66 replies to this topic

[Streetworker]

Martin Campbell reckons he and Eon can reinvent the wheel. Can they? Do we want them to? Or was the wheel running pretty smoothly already?

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Yeah, and Model Ts drove pretty well. Why did they make cars different from that?

Seriously, I

[avl]

It was an unfortunate turn of phrase by Mr Campbell. Reinventing the wheel is synonimous with wasted and redundant effort. The wheel is perfect.

Was Bond pefect? Watching DAD, I'd have to say not. So let them do it a different way, and if they have to sell it as "reinventing the wheel" so be it.

[Lounge Lizard]

In the hands of a decent director I would feel sqeemish, but with this hack I only hope somebody drives a big car over him.

Glad you winked.

[K1Bond007]

Martin Campbell reckons he and Eon can reinvent the wheel. Can they? Do we want them to?  Or was the wheel running pretty smoothly already?

After Die Another Day, yeah, I think we do. Might as well try. If it fails it fails. Bond 22 will just revert back and that'd be fine too.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='1 November 2005 - 20:19'][mra]Yeah, and Model Ts drove pretty well. Why did they make cars different from that?

Seriously, I

[Ali Kerim Bey]

Considering that Craig bears a very neanderthal visage, perhaps the symbolism of 'inventing the wheel' is wholly appropriate!

[Eye Of The Tiger]

As soon as I saw that remark that he made about reinventing the wheel I thought to myself "Well, I'm quite happy with the wheel as it is, and I don't want Bond to be reinvented, keep your darn hands off of it Campbell!"

I think that Martin Campbell did a great job with GE, but I'm scared to death of how Campbell is planing on ruining the Bond franchise!

Campbell needs to learn that his job is to direct CR, not to reinvent the character or franchise!!!

[Mister Asterix]

Considering that Craig bears a very neanderthal visage, perhaps the symbolism of 'inventing the wheel' is wholly appropriate!

knock it off.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

The funny thing is, no joking at all, it really does look a tremendous amount like Daniel Craig.

[Ali Kerim Bey]

knock it off.

Knock what off? I surely hope that humour isn't being dismissed here, now that we are moving to a 'darker, grittier' Bond.

[zencat]

Ali Kerim Bey, it's time to show us you have something to contribute except endless wisecracks about Daniel Craig. Your humor ceased being humorous around post #5.

[Ali Kerim Bey]

Ali Kerim Bey, it's time to show us you have something to contribute except endless wisecracks about Daniel Craig. Your humor ceased being humorous around post #5.

As a lifelong fan of the James Bond films and novels, there's no doubt I am very unhappy with the choice of Craig. In fact, I believe he is the very type of actor that would attract humorous comments because he falls so far outside the common perception of James Bond. The press started way before I did, calling him 'James Bond' and 'James Bland'.

If you have read all my posts, you will see that I have made some very salient observations about the Bond franchise within the context of what I know about the movie business and the entertainment industry.

If there is a sensitivity to simply rubber-stamping everything EON does here, please let me know. Otherwise, I thought that dissent was part of the healthy process of exchanging ideas and opinions.

If my views or any others that go against those of the moderators or the interests of EON Productions Ltd. are the not accepted here, then what is the fun or the purpose of this forum?

[marktmurphy]

The press started way before I did, calling him 'James Bond'

How dare they!?

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Your observations seemed a bit more like conspiracy theories to me...and if I'm not mistaken the only observations you've made regard how EON was too cheap to get Owen or Jackman.

Everything else is just some dumb joke about how ugly Daniel Craig is.

[Ali Kerim Bey]

The press started way before I did, calling him 'James Bond'

How dare they!?

Excuse me, I meant 'James Blond'!

[zencat]

Ali Kerim Bey, it's time to show us you have something to contribute except endless wisecracks about Daniel Craig. Your humor ceased being humorous around post #5.

As a lifelong fan of the James Bond films and novels, there's no doubt I am very unhappy with the choice of Craig. In fact, I believe he is the very type of actor that would attract humorous comments because he falls so far outside the common perception of James Bond. The press started way before I did, calling him 'James Bond' and 'James Bland'.

If you have read all my posts, you will see that I have made some very salient observations about the Bond franchise within the context of what I know about the movie business and the entertainment industry.

If there is a sensitivity to simply rubber-stamping everything EON does here, please let me know. Otherwise, I thought that dissent was part of the healthy process of exchanging ideas and opinions.

If my views or any others that go against those of the moderators or the interests of EON Productions Ltd. are the not accepted here, then what is the fun or the purpose of this forum?

I have read all your posts and the majority or not salient observations, but incessant put downs and wisecrakes and links to pictures like the above. Our own opinions about Craig have nothing to do with the fact that your posts are repetitive and getting annoying, and it wouldn't matter if these posts were about Connery or Moore or any topic on this forum.

Like I said, as a new member, it's time to demonstrate that you really are here to make salient observations about James Bond and not simply find new and increasingly adolescent ways to express your opinion on one topic.

Apologies to Streetworker for sending this thread off topic. I suggest we try and get back on topic.

[Ali Kerim Bey]

Your observations seemed a bit more like conspiracy theories to me...and if I'm not mistaken the only observations you've made regard how EON was too cheap to get Owen or Jackman. 

Everything else is just some dumb joke about how ugly Daniel Craig is.

EON has always been cheap! And from time to time, their cheapness and ego has almost done in the Bond franchise. Apart from Connery's debut as Bond, I think it is essential that when a new Bond is chosen, the role should cast with known actors. After making a $400 million killing on DAD, they should have put up the money to get Brosnan, or another actor that public would readily receive.

As for my jokes, whose to say they are dumb? What's the difference to you? Maybe you can install a dumb comment filter on the site. You should be careful however, since such a device might block some of your own thoughts posted here!

[zencat]

Back on topic please.

[luciusgore]

I don't think it's healthy to just "rubber stamp" and cheerlead Eon. They have made enormous mistakes since the passing of Albert. My own feeling is that the success of Goldeneye can be attributed, in part, to Jon Calley. TND, TWINE and DAD were all pretty darn bad. Each one was deeply flawed, not totally lame, but pretty flawed. Could have been MUCH BETTER.

So I worry about Wilson, Babs, Purvis and Wade "reinventing the wheel." They are not the ones to reinvent it. That said ...

Craig was the best available choice for Bond. Owen and Jackman were not available. They turned it down. That left Craig. I think he will make a fine Bond. He looks good too. He can look ugly or look good, depending on the role he's in. Just like Russell Crowe.

But there's a reason people are bad mouthing Eon: Close to a decade of bad Bond films. Sure Goldeneye was good, but all the other ones after were weak, and it was not the fault of Pierce Brosnan.

Add to that, them turning down Tarantino. Well, people have good reason to doubt. I actually don't think this is the right team to "reinvent the wheel." But we'll see. It can always be reinvented again.

[Emma]

Considering that Craig bears a very neanderthal visage, perhaps the symbolism of 'inventing the wheel' is wholly appropriate!

That's the funniest thing I've seen all day!

Anyway...I always get scared when someone mentions that they are "going to reinvent" something, especially when it doesn't need to be reinvented at all.

Campbell seems intent on this reinvention simply for his own personal vanity.

His analogy to Batman Begins is completely innapropriate. Batman Begins was "reinvented" because the last Batman movie "Batman and Robin" failed critically as well as financially. The last James Bond movie on the other hand was a massive financial success.

[Bondian]

I think it would of been more sincere of Campbell if he said that they're going to bring one of Flemings novels to the screen, rather than "re-inventing the wheel!".

Still. I don't think this remark needs to be taken too seriously.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

I don't think it's healthy to just "rubber stamp" and cheerlead Eon. They have made enormous mistakes since the passing of Albert. My own feeling is that the success of Goldeneye can be attributed, in part, to Jon Calley. TND, TWINE and DAD were all pretty darn bad. Each one was deeply flawed, not totally lame, but pretty flawed. Could have been MUCH BETTER.

I agree, but for now it seems like they are trying something new. They've gone with an unconventional Bond choice and though I would certainly have replaced P&W, they at the very least seem to be trying to do something new.

Add to that, them turning down Tarantino. Well, people have good reason to doubt. I actually don't think this is the right team to "reinvent the wheel." But we'll see. It can always be reinvented again.

No I don't either, but they are all we've got at the moment and off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who actually does deserve to be the one reinventing the wheel. Tarantino may have been good for CR (with an established Bond IE Pierce, albeit), but I don't really see it as too much of a problem.

[blueman]

Oh man, if Tarantino would do CR with Craig, I'd drop Campbell in a heartbeat (I'd drop him anyway ). The one thing about Campbell that does sit kinda well with me, is he likes to do the love story thing in his movies. Brosnan was at his best in GE with the ladies, Zorro #1 had some nice moments between the romantic leads (also father and daughter). He's a bit of a throwback director in that sense. He can't string continuity to save his life, and his comedy makes me pine for the Muppets. But he also has never had that great of a script to work with, I'm hoping Haggis can deliver a Maibaum-type script and keep the Campbellisms (the bad sort) out of CR.

(lookit me, always trying to find something to hang my ever-diminshing hat on...just think if Butler or Owen had been cast, my hat would be infinitesimal )

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

His analogy to Batman Begins is completely innapropriate. Batman Begins was "reinvented" because the last Batman movie "Batman and Robin" failed critically as well as financially. The last James Bond movie on the other hand was a massive financial success.

Even that's a bit overblown. Factoring in foreign gross, didn't Batman & Robin do moderately well? I wish they had just pulled a FYEO and imbued Batman 5 with a darker, resumed somber edge (start it with Robin having been killed off-screen and Batman out for veangence). Personally, I hate re-set buttons, though I am holding out faith for Bond 21!

[Double-Oh Agent]

Is Martin Campbell--is EON--crazy? Reinvent the wheel? This kind of talk, to quote Daniel Craig at his introductory news conference, "scares the out of me." Bond does not need to be reinvented. Fine-tuned perhaps, but not reinvented. A mechanic does not tear apart the engine and build a new one when only the spark plugs need changing. That is what Campbell's comments and the talk of a reboot make me think of, and I can only shake my head in bewilderment and disgust and fear in response.

For every thing that makes me excited about Bond 21--Daniel Craig, Casino Royale finally being filmed--there are just as many things that trouble me about the production and the bad thing is I'm going to have to suffer in this uncertain state for another 13 months! Why oh why does it have to be like this?

Edited by Mister Asterix, 02 November 2005 - 03:40 PM.

[Streetworker]

Considering that Craig bears a very neanderthal visage, perhaps the symbolism of 'inventing the wheel' is wholly appropriate!

That's the funniest thing I've seen all day!

Same here. And I don't think it's being anti-Craig to find it funny - unless you've had a humour by-pass, that is.

[Streetworker]

Getting back on topic, I can't help feeling myself that the "reinventing the wheel" comment was unfortunate. It smacks of disparaging everything that's gone before and I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt them.

[Auric64]

Why does Casino Royale need a reboot?

OK, we all know that Wilson wanted to reboot the franchise back in `87, and do then what he has managed to do now, but Cubby (thankfully) vetoed it.

Cubby knew that a new direction was needed, but he must have been confident that the series didn`t need to be tweaked as much as it had in 1981, and he was right. Daylights still gave us the locations/gadgets/set pieces as before, but this time with a much better script and actor, (IMO) and the audiences came back, and Daylights did much better business than AVTAK.

The previous change of direction before Daylights was in 1981, with Eyes attempting to go back to the style of FRWL. It may have worked for a lot of Bond fans, but not with the general cinema going audience.

With the two previous films, Spy and MR, the audience were given exotic locations, great stunts/gadgets, and fantastic Ken Adam sets. The audience had taken to this new James Bond style, (after the low key GG and LALD) and that was proven with the dramatic increase of box office revenue, both in the US and worldwide.

Eyes "back to basics" didn`t help the franchise, especially against the rollercoaster ride of films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, and two years later, Octopussy kind of went back to giving the audience more of what they had had, with Spy and MR. It proved to be a good decision, as Octopussy did much better business than Eyes did.

Whether we Bond fans agree or disagree, the style of Bond in the last 10 years, (with Brosnan at the helm), has given the general cinema going audience what they expect to see in a Bond film: great locations, beautiful women, larger than life villians/plots and fantastic gadgets/sets.

So why change what seems to be a winning formula? Okay, the fans of Ian Fleming`s James Bond, (and that includes myself) are never going to see a "serious" Bond film again, because there are a number of reasons, (see above) that dictate that the franchise cannot change too dramatically. When it has done this, in a more subtle way,(OHMSS) and then more severely,(LTK) both films suffered at the box office, and on both occasions the next film (DAF and GE) was forced to go back to the usual tried and trusted formula of before. This both films did, with both earning better box office as a result.

Next year, Spider Man 3 may possibly be the last of Sony`s short lived comic strip franchise, and Sony need another franchise to succeed it. With Bond they have a ready made successor. They have seen how much the last 4 Bond films have put into the coffers of MGM/UA, and they will want the same for themselves.

The formula doesn`t have to be altered too much - just tweaked here and there. By all means take away the excess we saw in DAD, but don`t take away the Bond "essence" which the general cinema going audience seem to want and love.

I think Sony have put a lot of faith in Broccoli and Wilson, (especially in the casting of Craig), as well as taking a risky chance of rebooting the series, (after what happened with OHMSS, EO and LTK) and in a way, all parties should be applauded for doing this.

However, if Casino Royale tanks, don`t be surprised to see Mr. Brosnan returning for Bond 22, with the same winning formula he successfully revamped in his 7 year tenure.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Why does Casino Royale need a reboot?

Needs a new type of wheel too, apparently.