Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

A different kind of bashing for Craig


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
130 replies to this topic

#1 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:40 PM

The media bashing that Craig is getting is easily worse than what any other Bond got. This was driven home to me when flipping through the channels last night I got to CNN and Paula Zahn Now--it caught my attention when they were running a piece on Bond and Daniel Craig.

The piece was all about the controversy over the casting of Craig--it talked about the anti-Craig site, not being able to drive a stick, having his teeth knocked out, him being blonde, interviewing someone saying he's not good looking enough, etc.

This is very MAINSTREAM ATTENTION and the FIRST IMPRESSION a lot are getting(through this and other mainstream outlets now) beyond Craig's announcement is negative. Craig is being associated with controversy, troubles and shortcomings. This has certainly been spreading and is reaching public consciousness.

None of the other Bonds have had anything near this relentlessly negative bashing before they even started. Even Lazenby before OHMSS came out didn't have near this much bad attention. Dalton had it mostly neutral and Brosnan had mostly positives thrown at him. Sean didn't have to worry about this pre-phenomena and Roger from what I gather had positives or at least neutral.

Daniel Craig with this unprecedented bashing pre-Bond is off to a shaky start that gives him an uphill battle to make it as Bond. His name is already being associated with shortcomings to the mainstream.

And why is Craig getting this? Partly it's our hyper-media world but Dalton a little and especially Pierce dealt with much the same--and Pierce got roses while Timothy had it mostly smooth.

The other part is that Daniel Craig is and always was a risky choice for Bond--especially for the mainstream. He doesn't fit in with the suave, tall darkish cinematic Bond mold that audiences have expected. THIS MAKES HIM AN EASIER TARGET. And the media(at least some of it and then the rest often follows) likes an easy target. You can make the case he's a very talented but miscast actor--though maybe he will suprise a lot of people and really become Bond. He's a big risk and even some of his strong supporters have admitted this--now we have to see if Craig can overcome this and hit one out of the ball park. I'm not sure if he can do it or not. I'm still wait and see though all this mainstream negativity makes me somewhat more pessimistic about box office.

#2 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:53 PM

Seannery, this film is eight months away. If it's a well-made entertaining film, I think people will flock to see it - like they have done with every other Bond film. Moore had plenty of bad publicity and the much harder task of following Connery, who he was also nothing like. LALD was an enjoyable Bond film, though, so it didn't matter.

Let's not get carried away! :tup: It's a brief firestorm of tabloid interest in Bond. This week it's negative on Craig, but they're negative on Bond generally, not just him. We've had months of 'Charlize Theron rejects role' nonsense, remember. None of that was about Craig. The good news is Bond is still news. :D

#3 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:54 PM

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the media - Craig was the wrong choice for the part of 007.

#4 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:55 PM

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the media - Craig was the wrong choice for the part of 007.


Based on what, exactly?

#5 Captain Grimes

Captain Grimes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 303 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:58 PM

Right now CNN.com has a very negative video segment on its front page. As you say, Seannery, this has filtered into the mainstream press, and it's worrying.

What is the source of this negativity? Granted, the average person has a mental image of Bond, and Craig does not match it. A little skepticism is understandable. But these stories are really fairly vicious. The CNN reporter in the online video is almost shouting with maniacal glee as she talks to people on the street about how awful Craig is. He can't drive a stick! Can you believe it?!

Honestly, I didn't think people cared about Bond this much. Casino Royale is getting much, much more press than the new Superman and Spiderman movies. Why? Has Craig done something terrible that only journalists know about? Is he a child rapist? I can understand thinking he doesn't look the part, but these personal attacks are absurd.

:tup:

Edited by Captain Grimes, 01 March 2006 - 03:59 PM.


#6 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:04 PM

The media just needs tsomething to talk about...when this film opens alot of people are gonna feel like :tup:. I think the attitudes will change once we have a trailor.

Don't buy into the machine Darren.Let's give this lad a chance. :D

:D

#7 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:08 PM


The more I think about it, the more I agree with the media - Craig was the wrong choice for the part of 007.


Based on what, exactly?



Talking with Bond fans and friends. I chatted with one of the CBN team members at an event a couple of weeks ago and even though he has been quiet on the subject of Craig's casting, he admitted that he thought Craig was the wrong choice.
Aside from views on CBN I have yet to talk to someone who is enthusiastic about Craig as 007. A number of people seem to point to him not being attractive enough and some of my pro-Brosnan fans made comments like "Which do you think will be first? Will [Barbie'] Ken doll become a real man, or will CASINO ROYALE get a full cast?"
There just seems to be a general consensus out there that Craig is wrong for the part.

Personally, I'm excited about the casting of Craig, but I think he was the wrong choice.

#8 avl

avl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:12 PM


What is the source of this negativity? Granted, the average person has a mental image of Bond, and Craig does not match it.

:tup:


That's all it is. A wide open goal for tabloid and "entertainment" journalists to aim at. Momentum certainly seems to be building up at the moment. News media wants an easy story and a chance to snear and make snide comments - that's what passes for entertainment journalism these days. cnn is just as bad as the tabloids - they just do it by making the tabloids reaction the story. Our hope must be that they get bored and move on to the next one, or that EON starts an effective PR campaign to turn the tide

#9 Gabe Vieira

Gabe Vieira

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3873 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa, USA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:14 PM

The media just needs something to talk about...

Exactly. Craig is getting attention for no real reason other than people have nothing better to do with their time. The fact that people are complaining about Craig being cast as Bond is not going to get him un-cast.

And this whole thing makes even less sense 'cause the movie is not even out yet! If the movie came out, and Craig's performance was unanimously horrible, then this "Craig Bashing" would actually make sense. Then Craig would "deserve" the bad rep.

We're wiping before we've even taken the crap, folks.

#10 stone cold

stone cold

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 222 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:16 PM

yeah..dismaying... predicatable. weird how negative feelings seem to linger and build into something while good publicity sort of has a one shot chance of staying in the public consciousness. strange also how and why the 'fan' + media craig haters seem to want to hammer their point home in a early bid for a form of i-told-you-so irate lameness.

Craig is such a bold choice..but inspired. ..that the super bland, averaging commercial media should choose to target him, to go for him is very sad. he is a unique actor with unique ( presumably all important ) looks... its an easy target for the morons basically. most people are fools..casting Craig was a risk because his placing on the Bond pedastal is asking for trouble from the like-minds, the people who dont go and see Munich, the people who'd want a young brosnan rip off.

Craig is a niche actor..with a growing following - the media would be thrilled with some lightweight prettyboy they can treat like any other celebrity. Daniel Craig appears far more reserved and serious and therefore will not play this game.. i respect him for that. But its risky. But when he stonewalled the UK tabloid media at the opening press conference about KateMoss and Sienna Miller..they now want his blood and set out to bring him down. This in turn surely affects the vast portion of the population swung by such things..Bond fans included. They all want their man to be invincible - and thats understandable. But Craig is edgy in real life - he's heavyweight..its that fact that the modern super media can't really get to grips with. He's not a simple proposition. He's not instant.. he's not easily packaged. I think this is a strength..but in the media it makes him quite vulnerable.. they dont know much about him, what they see they dont like, so they hate him.

Craig will be aware of all this furore.. sure hes used to it now but i'm also quite sure he has personally found some of it vaguely distressing/upsetting. He spoke quite openly about being nervous taking the role. However i believe that he will seriously dig deep and make this Bond something special.. the stakes are higher now. This could result in the best Bond ever. If it goes the other way it will be very upsetting - because however indirectly..the media and negative public awareness has helped burden and damage a movie that should have been great.

Personally this would break my heart a bit. Plenty of people are ready to pounce if this messes up. But seriously guys.. Craig, Green, Wright, Mads starring in Casino Royale!!.. updated by Paul Haggis!!?? - it sounds like a dream come true.. it sounds quality..it sounds like it means business. People who want more of their ridiculous big lightweight Bond movies of recent years astound me..dont they want danger? classic Bond? violence, action , charisma, sexiness, sophisication, ice coolness, charm? this is the real Bond i love.... .. Casino Royale has reignited my interest. it seems the brosnan era maybe did big business for Bond, but also subtlely damaged our and the media's perception of the Bond we love. This could be the context to the general vibe of unsureness and hostility to Daniel Craig. He sure isnt like the Bonds of the past..a good thing surely..but enough of a blood trail to start the media hunt off.. his uncoventional looks also sadly are 90% of it. But there is hope...when people see his presence and stunning magnetism on screen all this controversey will subside.. i really really hope. come on CR, Craig.. you have to really pull this one off..i mean..it has to be stunning to fight back.. u r right..it needs to knock it out of the park. hopefully instead of getting cold feet.. this attention will put serious fire into the film. **** the media and the haters..lets hope this rocks. I think it will.

#11 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:17 PM

I still back Craig, but I wished they hired a new M, and didn't have all that publicity with actresses turning down the part of Vesper.

The problem is the media has nothing to talk about anymore. Even news shows are more interested in entertainment than real news. Just about a month ago the Dallas Morning News had a front page story about Oprah.

#12 morganhavoc

morganhavoc

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 219 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:24 PM

A preview TrailEr would be nice , But Hollywood and the press in general like nothing better than to see someone fail. EON isn't loved by a lot of people, Sony isn't beloved either, and Craig is seen as a usurper to the Bond throne, so a lot of people are more than happy to smear Casino Royale and the "Littlest Bond of them all" Daniel Craig.

Craig may just pull it off, still think not darkening the hair is a big mistake, would have made the transition a lot easier.

#13 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:25 PM



The more I think about it, the more I agree with the media - Craig was the wrong choice for the part of 007.


Based on what, exactly?



Talking with Bond fans and friends. I chatted with one of the CBN team members at an event a couple of weeks ago and even though he has been quiet on the subject of Craig's casting, he admitted that he thought Craig was the wrong choice.
Aside from views on CBN I have yet to talk to someone who is enthusiastic about Craig as 007. A number of people seem to point to him not being attractive enough and some of my pro-Brosnan fans made comments like "Which do you think will be first? Will [Barbie'] Ken doll become a real man, or will CASINO ROYALE get a full cast?"
There just seems to be a general consensus out there that Craig is wrong for the part.

Personally, I'm excited about the casting of Craig, but I think he was the wrong choice.


I understand what you're saying, Darren - but what is the real basis for the concern here, if we look at it? That he's not attractive enough, basically, isn't it? The thing about the film not being cast isn't really a concern, surely. DR NO turned out okay. :tup: And I can see the concern over his looks - but then I see the stills and it's like 'The guy's a genius! Last time I saw him he was this haggard big-eared blond guy, and here he is with the fittest most athletic physique of any guy to play Bond yet and he looks as cool as you can be.' Perhaps it's just me, but those stills got me excited*. Sure, he's never going to be as pretty as Pierce. Or even as Tim. But he looks the part - and the guy is a bloody amazing actor!

I'm not really sure what there is to worry about.

Have another look at the photos. And get ready for the best Bond in 30-something years.**

Let's not succumb to the negativity ourselves, people. I thought we were *BOND FANS*. Rallying cry/pep talk over. :D


* In a non-sexual way, people.
**Except NSNA, of course. :D

#14 avl

avl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:33 PM

yeah..dismaying... predicatable. weird how negative feelings seem to linger and build into something while good publicity sort of has a one shot chance of staying in the public consciousness. strange also how and why the 'fan' + media craig haters seem to want to hammer their point home in a early bid for a form of i-told-you-so irate lameness.

Craig is such a bold choice..but inspired. ..that the super bland, averaging commercial media should choose to target him, to go for him is very sad. he is a unique actor with unique ( presumably all important ) looks... its an easy target for the morons basically. most people are fools..casting Craig was a risk because his placing on the Bond pedastal is asking for trouble from the like-minds, the people who dont go and see Munich, the people who'd want a young brosnan rip off.

..lets hope this rocks. I think it will.

edited only for space

What a great post Stone Cold!! Really sums up my frustrations and hopes :tup: :D

#15 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:38 PM

I don't see this as 'a different kind of bashing' at all. It's just some people who can't handle the idea of a Bond with blonde hair want it to be. This stuff is all meaningless.

#16 TheREAL008

TheREAL008

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1190 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:45 PM

Well, to be slightly fair at least there were public opinions from the webcast.

#17 gkgyver

gkgyver

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1891 posts
  • Location:Bamberg, Bavaria

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:55 PM

Seannery, this film is eight months away.


Uh, excuse me, what? CR is only eight months away? My god, how time flies! Sooner than expected.

As far as I'm concerned, I think Craig is perfect. I never gave a damn about media bashing, and you'd be well advised to do the same until you've seen CR on opening night.
Based on the promo pictures I've seen, Craig looks like a tad more menacing version of Tim Dalton, and that is good.

#18 ludger pistor

ludger pistor

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:02 PM

Stop getting worried and upset about every bit of negative publicity. There's eight months till the film opens. Any publicity at all at this stage is great.
Now, if the reviews are negative one week before it opens then there will be problems.Right now any publicity is a bonus. The public may not like Craig as Bond at the moment but that's mainly because the vast majority don't know who he is! That will soon change when the trailers hit and the interviews start. All this controversy now will be great for ticket sales.

#19 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:02 PM

I don't see this as 'a different kind of bashing' at all. It's just some people who can't handle the idea of a Bond with blonde hair want it to be. This stuff is all meaningless.




Maybe i'm wrong but I think it's different--pre-bashing negativity jumping to the mainstream press before the film is out. Pierce and Tim didn't get that at all--I was around and I know that. Maybe they got some UK tabloid snipes but in the USA I heard zero negative press about them before the film came out. They were seen as in the Bond mold--especially Pierce. Don't know for sure about Roger but outside the UK I can't see he got that much negativity--historically they say with the Saint and all many saw him with Bondian qualities. George is the most comparable and you know what happened to him--and again though I don't think outside the UK that pre-film release he got this much mainstream negativity.

Is it meaningless--I think not. It creates a bad initial impression--of course it can be overcome if Craig really nails Bond to overcome his different look and approach. He's risky but he still may pull it off. That he's talented helps.

#20 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:04 PM

The media just needs tsomething to talk about...when this film opens alot of people are gonna feel like :tup:. I think the attitudes will change once we have a trailor.


If Craig is at all aware of the negative hype, which I would think is inevitable by now, I hope he is thinking the same thing. It'd be great to see a PR release where Craig starts the intro: "Before we get started, I'd like to say that all you who doubt me can go blow it out your [censored]s because you'll be eating your words come November."

No, of course that wouldn't be a smart thing to do. But I do hope that's his personal attitude towards the critics and I wish I could have a personal interview with Craig in which he could just tell me. I admit that all the abounding negativity does shake my faith that we'll see Craig in 3 successful and successive Bond films. But steady breathing and an appeal to logic tells me that a great film will be all it takes to get the public favoring Craig. I just wish I could hear SOMETHING positive from out there. I am weak. I will need positive reinforcement before too long. :D

#21 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:10 PM

Seannery, yes this is different to Pierce, who was the Anointed One. :tup: I can see what you mean about Tim - wasn't so bad. I also don't know so much about Roger's reception. Not sure it's fair to bring up Lazenby, though - he took himself out of the race right before the film was released. I wonder if all of that other negative publicity would have really harmed the film as much as 1. Him *resigning* from the role, so what's the point in getting excited abotu thsi new guy, when he's already old? 2. A very shocking ending. If Lazenby had stuck to his contract, who's to say that OHMSS wouldn't have been a slightly bigger hit - it was already a moderate one - and his next few films increasingly more successful. Lazenby was also - understandably - in way over his head. Craig's been a professional actor in the public eye for a decade or more.

But yes, we live in a different media age.

I still think all that will count will be the film. Short of him being arrested or whatever, I think no amount of negative publicity will matter much if the film is a blast. People will just say 'Wow! I was expecting this to be crap but it's great' and go and see it.

#22 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:15 PM

Not sure it's fair to bring up Lazenby, though - he took himself out of the race right before the film was released. I wonder if all of that other negative publicity would have really harmed the film as much as 1. Him *resigning* from the role, so what's the point in getting excited abotu thsi new guy, when he's already old? 2. A very shocking ending. If Lazenby had stuck to his contract, who's to say that OHMSS wouldn't have been a slightly bigger hit - it was already a moderate one - and his next few films increasingly more successful.


A bit like Craig's buddy Chris Eccleston quitting Dr Who one week in! Negative press reaction to him doing that accompanied by all sorts of stories as to why did nothing to harm Dr Who's success.

#23 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:24 PM

Moore had plenty of bad publicity and the much harder task of following Connery, who he was also nothing like.


True, and that's something that ought to be pointed out more often. However, he was a zany, fun-for-all-the-family entertainer (although not so much so in LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, although let's not forget that they weren't as successful as THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and its followups).

Granted, for all we know it may be the case that Craig is an absolute genius at goofy humour and will out-Moore Moore in terms of being, essentially, James Bond the clown. But based on his roles to date, it seems considerably more likely that he'll make Dalton look like Hugh Grant (as you memorably put it). And as CBner Jaelle once said (although she was actually talking about Clive Owen), he'd be a challenge even to those of us who'd welcome him.

Which is to say, longwindedly, that Moore was a much easier sell than Craig.

On the other hand, apart from Jackman and Owen, who, exactly, should Eon have cast in place of Craig in order to guarantee a CASINO ROYALE production free from fan and media sniping? Cavill would have been bashed as "Baby Bond", Visnjic derided for being Croatian, Alex O'Lachlan written off as a Lazenby clone.... plenty of faults would have been picked in whoever they'd chosen. It just so happens that people are sneering at "James Blonde", but in an alternate universe they're roasting Julian McMahon for being an Aussie and not as good-looking as Brosnan. What should Eon have done to ensure plain sailing for the series? Paid through the nose for Brosnan, Jackman or Owen (all of whom would have been doing it purely or chiefly for the money, and probably without being willing to commit to Bond for more than one film at a time)? Scrapped it?

One thing I'm sure of is that, however well or badly CR ends up doing, Craig will not walk or be pushed after just one film. The loss of face for all concerned (coupled with the near-impossibility of hiring another lead for a series that under such circumstances would be dying on its behind in public in the most embarrassing way since, oh, the twilight years of the SPEED franchise) would almost certainly be enough to finish the series. Come what may, he'll do at least two films.

#24 Kara Milovy

Kara Milovy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Location:New York area

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:28 PM

I understand what you're saying, Darren - but what is the real basis for the concern here, if we look at it? That he's not attractive enough, basically, isn't it?

Let's step back from us, the hardcore, semi-crazed Bond fans, with our strong and particular opinions.

The general public knows Bond. Even people who've never seen a Bond movie know who he is. He's part of the zeitgeist. He's a cultural meme.

The general view is that Craig doesn't fit the meme. Because he doesn't. He's a fab actor, a powerful film presence, but so is Kevin Spacey, so is Jack Nicholson, so is Denzel Washington, so is Willem Dafoe. None of these fit the meme, none would satisfy the fans or the public.

It is a mistake to dismiss the public's dismay because they don't know Bond as well as we fans. It is a mistake to think the mental image of Bond doesn't matter. The public has held that image for over 50 years. It's meaningful.

The issue will be bodies in theater seats. That's it. And that will depend on a public acceptance. Great reviews won't do it--if movie tickets sold based on great reviews, everyone would have seen CAPOTE and no one would have seen DAREDEVIL. Word of mouth might do it, but if people don't see it in the first place, word of mouth won't spread. P.R. will help, but Sony/Eon have fumbled the P.R. over and over.

The media is more ravenous than at any time in history. We can't compare Craig's reception to that of other new Bonds, who were all introduced before 24-hour newscasts, before a zillion web forums which traditional media report on. We're swimming in brand new waters here.

From Craig's introductory interview at the first press conference, he rankled the press. He's blown numerous opportunities to get them on his side. This is largely Sony's and Eon's fault, I suspect. He needs good handlers; the whole movie does, and it hasn't been happening.

Now, as I recall from DAD, a November release meant a full-blown gear-up for media coverage starting in May. So we have some time. But they really, really need to get their acts together, or this controversial choice will kill them.

Edited by Kara Milovy, 01 March 2006 - 05:32 PM.


#25 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:31 PM

Let's not succumb to the negativity ourselves, people. I thought we were *BOND FANS*. Rallying cry/pep talk over. :tup:


Right, but our own personal feelings about how we think we will feel when we see the movie has nothing to do with whether we think he was a good choice or not.

As a Bond fan I want the series to continue, and therefore financially viable. Therefore to me the test of whether an actor is a good choice is how successful the movie will be with him in the lead role.

Our personal preference has no bearing on whether he is a good choice or not.

#26 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:39 PM

Seannery, yes this is different to Pierce, who was the Anointed One. :tup: I can see what you mean about Tim - wasn't so bad. I also don't know so much about Roger's reception. Not sure it's fair to bring up Lazenby, though - he took himself out of the race right before the film was released. I wonder if all of that other negative publicity would have really harmed the film as much as 1. Him *resigning* from the role, so what's the point in getting excited abotu thsi new guy, when he's already old? 2. A very shocking ending. If Lazenby had stuck to his contract, who's to say that OHMSS wouldn't have been a slightly bigger hit - it was already a moderate one - and his next few films increasingly more successful. Lazenby was also - understandably - in way over his head. Craig's been a professional actor in the public eye for a decade or more.

But yes, we live in a different media age.

I still think all that will count will be the film. Short of him being arrested or whatever, I think no amount of negative publicity will matter much if the film is a blast. People will just say 'Wow! I was expecting this to be crap but it's great' and go and see it.






Perhaps SNF--I agree the film can definitely change things. But I still think a bad first impression with the mainstream needs to be overcome. Unfairly first impressions run the risk of being lasting. And not just a first impression with the general audience but the mainstream media which in further reporting will most likely remember this and make this part of the angle they take.

And why the critiques? Unfairly or not because he doesn't look and perhaps act like the Bond cinema fans expect. So this discord is a reflection IMO of a brave and risky choice for Bond. It was bound(or Bond!) to be controversial. So this is an extra hill the film will have to overcome and therefore it REALLY has to be a topfight Bond to overcome. It's all up to Eon and Craig now--when you take the risky path(the road less traveled) you really need to deliver strongly. If they do then most likely this negativity will mean little and picking a different type Bond will please more than fanboys. It won't be easy.

#27 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:39 PM

:tup:


I understand what you're saying, Darren - but what is the real basis for the concern here, if we look at it? That he's not attractive enough, basically, isn't it?

Let's step back from us, the hardcore, semi-crazed Bond fans, with our strong and particular opinions.

The general public knows Bond. Even people who've never seen a Bond movie know who he is. He's part of the zeitgeist. He's a cultural meme.

The general view is that Craig doesn't fit the meme. Because he doesn't. He's a fab actor, a powerful film presence, but so is Kevin Spacey, so is Jack Nicholson, so is Denzel Washington, so is Willem Dafoe. None of these fit the meme, none would satisfy the fans or the public.

It is a mistake to dismiss the public's dismay because they don't know Bond as well as we fans. It is a mistake to think the mental image of Bond doesn't matter. The public has held that image for over 50 years. It's meaningful.

The issue will be bodies in theater seats. That's it. And that will depend on a public acceptance. Great reviews won't do it--if movie tickets sold based on great reviews, everyone would have seen CAPOTE and no one would have seen DAREDEVIL. Word of mouth might do it, but if people don't see it in the first place, word of mouth won't spread. P.R. will help, but Sony/Eon have fumbled the P.R. over and over.

The media is more ravenous than at any time in history. We can't compare Craig's reception to that of other new Bonds, who were all introduced before 24-hour newscasts, before a zillion web forums which traditional media report on. We're swimming in brand new waters here.

From Craig's introductory interview at the first press conference, he rankled the press. He's blown numerous opportunities to get them on his side. This is largely Sony's and Eon's fault, I suspect. He needs good handlers; the whole movie does, and it hasn't been happening.

Now, as I recall from DAD, a November release meant a full-blown gear-up for media coverage starting in May. So we have some time. But they really, really need to get their acts together, or this controversial choice will kill them.


Good post KM. :D

I guess it does come down to the question: what are you going to do about this now, EON/Sony? You've made your bed. Now just how comfortable do you want it to be?

#28 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:48 PM


Let's not succumb to the negativity ourselves, people. I thought we were *BOND FANS*. Rallying cry/pep talk over. :D


Right, but our own personal feelings about how we think we will feel when we see the movie has nothing to do with whether we think he was a good choice or not.

As a Bond fan I want the series to continue, and therefore financially viable. Therefore to me the test of whether an actor is a good choice is how successful the movie will be with him in the lead role.

Our personal preference has no bearing on whether he is a good choice or not.




Absolutely :tup: I also want the series to continue and therefore an eye towards the box office must always be there. You need an actor who can embody the role and that the public accepts as 007.

#29 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:53 PM


Moore had plenty of bad publicity and the much harder task of following Connery, who he was also nothing like.

True, and that's something that ought to be pointed out more often. However, he was a zany, fun-for-all-the-family entertainer (although not so much so in LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, although let's not forget that they weren't as successful as THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and its followups).

Granted, for all we know it may be the case that Craig is an absolute genius at goofy humour and will out-Moore Moore in terms of being, essentially, James Bond the clown. But based on his roles to date, it seems considerably more likely that he'll make Dalton look like Hugh Grant (as you memorably put it). And as CBner Jaelle once said (although she was actually talking about Clive Owen), he'd be a challenge even to those of us who'd welcome him.

Which is to say, longwindedly, that Moore was a much easier sell than Craig.

On the other hand, apart from Jackman and Owen, who, exactly, should Eon have cast in place of Craig in order to guarantee a CASINO ROYALE production free from fan and media sniping? Cavill would have been bashed as "Baby Bond", Visnjic derided for being Croatian, Alex O'Lachlan written off as a Lazenby clone.... plenty of faults would have been picked in whoever they'd chosen. It just so happens that people are sneering at "James Blonde", but in an alternate universe they're roasting Julian McMahon for being an Aussie and not as good-looking as Brosnan. What should Eon have done to ensure plain sailing for the series? Paid through the nose for Brosnan, Jackman or Owen (all of whom would have been doing it purely or chiefly for the money, and probably without being willing to commit to Bond for more than one film at a time)? Scrapped it?

One thing I'm sure of is that, however well or badly CR ends up doing, Craig will not walk or be pushed after just one film. The loss of face for all concerned (coupled with the near-impossibility of hiring another lead for a series that under such circumstances would be dying on its behind in public in the most embarrassing way since, oh, the twilight years of the SPEED franchise) would almost certainly be enough to finish the series. Come what may, he'll do at least two films.

Agreed, Loomis!

#30 Captain Grimes

Captain Grimes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 303 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:57 PM

From Craig's introductory interview at the first press conference, he rankled the press. He's blown numerous opportunities to get them on his side.


Very nice post, Kara, but how has Craig rankled the press, and what opportunities has he blown? I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm just curious.