58 replies to this topic

[freemo]

[quote name='B5Erik' date='16 October 2005 - 16:52']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?

[Loomis]

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.

But at least we seem guaranteed to get a serious Bond movie next year. What would you rather have? Another DIE ANOTHER DAY, the surefire financial success of which will guarantee.... more DIE ANOTHER DAYs?

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.

All the more reason for you to support him, then, surely? You seem to be writing Craig off because you don't think the masses will take to him. Why not just go by your own taste? (I mean, you're very fond of LICENCE TO KILL, right?)

(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.)

What's "a lot at the box office"? It probably won't turn out to be the next TITANIC, but it's directed by Spielberg. That means it's guaranteed to get far wider exposure than 99.9% of all other films and will be seen by huge numbers of people.

I know a lot of people seem to think that virtually everyone on earth had heard of Brosnan and supported him as Bond before GOLDENEYE was made, but, seriously, Craig appears to me to be doing far better in his career and to have a much higher and more fashionable profile in the movie biz than was the case for any of the previous Bonds when they made their debuts as 007. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm astonished that he took the role of Bond, because he certainly doesn't need it.

[Loomis]

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.

True, but at the same time I fail to see how MUNICH could do anything other than raise Craig's profile (particularly among US audiences) and the esteem in which he's held as an actor (which is already considerable).

Only CASINO ROYALE will show whether the public will accept him as Bond. And it's over a year away. In the meantime, though, Craig won't exactly be languishing in obscurity (INVASION, or THE VISITING, or whatever they'll end up calling it, in which he stars alongside Nicole Kidman, will be another profile-raiser). It's all good.

[avl]

[
I know a lot of people seem to think that virtually everyone on earth had heard of Brosnan and supported him as Bond before GOLDENEYE was made, but, seriously, Craig appears to me to be doing far better in his career and to have a much higher and more fashionable profile in the movie biz than was the case for any of the previous Bonds when they made their debuts as 007. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm astonished that he took the role of Bond, because he certainly doesn't need it.

I agree - Brosnan was a bit of a "has-been" pre-Bond - condemned to straight to video hell for the most part?

Brosnan was the sort of actor that people said - "he'd make a good Bond", Craig is the sort of actor that people say, "he's a great actor, why does he want to do Bond?".

[Seannery]

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.

This sounds about right to me.

[Seannery]

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.

But at least we seem guaranteed to get a serious Bond movie next year. What would you rather have? Another DIE ANOTHER DAY, the surefire financial success of which will guarantee.... more DIE ANOTHER DAYs?

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.

All the more reason for you to support him, then, surely? You seem to be writing Craig off because you don't think the masses will take to him. Why not just go by your own taste? (I mean, you're very fond of LICENCE TO KILL, right?)

(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.)

What's "a lot at the box office"? It probably won't turn out to be the next TITANIC, but it's directed by Spielberg. That means it's guaranteed to get far wider exposure than 99.9% of all other films and will be seen by huge numbers of people.

I know a lot of people seem to think that virtually everyone on earth had heard of Brosnan and supported him as Bond before GOLDENEYE was made, but, seriously, Craig appears to me to be doing far better in his career and to have a much higher and more fashionable profile in the movie biz than was the case for any of the previous Bonds when they made their debuts as 007. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm astonished that he took the role of Bond, because he certainly doesn't need it.

Loomis you have said this before and this is simply not true. As the press in the USA has said often since the announcement--Daniel Craig little known outside the UK is the next Bond. World wide and in the USA in particular he's hardly known and has little profile despite getting some nice roles in the last few years. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan though their careers had cooled pre-Bond were easily in fact much more well known and had much higher name recognition and pre-Bond approval than Daniel Craig. This doesn't mean Craig can't succeed(that is way up in the air at this point)--only that he is barely a name at this point. Bond was an extremely smart career choice for him to help get him a boost into BIG TIME leading man territory.

[avl]

This doesn't mean Craig can't succeed(that is way up in the air at this point)--only that he is barely a name at this point.  Bond was an extremely smart career choice for him to help get him a boost into BIG TIME leading man territory.

As it was for Brosnan
And anyway Craig is already cast as a "big time" leading man - "Munich" and "Invasion/visitors". We just haven't seen the films yet.

[Seannery]

[quote name='avl' date='17 October 2005 - 11:40'][quote name='Seannery' date='17 October 2005 - 10:37'] This doesn't mean Craig can't succeed(that is way up in the air at this point)--only that he is barely a name at this point.

[Vincent Wolf]

Maybe if this movie is gonna be a box-office dissapointment (and with this kind of actor and scenario it sure will, at least, I'll pray for it), then I HOPE that Broccoli would be smart enough to call for Pierce back for AT LEAST one more movie. And I don't give a damn about his age! Make some CG-cosmetics, dammit, the man will bring much more money in box-office, than they ever wanted.

Edited by Vincent Wolf, 17 October 2005 - 12:28 PM.

[Polle Gazon]

All 6 Bond Stars never had the responsibility of "carrying" a film before they did a 007 film.

Roger Moore was only known as Ivanhoe, Simon "The Saint" Templar and Lord Brett Sinclair. He knew nothing about carrying a television-series?

[tonymascia1]

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?

A box office gross 25% less than DAD still makes for a very sizable, and profitable, hit.

Not bad for a movie with less gimmicks, not "dumbed down", and a new man playing Our Hero...

[Seannery]

That is what I fel is about to happen too.

But I still would have preffered to see other folks picking up the part, like a certain Adrian Paul.

Chimera--I agree Adrian Paul would have been great as 007. Hey at least we got him doing a new Highlander due next year. And hey maybe Craig will pleasantly suprise us--it's quite possible.

[zerozeroseven]

As has probably already been stated, we've all seen this scenario before with OHMSS and with TLD/LTK. In both cases, the producers went from the unpopular dark grittiness to the broad general fun of DAF and Goldeneye. If Casino Royale fails, as it probably will, Brosnan will be brought back one more time just like Connery in DAF. Many of us will always have a place in our hearts for the dark grittiness off the failed Casino Royale, as we do with OHMSS, TLD, and LTK. After FRWL, the only time the return to grittiness suceeded financially was when Moore gave it a try in FYEO. But, he was coming off the huge success of Octopussy. For the gritty idea to work now, they would have had to have kept Brosnan around. I base this opinion only on Bond history. The producers should have looked at the history and kept the same actor around well past the point that he was too old for the part. Moore looked too old in FYEO, Octopussy, and AVTAK, but at least the first two are two of the all time best Bond films, both critical and commercial successes. Based on history, old is good. I'll never understand why they chose to replace Brosnan after 4 hit Bond films, with a guy that, to me, looks older than Brosnan currently does, and whose complextion is cause for serious concern. And he's supposed to be playing a young Bond? Maybe this move will prove history wrong. But I'm betting on Brosnan for the next one. I do think I'll enjoy Casino Royale, however, as only die hard fans will.

[Emma]

Loomis you have said this before and this is simply not true.  As the press in the USA has said often since the announcement--Daniel Craig little known outside the UK is the next Bond.  World wide and in the USA in particular he's hardly known and has little profile despite getting some nice roles in the last few years.  Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan though their careers had cooled pre-Bond were easily in fact much more well known and had much higher name recognition and pre-Bond approval than Daniel Craig.  This doesn't mean Craig can't succeed(that is way up in the air at this point)--only that he is barely a name at this point.  Bond was an extremely smart career choice for him to help get him a boost into BIG TIME leading man territory.

And I suspect it's the only reason why he took the role in the first place. As a stepping stone in his career. Not because he loves or respects the character. At least I know Pierce loves and respects James Bond. Look at Craig's performance in the press confrence, he couldn't even conjure up any enthusiasm or any positive mention about getting the role.

When I heard the name 'Daniel Craig' pop up the only film I remembered him from was Tomb Raider and that's probably because he was stark naked in one scene. It wasn't until people started to mention other films he had been in, I thought 'Oh yeah, now I remember he was in that!' Otherwise I found his performances totally forgetable.

[luciusgore]

[quote name='Emma' date='17 October 2005 - 18:19'][quote name='Seannery' date='17 October 2005 - 10:37']

Loomis you have said this before and this is simply not true.

[Agent007.5]

If CR bombs at the box office, than I think Sony and Eon will drop Daniel Craig as Bond and either bring Brosnan back (like they did with Connery and DAF) or bring in someone that they know the fans want to see as Bond- like Clive Owen. Also, I wouldn't expect Martin Campbell to return to the helm of another Bond film ever. And if it bombs terribly (like not make it's budget back) than I expect that Babs and Michael may be dismissed from the series and Sony will take over control.

[Gobi-1]

Unless CR bombs big time I think Craig will get two films to prove himself. If CR is a massive GoldenEye style hit he's set in the role for four or five films but if it only does good moderate business his second film's box office will decide his fate.

I do feel Craig will not be as popular as Brosnan but I would consider two or three films to be a nice run for him.

[Emma]

Brosnan bad mouths Bond all the time. During DAD, he would rip having to make appearances, etc.

This is the first I am hearing this.

And complaining about having to do a press junket for the film, is far different from complaining about playing the role.

[avl]

And I suspect it's the only reason why he took the role in the first place. As a stepping stone in his career. Not because he loves or respects the character. At least I know Pierce loves and respects James Bond. Look at Craig's performance in the press confrence, he couldn't even conjure up any enthusiasm or any positive mention about getting the role.

When I heard the name 'Daniel Craig' pop up the only film I remembered him from was Tomb Raider and that's probably because he was stark naked in one scene. It wasn't until people started to mention other films he had been in, I thought 'Oh yeah, now I remember he was in that!' Otherwise I found his performances totally forgetable.

Why is this wrong? If it wasn't a stepping stone in his career why would he do the job? Love and respect is fine if you are a fan, Craig is a professional - it is his career.

Anyway I think he does "love and respect" Bond - he said as much in his GQ interview, and at the conference I felt he meant it when he said he'd seen all the films loads of times.

What he does not "love and respect" quite clearly, is press conferences and questions about his private life. Which is on the one hand fair enough, and on the other, something he will have to now get used to.

As to you remembering his other films - ok. i think you have made it very clear you don't think Craig is good for Bond - on very subjective grounds - which is also fair enough. Question is - will you give him a chance to prove you wrong?

[Stephenson]

I really doubt that CR will bomb, despite the negative press Craig is already attracting. I also doubt it will be as big a hit as DAD, but I think that both Eon and Sony are going into this with lowered expectations; the steadily decreasing general box office would force any film studio to do that.

I remember four years ago when Damon was announced as Bourne, and the ridicule that casting decision received. Granted, Bourne is hardly in the same league as Bond as a franchise, but the fact that that film was still a reasonable success (and that the sequel went on to even greater numbers!) despite the initial scepticism, may bode well for Craig. The general audience seems ready for change, and may be a little more opne minded than before. "Dark" and "gritty" may have become fashionable catch phrases, but they still seem to be describing the audiences' current taste in film. Trying to draw comparisons between the casting of Lazenby 37 odd years ago, Dalton 19 years ago, and Craig, without considering the current taste of movie fans today, is IMO a bit pointless. These are different times, and I have sneaking suspicion that if LTK was released this year (with improved special effects and sets) it would actually do quite well. Same with OHMSS.

[triviachamp]

All 6 Bond Stars never had the responsibility of "carrying" a film before they did a 007 film.

Roger Moore was only known as Ivanhoe, Simon "The Saint" Templar and Lord Brett Sinclair. He knew nothing about carrying a television-series?

But TV shows aren't movies.

[Loomis]

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.

But at least we seem guaranteed to get a serious Bond movie next year. What would you rather have? Another DIE ANOTHER DAY, the surefire financial success of which will guarantee.... more DIE ANOTHER DAYs?

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.

All the more reason for you to support him, then, surely? You seem to be writing Craig off because you don't think the masses will take to him. Why not just go by your own taste? (I mean, you're very fond of LICENCE TO KILL, right?)

(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.)

What's "a lot at the box office"? It probably won't turn out to be the next TITANIC, but it's directed by Spielberg. That means it's guaranteed to get far wider exposure than 99.9% of all other films and will be seen by huge numbers of people.

I know a lot of people seem to think that virtually everyone on earth had heard of Brosnan and supported him as Bond before GOLDENEYE was made, but, seriously, Craig appears to me to be doing far better in his career and to have a much higher and more fashionable profile in the movie biz than was the case for any of the previous Bonds when they made their debuts as 007. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm astonished that he took the role of Bond, because he certainly doesn't need it.

Loomis you have said this before and this is simply not true. As the press in the USA has said often since the announcement--Daniel Craig little known outside the UK is the next Bond. World wide and in the USA in particular he's hardly known and has little profile despite getting some nice roles in the last few years. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan though their careers had cooled pre-Bond were easily in fact much more well known and had much higher name recognition and pre-Bond approval than Daniel Craig. This doesn't mean Craig can't succeed(that is way up in the air at this point)--only that he is barely a name at this point. Bond was an extremely smart career choice for him to help get him a boost into BIG TIME leading man territory.

Seannery, you don't seem to follow. I'm not saying that Craig is a "BIG TIME leading man", or even that he'll be one someday. Neither am I saying that he's incredibly famous.

What I am saying is that he is (despite not being those abovementioned things) more acclaimed, successful, hip and in-demand as a film actor than any of the previous Bonds were when they first signed up for Bond. Prior to Bond, was Brosnan being chosen for important roles by directors like Sam Mendes and Steven Spielberg? Was the Nicole Kidman equivalent of 1994 approving him to star alongside her in a major motion picture? Was he the lead in an admittedly-not-blockbusting-in-the-Tom-Cruise-sense-but-nonetheless-highly-acclaimed-and-fashionable film like LAYER CAKE? Dalton was a respected actor, but his film career was nothing special. Moore was known chiefly for "The Saint". And Lazenby and Connery were virtual nobodies pre-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.

But at least we seem guaranteed to get a serious Bond movie next year. What would you rather have? Another DIE ANOTHER DAY, the surefire financial success of which will guarantee.... more DIE ANOTHER DAYs?

I honestly believe that to do a "risky," gritty, realistic Bond movie and have it do well enough at the box office to follow it up with another gritty, realistic Bond movie you need a "safe" actor playing Bond. Someone like Pierce Brosnan, or Hugh Jackman.

If you've got an actor who isn't all that good looking, and who doesn't seem to have a lot of the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan charm, then to put him in a darker, more violent, Bond movie just invites disappointment at the box office. Hell, Timothy Dalton showed a lot more charm in TLD (and even LTK in a way) than Craig is likely to.

I just don't want to have Sony and EON say, "Well, we listened to the core Bond fans and we went more realistic and the movie tanked, so next time we go back to doing it our way."

I am expecting to like Casino Royale a lot, I just also expect to feel the same way I did the first time I saw Goldeneye... ("Brosnan's good, but MAN, Dalton could have just ACED that line! and "Man, Dalton would have been GREAT in that scene!" and "Damn, I wish Dalton could have done this movie!")

Add that to my serious doubts about Craig's appeal to large audiences and I tend to think that this casting was not a good idea.

I know if the movie doesn't live up to box office expectations I'll hold Craig responsible - to a point. I'll also hold Michael & Barbara responsible, as well as the marketing people at Sony.

[TheBritishEnd]

You can bet that Sony will want Bond to be a hit just as much as MGM- especially after the summer they've just had.

Craig will certainly shoulder the blame of a failure, at least from the general public. I don't really think they would do the DAF route, though, since at that time, Connery was really the only Bond most people identified in the role.

The film won't flop, but it has a good chance of failing to perform the way Brosnan's Bonds did. EON will pass it off as a promising start, then gamble on one more film with Craig, and then we'll probably all be wasting months again waiting to see who #7 is. The difference, of course, is that there will be all these members with usernames like "Craig4Ever" and "BringBackDaniel".

Edited by TheBritishEnd, 18 October 2005 - 03:41 AM.

[TheBritishEnd]

I just also expect to feel the same way I did the first time I saw Goldeneye...  ("Brosnan's good, but MAN, Dalton could have just ACED that line!  and "Man, Dalton would have been GREAT in that scene!" and "Damn, I wish Dalton could have done this movie!")

I wish you hadn't posted that, because now I'm seeing all these scenes replayed with Dalton instead of Brosnan. (Actually, it's kind've cool.)

The scene with M calling him a dinosaur would've been great with Dalton!

[templer1972]

CR will open around 20million and wont top 100million after it final run in US.A worldwide gross less then 250million .Thats is my prediction.Bring back Brosnan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dinovelvet]

If CR bombs at the box office, than I think Sony and Eon will drop Daniel Craig as Bond and either bring Brosnan back (like they did with Connery and DAF) or bring in someone that they know the fans want to see as Bond- like Clive Owen. Also, I wouldn't expect Martin Campbell to return to the helm of another Bond film ever. And if it bombs terribly (like not make it's budget back) than I expect that Babs and Michael may be dismissed from the series and Sony will take over control.

I expect approximately none of those things to happen. A more likely scenario is, that if Casino Royale brings in disappointing box office numbers, then the already-in-writing Bond 22 will be re-tooled to feature extra car chases, explosions and CGI, with none of that "Fleming" stuff that people keep harping on about. They are not going to dump Craig after one film, as nobody, not EON, not Sony, not Bond fans, not Rikki Lee Travolta, not the general public, wants to go through the "Who will be the new Bond?" debacle again. IF, and only if, both CR and the action-fest Bond 22 both flop, then yes there's a good chance Craig will be let go, and a new actor will be brought in. But it will never, ever be Pierce Brosnan.

[Will_Brosnan_Return?]

Can anyone please state some facts here?

1. LTK and OHMSS were NOT flops

2. In fact OHMSS was in mega hit area

3. CR06 = potential top 5 flop in film history


You see you have a $150 million cost to complete the negative to send for distribution.

Then you have another $50 million distribution costs (and who knows how much more in OTHER costs)


Then if you go by TWINE and DAD the studio will only get back 40 percent of the gross as its SHARE.............


Meaning with a cost of $200 million plus CR needs to gross over $500 million JUST TO BREAK EVEN


If you actually think it will do that you are living in fantasy land just like our favorite hero 007.

[B5Erik]

If CR bombs at the box office, than I think Sony and Eon will drop Daniel Craig as Bond and either bring Brosnan back (like they did with Connery and DAF) or bring in someone that they know the fans want to see as Bond- like Clive Owen. Also, I wouldn't expect Martin Campbell to return to the helm of another Bond film ever. And if it bombs terribly (like not make it's budget back) than I expect that Babs and Michael may be dismissed from the series and Sony will take over control.

I expect approximately none of those things to happen. A more likely scenario is, that if Casino Royale brings in disappointing box office numbers, then the already-in-writing Bond 22 will be re-tooled to feature extra car chases, explosions and CGI, with none of that "Fleming" stuff that people keep harping on about. They are not going to dump Craig after one film, as nobody, not EON, not Sony, not Bond fans, not Rikki Lee Travolta, not the general public, wants to go through the "Who will be the new Bond?" debacle again. IF, and only if, both CR and the action-fest Bond 22 both flop, then yes there's a good chance Craig will be let go, and a new actor will be brought in. But it will never, ever be Pierce Brosnan.

You've actually hit on the very reason that I'm concerned. IF Casino Royale is a disappointment (as I think it will be) then we're in for OTT Bond in Bond 22. DAD II - NOT what I want to see.

Unfortunately, with all the negative media response to Daniel Craig, and the public response likely to follow suit, there is a very good chance that could happen. Which, again, is why I didn't want Craig for this movie. Staying with Brosnan, or going with Hugh Jackman - or even Clive Owen - would have been the safer way to go as far as box office numbers go.

Craig will be to blame if he has negative appeal - if he turns enough people off, but Barbara and Michael will have to share some of the blame as well for casting such an unappealing actor to play Bond. He would have made the ideal LeChiffre - he has the "bad guy" looks.

I'm just wondering how Sony will react. Their electronics division is hurting (sales are down significantly) and they've been relying on their motion picture division to make up those profits. That didn't happen this summer. So who will they blame, and what changes will they demand?