quang
Lt-Commander
Posts: 51
|
Post by quang on Nov 17, 2008 21:38:16 GMT -5
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. Brosnan was accepted easily by world as Bond. His image identify easily with Bond. There were also trailers for TND and TWINE that identity these films as starring Brosnan. Anyway, I knew you would bring up Brosnan. Craig fanboys always bring up Brosnan when they are trapped. We are talking today, about Craig. Deal with it. Now someone really show his insecurity big time. You are funny guy. You cannot address my point. You keep insist that Craig won audiences yet you are here defending him. What for? Why defend if he is successful? Fact is, you are scared of how world has reacted to him, that people, fans, and critics now question and criticize Craig and reboot. That is why you feel you have to defend. But thank you for keep coming back and take beating. You entertain me. |
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Nov 17, 2008 23:11:41 GMT -5
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. Brosnan was accepted easily by world as Bond. His image identify easily with Bond. There were also trailers for TND and TWINE that identity these films as starring Brosnan. Anyway, I knew you would bring up Brosnan. Craig fanboys always bring up Brosnan when they are trapped. We are talking today, about Craig. Deal with it. I brought up Brosnan because of your claim of EON always promoting their actors as Bonds when in fact Brosnan wasn't until DAD, not because I am a "Craig fanboy", which I am not. I'm a Bond fan, like anyone else. Just because I like Craig on the role doesn't make me any different than any other Bond fan. I didn't label you anything did I? I don't bring up his success because I am "scared", I bring it up because it is interesting to discuss of an actor who was initially ridiculed yet found success after proving his worth. Especially on a site with heavy anti-Craig tones. A thread like this would be less interesting on other sites since members from anywhere else would simply reply "no shit, we knew that for two years". But thanks for confirming his success, I know there are few anti-Craig who'd admit that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gambit on Nov 18, 2008 10:32:00 GMT -5
Big drop for QOS in the UK - 44% in its third weekend.
|
|
quang
Lt-Commander
Posts: 51
|
Post by quang on Nov 18, 2008 12:27:19 GMT -5
I don't bring up his success because I am "scared", I bring it up because it is interesting to discuss of an actor who was initially ridiculed yet found success after proving his worth. Especially on a site with heavy anti-Craig tones. A thread like this would be less interesting on other sites since members from anywhere else would simply reply "no shit, we knew that for two years". But thanks for confirming his success, I know there are few anti-Craig who'd admit that. Weak argument. And yes you labeled me. Below you classify me anti-Craig and that suggest I am vile person like those people at other forums that say very rude things for celebrities. As Bond fan, I am critical of Craig and new approach and I have no wish for humiliate him. But that is typical of you. Also I have laserdisc of TND and it contain extras like TV commercial spot that mention Brosnan. This topic of Brosnan also already discussed in this forum. Somebody (maybe Mr. Kadov?) show good examples. Again, this is all in past. Today we deal with Craig and situation now is all about Craig. Here you display fear and insecurity. You are funny guy. Make it this way, you are force to defend Craig situation because you see insightful comments from forum members here and this sentiment is basically in outside world and that is why QOS is criticized from people and professional critics a lot. So what do you do? You create this thread insisting Craig has won audience but you fail argument miserably. This all about your self-importance, your first post in this thread you go and pester and taunting a forum member. That is irrational and just weird. You also do not know how to persuade with reason. So in previous post you exaggerate what I say, not once do I make statement about wanting for franchise to fail. Your fear is funny. I work in big hi-tech company and for fun it is good break to show your posts to co-workers and explain situation to them and they think you are laughable irrational guy. But this thread you create only confirm you face disturbing realization about Craig stature and for that I congratulate you. Considering your self-importance, that is big step for improvement of yourself.  |
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 18, 2008 12:46:53 GMT -5
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. Wow. I think these QOS reviews are just a continuation of my CR review. |
|
|
|
Post by adam on Nov 18, 2008 12:54:15 GMT -5
There was amazement back in 2005 when the popular Brosnan was sacked in his prime. Unhappy fans thoughts then turned to to who would replace him. Owen would make a great moody Bond, so would Bale. Hugh Jackson has Bond qualities or Dougray Scott with his strong voice would be good.
There was even more amazement when a short, blonde, ugly actor no one had heard of was annonced as Bond. Craig looked as surprised as anyone at the press conference. Caked in sun tan cream and with blow dried hair. Giving bland answers to questions or simply refusing to answer.
Once Bond fans and the public had found out more about him, it was'nt long before the backlash came. Too bland, uncharismatic, small, ugly etc. Internet sites were set up with thousands of posts from disgruntled fans.
Eon then made a smart move. Asking everyone to stop slating Craig until they've seen the film. Eon knew full well that the film would make money, get support from the main stream media. The bid to 'big up' Craig could then start. They even got the Bafta's to support him. However there were still a lot of unhappy people.
Onto QOS and the box office is down, the reviews have been terrible. People will go and see it, grugdingly accepting they are lumbered with Craig as Bond for the forseeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 18, 2008 13:06:49 GMT -5
There was amazement back in 2005 when the popular Brosnan was sacked in his prime. Unhappy fans thoughts then turned to to who would replace him. Owen would make a great moody Bond, so would Bale. Hugh Jackson has Bond qualities or Dougray Scott with his strong voice would be good. There was even more amazement when a short, blonde, ugly actor no one had heard of was annonced as Bond. Craig looked as surprised as anyone at the press conference. Caked in sun tan cream and with blow dried hair. Giving bland answers to questions or simply refusing to answer. Once Bond fans and the public had found out more about him, it was'nt long before the backlash came. Too bland, uncharismatic, small, ugly etc. Internet sites were set up with thousands of posts from disgruntled fans. Eon then made a smart move. Asking everyone to stop slating Craig until they've seen the film. Eon knew full well that the film would make money, get support from the main stream media. The bid to 'big up' Craig could then start. They even got the Bafta's to support him. However there were still a lot of unhappy people. Onto QOS and the box office is down, the reviews have been terrible. People will go and see it, grugdingly accepting they are lumbered with Craig as Bond for the forseeable. When Craig was announced/revealed as Bond, I was pretty distraught. He looked horrendous!!! totally un-bondian IMO, but to be fair he did have success in CR although it was not my type of Bond film. Like you, I felt margainalised and frustrated that the James Bond I knew was now being ridiculed and it was now cool to dis classics such as TSWLM and MR. I've yet to see QOS and to be honest I have no real desire to go. Personally, I think DC will remain as Bond for some time and my only hope is that an independent Bond film is made that stays true to Cubby's version, the one that made most of us fans. |
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Nov 18, 2008 13:54:49 GMT -5
Eon then made a smart move. Asking everyone to stop slating Craig until they've seen the film. Eon knew full well that the film would make money I'm not sure EON knew it would make money, but they did know the series could survive a flop. Brosnan had left the series in a very sound economic position, so much so that EON- finally- decided to try something different. And that was ultimately what it came down to. Everyone balked at Craig's selection, because he obviously wasn't born (no pun intended) to play James Bond. Even today, the sight of him trying to play a traditional Bond would probably not work quite as well. People weren't entirely off base when they said he couldn't be Bond, since his casting required such radical changes to the films. So now we have the first film which was designed around his portrayal, and it's being regarded as one of the most disappointing Bonds ever made. I initially gave Craig the benefit of the doubt, thinking he had just been handicapped like all the previous actors. But according to Craig, this was very much his creative vision for Bond. This means EON has an actor that doesn't really want to play a traditional Bond, and who would probably have a hard time switching gears at this point anyway. But they've also shot their own reboot in the foot with QOS. Audiences don't mind the occasional detour, but they still prefer the winning formula. It's the only reason why James Bond is on his 22nd film. I'm not sure where they go from here. The obvious plan was to create a CR trilogy, but that seems to be out. Do they send Craig off to stop a madman with a Goldeneye-style weapon, and if so, what's the point? The stories that began in The Bourne Identity and Casino Royale are essentially finished. But Bourne at least has the option of exploring an entirely new personality, in the form of David Webb. I'm honestly more intrigued by which direction Bourne 4 will end up going in. Somehow, I get the feeling EON probably is too. |
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Nov 18, 2008 14:17:25 GMT -5
I'm honestly more intrigued by which direction Bourne 4 will end up going in. I wish Bourne 4 is based on The Bourne Legacy. |
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Nov 18, 2008 19:27:03 GMT -5
Weak argument. And yes you labeled me. Below you classify me anti-Craig and that suggest I am vile person like those people at other forums that say very rude things for celebrities. As Bond fan, I am critical of Craig and new approach and I have no wish for humiliate him. But that is typical of you. I see you took the "anti-Craig" thing the wrong way. Over at DCINB no one ever took the term "anti-Craig" as an insult or label, it's just a term where someone stands such as pro-Craig. Not assuming the worst, just opposed to the actor on the role. It's become so common that I forget others take the term in a more vulgar way, sorry for that. It's been awhile since I've seen the ads for TND, but I'll take your word. By bringing up Craig's success?I try. As I said, I bring this up here because it's more interesting to get comemnts out of here than say a forum that mostly supports Craig. Just stirring up the pot a bit and it seems to have worked. If you like seeing it as a another Craig fanboy boasting about the success and giving the middle finger to everyone, fine. But as I said on my intial post, no one has to like it. I'm not forcing anyone to say "yes Craig is a good Bond", I'm just interested in the opinions of those who are not keen into Craig's characterzation yet confirm his stance concerning the general public opinion and the direction of the films. Skywalker is the exact kind of guy I was looking for. But I see this is starting to look a bit personal, not part of my intentions. So, fellow Bond fans?  |
|
