60 replies to this topic

[medrecess]

I always felt that James Bond is too big a franchise with a colourful history to follow Bourne.James Bond has always set trends .He has not followed trends.Nowadays however the producers look up to the Bourne movies for inspiration on how to make a Bond movie.I feel this is wrong as Bond movies just need a refinement not a complete overhaul.Afterall Bond is 40 years old whereas Bourne is not even 4.

Even a film like DAD had an outstanding first half.In fact the opening sequence was simply outstanding.Only once james goes to Iceland the movie goes haywire.So what needs to be corrected to make a better film? IMHO only the second half had to be altered to get a brilliant movie.Following Bourne is not the right approach.Infact there is the risk of losing all the bond charm and charisma by following Bourne and getting a serious actor like Craig.

I think EON will make a good movie and it may even be a big hit but there may be a bigger risk involved.In fact Bond may not see the next 20 years.Because they are getting rid of all things that have made Bond Popular.Should they do this? Need they do this ? Why spoil the franchise when just a minor correction is needed.If you eyesight is weak ,you wear contact lenses you dont get new eyes.

IMO this whole exercise makes no sense and is devoid of any logic.And why should you take a silly step when your previous film was a huge hit?

Edited by medrecess, 16 November 2005 - 03:39 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

They don't have to "follow" Bourne but how about we tone it down a bit? Let's have a Bond film like the books...I wanna see a smart, plausible, gritty spy thriller with style to burn...and it cana still be 100% Bond.

[Mister Asterix]

Follow? no. Be inspired by? Sure.

[Gabriel]

Follow? no. Be inspired by? Sure.

Put simply, the Bond films had become old and bloated. The young whipper-snapper Bourne films have raised the bar on action/spy dramas. Casino Royale has to shake off the malaise and try to raise the bar again. A little competiton is a good thing for the Bond films.

[hcmv007]

Follow? no. Be inspired by? Sure.

Put simply, the Bond films had become old and bloated. The young whipper-snapper Bourne films have raised the bar on action/spy dramas. Casino Royale has to shake off the malaise and try to raise the bar again. A little competiton is a good thing for the Bond films.

Very good posts. I have said it before, and will say it again. If it were not for James Bond, there would be no Jason Bourne. That being said, I hope CR does set the standard for the genre in the way Dr No did and hte way that Bourne has now.

[Kingdom Come]

Inspired by these two cronic films?!!!! you have to kidding. When Bourne has gone the way of the Dodo, Bond will still be here. Bond needs to use his strengths and they are fantasy and the larger than life elements. Die Another Day was a leap in the right direction.

[Loomis]

I expect that the Bond people have over the past few months been looking very closely indeed at two franchises in particular: Batman and Bourne.

I hope that what they're asking themselves is not "How can we follow this?", so much as "How can we make a film as good as BATMAN BEGINS/THE BOURNE SUPREMACY?".

[Scorpion]

Follow? no. Be inspired by? Sure.

The young whipper-snapper Bourne films have raised the bar on action/spy dramas.

Eon won't want to emulate Supremacy's gross which came in at $288 million world wide. That type of gross, given 'Royale's huge budget, will set the francise reeling. There will be a lot of finger pointing. Heads will roll.

Die Another Day grossed $425 million globally and, after costs, ended up making one of the smallest profits in the series.

I have a question for everyone here with a preamble:

Given that the gritty, stripped-down Bonds do materially less than the over-the-top Bonds at the box office, where do you people think CR can come in knowing that Supremacy grossed $288m and DAD grossed $425m?

If you're honest with yourselves, you will come to the conclusion that Casino Royale is a financial gamble that will not pay and Sony will not want to bank roll James Bond for quite a long time.

Ask yourselves this: Why are the gaps between Bonds widening from 2 to 3 to now 4 years? The answer is simple: They're becoming less and less profitable and in the end are going to become marketing tools to sell video games and the back catalogue of DVDs.

As for Bond emulating Bourne. I hope bloody not in anyway shape or form. The amnesia angle has played itself out and as soon as Matt Damon gets weary of the scripts, that will be the end. How many amnesia movies can he make? If it ends up being a pay check for him, then that too will be a spiritual end.

Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Batman, Superman, Indy Jones, Jurassic, Jaws, etc. basically fizzled out at 2-3 perhaps 4 movies with only Star Wars continuing on...with a 16 year gap and Star Trek hitting and missing along embarrassingly.

Bourne will inevitably lose its fizzle as well and then what? Bourne is the flavour...but for how long 'cause flavours change...they always do.

Let's all hope CR does a hell of a lot better (and I really mean significantly so) than Bourne Supremacy did at the box office so we can have Bond 22 greenlit for a 2008 or 2009 release. 2 movies in 1 decade will simply not be good enough.

Edited by Scorpion, 16 November 2005 - 05:58 PM.

[Loomis]

If you're honest with yourselves, you will come to the conclusion that Casino Royale is a financial gamble that will not pay and Sony will not want to bank roll James Bond for quite a long time.

Hmmm.... quite a pessimistic view there, Scorpion. What would you do if you were in Eon's shoes? Make an "over-the-top" Bond? But you say that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't particularly profitable (and I don't dispute this, since I've never really followed budgets and box office).

I'm inferring from your post that you think that Bond has pretty much reached the end of the road. Is that your intended message? If "gritty" Bond doesn't work (although I was under the impression that all of the Bonds ended up making money, including supposed failures like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL), and OTT Bond doesn't really cut it any more either, what ought to be done?

Ask yourselves this: Why are the gaps between Bonds widening from 2 to 3 to now 4 years? The answer is simple: They're becoming less and less profitable and in the end are going to become marketing tools to sell video games and the back catalogue of DVDs.

I assume that the search for a new Bond actor was a huge factor in the four-year gap between DAD and CASINO ROYALE. But, again, I don't dispute your comments on diminishing profitability.

My question, I suppose, is: is the condition terminal, or are there things you think Eon should be doing in order to "save" the series?

[Scorpion]

If you're honest with yourselves, you will come to the conclusion that Casino Royale is a financial gamble that will not pay and Sony will not want to bank roll James Bond for quite a long time.

Hmmm.... quite a pessimistic view there, Scorpion. What would you do if you were in Eon's shoes? Make an "over-the-top" Bond? But you say that DIE ANOTHER DAY wasn't particularly profitable (and I don't dispute this, since I've never really followed budgets and box office).

I'm inferring from your post that you think that Bond has pretty much reached the end of the road. Is that your intended message? If "gritty" Bond doesn't work (although I was under the impression that all of the Bonds ended up making money, including supposed failures like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL), and OTT Bond doesn't really cut it any more either, what ought to be done?

Ask yourselves this: Why are the gaps between Bonds widening from 2 to 3 to now 4 years? The answer is simple: They're becoming less and less profitable and in the end are going to become marketing tools to sell video games and the back catalogue of DVDs.

I assume that the search for a new Bond actor was a huge factor in the four-year gap between DAD and CASINO ROYALE. But, again, I don't dispute your comments on diminishing profitability.

My question, I suppose, is: is the condition terminal, or are there things you think Eon should be doing in order to "save" the series?

Loomis, did you know that DAD was the most expensive movie of 2002? Even Spider-man and Episode II cost less. They, however had much higher grosses. Where, Loomis, is Casino Royale's budget, reportedly in DAD territory, being spent? Not, appearently on "explosions" (LOL) or 'gadgets' or, er, Pierce Brosnan (another LOL).

Supremacy was able to be "reasonably profitable" because its production bugdet was about $75-80 mil vs DAD's $140 mil.

There's two ways to go: Spend lots of money on making BIG BONDS. Or drastically cut the budget to make the 'gritty' Bonds.

What they're repotedly doing (BIG budget, small Bond) is going to end up being a "loss leader" - a marketing tool to sell the back catalogue and the video games.

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film? Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

And, o, they've been able to replace Bonds within a year 5 (6) times before ('68, '70, '72, 86 (twice), and 94) so Craig isn't an issue in the 4 year gap. Profitability, and HOW to be profitable, is.

Edited by Scorpion, 16 November 2005 - 07:06 PM.

[Harmsway]

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film. Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

I am curious about the budget as well - however, MGW didn't exactly have a set budget. He said it would "like the last one," but that's hardly conclusive. Maybe CASINO ROYALE is going to be a lot more grandiose than we'd expect, with a gritty core?

[Scorpion]

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film. Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

I am curious about the budget as well -

Maybe CASINO ROYALE is going to be a lot more grandiose than we'd expect, with a gritty core?

I can definitely live with that. I always preferred my Bonds 'grandiose' as opposed to 'gritty and small'.

[Loomis]

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film. Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

I am curious about the budget as well -

Maybe CASINO ROYALE is going to be a lot more grandiose than we'd expect, with a gritty core?

I can definitely live with that. I always preferred my Bonds 'grandiose' as opposed to 'gritty and small'.

Oh, I don't know. I like all manner of Bond films. I'm not sure they've ever gone "small", as such.

Do you think Craig was a wise choice, Scorpion?

[Harmsway]

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film. Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

I am curious about the budget as well -

Maybe CASINO ROYALE is going to be a lot more grandiose than we'd expect, with a gritty core?

I can definitely live with that. I always preferred my Bonds 'grandiose' as opposed to 'gritty and small'.

Oh, I don't know. I like all manner of Bond films. I'm not sure they've ever gone "small", as such.

I agree - aside from maybe LTK, which was fairly "small", IMO.

Well, obviously it's not going to be as epic as DAD (it centers around a card game), but I think we're going to see a very interesting first third or half, with a lot of the more grandiose and action-oriented elements in there.

But when evaluating CASINO ROYALE as a financially viable film, we have to remember that a HUGE proportion of its budget comes from product placement. So it's not like they really have to full earn back 140 mil (if that is indeed the budget, and I personally think it HAS to be lower than that).

[dinovelvet]

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film. Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

I am curious about the budget as well - however, MGW didn't exactly have a set budget. He said it would "like the last one," but that's hardly conclusive. Maybe CASINO ROYALE is going to be a lot more grandiose than we'd expect, with a gritty core?

I found the announcement of the $100 mil + budget puzzling too, particularly when taking into account Campbell's comment that there would be only one explosion in CR! Maybe the locations are a clue - Italy and The Bahamas. Having the Bahamas as a location seems to imply that there'll be some kind of watery action scenes?

[GreggAllinson]

I don't think the Bond films should become slavish stylistic pastiches of the Bourne films, but I most certainly do believe that they should get back to the idea of Bond just being a highly skilled, somewhat tormented government murderer living in a fantastic and exciting yet somewhat plausible world. If they took those elements from the Bourne films, they wouldn't be impersonating them, they'd be getting back to Ian Fleming's James Bond.

[GreggAllinson]

Inspired by these two cronic films?!!!! you have to kidding. When Bourne has gone the way of the Dodo, Bond will still be here. Bond needs to use his strengths and they are fantasy and the larger than life elements. Die Another Day was a leap in the right direction.

Fantasy and larger than life elements run directly counter to Fleming's Bond, and when Fleming did dabble in that world- eg Doctor No- the stories were rather less satisfying than his more low-key works (Moonraker excepted- it is a bit over the top, but it's a magnificent read, and there's nothing in there that COULDN'T'VE possibly happened).

As I've said before, I love the light-hearted, larger than life superspy- there's nothing wrong with John Steed- but it makes me a little mad that EON almost totally perverted Fleming's character into something he shouldn't've ever been.

As for Bourne going the way of the Dodo...I really doubt they'll pump out Bourne films like clockwork every two to three years for decades to come. Bond casts a long shadow, and we do live in a much different world than the one that Dr. No was released in, so you're probably right that Jason Bourne will not become as iconic as Bond. However, I have no doubt that, decades from now, the Bourne films will still be fondly remembered.

[Scorpion]

Do you think Craig was a wise choice, Scorpion?

Wise?...Hmm...I really liked him in Layer Cake (especially) and Tomb Raider and I think he'll be an awsome 007.

But "wise"? I think they should have gone after Hugh Jackman (The clear "people's choice" ex of PB)as the Antipodean is WAY MORE marketable as Bond, much more so than even Clive Owen.

But I do believe that Eon have made a "good" choice by replacing PB with DC.

[Harmsway]

Fantasy and larger than life elements run directly counter to Fleming's Bond, and when Fleming did dabble in that world- eg Doctor No- the stories were rather less satisfying than his more low-key works (Moonraker excepted- it is a bit over the top, but it's a magnificent read, and there's nothing in there that COULDN'T'VE possibly happened).

Disagreed about Fleming's work - Fleming's stuff was great when he dabbled in the bizarre (YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is Fleming's masterpiece, and DOCTOR NO is fantastic and considered to be so by many Fleming fans). All of his Bond books were full of veins of fantasy, just not as much as the film adaptation of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

[SecretAgent007]

I don't think the Bond films should try to emulate the Bourne films. The two franchises are completely different. Why would you want one to imitate the other? I'm looking forward to a toned down Bond film ala FYEO, as long as they do not get rid of the icons that have separated and elevated this franchise from everything else out there. Fleming Bond and movie Bond have sadly become 2 separate characters, IMO. I don't know if FRWL would sell today. They are walking a tightrope right now as to how bland they can make CR without turning the popcorn crowd off. If people reject the lack of fantacy that has been present in most of the other Bond films, they could have a problem with the next few films. I hope it goes over well, but hardcore fans don't pay the bills, and in the long run, they need to try and please both the hardcore and the casual moviegoers.

[Loomis]

Do you think Craig was a wise choice, Scorpion?

Wise?...Hmm...I really liked him in Layer Cake (especially) and Tomb Raider and I think he'll be an awsome 007.

But "wise"? I think they should have gone after Hugh Jackman (The clear "people's choice" ex of PB)as the Antipodean is WAY MORE marketable as Bond, much more so than even Clive Owen.

But I do believe that Eon have made a "good" choice by replacing PB with DC.

Agreed with all that.

[DanMan]

It would nice to see a film in the vein of GF or TB. Not too far-fetched but not too "small and gritty."

[J.B.]

Follow? no. Be inspired by? Sure.

The young whipper-snapper Bourne films have raised the bar on action/spy dramas.

Ask yourselves this: Why are the gaps between Bonds widening from 2 to 3 to now 4 years? The answer is simple: They're becoming less and less profitable and in the end are going to become marketing tools to sell video games and the back catalogue of DVDs.

I was under the understanding that the reason the gap widened from 2 years to 4 years between films is that Brosnan wanted the bigger gap for his other projects he was doing and it had nothing to do with profit etc.

Seriously, where is the money going on this expensive film. Perhaps, they really are not going to go gritty and surprise us BIG time.

I am curious about the budget as well - however, MGW didn't exactly have a set budget. He said it would "like the last one," but that's hardly conclusive. Maybe CASINO ROYALE is going to be a lot more grandiose than we'd expect, with a gritty core?

I found the announcement of the $100 mil + budget puzzling too, particularly when taking into account Campbell's comment that there would be only one explosion in CR! Maybe the locations are a clue - Italy and The Bahamas. Having the Bahamas as a location seems to imply that there'll be some kind of watery action scenes?

As I read the book, I am wondering the same thing about why they need so much money...the only thing I can figure is that they will be using real money in the film during the Baccarat (or Poker) game.

[Scorpion]

Agreed with all that.

Really? Wow. LOL.

The ONE guy who would be both MARKETABLE and is a GREAT ACTOR is Russell Crowe. He'd be both charming AND thuggish a la Connery and has plenty of credability with the art house press as well as with action audiences.

He, however, was likely unavailable for more than one picture, plus he has a tendency to get chunky as he loves his beer. He'd have had to lean down physically.

He'd be the type of bloke who'd defend you in a pub against bullies, then buy you a pint...and then steal your girlfriend to boot. LOL.

Edited by Scorpion, 16 November 2005 - 09:25 PM.

[Roebuck]

They don't have to "follow" Bourne but how about we tone it down a bit? Let's have a Bond film like the books...I wanna see a smart, plausible, gritty spy thriller with style to burn...and it cana still be 100% Bond.

Here's hoping.

The way Hollywood's effects laden blockbusters have crashed and burned at the box-office recently, while more modest and grown up films like the 'Bourne' have prospered, suggests to me the public could be receptive to a low key Bond. As a business decision it makes perfect sense at this point in time. That said, I doubt Eon has signed on Gary Powell to choreograph a brief car chase and a punch up. My guess would be that Michael Wilson intends to offset the ''grittier'' aspects of Casino Royale with a couple of jaw-dropping action sequences; something that will look good in the trailers.

[marktmurphy]

There are lessons to be learnt from Bourne, if not any distinct details ripped off. The tight character-based stories are one thing (sounds bad to Bond fans after previous attempts at 'character development', but films are actually supposed to be about people experiencing change), viceral, real, exciting action is another. I'd be happy to see the Bonds use some of the avenues Bourne has trailblazed, but with a strong enough distinction to not make it merely a ripoff. I have no idea how- I'm just some bloke tapping a keyboard somewhere- I don't get paid to come up with the answers!

[Loomis]

Agreed with all that.

Really? Wow. LOL.

The ONE guy who would be both MARKETABLE and is a GREAT ACTOR is Russell Crowe. He'd be both charming AND thuggish a la Connery and has plenty of credability with the art house press as well as with action audiences.

He, however, was likely unavailable for more than one picture, plus he has a tendency to get chunky as he loves his beer. He'd have had to lean down physically.

And isn't he also known for doing unBondian things like losing his cool and walloping people?

Still, he's a brilliant actor, and I'd agree that he'd make (or would have made, perhaps - maybe slightly too long in the tooth now, as well as, obviously, far too famous and expensive) a superb Bond. I believe John Glen once cited him as a great choice for 007.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

NO, The Bond films should never style themselves after the Bourne films! The Bourne films are ok, but they do not compare at all with the Bond films!
But EON seem dead set on pumping out an inferior film. Taken for what they are, the Bourne films are decent, but when compared to the Bond films they are just ordinary average movies. When observing Daniel Craig in his other films he's a good actor. But when you compare Daniel Craig with Pierce Brosnan, you see just how bland and boring Daniel Craig is.

For some insane reason EON do not want to make classic Bond films anymore, they want to make very average and at times boring films. So since that's what they want to do with their films then Daniel Craig is a great choice for that boring style! Personally I and most people want a Bond film, not a Bourne film!

I couldn't be any less excited about the future of the Bond franchise, I see nothing but boring times ahead.

[Simon Beavis]

I've always been of the belief that Bond should follow Bauer, Jack Bauer. From 24

In particular, the far reaching mechanitions of the villain, in particular the season 3 villain. Picture this if you will:

A chaotic event happens (an explosion, an assassination, etc) and Bond is in the middle. He searches for the culprit, but there is no sign of him. All the sudden his cell phone rings. The main villain is on the other line, and he casually says "Hello, James." then playfully taunts with our hero before hanging up.

On a related note, Paul Blackthorne (the lead terrorist in season 3) and Arnold Vosloo (the lead terrorist in season 4) would make great Bond villains.

(Notice, 24 villains don't fall into the trap of "Before I kill you I will reveal my master plan in great detail, giving you time to escape.")

Edited by Simon Beavis, 17 November 2005 - 12:32 AM.

[Roebuck]

For some insane reason EON do not want to make classic Bond films anymore, they want to make very average and at times boring films. So since that's what they want to do with their films then Daniel Craig is a great choice for that boring style! Personally I and most people want a Bond film, not a Bourne film!

I couldn't be any less excited about the future of the Bond franchise, I see nothing but boring times ahead. 

Depends on what you deem to be Classic Bond. Personally it's the six film run from Dr.No to OHMSS, with the last decade being what I'd consider the blandest period in the series history. What Eon appear to be doing now (the casting of Daniel Craig included) is trying to reverse that trend.