BJMDDS:EON's direction with James Bond

[BJMDDS]

Since 1962 the iconic perception of James Bond has been entrenched in the world's psyche. We have all grown to know what he should look like, how he should act, and what to expect from a James Bond film. Now, in the new millenium, Bond has become 'lost in translation', and the selection of Daniel Craig to portray James Bond has caused a deep divide in the Bond fandom. Casino Royale has supposedly launched a newer and more serious direction for the Bond franchise, yet it offers NO originality. This 'newer' concept is nothing more than Eon's attempt to capitalize on the current Bauer/Bourne phenomenon in the USA, by taking it internationally. I do not believe this 'new' approach will have long staying power with Daniel Craig at the helm. I further believe that the selection of another actor would have topped Casino Royale's box office considerably. In essence, people wanted to see a darker sided Bond, not the person selected to portray him. Do you agree that another actor, be it Jackman,Butler,Owen,or even Brosnan,would have added to the box office take of Casino Royale, and how long do you see this 'new' Bond trend lasting in popularity worldwide?

[poirot]

When you look at the openings of both Die Another Day and the Bourne Supremacy, Casino should've easily enjoyed a much larger opening than both. The film had a massive publicity campaign and also marked a return to Bond's source material after nearly 20 years. It was also the first Bond film to really take full advantage of online marketing, which resulted in a great deal of pre-release buzz.

If they had been able to get Clive Owen, they probably could've gotten close to a Bourne Ultimatum-sized opening. He already had a huge following among fanboys, and his casting would not have caused the kind of backlash that Craig's did. Consider: When Owen was rumoured in early 2005, fans all but cast him themselves. When Craig was rumoured in early 2005, no one took it seriously and just assumed it was another false report.

Even though Casino ended up as the highest grossing Bond film, it wasn't much higher than the performance of Die Another Day. Since many fans now consider these films to be at opposite ends of the scale, shouldn't there have been a much greater divide between their box office returns?

[BJMDDS]

Do you believe Owen's CR would have topped Craig's by a wide margin, IF he was given the role? I do.

[skywalker]

Welcome BJ to our growing forum. You raise legitimate points which strike a cord with a fair few Bond fans.

Poirot makes an interesting statement regarding BO returns. Should CR have eclipsed DAD by a much bigger margin? When you consider the admissions gap is considerably closer and when you look at the admissions increase for Brosnan in GE from LTK you see a much higher BO return in terms of % increase than CR from DAD.

[BJMDDS]

skywalker said:

Welcome BJ to our growing forum. You raise legitimate points which strike a cord with a fair few Bond fans.

Poirot makes an interesting statement regarding BO returns. Should CR have eclipsed DAD by a much bigger margin? When you consider the admissions gap is considerably closer and when you look at the admissions increase for Brosnan in GE from LTK you see a much higher BO return in terms of % increase than CR from DAD.

Thanks for the greeting Young Skywalker. It is pleasure to enter another forum site with welcomed divergent views of the James Bond current concept. In fact, CR lost ground in the USA box office over DAD. CR's claim to fame was it's 'international' appeal, especially in the UK. I think it will be nearly impossible for Craig's next Bond film(his current film, The Invasion, tanked badly in the USA) to touch TBU in the USA. I await to see if TBU can muster any international appeal. Eon lost USA admissions with Craig, which quite poossibly would have topped $600-700 million with a more suitable Bond chosen. The draw in CR was NOT Craig;it was a serious Bond film, and Craig was lucky to have been adored so by Broccoli to anoint him the lead.

[poirot]

This film had almost everything going for it, with the only downside being the negativity which built up around Craig. In fact, many predicted it would be the first Bond film to top the $200 million mark in the US.

This was based largely on the fact that, for the first time in years, Bond was really the only game in town for the November/December movie season. There simply weren't any other big blockbusters opening, and the majority of the competition was a bunch of low-key dramas (A Good Year; Stranger Than Fiction; Bobby; etc).

There's simply no denying that the entire fanbase did not turn out to support CR on its opening weekend. It was an unremarkable opening, which did not reflect the amount of critical praise, hype, and marketing the film had generated. I don't feel that just any other candidate could've done better, but I do think Owen would've easily amounted to a larger box office.

[BJMDDS]

poirot said:

This film had almost everything going for it, with the only downside being the negativity which built up around Craig. In fact, many predicted it would be the first Bond film to top the $200 million mark in the US.

This was based largely on the fact that, for the first time in years, Bond was really the only game in town for the November/December movie season. There simply weren't any other big blockbusters opening, and the majority of the competition was a bunch of low-key dramas (A Good Year; Stranger Than Fiction; Bobby; etc).

There's simply no denying that the entire fanbase did not turn out to support CR on its opening weekend. It was an unremarkable opening, which did not reflect the amount of critical praise, hype, and marketing the film had generated. I don't feel that just any other candidate could've done better, but I do think Owen would've easily amounted to a larger box office.

Do not forget the much laughed at penguin flick defeated it every weekend in the USA, head to head. No one ever believed that would be the case. Bond 22 only gets 2 free weekends before Harry Potter will take over. IF the opening, minus no curiosity factor now, does not live up to expectations, EON may finally rethink Craig's portrayal. I cannot believe he coaxed them into a contract increase to $26 million for the next two Bond films. Had Butler,Owen,Jackman, etc., been given the script for CR, I believe it would have topped $200 million in the USA. No one talks about the possibility of CR underperforming at the box office due to Craig. Who knows how much higher it could have gone?

[poirot]

bjmdds said:

Had Butler,Owen,Jackman, etc., been given the script for CR

This brings up another issue I'm unclear on: Was Owen permitted to base his decision on the script? I believe Jackman has stated that he was offered the role, but was denied access to a script. We know Craig was ultimately provided the script, but were any other candidates?

[BJMDDS]

I think Eon kept a tight watch on who they would show the script to, but if the other actors mentioned were being considered, seriously, they should have had access to it. I believe talks about other actors took place, but Broccoli had her heart(and other things) set on Craig. If Visnjic actually did screen test, was the CR script revealed to him? Maybe not. We will never know.

[Greg Haugen]

poirot said:

bjmdds said:

Had Butler,Owen,Jackman, etc., been given the script for CR

This brings up another issue I'm unclear on: Was Owen permitted to base his decision on the script? I believe Jackman has stated that he was offered the role, but was denied access to a script. We know Craig was ultimately provided the script, but were any other candidates?

The main candidates apart from Craig were Sam Worthington and Henry Cavill. That was more or less the choice they had to make in 2005. Craig, Cavill or Worthington. To be honest I don't think Barbara Broccoli was ever going to allow anyone other than Daniel Craig to do the film. I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly what happened with Owen. He needed Bond a lot less than Craig. Gerard Butler, a fan favourite to replace Brosnan, was shunned for reasons best known to Eon.

The two articles below look at Butler and Owen.

www.alternative007.co.uk/54.htm

www.alternative007.co.uk/28.htm

[BJMDDS]

Visnjic was screen tested, supposedly. Butler would have been leagues superior to Craig as Bond. Visnjic may wind up in Bond 22 as Vesper's former boytoy and Bond's nemesis.

[poirot]

drax said:

The main candidates apart from Craig were Sam Worthington and Henry Cavill.

From the way Campbell spoke of the project, he apparently signed on to make a film more befitting those two rejected candidates. I believe Michael Wilson described it that way as well.

Of the two, Cavill would've probably been too young, but Worthington could've been just right. And right around the same age as Connery and Lazenby when they accepted the role.

[Kadov]

poirot said:

This film had almost everything going for it, with the only downside being the negativity which built up around Craig. In fact, many predicted it would be the first Bond film to top the $200 million mark in the US.

This was based largely on the fact that, for the first time in years, Bond was really the only game in town for the November/December movie season. There simply weren't any other big blockbusters opening, and the majority of the competition was a bunch of low-key dramas (A Good Year; Stranger Than Fiction; Bobby; etc).

Good points, poirot. But I also think that the negativity surrounding Craig actually helped the film. For one thing, controversy sells tickets. Then the negativity, especially from the other site that did the boycott thingie, got something of a media attention and eventually Craig and CR developed an underdog essence. Eventually the sentiment from the mass media shifted towards a positive light on Craig. It was amazing how they basically rallied around him and the film. A lot of the reviews felt they were contrived, at least as I read them.

I think the mass media supported CR and Craig because the negativity was really an opposition to the filmmakers' intention. In other words, you've got some kind of obstacle on the shores of freedom of expression. That is something that the media will not tolerate. Also, the media does have an elitist stance; it's obviously a powerful institution with the tendency to tell the public what they should see, hear, and read. In the case of CR, it's like they threw the negativity back to the public and said, "To heck with all of you, we're going to support this film and anoint Daniel Craig the Second Coming."

poirot said:

There's simply no denying that the entire fanbase did not turn out to support CR on its opening weekend. It was an unremarkable opening, which did not reflect the amount of critical praise, hype, and marketing the film had generated.

It was an unremarkable opening, considering all the good reviews intense marketing, and lack of competition from other high profile adventure films. You'd think it would do better. Yet, as BJMDDS notes, the film couldn't topple a CGI penguin film.

After the first two weeks, I did feel that the public began to tune out of CR. I was in the San Francisco area in the first week of December 2006 and, in this major metropolitan area, I was surprised to see that one of the major cinema complexes no longer showed CR. The film did not have the momentum of the recent Bourne film. Is it because once the public got an idea of Craig, they began to move away from CR? If so, then the public reaction, along with a divided fanbase, supports the box office numbers at Kimberley Last's site. It places CR well behind DAD (http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html):

DAD=US $160.942 million ($180.36 million, converted to 2006 $)
DAD= World wide gross $431.971 million ($484.08 million, converted to 2006 $)

CR=US $165.415 million
CR=world wide gross $399.1 million

[James]

The fanboys tend to swim with the tide. If Worthington or Cavill had got the job I daresay other forums would have been flooded with posts about how Eon had picked the right man and thank goodness that craggy plumber Daniel Craig wasn't Bond etc.

[poirot]

kadov said:

But I also think that the negativity surrounding Craig actually helped the film.

I was thinking more along the lines of it affecting the opening weekend numbers, but I would agree that it did work in the film's favor (to an extent).

The biggest factor is that it basically gave EON a free pass with all the fanboys. The same ones that had criticized them for the recent Bond films suddenly acted as though Brosnan had made all those creative decisions! It will be interesting to see how long EON can maintain that newfound trust, especially since they no longer have Fleming to build upon.