60 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Roebuck' date='16 November 2005 - 18:35'][quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='16 November 2005 - 23:20']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.

[medrecess]

First of all i feel that the Bond films do recover a large portion of the costs from the product placements.Thats for sure.Secondly a lot people feel that DAD didnt make a big profit.I feel the profit was good but EON got greedy for more.So what do they do ? Hire a low rent actor and make a realistic ,gritty film which also costs less(less CGI) .

What do they hope to achieve ?

Bigger profits (The only reason for firing Brozza and the untold story )

[SecretAgentFan]

Guys...

First of all: DAD brought in the biggest box office of all Bond films. Granted, with inflation and PR and marketing costs it did not bring in as much revenue as THUNDERBALL. But those were different times with different costs. Fact is: DAD was a major financial success. But with a look to the actual revenue stream, EON and SONY had to re-think because of the following factors:

- the Bond films are getting too expensive
- Brosnan is getting older
- going to the movies isn

[Double-Oh Agent]

Some good points SecretAgentFan and I agree with most all of them except for the need to replace Pierce Brosnan. That wasn't a necessary step. They could have stuck with him for one more film and then went with a new Bond. But since they are apparently going with a Bond's first mission-type of story then, of course, they have no choice but to replace Brosnan. At least EON picked a good replacement for Brosnan.

By the way, SecretAgentFan, every time I see the icon under your name, for some reason I always get the impression of Ricky Jay as Henry Gupta from Tomorrow Never Dies instead of Roger Moore in ffolkes. Don't know why. Guess I have too much Bond on the brain.

[SecretAgentFan]

You

[Loomis]

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. 

If you'll forgive me, Eye, I think that what you want is a Brosnan Bond film. If CASINO ROYALE were going to be exactly as it seems to be shaping up, only with Brosnan in the lead (and, obviously, no Bond-on-his-first-major-mission stuff), I wonder whether you'd be so pessimistic about it.

[MrDraco]

All they had to do was hire new writers, perhapes a good director tone down the over the top elements and make a serious toned bond movie but still with the humor and gadgets that keep people going to see them.. no need to reboot, but i guess thats there choice

[double-O-Durg]

You are forgettin that if the serious tone of CR isnt what audiences wanted from Bond then they can always revert back, Bond has a enough of a legacy to keep people coming in for more.

[Stratus]

Well Casino Royale is still going be budgetted at 140 million or so. The product placement excuse maybe one of the reason why the film was rebooted in the first place - not for creative reasons, rather it wouldn't be very plausible to drive a modern day Aston in middle of a period film. To make matters worse, at least with Die another Day they had the excuse of having to pay 10-12 million in excess to Brosnan, Craig is significantly cheaper yet the budget is more or elss the same. Product placement to an extent cheapens the film even more and creates creative limitations.

Even with the location shoots in Italy and Bahamas, the budget should still not be that high. Bourne Supremacy was shoot in Italy, Russia, Idia and Prague with a much lower budget and tack on the fact Damon was paid more than Craig for the film (rightfully so). Casino Royale should be 100 million max since this is a "character driven film". It doesn't have the same excuse as Batman where half the city of Gotham, a Batmobile or the Batcave is built ground up (reused for future film as an investment) or has the "fantasy" like sets and CG of Potter or Lord of the Rings.

People (not everyone) keep thinking everything will change just because they cast Craig with the comments "gritty and realistic". This is a dreadful fascade.

[Roebuck]

Even with the location shoots in Italy and Bahamas, the budget should still not be that high. Bourne Supremacy was shoot in Italy, Russia, Idia and Prague with a much lower budget and tack on the fact Damon was paid more than Craig for the film (rightfully so). Casino Royale should be 100 million max since this is a "character driven film". It doesn't have the same excuse as Batman where half the city of Gotham, a Batmobile or the Batcave is built ground up (reused for future film as an investment) or has the "fantasy" like sets and CG of Potter or Lord of the Rings.

Wilson and Broccoli have never been low-budget film makers, have never had to be, and I

[Harmsway]

Well Casino Royale is still going be budgetted at 140 million or so. The product placement excuse maybe one of the reason why the film was rebooted in the first place - not for creative reasons, rather it wouldn't be very plausible to drive a modern day Aston in middle of a period film. To make matters worse, at least with Die another Day they had the excuse of having to pay 10-12 million in excess to Brosnan, Craig is significantly cheaper yet the budget is more or elss the same. Product placement to an extent cheapens the film even more and creates creative limitations.

Who said it's a period piece?

[Bondesque]

CR provided EON with the perfect excuse and need to separate with Brosnan and introduce a new direction. Pierce was approaching (I still think he had one left in him)the point of being too old for the role. Casino Royale is the last FLemming title and its a back to basics story therefore it seemed an opportune time to go in a new direction with tone and actor.

The sad thing for fans of Brosnan is that he decided to only make a Bond film every third year. That was a big mistake IMHO.

[Scorpion]

Well Casino Royale is still going be budgetted at 140 million or so...To make matters worse, at least with Die another Day they had the excuse of having to pay 10-12 million in excess to Brosnan, Craig is significantly cheaper yet the budget is more or elss the same.

Even with the location shoots in Italy and Bahamas, the budget should still not be that high. Bourne Supremacy was shoot in Italy, Russia, Idia and Prague with a much lower budget and tack on the fact Damon was paid more than Craig for the film (rightfully so). Casino Royale should be 100 million max since this is a "character driven film". It doesn't have the same excuse as Batman where half the city of Gotham, a Batmobile or the Batcave is built ground up (reused for future film as an investment) or has the "fantasy" like sets and CG of Potter or Lord of the Rings.

People (not everyone) keep thinking everything will change just because they cast Craig with the comments "gritty and realistic". This is a dreadful fascade.

Stratus, you've made some very interesting observations. So, in your mind, is Casino Royale going to be much more 'grandiose' than what Campbell's stated? I mean where is the money going? Certainly not on 'explosions', 'gadgets', or Pierce Brosnan, right? So where?

Edited by Scorpion, 17 November 2005 - 06:12 PM.

[Scorpion]

[quote name='Roebuck' date='17 November 2005 - 16:30']Wilson and Broccoli have never been low-budget film makers, have never had to be, and I

[Roebuck]

Where, Roebuck, do you think the budget is going on this supposedly toned-down film, other than on "waste" per se?

Only what I said earlier in this thread, with reference to Gary Powell's involvement; that Wilson may intend to offset the ''grittier'' aspects of Casino Royale with a couple of jaw-dropping action sequences. It's the same approach he confessed to using on GoldenEye.

Actually, OHMSS is probably a better comparison here, as they stuck closely to Fleming's novel but ramped up the action in the last third.

[Loomis]

....Wilson may intend to offset the ''grittier'' aspects of Casino Royale with a couple of jaw-dropping action sequences.

I think that may very well happen, and I hope it does.

And apart from anything else, well, hey, they've gotta have some exciting stuff to put in the trailers.

[Harmsway]

....Wilson may intend to offset the ''grittier'' aspects of Casino Royale with a couple of jaw-dropping action sequences.

I think that may very well happen, and I hope it does.

And apart from anything else, well, hey, they've gotta have some exciting stuff to put in the trailers.

Indeed. Just because it's gritty doesn't mean we have to lose some good Bondian action!

[Blue07]

I don't think Bond should follow anyone. Bond has always been the trailblazer for all these other spy and action films.

I think it's a dangerous idea to have Bond films fitting in to any other films style as it already has a unique voice all of its own. It's what we all know and love about the films and why they have lasted. Changing style within the Bond framework is fine and has always been the case but allowing themselves to be guided by the sucsess of other like minded films would be dangerous for the producers (financially Bond is still a huge sucsess)

Bond has a totally unique persona and should never be tried to change. The day the films become just another action film is when the franchise finishes because there is too much competition out there. The Bond framework is huge and can allow for lots of changes within it. Bourne will come and go but for as good as they may be nobody does it better than Bond.

[Andrew]

I would say Bond definatly tried to follow other trends with the likes of Live And Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun and the most obvious Moonraker so saying that Bond has always been the trailblazer isn't completely accurate.

[Roebuck]

I don't think Bond should follow anyone. Bond has always been the trailblazer for all these other spy and action films.

I think it's a dangerous idea to have Bond films fitting in to any other films style as it already has a unique voice all of its own. It's what we all know and love about the films and why they have lasted.

That was in the early days. As the usable Fleming material dried up Eon took inspiration from Blaxploitation films, Kung-Fu flicks, the post Star Wars sci-fi boom and even Miami Vice. Adaptability rather than originality is what kept Bond going for the last thirty years. The Bourne films have succeeded by tapping into what audiences currently want from an action thriller; more realism and less in the way of computer generated effects. For Eon to ignore this trend would be commercial suicide.

(Oops - you beat me to it, Andrew. )

[triviachamp]

Bond hasn't been a trailblazer since Diamonds are Forever was made.

[Gabriel]

Anyone reckon the budget's been ramped up for CR because of "development" costs resulting from the endless buggering around before Craig was cast?

[Stratus]

Well Casino Royale is still going be budgetted at 140 million or so. The product placement excuse maybe one of the reason why the film was rebooted in the first place - not for creative reasons, rather it wouldn't be very plausible to drive a modern day Aston in middle of a period film. To make matters worse, at least with Die another Day they had the excuse of having to pay 10-12 million in excess to Brosnan, Craig is significantly cheaper yet the budget is more or elss the same. Product placement to an extent cheapens the film even more and creates creative limitations.

Who said it's a period piece?

Nobody did. I "presumed" one of the incentives from NEVER doing a period film is because of product placement.

Well Casino Royale is still going be budgetted at 140 million or so...To make matters worse, at least with Die another Day they had the excuse of having to pay 10-12 million in excess to Brosnan, Craig is significantly cheaper yet the budget is more or elss the same.

Even with the location shoots in Italy and Bahamas, the budget should still not be that high. Bourne Supremacy was shoot in Italy, Russia, Idia and Prague with a much lower budget and tack on the fact Damon was paid more than Craig for the film (rightfully so). Casino Royale should be 100 million max since this is a "character driven film". It doesn't have the same excuse as Batman where half the city of Gotham, a Batmobile or the Batcave is built ground up (reused for future film as an investment) or has the "fantasy" like sets and CG of Potter or Lord of the Rings.

People (not everyone) keep thinking everything will change just because they cast Craig with the comments "gritty and realistic". This is a dreadful fascade.

Stratus, you've made some very interesting observations. So, in your mind, is Casino Royale going to be much more 'grandiose' than what Campbell's stated? I mean where is the money going? Certainly not on 'explosions', 'gadgets', or Pierce Brosnan, right? So where?

You tell me, I never said it was grandiose, but having 140 million dollars for a low key espionage character film is a bit excessive considering they are trying to SAVE money by doing much of its production in Prague as oppose to Pinewood.

Its one thing to have poor production values but jesus, 140 million, Michael Mann shot Collateral with Cruise's 20 million paycheck at 60 million (40 million to work with) and that film did not turn out terrible.

BTW Wilson did say there was "a lot of action" at the press conference. Explosions does not equal action; just like the action-packed Casino Royale book I bet

Edited by Stratus, 18 November 2005 - 04:43 PM.

[Harmsway]

Well Casino Royale is still going be budgetted at 140 million or so. The product placement excuse maybe one of the reason why the film was rebooted in the first place - not for creative reasons, rather it wouldn't be very plausible to drive a modern day Aston in middle of a period film. To make matters worse, at least with Die another Day they had the excuse of having to pay 10-12 million in excess to Brosnan, Craig is significantly cheaper yet the budget is more or elss the same. Product placement to an extent cheapens the film even more and creates creative limitations.

Who said it's a period piece?

Nobody did. I "presumed" one of the incentives from NEVER doing a period film is because of product placement.

Sorry, I misunderstood and misread your post. A solid point as to why a period piece is unlikely to ever happen.

BTW Wilson did say there was "a lot of action" at the press conference. Explosions does not equal action; just like the action-packed Casino Royale book I bet 

Adding action to Casino Royale is hardly a bad idea - in fact, I WANT action. I just don't want explosion-based action - I want gripping action that relies on solid choreography and ideas rather than explosions everwhere.

[Roebuck]

Anyone reckon the budget's been ramped up for CR because of "development" costs resulting from the endless buggering around before Craig was cast?

Wouldn't surprise me.

[GreggAllinson]

That was in the early days. As the usable Fleming material dried up Eon took inspiration from Blaxploitation films, Kung-Fu flicks, the post Star Wars sci-fi boom and even Miami Vice.

I'm sick and tired of the "Licence to Kill was a Miami Vice knock-off"line. You know, Felix Leiter was fed to sharks in Live and Let Die. You know, Bond was returning back home after fighting drug smugglers in the opening of Goldfinger. I suppose Ian Fleming was somehow ripping off Miami Vice in the 1950s? Licence to Kill may have been a Fleming pastiche, stapled together from various novels, but it was a damned good one...

[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. 

If you'll forgive me, Eye, I think that what you want is a Brosnan Bond film. If CASINO ROYALE were going to be exactly as it seems to be shaping up, only with Brosnan in the lead (and, obviously, no Bond-on-his-first-major-mission stuff), I wonder whether you'd be so pessimistic about it.

Obviously you know that I would MUCH rather have it be Pierce Brosnan as Bond than Daniel Craig. IMO Pierce Brosnan is the perfect modern day Bond! But if it's not going to be Brosnan, then please for goodnessake get someone like Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen, Christian Bale or James Purefoy, but not Daniel Craig of all people!

Aside from my huge disapointment on who will be playing James Bond, I am also very unhappy about the decision to not have a "Q" or "Moneypenny" scene in the film.

You have Bond films that are too over the top like Moonraker and Die Another Day, and then you have Bond films that lack enough excitment like FRWL and OHMSS. I'm not saying that FRWL and OHMSS are bad films, I like them, especially OHMSS. But IMO the perfect Bond film should be somewhere in the middle, more excitement than in FRWL and OHMSS, but not stupid things like Bond in space or invisible cars.

Based on what I'm hearing, I fear that CR is going to be too serious and lack any excitement at all. If that's the case, then I would have much prefered that it at least have an interesting lead actor like Brosnan or Jackman to help make it worth watching. And IMO Daniel Craig will be about the most boring choice they could have gone with.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I am also very unhappy about the whole rookie Bond idea! I do not want to see a rookie Bond at all, whether it be with Pierce Brosnan, Daniel craig, Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill or anyone else.

And the idea of them trying to pass off Daniel Craig as a rookie is all out insane in every sense of the word! Craig is 37 years old, which is too old for any actor to be portraying a rookie Bond. But to make matters worse, Daniel Craig looks much older than his 37 years, he easily looks to be at least in his 40's, and at times in his 50's. Again, if Pierce Brosnan did not have the facial hair he would look younger than Daniel Craig does in the photo of the two of them standing next to each other. My first choice would be for Pierce Brosnan to be in the film, but I could be almost as excited to see it if it were to be Hugh jackman in the film. But Daniel Craig just bores the living heck out of me.

Edited by Eye Of The Tiger, 19 November 2005 - 08:15 AM.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

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.

Yup. The Brosnan films are overall some of the most boring films in the franchise. The best run, overall, was from 1962-1969. The best films of Bond were all sandwiched right there, and it seems like the producers are shooting for an OHMSS-like film (there's still humor and fun around, but it has a very serious ending).

Not that you care, Harmsway, but IMO GE and TWINE rank as two of the most exciting Bond films of them all. The first half of DAD is great. And TND is also very interesting and exciting.

Again, I know you won't care, but my favorite Bond films in no particular order are...

GF
TSWLM
LTK
GE
TWINE

I would rank the second half of DAD way down at the back of the list, but then again I have to rank FRWL far down the list as well because it has almost nothing exciting about it IMO.

You probably think that Pierce Brosnan is my #1 favorite Bond of all time? Actually I would say it's a three way tie between Connery, Moore and Brosnan. But I think that Pierce Brosnan is equally as perfect for the modern day James Bond as Connery was for the Bond of the 60's!

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='19 November 2005 - 02:06'][quote name='Harmsway' date='16 November 2005 - 23:47'][quote name='Roebuck' date='16 November 2005 - 18:35'][quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='16 November 2005 - 23:20']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.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='19 November 2005 - 07:54'][quote name='Loomis' date='17 November 2005 - 09:05'][quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='16 November 2005 - 23:20']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.