177 replies to this topic

[WhiteKnight2000]

I was just contemplating with the future of Bond uncertain do you think the producers regret sacking arguably the most popular Bond since Connery and Moore? They must look back and wonder what they'd been smoking that week. Craig made one good film but has failed to make the same impact that Brosnan did. The most recent instalment has sunk the franchise without a trace and the future is murky.

In retrospect do you wish Brosnan had made a couple more films. Things might be a bit different.

Thoughts?

[jaguar007]

No. I disagee with you 100%. I get the feeling the producers never really wanted to hire Brosnan in the first place but would have rather continued with Dalton. It was John Calley from MGM who was insisting that Brosnan was hired in the first place. I think Calley was right and Brosnan was the right choice for the future of the franchise (although I prefer Dalton).

I don't know how you can say Brosnan made more if an impact in the role than Craig did and that QoS sunk the franchise apart from your own personal opinion of the film. As far as butt in seats box office ticket sales, CR was far more popular than any of the Brosnan films and QoS was not far behind on its heals. While I agree that QoS is not nearly as good as CR, is no worse than any of Brosnan's films.

QoS has NOTHING to do with the delay in Bond 23.

Craig is on track (if Bond 23 is good and continues to meet or exceed the BO of CR & QoS) to be the most popular Bond since Connery (an honor that Moore still holds).

[David_M]

No, I don't wish he'd done more and I don't think the producers do, either.

This hiatus has nothing to do with the popularity of Craig or the success of his entries, any more than the 89-95 hiatus was caused by a "failure" of Dalton's LTK.

Even if they hadn't let Brosnan go when they did, they'd had to have done it by now; he's way too old for the part. And if it did come down to "smoking crack" I wish the producers had found a pusher about 4 years earlier than they did.

[zencat]

No.

[WhiteKnight2000]

I'm pretty certain that Craig has made his last Bond film and we'll be seeing a new actor in the next film, whenever that may be.

[jaguar007]

I'm pretty certain that Craig has made his last Bond film and we'll be seeing a new actor in the next film, whenever that may be.

why do you say that? Especially with all the recent news about Spyglass.

[SecretAgentFan]

Craig made one good film but has failed to make the same impact that Brosnan did. The most recent instalment has sunk the franchise without a trace and the future is murky.

Oh, the irony on the internet...

[WhiteKnight2000]

You can just bet any top brass that takes over will want a clean slate.

[Loomis]

The most recent instalment has sunk the franchise without a trace

Well, I'd agree that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a pretty poor film and certainly a very disappointing followup to the magnificent CASINO ROYALE, but I was under the impression that it did pretty decent box office, no?

Then, again I also gather that it cost an absolutely ridiculous sum to make (it's been cited as the ninth most expensive film of all time, although where the money went is a mystery to me, since I sure as heck can't see it onscreen), so perhaps it hasn't been particularly profitable?

Anyway, I doubt that the producers regret letting go of Brosnan. CASINO ROYALE was the biggest shot in the arm the series had had in decades, and while I believe it would certainly have been possible to make it with Brosnan I don't think it would have worked as well as with Craig.

As for whether Craig will return for a third Bond outing, well, we shall see.

[zencat]

I'm pretty certain that Craig has made his last Bond film and we'll be seeing a new actor in the next film, whenever that may be.

You know, there's not much in the universe I can say I know for certain. But I am certain Daniel Craig will be back.

[Goodnight]

Craig made one good film but has failed to make the same impact that Brosnan did.

In retrospect do you wish Brosnan had made a couple more films.

I don't think the reason that QOS wasn't as popular/good as CR is Daniel's fault. It's my opinion that CR was just such a great film, that whatever followed it just wouldn't be able to top it.

I think 4 was perfect for Brosnan, as I think if he had done another one he would have been too old by that point.

[Jim]

Sacked from what, exactly?

He wasn't sacked.

[zencat]

This thread kinda feels like the last gasp (or an attempt to resuscitate) CraigNotBondism.

[plankattack]

With all due respect to the original poster, I think there's a lot of personal opinion masquerading as fact. DC has made as big an impact as Brozza did - both his films have been a huge success financially, and regardless of what one thinks of QoS, the vast majority of critics have praised his portrayal of the character since 2006.

The financial/business issues at MGM are nothing to do with DC or the Bond films, other than the fact that they are arguably the crown jewel in most negotiations - if anything things move slower because the Bond franchise is so profitable/desirable to have. I don't think the producers regret making the most critically acclaimed Bond film ever, or the ton of money that both films since DAD have made. If they did regret it, then I would really question their judgement!

Would things have been different if Brozza had stayed? Who can say - what's indisputable is that the change of actor, and the version of CR that we got, provided a shot in the arm for the franchise. Would a fifth Brozza film following 2 years after DAD have done the same? We'll never know; personally I'm not convinced but I'm more than happy to hear someone's argument, so long as it does a bit more than "Craig is rubbish, QoS is crap" etc

[WhiteKnight2000]

what's indisputable is that the change of actor, and the version of CR that we got, provided a shot in the arm for the franchise.

Why did it need a shot in the arm? DaD despite being ridiculous made a massive ton of money and received mostly good reviews.

[plankattack]

what's indisputable is that the change of actor, and the version of CR that we got, provided a shot in the arm for the franchise.

Why did it need a shot in the arm? DaD despite being ridiculous made a massive ton of money and received mostly good reviews.

I'm not saying the series needed a shot in the arm, at least not financially. What I'm saying is that CR provided one. DAD received mostly good reviews at the time - CR was given a universal seal of approval by the critics (for what they're worth), and if you go back and read was what written at the time, the film opened up a wider audience than the films had had for a while. The combination of new actor and new tone peaked people's curiousity, in the same way that The Dark Knight brought a lot of people back to the Batman franchise. With the exception of Laz, a new actor in the lead has always had a similar affect for EON, whether it be Sir Rog in '73, TD in '87 (improved box office over AVTAK and positive press for the lead - every actor is proclaimed as the best since Connery) and Brozza himself in '95.

None of these things are a knock on Brozza, but the reality for most franchises is that they must renovate or lose wider interest outside of their base. Look at the most recent Star Trek, for example. Good reviews, good box office, and a chance to reenter the national conversation, so to speak.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Along with others here, I'm sure Eon have not looked back one iota since Brosnan left when he did. With no disrespect to Brosnan I can't see any reason why they would.

[Colossus]

I agree, the "new Bond" mania was really uneeded.

[Iroquois]

I was just contemplating with the future of Bond uncertain do you think the producers regret sacking arguably the most popular Bond since Connery and Moore? They must look back and wonder what they'd been smoking that week. Craig made one good film but has failed to make the same impact that Brosnan did. The most recent instalment has sunk the franchise without a trace and the future is murky.

In retrospect do you wish Brosnan had made a couple more films. Things might be a bit different.

Thoughts?

What have YOU been smoking this week? Craig has made such an incredible impact on the series that you have to be very dense not to notice. One of the most popular views on Craig is that he is arguably the best Bond since Connery, the guy was nominated for a BAFTA for crying out loud. I can't remember who it was but an early naysayer of Craig ate her words on camera after Craig proved her wrong.

Craig has made a much bigger impact than Brosnan. For instance, name a moment from the Brosnan films that the average public consider memorable, or even iconic. Then do the same for Craig's era. You'll find that Craig's is considerably easier and that's with half the films as Brosnan (not that I mean to attack Brosnan, even if I dislike his films and performances). Everyone knows about the parkour chase in CR, Craig's swimsuit, the torture scene, his 'Bond James Bond'. No one really talks about anything from Brosnan's, not that I've heard of.

Again, not to insult Brosnan, but I swear the average joe only cares about Brosnan because of the Goldeneye game, which only featured his likeness and adapted his film. I was speaking to someone about this the other day actually.

As for QOS, when are some people going to wake up and realise that although not as successful and the mega CR, it is still a major success critically and certainly financially. It's number of supporters actually outweigh it's haters, but it's haters are very vocal (possibly because of a certain petty little website). But regardless of that, critics seem to unanimously agree that Craig is the best thing about the film.

No offense, but as mentioned before, this seems to be a lame attempt from Craignotbond to try and out Craig again, due to the uncertain future of his Bond tenure. Possibly spurred on by the fact that Craig is replacing Brosnan in a Goldeneye remake. I've witnessed this kind of thing a lot since that game was announced.

If not, then...wow.

[Zorin Industries]

I was just contemplating with the future of Bond uncertain do you think the producers regret sacking arguably the most popular Bond since Connery and Moore? They must look back and wonder what they'd been smoking that week. Craig made one good film but has failed to make the same impact that Brosnan did. The most recent instalment has sunk the franchise without a trace and the future is murky.

In retrospect do you wish Brosnan had made a couple more films. Things might be a bit different.

Thoughts?

In answer to the thread title... No.

In answer to your statement... Daniel Craig has made TWO good Bond films (the box office says that more than anything - forget what armchair editors and nostalgic die-hards tell you).

In answer to your final er sentiment .... SOLACE did NOT sink anything (apart from maybe a few fans' comfort zones). The future is NOT murky.

Bond management do not regret moving things on. Trust me.

You can just bet any top brass that takes over will want a clean slate.

"Top brass"...? Do you want to name them? Do you have any idea how the movie business (in the widest sense) works? Do you have any idea how Bond management work?

I am sorry but you do not have a clue what you are talking about. As someone has said - your statements are merely your opinions that are unfounded and not remotely near the reality of what you are circling. I could explain a bit more to underline my stance, but feel that would be fruitless as the truth will only get in the way of your (mislead) opinion.

[double o ego]

I was just contemplating with the future of Bond uncertain do you think the producers regret sacking arguably the most popular Bond since Connery and Moore?

I don't think so.

They must look back and wonder what they'd been smoking that week.

What ever it was that they were smoking, right now they're probably wishing where they can get their hands on more of it. Neglecting to renew Brosnan's contract and hiring Craig was the best thing Eon had done in nearly 20 years.

Craig made one good film but has failed to make the same impact that Brosnan did. The most recent instalment has sunk the franchise without a trace and the future is murky.

Eh?? Craig restored a level of majesty and respect that Brosnan not once brought to these movies. Because of Craig, more women have taken a deeper general interest in Bond and Craig's social impact overshadowed anything Brosnan did by being in the role with 1 single Bond performance alone.
As for QoS, that film has nothing to do with the current MGM situation. MGM's financial woes was due to years of mismanagement of their projects.

In retrospect do you wish Brosnan had made a couple more films. Things might be a bit different.

Thoughts?

In retrospect I wish Brosnan was a better Bond than he was and made better movies.

what's indisputable is that the change of actor, and the version of CR that we got, provided a shot in the arm for the franchise.

Why did it need a shot in the arm? DaD despite being ridiculous made a massive ton of money and received mostly good reviews.

The same reason why the $billion spider-man movie franchise is being rebooted after only 5 years. Creatively Bond had become static and reduced to a shadow of what used to be a ridiculously amazing series of movies. While other movie makers were creating intense thrillers, we were getting surf dude Bond with playstation 2 graphics for cg effects. The Bond movies were becoming an embarrassment.

[WhiteKnight2000]

That's not what the public at large felt.

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

Edited by WhiteKnight2000, 15 September 2010 - 08:34 PM.

[Turn]

Whiteknight2000, Craig is not Bond sentiments are so 5 years ago. Brosnan is not in the role, Craig was accepted and CR was one of the most critically acclaimed Bond films ever. Besides that, Brosnan was not "sacked," his contract was fulfilled and not extended.

These are harsh facts YOU must face.

[Goodnight]

This thread is just plain silly, you can't blame DC just because QOS wasn't as popular as CR.

I also agree with others on here that say QOS hasn't anything to do with the current MGM situation.


Brosnan wasn't sacked, Craig is the man. Accept it!!!


It's time the craignotbonders turned around, walked back, deep into the woods, and stayed there!

[jaguar007]

That's not what the public at large felt.

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

Sorry to be rude, but what world are you living on? Personal preference on Bond is fine, but don't let it distort facts. I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond, but I recognize the reality that had Dalton done GE (something I personally wish would have happened), the series would probably had died with that movie.

Craig Bond is more popular than people thought he would be before CR's release. Although popular, the Brosnan movies never did reach the height of popularity that the Moore movies did in the 70s. CR was more popular than ANY BOND MOVIE since LALD!


Adjusted for inflation, both CR and QoS outgrossed ANY Brosnan Bond film. CR outgrossed any film since LALD and QoS outgrossed any Bond film since MR (except for CR).

[AMC Hornet]

I always wondered what happened to "Ed Anger" - supposedly a columnist for the World Weekly News, who used to present the most indefensible opinions just to stir people up and invite letters of protest from the readership (eg: "to stimulate the economy, every man should have two wives -that way one can stay home with the kids so the man doesn't have to take time away from his higher-paying job...")

Welcome back, Ed - or should I say WhiteKnight2000?

Edited by AMC Hornet, 15 September 2010 - 09:04 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

That's not what the public at large felt.

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

I think you need to substantiate your arguments, if indeed you have any argument at all......
I'm actually wondering if this is a wind up thread and we've all fell for it hook, line and sinker.

[Simon]

Pertaining to the thread's initial question, I will answer commensurate in length to the perceived intelligence of the one questioning.

.

[jaguar007]

That's not what the public at large felt.

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

Honestly, what makes you say that?

[Righty007]

Bond is pretty much a forgotten property and hasn't been as big since Brosnan left. These are the harsh facts we must face.

Harsh facts? Really?