|
|
Post by Gambit on Nov 22, 2008 17:43:59 GMT -5
Not sure the millions of Bond fans and the general public think the Moore films are retarded. There would'nt have been a 'MoorenotBond' type site in the 70's. Everyone knew Connery had quit. Connery was looking old and bald anyway and had been Bond for a decade. A change was needed. Lazenby had also been tried and either quit or been sacked. Other options considered at the time were John Gavin (who ?), Timothy Dalton (who was'nt interested) Burt Reynolds (uggh) & Redford & Newman (would never have accepted). Moore was well known in Europe and the US. LALD had been warmly received by the public. There would have been a few gumbles from people saying Connery was better, but 40 years later there are still Connery fans who harp back to the 60's. Sean and Roger weren't a milliion miles apart in the way they played Bond either. Connery was naturally tougher but he still played Bond in a relatively relaxed way with plenty of quips. |
|
|
|
Post by Gambit on Nov 22, 2008 17:48:12 GMT -5
despite all the hyperbolic claims and doom and glooming, it's far from being considered as the biggest failure of the series history. It hasn't been a whole month yet and it has already made $355 and Craig still gets praised even in most negative reviews (cherry pick the ones that bash him all you like). Then there is still Thanksgiving and Christmas to come. All things considered, QOS is on track to become the weakest domestic performer since LTK. The steep declines (Sunday's 44%, Friday's 68%) mean it will be on fewer screens for Thanksgiving. It will hardly still be a factor by the time Christmas rolls around, considering the slate of upcoming films. There's no need to cherry pick reviews, because critics almost never blame the actor playing Bond. But what reflects poorly on Craig is that he is not carrying this film at the box office. You consider DAD to be the worst Bond film, and yet Brosnan led that entry to a series high gross. It didn't tumble in its second weekend, and actually did extremely well for several consecutive weekends. (And this was during a holiday season that was far more crowded- including a Harry Potter film.) QOS will struggle to cover CR's budget of $150 million- let alone the whopping $230 million that was invested in it. This sum was a joint effort by the studio, and you can be sure those involved aren't happy with this return. EON certainly won't be content with the international figures alone, because Bond always does well in that market. One look at their actions reveals which market they wanted to impact. CR made far more than TBU internationally, yet what approach did they take for the sequel? They clearly wanted the critical and domestic success that Bourne enjoyed, but they have failed miserably. On Rotten Tomatoes, TBU currently has a 93% rating, with 97% among Top Critics. By comparison, QOS has a 66% rating, and 33% among Top Critics. The word of mouth for QoS must be terrible. Outside of James Bond forums I've yet to meet a single person who had a good thing to say about it and a suprising number of critics were incredibly harsh in dismissing the film. |
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Nov 22, 2008 18:47:31 GMT -5
Not sure the millions of Bond fans and the general public think the Moore films are retarded. There would'nt have been a 'MoorenotBond' type site in the 70's. Everyone knew Connery had quit. Connery was looking old and bald anyway and had been Bond for a decade. A change was needed. Lazenby had also been tried and either quit or been sacked. Other options considered at the time were John Gavin (who ?), Timothy Dalton (who was'nt interested) Burt Reynolds (uggh) & Redford & Newman (would never have accepted). Moore was well known in Europe and the US. LALD had been warmly received by the public. There would have been a few gumbles from people saying Connery was better, but 40 years later there are still Connery fans who harp back to the 60's. Agreed. And just before the release of The Living Daylights, Roger Moore was on a TV interview for one of those Bond retrospectives and summarized the events that led to his being offered the role. He mentioned those names being tossed around at the time (Burt Reynolds, even Paul Newman) but Broccoli and Saltzman insisted on a British actor, and it was Saltzman who initially approached Moore. Steven Jay Rubin, in his excellent The James Bond Films, points out that in pre-production for Live and Let Die it had been over a decade since the producers considered Moore as a potential Bond and that he had since achieved popularity from The Saint and The Persuaders, factors that encouraged Saltzman to approach the actor in the spring of 1972. Then, even before the release of Live and Let Die in America, Tom Mankiewicz was brought back to develop the script for The Man With The Golden Gun. Despite that film's lackluster box-office performance and the ensuing three-year gap between that film and The Spy Who Loved Me, Broccoli remained confident in Moore as Bond because the actor was easily accepted by the public in the role and Spy, of course, was a smash hit. Obviously, Moore and his Bond films struck a chord with audiences. |
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Nov 22, 2008 18:51:20 GMT -5
You don't think TWILIGHT had an influence at the box office as far as domestics is concerned? Not really, because Twilight was geared heavily towards teen girls. Some analysts are already predicting it could follow a similar pattern as Sex & the City. But when the latter opened strong last May, it didn't take away from male-driven action films. Unlike the competition from, say, Harry Potter, Bond should've been relatively immune to this type of counter-programming. The studio's polling for QOS indicated it was overwhelmingly driven by males, with 60% being over 25. Good points. Both films cater to different audiences. And even if Twilight has been influencing the box office, that takes us then to an even more disturbing situation for Eon. If memory serves me well, Eon announced back in '05 that they had to shake up the series and that one of the reasons to recast with a younger actor was to reach a wider demographics and stay relevant to younger audiences, including young females. Well, if that's the case, they've failed to connect with said audience. |
|
|
|
Post by adam on Nov 23, 2008 6:18:27 GMT -5
Eon and BB can go one of two ways with the next Bond movie. They could simply look at the box office for QOS and decide not to change anything. At the end of the day QOS will make good money. Or they could take account of the terrible reviews and decide to change things.
If they do decide to change things again it will be the third film in a row where things are completly different. CR was a radical change from the Brosnan films and QOS is a totally different film to CR in style. What happend to continuity ?
|
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Nov 23, 2008 14:49:18 GMT -5
Eon and BB can go one of two ways with the next Bond movie. The US box office will insure that they'll listen to the bad reviews. QOS is the only action film in wide release, and faced no direct competition from new releases. It should have easily managed a 40-45% drop this week. Both EON and the studio are fully aware of this fact. Bond will likely be away from screens for at least three years now. Wilson said they would take a break earlier this year- even before the production began running into various troubles. And Craig implied the economic crisis would probably induce a hiatus- even before the negative reviews began appearing. I suspect they will try to go back to GE territory, including gadgets, humor, and- above all- fun. But this is where Craig's presence creates a few problems. Ideally, QOS would've significantly built upon CR and paved the way for a concluding chapter (ie. Risico) in 2010. But instead, they fumbled the reboot, prompting Craig to say the story they began in CR is finished. Now they have an actor that doesn't want to play a traditional Bond, and most of his fans don't want him to anyway. He's also unlikely to stick around for another 3 or 4 films. So if they introduce a new M, Q, and Moneypenny in Bond 23, will they have to do so again in Bond 24 or 25? |
|
|
|
Post by Gambit on Nov 26, 2008 9:41:15 GMT -5
Eon and BB can go one of two ways with the next Bond movie. The US box office will insure that they'll listen to the bad reviews. QOS is the only action film in wide release, and faced no direct competition from new releases. It should have easily managed a 40-45% drop this week. Both EON and the studio are fully aware of this fact. Bond will likely be away from screens for at least three years now. Wilson said they would take a break earlier this year- even before the production began running into various troubles. And Craig implied the economic crisis would probably induce a hiatus- even before the negative reviews began appearing. I suspect they will try to go back to GE territory, including gadgets, humor, and- above all- fun. But this is where Craig's presence creates a few problems. Ideally, QOS would've significantly built upon CR and paved the way for a concluding chapter (ie. Risico) in 2010. But instead, they fumbled the reboot, prompting Craig to say the story they began in CR is finished. Now they have an actor that doesn't want to play a traditional Bond, and most of his fans don't want him to anyway. He's also unlikely to stick around for another 3 or 4 films. So if they introduce a new M, Q, and Moneypenny in Bond 23, will they have to do so again in Bond 24 or 25? Good points about Q and Moneypenny, especially Moneypenny. Any actress cast in the role to play alongside Craig is likely to look a bit strange making eyes at a Henry Cavill type a few years later. They should leave these characters out of the Craig era, which is unlikely to stretch out for to long. I wonder if they are already thinking about a post Craig franchise or if they just coast along on a film by film basis? |
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Nov 28, 2008 0:23:19 GMT -5
Good review right here from an MI6 member:
It is only fitting that Quantum of Solace features the lone scene with actual rainfall in the history of cinematic Bond. Fitting and emblematic because this film is probably the gloomiest Bond film ever made.
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Bond films are not all sunshine and light, mischievously cocked eyebrows and girls with impossibly lubricious names. Many Bond movies, including Doctor No in 1962, From Russia with Love in 1963, For Your Eyes Only in 1981, License to Kill in 1989, and Casino Royale in 2006, have been quite serious affairs.
But Roger Moore, who reigned as the super spy par excellence from 1973 through 1985, cast the template that the general public and the critics consider authoritative even if they don't rate his acting skills as highly as those of Sean Connery, the original James Bond. And so we tend to think of James Bond as a flippant quipster equipped with Bill Clinton's libido.
But no Bond film is farther from the archetype Moore burned into our collective conscience than Quantum of Solace, with an intensely brooding Daniel Craig back for a second go in the lead role.
Because Quantum of Solace is so mirthless, almost depressing even, it is destined to be the most controversial Bond film to date. Many if not most movie-goers pay their Bond money to get a few guffaws and to delight in a dose of vicarious joie de vivre, not to get a photographic essay of poverty, want, and desolate landscapes. Indeed, such is the grime and desolation of certain scenes in Haiti and Bolivia that one could be forgiven for thinking that Quantum of Squallor would have been a better title.
Many if not most Bond fans flock to the theaters to witness the crazed exploits of megalomaniacal villians hellbent on authoring a global holocaust through some deliciously absurd scheme. They may be less receptive to tutorials on supposed CIA and British malefeasance in the wilds of South America.
But those are salients of controversy. They make Quantum of Solace unique and risky; they do not make it bad.
And Quantum of Solace certainly is no bad film. But it surely has its flaws. For instance, he majority of the action sequences are shot in a claustrophobic, staccato fashion that precludes clear understanding of what is taking place, let alone any enjoyment of the thrills that are unfolding.
The plot itself, while fairly comprehensible and compelling, is beset by nebulous offshoots and is too dependent on knowledge of Casino Royale, its predecessor.
And frankly, Quantum of Solace is a film that cries out desperately for some of the comic relief for which Bond films are legendary. With the exception of a loquacious Bolivian cabbie, there is not a single character in the film who could be considered comedic. There are no extended scenes in which humor and witty repartee rule the day. How nice it would have been for Bond to feel "a slight stiffness coming on," or for him to "lick into shape" a Bond girl. Alas, one will watch Quantum of Solace in vain for these quintessentially Bondian comedic interludes.
But lest this review come across as a panning, we should give credit where it's due. And it is due to the cast. Daniel Craig is faultless. In his way he's as good a Bond as has ever been. Mathieu Amalric is splendid and truly creepy as the faux environmentalist Dominic Greene. Olga Kurylenko is a marvelous surprise as leading Bond girl, Camille. Judi Dench is her usual compelling self as Bond's boss, M. Juan Cosio is highly effective as General Medrano, a baddie who sounds like a 33 record played at 78 RPMs. And David Harbour does well as braying rogue CIA agent Gregg Beam.
The film has moments of rarefied cinematic quality as well. Bond disrupting a villains' meeting at a performance of Tosca will go down as vintage Bond. Greene fleecing wealthy enviro-idealists at a party for Greene Planet, the villain's cover corporation is classic Bond exposition.
And Quantum of Solace is riveting, fast paced and never dull. The concluding sequence, too, is artfully done and poignant.
But with Quantum of Solace, Bond's cinematic handlers have pushed the grimness and the dystopian worldview as far as it can go. This is James Bond, not Mad Max or Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. Quantum of Solace is a useful and compelling one-off, but the time is now for James Bond to return to a world of some joy and pleasure, even while he retains some of the heft that comes from a foray into the netherworld.
|
|
FROSTY
New Recruit
Attempting re-entry!
Posts: 21
|
Post by FROSTY on Nov 28, 2008 11:00:03 GMT -5
But Roger Moore, who reigned as the super spy par excellence from 1973 through 1985, cast the template that the general public and the critics consider authoritative even if they don't rate his acting skills as highly as those of Sean Connery, the original James Bond. And so we tend to think of James Bond as a flippant quipster equipped with Bill Clinton's libido. I'm sorry, but that arguement is B.S.!!. Connery wasn't that far removed from Moore. If you counted the amount of women Bond bedded during the Connery Era, and the amount of One-Liners? - there'd be very little in it, between the 2 Actors. Also, the first Bond films I saw were: YOLT and DAF (on t.v.), then MR (at the cinema) - where's the difference between those films? (there isn't one! - and that's TWO sci-fi Connerys, to Moore's ONE!!  ). |
|
|
|
Post by drfanshawe on Nov 28, 2008 12:16:34 GMT -5
Anyone who treats From Russia With Love as a "serious affair" comparable to Craig's odd modernist take on Bond is rather misguided.
Sean is not beamed into space, and there are no double taking pigeons. But it is a wonderful adventure made in the obligatary camp sixties style.
Connery and Moore are quite close in style; after all, Cubby masterminded both of their eras.
|
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Nov 28, 2008 13:55:49 GMT -5
Connery definitely laid the groundwork for all the over-the-top and campy Bonds that would follow. Anyone who treats From Russia With Love as a "serious affair" comparable to Craig's odd modernist take on Bond is rather misguided. There were serious spy films being produced in the early 1960's, yet they didn't capture the world's imagination like James Bond did. This is because Bond films were not regarded as serious affairs that strived to be like everything else. We take one-liners for granted today, but not every hero doled them out at the time of Dr. No. It's also easy to forget that not every hero slept with a variety of exotic women, or faced off against diabolical villains in hidden lairs. |
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Nov 28, 2008 16:32:29 GMT -5
Connery and Moore are quite close in style. I don't see that at all. Moore came off too much as some high millionaire class Englishman as if he were some kind of prince. There's no cynicism to his character, just eyebrow raising. Sure, you can point out the little moments such as pushing down the car in FYEO, but that's all they were, very little. He was just too damned relaxed in the role, far worse in LALD where he seemed to think he was in a comic sitcom. In comparison, it makes Connery's early flicks look like serious affairs. Connery had the cool attitude, yet with the cynicism of Fleming's Bond while managing to make a melding of the two in an interesting and believable way. His humor wasn't relegated to puns and sex, he also had a dark quality to it without an overabundance of winks and nudges like Moore did. I know many would like to see Connery and Moore as two that have little difference, but I don't see that at all, I never have. I always recognized the vast difference from their characterization since the day I got into watching Bond flicks and even Roger Moore himself acknowledges the different take of his compared to Connery's. If there was little difference between the two, I'd either like or dislike both of them. |
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Nov 28, 2008 18:18:32 GMT -5
Moore came off too much as some high millionaire class Englishman as if he were some kind of prince. Each actor seemed to embrace one particular aspect of Fleming's Bond more than the others, and with Moore, I think it was that touch of snobbery. As Moore often joked, he knew he was better than everyone else because he had read the script. ;D But I also see it as a reflection of the times more than the actor. Audiences in the 70's didn't expect Bond to offer them the real world, but rather, an escape from it. A serious portrayal like Dalton's just wouldn't have worked in films such as TSWLM or Moonraker. |
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Nov 28, 2008 23:01:32 GMT -5
Each actor seemed to embrace one particular aspect of Fleming's Bond more than the others, and with Moore, I think it was that touch of snobbery. As Moore often joked, he knew he was better than everyone else because he had read the script. ;D When you think about it Moore would have easily accepted knighthood.  Still I do like that Craig added a bit more snobbery to his take on QOS. He'll have no problem with killing when the going gets tough, but God forbid you have him reserved for a shitty hotel, he'll walk right out after a five second observation then head for the town's 5 Star Hotel. ;D  Indeed. Had Dalton settled more in the role we would have gotten something between a TLD and LTK. More light hearted yet not too far from the darker aspects, and GoldenEye happened to be that kind of mix hence that it was originally scripted as a Dalton film before he quit. Still, I don't think a TSWLM/MR is what audiences are looking for at the moment. Maybe a flick like GF that had a nice balance of light and dark qualities, but nothing ludicrous where you have a guy with metal teeth tearing up cars with his bare hands. |
|
|
|
Post by adam on Nov 29, 2008 3:22:48 GMT -5
That's what I suggested in a previous post. Tear up the triology idea and make a new film similar to G or TWINE. Or any other decent Bond movie for that matter. Maybe put a bit of humour in the films. I did'nt hear the audience laugh once in QOS, that must be a first for a Bond film. DC fans always say he's a great actor so I'm sure he could do it. No one is asking him to act like Basil Fawlty or Alan Partridge.
|
|
).
Still I do like that Craig added a bit more snobbery to his take on QOS. He'll have no problem with killing when the going gets tough, but God forbid you have him reserved for a shitty hotel, he'll walk right out after a five second observation then head for the town's 5 Star Hotel. ;D