|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 26, 2007 15:40:21 GMT -5
I wonder what numbers CR would have done in the US with a Hugh Jackman. I would have enjoyed that film with Jackman, but still would not have liked the reboot pre-time line story. Broccoli said prior to the CR release an interesting thing:"Doing book 1 as film 21 makes no sense,but it is fun". She sold it to the audiences, and they bought it;however,will they return in 2008? Jackman is considerably more popular in the USA than Craig and I believe CR could have crossed the $200 million mark with here with Jackman;however, the UK take of $100 million by CR could have declined significantly.
|
|
|
Post by sas on Aug 26, 2007 16:25:14 GMT -5
I agree
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 26, 2007 22:26:17 GMT -5
Thank you SAS. Glad to see we have some common ground.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Haugen on Aug 27, 2007 10:22:16 GMT -5
I have known BJMDDS now for close to 40 years... his articulate and knowledgeable comments should be taken with the utmost attention. A true Bond Fan anywhere could not be found and please with the present company of others around him within this forum do not think for a moment this is a dis of yourselfs.....BJ researches, and presents valid points with facts and not just bland statements. I agree with many of his views but I find myself at a speed bump disagreeing with him that Daniel Craig was apoor choice.....It is a pleasure to be able to disagree and banter our own views within a forum of our peers....... Welcome new recruit SAS from the good ol' USA. I believe we may have seen Connery's DAF together in 1971. I will convince you over time that Craig is a passing spy fad, and that Bond must remain the leader of the spy genre film pack, not the follower. Post here more often and enlighten us with your acumen! That must have been an interesting period. Three different Bonds in three films (1969, 1971, 1973). And welcome to the forum sas.
|
|
|
Post by jamesstock007 on Aug 27, 2007 11:37:13 GMT -5
For me i would have liked to see maybe Jason Isaccs in the role, i think he looks a little like Dalton (very Flemingesque)
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 27, 2007 14:03:19 GMT -5
Welcome new recruit SAS from the good ol' USA. I believe we may have seen Connery's DAF together in 1971. I will convince you over time that Craig is a passing spy fad, and that Bond must remain the leader of the spy genre film pack, not the follower. Post here more often and enlighten us with your acumen! That must have been an interesting period. Three different Bonds in three films (1969, 1971, 1973). And welcome to the forum sas. It was a wild ride I can assure you. Lazenby had more of that Connery look than Moore did, but the audiences were so keen on Connery that Lazenby, at 29, never had a chance. Moore won people over quite rapidly as Bond.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 4:51:58 GMT -5
I think Lazenby is more appreciated today than he was when starring in OHMSS. Moore just slipped into the role effortlessly.
|
|
|
Post by domino on Aug 28, 2007 13:09:34 GMT -5
It seems like we appreciate him so much because he almost a lost actor. We don't realize until now what we missed out on. Back then he was still taking over for Connery and we were still somewhat belligerent when he took over from an actor we've accepted and perceived as Bond for so long.
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 28, 2007 14:32:31 GMT -5
OHMSS was just on Spike channel. Lazenby does have the good looks and suave charm for Bond but Connery was so popular Lazenby never had a chance.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 15:21:05 GMT -5
OHMSS was just on Spike channel. Lazenby does have the good looks and suave charm for Bond but Connery was so popular Lazenby never had a chance. There was a certain roguish charm about Lazenby that helped shield any acting deficiencies he had. It's a shame he didn't get to do DAF.
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 28, 2007 21:35:50 GMT -5
OHMSS was just on Spike channel. Lazenby does have the good looks and suave charm for Bond but Connery was so popular Lazenby never had a chance. There was a certain roguish charm about Lazenby that helped shield any acting deficiencies he had. It's a shame he didn't get to do DAF. Connery looked bored in DAF. Lazenby could have done a good followup job and Telly Savalas should have been utilized again as Blowfeld for continuity,not Charles Gray.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Aug 28, 2007 22:54:33 GMT -5
Hopefully, there will a change of emphasis if they ever make a James Bond film again with someone other than Craig. Matt Damon sounded slightly bored of Bourne in the interviews I saw him do after only three films. I wonder how Craig will feel after two more Bond films worth of scrutiny, press junkets and jumping around at Pinewood. Unless Eon is completely clueless, a change of emphasis will be necessary with a new actor. For starters, Eon will need to go back and cast a true leading man who can carry an entire film with a magnetic presence. Reality seems to be settling in with the whole Craig casting. We all know that Craig's film, The Invasion, flopped big time (a film for which he received top billing with Nicole Kidman). But here's an interesting report from a Canadian news site www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2007/28/c2059.html), which calls into question Craig's public appeal: --------------------------------------------- What matters most to Canadian women? Love, sex, faith, family and more: the results of a Chatelaine survey, captured in a 14-page special report, will surprise TORONTO, Aug. 28 /CNW/ - About one in five Canadian women admits to cheating on her partner. Yet almost 70 percent of women claim to buy their own Post-it(R) notes rather than steal from the office. Almost half think that the environment is the most important issue of our time - which puts the issue ahead of gender equality, terrorism, and gay rights. Almost 20 percent have had 10 or more sexual partners in their lifetimes and, when given the choice, 80 percent of Canadian women would rather have dinner with former 007 Pierce Brosnan than with current 007 Daniel Craig.--------------------------------------------------
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Aug 28, 2007 23:04:20 GMT -5
Of course, judging by the early rumours, Bond 22 is essentially being structured as "The Bourne Supremacy 2". This not only makes Bourne's shadow loom larger, but seems at odds with what CR was intended to be. Why even bother saying "the bitch is dead" if she really isn't- as far as Bond is concerned? Does Bond really need to be running around trying to avenge her (against her ex-boyfriend, no less!)? It's just another example of EON's silliness coming up short against Bourne's gritty reality. Oh wait, maybe Bond just wants to find Vesper's ex in order to explain how Vesper died and apologize? Very witty. I remember an interview with Michael G. Wilson, where he stated that they (Eon) were scared and so they had to rethink the series and drop Brosnan. I have a feeling they're scared even more so now, because of the spectacular success of the recent Bourne film. The Bourne franchise has basically muscled into Eon's territory and shoved them aside. They will continue to emulate Bourne for Bond 22--ultimately no different than the way Eon jumped on the sci-fi craze in the late 70s by giving Moonraker a strong science fiction flare (the only Fleming title that could possibly use an outer space angle). Then again, Moonraker, however outlandish, is far more stylish and entertaining in my book than the pretentiously "serious" CR.
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 29, 2007 10:02:42 GMT -5
Kadov knows his onions! Very insightful and the Canadian women show remarkably good taste. I guess Eon did not buy off that poll.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Aug 29, 2007 15:06:44 GMT -5
I have a feeling they're scared even more so now, because of the spectacular success of the recent Bourne film. They're in a strange situation, especially since they can't follow CR with another Fleming story. So now they have all these CR fans that don't really like the traditional Bond films, and don't want to see the series return to that type of formula. Yet that's basically what EON does best. These are also the type of fans that are happy when a series ends at a trilogy, because there's less danger of it getting ruined by endless sequels. Yet that too is primarily what EON is all about. Unlike Bourne or Batman, they don't really have a specific vision for Bond. They're just going to continue making sequels for as long as they can, and hope they can keep finding new trends to copy along the way.
|
|