177 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

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

Whereas in reality, Craig's films have hit heights not seen since Moonraker and LALD, far exceeding the kind of box office take Brosnan could muster by over $100 million on average. Since you haven't bothered to do any research for your claims, here's some for you :

Quantum of Solace : $586 million total worldwide gross
Casino Royale : $594

Die Another Day : $431 ($511 inflation adjusted to 2009)
TWINE : $361 ($460 adjusted)
TND : $333 ($443 adjusted)
Goldeneye : $352 ($490 adjusted)

[Guy Haines]

The Bond producers may regret the way Pierce Brosnan was released from the Bond role. I think it could have been handled differently. Brosnan deserved better than "sorry, you're not Bond anymore". But regret the actual change from Brosnan to Craig? I don't think so. Daniel Craig has made two highly successful Bond films, has been described (over this side of the pond, at least) as "the best Bond in decades", and is the only actor to have been nominated for a BAFTA for best actor for portraying James Bond. Not even Sean Connery at his best managed that.

The series' woes at the moment, as others on this thread have already pointed out, have nothing to do with a change of actor as Bond, and everything to do with the ludicrous MGM mess. Sort that out, quickly, and allow the film makers to start filming 23, and audiences will come back. By 2012, they will probably be bored with 3-D extravaganzas and angst ridden teenage vampires, and would welcome the return of the world's longest running, and least secret, agent.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The Bond producers may regret the way Pierce Brosnan was released from the Bond role. I think it could have been handled differently. Brosnan deserved better than "sorry, you're not Bond anymore". But regret the actual change from Brosnan to Craig? I don't think so.

I think there was a bit more to it than how you describe Brosnan that was released from the role. The phrase too big for ones boots on the part of Brosnan comes to mind. But I do agree with you in that I don't think the producers have any regrets either..

[AMC Hornet]

"Don't bother me with details, Bert - just get me the diamonds!"

[Guy Haines]

The Bond producers may regret the way Pierce Brosnan was released from the Bond role. I think it could have been handled differently. Brosnan deserved better than "sorry, you're not Bond anymore". But regret the actual change from Brosnan to Craig? I don't think so.

I think there was a bit more to it than how you describe Brosnan that was released from the role. The phrase too big for ones boots on the part of Brosnan comes to mind. But I do agree with you in that I don't think the producers have any regrets either..

Yes. Didn't Pierce Brosnan at one point try to dictate who should direct one of the Bond films? The producers were adamant that Sean Connery would not become in effect a third producer when he was Bond, so they would have had no compunction in slapping down Pierce's directoral suggestions. All the same, it is a shame he left the way he did, though I am not at all sorry that he was replaced by Daniel Craig.

[WhiteKnight2000]

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

Whereas in reality, Craig's films have hit heights not seen since Moonraker and LALD, far exceeding the kind of box office take Brosnan could muster by over $100 million on average. Since you haven't bothered to do any research for your claims, here's some for you :

Quantum of Solace : $586 million total worldwide gross
Casino Royale : $594

Die Another Day : $431 ($511 inflation adjusted to 2009)
TWINE : $361 ($460 adjusted)
TND : $333 ($443 adjusted)
Goldeneye : $352 ($490 adjusted)

You need to quote a source to back up these up.

[jaguar007]

dinovelvet's numbers are pretty accurate.

If you have a boxofficemojo premier account, you can look them up, they are also listed on wikipedia under "James Bond".

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

Perhaps you can give us some evidence to the "fact" of Bond being a forgotten property since Brosnan left.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

[Turn]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

And a lot of those people say Sean Connery is the only Bond. I should know as I had a Goldfinger poster in my previous office and several people said that to me. In an office prior to that I had a DAD poster and nobody ever commented on it.

I also know a lot of people who just say "the one with the volcano" or "the one with Jaws" or "the one with the skiing".

[Major Tallon]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

So we've reached the point where you're relying on that dubious proposition to establish that the Bond producers regret recasting their leading role with Craig? As Bond himself would have put it, "You're joking."

[jaguar007]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

Is that your factual evidence?

Yes, GE does have its fans but I have found most of those people are those that were young and grew up not on the GE movie, but the video game. When most people I talk to learn I;m a James Bond fan, Casino Royale being the best Bond movie in ages (since the Connery films) is the usual consensus.

I would dare to say that the GE videogame defined James Bond for a generation more than Pierce Brosnan's actual Bond movies did.

[sharpshooter]

I grew up with Brosnan's Bond and I like him in the role - but it was his time to go. There would be no regret. There's none from me. Get behind the current Bond and let sleeping dogs lie. Craig has well and truly proved his worth in the role and at the box office.

[David_M]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

I don't work at the Gap, a surf shop or a campus bookstore, so that's not the answer I get. Most of my coworkers will answer "Octopussy."

Yes, I work at Geezers R Us.

[jaguar007]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

I don't work at the Gap, a surf shop or a campus bookstore, so that's not the answer I get. Most of my coworkers will answer "Octopussy."

Yes, I work at Geezers R Us.

The answer I would most get is probably "Goldfinger" followed by "Casino Royale" which seems to be everyones favorite since GF.

[AMC Hornet]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

"Probably" - well, that's evidence enough for me. Case closed.

You've converted me, WhiteKnight. I'm a believer now. Now all we have to do is bring everyone else around to your the right way of thinking.

I think this thread has gone on long enough.

[Jim]

There's a reality tv show going on at the moment based on the premise that if you surround yourself with things from n years ago, you feel n years younger - http://www.bbc.co.uk...oung-ones.shtml

I've always thought it was nonsense. However, this thread has me believing it is 2005 and I am 32. It's taken an inch off my waist, regrown some hair, undone my vasectomy and made the school fees much cheaper. I love you.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

Plain nonsense.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The Bond producers may regret the way Pierce Brosnan was released from the Bond role. I think it could have been handled differently. Brosnan deserved better than "sorry, you're not Bond anymore". But regret the actual change from Brosnan to Craig? I don't think so.

I think there was a bit more to it than how you describe Brosnan that was released from the role. The phrase too big for ones boots on the part of Brosnan comes to mind. But I do agree with you in that I don't think the producers have any regrets either..

Yes. Didn't Pierce Brosnan at one point try to dictate who should direct one of the Bond films? The producers were adamant that Sean Connery would not become in effect a third producer when he was Bond, so they would have had no compunction in slapping down Pierce's directoral suggestions. All the same, it is a shame he left the way he did, though I am not at all sorry that he was replaced by Daniel Craig.

Maybe he did, that sounds plausible, although that wasn't what I was thinking.

[Guy Haines]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

They may not mention a title at all. There are 22 of them, and people can get them confused. This in itself doesn't make Bond a forgotten item in everyday life.

[Guy Haines]

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.

Purely anecdotal evidence on my part, but, when I went to see CR for the first time, the cinema was almost full, I was lucky to squeeze in. When I wanted to see it a second time, the house was full, and I had to come back later on. On further occasions, over a period of several weeks, the cinema was still doing very good business with CR. I had a similar experience with QoS.

By contrast, I had no difficulty at all finding a seat to watch GoldenEye.

I don't know whether this was down to more people going to the cinema in 2006 or 2008 than during the 1990s, or Craig being a better Bond than Brosnan, or just simple curiosity about the new 007. But I find the idea that Bond "hasn't been as big since Brosnan left" to be risible.

If by "forgotten property" you mean that Bond isn't permeating the public consciousness on a daily basis, you are right. That would be a hard thing to sustain after nearly fifty years. But, by that measurement, Bond hasn't been as "big" since the "Bondmania" of the mid to late 1960s. An arguement for not letting Connery quit the role, perhaps?

[dchantry]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

He he, this must be a windup post.Its amazing the dross people can put and initiate so much reaction.
My own thoughts are that I've never heard so much tosh said in quite a while.
Each Bond has had its merits over the last 50 years. I enjoyed Brosnan during his time as Bond but I never actually went to watch them as often as ones prior. I used to put this down to my getting older and outgrowing but this can't be true as I saw CR 6 times in the Cinema, such was the impact.
I can honestly say that if I asked 100 people in the street to name a recent Bond film, I'd get more that say Casino Royale than Goldeneye, in fact I'd even put a wager on Goldeneye not even getting to 5 and CR getting at least 50. This would be higher if I only asked women where 100% always quote those bathing trunks.

Personally I'm still amazed people are talking about Brosnan leaving. He did 4, the contract had finished and it was time for change.
The producers brought Craig came in and his 2 films make over a billion dollars. Thats why these films have been churning out non stop for almost 50 years, because the producers know when change is needed.

[Double-Oh Agent]

The Bond producers may regret the way Pierce Brosnan was released from the Bond role. I think it could have been handled differently. Brosnan deserved better than "sorry, you're not Bond anymore". But regret the actual change from Brosnan to Craig? I don't think so. Daniel Craig has made two highly successful Bond films, has been described (over this side of the pond, at least) as "the best Bond in decades", and is the only actor to have been nominated for a BAFTA for best actor for portraying James Bond. Not even Sean Connery at his best managed that.

The series' woes at the moment, as others on this thread have already pointed out, have nothing to do with a change of actor as Bond, and everything to do with the ludicrous MGM mess.

I agree with this. I wish Brosnan had done one more film and should have done one more film (in between Die Another Day and Casino Royale), but unfortunately he was not given the opportunity. Personally, I think the EON producers knew they had to bring Bond "back to earth" so to speak after DAD much like they did with For Your Eyes Only after Moonraker but felt that to do so would be better done with a new Bond getting a low-key fresh start rather than Brosnan in a low-key film followed by a similar one starring Bond #6. At the same time--and probably even more likely--Barbara Broccoli already had her eye on Daniel Craig as Bond #6 and knew she couldn't wait much longer before he became too big for the role. Hence, Brosnan out, Craig (after much tests by Martin Campbell and MGM) in. Still, I would have liked to have seen them squeeze in one more Brosnan film in 2004.

[Aris007]

Dude this is 2010! If you had really been around for the last 4 years, you'd have known that Daniel Craig brought back the sixties for Bond! Honestly, Casino Royale is perhaps the besst Bond film ever, it's the biggest box-office hit ever for Bond and people see Bond with a different perspective nowadays thing that didn't happen in Brosnan's era.

Likewise Quantum Of Solace didn't sink any franchise. For me it's a bad Bond film, but according to the numbers it's a very very big box-office success.

And I don't think that Craig has something to do with the fact that MGM is in a debt and that the future is kinda of uncertain. And with the recent news about Spyglass I think there's not a single doubt that Craig will return for Bond 23.

Brosnan left at the right time. In Die Another Day he didn't give a about the film. He cared about money and that's not something that a reasonable Bond fan values. Instead, everybody that loves Bond, has his mind in his skull and isn't blind or duff knows that Craig is the best choice available at the moment.

I really can't see your point!

[Loomis]

Just ask anybody you work with on a day to day basis. Ask them to name a recent Bond film they remember and they'll probably say Goldeneye.

Right. And ask them to name a blockbuster they recently saw at the cinema and they'll probably say JURASSIC PARK.

[David Schofield]

Hey, WhiteKnight2000, what a wonderful thread idead to prod any Craig nut-huggers with.

You are, though, clearly on a wind-up?

I doubt EON could be any happier at the timing of their decision, what with Brosnan's ageing, his demands on the producers, and the subsequent huge public success of Craig as Bond. In some ways, Brosnan WAS a better Bond than Craig, I'll give you that (oo-er), but EON will be extremely pleased about their current position.

If only they were still allowed to make Bond films.

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.

I don't claim any such Nostradamean skills but I doubt we'll see Craig in #23.

Pretty sure ALL parties will have moved on by the time the damn thing gets released. I have a date of summer 2018 pencilled in in my diary for the release of the movie of 23, or Project X to give it its current working title.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m pretty sure the producers regret not cutting their ties to MGM much earlier.

[WhiteKnight2000]

The producers brought Craig came in and his 2 films make over a billion dollars. Thats why these films have been churning out non stop for almost 50 years, because the producers know when change is needed.

Craig was the first non Cubby decision. Look where it's got us.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Craig nut-huggers

I like that term. Yes, considering where we're at since CR there's way to much Craig love in the Bond-verse (but not of course in the real world, which is the concern).

We need a clean slate and another re-boot in order to save Bond.

Edited by WhiteKnight2000, 16 September 2010 - 10:20 AM.

[Guy Haines]

The Bond producers may regret the way Pierce Brosnan was released from the Bond role. I think it could have been handled differently. Brosnan deserved better than "sorry, you're not Bond anymore". But regret the actual change from Brosnan to Craig? I don't think so. Daniel Craig has made two highly successful Bond films, has been described (over this side of the pond, at least) as "the best Bond in decades", and is the only actor to have been nominated for a BAFTA for best actor for portraying James Bond. Not even Sean Connery at his best managed that.

The series' woes at the moment, as others on this thread have already pointed out, have nothing to do with a change of actor as Bond, and everything to do with the ludicrous MGM mess.

I agree with this. I wish Brosnan had done one more film and should have done one more film (in between Die Another Day and Casino Royale), but unfortunately he was not given the opportunity. Personally, I think the EON producers knew they had to bring Bond "back to earth" so to speak after DAD much like they did with For Your Eyes Only after Moonraker but felt that to do so would be better done with a new Bond getting a low-key fresh start rather than Brosnan in a low-key film followed by a similar one starring Bond #6. At the same time--and probably even more likely--Barbara Broccoli already had her eye on Daniel Craig as Bond #6 and knew she couldn't wait much longer before he became too big for the role. Hence, Brosnan out, Craig (after much tests by Martin Campbell and MGM) in. Still, I would have liked to have seen them squeeze in one more Brosnan film in 2004.

And I agree that Brosnan should have had one more crack at Bond between 2002 and 2006. But we are where we are. The Bond producers had an opportunity to acquire the CR film rights, at long last, and were determined to film CR as a series re-boot, with a younger Bond on his first Double-O status assignment. Therefore, no more Pierce Brosnan. A disappointment for Pierce's army of fans, to be sure, but hardly the fatal blow to the series implied by the originator of this thread. No more fatal than Connery handing over to Moore, in fact.

Thinking about it, CR could have been filmed with Brosnan as Bond, but it would have been a bit different. A story could have been created featuring a Bond in the autumn of his career, taking on Le Chiffre in one last mission. But would an experienced Bond have fallen for Vesper Lynd and not considered the possibility of her being a double agent? How would he have coped with the, er, more physically painful aspects of the story? I wonder.

[Messervy]

We need a clean slate and another re-boot in order to save Bond.

Oh, man! Did you make me laugh!

Or, were you serious?
In which case I could recommend a good therapist I know ...

Craig was the first non Cubby decision.

Maybe Cubby being actually dead had something do it with it?