31 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

A lot of people have been comparing Casino Royale to The Living Daylights. What with the way Craig appears to be playing Bond, the way the film will be structured, and the realistic approach, I think it's an apt comparison.

With that said, after The Living Daylights was a hit the producers played to Dalton's strengths and gave us (my personal favorite) Licence To Kill. So, using that as precedent, do you think the next film (Bond 22, naturally) will be lighter fare with Craig's Bond having a bit more fun on his adventures? Or perhaps they'll play up to (just hazarding a guess here) the strenghts of CR and give us an even grittier Bond film?

Thoughts?

[Flash1087]

I think, either way, we're going to get some more FRWL/FYEO/TLD-type movies for most, if not all, of the duration of Craig's run. I'm not trying to deride his capabilities as an actor, but trying to place him in an epic YOLT/DAD style spectacle probably wouldn't work. I see them attempting a series of grittier, darker Bond films as more a matter of asthetic than basing it on success.

[Pussfeller]

On the other hand, he worked well in Layer Cake, and that was basically an action film. I think Craig would do fine in any kind of Bond film, from a LTK-type gritty revenge drama all the way to a light-hearted MR-type caper. I'm sure a lot of fans think differently, but I think Craig's range is wide enough to cover whatever the producers decide to throw at him.

Having said that, I don't expect EON will really put him to the test. They'll probably keep his films character-centered and light on gadgets and explosions. However, I expect they'll add more action next time around, and probably get a more conventional, weird villain.

[tdalton]

On the other hand, he worked well in Layer Cake, and that was basically an action film. I think Craig would do fine in any kind of Bond film, from a LTK-type gritty revenge drama all the way to a light-hearted MR-type caper. I'm sure a lot of fans think differently, but I think Craig's range is wide enough to cover whatever the producers decide to throw at him.

Having said that, I don't expect EON will really put him to the test. They'll probably keep his films character-centered and light on gadgets and explosions. However, I expect they'll add more action next time around, and probably get a more conventional, weird villain.

I agree. I think that Craig could do well in any type of Bond film, but I think that EON will keep things more towards the Dalton-Connery model than they will towards the Moore-Brosnan model of Bond film.

[zencat]

Are people comparing Casino Royale to The Living Daylights? I see it as more in the vein of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Solid dramatic story from a single Fleming novel, but still with Bondian flavor and big action sequences. Bond slightly rogue at times...love story at the center...tragic ending.

I think they will continue in exactly this same tone. The problem will be they won't have a Fleming novel to ground and guild the whole thing, so there's always the possibility it will slip too dark or too big. I think whether or not Casino Royale is a hit is irreverent as they are already working on the story of Bond 22. But if there's some over-ridding complaint about Casino Royale, they will adjust (as they always do).

[JimmyBond]

I hope they go darker. If I had my way (and I know I dont ), every Bond film would be similar to LTK in tone. Not necessarily have every film be a revenge story, but make it dark and utterly realistic.

[tdalton]

I hope they go darker. If I had my way (and I know I dont ), every Bond film would be similar to LTK in tone. Not necessarily have every film be a revenge story, but make it dark and utterly realistic.

That's the way that I would do it as well. I think that the lightest I would allow the films to get if I had control of them would be similar to TLD, but I would like to see most of them along the lines of LTK. Hopefully EON go back to this type of film rather than allowing the films to get more and more outrageous until we end up with another DAD-style film with action without plausibility.

[Peter Guillam 006]

First of all Layer Cake is not an action movie, but a crime thriller, big difference. Tomb Raider was an action movie.
Second- I think they're gonna keep it about the same, they know not to get lighter because that's where they got stuck with ideas before and they're not going to make it darker because LTK didn't do good b.o. That said at the end of Casino Royale we will have arrived at the Bond we all know. In a way we are getting two portrayals from Bond. They say that the script for this Bond is the edgiest, so I believe they will continue to make more realistic 007. I think Q and moneypenny will come back and still do what they do well but I think outside the office thing's will be more serious.

[JameswpBond]

I just hope they keep up with the realism!

[Tanger]

Like others have said I probably see them either going slightly darker or perhaps keeping the same tone.

[Mr Malcolm]

I reckon the films will stay more realistic compared to Brosnan's, but I'd like to think that after CR, they'll lighten up a little bit. Having Bond in multiple consecutive downbeat films would harm the series; after all, Bond is so popular partly because he's someone you do want to be, and if more films after CR have similarly downbeat endings, then that will probably put people off. After all, he's not Batman!

[Pussfeller]

I expect they'll gradually reintroduce the humor and "high-octane excitement", whether we like it or not. As long as Craig is Bond, I expect the scripts to be fairly solid, but I don't think it will remain gritty for long. Bond 22 will probably have much more action, and Bond 23 will probably be a big "around the world" thing with lots of exotic locations and weird characters.

I think Craig will be fine in any kind of Bond film, so I'm not worried. I just hope they don't cheap out on the writing and go back to using an unmodified P&W script.

[JimmyBond]

I reckon the films will stay more realistic compared to Brosnan's, but I'd like to think that after CR, they'll lighten up a little bit. Having Bond in multiple consecutive downbeat films would harm the series; after all, Bond is so popular partly because he's someone you do want to be, and if more films after CR have similarly downbeat endings, then that will probably put people off. After all, he's not Batman!

Well, I'm not suggesting each film have a dowmbeat ending, nor am I suggesting each film be deadly serious. But I'd like to see the humor kept to a minimum and the realism upped. There is nothing wrong with several films in a row that are similar in tone to LTK, at least I don't think there is, I mean come on! Every single Brosnan film it was personal

[Tarl_Cabot]

It will be a hit.... and the next one should stay in same tone the way FRWL did. Craig's Bond should keep his feet on the ground. No cheese please.

[Mister Asterix]

I expect to see something in the vein of adapting Colonel Sun. I doubt they would actually adapt Colonel Sun, but something serious like that but not focusing on the developement of Bond as a character as much as Casino Royale will.

[Genrewriter]

Makes sense to me.

[Loomis]

Note that BOND 22 (or BOND 2, if you prefer, as I expect Broccoli, Wilson and co. do) will also be an origin story, in a way, since it'll (almost certainly) introduce Moneypenny and Q.

It seems that Eon has done an awful lot of forward planning (I mean, since when did they ever start work on the script for a Bond film while its predecessor was still in production?) and has decided on a "dark" tone for the Craig era (it remains to be seen what this actually means, though - after all, weren't all the Brosnan films supposed to be "dark"?). Didn't David Arnold recently state that the next three or four films would resemble CASINO ROYALE?

Note also that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY went rather darker than its already-reasonably-gritty predecessor, although I leave you to decide whether or not that has any bearing on the Bond franchise.

[JimmyBond]

Note that BOND 22 (or BOND 2, if you prefer, as I expect Broccoli, Wilson and co. do) will also be an origin story, in a way, since it'll (almost certainly) introduce Moneypenny and Q.

Will they make a big deal out of their introductions though? I can definately see Moneypenny and Q added into the film as if they were there all along, with Bond knowing them and such. It really depends on how closely related Bond 22 is to Casino Royale, but wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that Bond would have met them in between the films already?

[Loomis]

Note that BOND 22 (or BOND 2, if you prefer, as I expect Broccoli, Wilson and co. do) will also be an origin story, in a way, since it'll (almost certainly) introduce Moneypenny and Q.

Will they make a big deal out of their introductions though? I can definately see Moneypenny and Q added into the film as if they were there all along, with Bond knowing them and such. It really depends on how closely related Bond 22 is to Casino Royale, but wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that Bond would have met them in between the films already?

Well, obviously, there are various ways they could do it, and it'll be many, many months before we find out. But look at it this way: they seem to be on an "explaining everything" kick at the moment (how Bond gets his licence to kill and his Aston Martin, how he develops his fondness for vodka martinis, and so on), and given that the next film will be their first opportunity in decades to "introduce" Moneypenny and Q, it hardly appears a sure thing that they'd pass it up.

(Still, I have a funny feeling - and this is not based on any insider info, merely a hunch on my part - that Moneypenny will, in fact, turn up in CASINO ROYALE, right at the very end as a jokey BATMAN BEGINS-style "teaser" for the next film. But I'm probably completely wrong.)

[killkenny kid]

And I felt Brosnan was coming back, and I WAS completely wrong.

[scottright]

I think where they go depends upon public reaction to "Casino Royale". It'll be a hit - a new actor's first movie as Bond always does well, if only out of sheer curiosity (plus they're just about the only action movie out there during the Christmas season). Making the follow-up will be a tougher task since the "look see" factor is gone. Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton stumbled with their second Bond movies - leaving the future of Bond very much in question (compounded by business factors, etc).

So, "CR" will be a hit - but what matters to Bond 22 is how big a hit it will be. If it's a smash - and audiences go for Craig's Bond, then Bond 22 will probably move along the same sort of rougher, more realistic story line. On the other hand, if "CR" is a modest hit and only appeals to a smaller base of Bond fans, expect the girls and gadgets to be back in Bond 22 with a venegance.

[Pussfeller]

That seems like a reasonable assumption. But I expect the producers will feel especially pressed to keep the humor low-key and the gadgets minimal, just because of Craig's skill set. I think he could make any sort of Bond film work, but his talents are especially well-suited to serious drama. It would be a shame to waste him on cheese when they have a chance to make only three or four films with him.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think EON (and especially Barbara Broccoli) have a lot of respect for Craig -- more than they had for Brosnan.

[scottright]

I think Brosnan's got a right to be mad about not getting much love or respect from the Broccolis. This guy came in when the ship was sinking - and literally saved the franchise. Yet where's the credit? You can argue all day about the quality of Brosnan's Bond (I fall on the side of him being very good) but if history proves one thing - it's that people won't buy Bond if they don't buy who is Bond. And the public sure as hell bought Brosnan's Bond.

I think the very public love for Craig is more of a hard sell than it is actual affection. If EON pulls the "Casino Royale" gamble off, then things will continue along smoothly...but if it isn't a substantial public hit, then who knows what could happen? As Brosnan and Connery will both attest, even if you're James Bond you are still just an employee in a family business. If their interests conflict with that of an actor...

I think the most interesting aspect of this is: what if "Casino Royale" doesn't work? What if the audiences want the classic tuxedo -wearing, martini-swilling, quip-ready Bond back?

[JimmyBond]

I think the most interesting aspect of this is: what if "Casino Royale" doesn't work? What if the audiences want the classic tuxedo -wearing, martini-swilling, quip-ready Bond back?

Craig's Bond will include all those things.

[Pussfeller]

I think Brosnan's got a right to be mad about not getting much love or respect from the Broccolis. This guy came in when the ship was sinking - and literally saved the franchise.

Ahh, that old chestnut. I didn't think anyone still believed that.

As I see it, Brosnan fell into a plum gig. EON had just resolved its legal problems, having never been in any real danger. It had undermarketed LTK and released it at a bad time -- that's the only reason it performed poorly. The idea that the Bond franchise was in mortal peril is a silly myth concocted to make Brosnan seem more important. Yes, he was popular, and he had soap star looks, but he didn't bring much more than that to the role. The films were popular because they were Bond films, not because of Brosnan. Consider the fact that Brosnan's films had some of the smallest profit margins in Bond history.

At his best, Brosnan was capable, but as far as I'm concerned, that's all he was. He has no shining moments. As a lover, he didn't come close to his predecessors. He was a lip-smacking shoulder-chewer. He didn't command his scenes, didn't intimidate the audience, had no emotional range, overused cute little acting tricks, and had an awful, flat voice. Worst of all, he lost interest in the part after three films.

In spite of this carping, I should say he wasn't awful. Still, it irritates me when people claim that he single-handedly saved the Bond franchise. He didn't. He wasn't as good as Dalton, wasn't as good as Moore, and certainly wasn't as good as Connery (he might have matched Lazenby). He happened to come along at the right time. In the mid-nineties, audiences were unquestionably more concerned with cheezy FX and explosive chase scenes than with acting and character.

[Robert Watts]

I agree 100%

And it wasn't Bond or EON that was in trouble over those years, it was MGM- they had some tacky guy who bought the company and made a mess of it- EON were smart and filed a lawsuit- once this guy fell apart they went back. Dalton stepped down as a courtesy, MGM wanted a fresh face etc etc

Brosnan just got lucky.

[Double-Oh Agent]

If Brosnan got lucky in the '90s as you say, then he was unlucky in 1986 with Dalton being the lucky beneficiary of Brosnan having to withdraw after having won the Bond role. This talk of Brosnan's luck is pointless. Sure some amount of luck is involved--shoot, Connery was lucky to have won the role originally at a time when movie goers were craving something different in the '60s. Lazenby was lucky to win the role as a virtual nobody. Only Moore might not have had any good luck in winning the role when his turn came around.

As for Dalton retiring from the role, for Dalton fans yes it was disappointing to see him walk away from Bond after only two films, but after a six-year hiatus, it was time for new blood in a new Bond film. (Yes, I am a fan of Brosnan, but I also enjoy Dalton's interpretation as well as the other 007s. In fact, my favorite Bond movie is Dalton's Licence To Kill.) Besides, Brosnan was the one actor most everyone thought of as the next James Bond ever since his days on Remington Steele. People liked him and he fit the 007 image so it was a natural fit and an easy choice that he would be James Bond #5.

As to the point of Brosnan's films having some of the smallest profit margins, all I'll say is, that's because the budgets were extremely high during his reign. Consequently, the profit margins will be smaller. But despite that, he still brought in over a $1 billion in ticket sales worldwide. Regardless of the budgets, that is a figure that is impossible to ignore.

Brosnan may not be everyone's cup of tea or their ideal 007, but he was a great Bond and he earned all his accolades and his "luck".

[scottright]

It may well be an old chestnut - but Brosnan saving the franchise is the truth. Let's be honest, Dalton was wanted only by Cubby Broccoli - and no one else. After the very loud thud of "License to Kill" MGM/UA didn't want him, and other members of the Broccoli family didn't want him. And here's the uncontestable cold, hard fact - audiences didn't want him either...and that was all she wrote for Timothy Dalton. And no, you can't blame "poor marketing" for the failure of LTK - since when had summer been a bad time for Bond movies? Even "The Living Daylights" made money. "Poor marketing" is a convenient excuse for EON misjudging the summer 1989 movie going audience by making the wrong movie at the wrong time with the wrong Bond - and everyone involved paid the price for it.

Which brings us back to Brosnan...whos Bond movies made over a billion dollars at the box office. That's a pretty neat profit margin if you ask me (and if you ask Sony...who clearly eyed a piece of that action for some time). Was Brosnan lucky? Sure - isn't any actor who lands a plum role lucky? But it's important to remember that Bond WAS indeed in "mortal peril" - after the very public failure of "LTK" and the subsequent six year absence, there was absolute doubt about Bond's viability in the movieplexes. And to make matters worse they had no Bond. Put any spin you like on it, but that's what I call a sinking ship.

I won't go into who was a better Bond - that's a topic well covered in other forums - but I do think Pussfeller's assessment of Brosnan's impact on the series is biased by his blind adoration for Dalton. The numbers are clear - four movies and one billion dollars later - Brosnan did save the franchise. I've said it here a thousand times and in this instance it bears repeating - if an audience doesn't buy an actor as Bond, they won't buy a ticket to Bond. Saying that the movies were successful DESPITE Brosnan is unfair, and more to the point, preposterous.

[tdalton]

It may well be an old chestnut - but Brosnan saving the franchise is the truth. Let's be honest, Dalton was wanted only by Cubby Broccoli - and no one else. After the very loud thud of "License to Kill" MGM/UA didn't want him, and other members of the Broccoli family didn't want him. And here's the uncontestable cold, hard fact - audiences didn't want him either...and that was all she wrote for Timothy Dalton. And no, you can't blame "poor marketing" for the failure of LTK - since when had summer been a bad time for Bond movies? Even "The Living Daylights" made money. "Poor marketing" is a convenient excuse for EON misjudging the summer 1989 movie going audience by making the wrong movie at the wrong time with the wrong Bond - and everyone involved paid the price for it.

Which brings us back to Brosnan...whos Bond movies made over a billion dollars at the box office. That's a pretty neat profit margin if you ask me (and if you ask Sony...who clearly eyed a piece of that action for some time). Was Brosnan lucky? Sure - isn't any actor who lands a plum role lucky? But it's important to remember that Bond WAS indeed in "mortal peril" - after the very public failure of "LTK" and the subsequent six year absence, there was absolute doubt about Bond's viability in the movieplexes. And to make matters worse they had no Bond. Put any spin you like on it, but that's what I call a sinking ship.

I won't go into who was a better Bond - that's a topic well covered in other forums - but I do think Pussfeller's assessment of Brosnan's impact on the series is biased by his blind adoration for Dalton. The numbers are clear - four movies and one billion dollars later - Brosnan did save the franchise. I've said it here a thousand times and in this instance it bears repeating - if an audience doesn't buy an actor as Bond, they won't buy a ticket to Bond. Saying that the movies were successful DESPITE Brosnan is unfair, and more to the point, preposterous.

No one person can save a film franchise. To say that Brosnan saved the Bond franchise is to discount all of the work that people like Cubby Brocolli (producer), Michael G. Wilson (producer), Barbara Brocolli (producer), Tom Pevsner (executive producer), Anthony Waye (associate producer), Martin Campbell (director), actors Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco, Famke Janssen, Judi Dench, Gottfried John, Robbie Coltrane, and the hundreds of others who worked on this film. Without a director, producers, and other actors, it would have just been a two hour film showing Pierce Brosnan sitting in a chair staring at the camera. Would that have saved the Bond franchise? No. It took hundreds upon hundreds of people to "save" the Bond franchise, not just Brosnan.

Decent writers are also needed to save the franchise. We can debate how good of a job the writers for GE did all we want to, but the fact of the matter is that they put Bond in a Bondian situation. Whether they did it well, or not, that's up for debate. But suppose they had paired Bond up with an average, everyday guy and had them go on a road trip. Would Brosnan then have been able to save Bond then? No.

But, as I originally said, no one person can save a film franchise. And, I'm not just focusing on Brosnan here. It's just like saying that Roger Moore, or anyone else saved the franchise. Without directors, producers, actors, and various other crew members, the films would never get made, and Bond wouldn't be "rescued" from whatever it was that Bond needed "rescuing" from.

Also, if Brosnan was the main draw to the films rather than Bond, then why has he not had a big hit film outside of Bond? His leading roles, The Tailor of Panama, After the Sunset, The Thomas Crown Affair, and Laws of Attraction all underperformed at the box office. If Brosnan was the main draw and not Bond, then these films should have also performed fairly well at the box office.

With the exception of Connery, none of the other Bonds have had any big movies outside of Bond, which would lead to the conclusion that Bond is what draws the audience to go see the movie, not the actor playing him.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Crediting (or blaming) stars, particularly in one-lead vehicles like the Bond films is inevitable--for right or wrong. Much like a quarterback gets too much credit if his team wins and too much blame if they lose, the same is done for movie stars. If the film does well and is a success, the star gets more than his share of the credit, and if it does poorly and fails, then the star gets more than his share of the blame. The quarterback and the movie star are the respective focal points of the football and production teams and with that noteriety comes responsibility. That's just the way it is--again, for right or wrong.