491 replies to this topic

[Emma]

Please remember people go to films for escapism and entertainment.

Which CASINO ROYALE will still provide in spades, even with a grittier edge, a back-to-basics approach, and so on. I mean, it's hardly DOWNFALL. Look at the Bournes - they did superbly, and they didn't even have the massive Bond brand and "legacy" behind them. Craig may or may not end up as another iconic 007 in the Connery or Moore league, but I don't see any reason why CR wouldn't be a megahit.

Yes Jason Bourne films did moderately well. But they stood on their own two feet or rather as single entities unto themselves. They did not have a 40+ history behind them to live up to or of general audience expectations. When people go to James Bond film they expect to see certain things, already many of things have been taken out. Including an actor who is completely different from actors who have played him before.

I found it interesting how the reviewer mentioned that when in the past the makers have decided to go back to basics the films have not done well. I for one am looking forward to the final box office talley.

[spynovelfan]

Yes Jason Bourne films did moderately well. But they stood on their own two feet or rather as single entities unto themselves. They did not have a 40+ history behind them to live up to or of general audience expectations. When people go to James Bond film they expect to see certain things, already many of things have been taken out. Including an actor who is completely different from actors who have played him before.

I found it interesting how the reviewer mentioned that when in the past the makers have decided to go back to basics the films have not done well. I for one am looking forward to the final box office talley.

...with an expectation of schadenfreude, it appears.

[Loomis]

Yes Jason Bourne films did moderately well.

More than moderately, surely? I've no interest in looking up the box office stats, but I believe they were absolute smashes, especially on DVD (and cost about half of what the recent Bonds cost to make, so were extremely profitable too). I read something recently about producer Frank Marshall saying that the Bourne series might run to at least five films. I don't think anyone's laughing at him for saying that.

I gather that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY grossed more in the United States than DIE ANOTHER DAY, so if that only did moderately well then the same is true of DAD, which was the last 007 outing of an era in which I assume you feel the Bond people were doing everything pretty much correctly (a more appropriate Bond actor than Craig, less doom and gloom than today and more fantasy escapism, etc.).

They did not have a 40+ history behind them to live up to or of general audience expectations.

Exactly. CASINO ROYALE has these things, and a massive built-in audience (as well as another huge audience of "casual viewers") because of them.

When people go to James Bond film they expect to see certain things, already many of things have been taken out. Including an actor who is completely different from actors who have played him before.

Leaving aside the question of whether Craig is a good choice for Bond - because we'll never agree on that one, I don't see much that's been taken out apart from Moneypenny and Q. CR will still be packed with the "certain things" people want to see. Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex....

Now, I grant you that it looks a comparatively gritty Bond flick, and the ending will probably be a bit of a downer, but let's not underestimate audiences' desires to see something new from time to time. The Bond franchise has prospered for 40+ years while veering wildly from relatively faithful Fleming adaptations, to 007 in outer space (!), and back again. The formula has been shaken up time and again. Do you want to see exactly the same kind of Bond film every single time out? Me neither. So why assume that audiences will take badly to a bit of novelty? REVENGE OF THE SITH is the darkest of the STAR WARS films (arguably), a series that's a byword for popcorn blockbuster fun, yet it was still a box office winner.

I found it interesting how the reviewer mentioned that when in the past the makers have decided to go back to basics the films have not done well. I for one am looking forward to the final box office talley.

I dunno. Not always. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was a hit - again, I can't be bothered to check the statistics, but while it may or may not have taken as much as MOONRAKER, FYEO undeniably helped keep the franchise afloat. A flop it wasn't. And I believe THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS outgrossed the much zanier, more lightweight and fun-for-all-the-family A VIEW TO A KILL.

But you're surely not calling for nothing but MOONRAKER- and DIE ANOTHER DAY-type films?

[Emma]

More than moderately, surely? I've no interest in looking up the box office stats, but I believe they were absolute smashes, especially on DVD (and cost about half of what the recent Bonds cost to make, so were extremely profitable too). I read something recently about producer Frank Marshall saying that the Bourne series might run to at least five films. I don't think anyone's laughing at him for saying that.

I gather that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY grossed more in the United States than DIE ANOTHER DAY, so if that only did moderately well then the same is true of DAD, which was the last 007 outing of an era in which I assume you feel the Bond people were doing everything pretty much correctly (a more appropriate Bond actor than Craig, less doom and gloom than today and more fantasy escapism, etc.).


I actually like the Bourne movies. But really when comparing them to Bond films we are comparing apples and organges. Bond is fantasy, whereas Bourne is verity.


What made Jason Bourne so amazing was that he was a sort of 'everyman'. You look at him and really didn't expect him to do all that stuff. James Bond is already known as a sort of (British) Superman. And even though there probably is a 2 year age difference between Craig and Matt Damon. Craig looks at least 10 years older than he actually is. He actually looks older than Brosnan. For me to believe now that he is supposed to starting out is absurd.



Leaving aside the question of whether Craig is a good choice for Bond - because we'll never agree on that one, I don't see much that's been taken out apart from Moneypenny and Q. CR will still be packed with the "certain things" people want to see. Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex....


Hmmmm...."Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex...." are you talking about the last XXX film? Really, all the elements that make Bond unique and stand out--at least for me. Are gone. The elan, the sophistication are all gone. Craig just looks like a brutish and thuggish man. More like a Bond villain henchman than James Bond himself. Without all that we just have the same old old American action film. With a part that could easily be played by Bruce Willis or Schwarzenegger. James Bond was never just your typical conventional action hero (again in my eyes).


Now, I grant you that it looks a comparatively gritty Bond flick, and the ending will probably be a bit of a downer, but let's not underestimate audiences' desires to see something new from time to time. The Bond franchise has prospered for 40+ years while veering wildly from relatively faithful Fleming adaptations, to 007 in outer space (!), and back again. The formula has been shaken up time and again. Do you want to see exactly the same kind of Bond film every single time out? Me neither. So why assume that audiences will take badly to a bit of novelty?


I don't think that general audiences have a problem with gritty. But I think they have certain basics expectations of James Bond whcih seem to be gone. Not to mention a James Bond who looks completely different than the five men who have played the part. And if we are to go by the script review, this seems to verge on being pretentious character driven film. I maybe in the minority here, but I don't watch Bond films to see high art. When I want to watch films on par with 'Brokeback Mountain' or 'Capote' then I'll go directly to that.


Sorry, For a Bond film to work, for me, it all starts with the man himself. And there is no credibility to Daniel Craig as James Bond. For me Craig as Bond, holds as much credibility as Michael Keaton playing Batman..a joke when he was first cast. An insult to me now as a die hard Batman fan.

Edited by Emma, 19 February 2006 - 11:30 PM.

[Harmsway]

And if we are to go by the script review, this seems to verge on being pretentious character driven film. I maybe in the minority here, but I don't watch Bond films to see high art. When I want to watch films on par with 'Brokeback Mountain' or 'Capote' then I'll go directly to that.

I haven't read anything that seems make this a pretentious, character-driven film. Was BATMAN BEGINS pretentious, in your opinion? Because it sure wasn't in mine. Bringing character to a piece of entertainment often enhances it rather than hurt it.

CASINO ROYALE hardly seems like it's going to be high art, or trying to be high art. It seems it's just giving us some genuine character as well - much like THE BOURNE IDENTITY did. That's more than acceptable.

The only time Bond will become high art when EON decides to faithfully adapt YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, with Fleming's ending intact - which will never happen.

Sorry, For a Bond film to work, for me, it all starts with the man himself. And there is no credibility to Daniel Craig as James Bond. For me Craig as Bond, holds as much credibility as Michael Keaton playing Batman..a joke when he was first cast. An insult to me now as a die hard Batman fan.

As a die-hard Batman fan who travels in the multitudes of Batman fan circles, Keaton has a great deal of respect in that community and many still prefer him to Christian Bale. I'm not a Michael Keaton lover, but he did do the role justice in the eyes of the fan community and critics.

And I think Daniel Craig is far more suited for the role of James Bond than Michael Keaton was suited for the role of Batman.

[Roebuck]

I actually like the Bourne movies. But really when comparing them to Bond films we are comparing apples and organges. Bond is fantasy, whereas Bourne is verity.

Got to disagree. Bourne is no closer to depicting the real world of espionage than Bond. They're both based around the same conceit of a man with unusual skills/ training who's adventures take place in a secret world beneath the veneer of our own. They both tap into the same male wish fulfilment fantasy of car chases, gun play and gadgets. It's only a difference of degree.

[Loomis]

I actually like the Bourne movies. But really when comparing them to Bond films we are comparing apples and organges. Bond is fantasy, whereas Bourne is verity.

Got to disagree. Bourne is no closer to depicting the real world of espionage than Bond. They're both based around the same conceit of a man with unusual skills/ training who's adventures take place in a secret world beneath the veneer of our own. They both tap into the same male wish fulfilment fantasy of car chases, gun play and gadgets. It's only a difference of degree.

Exactly, Roebuck. It's often said that the Bournes are "realistic", but they're not - they're absurd (and chock-full of plot holes that would be annoying if not papered over so well by terrific filmmaking technique). The Bournes may have "gritty" trappings (although even these are overstated), but they're every bit as escapist as Bond.

[Seannery]

More than moderately, surely? I've no interest in looking up the box office stats, but I believe they were absolute smashes, especially on DVD (and cost about half of what the recent Bonds cost to make, so were extremely profitable too). I read something recently about producer Frank Marshall saying that the Bourne series might run to at least five films. I don't think anyone's laughing at him for saying that.

I gather that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY grossed more in the United States than DIE ANOTHER DAY, so if that only did moderately well then the same is true of DAD, which was the last 007 outing of an era in which I assume you feel the Bond people were doing everything pretty much correctly (a more appropriate Bond actor than Craig, less doom and gloom than today and more fantasy escapism, etc.).


I actually like the Bourne movies. But really when comparing them to Bond films we are comparing apples and organges. Bond is fantasy, whereas Bourne is verity.


What made Jason Bourne so amazing was that he was a sort of 'everyman'. You look at him and really didn't expect him to do all that stuff. James Bond is already known as a sort of (British) Superman. And even though there probably is a 2 year age difference between Craig and Matt Damon. Craig looks at least 10 years older than he actually is. He actually looks older than Brosnan. For me to believe now that he is supposed to starting out is absurd.



Leaving aside the question of whether Craig is a good choice for Bond - because we'll never agree on that one, I don't see much that's been taken out apart from Moneypenny and Q. CR will still be packed with the "certain things" people want to see. Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex....


Hmmmm...."Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex...." are you talking about the last XXX film? Really, all the elements that make Bond unique and stand out--at least for me. Are gone. The elan, the sophistication are all gone. Craig just looks like a brutish and thuggish man. More like a Bond villain henchman than James Bond himself. Without all that we just have the same old old American action film. With a part that could easily be played by Bruce Willis or Schwarzenegger. James Bond was never just your typical conventional action hero (again in my eyes).


Now, I grant you that it looks a comparatively gritty Bond flick, and the ending will probably be a bit of a downer, but let's not underestimate audiences' desires to see something new from time to time. The Bond franchise has prospered for 40+ years while veering wildly from relatively faithful Fleming adaptations, to 007 in outer space (!), and back again. The formula has been shaken up time and again. Do you want to see exactly the same kind of Bond film every single time out? Me neither. So why assume that audiences will take badly to a bit of novelty?


I don't think that general audiences have a problem with gritty. But I think they have certain basics expectations of James Bond whcih seem to be gone. Not to mention a James Bond who looks completely different than the five men who have played the part. And if we are to go by the script review, this seems to verge on being pretentious character driven film. I maybe in the minority here, but I don't watch Bond films to see high art. When I want to watch films on par with 'Brokeback Mountain' or 'Capote' then I'll go directly to that.


Sorry, For a Bond film to work, for me, it all starts with the man himself. And there is no credibility to Daniel Craig as James Bond. For me Craig as Bond, holds as much credibility as Michael Keaton playing Batman..a joke when he was first cast. An insult to me now as a die hard Batman fan.

Firstly the last Bourne may have done better than DAD in the USA but DAD far exceeded it internationally. Anyway Bond isn't Bourne and shouldn't follow Bourne because Bond has it's own famous strengths that IF CR goes away from it will be to the detriment to CR's box office and the general audience's expectations. It remains to be seen if Emma is correct about CR losing the sophistication and elan of Bond BUT if it does that can only hurt--in all ways. And Bourne's realistic veneer and gritty take on big action IS a significant difference from the Bondian set 10 minutes in the future adventure--Bond of the cinema needs this and we shouldn't make the mistake of forcing literary Bond into the cinema. I hope they didn't do this for CR. There is a reason Cubby and the gang differed from the books--the cinema is a different animal with its own strengths and the subsequent 40 years show how right they are. Lets hope the new gang in change, perhaps too full of the need to put too much reinvention into CR and to put their stamp on things, doesn't forget this. Change is fine as long as they don't try to reinvent the wheel and therefore become too clever and kill the golden goose.

[Niwram]

Here's the construction site:



Evegreenweb.com have been sneaking around the film set.

[Harmsway]

I've been looking at statistics for B.O. analysis as we look forward to CASINO ROYALE, and I thought I'd share some of what I've gleaned.

James Bond wasn't doing that well for a long time there. Following MOONRAKER, Bond's ticket sales started dropping pretty steeply and bottomed out with LICENCE TO KILL. Truly, Bond was running out of steam and people were losing interest. For all intents and purposes, the Bond franchise was dying.

It is worth noting that it really was the Brosnan era that made Bond a hit again. Going by tickets sold (the only *true* way to evaluate the success of a film series that has existed as long as Bond has), Brosnan's films really did rejuvenate the series. Brosnan's Bond films each sold a level of tickets that hadn't been matched since DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and retained that success throughout his era.

Just some curious information I thought you guys would like to know.

[K1Bond007]

I've been looking at statistics for B.O. analysis as we look forward to CASINO ROYALE, and I thought I'd share some of what I've gleaned.

James Bond wasn't doing that well for a long time there. Following MOONRAKER, Bond's ticket sales started dropping pretty steeply and bottomed out with LICENCE TO KILL. Truly, Bond was running out of steam and people were losing interest. For all intents and purposes, the Bond franchise was dying.

It is worth noting that it really was the Brosnan era that made Bond a hit again. Going by tickets sold (the only *true* way to evaluate the success of a film series that has existed as long as Bond has), Brosnan's films really did rejuvenate the series. Brosnan's Bond films each sold a level of tickets that hadn't been matched since DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and retained that success throughout his era.

Just some curious information I thought you guys would like to know.

While Pierce Brosnan was a good reason why Bond returned to success, I think there were a lot of other reasons that contributed. But that's just my opinion.

Anyway ticket sales for - U.S. and World created by myself.

[Harmsway]

I've been looking at statistics for B.O. analysis as we look forward to CASINO ROYALE, and I thought I'd share some of what I've gleaned.

James Bond wasn't doing that well for a long time there. Following MOONRAKER, Bond's ticket sales started dropping pretty steeply and bottomed out with LICENCE TO KILL. Truly, Bond was running out of steam and people were losing interest. For all intents and purposes, the Bond franchise was dying.

It is worth noting that it really was the Brosnan era that made Bond a hit again. Going by tickets sold (the only *true* way to evaluate the success of a film series that has existed as long as Bond has), Brosnan's films really did rejuvenate the series. Brosnan's Bond films each sold a level of tickets that hadn't been matched since DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and retained that success throughout his era.

Just some curious information I thought you guys would like to know.

While Pierce Brosnan was a good reason why Bond returned to success, I think there were a lot of other reasons that contributed. But that's just my opinion.

Anyway ticket sales for - U.S. and World created by myself.

Very nice graphs.

And I don't single-handedly think Brosnan should be credited for success, though I do consider him a factor of some sort. I'm not sure Bond would have reclaimed such success if Dalton had returned.

[JohnBryce]

The first thing that struck me when reading that script review was that I can now see why Brosnan isn't involved.This is a reboot.A reboot wouldn't really work with the same actor in the title role right?
I don't know the specifics of why Brosnan quit etc.

[stamper]

I think there may be a surprise Brozza involvement. Or maybe Dalton.

Something about 007 first two victims being played by past Bond actors...

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

I think there may be a surprise Brozza involvement. Or maybe Dalton.

Something about 007 first two victims being played by past Bond actors...

Hmmm...Dalton as Dryden and Brosnan as Fisher(who will put up a fight).

[Orion]

the Bourne films where critically more popular (as in it had a higher accaliam) but didn't make even half as secessful as Die Another Day financally in any country

[stamper]

Really ? How much the Bourne movie cost ? How much DAD cost ? Just because you make bigger BO money doesn't mean you make more profit, if you spent more to do the movie.

[JimmyBond]

Really ? How much the Bourne movie cost ? How much DAD cost ? Just because you make bigger BO money doesn't mean you make more profit, if you spent more to do the movie.

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com DAD was made for $142 million, and made a total of 431,971,116 worldwide, but it's demostic numbers were pretty low, only around 160M, so that's only a profit of about 20 Million, not very good if you ask me.

The Bourne Identity was made for 60 million and doubled it's profit demostically by double, with a total of $121,661,683.

Dont know about you, but looking at those numbers I say the Bourne Identity is the victor

[Orion]

Really ? How much the Bourne movie cost ? How much DAD cost ? Just because you make bigger BO money doesn't mean you make more profit, if you spent more to do the movie.

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com DAD was made for $142 million, and made a total of 431,971,116 worldwide, but it's demostic numbers were pretty low, only around 160M, so that's only a profit of about 20 Million, not very good if you ask me.

The Bourne Identity was made for 60 million and doubled it's profit demostically by double, with a total of $121,661,683.

Dont know about you, but looking at those numbers I say the Bourne Identity is the victor

Matt Damons hefty salary reduced the profit to way below Die Another Day on both Bourne films

[SecretAgentFan]

Right. Unless you really know who

[K1Bond007]

Really ? How much the Bourne movie cost ? How much DAD cost ? Just because you make bigger BO money doesn't mean you make more profit, if you spent more to do the movie.

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com DAD was made for $142 million, and made a total of 431,971,116 worldwide, but it's demostic numbers were pretty low, only around 160M, so that's only a profit of about 20 Million, not very good if you ask me.

The Bourne Identity was made for 60 million and doubled it's profit demostically by double, with a total of $121,661,683.

Dont know about you, but looking at those numbers I say the Bourne Identity is the victor

So you're going to ingore pretty much everything except DAD's domestic numbers to calculate profit? Nice work. It can't be done with the numbers we know about.

Note: Die Another Day made 70 million alone in product placement. Sad, but true.

[casinoroyale11234]

More than moderately, surely? I've no interest in looking up the box office stats, but I believe they were absolute smashes, especially on DVD (and cost about half of what the recent Bonds cost to make, so were extremely profitable too). I read something recently about producer Frank Marshall saying that the Bourne series might run to at least five films. I don't think anyone's laughing at him for saying that.

I gather that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY grossed more in the United States than DIE ANOTHER DAY, so if that only did moderately well then the same is true of DAD, which was the last 007 outing of an era in which I assume you feel the Bond people were doing everything pretty much correctly (a more appropriate Bond actor than Craig, less doom and gloom than today and more fantasy escapism, etc.).


I actually like the Bourne movies. But really when comparing them to Bond films we are comparing apples and organges. Bond is fantasy, whereas Bourne is verity.


What made Jason Bourne so amazing was that he was a sort of 'everyman'. You look at him and really didn't expect him to do all that stuff. James Bond is already known as a sort of (British) Superman. And even though there probably is a 2 year age difference between Craig and Matt Damon. Craig looks at least 10 years older than he actually is. He actually looks older than Brosnan. For me to believe now that he is supposed to starting out is absurd.



Leaving aside the question of whether Craig is a good choice for Bond - because we'll never agree on that one, I don't see much that's been taken out apart from Moneypenny and Q. CR will still be packed with the "certain things" people want to see. Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex....


Hmmmm...."Globetrotting, violence, humour, sex...." are you talking about the last XXX film? Really, all the elements that make Bond unique and stand out--at least for me. Are gone. The elan, the sophistication are all gone. Craig just looks like a brutish and thuggish man. More like a Bond villain henchman than James Bond himself. Without all that we just have the same old old American action film. With a part that could easily be played by Bruce Willis or Schwarzenegger. James Bond was never just your typical conventional action hero (again in my eyes).


Now, I grant you that it looks a comparatively gritty Bond flick, and the ending will probably be a bit of a downer, but let's not underestimate audiences' desires to see something new from time to time. The Bond franchise has prospered for 40+ years while veering wildly from relatively faithful Fleming adaptations, to 007 in outer space (!), and back again. The formula has been shaken up time and again. Do you want to see exactly the same kind of Bond film every single time out? Me neither. So why assume that audiences will take badly to a bit of novelty?


I don't think that general audiences have a problem with gritty. But I think they have certain basics expectations of James Bond whcih seem to be gone. Not to mention a James Bond who looks completely different than the five men who have played the part. And if we are to go by the script review, this seems to verge on being pretentious character driven film. I maybe in the minority here, but I don't watch Bond films to see high art. When I want to watch films on par with 'Brokeback Mountain' or 'Capote' then I'll go directly to that.


Sorry, For a Bond film to work, for me, it all starts with the man himself. And there is no credibility to Daniel Craig as James Bond. For me Craig as Bond, holds as much credibility as Michael Keaton playing Batman..a joke when he was first cast. An insult to me now as a die hard Batman fan.

You watch gay movies

I hope there are no naked people in the main title sequence. That's getting a little old. They managed to do a pretty cool one with Dr. No.

[Tarl_Cabot]

http://www.aintitcoo...ay.cgi?id=23103

dunno if this is anything new but it was posted today.

[Loomis]

Sounds fantastic (and the "flaws" don't strike me as so terrible). It's becoming clearer and clearer why talent like Craig, Green and Wright signed on.

[Jim]

It sounds jolly good.

Turning James Bond into some sort of character - extraordinary.

[Loomis]

Turning James Bond into some sort of character - extraordinary.

If done interestingly enough, we can live without Hans Gruber-calibre villains, eh?

[killkenny kid]

http://www.aintitcoo...ay.cgi?id=23103

dunno if this is anything new but it was posted today.

I'll bookmark this post and come back to it on Nov, 19th. All I'll say is red light went off in my head.

[Harmsway]

I don't particularly think the flaws Merrick cites are anything particularly damning or serious for the production.

A one-dimensional villain? Since when has Bond *not* had a fairly one-dimensional villain... even in the Fleming novels? Bond villains are something that's primarily made in the performance, and hopefully Mikkelsen can deliver there. Furthermore, I think a somewhat uninteresting villain, if Mikkelsen can't really make him work, is a fairly forgiveable flaw. After all, he does die 3/4ths of the way through the film anyhow.

Furthermore, the "Bond the renegade" shtick I think works quite well. Say what you will about it being a little overused before, but I think it can be fine here. It may have been done before, but it really hasn't been done particularly well before and that contributes to its "tired" factor.

The question he asks is "Will audiences accept this new Bond?" - a Bond who has come from a lower class to rise to an upper class, a Bond that is really fleshed out. The Bond of CASINO ROYALE was Bond for me, just Bond in a origin that hadn't been given us either by Fleming or by EON. Is this a Bond audiences will accept? Maybe, maybe not. It's a Bond *I* accept.

The immediate question I think that the rather excellent script now brings us to is "Can Campbell really carry this off?" Before, I had thought Campbell more than capable of bringing us CASINO ROYALE, but I didn't know quite how extreme it was... somehow, now I wonder. I have high hopes, but it does seem like CASINO ROYALE is really out of Campbell's league. I hope Campbell brings his best game to CASINO ROYALE and really surprises us.

[Andrew]

Wow. That scene with Vesper trying to clean her hands sounds great(with everything else to of course)! This is truely going to be incredible. I just hope it isn't screwed up in post-production and we see a completely different product.

This report has made me even more jealous of those that have the script .

[zencat]

A tipster claims this AICN review is based on a post-Haggis draft, but I read nothing that indicates this in the review. Sounds like the same Dec draft that was reviewed at IGN and Latino Review.