Craig as Bond Won Audiences.

[Stockslivevan]

It's been said by the anti-Craig brigade and especially BJ that the first Daniel Craig outing Casino Royale was only that successful because of curiosity factor and that once most have seen it they would not be that impressed and never give Craig another shot as Bond. Even though critics and most user reviews have been very vast, BJ and the like would still insist that they did not represent how the public feels. Add that with a couple of flops of non-Bond films that BJ insists means no one really cares about Craig and that QOS would follow the same path.

Well, after Quantum of Solace opened with an impressive $27 million dollars on Friday, I believe that solidifies how the public look at Craig: They like him as Bond. Whether QOS was a good movie or not, its opening reflects the reaction to Craig in the last film. This is FAR from an LTK situation that was said to take place. Whether most people like the film or not one thing is certain: He still gets praised, even in the negative reviews, which means that EON will absolutely keep Craig in the role for the next film.

So Ladies and Gentleman, I think we're all going to have to get used to Craig staying in the role for quite a bit. Doesn't mean you have to like it of course.

[BJMDDS]

He is NOT praised in many reviews and you know that. His performance has been described as DULL and BORING several times. UNIVERSALLY, critics are negative overall, correct? Watch what happens at weekend 3. This pile of rubbish has 22 shows per day at theatres in the USA, no competition yet, and ticket prices are up. We all predicted a big opening, no surprise there. Wait Stocks until weekend number 3 and THEN tell me how enthralled the universe is with Craig. Never has a Bond film been panned and called out by critics for copying, aka Mimicry, of another film. Eon's reputation is damaged now, unless you like The Transporter type of movies.

[Stockslivevan]

Someone's upset.

I have a question BJ: Why do you think QOS is making such a big opening? Curiosity factor? You claimed that was dead after CR, saying that without curiosity factor QOS would go the way of LTK. Why hasn't it? Why are all these audiences lining up to see QOS? Could it be that they like Daniel Craig as James Bond?

Look, I hate Roger Moore as James Bond. I think that was an atrocity to the franchise. Despite my feelings, I can't deny that he was a popular James Bond and so were his films. I accept that he was popular, even if I don't agree with his take. You seem to have a real big trouble accepting Craig's popularity as James Bond. He was praised in many of the negative reviews and you know that. Just because you can spot a minority of bad remarks on Craig doesn't make it the general consensus like you want.

[brookystreet]

It's already made over $200M world-wide

[poirot]

Nov 15, 2008 12:58:32 GMT -5 Stockslivevan said:

Whether most people like the film or not one thing is certain: He still gets praised, even in the negative reviews, which means that EON will absolutely keep Craig in the role for the next film.

Oh, if only that- along with strong box office- were actually true grounds for a Bond actor's longevity. ;D

[adam]

You should'nt judge whether Craig has won over audiences by looking at the box office takings. My nan could star as Bond and it would do great box office. It's a Bond film with perhaps the biggest marketing campaign ever and absolutely no competition. Of course it will do well.

You should judge whether Craig has won over audiences by what the public and critics say about him. There are a lot of reviews of QOS posted on here, either from the mainstream media, individuals or some from rival pro Bond sites. Below are some of the things they have said about Craigs portrayal as Bond -

AGONISINGLY DULL
Grumpy
Stone Cold
Looking 60
Charmless
Terminator like
Bullying lunk
One note machismo
Humourless
Glum
Barely speaking
Minimal depth
Lack of Charisma
Starved of emotion
Off the leash
Zero Star power
Bland thug
One dimensional.

Not sure DC's interpretation of Bond has won over audiences just yet.

[poirot]

I think it's fair to say audiences have accepted that Craig is the person currently playing Bond. The average moviegoer doesn't plot to help or hurt a specific actor, and doesn't think very far beyond, "Um, what's playing tonight?"

However, I'm not convinced that QOS will do his portrayal of Bond any favors. The shoddy script limited him to a rather one-note performance, which many found considerably dull. I'm not referring to people who would have criticized him anyway- but fans who thought CR was one of the series' best. Any case that CR made for Craig being true to Fleming's vision was effectively kneecapped by transforming Bond into a charmless, robotic thug. (One who survives implausible parachute jumps, no less.) Suddenly, the narrative became "Greengrass' Bond" rather than "Fleming's Bond".

[poirot]

Nov 16, 2008 15:36:09 GMT -5 adam said:

My nan could star as Bond and it would do great box office.

It's true that the Bond name carries significantly more appeal than any one actor. This is why "007" featured more prominently in the posters, trailers, and tv spots than the words "Daniel Craig".

Let's face it, in nearly fifty years, you can count on one hand the number of Bond films that haven't performed well at the box office. In the past twenty years alone, only one film has tanked. And if LTK had been supported by a $100 million marketing blitz (or any blitz, for that matter), it would've likely been business as usual.

LTK was also released into one of the most crowded summers of the 1980's. By comparison, the biggest hit of this season has been September's Eagle Eye. (Coincidentally, it was also the last big action film.) EON positioned QOS extremely well, avoiding not just direct competition but any competition whatsoever.

The general consensus on this site was always that the goodwill generated by CR would easily propel the film at the box office. But we also predicted that, by having to radically change the series to suit Craig's dour portrayal, it would lead to an awful lot of disappointed fans. Remember, this is the first Bond film which was written and tailored specifically for Craig. The end result is that nearly all of the negative reviews (and many of the positive ones) ended up stating things we had been saying throughout the film's production- sometimes almost verbatim.

Personally, I think a critical dud is a worse fate than a commercial one. I imagine Craig would probably agree. No Bond actor has ever been fired because of the box office. But they are judged by the entertainment value of their respective era. Ultimately, moviegoers don't respect the money anyway. When's the last time you saw Moonraker or Die Another Day being praised for the records they broke or the cash they generated?

We've gotten to a point where people just naturally expect a new Bond film to be a hit. As one of the initial British reviews stated: "Awful, awful film. It'll be huge."

[Stockslivevan]

Nov 16, 2008 15:36:09 GMT -5 adam said:

You should'nt judge whether Craig has won over audiences by looking at the box office takings.

Oh, I'm not. I'm concerning many factors such as the praise Craig received in CR and even in QOS. The box office takings is just the icing on the cake.

So it is agreed that Bond is currently accepted as Bond by the public, for the moment of course. So while he has been proven as an accepted Bond, I suppose all there is left is how his films will be seen in the future. Most of you believe they won't be well regarded like they are today, fair enough. We all have our perspectives. I think he'll be looked back as a good Bond, but at the moment he is only two films in so who knows how well the next two are taken by audiences. So far though his future as Bond looks more brighter than Dalton's was in 1989 (such a shame audiences missed out on him!).

[quang]

Nov 16, 2008 7:39:00 GMT -5 Stockslivevan said:

Someone's upset.

I have a question BJ: Why do you think QOS is making such a big opening? Curiosity factor? You claimed that was dead after CR, saying that without curiosity factor QOS would go the way of LTK. Why hasn't it? Why are all these audiences lining up to see QOS? Could it be that they like Daniel Craig as James Bond?

Look, I hate Roger Moore as James Bond. I think that was an atrocity to the franchise. Despite my feelings, I can't deny that he was a popular James Bond and so were his films. I accept that he was popular, even if I don't agree with his take. You seem to have a real big trouble accepting Craig's popularity as James Bond. He was praised in many of the negative reviews and you know that. Just because you can spot a minority of bad remarks on Craig doesn't make it the general consensus like you want.

The person upset is really you. You are frustrated and nervous because Craig get trashed big time by critics. Look like you create this thread for badgering Mr. BJ but really this is all about you. Cheers to your ego. ;D

Fact is QOS suck big time and people including critics start now to seriously take second look at him and they question what they are seeing. QOS get so many bad reviews and few good reviews point out serious issues for this film. Make it this way, just because a movie make box office dollars does not mean it is good. It also does not mean people like movie. Many reasons for why people go see a movie. Yes, some cases they like a movie so they go watch it many times. But fact is, there are movies that make money but they are crap. Remember Flash Dance? It was big box office hit of its day. It get bad reviews but people go watch it. Like QOS/CR, it get lots of attention from media, and actress Jennifer Beals get praised a lot. Where is she now? She is history. Good marketing make people go see Flash Dance. Studio sell it like social event you must attend. "Must-See" film, etc. Today, nobody remember Flash Dance. It is forgotten. People with dignity will not admit they watch Flash Dance back in 1982. Same thing recently with Hannock. It get bad reviews, but it make money. Nobody think of it now, nobody excited for it now. Same thing will happen for QOS. World will forget it. They are already forgetting Craig. He is not household name. Every TV commercial for QOS not even mention he is star, no mention of "Daniel Craig Is James Bond 007" in commercials. Big test for QOS is not this weekend. It is no-brainer that it make money for this weekend. There is no competition, ticket prices also higher and inflation must also be consider. Then there is short runtime for QOS and that make it for more showtimes. Real test for QOS is next weekend and following weekends like Thanksgiving and more into December weeks. More movies coming so QOS will have lots of competition. My sister and her husband live in London and say QOS drop 40% in its second week.

[FormerBondFan]

Nov 17, 2008 0:37:54 GMT -5 quang said:

More movies coming so QOS will have lots of competition.

Twilight is coming.

[Stockslivevan]

Nov 17, 2008 0:37:54 GMT -5 quang said:

The person upset is really you.

Nah, I'm satisfied. But thanks for ignoring the whole point I was making. This isn't about what people think of the film QOS, this is about Craig's acceptance by the public as James Bond. Casino Royale did big business while at the same time was praised by fans, critics and non-fans alike (except for a certain minority), including its lead actor. However many anti-Craig insisted that the film only did well at the box office because of the curiosity factor and hype, that the raving reviews only reflect the internet opinion, not how the general public truly feel.

QOS's opening confirms that the public does like Craig. More people came in to see QOS than CR because they liked that and were anticipating the next film with Craig. This is the opposite of what many anti-Craig insisted would happen. That it would not open big and go the way of LTK with Daniel Craig along with it. Flashdance is a bad analogy, given they didn't make a sequel to have audiences go crazy for it.

If it's true that the public does not care for the actors and only goes because they're Bond adventures like some are implying at the moment, shouldn't that apply to Craig's predecessors or is this just a convenient excuse for why the films are successful? If that's the case, Timothy Dalton's film should have done better business.

So now the question you all bring up: Will Craig's films continue to draw in audiences after QOS? We'll see. As I have said earlier, the future looks bright for Craig's tenure. Sure, QOS isn't being raved, neither was TMWTGG nor did that make great business (lowest selling at the time), yet they kept Moore and his next film managed to jump back up on the charts. Why shouldn't that apply to Craig?

[harrypalmer]

Nov 15, 2008 12:58:32 GMT -5 Stockslivevan said:

It's been said by the anti-Craig brigade and especially BJ that the first Daniel Craig outing Casino Royale was only that successful because of curiosity factor and that once most have seen it they would not be that impressed and never give Craig another shot as Bond. Even though critics and most user reviews have been very vast, BJ and the like would still insist that they did not represent how the public feels. Add that with a couple of flops of non-Bond films that BJ insists means no one really cares about Craig and that QOS would follow the same path.

Well, after Quantum of Solace opened with an impressive $27 million dollars on Friday, I believe that solidifies how the public look at Craig: They like him as Bond. Whether QOS was a good movie or not, its opening reflects the reaction to Craig in the last film. This is FAR from an LTK situation that was said to take place. Whether most people like the film or not one thing is certain: He still gets praised, even in the negative reviews, which means that EON will absolutely keep Craig in the role for the next film.

So Ladies and Gentleman, I think we're all going to have to get used to Craig staying in the role for quite a bit. Doesn't mean you have to like it of course.

I'm sure the public will still queue up to watch a new Bond film when it comes out (even if they thought the last one was dire), especially given the rarity of their release nowadays and the fact that there is sometimes nothing else in the cinema (i.e now)!

But critics and fans of Craig's approach to Bond have panned the film - many critics have even called for the Bond staples to return.

Does Craig want to make awful but successful Bond films whether they are in his new style or in the traditional style? I thought he respected his skills.

[quang]

Nov 17, 2008 3:16:01 GMT -5 Stockslivevan said:

Nov 17, 2008 0:37:54 GMT -5 quang said:

The person upset is really you.

Nah, I'm satisfied. But thanks for ignoring the whole point I was making. This isn't about what people think of the film QOS, this is about Craig's acceptance by the public as James Bond. Casino Royale did big business while at the same time was praised by fans, critics and non-fans alike (except for a certain minority), including its lead actor. However many anti-Craig insisted that the film only did well at the box office because of the curiosity factor and hype, that the raving reviews only reflect the internet opinion, not how the general public truly feel.

QOS's opening confirms that the public does like Craig. More people came in to see QOS than CR because they liked that and were anticipating the next film with Craig. This is the opposite of what many anti-Craig insisted would happen. That it would not open big and go the way of LTK with Daniel Craig along with it. Flashdance is a bad analogy, given they didn't make a sequel to have audiences go crazy for it.

If it's true that the public does not care for the actors and only goes because they're Bond adventures like some are implying at the moment, shouldn't that apply to Craig's predecessors or is this just a convenient excuse for why the films are successful? If that's the case, Timothy Dalton's film should have done better business.

So now the question you all bring up: Will Craig's films continue to draw in audiences after QOS? We'll see. As I have said earlier, the future looks bright for Craig's tenure. Sure, QOS isn't being raved, neither was TMWTGG nor did that make great business (lowest selling at the time), yet they kept Moore and his next film managed to jump back up on the charts. Why shouldn't that apply to Craig?

Thoughts of people for QOS is directly related to Craig's acceptance as Bond by the public. That is why so many people now give him bad reviews and professional critics also give him bad reviews. You are confused. You also worried that world's perception on Craig and reboot is now changed. But I thank you for admitting you have flawed logic. I really appreciate considering your self-importance. You ignore my other point. QOS has zero competition, and hype excessively. You say people anticipate nex film (QOS) with Craig but that is because of excessive hype and no competition. And branding of James Bond is bigger than Craig. People do not go to a Craig Bond film. They go to see QOS James Bond movie with "that guy in it." You are so upset, and I understand your denial and insecurity, but you must be strong. There is also help from employee assitance program if your company offer it.

[Stockslivevan]

If I recall correctly, Brosnan's films were not promoted as "Pierce Brosnan as James Bond in so and so" until DIE ANOTHER DAY, his fourth film having his name in bolded letters. The last time we ever had a consistent run of Bond films propping up their actors names and such was during Cubby's rein. And it is you who are confused, saying now everyone doesn't like Craig suddenly because of QOS. The general consensus on those who didn't like QOS is basically "it's not as good as Casino Royale", meaning they still hold that film in high regard. Professional critics like Ebert even stated such, panning the film yet praising Craig as an excellent Bond. Even overall, the film isn't completely panned like you're making out to be. There seems to be a clear split between critics and filmgoers on the film itself, and if that wasn't the case then it'd be getting worse reviews. There's no indication of suddenly everyone "seeing the light". But I understand why you'd like to prop up the negatives and ignore the positives. Fair enough. You want this to be the biggest failure the franchise's history.

Either way, one thing is certain, EON will no doubt take the negative reviews into account and bring a lighter touch to the third film while reintroducing characters like Moneypenny and Boothroyd. That's a given.