Bond Announced....

[big screen satellite]

according to the Daily Mail....(I know its not the font of decent knowledge...but)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=365001&in_page_id=1773


(i didn't find the article either...was pointed in the direction of it by another site before my newspaper reading habits are called into question...;) )

make of it what you will, but i kinda think this might be true...

[ffolkes]

If EON confirms this then that settles it.

What comes to Craig, i don't know much about his acting... haven't seen Layer Cake for one.
But that must be his strong point cos we all know he doesn't really look like the classic James Bond either.

Right?

[dubman]

feelings???

whothefuck is this guy anyway?

[Winston]

watch layer cake

you know enough

[b.miller]

yeah watch layer cake... I think he'll be an interesting Bond... the real question though concerns the movies they'll put him in. I would have SWORN that Pierce Brosnan would make the best bond since Connery when he was announced but all of his movies were dumb actioneers with a gratuitous car chase thrown in somewhere in the middle. It would be cool if we actually got honest-to-goodness SPY movies again.

[dubman]

i dont know... i like my paper-thin spy franchises to deteriorate and become more tedious as time rolls on.

[bklyndv]

i dont know... i like my paper-thin spy franchises to deteriorate and become more tedious as time rolls on.

Yep. Right up there with nipples on Batsuits.

[big screen satellite]

official announcement on FRIDAY!!!!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=11537

[ffolkes]

official announcement on FRIDAY!!!!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=11537

ooooh the excitement!

we'll see if it really is Craig or if there's a last minute surprise. (Brosnan!)

[IsiliRunite]

You know.......James Bond, the English spy, has always been played by an imposter non-anglo-saxon.

[big screen satellite]

ok - so its official....

http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3


Daniel Craig's the man....

[ffolkes]

Indeed, Craig it is.

-sigh-

Oh well... At least it'll be interesting.

[big screen satellite]

full details here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4337224.stm)

[ffolkes]

Here's what i posted on a Bond forum (yes i'm that much of a fan) about the movie... I'm too lazy to write it in short so i'll just copy paste it.


I'd personally say that IF "Casino Royale" is planned out to be a more grittier and "realistic" spy movie, (a la Bourne Identity etc) THEN Craig MIGHT work as 007. Here's why:

Daniel Craig doesn't look really like a male model, he looks more "real" in the sense that he could actually exist. Brosnan's facial features are so symmetrically perfect that he looks more like a fantasy character than an actual person... As bizarre as that sounds. Now I'm not saying that Craig wouldn't have charm, but he certainly looks more "roughed up by life" than Pierce ever did. This could work for Casino Royale's potentially more realistic take.

BUT: If "Casino Royale" will be just another Bond movie along the lines of DAD... then i think the franchise is truly in trouble. The public already recognizes Brosnan as Bond and pretty much likes the man as well. Sure, Pierce's movies could've been far better, especially the latest ones. But Brosnan himself has been very popular as 007. His movies also have made serious money for EON, so it's obviously a big risk not to have him on board.

Now that EON has confirmed Craig as Bond, i truly hope they will also try the more "realistic approach". It might not make that much money as DAD did, but it could certainly be a better film. The popcorn audience will probably turn their backs on it, but the hardcore Bond fans and spy-fans could appreciate it. Though Sony's involvement in all of this does sound a bit scary... i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

As to me: Who would've i liked to have seen as 007? Well, Pierce Brosnan. I think he deserved to leave the role with a better movie than Die Another Day.


That's all... It seems that Craig is already getting a huge pummelling from the fans, so i tried to explain my thoughts on some reasonable level. What do you think of the whole casion royale/daniel craig thing, matt?

[Raz]

Pierce Brosnan is ancient, time for new blood. Never heard of this guy but like you said, IF they try to make a decent film the different look could help.

[big screen satellite]

That's all... It seems that Craig is already getting a huge pummelling from the fans, so i tried to explain my thoughts on some reasonable level. What do you think of the whole casion royale/daniel craig thing, matt?

well personally, i'm not fussed, he was great in Layer Cake, and i think its not really up to him to make the role good its up to the writers to put him in a decent situation and make a decent film...Bond doesn't have to be this or be that (young, aggressive whatever), he's Bond - plain and simple.

Roger Moore didn't play Bond like Flemming wrote it, the most realistic Bond is the least liked, Dalton...as long as he plays the role well, good luck to him...

the trouble is fans still want Brosnan

for some reason (many i hear) he wasn't asked back...a shame, but then again, perhaps the best thing for him, because the movies after Goldeneye were progressivly turing him into a Roger Moore Bond....too cheesy (although i must add he is my fav Bond, Moore...)

as much as DAD was panned i kinda liked some of it, there are some great action sequences in typical Bond fashion, and you can't fault all the nods to the entire series, which are great, and tbh Moonraker doesn't get panned, but DAD is the same kinda set up, hokey villians, unfeasible plots, but thats Bond all round...and if they change the set up too much fans will drift away too...we want cars, gadgets, girls, villians (& sidekicks) etc...

the problem is we now have Bourne to contend with and times have changed, when Brosnan came in with Goldeneye there was not a lot else to stand up against it, xXx tried to emulate it and failed, Brosnan made three more movies, two of which were pretty lame (plotwise) DAD & TND, but TWINE was pretty good...its a tough descision on where to take the franchise, and still keep it fresh

anyway back to Daniel and him playing Bond, well one he's British...Blonde (so what!), and is up for it to take on the role, he knows the responsibilty, and the burden of Bond, but he's gonna do it...good i say

i hope they don't fuck it up for him, because he'll get the blame, but its the writers adapting Flemmings story for him that needs to be spot on...

i really hope that the writers have seen some of the comments made by fans, after all its us who will be paying to see Bond 21...we just want likeable believeable charachters, and a decent plot

i see its still scheduled for Oct 2006, which i think is too soon, they need to take time and get it right,

and releasing it then is also missing such a decent marketing opportunity and a way to get fans back on side, because they really would have done better by releasing it in 2007

anyway there's not a lot anyone can do about it now, people are always gonna slate Craig if they start off doing it...i'm always one to give the benefit and see what happens, after all its not life and death its just a film...some people take everything too seriously (mainly film critics who are self righteous scumbags in the main...)

anyway

live and let live,

[Animal Boything]

As a not-at-all-hardcore fan who's always kinda liked (but not loved) Bond, I've been dying to see a movie that was nothing at all like Bond movies of the past. Audiences and filmmakers alike really latched onto the cheesier elements of the (mostly good) old movies, which have been blown to increasingly ridiculous proportions over time. The whole espionage element seems to have gone out the window in favor of bigger set pieces and weirder gadgets... Bond has ceased to be a hero whose mind is his best weapon.

Fuck Bond 21. I want Bond 1. Close the book on the whole thing and start completely fresh. Focus on making good films. Hey, it worked for Batman.

It looks like they're going for it, or at least taking a couple steps in the right direction. I WILL pay to see this movie, if it ends up being fresh and interesting. The fact that they cast a blond guy says to me that they're not just going through the motions this time, and I think that's wonderful.

[b.miller]

Fuck Bond 21. I want Bond 1. Close the book on the whole thing and start completely fresh. Focus on making good films. Hey, it worked for Batman.

start praying for some Broccoli deaths :)

[ffolkes]

I agree with many of the things you said, Matt.
Especially the bit about Moore: he is also my fav Bond even though his movies are often over the top and not very Flemingy.

I grew up with Moore's movies so they mean a great deal to me. (just look at my username for chrissakes!) Anyways i find it kinda interesting that you mentioned the parallel between Moonraker and DAD, cos i was just thinking of the exact same thing a week ago.

Both movies are equally outrageous, but still... why do i feel like justifying Moonraker over DAD? Well, time has probably a lot to do with it. It's easier to just shrug and laugh at Moonraker when you know that it was followed with one of Moore's best Bond movies; For Your Eyes Only (which was also much more down to earth). Pun fully intended.

But DAD is just painfully recent, and it doesn't even have any charm. I still love all Moonraker's parts with Jaws plus Moore's immortal quips ("take a giant leap for mankind"). Die Another Day doesn't simply have any of that... it feels tired and forced.

You also mentioned correctly that Dalton was the closest to Fleming's Bond. I think this just shows what a different entity James Bond has become because of the movies; Even Connery's performance wasn't what Fleming originally intended. So basically the cinema-going public has been seeing the "wrong kind of Bond" from the get go... And when Dalton appeared, he seemed far too cold and calculative compared to the humouristic charm of Moore's. (Even though he was the closest "Ian Fleming's James Bond" ever to exist.)

Ultimately i do hope that Daniel Craig doesn't get torched for Casino Royale, no matter what the outcome is. After all he is just an actor, and will surely do the best he can. I feel sympathy for him already cos it seems to be quite an uphill struggle.

P.S. and yeah they should really release it 2007. Fools will probably realize it until it's all too late!

[big screen satellite]

just posted this on the Star Wars Galactic Senate forums Bond thread...

because i felt it needed saying with all the 'DAD did crap' bollocks:

like Ffolkes, i'll posted it in full here...just for those interested...

"Right, lets sort this out, Bond wasn't doing at all badly at the box office, the last two movies, were the highest grossing (unadjusted) of any Bond movie, its just that critically they got panned, but people still went to see them...lots of people

and people will go and see this next movie - James Bond is the movies and will undoubtably be successful whoever is wearing the suit...

the problem was, as far as i can see, that Brosnan (i think) wanted his worth, he's the star and proportionally wasn't getting his dues for basically being able to gross £450m+ in worldwide takes...

i don't think he was at anypoint holding Eon / MGM to ransom, but possibly suggested that he was worth X amount for another movie and they baulked at the idea...and that was it

Brosnan, i also think was affraid of being too stuck in a rut as a 'Bond' and started taking on other 'different' projects, he was always willing to do the 5th movie, but he never got the call...

Eon / MGM decided (without him) that they needed some fresh blood to 'revitalise' the franchise (after it had been critically panned) and rightly or wrongly they have now sought someone new...but in reality it didn't need revitalising just making more stimulating (after all 80 million people can't all be wrong...)

Anyhow - pease don't think that the series was doing badly, DAD grossed £456m, against a budget of £142m...now i have no idea what Brosnan was paid, but i think he felt he could be earing more, after all he was and is Bond....and in the days of big name actors, like Cruise and Will Smith getting 'godknowswhat' for action movies, i think Pierce rightly believed that playing the greatest action hero ever, he deserved a bit more credit than he was getting.

Ultimately i think they messed him around, he didn't push any further and that was that...

btw - all of this is just my opinion on it, i don't know the facts, i'm generally speculating on what went on, but until someone comes out and says why Brosnan wasn't asked back (and i mean the real reason) then it will just be up to forum chatter....

and for those interested here's the unadjusted Bond Takes....

Released Movie Name Worldwide Gross Budget
5/8/1963 Dr. No $59,600,000 $1,000,000
4/8/1964 From Russia With Love $78,900,000 $2,000,000
12/22/1964 Goldfinger $124,900,000 $3,000,000
12/29/1965 Thunderball $141,200,000 $9,000,000
6/13/1967 You Only Live Twice $111,600,000 $9,500,000
12/18/1969 On Her Majesty's Secret $82,000,000 $8,000,000
12/17/1971 Diamonds Are Forever $116,000,000 $7,200,000
6/27/1973 Live and Let Die $161,800,000 $7,000,000
12/20/1974 Man with the Golden $97,600,000 $7,000,000
7/13/1977 Spy Who Loved Me $185,400,000 $14,000,000
6/29/1979 Moonraker $210,300,000 $31,000,000
6/26/1981 For Your Eyes Only $195,300,000 $28,000,000
6/10/1983 Octopussy $187,500,000 $27,500,000
10/7/1983 Never Say Never Again $160,000,000 $36,000,000
5/24/1985 View to a Kill, A $152,400,000 $30,000,000
7/31/1987 Living Daylights, The $191,200,000 $40,000,000
7/14/1989 License to Kill $156,200,000 $42,000,000
11/17/1995 Goldeneye $353,400,000 $60,000,000
12/19/1997 Tomorrow Never Dies $346,600,000 $110,000,000
11/19/1999 World is Not Enough $390,000,000 $135,000,000
11/22/2002 Die Another Day $456,000,000 $142,000,000

in terms of Adjusted grosses...DAD is 5th and TND 6th on the all time list, not bad considering these are the two most panned of the recent movies...

Bond was is and will always be forever...Brosnan has done his part intaking the movie into the 90's & 00's and now its Craig's time....give the guy a chance...he has a lot to live up to lets just let him get on with it...

Matt"

thats it...people have to realise that the franchise wasn't going down the pan...and that there must have been some other forces at work to have EON / MGM make a change at the top.....

[big screen satellite]

incidentally - those claiming that the Bourne Supremacy is the next big thing should look at the WW BO takes of the first two movies, with Identity taking £213m & Supremacy £288m, way below what DAD took...and with the former coming out in the same year as DAD....

its just interesting to note, that despite the Bourne Series coming out, it hasn't done anything finacially at the Box office to the Bond Franchise other than maybe give it a critically important kick up the ass....

[ffolkes]

I'm fully aware of just how succesful Brosnan's Bond movies have been. The whole "he's in, no he's out" marathon along with his allegedly high paycheck demands were pretty well covered in the biz.

But regarding DAD, i was simply complaining how crap it was as a movie, not how crap it did in the boxoffice... Arguing about the movie's merits is mostly just a matter of an opinion, but there's no denying Die Another Day's big commercial success.

Still, i have to say that even though Brosnan's movies were hits... i don't know how long that formula would've stayed fresh in the eyes of the masses. Things needed to change, and the critical backlash was the precursor of it IMO. The next Pierce Bond might have been a duff (it's 2005, you never know) if it had been like TWINE or DAD. Or then it would've made truckloads of money.
But then it would've been shit.

Bring on Casino Royale.

[big screen satellite]

I'm fully aware of just how succesful Brosnan's Bond movies have been. The whole "he's in, no he's out" marathon along with his allegedly high paycheck demands were pretty well covered in the biz.

But regarding DAD, i was simply complaining how crap it was as a movie, not how crap it did in the boxoffice... Arguing about the movie's merits is mostly just a matter of an opinion, but there's no denying Die Another Day's big commercial success.


tbh this post was more aimed at the people over at the GS, not you or anyone here, it was they who were saying how poor Brosnan's movies did at the box office, and i think thats the general perception, which is plainly untrue...the movie may have not been the most popular in terms of everyones favourite Bond, but it was THE most successful ever, and despite being panned people still went to see it, and they will do again with Casino Royal, good bad or indifferent - i think it will outperform DAD in terms of $$$....

it did need a change and i hope that this is it...i like you can't wait, but would be willing to if it means a decent film...but until then

bring on Casino Royal

[ffolkes]

tbh this post was more aimed at the people over at the GS, not you or anyone here, it was they who were saying how poor Brosnan's movies did at the box office

Sorry, my bad...! Well still i find it odd that people in general even have that idea. Bizarre.

About Casino Royale tho, the word is that Q and Moneypenny are out of the picture as they didn't really make any big appearance in Fleming's novel. But what i'd like to know is what they're going to do with M? Having Dame Judi Dench along is going to be a bit difficult if this is supposed to be chronologically Bond's "first adventure". Will they have her or a new M? And will it be a lady?
(I'm guessing no as she was only introduced to Bond in Goldeneye)

Nevertheless the ever-so-trusty imdb states that she is in the film. But we all know that could be BS. Also i'm still unaware of whether the movie will be a throwback to the cold war era, or placed in a modern setting.