130 replies to this topic

[Captain Grimes]

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.

They didn't like his evasive answers about Sienna Miller. They were upset that he was generally terse. He used foul language, which numerous media noted with disdain.

Since then, there have been quite a lot of interviews. Has he made them laugh? Has he gotten them on his side? Has he charmed them? Or do they come back and say, 'Gosh, this guy is talented and edgy, but I don't like him.'? It seems to be the latter.

Yes, I see how this could antagonize the press. And it's possible, as you note elsewhere, that Craig might end up going the way of Dalton.

The ironic thing, given the media's claim that Craig isn't much like Bond in real life, is that he is treating the press just as Bond would treat them. He seems basically like a private, rather shy guy who has no interest in playing silly games just to appease silly people. This might hurt him in the end, but it's earned him my respect, at least. He's doing this on his own terms, and that is both admirable and "Bondian."

[tdalton]

The problem is the fans having been Bondless(!) for a long stretch will flock to the theatres. CR will sell a lot of tickets before fans realize they have an imposter as 007. This will encourage EON into thinking they made the right choice and retaining DC for yet another Bond movie. Which means between Brosnan's Bond and the time we hopefully see a suitable Bond actor it'll be a good 7 years. WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME FOLKS!

Every new direction the franchise has taken has been out of necessity. As a Dalton fan, I hate to say it, but had the series not moved to Brosnan and had it not taken a turn into the overblown action genre, the series would have gone away after a GoldenEye film starring Timothy Dalton. Sadly, because of the ridiculous superficiality that characterized the 1990s, the only way to make Bond popular again after the mega-failure that was Licence to Kill was to make Bond a simpler kind of film, and make it more like the Rambo and Lethal Weapon movies. Now that we've finally moved away from that kind of film dominating the action-adventure genre and the spy-genre, films like the Bourne films are allowing EON to go back to a more Dalton-esque approach, making the film more serious. So, hopefully we will be "stuck" with that for a long time.

I think that the people at EON are very intelligent people, and they obviously know which direction they have to take the Bond films in in order for it to survive. A Dalton film in the mid '90s up until just a couple of years ago would have tanked even worse than LTK did.

[SeanValen00V]

The problem is the fans having been Bondless(!) for a long stretch will flock to the theatres. CR will sell a lot of tickets before fans realize they have an imposter as 007. This will encourage EON into thinking they made the right choice and retaining DC for yet another Bond movie. Which means between Brosnan's Bond and the time we hopefully see a suitable Bond actor it'll be a good 7 years. WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME FOLKS!

Every new direction the franchise has taken has been out of necessity. As a Dalton fan, I hate to say it, but had the series not moved to Brosnan and had it not taken a turn into the overblown action genre, the series would have gone away after a GoldenEye film starring Timothy Dalton. Sadly, because of the ridiculous superficiality that characterized the 1990s, the only way to make Bond popular again after the mega-failure that was Licence to Kill was to make Bond a simpler kind of film, and make it more like the Rambo and Lethal Weapon movies. Now that we've finally moved away from that kind of film dominating the action-adventure genre and the spy-genre, films like the Bourne films are allowing EON to go back to a more Dalton-esque approach, making the film more serious. So, hopefully we will be stuck with that for a long time.

I think that the people at EON are very intelligent people, and they obviously know which direction they have to take the Bond films in in order for it to survive. A Dalton film in the mid '90s up until just a couple of years ago would have tanked even worse than LTK did.

Don't be so sure Dalton's Goldneye wouldn't of been a hit, there's this case for the 3rd Bond film for a actor doing better then previous films, Roger Moore's 3rd Bond film did much better then his previous 2, Connery's Goldfinger, Brosnan's world is not enough, to talk about Goldeneye with Dalton, you should assume it could of been as much as a hit as anything else.



Bond films shouldn't survive if it is to be on it's knees with invisable cars and cgi surf scenes and jinx characters, it can do the gritty Licence to Kill and still turn a profit, LTK did pretty well considering the US competition, it's budget, and a poor marketing campaign, now imagine in 1995, less competition, just Toy Story in the fall, the first Dalton bond film to be released in the fall, already alot more things going for it in the US. Internationally LTK did well.

I get fed up of writing the same stuff again whenever anyone considers LTK a failure lol and how it would effect Dalton's 3rd film, copy and past this post and stick it on your walls, there's also good posts in Dalton forums about LTK and how it wasn't a failure. Critically it was top notch, never to be forgotten, Dalton got kudos in the role from critics.

LTK wasn't a mega faliure, and you call yourself a Dalton fan. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

[tdalton]

Don't be so sure Dalton's Goldneye wouldn't of been a hit, there's this case for the 3rd Bond film for a actor doing better then previous films, Roger Moore's 3rd Bond film did much better then his previous 2, Connery's Goldfinger, Brosnan's world is not enough, to talk about Goldeneye with Dalton, you should assume it could of been as much as a hit as anything else.



Bond films shouldn't survive if it is to be on it's knees with invisable cars and cgi surf scenes and jinx characters, it can do the gritty Licence to Kill and still turn a profit, LTK did pretty well considering the US competition, it's budget, and a poor marketing campaign, now imagine in 1995, less competition, just Toy Story in the fall, the first Dalton bond film to be released in the summer, already alot more things going for it in the US. Internationally LTK did well.

I get fed up of writing the same stuff again whenever anyone considers LTK a failure lol and how it would effect Dalton's 3rd film, copy and past this post and stick it on your walls, there's also good posts in Dalton forums about LTK and how it wasn't a failure. Critically it was top notch, never to be forgotten, Dalton got kudos in the role from critics.

LTK wasn't a mega faliure, and you call yourself a Dalton fan.

By Bond's financial standards, LTK wasn't what EON or MGM wanted, thus making it a FINANCIAL failure. As a film, LTK is great, just check my rankings in the "Rank the Bond films" thread where I have it at #4. But, in the superficial decade of the 1990s, another LTK wouldn't have worked well with audiences, IMO.

The bottom line is that the studios are there simply to make money. Although all 4 of Brosnan's films are just flat out terrible IMO (TND and DAD are two of the worst films I've ever seen), they made money, which is something that both of Dalton's films which were very, very good, didn't do quite as good a job at.

[SeanValen00V]

[quote name='tdalton' date='2 March 2006 - 16:23' post='526275']
[quote name='SeanValen00V' post='526273' date='2 March 2006 - 11:21']
Don't be so sure Dalton's Goldneye wouldn't of been a hit, there's this case for the 3rd Bond film for a actor doing better then previous films, Roger Moore's 3rd Bond film did much better then his previous 2, Connery's Goldfinger, Brosnan's world is not enough, to talk about Goldeneye with Dalton, you should assume it could of been as much as a hit as anything else.



Bond films shouldn't survive if it is to be on it's knees with invisable cars and cgi surf scenes and jinx characters, it can do the gritty Licence to Kill and still turn a profit, LTK did pretty well considering the US competition, it's budget, and a poor marketing campaign, now imagine in 1995, less competition, just Toy Story in the fall, the first Dalton bond film to be released in the summer, already alot more things going for it in the US. Internationally LTK did well.

I get fed up of writing the same stuff again whenever anyone considers LTK a failure lol and how it would effect Dalton's 3rd film, copy and past this post and stick it on your walls, there's also good posts in Dalton forums about LTK and how it wasn't a failure. Critically it was top notch, never to be forgotten, Dalton got kudos in the role from critics.

LTK wasn't a mega faliure, and you call yourself a Dalton fan.
[/quote]

By Bond's financial standards, LTK wasn't what EON or MGM wanted, thus making it a FINANCIAL failure. As a film, LTK is great, just check my rankings in the "Rank the Bond films" thread where I have it at #4. But, in the superficial decade of the 1990s, another LTK wouldn't have worked well with audiences, IMO.

The bottom line is that the studios are there simply to make money. Although all 4 of Brosnan's films are just flat out terrible IMO (TND and DAD are two of the worst films I've ever seen), they made money, which is something that both of Dalton's films which were very, very good, didn't do quite as good a job at.
[/quote]



Had they released LTK with a better marketing campaign and possibly in the fall of 1989, we would of seen a different picture with that film in the US, but oversea yep very strong. The buzz in the uk when LTK came out was very cool, it was the number one film for 6 weeks in the uk, even goldeneye didn't do that. GE did 4 weeks.
[/quote}
A very valid point.


Anyway, regarding box office and Dalton's films, not many people appreciate the competition Dalton's Bond had to deal with, you had Mel Gibson doing his lethal weapon films, Arnie was around doing his stuff, Bruce Willis and his Die Hard ties, back to the future and indy 3 in 1989, batman, so much more stuff.
[/quote]
Another valid point.

So when people say LTK failed, I find it harsh to always hear that, it did well considering it wasn't supported by it's own studio mgm marketing wise, they sort of threw it to the wolves in the summer of 89, suicide really, a fall release it should of been, and which every film of bond has since done well in the fall, but international audiences dug this harder edge of Bond, but there was just so much entertainment that year of 1989, the movie world was spoiled really,





JOHN GLEN INTERVIEW

Q. What happened with Licence to Kill? Box office returns were disappointing despite an engaging story and a top-notch performance from Timothy Dalton.

A. The thing is that MGM was going through absolute turmoil at that point. We had, I think, three or four different people on publicity during the course of making it -- they were changing every few weeks. So what happened was that they didn

[tdalton]

The Brosnan films had a great deal of competition. TND went up against Titanic (one of the highest grossing films of all time) and did very well.

[EyesOnly]

Which came out first TDalton? Titanic or TND?

[SeanValen00V]

The Brosnan films had a great deal of competition. TND went up against Titanic (one of the highest grossing films of all time) and did very well.

You think Titanic is representative of the summer of 1989? Indy 3, BAtman, back to the future, star trek 5, lethal weapon 2

And you haven't confirmed to me, that you realise LTK had a poor marketing campaign, not to be blamed on the film or the actor, just the times, deal with it.

Had LTK been released in the fall of 1989, we wouldn't be talking.

That film made mgm release bond films in the fall

Also Titantic is a different genre, is James Bond a romance film? Dalton was up against Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, Batman, back to the future, sci fi films like trek 5, these are big films Spielberg created Indy jones as his james bond since he couldn't direct a Bond film, amercians had their james bond, mel gibson a bond contender at a point, had lethal weaspon 2

So consider with Dalton'S LTK had to contend with, titanic lol is nothing compared to the summer of 1989

No Bond film since has been ever been in tricky waters of competiton, and no film since was troubled by it's studio regarding marketing, for LTK to still do ok and be profitable is a sign Bond is hard to keep down, but it was a well made Bond film also, with a ideal actor to play him.

[tdalton]

Which came out first TDalton? Titanic or TND?

They came out on the same day, I think, but I'm not 100% sure.

The point I was trying to make is that the series has to change stylistically every once in a while, which it has done. I love Dalton's 2 films, they're both in my Top 5, and just for myself, would have LOVED to have seen a Dalton GoldenEye. That's the one thing that I've always said that I would have changed about the way EON has done the Bond franchise (apart from bringing in Dalton earlier), but I don't think that it would have gone over well with the general audience. I remember when I saw the trailer for GE, the one where Brosnan says "You were expecting someone else?", and the trailer actually got a standing ovation in the theater. I dont' believe for a second that the praise that trailer got was simply because Bond was back. A lot of the popularity of GE, sadly, can be attributed to Brosnan and the "charisma" that everyone seems to think that he brought to the role. I for one can't stand any of the films made during Brosnan's tenure in the role (as has been very well documented on these boards), but I would much rather have had those four awful films than to have the series go away completely. It's just the general cycle of the Bond films. They started out serious, and got silly by the time YOLT came around. Then they went serious, it brought the series back to the ground, which allowed the comedy series of DAF-MR to come about. When Dalton came in, he grounded the series again, and it's gotten more and more silly as the Brosnan films have gone, and now it's being grounded again. That's how the Bond franchise has survived over the years, as it just hasn't been able to stay in one style for a substantial period of time, and that's so it can cater to the many different types of fans out there. There are a lot of Bond fans out there who are "Fleming purists" who love when Lazenby and Dalton did with the role, and who love what Connery did during the early part of his tenure, but we're not the ones who make the series profitable. The general mass audience, who enjoys a DAD-style film over an OHMSS-style or a LTK-style Bond film, that keeps the series going.

I think that Craig is performing a necessary service for the Bond series. He's bringing it back to earth after Brosnan's DAD the same way that Lazenby brought it back after YOLT and the same way that Dalton brought it back after AVTAK. But, as the series has always done, the films will probably get more and more ridiculous by the end of Craig's tenure (if he lasts for 3 or 4 films) and will eventually reach the point where someone else has to come and ground it again.

No Bond film since has been ever been in tricky waters of competiton, and no film since was troubled by it's studio regarding marketing, for LTK to still do ok and be profitable is a sign Bond is hard to keep down, but it was a well made Bond film also, with a ideal actor to play him.

I agree with you that a Bond movie, no matter how bad or different, is hard to keep down. But, I don't think that any studio would settle for a lesser amount of money when they know that there's an actor out there, who is already associated with the Bond role, who they know could bring in more money for them than the guy that they already have playing the role.

[SeanValen00V]

Which came out first TDalton? Titanic or TND?

They came out on the same day, I think, but I'm not 100% sure.

The point I was trying to make is that the series has to change stylistically every once in a while, which it has done. I love Dalton's 2 films, they're both in my Top 5, and just for myself, would have LOVED to have seen a Dalton GoldenEye. That's the one thing that I've always said that I would have changed about the way EON has done the Bond franchise (apart from bringing in Dalton earlier), but I don't think that it would have gone over well with the general audience. I remember when I saw the trailer for GE, the one where Brosnan says "You were expecting someone else?", and the trailer actually got a standing ovation in the theater. I dont' believe for a second that the praise that trailer got was simply because Bond was back. A lot of the popularity of GE, sadly, can be attributed to Brosnan and the "charisma" that everyone seems to think that he brought to the role. I for one can't stand any of the films made during Brosnan's tenure in the role (as has been very well documented on these boards), but I would much rather have had those four awful films than to have the series go away completely. It's just the general cycle of the Bond films. They started out serious, and got silly by the time YOLT came around. Then they went serious, it brought the series back to the ground, which allowed the comedy series of DAF-MR to come about. When Dalton came in, he grounded the series again, and it's gotten more and more silly as the Brosnan films have gone, and now it's being grounded again. That's how the Bond franchise has survived over the years, as it just hasn't been able to stay in one style for a substantial period of time, and that's so it can cater to the many different types of fans out there. There are a lot of Bond fans out there who are "Fleming purists" who love when Lazenby and Dalton did with the role, and who love what Connery did during the early part of his tenure, but we're not the ones who make the series profitable. The general mass audience, who enjoys a DAD-style film over an OHMSS-style or a LTK-style Bond film, that keeps the series going.

I think that Craig is performing a necessary service for the Bond series. He's bringing it back to earth after Brosnan's DAD the same way that Lazenby brought it back after YOLT and the same way that Dalton brought it back after AVTAK. But, as the series has always done, the films will probably get more and more ridiculous by the end of Craig's tenure (if he lasts for 3 or 4 films) and will eventually reach the point where someone else has to come and ground it again.

Roger's first two Bond films were not that popular either, you don't know how the marketing campaign with Dalton would of done.


The Bond series could of gone down to earth with Brosnan, exactly how Roger Moore went from space moonraker lol to gritty for your eyes only, appointing a new bond while the current one still had another one in him, is not smart. Now if the film fails, the producers maybe more stupid and think the direction was to blame, not the actor. Their just those tyoe of producers not to admit their mistake, and just change the wrong things.

[Harmsway]

Roger's first two Bond films were not that popular either, you don't know how the marketing campaign with Dalton would of done.

That's a big misconception. While THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was certainly a disappointment, LIVE AND LET DIE was a big success.

[tdalton]

Roger's first two Bond films were not that popular either, you don't know how the marketing campaign with Dalton would of done.


The Bond series could of gone down to earth with Brosnan, exactly how Roger Moore went from space moonraker lol to gritty for your eyes only, appointing a new bond while the current one still had another one in him, is not smart. Now if the film fails, the producers maybe more stupid and think the direction was to blame, not the actor.

You're right, we don't know how the marketing department would have done selling Dalton as Bond for a third time, but I can get a pretty good idea of how they would have done based on how poor a job they did selling him in his second film.

And, from stritcly a financial standpoint, it was a bad idea to replace Pierce after DAD when he clearly had another film in him (from an age perspective). While I'm as happy as could be by that decision from a creative standpoint, I don't think that the financial response to CR is going to be what EON and Sony are looking forward to. I don't see CR being an outright flop, but I don't see it making anywhere near the amount of money that Brosnan's films pulled in for MGM.

[TheBritishEnd]

Regarding being less of a Bond fan(or being labelled a "hater" as stone cold did) because one is less than TOTALLY optimistic about Craig and CR--I don't buy it. We are ALL real Bond fans and we are ALL projecting and guessing with regards to Daniel Craig. We are Bond fans NOT cheerleaders.

Well said. Unless someone just registered as "CraigSucks", everyone here is clearly a Bond fan with no need to 'prove' anything. It's ironic that so many pro-Craigers don't have a problem bashing Brosnan, his (or Roger Moore's) films, or even other fans.

EON doesn't pay me to mindlessly cheer for them. As someone mentioned, I think they're dangerously close to Rick Berman territory at this point. It's an analogy I've seen mentioned elsewhere on other film sites. Cubby's vision was not perfect, but he did have a clear one in mind. Michael and Barbara just seem distracted by anything and everything that comes down the pike.

[avl]

[ It's ironic that so many pro-Craigers don't have a problem bashing Brosnan, his (or Roger Moore's) films, or even other fans.

The irony is that you don't apparently see the difference between criticising actors whose performances we have actually seen and criticising an actor who has not even made his first film.

[Kara Milovy]

Regarding being less of a Bond fan(or being labelled a "hater" as stone cold did) because one is less than TOTALLY optimistic about Craig and CR--I don't buy it. We are ALL real Bond fans and we are ALL projecting and guessing with regards to Daniel Craig. We are Bond fans NOT cheerleaders.

Well said. Unless someone just registered as "CraigSucks", everyone here is clearly a Bond fan with no need to 'prove' anything. It's ironic that so many pro-Craigers don't have a problem bashing Brosnan, his (or Roger Moore's) films, or even other fans.

EON doesn't pay me to mindlessly cheer for them. As someone mentioned, I think they're dangerously close to Rick Berman territory at this point. It's an analogy I've seen mentioned elsewhere on other film sites. Cubby's vision was not perfect, but he did have a clear one in mind. Michael and Barbara just seem distracted by anything and everything that comes down the pike.

Beautifully put, every word. Rah cheer.

[Frankie]

Regarding being less of a Bond fan(or being labelled a "hater" as stone cold did) because one is less than TOTALLY optimistic about Craig and CR--I don't buy it. We are ALL real Bond fans and we are ALL projecting and guessing with regards to Daniel Craig. We are Bond fans NOT cheerleaders. It wouldn't be realistic for all Bond fans to agree on any issue and not to have an opinion beforehand. As Dlib says--you can take the perspective that a Bond fan wants the series to thrive and worry if Craig is cast well enough to keep Bond popular to the general audiences. I hope so. We can all have a view on Craig without being called haters. Passion is cool but if that leads to ripping others for not agreeing with your views--well, then that's lame.

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT post! Especially this quote describes the entire scene on this forum:

We are Bond fans NOT cheerleaders.

This forum and others are being over-run by a bunch of vocal "cheerleaders" who have forgotten (or never known) what made a Bond movie, a Bond movie. (And no, I do not mean the Roger Moore ones either.) Unfortunately I've noticed in otter sadness, that the two Bond websites I subscribe to have taken the falling-in-line approach and in fact have helped the Craig crowd to keep slobbering all over the forums while supressing, for the most part, posters who have displayed passion against this EON travesty. I prefer the rest of us called "Bond Purists." Cinematically speaking, anyway.

[luciusgore]

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! 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.

You're being too optimistic. Craig is being rejected by the public in ways that Dalton or even Lazenby never were. Even Michael Keaton, who was reviled by fans when he got the role of Batman, didn't get this kind of public beating. Ultimately, Craig will have to knock his role out of the park to be accepted. What's a shame is Eon/Sony's inability to grapple with this PR fiasco.

[Jim]

This forum and others are being over-run by a bunch of vocal "cheerleaders" who have forgotten (or never known) what made a Bond movie, a Bond movie.

Noted; but doesn't this run the risk of being dogmatic in asserting what makes a Bond film? If we all ranked the Bonds in the same order, it may be possible to do this, but we don't - there are different perceptions of what makes a Bond film a Bond film. I can guarantee you that my perception will differ to yours, and yours to others. The only apparently universal factor appears to be that Bond fans want to see them.

Yes, we're not cheerleaders (although I do like their pom-poms, and I look damnably hot in a short skirt); but if those professing an interest in the material can't summon up any sort of enthusiasm to see it (even if to see it is to hate it, it's still to see it) then what sort of impression does that create for those with only a passing interest?

[tdalton]

[ It's ironic that so many pro-Craigers don't have a problem bashing Brosnan, his (or Roger Moore's) films, or even other fans.

The irony is that you don't apparently see the difference between criticising actors whose performances we have actually seen and criticising an actor who has not even made his first film.

You're right. One can criticize an actor and his Bond films based on actually seeing them. We haven't seen Craig as Bond yet, but I think that based on what I've seen him do before, that he'll be very good. But, I'll be the first one to criticize him if he turns out to be bad. If he's horrible in the role, I won't stick up for his performance or the film if he turns out not to be good, just because it would be a justification of the effort that I've put in by supporting him for the better part of a year or so now.

[stone cold]

Being dismayed by negative anti-craig fans is not lame..im just frustrated with it,... my posts were an attempt to be optimistic about CR..becaue the current climate is actually quite saddening to me... i am nervous about it... i want Craig to pull ot off badly becasue anything less than near greatness just wont be enough. yeah im a craig fan but only after i found out about Bond... but im not a mindless cheerleader or dogmatic pro craig idiot. i rate him. read my post again.


i just get annoyed with some of the genuinely rabid anti craig posters...mostly on MI6 . the Bond fans who are slightly dubious about him i wasnt calling 'haters' .. i really hope he can do it. i am not a cheerleader for being a Bond fan, and looking forward to Casino Royale.. dont demean me. I just genuinly want to see some excitment amongst the fans badly. Craigs casting has made my interest in Bond go supernova..simply because he is so unlike anything we have seen in Bond or anywhere for a long time.

please do not demean vaguely enthusiastic posts... jesus what a downer .

i am not saying all vague non Craig fans are haters... just please give him a chance and lets be optimistic about this not shoot it all down.. ive read some stuff in some US websites that completely ruthlessly slams Craig now this media/'fan' campaign of pointless disatisfaction and hostility toward Craig has built up. in this age this is maybe highly damaging to the production and the marketing i dont know, i hope not..lets try and not let it affect us. these guys are really going for Craig..lets just cool off and remember we are talking Bond here.. big entertaining movies.. these guys are really trying to make a great movie - that much is obvious to me. lets get begind it cos noone else will.

just very dismayed..all my posts are trying hard to be positive, and they mostly are met with silence. It seems i have no answers to the pessimism and worrying about CR and Craig, but i respect it totally.. insofar that it actually scares me a bit.. i want us to be excited by this film.

CR please be good!

[Seannery]

Being dismayed by negative anti-craig fans is not lame..im just frustrated with it,... my posts were an attempt to be optimistic about CR..becaue the current climate is actually quite saddening to me... i am nervous about it... i want Craig to pull ot off badly becasue anything less than near greatness just wont be enough. yeah im a craig fan but only after i found out about Bond... but im not a mindless cheerleader or dogmatic pro craig idiot. i rate him. read my post again.


i just get annoyed with some of the genuinely rabid anti craig posters...mostly on MI6 . the Bond fans who are slightly dubious about him i wasnt calling 'haters' .. i really hope he can do it. i am not a cheerleader for being a Bond fan, and looking forward to Casino Royale.. dont demean me. I just genuinly want to see some excitment amongst the fans badly. Craigs casting has made my interest in Bond go supernova..simply because he is so unlike anything we have seen in Bond or anywhere for a long time.

please do not demean vaguely enthusiastic posts... jesus what a downer .

i am not saying all vague non Craig fans are haters... just please give him a chance and lets be optimistic about this not shoot it all down.. ive read some stuff in some US websites that completely ruthlessly slams Craig now this media/'fan' campaign of pointless disatisfaction and hostility toward Craig has built up. in this age this is maybe highly damaging to the production and the marketing i dont know, i hope not..lets try and not let it affect us. these guys are really going for Craig..lets just cool off and remember we are talking Bond here.. big entertaining movies.. these guys are really trying to make a great movie - that much is obvious to me. lets get begind it cos noone else will.

just very dismayed..all my posts are trying hard to be positive, and they mostly are met with silence. It seems i have no answers to the pessimism and worrying about CR and Craig, but i respect it totally.. insofar that it actually scares me a bit.. i want us to be excited by this film.

CR please be good!

Dude relax--I wasn't demeaning you at all and anyway I just wasn't talking about just you. I like your enthusiasm--I just objected to you knocking those who disagree with you. We all are Bond fans here and all have projections positive or negative about Craig as Bond. And we all have the right to express them without being seen as less of a fan. Differences are good. This forum is for all of us to give our differing opinions. There are no right answers. And in the end CR will sink or swim of it's own accord--no need to put the weight of the world on us to protect it. If you are right about it's prospects then there will be no worries.

[TheBritishEnd]

Craig is being rejected by the public in ways that Dalton or even Lazenby never were. Even Michael Keaton, who was reviled by fans when he got the role of Batman, didn't get this kind of public beating.

Keaton also had the luxury of being, largely, the first one out of the gate. The public really didn't have anyone to compare him to in the role, aside from Adam West two decades earlier. Craig is stepping into a role and image that has already been clearly defined in the minds of several generations.

[stamper]

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.

I disagree, people don't go to see movies because they are good (movie fans do), the audience at large goes to see a movie because the publicity and hype and trailer and word of the mouth makes them want to see it. That the movie is good or not is irrelevant. Millions went to see Titanic and thought it was [censored]e. But they paid their ticket to see what was the fuss all about anyway.

With Bond, unless the movie is a Titanic like masterpiece that strikes a chord in everyone (which I doubt), no one will bother because "the actor sucks", and no one will pay to see if it's true or not.

Therefore CR is doomed, unless the publicity dept really does some work. Which they are not doing. No poster. No trailer. No teaser, even with no image of the movie. No nothing. Some stupid press conference where they announce casting.

We don't make the big bucks in the short run to the Bond stuff (we do in the long run, because we are fans), a movie needs the short run audience, the one who will flog, see the movie, and forget it. Not the one who will buy merchandise, posters, novels etc, we are a minority.

If I was in charge of the movie, I would be really bothered by what's happening, lucky I'm not.

Craig is being rejected by the public in ways that Dalton or even Lazenby never were. Even Michael Keaton, who was reviled by fans when he got the role of Batman, didn't get this kind of public beating.

This one mostly also because there was a trailer that was great, and EARLY, and that just one shot of Keaton saying "I'm Batman !" convinced the whole world.

World that is is now waiting to be convinced by Craig. And it's getting late !

[Captain Grimes]

EON doesn't pay me to mindlessly cheer for them. As someone mentioned, I think they're dangerously close to Rick Berman territory at this point. It's an analogy I've seen mentioned elsewhere on other film sites. Cubby's vision was not perfect, but he did have a clear one in mind. Michael and Barbara just seem distracted by anything and everything that comes down the pike.

Rick Berman? I'm not sure that's an apt analogy. Most Star Trek fans, at least that I've met, feel that Berman was too conservative, endlessly rehashing Next Generation plots rather than becoming "distracted by anything and everything that comes down the pike." Say what you will about Daniel Craig and Casino Royale, I think you have to admit that Michael and Barbara are taking a big risk--something Rick Berman never cared to do.

Edited by Captain Grimes, 02 March 2006 - 08:27 PM.

[Scottlee]

Okay, just read all the posts...

The press bashing of Craig
As a DC supporter I'm not too bothered by it. The press changes its opinion like the wind changes direction. By the time November comes around, some big network channel somewhere will probably have the bright idea of thinking "Let's praise Craig! No-one else is doing it! People will tune in to see our praise because it's unexpected and radical!". Cue other news networks jumping on the bandwagon. The Brosnan fanatics won't do this, but they are less visible to the public than the mainstream news media. I'd be more worried quite frankly if Craig was getting praised at the moment. That would mean that come November it might be novel to bash Craig. Dodgy logic? Maybe. It's just my opinion, though.

Brosnan's exit
Despite the fact I liked Brosnan ("loved" would be too strong a word), he was definitely kicked out too soon. Regardless of what you thought of him, it would have been much easier for current sceptics to accept Craig had Brosnan left the series at or after his peak rather than before it. A great majortity of even the Brosnan-sceptics think he should have done a 5th. If you ask everyone if he should have done a 5th AND a 6th however, the percentage of "yes" people would probably drop to less than 50%. Thus, general consensus among all Bond fans seems to be that Brosnan went one film too early. If Brosnan had done his 5th, Craig's introduction in Bond22 would have been a lot smoother.

Brosnan taking the series back to low-key with CR
If he had done this, the leap to Craig in Bond22 would have been easier. Changing the Bond actor is never an easy transition for the majority to swallow anyway. Changing the Bond actor AND the series' direction at the same time is just bloody impossible to swallow, at least until people have seen the new Bond in action a couple of times. Having Brosnan start the new Fleming-eque trend in CR, as he would have been perfectly capable of doing, and then letting Craig come in and do his own low-key interpretation of the character in Bond22, would have been much easier for all Bond fans to accept. Also, Dench's final hurrah in CR would have been a Brosnan film and the Craig sceptics would have had one less thing to moan about. If you want a furthermore, consider a Brosnan Bond film (CR) with no madcap Q or flirting Moneypenny. This would have made it easier for Craig's Bond 22 to be similarly adventurous. After all, if it was okay for popular media guy Brosnan to do his Bond-of-the-novels impression, what's the harm in Craig doing it?

To sum up, EON at the moment have picked the right Bond actor at the wrong time for me.

They've only picked 'slightly' the wrong time though. One good turn from Craig in CR and the world may suddenly smell of roses once again, but then everyone knows that.

Craig? Ahead of Owen/Jackman/McMahon?
Works for me. I've never seen the big deal regarding Hugh Jackman. Exactly what is it about him that's so good? He looked decidedly average to me in Swordfish, and I've not seen enough that's good about Owen to get my knickers in a twist about him not getting cast as Bond. Forever touting the names of Jackman and Owen seems more like an excuse to bash Craig rather than a genuine displeasure of not seeing someone get the role. Now Mcmahon is a different kettle of fish. I like him. He's a good candidate. So is Craig though. And I'm happy with the casting (if not the timing).

[Frankie]

Craig is being rejected by the public in ways that Dalton or even Lazenby never were. Even Michael Keaton, who was reviled by fans when he got the role of Batman, didn't get this kind of public beating.

Keaton also had the luxury of being, largely, the first one out of the gate. The public really didn't have anyone to compare him to in the role, aside from Adam West two decades earlier. Craig is stepping into a role and image that has already been clearly defined in the minds of several generations.

Excellent point.

[Kara Milovy]

Therefore CR is doomed, unless the publicity dept really does some work. Which they are not doing. No poster. No trailer. No teaser, even with no image of the movie. No nothing. Some stupid press conference where they announce casting.

You're jumping the gun. I admit the outlook is grim because the pre-publicity hasn't been done well; the casting announcements and media interviews and so on. But it's too early for the posters and teasers. The window for that sort of PR is about six months; we're at eight months. Let's see what they do in May.

Craig? Ahead of Owen/Jackman/McMahon?
Works for me. I've never seen the big deal regarding Hugh Jackman. Exactly what is it about him that's so good? He looked decidedly average to me in Swordfish, and I've not seen enough that's good about Owen to get my knickers in a twist about him not getting cast as Bond. Forever touting the names of Jackman and Owen seems more like an excuse to bash Craig rather than a genuine displeasure of not seeing someone get the role. Now Mcmahon is a different kettle of fish. I like him. He's a good candidate. So is Craig though. And I'm happy with the casting (if not the timing).

It's interesting that you say Jackman looked ordinary in Swordfish, because he was supposed to look ordinary. He was playing an ordinary guy in over his head.

My first reaction to Craig was extremely negative because I had seen him only in Road to Perdition, and thought he looked weasely. He did; because he was playing a weasely guy. Both are good actors with the ability to disappear into a character. I hope that works for Craig. I know it would have worked for Jackman.

[Frankie]

The problem is the fans having been Bondless(!) for a long stretch will flock to the theatres. CR will sell a lot of tickets before fans realize they have an imposter as 007. This will encourage EON into thinking they made the right choice and retaining DC for yet another Bond movie. Which means between Brosnan's Bond and the time we hopefully see a suitable Bond actor it'll be a good 7 years. WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME FOLKS!

Every new direction the franchise has taken has been out of necessity. As a Dalton fan, I hate to say it, but had the series not moved to Brosnan and had it not taken a turn into the overblown action genre, the series would have gone away after a GoldenEye film starring Timothy Dalton.

I don't agree. Goldeneye with Dalton could have been a great success as well. So one of the Bond movies made a bit less money than it's predecessor. Big deal! That does not mean there's a beginning of a slide. LTK was one of the top Bond movies ever, IMO. Certainly in my top 5. It was not promoted well and the kids who grew up with the comical Bond of the Roger Moore era were teens (the biggest movie going spender group) who didn't think Bond should be anything more than a clownish superhero. EON was just too fickle to weather the storm and stay the course.

Brosnan was a great Bond too, mind you. But his films, which actually had great premise suffered from EON/MGM's urge to go Roger Moore on us again.

[avl]

[ It's ironic that so many pro-Craigers don't have a problem bashing Brosnan, his (or Roger Moore's) films, or even other fans.

The irony is that you don't apparently see the difference between criticising actors whose performances we have actually seen and criticising an actor who has not even made his first film.

You're right. One can criticize an actor and his Bond films based on actually seeing them. We haven't seen Craig as Bond yet, but I think that based on what I've seen him do before, that he'll be very good. But, I'll be the first one to criticize him if he turns out to be bad. If he's horrible in the role, I won't stick up for his performance or the film if he turns out not to be good, just because it would be a justification of the effort that I've put in by supporting him for the better part of a year or so now.

Fair enough. Me too.

[jamesparadise]

arrghh..the haters are back!

why is anyone who doesn't support every aspect of this production mindlessly
called a hater?? surely doubter is a more accurate and mature term?