179 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Craig strikes me as the most patriotic of the Bonds

Why? What is there in the film to support this view?

[Harmsway]

Craig strikes me as the most patriotic of the Bonds

Why? What is there in the film to support this view?

I'm with Loomis on that one. I see nothing patriotic about Craig Bond indicated in the film. He may very well be quite patriotic, but I have no idea at this point.

[00Twelve]

I think he's seeing the patriotism in the disgust Bond has for Dryden and his selling secrets, as well as his genuine attempts to impress M early (though that doesn't neccessarily indicate patriotism), and then his readiness to cancel his resignation and go back to work for MI6, rather than striking out for revenge on his own. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I think I can see where the patriotism could be perceptible.

[Publius]

I think he's seeing the patriotism in the disgust Bond has for Dryden and his selling secrets, as well as his genuine attempts to impress M early (though that doesn't neccessarily indicate patriotism), and then his readiness to cancel his resignation and go back to work for MI6, rather than striking out for revenge on his own. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I think I can see where the patriotism could be perceptible.

Err, bad choice of words, and you got at least part of what I was getting at, so thanks.

I didn't mean to imply nationalistic or even gung-ho patriotic, just someone gladly and willingly doing his duty for queen and country. When he calls Vesper a bloody idiot, he also chides her for effectively letting Le Chiffre go and continue funding terror. And while it may have been the weakest of the lines Craig delivered, it rang true enough that it only reinforced the image I gathered from his performance thus far. For another example, note Craig's face and his delivery of "she'd just prefer it if it wasn't selling secrets". Again, I think the eagerness he displays in his job owes at least in part to his nature as "a stupid policeman" (okay, so that was a Dr. No quote, but it fits here ).

Nothing I'm claiming as hard evidence, mind you, just something that struck me as being the case, or simply quite probable. Maybe it was the post-9/11 sensibilities, or that he was by far the most believable as a military man, or maybe it was that the other Bonds (save Dalton) were there to have fun instead of to do what he does best and believes in: fight the bad guys. Or maybe I'm just bringing too much of my interpretation of the literary Bond into this. And now that I think about it, some monologues on "cowboys and indians" and the nature of good and evil wouldn't have hurt the film, if only to help my case.

[spynovelfan]

Some fascinating thoughts.

Craig's Bond didn't strike me while watching as being any more patriotic than any of the other actors', but now you mention it, you may have something, simply in that the film felt a lot more British to me than the Bond films have for a long time. Brosnan had that rather smooth perma-tanned, white-toothed transatlantic impression of a Brit, and his tenure had slightly B-movie Hollywood action sequences. In a different way, Dalton also sometimes seemed to be playing an American's impression of a Great British Hero, and there was something a little antiquated about his performance there. And again, Roger Moore is a very old-fashioned idea of Britishness, and perhaps one that Brits only partly recognise.

I'm not really explaining this very well, but somehow Craig has a uniquely British cool that brings to mind the spirit of 60s Michael Caine movies. I think that's partly what they saw in him in LAYER CAKE - his modern Britishness. Somehow all that banter about America seemed forced in Brosnan's films. Craig's nothing-to-lose brusqueness and not-knowing-everything-ness made the moments of smooth - ordering the Vesper, for instance - seem much cooler, and there is something indefinably British about it. We also love an underdog, and love to be the underdog. I felt the last action scene and the Miami action scene were very American, whereas the opening two scenes - the killings in black and white and the bridge fight - did seem steeped in something more British. One was small and dirty and claustrophobic - the Dryden thing was like Graham Greene, wasn't it? - while on the bridge that moment where he throws the gun back... there's something British there. Or perhaps it's just that Bond was back.

[Loomis]

the film felt a lot more British to me than the Bond films have for a long time.

Interesting observation, spy. And I agree. It's British and also - and this is the astonishing thing - unashamedly and successfully cool in its Britishness. It doesn't try to apologise for its Britishness, or to send it up. And by no means has this usually been the case in the history of the series. Morrissey-like, CASINO ROYALE stands by the flag not feeling shameful, racist or partial, which really does seem like a breath of fresh air in a franchise that has for centuries traded in corny jokes like the parachute with the Union Jack canopy and self-deprecating, Hugh Grantish lines like "I'm St. John Smythe, I'm English", and has in recent years attempted to surround (mask?) Brosnan with as many American co-stars as possible.

[00Twelve]

Indeed, CR definitely improves over the last films by having only one American.

The British stylishness of CR is, I find, dimetrically opposed to that of the Bond films of the early seventies and/or Guy Hamilton in general, when they were saturated with American humor (<-no pun intended!) and characters.

[dodge]

If they stick with the real issues they should be fine and avoid the trap of showing Craig in a step-by-step trail to the Connery Bond. The most immediate issues, I'd say, are coming to grips with his feelings about Vesper, achieving a measure of limited trust with Mathis, and learning to balance his rogue impulses with his better judgment and developing experience. I'm far more interested in those than I am in seeing him drink more martinis and wear round the clock great suits.

[plankattack]

I think the "Britishness" is a reflection of the re-boot concept. We're going back to Fleming's Bond, was the mantra mouthed by the producers, and that meant, quite simply, James Bond of the British service.

I don't think the 90s were as much an Americanization, but instead an attempt a generic Bond, who would appeal to everyone, especially the big American market. Brosnan himself was a name familiar in the US, and I think his tenure was about re-establishing the franchise in a business sense - look at the grosses.

But CR was always to going to be a gamble, and if you're going to gamble, don't go half-way. Make Bond as he is, rather than a generic, global hero. Bond, after all these years, is a proven-commodity, who shoudn't be tailored to a potential audience. I think CR proved that the audience are ready to follow, and that means following James Bond of the British Secret Service, rather than someone working for the world.

[Moore Baby Moore]

How about a underwater parkour sequence with Bond and sharks?

How about "Bond Vs. Jaws*".

*The Shark, not the other one

Actually, the shark's name is Bruce. Seriously. They named the shark after one of Spielberg's lawyers at the time, and the name stuck. Don't ask me why some people assume Jaws is the name and not just a reference to Bruce's best weapons.

[B5Erik]

You know, it's not too late to replace Craig with a more Bond-ian actor!

After all, since Craig did such a earth shattering job as 007, why risk tarnishing that with a sub-par performance next time?

BRING IN HUGH JACKMAN!!!

[HildebrandRarity]

In SUPREMACY, Bourne has (and this is not a diss, BTW) no humour, no class, no Bondian qualities whatsoever. He barely strings a sentence together during the entire film, which he spends most of mooning around with a grumpy look. There are even plenty of scenes in which he's just sitting there catatonically, Andy Pipkin-like. And this is the guy you say has moulded the current James Bond? Sorry, but looking at Craig in CR I see absolutely no evidence of that.

Exactly. Last night I saw Casino Royale for the 7th and final time at the theatre to re-live my trip last week to Nassau, Paradise Island, The Ocean Club and the Thunderballian locations in the Bahamas.

I noted how Craig's Bond completely blow's Damon's Bourne out of the water in terms of style, class, range of emotion and dialogue/delivery of dialogue...as if you were comparing a well-educated and articulate Wall Street investment banker to an under-educated footballer...no comparison.

And even when James Bond is dressing down, as he does when he goes to gamble at night at The Ocean Club and picks up Solonge or when he's on the yatch in Venice near the end talking to M, he dresses like James Bond...immaculately.

Jason Bourne will never come close to James Bond. His under-performing run is coming to an end...while CriagBond's run is just begining. Look at the world wide grosses of the last two Bonds vs the only Bournes and the world would concur.

[Loomis]

Why do you say that Bourne has had an underperforming run? I'd have thought that the character has been far more successful on the big screen that most industry pundits would have predicted in early 2002. Also, who says it's coming to an end? I'll be surprised if the series will finish with this summer's THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (Damon's tenure may, but I imagine that further Bourne adventures will be planned).

Will there ever be a BOURNE 22? Almost certainly not, but then no one's claiming that Bourne has had or will ever have the cultural impact, longevity or earning ability of Bond.... are they?

However, I do believe that 2004's THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, a considerably better film than DIE ANOTHER DAY, threw down the quality gauntlet to the Bond series, and that the Bond series picked it up and replied with a film even better than SUPREMACY. Both franchises are on terrific form, and I'm very happy to have both ULTIMATUM and BOND 22 to look forward to.

[Publius]

Craig's Bond didn't strike me while watching as being any more patriotic than any of the other actors', but now you mention it, you may have something, simply in that the film felt a lot more British to me than the Bond films have for a long time.

Thanks for making me feel not like a complete lunatic.

Very good point about this film's Britishness. That probably contributed a lot to why I interpreted Bond's character the way I did. Probably also helps explain why it's shattering box office records over there and contributing over three times more money per capita than the US is to CR's worldwide take.

[B5Erik]

It does seem that CR and Daniel Craig have been much more accepted around the world than in the U.S.

A friend of mine who is a Bond fan hasn't seen CR yet because his other friends and co-workers who have seen it told him that the movie wasn't good and that Daniel Craig was NOT a "James Bond Type." I told him that the movie was good - darker and more serious - but good.

Adjusted for inflation CR hasn't done as much business at the box office in the U.S. as DAD did, which is too bad, because it's a much, much better movie. The Bourne Supremacy did better at the box office in the U.S. than CR.

Bond 22 is going to be a make or break movie for Craig in the U.S. and Michael & Barbara will have to decide whether or not to continue with him if his U.S. numbers continue to underperform. Worldwide he's now a superstar, so I seriously doubt that they'll replace him even if Bond 22 does less in the U.S. than CR has - but some people at MGM/Sony will urge them to consider it.

Bottom line? Craig still hasn't overcome all the negative press reaction in the U.S. to his introduction as the "new" James Bond. He's overcome some of it, but not nearly all of it - some people still have the perception that he isn't Bond-ian enough (or, more superficially, good looking enough).

[Santa]

Bottom line? Craig still hasn't overcome all the negative press reaction in the U.S. to his introduction as the "new" James Bond. He's overcome some of it, but not nearly all of it - some people still have the perception that he isn't Bond-ian enough (or, more superficially, good looking enough).

Ah but the U.S. is a country that made Fabio a sex symbol, so really their greatest concern should be gaining a bit of self-knowledge. Then DC should be fine .

[Loomis]

You say that, inflation adjusted, CR hasn't done as much Stateside business as DAD, but are we talking a lot less, or just a little bit less?

And I think Americans, on the whole, just aren't as into Bond as people in many other countries, so Daniel Craig isn't the problem - James Bond is the problem. Replacing Craig with, say, Jackman won't break that $200 million barrier in the States.

[B5Erik]

You say that, inflation adjusted, CR hasn't done as much Stateside business as DAD, but are we talking a lot less, or just a little bit less?

And I think Americans, on the whole, just aren't as into Bond as people in many other countries, so Daniel Craig isn't the problem - James Bond is the problem. Replacing Craig with, say, Jackman won't break that $200 million barrier in the States.

I'd bet you money that had Jackman played Bond in CR that the movie would have done more in the States - and it would have topped $200 Million. Jackman is a more accessable, fan friendly actor onscreen. He's not better than Craig, but I think that he has much more mass appeal than Craig does.

Had Brosnan been in the role, and they kept the script & direction the same with the exception of the "first 00 mission" stuff, I'd bet it would have topped $220 or $225 Million. Brosnan is a fan favorite, and if a mediocre movie like DAD can score $160 Million, then he could have easily topped $200 Million in CR.

Craig is not nearly as likeable as Brosnan or Jackman, and in the U.S. that hurt the movie's box office numbers (not that the numbers as they are are anything to complain about - they just could have been better). Now, worldwide? Who knows?

[Publius]

You say that, inflation adjusted, CR hasn't done as much Stateside business as DAD, but are we talking a lot less, or just a little bit less?

Adjusted for inflation, DAD made $182,271,820 domestically, whereas CR currently stands at $165,875,807, which means it's made about 91% of what DAD did.

And it's probably still got another million or so in it. And there's been a general box office decline since four years ago, even without adjusting for anything. And CR stars complete unknowns, has a longer run time, and is much darker than DAD. And it still beat Brosnan's debut and third film when adjusted for inflation. You get the idea.

So yes, it's underperformed DAD in admissions, but it's been damn close, and all things considered, probably an even more impressive a success.

Oh, and the Bourne Supremacy also beat DAD domestically, adjusted or otherwise. Worldwide is what's truly important, however, and we all know how CR has faired there.

I'd bet you money that had Jackman played Bond in CR that the movie would have done more in the States - and it would have topped $200 Million. Jackman is a more accessable, fan friendly actor onscreen. He's not better than Craig, but I think that he has much more mass appeal than Craig does.

Had Brosnan been in the role, and they kept the script & direction the same with the exception of the "first 00 mission" stuff, I'd bet it would have topped $220 or $225 Million. Brosnan is a fan favorite, and if a mediocre movie like DAD can score $160 Million, then he could have easily topped $200 Million in CR.

I agree that Jackman or Brosnan could have (likely even would have) drawn in more people, especially initially, but I don't think it would have made that dramatic a difference, all else being equal. Maybe $20 million more, tops. The brand is still the same, after all.

We also can't forget that Craig did draw in audiences that wouldn't have shown up for Jackman or Brosnan, from women intrigued by his unique sex appeal to men appreciating a return to a more classic yet still modern action hero and leading man.

And I don't think Jackman or Brosnan would have helped worldwide. Hell, probably would have hurt by a fair share. I'd guess some $50 million or so, possibly more. I really think Craig's ability to give the audience someone they can relate to and root for while still keeping the character mysterious and mythic, to say nothing of his critical reception, is a huge part of what drove CR to the heights it's reached.

Craig is not nearly as likeable as Brosnan or Jackman, and in the U.S. that hurt the movie's box office numbers (not that the numbers as they are are anything to complain about - they just could have been better). Now, worldwide? Who knows?

I don't think it's that he's not as likeable. It's that he was an unknown and a controversial choice for Bond, which was already no more than a respectably successful franchise in the US.

[Loomis]

CASINO ROYALE's success has been due in very large part to its amazing critical reception - no Bond film, at any time in the series' long history, has had such rave reviews in such quantities. Rave reviews create positive word of mouth which in turn boosts ticket sales. Why did CR get such an enthusiastic response from critics? Well, largely because of Craig's phenomenal performance - not for nothing may he make Bond history by winning a Bafta tomorrow.

Both Brosnan and Jackman might have given a good performance if cast as 007 in CR, but I can't picture them blowing people's socks off the way Craig has done, which would have meant far fewer glowing reviews and much less public buzz. Erik, I know you view Craig as just a poor man's Dalton ( ), but I think it's fair to say that, as far as most folks are concerned, Craig was the ace up the film's sleeve. And even the controversy over his casting was ultimately a good thing since it gave CR a level of pre-release publicity that was extraordinary even for a Bond movie, with Craig now emerging as a Rocky Balboa-style triumphant underdog who's proven that he can indeed go the distance and more, adding to the good feeling around the film.

So, far from hurting CR, or holding it back from greater success, Craig was one of the film's greatest assets, probably second only to the Bond brand name in terms of importance. Logically, this has to have been as true in the States as in all other territories, so I say again: the problem in America isn't the Bond actor - the problem is Bond. There's a sort of glass ceiling at the box office over there for 007. If Craig was the liability you suggest, CR would have grossed just $70 million or so Stateside, as some prophets of doom in Bond fandom were predicting last year. Its 91% or so of DAD's haul (info courtesy of Publius) shows that Craig is in fact a stunning success who can score as highly as the supposed big boys like Brosnan and Jackman, even in America.

[B5Erik]

Loomis, you are correct as far as the worldwide market goes, but in the U.S. Craig was a liability.

A lot of fans still wanted Brosnan, and a lot of those who were willing to accept a change didn't buy into Craig. That's why CR - with MUCH superior reviews to DAD had fewer people, by a decent margin, attend it than DAD.

Craig is NOT likeable (in the same way that Moore, Brosnan, and even Connery and Dalton are). He is not the kind of guy that Americans go for in huge numbers. Sure, he appeals to a large percentage of the Bond audience, but the casual filmgoer doesn't find him as appealing or likeable as they want their James Bond to be.

Like I said, Bond 22 will either show the same kind of audience increase that the Bourne Supremacy saw over the Bourne Identity, or it will be another LTK situation where the general American audiences don't see him as the, "Bond type." (Dalton got screwed by following the tongue-in-cheek Moore - and American audiences weren't really ready for that kind of change yet, Craig's got a little better chance following Brosnan, whose Bond movies were a little less comedic than Moore's overall.)

[Loomis]

Loomis, you are correct as far as the worldwide market goes, but in the U.S. Craig was a liability.

I'd find that easier to believe if CASINO ROYALE hadn't trounced MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III at the American box office by more than $30 million. I never thought it would be possible for Bond to outgross Ethan Hunt on the latter's home turf, although I concede that this may say more about Cruise's waning star power than Bond's Stateside popularity.

Nonetheless, CR's performance in America's cinemas has been more than impressive enough for me not to doubt Craig's ability to pull in the punters. And even if it's the case, as it may be, that Brosnan or Jackman would have led to higher grosses in the States, I'm glad that they chose Craig.

CR - with MUCH superior reviews to DAD had fewer people, by a decent margin, attend it than DAD.

Well, I'd disagree that it was a decent margin. CR did 91% of DAD - that's as near as dammit, in my book. And we can chalk up some of the remaining 9% to Halle Berry - presumably she was cast in large part because the filmmakers felt that Brosnan needed some help bringing 'em in.

[HildebrandRarity]

Bond 22 is going to be a make or break movie for Craig in the U.S. and Michael & Barbara will have to decide whether or not to continue with him if his U.S. numbers continue to underperform. Worldwide he's now a superstar, so I seriously doubt that they'll replace him even if Bond 22 does less in the U.S. than CR has - but some people at MGM/Sony will urge them to consider it.

Bottom line? Craig still hasn't overcome all the negative press reaction in the U.S. to his introduction as the "new" James Bond. He's overcome some of it, but not nearly all of it - some people still have the perception that he isn't Bond-ian enough (or, more superficially, good looking enough).

In case you have not noticed, the US is a diminishing animal on the world stage.

It was a prediction I made in October...that the massive decline in the US dollar over the previous 4 years was going to virtually translate into the lowest percentage of gross ever on from America in relation to the world wide numbers. Right here on this website.

It may be at about 28 percent v 72 percent 'officially', but if you net out Canada's number, the USA drops to about less than 25 percent.

Still...the US is the biggest single market for James Bond and his arsenal of higher end accessories like Omegas, Astons, lap tops, and fine men's clothing - this despite of the fact that the likes of UK, Europe, India, China and Russia are getiing relatively richer (not to mention the Arab oil states which remain an elusive James Bond territory) thus reflecting in their increasing appetite for James Bondian pursuits.

I can tell you one thing, Erik, if the US dollar contiues it decline as the US itself declines as the English Empire did, as they all did through out history, then Eon will anticipate it and continue the path of a less Americianized Bond.

Don't get me wrong. I love going to the US. I drove my 10 year old all the way from Sausalito/San Francisco down California highway 1 to Monterrey and Carmel and Big Sur and on to Santa Barbara, Malibu, Santa Monica and then Hollywood this past summer after visiting family in Texas and I love going to Florida and New York...so don't think I hate have a hate on for America...it's beautiful and vibrant and has an attitude which envigorates.

But do please face reality. The World Is More Than Enough...and America Is Not The World.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 11 February 2007 - 01:41 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

You say that, inflation adjusted, CR hasn't done as much Stateside business as DAD, but are we talking a lot less, or just a little bit less?

And I think Americans, on the whole, just aren't as into Bond as people in many other countries, so Daniel Craig isn't the problem - James Bond is the problem. Replacing Craig with, say, Jackman won't break that $200 million barrier in the States.

I'd bet you money that had Jackman played Bond in CR that the movie would have done more in the States - and it would have topped $200 Million. Jackman is a more accessable, fan friendly actor onscreen. He's not better than Craig, but I think that he has much more mass appeal than Craig does.

Had Brosnan been in the role, and they kept the script & direction the same with the exception of the "first 00 mission" stuff, I'd bet it would have topped $220 or $225 Million. Brosnan is a fan favorite, and if a mediocre movie like DAD can score $160 Million, then he could have easily topped $200 Million in CR.

Craig is not nearly as likeable as Brosnan or Jackman, and in the U.S. that hurt the movie's box office numbers (not that the numbers as they are are anything to complain about - they just could have been better). Now, worldwide? Who knows?

. That is total .

What did Van Helsing do, Erik? The US bought superheroes, not Jackman. Show me a non X-Men Jackman movie that's done even 150M let alone 200m.

Similarly, show me a Brosnan non-Bond movie that's done even 67M let alone 200M...show me a BrosnanBond that brought in over 28 million admissions. There is no such animal.

Brosnan's Casino Royale would have been a failure...less than 140M, i'd say because he's an old man now...a shrivelled old who couldnt do half what DC does physically or emotionally.

You're out there with your theories, my friend.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 11 February 2007 - 01:51 AM.

[B5Erik]

So, explain to me why DAD - a generally crappy movie - had higher attendance than CR?

CR is a much better movie, has gotten VASTLY better reviews, and yet has lower attendance?

What's the new ingredient?

Daniel Craig is just not as marketable in the U.S. because he's NOT as refined as Brosnan, he's NOT as good looking as ANY of the other Bonds, and he doesn't fit what the American moviegoers view as the traditional look and attitude of James Bond.

I'm not saying he isn't good, but if you think that a Brosnan Bond movie with the same writers and director - with the same basic story sans "Bond Begins" deal - wouldn't do more at the box office then you're deluding yourself. The Americans LOVE Brosnan as Bond. Just because he hasn't been in very many overtly commercial (or well done) movies doesn't mean he can't HELP sell tickets. Put him in a good movie with a good marketing/ad campaign and you've got a hit. Thomas Crown ring a bell? It was a hit.

You can't blame Van Helsing on Jackman, either. HE was great in the role. The script SUCKED - HARD!!! The direction was incoherent, and the movie was all over the place. And it STILL did over $100 million. Jackman, like Brosnan, hasn't done a really good commercial movie outside of his main franchise. Bad choices? Maybe, but he IS popular, and if he gets in a movie with a good script that is well directed and has some commercial appeal he will help it sell more tickets than if Daniel Craig were in it. He's just a more likeable guy.

The American market may be diminishing as a percentage of the world market - but if you market to everyone else EXCEPT the U.S. then you will still lose a very large chunk of your potential earnings.

You know, it IS possible to make a Bond movie that would appeal to a Worldwide audience AND and American audience. They did a pretty good job of it with CR. The only thing that kept CR from hitting $200 million was Daniel Craig and all the negative press he got at the beginning. That, and some people just don't like him in the role. Like it or not, that's a fact.

[Harmsway]

So, explain to me why DAD - a generally crappy movie - had higher attendance than CR?

Because it was a peak film for his era (like THUNDERBALL was for Connery). I think Brosnan had nowhere to go but down from there.

Every new actor has to first establish themselves, win an audience, then build from there. CASINO ROYALE was amazing that it did well as it did on a first film out, and now Craig will have the pleasure of building up to a bigger film from there.

Furthermore, I imagine CASINO ROYALE will sell like hotcakes on DVD in America. That's where a real film's market is made, and since the buzz on CASINO ROYALE was immensely positive, expect huge sales (hell, the pre-orders on CASINO ROYALE are already fairly astounding).

Daniel Craig is just not as marketable in the U.S. because he's NOT as refined as Brosnan, he's NOT as good looking as ANY of the other Bonds, and he doesn't fit what the American moviegoers view as the traditional look and attitude of James Bond.

I haven't met a single person who didn't praise the hell out of Craig and the film, so I don't get the sense that anyone's unhappy with Craig.

I'm not saying he isn't good, but if you think that a Brosnan Bond movie with the same writers and director - with the same basic story sans "Bond Begins" deal - wouldn't do more at the box office then you're deluding yourself.

Not necessarily. Every actor has their peak film, and it's downwards from there. I think Brosnan reached the height of his success with DIE ANOTHER DAY. I think a Brosnan-starring BOND 22 would have been less grossing, with less interest.

The Americans LOVE Brosnan as Bond.

And now that he's been established, they love Craig.

The only thing that kept CR from hitting $200 million was Daniel Craig and all the negative press he got at the beginning.

Nonsense. No Bond film had made $200 million in the US, and no Bond vehicle, whether with Brosnan or Jackman, would have gotten there.

That, and some people just don't like him in the role. Like it or not, that's a fact.

Some people didn't like Moore in the role. Didn't keep him from knocking films out of the B.O. park.

Had the internet been around in 1973, 1974, and 1977, there would have been a LOT of venom for Roger Moore. In fact, it would have been far more controversial than anything Craig's received, with a far larger group of outspoken "haters."

[tdalton]

I haven't met a single person who didn't praise the hell out of Craig and the film, so I don't get the sense that anyone's unhappy with Craig.

I've had similar experiences with others as well. I haven't met anyone who didn't at least think that Craig was decent in the role, although most have said that he was fantastic and that they were excited about the new direction the series has taken.

[Harmsway]

I haven't met a single person who didn't praise the hell out of Craig and the film, so I don't get the sense that anyone's unhappy with Craig.

I've had similar experiences with others as well. I haven't met anyone who didn't at least think that Craig was decent in the role, although most have said that he was fantastic and that they were excited about the new direction the series has taken.

My favorite anecdote is that I was on a flight, reading an Entertainment Weekly with Craig on the cover, and a big guy across the aisle from me, who I hadn't said a word to, says, "Hey, is that the new Bond? Man, I LOVED him!"

[triviachamp]

I agree with Harmsway.

Connery and Moore peaked with their fourth films and I think Brosnan peaked on his fourth as well.

There is no way CR would have made $200 million in the US, even if Jackman or Brosnan starred.

I don't see any major anti-Craig sentiment around anymore. Where is this proof that Americans don't like Craig?

Anyway all actors have haters so the fact that he has critics is irrelevant.

If you look at K1Bond007's site you will notice a trend with US admissions since GoldenEye. Anyway CR has performed on the level of Pierce films in the US so I don't think there is much to worry about.

Edited by triviachamp, 11 February 2007 - 03:11 AM.

[Publius]

So, explain to me why DAD - a generally crappy movie - had higher attendance than CR?

CR is a much better movie, has gotten VASTLY better reviews, and yet has lower attendance?

What's the new ingredient?

It was a much better year for the box office. It was much lighter and sillier fare, which means a wider demographic. It had a much shorter run time, which means many more showings. It had a well-established Brosnan and the star power of Halle Berry and Madonna. It was the fortieth anniversary movie.

I think that's more than enough to explain away the 9% (and shrinking) difference in ticket sales.

Daniel Craig is just not as marketable in the U.S. because he's NOT as refined as Brosnan, he's NOT as good looking as ANY of the other Bonds, and he doesn't fit what the American moviegoers view as the traditional look and attitude of James Bond.

I have no idea how you can claim that as anything but opinion. Not only has the movie done better in the US than the average Brosnan film, but Craig is winning, or at least ranking highly on, "sexiest/coolest/best-dressed man alive" contests left and right (same ones Brosnan used to win), and all but a handful of reviews have praised him for his looks, physique, and overall classic Bondian appeal, with positive comparisons with Connery more common than I can ever remember being the case with Brosnan.

So unless you have something substantial on which to base your claim that Craig is not "likeable", "marketable", or whatever else, it's not something I would argue as fact.

The Americans LOVE Brosnan as Bond.

Sure, but not much more (if at all) than Craig, if we're going by the only numbers available (box office). CR has outperformed two of Brosnan's four films, including his own debut. Don't see how that translates into one being popular, loved, or whatever and the other not.

The only thing that kept CR from hitting $200 million was Daniel Craig and all the negative press he got at the beginning.

No, I think it was just that Bond films simply aren't big enough in the States at this point in time (and they haven't really since at least Moonraker, probably earlier). Eventually, inflation will make $200 million possible, but no sooner unless a Bond movie becomes more of an event film than an ordinary one. It's nothing that any one actor can do much about.

That, and some people just don't like him in the role. Like it or not, that's a fact.

True, but the same could easily be said for Brosnan or any of the previous Bonds, and likewise for Owen, Jackman, or any of the other contenders. Not being able to please everyone is a given, and CR has managed to please more than enough people to make the powers that be happy as far as commercial success goes (hell, they're thrilled!).