, who (or what) will EON and Sony blame?

[Tarl_Cabot]

All 6 Bond Stars never had the responsibility of "carrying" a film before they did a 007 film. No actor should ever have that task lay on his/her feet. A good supporting cast should help Casino Royale do well. If not? Pull the plug. So be it. I'll be happy to move on...not the end of the world...but go out swinging, taking chances....please.

[B5Erik]

All 6 Bond Stars never had the responsibility of "carrying" a film before they did a 007 film. No actor should ever have that task lay on his/her feet.

Tell that to Timothy Dalton....

[Tarl_Cabot]

I never saw a great film in which an actor 'carried it'.

[Alex Zamudio]

I think Daniel Craig has a better chance for Box-Office appeal than most of the others 007s had, his 007 casting buzz should generate interest in Stevens Spielberg's "Munich" and "The Visiting" with Nicole Kidman, and Both films will show people his abilities and make him popular, as both movies are mayor important releases, Munich even Oscar possibility, his exposure around CR's release will be quite big, Sean Connery, Lazenby or even Timothy Dalton never had these kind of chances.

[B5Erik]

I'm talking about "carrying" a movie at the box office. Where people come to see it because actor X is starring in it.

Actors/Movie Stars like Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Clint Eastwood, etc, etc, etc - they all have had periods in their careers where movies were big hits mainly because they were in them. Hell, for a while every movie that Burt Reynolds was in was a big hit!

They could all "carry" a movie at the box office.

Pierce Brosnan was credited for carrying Bond back to success in the four movies that he did. It wasn't Sean Bean and Judi Dench - it was Brosnan that got the credit.

And when LTK underperformed it was Timothy Dalton that got almost all the blame (with the style of the movie getting some of the blame as well - although most people attributed the chosen style as being written to match Dalton's portrayal of Bond).

So who or what gets the blame if CR is a box office disappointment?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I hope that *I* love Casino Royale. Don't give a toss about what the public does in terms of B.O....or if we get a knee jerk reaction cookie cutter Bond film to follow up with pin up boy replacement...I'm down for ONE more good one than 20 more crappy Bond films.

[V007]

I think if CR fails at the box office it's not the actor's fault. It is the producers, writers, and studios' fault beacuse they are the ones who come up with the story and actors. So if Craig is not a good Bond, it would be the person who cast him that will get the blame. How would you feel if you were appointed to play 007 and you think you have it in you to do so, but you suck. Who's fault would it be; the producers or you? Maybe both?

Edited by V007, 16 October 2005 - 07:25 AM.

[B5Erik]

I think if CR fails at the box office it's not the actor's fault. It is the producers, writers, and studios' fault beacuse they are the ones who come up with the story and actors. So if Craig is not a good Bond, it would be the person who cast him that will get the blame. How would you feel if you were appointed to play 007 and you think you have it in you to do so, but you suck. Who's fault would it be; the producers or you? Maybe both?

Again, I have to come back to Timothy Dalton. He got almost all of the blame for LTK merely being profitable and not a smash success. The studio wanted Dalton replaced. He didn't write the movie or direct it or market it, but he was the guy blamed. John Glen took a little heat, as did Michael G Wilson for the script and style, but they got a bit of a pass since it was generally accepted that it was all done "to fit Dalton's style."

Of course, John Glen never directed another Bond movie, and Wilson (who had contributed to a few Bond scripts over the years) hasn't done any screenwriting for Bond since.

Bond 22 is my concern now. I don't want it to suck. There are a lot of Bond fans who would be disappointed if EON went back to the well and came up with DAD II for Bond 22 - but whether or not that happens depends on what the conventional wisdom says the reason for Casino Royale becoming a box office disappointment was (IF it turns out to be one).

Which is the point of the thread. What do you think the conventional wisdom will be IF CR disappoints at the box office? Craig? Style of the movie? Direction? Producer's paralysis?

Edited by B5Erik, 16 October 2005 - 07:39 AM.

[V007]

I think if CR fails at the box office it's not the actor's fault. It is the producers, writers, and studios' fault beacuse they are the ones who come up with the story and actors. So if Craig is not a good Bond, it would be the person who cast him that will get the blame. How would you feel if you were appointed to play 007 and you think you have it in you to do so, but you suck. Who's fault would it be; the producers or you? Maybe both?

Again, I have to come back to Timothy Dalton. He got almost all of the blame for LTK merely being profitable and not a smash success. The studio wanted Dalton replaced. He didn't write the movie or direct it or market it, but he was the guy blamed. John Glen took a little heat, as did Michael G Wilson for the script and style, but they got a bit of a pass since it was generally accepted that it was all done "to fit Dalton's style."

Of course, John Glen never directed another Bond movie, and Wilson (who had contributed to a few Bond scripts over the years) hasn't done any screenwriting for Bond since.

Bond 22 is my concern now. I don't want it to suck. There are a lot of Bond fans who would be disappointed if EON went back to the well and came up with DAD II for Bond 22 - but whether or not that happens depends on what the conventional wisdom says the reason for Casino Royale becoming a box office disappointment was (IF it turns out to be one).

Which is the point of the thread. What do you think the conventional wisdom will be IF CR disappoints at the box office? Craig? Style of the movie? Direction? Producer's paralysis?

Hey B5Erik,

I think you may be right? I wouldn't put he blame on Dalton. His Bond was fine by me and it was the story and direction for LTK that was not good. I think craig will have a little blame becasue I don't think he's a Bond kind of person. But still go after the person who put him in the tuxs and in the Aston Martin. I may change my mind when CR is out. Lets see what the future holds in store for 007...

[Roebuck]

Bond differs from just about everything else out there in that it's the brand that pulls people in rather than a star.That's not to say people won't respond to some actors in the role more favorably than they do to others, but generally it's Bond they come to see.
Ultimately it's the producers who should hold their hands up if the film is a turkey. Probably Royale will take less than DAD; the box-office has become a much harsher place since 2002 and everybody is suffering. But there's little reason to fear it will bomb, regardless of who plays the lead.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess even if "CR" won

[JameswpBond]

people are always moaning that hollywood never take any risks anymore so if people don't go and see Casino Royale they're hypocrites.

[B5Erik]

The thing is, the producers will never blame themselves. MGM's executives didn't blame themselves for their failure to market LTK well, or to release it at a less congested time at the box office - they blamed Dalton. (Wrongly, in my mind, but that's who they blamed.)

They also didn't want Michael G Wilson to write any more Bond movies, and he hasn't, and John Glen's tenure as Bond director was ended after that movie. Their number 1 priority, though, was to replace Dalton as Bond. Cubby, to his credit, defended Dalton, but Dalton gave up the role rather than let Cubby fight MGM.

George Lazenby was blamed for the box office disappointment surrounding OHMSS, even though he gave a decent performance and had a great physical presence.

I've got a feeling, though, that this time it could be different. Broccoli and Wilson have stuck their necks out for Craig, and if the movie disappoints at the box office they may just blame the down to earth, "grittier" style of the movie.

Which would be wrong, considering all the negative media reaction to Craig, which the public is feeding off of, but I just believe that since Broccoli and Wilson have put their reputations on the line they would still defend "their Bond," and find something else to blame - most likely the style of Bond movie that they are following for CR.

Edited by B5Erik, 16 October 2005 - 04:13 PM.

[Bond Bug]

The thing is, the producers will never blame themselves.  MGM's executives didn't blame themselves for their failure to market LTK well, or to release it at a less congested time at the box office - they blamed Dalton.  (Wrongly, in my mind, but that's who they blamed.)

They also didn't want Michael G Wilson to write any more Bond movies, and he hasn't, and John Glen's tenure as Bond director was ended after that movie.  Their number 1 priority, though, was to replace Dalton as Bond.  Cubby, to his credit, defended Dalton, but Dalton gave up the role rather than let Cubby fight MGM.

George Lazenby was blamed for the box office disappointment surrounding OHMSS, even though he gave a decent performance and had a great physical presence.

I've got a feeling, though, that this time it could be different.  Broccoli and Wilson have stuck their necks out for Craig, and if the movie disappoints at the box office they may just blame the down to earth, "grittier" style of the movie.

Which would be wrong, considering all the negative media reaction to Craig, which the public is feeding off of, but I just believe that since Broccoli and Wilson have put their reputations on the line they would still defend "their Bond," and find something else to blame - most likely the style of Bond movie that they are following for CR.

I have a feeling Craig will get the blame as far as the media are concerned. At that point, Eon can either go big with Craig and make the greatest Bond spectacular like Spy Who Loved Me to reinvigourate the series, or hire a new actor, or go back to Brosnan and pay him 25 or 30 million dollars.

[Johnboy007]

If Casino Royale really does end up being a flop, they're in quite a bit of trouble.

Brosnan is too turned off by the producers to come back, and would be far too old to play James Bond anyway. There really aren't any other willing people who can play Bond. Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman won't do it. Henry Cavill apparently wasn't very good in his screen test, although he's still relatively young and inexperienced.

I still think Craig will be James Bond in Bond 22 for 2008 (or Christmas 2007). If he fails again, I think we'll go in to a prolonged delay like six years, and hope that someone new pops up.

Still, they're taking risks. Like Tarl, i'd rather see something daring and "fail" then another bland cartoon Bond.

[Sam Fisher]

I don't expect Casino Royale to bomb within the first couple fo days but I do expect american movie critics to tear Craig apart like an unwanted bill.

[Red Renard]

Surely the critics will only tear Craig apart if he's rubbish?

Then again, you know what some journalists are like when they have an agenda...

[triviachamp]

Surely the critics will only tear Craig apart if he's rubbish?

Then again, you know what some journalists are like when they have an agenda...

The critics with regard to Bond are hypocrites. They dislike "Gritty Bond" for being too different and too serious than "Silly Bond." They dislike "Silly Bond" for being well silly and formulaic.

[Andrew]

I really don't care whether it's a success or not, I'll be happy just as long as we get a solid film in the vein of FRwL, OHMSS, TLD or LtK which are, in my opinion, the best of the series.

[jaguar007]

I doubt casino Royale will "fail", but there is a very good chance will will not do Brosnan type box office. If it does marginally less than brosnan's film, I'm sure the "public" will blame Craig. However, Craig certanily has the possibility of being cool by the time Casino Royale comes out based on the buzz for Munich.

[Felix_Leiter]

I think if it gets really good reviews from the critics EON and Sony will be willing to let it slide a bit on the financial side of things. Who knows for sure though?

[SeanValen00V]

Casino will do around 60-70 million, US box office competition permitting!

My prediction. Brosnan is liked in the US and Japan/UK,big markets, still popular as Bond.

[B5Erik]

I really don't care whether it's a success or not, I'll be happy just as long as we get a solid film in the vein of FRwL, OHMSS, TLD or LtK which are, in my opinion, the best of the series.

Hey, I'm with you there except that I don't want to wait another 17 years for another film in that vein - and if CR fails to meet expectations it could take that long until we get another serious Bond movie again.

That's why I'm not really supportive of Craig as Bond - he just doesn't seem to have the appeal to bring people into the theaters.

(And I don't get the whole, "Wait until Munich comes out," thing. I don't expect Munich to do a lot at the box office. Who will it appeal to? It's kind of a downer topic, and I just can't see it doing gangbuster business. I haven't heard ANY buzz about it at all. Besides, Eric Bana has top billing.)

Edited by B5Erik, 16 October 2005 - 10:09 PM.

[Napoleon Solo]

>>Again, I have to come back to Timothy Dalton. He got almost all of the blame for LTK merely being profitable and not a smash success. The studio wanted Dalton replaced. He didn't write the movie or direct it or market it, but he was the guy blamed. John Glen took a little heat, as did Michael G Wilson for the script and style, but they got a bit of a pass since it was generally accepted that it was all done "to fit Dalton's style."

Of course, John Glen never directed another Bond movie, and Wilson (who had contributed to a few Bond scripts over the years) hasn't done any screenwriting for Bond since.<<

Richard Maibaum also got blamed and was informed he was too old to be writing Bond movies anymore. Interesting, given he only worked on the "treatment" and not the full script (despite the writing credit). Maibaum passed away a couple of years later.

[Napoleon Solo]

<<(And I don't get the whole, "Wait until Munich comes out," thing. I don't expect Munich to do a lot at the box office. Who will it appeal to? It's kind of a downer topic, and I just can't see it doing gangbuster business. I haven't heard ANY buzz about it at all. Besides, Eric Bana has top billing.)>>

However, it's directed by Steven Spielberg. That's not guaranteed box office but he's one of the few directors who has a kind of drawing power at the box office. Thus, Craig may get more exposure than one would ordinarily expect.

[triviachamp]

<<(And I don't get the whole, "Wait until Munich comes out," thing. I don't expect Munich to do a lot at the box office. Who will it appeal to? It's kind of a downer topic, and I just can't see it doing gangbuster business. I haven't heard ANY buzz about it at all. Besides, Eric Bana has top billing.)>>

    However, it's directed by Steven Spielberg. That's not guaranteed box office but he's one of the few directors who has a kind of drawing power at the box office. Thus, Craig may get more exposure than one would ordinarily expect.

Many folks think Munich will be a prime Oscar contender.

[Emma]

That's why I'm not really supportive of Craig as Bond - he just doesn't seem to have the appeal to bring people into the theaters.

My sentiments exactly. And if the film tanks I hope that blame isn't simply laid at Craig's feet. It should be laid at the feet of Broccoli/Wilson and Campbell for choosing him in the first place. It's been two days since the official news and already there's complaints as to how innapropriate a choice he is. He can perform his heart out in other films and get tons of critical acolades. Still doesn't mean he will do a good job as James Bond. I really don't think people go to see Bond movies for the acting.

Complain all you want about DAD, but the film made money. The franchise doesn't need to be re-hauled like Batman.

I hope Amy Pascal or Sony said to Eon. "Okay I'll play it your way this time. But if the film doesn't do well. We're taking over."

Barbara Broccoli doesn't seem to have much business sense and shouldn't be allowed to make any descsions in that regard.

[doublenoughtspy]

Many folks think Munich will be a prime Oscar contender.

I've heard people saying that, but doesn't mean it will affect whether or not audiences accept Craig as Bond.

Unless the film does horribly, I would image it would be a combination of Craig & the new direction that will get blamed.

They'll retool for his 2nd, and if that doesn't work he'll be out.

[Sam Fisher]

Many folks think Munich will be a prime Oscar contender.

I've heard people saying that, but doesn't mean it will affect whether or not audiences accept Craig as Bond.

Unless the film does horribly, I would image it would be a combination of Craig & the new direction that will get blamed.

They'll retool for his 2nd, and if that doesn't work he'll be out.

Alot of people outside the Bond forums believe CR will be his only contribution.