54 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Daniel Craig as James Bond features as Empire's 'Icon of the Decade'

007 to feature on the December issue of the popular movie magazine

[Vauxhall]

Was just coming to post this same information. Interesting list.

A few strange ones though, Shaun from SHAUN OF THE DEAD?!

[marktmurphy]

Hmm, tricky. I'd go for Bourne, Maximus and Potter, probably. I think I'd include Bond in there but I'm not sure. The others: not so much.
Not sure who I'd pick for no.1. Potter should probably win, but then Maximus made more impact with his one film. Yeah, I'd lump for him.

[Safari Suit]

Shaun from Shaun of the Dead an icon? I loved that film but come off it!

[Binyamin]

Observe:

Five of the ten characters listed, appeared in three or more movies.

Craig, and four others, appeared in less, and belong at the top half of the list for making the largest impact with the lowest screentime.

Edited by Binyamin, 30 October 2009 - 06:36 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Is it a list of really influential and iconic film characters or a list of what had the most marketing money? HARRY POTTER should not be up there as definitive of this decade just because the films made a lot of money in this decade. The films haven't progressed or changed cinema, certainly not for the better.

And am I the only one who doesn't get SHAUN OF THE DEAD? It's a little not-that-good love letter to itself and no more.

[PPK_19]

Is it a list of really influential and iconic film characters or a list of what had the most marketing money? HARRY POTTER should not be up there as definitive of this decade just because the films made a lot of money in this decade. The films haven't progressed or changed cinema, certainly not for the better.

And am I the only one who doesn't get SHAUN OF THE DEAD? It's a little not-that-good love letter to itself and no more.

You've taken leave of your senses, Zorin. Its an awesome film! And Hot Fuzz is even better.
It was voted for by the readers of Empire, so its not definitive really.

[Eric Stromberg]

And am I the only one who doesn't get SHAUN OF THE DEAD? It's a little not-that-good love letter to itself and no more.

I am with you on that one, Zorin. Just watched the film last weekend for the first time and, while it had a few entertaining and funny moments, they were indeed few and far between for me. Seems like an odd entry on this list.

[PPK_19]

I suppose it is a bit of an acquired taste. It was huge in America though, for some reason.

Edited by PPK_19, 30 October 2009 - 07:16 PM.

[Binyamin]

We loves us some zombie movies.

Something about being the last bastion of hope and having to play the hero against all odds, or something.

[Loomis]

Is it a list of really influential and iconic film characters or a list of what had the most marketing money?

Quite. It's typical Empire populism.

And Bourne is far more deserving of a place on the list than Bond. Bond is (and always will be) ultimately an icon of the 1960s, whereas Bourne has far greater claim to being an icon of the 2000s.

[Safari Suit]

Is it a list of really influential and iconic film characters or a list of what had the most marketing money? HARRY POTTER should not be up there as definitive of this decade just because the films made a lot of money in this decade. The films haven't progressed or changed cinema, certainly not for the better.

Well believe me I don't want to be in Harry Potter's corner ever, but the films have been an unignorable pop culture phenomenon. I mean we could argue that it's ultimately all just a side-effect of the popularity/acclaim of the books, but it still doesn't change the fact that the films have been inescapable. I don't know if being good is really a requirement for iconicism (it helps, obviously), and when you look back at the biggest phenomenons of the decade, the HP films would have to be in there.

I wont be reading the article though. "Ten years of the boy wizard. Ten years of Daniel Radcliffe". No thank you! All of these sound about as banal and lazy as possible. "The genius of a new kind of action hero" "The growth of the grumpiest of comic-book heroes" "Five reasons why Captain Jack rocks" (what are we, 7?) and yes, I'm afraid even "How Daniel Craig marked the arrival of a new kind of 007". Yawnsville, all of them.

[Tybre]

I suppose it is a bit of an acquired taste. It was huge in America though, for some reason.

1. We loves us some godforsaken zombie bastards. There's a reason everyone I know has at least a Plan A and Plan B in the event of a zombie apocalypse.
2. It's a damn funny film.

[PPK_19]

Quite. It's typical Empire populism.

And Bourne is far more deserving of a place on the list than Bond. Bond is (and always will be) ultimately an icon of the 1960s, whereas Bourne has far greater claim to being an icon of the 2000s.

I love EMPIRE and TOTAL FILM magazines. They are worth every penny. You just can't find that sort of magazine in America (anymore). The current issue has Sam Worthington on the cover (promoting CLASH OF THE TITANS). Not only is it a great article with fresh pictures, but the mag also had a 30-year retrospective of ALIEN and the sequels, with new interviews, etc...

I can't think of a single American magazine that even comes close to matching what EMPIRE and TOTAL FILM offer their readers. I've given up my subscription to ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, and save the money to put towards EMPIRE and TOTAL FILM. Those two mags are the U.K.'s most significant contribution to western civilization since tea and cucumber sandwiches.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't care what characters deserve to be icons or not; the magazines sell themselves. If you don't like the cover story, chances are there is enough content in the other articles to satisfy most readers. In fact, unlike ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY (which I'm now able to read through in less than an hour),there are so many great articles in both EMPIRE and TOTAL FILM that it takes hours, maybe even a full day to read the whole thing. I actually look forward to using the toilet because I know I've got my EMPIRE and TOTAL FILM magazines on the magazine rack to keep me occupied. I'd sit there all day and read if I could, but eventually my lower half starts to go numb.

Im a subscriber to Empire and i think its awesome. I haven't found a more entertaining read. Total film, not so much, it doesn't get as many exclusives as Empire does.
Glad to hear a yank appreciates a good bit of British journalism
And there is no denying the pop-culture phenomenon that is harry potter. If not harry potter and bond, what other icons could there be?

[Binyamin]

We loves us some zombie movies.

Something about being the last bastion of hope and having to play the hero against all odds, or something.

1. We loves us some godforsaken zombie bastards. There's a reason everyone I know has at least a Plan A and Plan B in the event of a zombie apocalypse.

Took the words right out of my mouth

Edited by Binyamin, 30 October 2009 - 11:15 PM.

[Tybre]

Great minds and all that, eh Binyamin?

[Double-Oh Agent]

I can understand most of the list but Shaun??? I'd readily replace him with Spider-Man.

[Jim]

Are these really the most significant characters of the last ten years? Reading the piece now, it all seems a bit, well, trite. Still, nice shiny cover and will probably shift a few copies.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Nice shiny cover? mmmmmm I can see me fingering through this at WHsmith today, along with the 30 other people who wont buy the magazines. Breading ground for swine flu. Harry Potter an Icon? Really?

[Safari Suit]

To be honest I find that one of the more logical selections, and I have no time for the character whatsoever.

What does it say about this decade that half of the ten icons are characters who have been around for decades? Hopefully it says more about Empire.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

The choices were based on a readers poll. I voted for Bond, Dr. Manhattan and, and Anakin Skywalker.

Best photo of Craig I can remember seeing.

Don't pick up Empire as much as I used to. It's getting very expensive in my part of the world, and while it's still an excellent magazine, there's frankly too much coverage of films I have no interest in ever watching, let alone read about. Guess that's what sells.

Edited by The Ghost Who Walks, 31 October 2009 - 09:53 AM.

[Tybre]

Are these really the most significant characters of the last ten years? Reading the piece now, it all seems a bit, well, trite. Still, nice shiny cover and will probably shift a few copies.

Well it does say the people voted for them. So apparently Empire readers think so. Only one on there I'd readily agree to really is Wolverine, and even that is a bit eh.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

^I think Craig's Bond (not the DAD Bond) deserves a place on a list of the ten best characters of the decade. Wolverine? Nah. I'd be more interested in seeing Jackman star in Van Helsing 2 at this point.

[Professor Dent]

Nice. That Jason Bourne pose reminds me of a Jack Bauer promo shot pose from a few seasons ago.

[Automan]

Anyone know what the release dates are for

Bourne 4 and Mission IMpossible 4????

Then Daniel will blow them all away

[Jose]

Aragorn? Seriously? If LOTR is on the list, then the only character who deserves to be on there is Gandalf, in my opinion. I don't know if he still counts but if there's an "icon of the decade" Neo from the Matrix should be included in there somewhere.

[DamnCoffee]

Harry Potter an Icon? Really?

I would say so. The Potter series has been a very successful film series.

Aragorn? Seriously? If LOTR is on the list, then the only character who deserves to be on there is Gandalf, in my opinion.

Or Gollum.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Is it a list of really influential and iconic film characters or a list of what had the most marketing money?

Quite. It's typical Empire populism.

And Bourne is far more deserving of a place on the list than Bond. Bond is (and always will be) ultimately an icon of the 1960s, whereas Bourne has far greater claim to being an icon of the 2000s.

But this is the Craig incarnation of 007; a bold, against 007 standard issue tall, dark and handsome type choice-he's the anti-Brosnan Bond and he delivered. And he's in the best two film combo since the 60s. But I'd rate Bourne higher based on novelty and 3 films to 2 advantage.

[Tybre]

Aragorn? Seriously? If LOTR is on the list, then the only character who deserves to be on there is Gandalf, in my opinion.

Or Gollum.

My vote will still be for Gandalf if it's in the case of LOTR. Or Frodo + Sam tag team. Can't have one without the other. Gollum...not so much.

[marktmurphy]

Aragorn? Seriously? If LOTR is on the list, then the only character who deserves to be on there is Gandalf, in my opinion. I don't know if he still counts but if there's an "icon of the decade" Neo from the Matrix should be included in there somewhere.

Not bad in terms of being a character terrible fat people with lank hair seem to think they can get away with dressing like (so it does obviously have an impact): just not sure it really works in terms of this decade because The Matrix was a nineties film.

Aragorn: I don't get on with LOTR anyway, but the one I did see he made no impact on me. The character comes from the fifties or something, doesn't he? Icon of 21st Century cinema? Nah. I'd never even heard of him putting that great a performance before now.
James Bond: Craig is very good, made a big impact. I think in a way we have to see where he goes next before you can call him icon. There's only been one truly iconic 007.
Jason Bourne: great films, good performance- but Bourne's supposed to be a bit faceless. He's a humourless machine: can that be an iconic performance? I don't think it can, really.
The Bride: I can't even see why this got near this list. She wears the outfit of another, true cinema icon, yes. That's about it.
The Joker: he died and it was in a comic book movie. That's the only reason he's here.
Maximus: a great performance in a recognisable and unique role that launched a career and a thousand impressions. Yeah, I can see that.
Harry Potter: he's a massive character, known worldwide. Possibly more of a publishing icon than a cinema one, but it makes sense to have him here. Not exactly an amazing performance though.
Shaun: good film, well played. Just not a striking character, though. Not an icon: the point of the character is that he's not iconic. He's a normal guy. No.
Wolverine: a comic book character from the 60's played as written. He's fine, but there's nothing amazing or original to cinema going on there.
Jack Sparrow: recognisable and original; a good, fun performance. I can sort of see it, but it's a bit frothy light.