289 replies to this topic

[jake speed]

I prefer the Dalton era to the Brosnan one personally but IMO it borders on the delusional to think that Eon could have cast anyone in 1994 and jump-started the franchise. The actors tested for GoldenEye were the likes of Greg Wise,Mark Frankel,Nathaniel Parker and (a then comletely unknown) James Purefoy. Would GoldenEye have made as much money with one of them in the lead role? I doubt it.

[Publius]

Crap, you're going to argue with me over that phrase? I deliberately said it that way to *AVOID* stating for fact that a majority (or minority) of Bond fans dislike Craig, and yet you still find fault. Do you honestly and intellectually deny that there are a good many people who don't want Craig?I feel what I stated was quite fair to your side and mine. I won't apologize for it.

Come on. Seriously, now it's YOU that is clutching at straws.

Far from it. There are Bond fans who didn't like Brosnan (and/or one or more of the others), so the question isn't if some fans don't like Craig (that's a given), but if the net effect is greater than usual. I only presumed you were doing something other than stating the obvious, so I questioned why you thought that not only was the effect greater than normal this time, but how it could significantly affect CR's performance (and since you've made it clear the fans don't matter in that regard, I'm now questioning why you'd bring it up in the first place).

Ummm...well...it HAD been a very popular television show...he WAS cast in the role....tons of opinion polls showed that people wanted Brosnan...and while he was not a leading man in major movies, he was a supporting player in many high profile films and tv projects, including Noble House and Mrs.Doubtfire. It was one of the easiest decisions EON ever had to make.

Considering how critical you've been of Craig's resume, I'm surprised you'd not only defend Brosnan's, but claim that it made him just so well-known and popular that he could (apparently singlehandedly, if I'm to understand you) enable GE to make twice as much money as LTK. Quite a stretch if you ask me. I get the sense that you'd be arguing the exact opposite if Craig and Brosnan were switched (a network television show from 10 years back and the "bad guy" in a romantic comedy?). In reality, the decision wasn't as much of a no-brainer for EON as it seems from our perspective, and it wasn't obvious then that GoldenEye was certified gold.

Well, at the time, all I had were the people around me and the fan club newsletters. I never saw any complaints by the leading fan clubs about Brosnan's appearance as I have seen with Craig. I think people who complain about Brosnan's "unBondian prettiness" are just jealous because I look better than all of you, including Brosnan!!!!

I wasn't a Bond fan back then, but those are definitely criticisms I've heard in recent years. Probably impossible to say, but I'm sure there were people who felt the same at the time (although at that point, I imagine there was also a sizeable "anybody goes" sentiment in Bond fandom). If only the internet was around, we'd have a better idea (and then you could show me these "tons of polls", too).

No, I did not read your post. Sorry.

That's all right. But you should have read it. If you don't read over an entire thread, you run the risk of missing out on some good points, particularly those that might have preempted ones you made later. Trust me, it's worth the time. And I don't bite.

And what "demand"? I never saw any demand for anything EON or Craig are doing in this film. If the demand was so great, why did DAD do so well, even for 2002 dollars? There was no demand for this type of product in terms real enough to make a difference, and that is why this film is not going to do well. It was an answer for a question nobody was asking.

So because there was demand for what DAD gave us, there was no demand for what it didn't? That's just a straight-up logical fallacy, GS. My point is that while the direction CR seems to be going will invariably cost it some people, it'll also bring in entirely new audiences (or old ones that have since given up). I think this is even more the case nowadays than in 2002.

Look, even though I'm a fan, I"m also making a judgement call about whether or not this is going to appeal to the crowds en masse, and not just us.

And that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, and all that jazz. But I am going to point out what I see as its flaws, especially when I see the same argument repeated time and again.

No franchise survives on core fans alone, and 007 is no different.

And I've always agreed. But drawing that line is easier said than done. When I first heard about Craig, I wouldn't classify myself as a "core fan", yet only the hair color took me by surprise (and that was the extent of my negativity), and after that I was open and gradually became supportive as I saw his work. I know numerous people who weren't even up to the "level" I was last October, and they're supportive too. I've seen nothing to indicate that the most hateful reactions were something other than an internet-magnified curiosity of a niche of fandom.

He's plunged Bondage into a civil war, with young fans flaming old-timers and vice versa.

More so than Brosnan? Besides which, I thought you said the fans don't matter to the franchise's survival.

Wow, a bold and provocative comment. I like that. Well, November 17th will certainly help put that in perspective for us.

Yes, precisely! That's all I'm asking for: that EON stay true to their roots and give us more double-taking cars and invisible pigeons.

Since you're the one who brought up the unprovable and frankly ridiculous theory and presented it as something definite, you really shouldn't be brushing aside my criticism with nothing but lazy sarcasm. You can do better than that anyway.

And if it helps any, my mood throughout this post can best be described as

I prefer the Dalton era to the Brosnan one personally but IMO it borders on the delusional to think that Eon could have cast anyone in 1994 and jump-started the franchise.

Not anyone, and I couldn't begin to name most of the names I'm sure there were, but I think it's as crazy to suggest Brosnan was the only man for the job as it would be to say the same about Craig today, or Dalton in '87, or Lazenby in '69. There are other people, the brand is still James Bond, and people will pay money to go, especially when many, many years have passed with nothing else.

[Auric64]

[quote name='Publius' date='31 October 2006 - 18:04' post='637089']

Actually, I think he gets far too much credit, and that the combination of a 6.5 year gap and the deep rut Bond was in made it easier to climb out. GoldenEye could have starred Sean Bean or any number of other actors and still have been a phenomenonal success. I doubt Brosnan would have made TLD perform better, I doubt Brosnan could have "saved" LTK, and I doubt he was anything more than one of the right men, at the right time.

unquote

Actually, I doubt LTK would have been filmed as it was, (with Dalton) had Brosnan taken over the mantle in 1987. Most probably his second Bond film would have been similar in tone to that of Daylights.

It was only because of Dalton wanting to take the Bond films back to the Fleming books, (and because Cubby and Wilson saw the potential in Dalton to go further than they could have with Moore) that LTK was tailored to Dalton`s acting ability and how he wanted Bond interpreted.

I would also like to add that, whilst I am enjoying the tooing and froing between Gravity and Hildebrand/Harmsway/Publius on CR`s possible box office outcome, it`s also nice that I`m not involved in it and getting flamed in the process.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 31 October 2006 - 08:04 PM.

[jaguar007]

I do have to agree with Gravity's point that there was a built in demand for Brosnan in the role, he was clearly the choice of most of the fans and press. Even during Dalton's stint (who I much prefered), many people who I talked to said "they should have got the guy from Remington Steele" or "Pierce BroNson". Once Dalton stepped down in 1994, there was little doubt in anyones mind that it would be Brosnan.

That said, if Brosnan had done TLD in 1987, I really doubt it would have been that much more popular than it was with Dalton. By the mid-late 80's people just seemed to be getting tired of James Bond. They were routine and most people I knew at that time would not have made much of an effort to go see them wether or not they starred Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan.

They say timing is everyting, and I think the winter release of the past 4 Bond movies have helped the box office for them as much, if not more than the casting of Brosnan. That was a big problem during the 80's is that moviemakers were releasing big budget more creative movies in the summer to compete with Bond. During the winer months of the Brosnan films, there have been little in the way of high profile action/adventure movies and CR will benefit from that as well.

The publics acceptance of Craig could go either way, but I think CR will most likley be a big success. For one, all the controversy about Craig is making people curious. There are plenty of moviegoers out there who don't care about Brosnan or the Bond movies at all who might just go because they hear it is different and not typical cookie cutter Bond movie.

[Publius]

Actually, I doubt LTK would have been filmed as it was, (with Dalton) had Brosnan taken over the mantle in 1987. Most probably his second Bond film would have been similar in tone to that of Daylights.

I agree. But if Brosnan was all that he's being made out to be, you'd think he'd be able to at least give LTK a boost. If not, then maybe the movie carries far more weight than the actor, which, coincidentally, has always been my opinion.

I would also like to add that, whilst I am enjoying the tooing and froing between Gravity and Hildebrand/Harmsway/Publius on CR`s possible box office outcome, it`s also nice that I`m not involved in it and getting flamed in the process.

I'm staying clear of flames. I just completely disagree with GS in his assessment. I'm not sticking to any set of numbers, but I wouldn't rule out many of those he is. I think he (and others who agree, of course) is just overlooking too many of the possible (even likely) positive factors. That's basically my angle.

That said, if Brosnan had done TLD in 1987, I really doubt it would have been that much more popular than it was with Dalton. By the mid-late 80's people just seemed to be getting tired of James Bond. They were routine and most people I knew at that time would not have made much of an effort to go see them wether or not they starred Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan.

They say timing is everyting, and I think the winter release of the past 4 Bond movies have helped the box office for them as much, if not more than the casting of Brosnan. That was a big problem during the 80's is that moviemakers were releasing big budget more creative movies in the summer to compete with Bond. During the winer months of the Brosnan films, there have been little in the way of high profile action/adventure movies and CR will benefit from that as well.

Yes, exactly what I've been trying to say (thanks for being more concise than me). Brosnan was undoubtedly the frontrunner from '87 on in the eyes of the public and TPTB alike, but I just don't buy that it was to such an extent that admissions would double because of him and only him.

[Katov's Code]

And how is it that GoldenEye did so well when Brosnan had only an 80s TV show to his name?

Ummm...well...it HAD been a very popular television show...he WAS cast in the role....tons of opinion polls showed that people wanted Brosnan...and while he was not a leading man in major movies, he was a supporting player in many high profile films and tv projects, including Noble House and Mrs.Doubtfire. It was one of the easiest decisions EON ever had to make.

I agree that it was an easy decision for EON to cast Brosnan. Based on all those popularity polls at the time, Brosnan was Bond in the eyes of the public and they wanted to see him in the role. I'm a photographer and I can tell you that whenever a Brosnan Bond film was released, the models that I happened to be working with at the time would be excited and would see his new Bond film several times--and they're not even serious fans! Man, I wish I had his looks. It's just amazing what some actors can do with their looks and their overall persona.

Personally, I'm still on the fence as far as Craig goes and will be reserving my final judgement after I see CR. But Michael G. Wilson certainly felt that they had a big winner with Brosnan. I was cleaning the attic over the weekend and ran across a November 1995 issue of Cinescape. In this issue, there's an article on Goldeneye, and Wilson had this to say about Brosnan: "'When you introduce a new Bond, it's always a challenge,'says Wilson, whose involvement in the franchise began when Roger Moore held the lead role. 'Pierce is not an established star. He's a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized, but he's not a star that has a following at the box office; he's not established yet...I can tell you, though, that he's going to be one of the great Bonds, the Bond of the '90s. He's got it down the way Bond is supposed to be.'"

His enthusiasm for Brosnan as "one of the great Bonds" is a far cry from his mood towards CR--in fact he's a bit rueful with statements like "I don't know how much CR will make." (I'm paraphrasing him, because I don't have the exact quote in front of me. But he said something along those lines in that recent Newsweek article about prequels.) He also said something similar last February when they were shooting in the Bahamas, and he said in an interview that he didn't know how much CR would make.

[Publius]

I was cleaning the attic over the weekend and ran across a November 1995 issue of Cinescape. In this issue, there's an article on Goldeneye, and Wilson had this to say about Brosnan: "'When you introduce a new Bond, it's always a challenge,'says Wilson, whose involvement in the franchise began when Roger Moore held the lead role. 'Pierce is not an established star. He's a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized, but he's not a star that has a following at the box office; he's not established yet...I can tell you, though, that he's going to be one of the great Bonds, the Bond of the '90s. He's got it down the way Bond is supposed to be.'"

Which has been my point.

Anyway, MGW has only said he doesn't know what it'll make, but can you blame him? This is going to be one violent, realistic, and dark film. Of course that is likely to hurt it at the box office. Doesn't say anything about Craig himself, though. And let's not forget Babs proclaiming this guy the best ever. We can analyze what the producers say all we want, but it tells us nothing.

[jaguar007]

And how is it that GoldenEye did so well when Brosnan had only an 80s TV show to his name?

Ummm...well...it HAD been a very popular television show...he WAS cast in the role....tons of opinion polls showed that people wanted Brosnan...and while he was not a leading man in major movies, he was a supporting player in many high profile films and tv projects, including Noble House and Mrs.Doubtfire. It was one of the easiest decisions EON ever had to make.

I agree that it was an easy decision for EON to cast Brosnan. Based on all those popularity polls at the time, Brosnan was Bond in the eyes of the public and they wanted to see him in the role. I'm a photographer and I can tell you that whenever a Brosnan Bond film was released, the models that I happened to be working with at the time would be excited and would see his new Bond film several times--and they're not even serious fans! Man, I wish I had his looks. It's just amazing what some actors can do with their looks and their overall persona.

Personally, I'm still on the fence as far as Craig goes and will be reserving my final judgement after I see CR. But Michael G. Wilson certainly felt that they had a big winner with Brosnan. I was cleaning the attic over the weekend and ran across a November 1995 issue of Cinescape. In this issue, there's an article on Goldeneye, and Wilson had this to say about Brosnan: "'When you introduce a new Bond, it's always a challenge,'says Wilson, whose involvement in the franchise began when Roger Moore held the lead role. 'Pierce is not an established star. He's a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized, but he's not a star that has a following at the box office; he's not established yet...I can tell you, though, that he's going to be one of the great Bonds, the Bond of the '90s. He's got it down the way Bond is supposed to be.'"

His enthusiasm for Brosnan as "one of the great Bonds" is a far cry from his mood towards CR--in fact he's a bit rueful with statements like "I don't know how much CR will make." (I'm paraphrasing him, because I don't have the exact quote in front of me. But he said something along those lines in that recent Newsweek article about prequels.) He also said something similar last February when they were shooting in the Bahamas, and he said in an interview that he didn't know how much CR would make.

Honestly he does not know how much CR will make, none of us do.

Honestly listening him in interviews, I always felt he would have preferred to Continue with Dalton than go with Brosnan. I never got the feeling that Brosnan was the Bond they really wanted and that he was forced upon them by the studio.

[CM007]

I was cleaning the attic over the weekend and ran across a November 1995 issue of Cinescape. In this issue, there's an article on Goldeneye, and Wilson had this to say about Brosnan: "'When you introduce a new Bond, it's always a challenge,'says Wilson, whose involvement in the franchise began when Roger Moore held the lead role. 'Pierce is not an established star. He's a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized, but he's not a star that has a following at the box office; he's not established yet...I can tell you, though, that he's going to be one of the great Bonds, the Bond of the '90s. He's got it down the way Bond is supposed to be.'"

Which has been my point.

Anyway, MGW has only said he doesn't know what it'll make, but can you blame him? This is going to be one violent, realistic, and dark film. Of course that is likely to hurt it at the box office. Doesn't say anything about Craig himself, though. And let's not forget Babs proclaiming this guy the best ever. We can analyze what the producers say all we want, but it tells us nothing.

I

[Harmsway]

[quote name='CM007' post='637250' date='31 October 2006 - 15:24']
And the film ain

[Stephenson]

Just my two cents:

I liked Brosnan, and remember being very excited when I saw the teaser for GE . So were the people in the audience with me that day ("You were expecting ..." is still one of the best introductions). No, his films did not live up to his potential IMHO, but he deserves a great deal of credit for the continued success of the franchise. Why? Because he did what he had to do: he went out there and sold himself as Bond to the point where he was virtually indistiguishable from the character; everything he touched was stamped with Bond. It wasn't Pierce on the red carpet, it was Bond. Yes, it was mutually beneficial, but give him credit for the work he put in, he deserves it. Anyway, as much as I liked him, and wish he had had a better quality product to flog, IMHO by 2003 he was just too old to continue, and I did not want to see DAD 2.

I like what I've seen of Craig and CR so far. Yes, I am excited to see it. No, I don't care how it does at the box office for three reasons:

1. I don't make a single penny off the film.
2. There will be another Bond film in the future if CR tanks (although I doubt it will), and I'm young enough to wait. I'd rather have a truly excellent Bond film once every four years than back to back medicore films every one or two. That's just me.
3. I'm old enough not to care if anyone else likes, as long as I do. And, based on the evidence up to this point, I think I will.

Final point: I also remember how excited everyone was when it was announced that Jolie was going to be Laura Croft, including myself. Does anyone even want to remember that film? Or the sequel?

I also remember how everyone moaned and laughed at the idea of Damon as an assasin. "No way he could pull that off!" people said ... alright I said it, but a lot of people agreed! I'm glad I was wrong.

Sometimes "the obvious" isn't what a film needs to succeed. Just saying...

[DaltonCraig]

I do have to agree with Gravity's point that there was a built in demand for Brosnan in the role, he was clearly the choice of most of the fans and press. Even during Dalton's stint (who I much prefered), many people who I talked to said "they should have got the guy from Remington Steele" or "Pierce BroNson". Once Dalton stepped down in 1994, there was little doubt in anyones mind that it would be Brosnan.

That said, if Brosnan had done TLD in 1987, I really doubt it would have been that much more popular than it was with Dalton. By the mid-late 80's people just seemed to be getting tired of James Bond. They were routine and most people I knew at that time would not have made much of an effort to go see them wether or not they starred Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan.

They say timing is everyting, and I think the winter release of the past 4 Bond movies have helped the box office for them as much, if not more than the casting of Brosnan. That was a big problem during the 80's is that moviemakers were releasing big budget more creative movies in the summer to compete with Bond. During the winer months of the Brosnan films, there have been little in the way of high profile action/adventure movies and CR will benefit from that as well.

The publics acceptance of Craig could go either way, but I think CR will most likley be a big success. For one, all the controversy about Craig is making people curious. There are plenty of moviegoers out there who don't care about Brosnan or the Bond movies at all who might just go because they hear it is different and not typical cookie cutter Bond movie.

Spot on!

[Publius]

[quote name='Gravity's Silhouette' post='637233' date='31 October 2006 - 16:08']
Well, you don't undestand me.
[/quote]
Nice Clinton shuffle, but you know what I was referring to. You said the success of the Brosnan movies and the rejuvenation of Bond was his doing and his alone. If that's not what you meant, then let me know.

[quote name='Gravity's Silhouette' post='637233' date='31 October 2006 - 16:08']
Secondly, GE made three-times as much money as LTK, not twice as much money. Admissions in the United States ***TRIPLED* with Goldeneye.
[/quote]
You're right about the US (worldwide is where it made a little over twice as much), but that only makes it even more questionable that it was simply Brosnan's doing.

[quote name='Gravity's Silhouette' post='637233' date='31 October 2006 - 16:08']
Thirdly, I've never criticised Craig's resume and, quite frankly, don't think a resume, good or bad, has much to do with whether an actor will be any good as Bond or not. Fourthly, a comparison of pre-007 resumes for Craig and Brosnan is a losing battle for you, because the quality of the resume was not a point I brought up.
[/quote]
I didn't bring up the quality either. It was whether Brosnan's resume was such that it could translate into double the success of LTK (triple in the States, as you corrected me) just due to his presence. That's what I contested. Brosnan was known and certainly had a measure of popularity, but enough to attract dozens of million more people on its own? I don't think so.

[quote name='Gravity's Silhouette' post='637233' date='31 October 2006 - 16:08']
Yeah, in *RECENT* years as the radical, fringe, lunatic, left-wing of Bond fandom has tried to rewrite history in order to belittle Brosnan's contributions to the series.
[/quote]
...those are criticisms I've heard from casual Bond fans who don't post on message boards (and are anything but left-wing, not that it matters). These are people who love GoldenEye and think Brosnan did a good job, but was still too soft overall for their tastes. I don't know if many people thought similarly in '94 (or '86), but I wouldn't be surprised.

[quote name='CM007' post='637250' date='31 October 2006 - 16:24']
I

[Stephenson]

I'm afraid I have to disagree (just a little) with that last comment.

I think Brosnan deserves credit for being smart and being a workhorse. He knew where his career was heading, and he saw a good thing and he ran with it. He was savvy enough to understand the marketing potential of being Bond (especially in this day and age), and he kept up the charade as long as he could. Good on him! Rather than having a career that was heading straight to video, he has become one of the most popular Bonds of all. I certainly won't try and take that away from him. But he wasn't putting himself at risk.

I think the only Bonds that were (are) seriously taking a chance are Dalton and Craig. They were both respected actors in their spheres before Bond, and while they may never have been superstars, they were certainly going to maintain that level of respectability in the industry and continue to get work. Nothing says "moneygrab" like joining a franchise of questionable artistic merit, so they were certainly jeopardizing their reputations.

As for Connery and Lazenby, they were really just nobodies before Bond, so little to no risk there. Don't really know enough about Moore to comment.

[Publius]

Fair points, Stephenson.

Regarding Brosnan, I think part of it is just that he really, really wanted it for himself. That may be naive of me, but it always seemed like it was bigger than money or a savvy career move to Brosnan. Given that, mucking it up was that much more of a risk.

As for Moore and Lazenby, I would think taking over such a popular (indeed, then the only) Bond would make the possibility of failing a risk to one's career (at least if you wanted to remain a film actor). Pure speculation, admittedly.

[Stephenson]

Likewise, Publius.

[Fro]

It's still really hard to predict the US gross with the box office slump that's went on this year. Plus I still sense some fatigue after Die Another Day amongst some people online (i.e., wow, that trailer looks good, but I'll wait for the reviews to get excited).

The good buzz building won't hurt though.

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='CM007' post='636856' date='31 October 2006 - 13:06']
[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='636693' date='31 October 2006 - 02:55']
[quote name='Daltonfan' post='636129' date='30 October 2006 - 10:10']
Don't forget about the impact of exchange rates.
In November 2002, one euro was worth $0.99. Today, one euro is worth $1.27. A british pound was worth $1.56 in 2002 and is now worth $1.90.

DAD took $59m in the UK.

In France, DAD took $23m.
[/quote]

Excellent point, Daltonfan!


[quote name='Publius' post='636567' date='30 October 2006 - 23:41']
Here, we have the first Bond movie in four years, the second longest gap in series history. The longest gap was before GE (which made double what LTK did), and the third was TSWLM (which made over 50% more than TMWTGG). In the case of the last three Bonds, their debuts have not only been more successful than the rest of their films, but more successful than the one before.

If CR makes...as much as DAD did unadjusted ($160 million), it'll still be a real drop of 15%. A real drop of 25% still means over $130 million.

In light of all that, I think both history and simple economics are on CR's side to clear your benchmark and even a majority of the predictions I've seen here. This is still its race to lose...which I don't think it will.
[/quote]

Also good points, Publius.


The thing is the trolls from that anti-Craig site can't see beyond their shallow prejudices.

I'll bet those cowards $1000 US that Casino Royale will make more than their highest estimate of $300 million world wide. But they are too chicken sh!T to take the bet.

[/quote]


Would you be prepared to make that bet with someone who has already seen the Movie because there

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 01 November 2006 - 03:41 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Box Office Mojo lists DAD's worldwide box office figures at USD 432 million.

There's no reason to think CR won't do better than USD 300 million around the globe.

$300 million globally is a reasonable expectation.

The odds are not in Craig's favour. Brosnan reversed an entire decades worth of declining fortunes that had spanned across two different actors.

Brosnan doesn't get enough credit around here for revitalizing this series. Brosnan's momentum is exactly that: his. It doesn't belong to Craig, and anyone who thinks that because the series was on a roll under Brosnan that it will continue under Craig is mistaken. Very mistaken.

What is your agenda, Gravity's Silhouette?

Seriously?

I mean, if, by the night of the 19th, when the US numbers are known, CR comes in 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or even 7 million dollars less than DAD's $45-odd million opening (the exact number escapes me at this second), will you come here (and on other Bond sites ... as well as your own anti-Craig site) and proclaim something to the effect of:

"A ha! I was right! Craig is a failure! Craig can't fetch Brosnan's shoes! Replace Craig NOW! Out with Craig! Bond fans reject Craig! 007 fans vote for Brosnan/new Bond"

?

Is that it? It's a serious question.

I can tell you that I have no public agenda. I want to see my James Bond movies till the day I die and I want to see them once every 2 or 3 or 4 years. Secondly, i'd like to give someone a chance before condemning them. That is my only agenda.

What I won't be able to stomach is a smug attitude on the part of a certain minority who think they know what I want.

Another legitimate question to you is:

What is a minimum number which will be regarded by you as a mark of 'success' on the part of Eon/Casino Royale/Craig AND which will make you and your ant-Craig site 'friends' back down from your incessant bashing of the incumbent Bond and the direction Eon is taking the series?

I want just one number.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 01 November 2006 - 03:08 AM.

[Katov's Code]

[quote name='Publius' post='637199' date='31 October 2006 - 20:20']
[quote name='Katov's Code' post='637196' date='31 October 2006 - 15:16']
I was cleaning the attic over the weekend and ran across a November 1995 issue of Cinescape. In this issue, there's an article on Goldeneye, and Wilson had this to say about Brosnan: "'When you introduce a new Bond, it's always a challenge,'says Wilson, whose involvement in the franchise began when Roger Moore held the lead role. 'Pierce is not an established star. He's a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized, but he's not a star that has a following at the box office; he's not established yet...I can tell you, though, that he's going to be one of the great Bonds, the Bond of the '90s. He's got it down the way Bond is supposed to be.'"

Which has been my point.

Anyway, MGW has only said he doesn't know what it'll make, but can you blame him? This is going to be one violent, realistic, and dark film. Of course that is likely to hurt it at the box office. Doesn't say anything about Craig himself, though. And let's not forget Babs proclaiming this guy the best ever. We can analyze what the producers say all we want, but it tells us nothing.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, you missed the entire point completely. Then again, I'm not exactly a good writer, so I don't blame you. MGW's comments suggest that he was confident in Brosnan because he was "a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized." That, in tandem with his popular Remington Steele series and his lead in the public opinion polls at the time, made him (as G.S. states) an easy casting decision. In other words, Brosnan had some clear positive things going for him straight out of the gate, so to speak. For starters, he didn't have a boycott from a segment of the Bond fan base. Craig, on the other hand, has had some baggage going into the role--he was low in the polls going in, he's got that boycott thingie (which, for the record, I don't support), and, to tie this back to MGW's comment, Craig isn't even well known to the public at large. He's certainly a non-entity here in America. In my own little world, I can certainly see that issue: I travel a lot because of my job and, in my interactions with clients and others, I find myself always having to explain that Craig is the new Bond and I would have to point out that he was in Munich and Layer Cake, but they can't remember him in those films.

[quote name='Publius']
And let's not forget Babs proclaiming this guy the best ever. We can analyze what the producers say all we want, but it tells us nothing.
[/quote]
Then by your logic, Barbara Broccoli's comment that Craig is the best ever is meaningless. It "tells us nothing." Which makes Craig's situation even more difficult. He's got a producer who doesn't know what she's talking about and, by extension, any other positive comments she's made are meaningless, so we shouldn't take those comments seriously.

[TGO]

Ok guys...check this out. This is a poll on Box Office Mojo.

What is your most anticipated movie of the Holiday season (Nov-Dec)?
24.3% Casino Royale
12.4% Borat
8.7% Eragon
8.3% Rocky Balboa
8.1% The Fountain
5.9% Apocalypto
5.7% Dreamgirls
5.7% Other
5.3% Happy Feet
3.5% Stranger Than Fiction
3.1% The Good Shepherd
3.0% Blood Diamond
2.5% Deja Vu
2.3% A Good Year
1.0% The Pursuit of Happyness

[Publius]

Unfortunately, you missed the entire point completely. Then again, I'm not exactly a good writer, so I don't blame you. MGW's comments suggest that he was confident in Brosnan because he was "a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized."

Only that that's not what he said, at least in the context of that quote. Unless there was more to it you could share, he was saying that Brosnan wasn't "an established star" with instant box office draw, but that he was going to be a great success and a great Bond just the same. In other words, he was praising him in spite of his not being a star.

That, in tandem with his popular Remington Steele series and his lead in the public opinion polls at the time, made him (as G.S. states) an easy casting decision. In other words, Brosnan had some clear positive things going for him straight out of the gate, so to speak.

That's never been in contention (nor that Craig is less widely known, if known at all). What has been in contention is that Brosnan was such a draw that he (not Bond or anything/anybody else) was able to singlehandedly save the franchise and maintain a 100% increase in admissions over seven years.

For starters, he didn't have a boycott from a segment of the Bond fan base.

And the internet as we know it wasn't around. Important point, since that's what has enabled a small group of Brosnan fans (and I'm presuming that Super Mario character wasn't the only semi-relevant one...which he probably was) to amplify their bile a thousand times over. The only evidence for a mass boycott existing is "conventional wisdom" and an online petition filled with repeat signatures and an ongoing flame war from some of the anti-anti-Craig crowd. That's it.

Then by your logic, Barbara Broccoli's comment that Craig is the best ever is meaningless. It "tells us nothing." Which makes Craig's situation even more difficult. He's got a producer who doesn't know what she's talking about and, by extension, any other positive comments she's made are meaningless, so we shouldn't take those comments seriously.

...which was my point. One says this, the other says that. But it all means nothing. Didn't in '94/'95, doesn't today. All a bunch of hype. I never quote the powers that be for that very reason.

[jaguar007]

[quote name='Katov's Code' date='31 October 2006 - 19:48' post='637421']
[quote name='Publius' post='637199' date='31 October 2006 - 20:20']
[quote name='Katov's Code' post='637196' date='31 October 2006 - 15:16']
I was cleaning the attic over the weekend and ran across a November 1995 issue of Cinescape. In this issue, there's an article on Goldeneye, and Wilson had this to say about Brosnan: "'When you introduce a new Bond, it's always a challenge,'says Wilson, whose involvement in the franchise began when Roger Moore held the lead role. 'Pierce is not an established star. He's a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized, but he's not a star that has a following at the box office; he's not established yet...I can tell you, though, that he's going to be one of the great Bonds, the Bond of the '90s. He's got it down the way Bond is supposed to be.'"

Which has been my point.

Anyway, MGW has only said he doesn't know what it'll make, but can you blame him? This is going to be one violent, realistic, and dark film. Of course that is likely to hurt it at the box office. Doesn't say anything about Craig himself, though. And let's not forget Babs proclaiming this guy the best ever. We can analyze what the producers say all we want, but it tells us nothing.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, you missed the entire point completely. Then again, I'm not exactly a good writer, so I don't blame you. MGW's comments suggest that he was confident in Brosnan because he was "a well-known figure in the sense of being recognized." That, in tandem with his popular Remington Steele series and his lead in the public opinion polls at the time, made him (as G.S. states) an easy casting decision. In other words, Brosnan had some clear positive things going for him straight out of the gate, so to speak. For starters, he didn't have a boycott from a segment of the Bond fan base. Craig, on the other hand, has had some baggage going into the role--he was low in the polls going in, he's got that boycott thingie (which, for the record, I don't support), and, to tie this back to MGW's comment, Craig isn't even well known to the public at large. He's certainly a non-entity here in America. In my own little world, I can certainly see that issue: I travel a lot because of my job and, in my interactions with clients and others, I find myself always having to explain that Craig is the new Bond and I would have to point out that he was in Munich and Layer Cake, but they can't remember him in those films.

[quote name='Publius']
And let's not forget Babs proclaiming this guy the best ever. We can analyze what the producers say all we want, but it tells us nothing.
[/quote]
Then by your logic, Barbara Broccoli's comment that Craig is the best ever is meaningless. It "tells us nothing." Which makes Craig's situation even more difficult. He's got a producer who doesn't know what she's talking about and, by extension, any other positive comments she's made are meaningless, so we shouldn't take those comments seriously.
[/quote]


So why should we take MGWs comments about Brosnan in 1995 more seriously than BBs comments about Craig right now?

Honestly, both sound a bit like PR. From watching various interviews with MGW, I get the feeling his favorite Bond is actually Timothy Dalton.

[Jim]

Must this pleasure never end?

Anyone else feel their brain shrinking, ever so slightly?

The story so far:

N guesses that this film will make more money than the previous one.
X guesses that it will make less.
There are a number of side-wagers.

Have I missed anything? I wouldn't wish to misrepresent what has been a gripping read.

[HildebrandRarity]

the CNB crowd is a splinter group of the anti-Craig wing of Bondage, doesn't necessarily reflect our views about Craig...

...you may hear more about Mario, or you may hear from Mario.

Stylish.

I don't know who he is and i don't care.

You have yet to answer my question about what your agenda is. Why are you here precisely, if I may politely ask?

To pressure Eon to get rid of Craig? To bring back Brosnan?

Enlighten me please. And be straight about it.

[Brock Samson]

[quote name='Harmsway' post='637263' date='31 October 2006 - 16:47']
[quote name='CM007' post='637250' date='31 October 2006 - 15:24']
And the film ain

[JimmyBond]

[quote name='Brock Samson' post='637611' date='1 November 2006 - 08:24']
[quote name='Harmsway' post='637263' date='31 October 2006 - 16:47']
[quote name='CM007' post='637250' date='31 October 2006 - 15:24']
And the film ain

[Publius]

Well, I don't know what else to say. If it wasn't Brosnan, then what was it? What was the reason why TND did well? It couldn't have been because of a 6.5 year gap. Same with DAD and TWINE. We had different writers and directors for almost every one of Brosnan's films, so it's hard to suggest that THEY were the main attraction and he was not. It's kind of hard to make the case that the name "James Bond" sells tickets when clearly it wasn't selling them in increasing quantities during the 80's. Please, illuminate me.

I think TND did well because (1) the late 90s were a different time from the 80s (you accept the "conventional wisdom" that the 60s, 70s, and 80s were each very different cinematic eras, right? my theory is a continuation of that), (2) winter releases sure didn't hurt, and (3) the gap prior to GE inevitably helped that movie, but with a flood of people going to see Bond's return, a large number of new, probably loyal Bond fans were undoubtedly formed (notice the large number of young fans here and elsewhere that were hooked by GoldenEye...or TND, like me), and the subsequent Brosnans built on that. When the movies were being churned out every two years for 25 years, there was less allegiance by the end of that time to what had then become a given. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that.

You lost me at "And the internet...." The CraigNotBond crowd isn't necessarily indicative of the anti-Craig crowd. In fact, the CNB crowd is a splinter group of the anti-Craig wing of Bondage, doesn't necessarily reflect our views about Craig, and we certainly don't support their 'scorched 007' policy as a negotiating tool with EON.

If you had kept reading, you'd see the rest of my comment explained why the internet has been so important to the anti-Craig crowd. Namely, without that fringe website (and the media savvy Mario must have had to get it so much mention in supposedly legitimate news outlets), there'd be no evidence anywhere of anything more than the usual fan squabbling.

Sure, there was the initial "ohmygod he's blond" reactions, but after the shock went away and people started forming informed opinions, you saw far more in the way of balance, or even strong majority support/neutrality. Simple anti-Craig sentiment has been overshadowed by the opinions of a handful, although the media's sensationalist bias doesn't hurt either. Ever notice how the media insists on reminding people that Bond fans (which implies uniformity or at least consensus) have been in an uproar over Craig? You know exactly where they get that idea.

[dinovelvet]

Incidentally, after November 7th, 2006, you may hear more about Mario, or you may hear from Mario.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

[triviachamp]

Incidentally, after November 7th, 2006, you may hear more about Mario, or you may hear from Mario.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Nov. 7th is election day, so I guess Mario Bruno is running for some public office. State Assembly I would think?

Edit: looks like he isn't running for State Assembly. Perhaps after election day he will restart his Anti-Craig crusade just before release.

Edited by triviachamp, 01 November 2006 - 10:10 PM.