177 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

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.

Did you ask "the public at large" what they felt? And for the record, there is no such thing as the public at large.

You have a very blinkered perception of modern culture (as well as no access to the box office receipts) if you think James Bond 007 has been "forgotten" by the public.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

Where has it got us? You have barely reacted to any of the counterpoints thrown at your infantile line of enquiry. You are only getting this much attention (which is no doubt wetting your SpiderMan pants as we speak) because it is a slow news year.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly haven't a clue about the machinations and practises at Eon HQ. There is such a wider picture to your narrow assumptions but even explaining them to you would not make a blind bit of difference to your attitude. And do not assume you are privy to what the likes of Cubby Broccoli did and didn't do in their film making careers.

[Guy Haines]

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?

Things might have been different if Brosnan had carried on. We would have had one, possibly two more of his films, doing about the same in terms of box office as his previous films did. But I doubt that either film would have been Casino Royale, even if the rights problem had been tied up. Brosnan would have been a bit too old for a first Double-O mission film. So, we would have reached, say, 2008 and the search would be on for another Bond, not least so that CR could finally be filmed properly, say, for a 2010 release date. Pity about that looming MGM mess holding things up. In this alternate universe, if we were lucky, we might have seen CR a year or two later than we did. Or more likely we would be sitting around waiting for it to be filmed even now.

Brosnan carrying on as Bond would have made no difference to the situation the Bond series is in. Except perhaps that we would be wondering whether another Bond film will ever be made, whether any leading actor would want to sign up for the role, and whether the entertainment press are correct in describing Pierce Brosnan as the "final James Bond".

[Guy Haines]

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.

Two very successful Bond movies is where it has got us. Plus a critically acclaimed actor in the lead role. And as I have mentioned from my own experience, full houses at the cinema. If casting Daniel Craig was the result of bad decision making, we could do with a few more bad decisions like it!

In fact the only really bad decision that the Bond people have made was sticking with their current studio, given the present mess it is in, although from what I've read elsewhere on this site it would have been nigh on impossible for them to get out of their association with MGM. It is the MGM situation that has done for Bond, for the moment, not the casting of Daniel Craig.

[plankattack]

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

Oh, White Knight, stop it my friend! You're just having a laugh now!

And yet there's interesting conversation going on in this topic despite the clear wind-up by our original poster!

Guy Haines' point about a fifth Brozza being a potential low-key Bond is interesting. The EON playbook has always looked to bringing the series back into "reality" with a new actor - OHMSS, LALD, TLD, and remember that FYEO would have been ready to roll with or without Sir Rog. But after the extravagance of DAD would the general public have bought into Brozza in a down-to-earth Bond?

For better of for worse, the series has always almost locked it's current leading man into a "type" of Bond. Sure this is what fits the lead, but in a strange way it becomes self-fulfilling. I always wondered what type of film TD's third would have been, and I'm curious to see what will happen with DC. I happen to think he'll do a third, but not a fourth.

BTW White Knight, I think the whole series has been tosh since Terence Young left, but that's just me........

[SecretAgentFan]

Guys, we´re just feeding a troll here. Let´s stop this thread.

[Zorin Industries]

Agreed.

[Aris007]

Rightly said "SecretAgentFan"!

[jaguar007]

At least Whiteknight has given us something to talk about. These boards have been kind of slow recently

[SecretAgentFan]

At least Whiteknight has given us something to talk about. These boards have been kind of slow recently

Well, he gave us something that was tired, foolish and just intended to provoke frustration. There are certainly many much more deserving threads on this board.

[MajorB]

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

Um, no. Top brass who are inheriting a major film franchise want a sure thing.

It's true that when new studio heads come in, they often kill film projects that were greenlit by their predecessors so that the predecessors don't get credit if the films do well. This is nothing like that situation.

Craig has been hugely successful as Bond so far. There is zero reason for Spyglass or anyone else to want a new actor.

[jaguar007]

At least Whiteknight has given us something to talk about. These boards have been kind of slow recently

Well, he gave us something that was tired, foolish and just intended to provoke frustration. There are certainly many much more deserving threads on this board.

I agree, I was being a touch sarcastic.

[WhiteKnight2000]

At least Whiteknight has given us something to talk about. These boards have been kind of slow recently

I thought I'd liven the place up a bit. Stir some interesting debate, give people a chance to flex the old grey cells.

[Zorin Industries]

At least Whiteknight has given us something to talk about. These boards have been kind of slow recently

I thought I'd liven the place up a bit. Stir some interesting debate, give people a chance to flex the old grey cells.

But it's not stirred up any "interesting" debate and certainly not made folk use any "grey cells", Poirot.

[Mr_Wint]

I feel that Craig's Bond has not become as popular as Brosnan was during his tenure. But it is just a feeling based on discussions I have seen on Internet and heard among friends.

[Zorin Industries]

I feel that Craig's Bond has not become as popular as Brosnan was during his tenure. But it is just a feeling based on discussions I have seen on Internet and heard among friends.

People who post their filmic thoughts online tend not be representative of anyone I'm afraid.

James Bond had to move on. It was not going to with Pierce Brosnan in the role. And as much as I do have time for him and don't fully understand the fair-weather hatred towards him, his take on Bond was in great danger of unbalancing the role (in the wider audience's eyes) into parody and icon (two realms that worked in the 1970's but were in danger of feeling dated in the 21st Century). The series would not continue for long going down that route. Which a few people who do have a say realised.

[WhiteKnight2000]

I feel that Craig's Bond has not become as popular as Brosnan was during his tenure. But it is just a feeling based on discussions I have seen on Internet and heard among friends.

Exactly. This is basically the view of the man (or woman) in the street.

Bond will be a cash cow come what may, but the worldwide Bondmania that Brosman brought with the role is no longer there.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I feel that Craig's Bond has not become as popular as Brosnan was during his tenure. But it is just a feeling based on discussions I have seen on Internet and heard among friends.

Exactly. This is basically the view of the man (or woman) in the street.

Bond will be a cash cow come what may, but the worldwide Bondmania that Brosman brought with the role is no longer there.

What litmus paper do you use to gauge this opinion? Have a view or a feeling yourself but you cannot speak for the basic view of the man in the street. The cloest thing to that is box office figures surely.

[Zorin Industries]

I feel that Craig's Bond has not become as popular as Brosnan was during his tenure. But it is just a feeling based on discussions I have seen on Internet and heard among friends.

Exactly. This is basically the view of the man (or woman) in the street.

Bond will be a cash cow come what may, but the worldwide Bondmania that Brosman brought with the role is no longer there.

Well it's true. The blind can indeed lead the blind.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Clearly the fact that Craig who, despite being less well known across the world than Brosnan at the time when he took the part, managed to stimulate the series to a higher level of popularity can now translate into a lesser level of Bondmania is nothing short of absurd.

[Royal Dalton]

Whatever his merits, I doubt many people would care that much if Craig didn't come back. He isn't 'James Bond' in the public's eye. Not in the way Connery and Moore were, anyway.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I gave up on Brosnan after The World is Not Enough.

I've seen bits and pieces on TV, before switching channels, and none of what I saw appealed to me.

[Guy Haines]

I feel that Craig's Bond has not become as popular as Brosnan was during his tenure. But it is just a feeling based on discussions I have seen on Internet and heard among friends.

Exactly. This is basically the view of the man (or woman) in the street.

Bond will be a cash cow come what may, but the worldwide Bondmania that Brosman brought with the role is no longer there.

I don't recall the reaction to Brosnan being anything like the real Bondmania Sean Connery faced in the 1960s. (when, for example, Connery couldn't even go to the toilet without being mobbed by fans.) Pierce Brosnan did extremely well as Bond. His films did extremely well at the box office. (the same can be said, of course, of Daniel Craig's Bond, the very person who has, apparently, sunk the Bond franchise in just two movies according to this thread's originator.) But to call the reaction to Pierce Brosnan "Bondmania" - when compared to what Connery endured in his heyday - is stretching it a bit.

By the way, who exactly is this "man in the street" you keep mentioning? Where exactly is your evidence for the view that the average "man on the Clapham omnibus" prefers Brosnan as Bond over Craig, or anyone else for that matter?

I've been hugely amused by this thread, as its originator's approach seems to be all premise and conclusion with no arguement or hard evidence in between.

[plankattack]

The aforementioned Man on the Street actually lives four doors down from me. Drives a Ford, has a dog and a cat. I think he's a Mason. Nice wife, 2.5 kids. Lovely bloke really, knows everything about everything, including what time the next bus is arriving.............

Edited by plankattack, 16 September 2010 - 06:16 PM.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Whatever his merits, I doubt many people would care that much if Craig didn't come back. He isn't 'James Bond' in the public's eye. Not in the way Connery and Moore were, anyway.

Polls certainly seem to reflect this. The James Bond wiki poll has Connery with 51%, Brosnan with 40% and Craig with 28% in terms of popularity.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Whatever his merits, I doubt many people would care that much if Craig didn't come back. He isn't 'James Bond' in the public's eye. Not in the way Connery and Moore were, anyway.

Polls certainly seem to reflect this. The James Bond wiki poll has Connery with 51%, Brosnan with 40% and Craig with 28% in terms of popularity.

Moore and Connery did seven films in totally different times and film era's. Craig has done two films to date and comparisons that hark back to almost fifty years ago need to be taken with a slight pinch of salt. Cinema has moved on. The world has moved on. Notwithstanding Moore and Connery did not reach perfection until at least their third film, Craig is working just fine - in fact way better than fine. He is probably the best actor currently available to play 007. We are lucky to have him and no poxy wiki poll will convince me otherwise.

[BoogieBond]

1st man in street : Well that Craig fella is not as popular as Brosnan was
2nd man in street : Yes and all the people I know say so.
3rd man in street : That's %$!!!&*!!! Craig is the best Bond, but not as good at Connery

Whatever, but what is indisputable is Craig's Bonds have made a nice profit thank you. Bond is healthy, CR is critically lauded, is in lists of the best films of the 00s etc.

And 4 films were fine for Brosnan, His contract expired at the right time, and the producers I am sure are smiling all the way to the bank with the choice of Craig, and the reinvented franchise.

Everybody I know says so

[Guy Haines]

Whatever his merits, I doubt many people would care that much if Craig didn't come back. He isn't 'James Bond' in the public's eye. Not in the way Connery and Moore were, anyway.

Polls certainly seem to reflect this. The James Bond wiki poll has Connery with 51%, Brosnan with 40% and Craig with 28% in terms of popularity.

Ah, that's the hard evidence! From the man in the street to the man on the 'net. Opinion polls are just snapshots at a point in time. And can be prone to manipulation. And I would imagine online polls on fan sites are particularly prone.

Look at the way opinion sways one way or the other on this site. Would that make a sound basis for selecting a new Bond, dispensing with the current one, or pointlessly hoping for his predecessor's return? I doubt it.

A pity this "Brosnan should never had gone away" line started, because some of us actually enjoyed Pierce Brosnan and enjoy Daniel Craig as Bond. Being a fan of one or the other isn't mutually exclusive. But at some point Pierce had to go, and the selection of Craig was proved correct in the hard evidence of box office receipts and critical success. And the arguement that Craig has somehow sunk the series and led to the Bond films being forgotten these days conveniently avoids mention of the real reason Bond is currently out of the public consciousness, namely the MGM fiasco.

[WhiteKnight2000]

Ah, that's the hard evidence! From the man in the street to the man on the 'net. Opinion polls are just snapshots at a point in time. And can be prone to manipulation. And I would imagine online polls on fan sites are particularly prone.

|Ah, the old 'I don't like the poll results therefore they must be be manipulated somehow line.

I challenge anybody to find me an online Poll that has Craig ahead of Brosnan in the popularity stakes.

[stromberg]

Whatever his merits, I doubt many people would care that much if Craig didn't come back. He isn't 'James Bond' in the public's eye. Not in the way Connery and Moore were, anyway.

Polls certainly seem to reflect this. The James Bond wiki poll has Connery with 51%, Brosnan with 40% and Craig with 28% in terms of popularity.

1: 51 + 40 + 28 = 119, and there's not even the votes for Lazenby, Moore and Dalton in it. Ten out of one hundred people have no clue about percentage calculation. That's almost 17%.

2: A recent screenshot of theJamesbondwiki poll results page:
 jamesbondwikipoll.jpg   42.2KB   15 downloads