|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 23, 2007 16:33:00 GMT -5
It will be very interesting to see Craig stand on his own in Bond 22. No more curiosity, for all interested have seen him. No more overhype by Eon that matters;ie, Craig best dressed male, sexiest male, magazine covers,etc, as part of their $120 million promotional budget for CR. Factor in TBU's USA success, and we will see what Forster, not known for action, can do with Craig's second film.
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 23, 2007 16:42:16 GMT -5
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. Campbell signed on hoping Goran Visnjic would get the role, a Croatian. How intelligent was that for a director of Bond? The introduction to Craig was NO origin, and the entire film had no true feeling of a Bond flick to me. Yet,Campbell went out on a limb stating Craig was the BEST actor of the 6 to play Bond, another questionable statement. License for realism was the draw for CR,not Craig. By the way, Craig's Invasion debuted at number 5 in the USA, with UNDER $6 million taken in. Not that great for the so-called greatest ACTOR to ever play Bond, according to Campbell.
|
|
|
Post by JackBurton on Aug 25, 2007 10:59:27 GMT -5
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. Campbell signed on hoping Goran Visnjic would get the role, a Croatian. How intelligent was that for a director of Bond? The introduction to Craig was NO origin, and the entire film had no true feeling of a Bond flick to me. Yet,Campbell went out on a limb stating Craig was the BEST actor of the 6 to play Bond, another questionable statement. License for realism was the draw for CR,not Craig. By the way, Craig's Invasion debuted at number 5 in the USA, with UNDER $6 million taken in. Not that great for the so-called greatest ACTOR to ever play Bond, according to Campbell. I remember watching Campbell interviewed for Zorro days before Craig was unveiled as the new Bond. He said they were still looking for a Bond actor and repeated that it would be a young Bond. He may have changed his mind but he really wasn't mad on Craig doing it. I think Campbell was excited by the challenge of taking a young actor and turning him into Bond. He never got to do that. Going off at a tangent, given the current tone of Bond films, does anyone think they could recast Jason Bourne and turn it into a Bond type franchise?
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 25, 2007 11:24:54 GMT -5
Why recast Bourne, unless Damon is not believable in the role? I personally think a stronger looking actor would be better than Damon, for he has a 'dainty' quality about him. What about Jason Statham as Bourne? In regards to CR, Campbell wanted the job so Eon twisted his thoughts over to their side. Even if he rejected Craig, he never would have revealed that. He could have done so much more with CR as a true reboot with a younger looking actor, but Craig was Broccoli's boy-toy choice. I am not interested in a reboot, BUT, if it had to be done, it should have been done right.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Aug 25, 2007 12:04:07 GMT -5
Going off at a tangent, given the current tone of Bond films, does anyone think they could recast Jason Bourne and turn it into a Bond type franchise? I think the filmmakers realize that that would be counterproductive to what they tried to achieve. Bourne was unique because he was the antithesis of Bond. Once you start sending him on routine missions, there would be little to separate him from a James Bond or Ethan Hunt. And unlike Bond, the Bourne films have not been episodic in nature. Audiences have now followed a specific actor through a series of films that built upon each other. They're invested in Damon in a way that doesn't really happen with a Bond actor. If they want to continue the Bourne franchise, I think they should come up with a second story arc to send Damon on. Perhaps a second batch of films that focuses on an older character who has returned to his David Webb persona.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Aug 25, 2007 15:15:46 GMT -5
It will be very interesting to see Craig stand on his own in Bond 22. No more curiosity, for all interested have seen him. No more overhype by Eon that matters;ie, Craig best dressed male, sexiest male, magazine covers,etc, as part of their $120 million promotional budget for CR. Interesting perspective. Unless Eon is so smug, your points should also be looming in their minds. In fact, the end of the curiosity for Craig may already have started. His recent "The Invasion" tanked big time, and he received top billing with Nicole Kidman but simply lent no starpower whatsoever. (I remember one Fox News reporter claiming last November that Craig was on his way to being a major star. I guess he forgot to report that the process would take about 80 years.) Factor in TBU's USA success, and we will see what Forster, not known for action, can do with Craig's second film. To me, the public is now entrenched in the Bourne franchise, and Jason Bourne has taken on the status of the premiere spy character. This is reflected in the mainstream media, which is well aware of how Bourne has eclipsed Bond. Some of the headlines or comments I've been seeing lately: --------------------------------------------------------------------- MOVIE: Jason Bourne brings back the spy film "The state of spy movies about five years ago was, in a word, pathetic. The Bond franchise was sliding into self-parody, and no new blood was appearing to rejuvenate the genre. Then, in 2002, “The Bourne Identity” hit theaters. It was fast-paced, gritty and thrilling, and it did something no spy film had accomplished for a decade: it made espionage exciting in the post-Cold War era." (source: www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/4432)Spy vs. spy: Bourne tops Bond "The ex-CIA killing machine has tortured memories of past deeds; in “Ultimatum,” Bourne laments that he can remember every face of the people he’s killed but not their names. And when, in order to save someone’s life he has to kill again, he stares into space like a wounded child. Has James Bond ever lamented one of his victims? .... It’s also the reason why Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne has just eclipsed James Bond as cinema’s top new secret agent. Instead of a detached spy for a Cold War, Bourne is a conflicted man for our complicated age." (source: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20056047/)----------------------------------------------------------------------- There was a time when Bond was the character people thought of whenever there was a discussion about spies. Now, it seems, the public and the media think of Bourne. For Bond 22, I have a feeling Eon will continue to acknowledge in some ways the Bourne films, just as they had done with CR. They're now operating in that "Me-Too" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by domino on Aug 25, 2007 15:41:43 GMT -5
Damn Bourne! But that's him (He stole Bond's initials ) He's the one who just mourns what he did and well he'd not all that effective a spy if he's gonna be so sympathetic. That's why I think in Bond 22 they need to stay as far away from the Bourne style completely. They would just be leeching off another franchise because they're failing a bit. So they ought to read over Fleming's original books, make Bond IN-character, the cold unrelenting killer he is. I still think Bourne will never be as iconic as Bond. He just doesn't have what Bond has.
|
|
|
Post by sas on Aug 25, 2007 17:39:22 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.......
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 25, 2007 22:35:20 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!
|
|
|
Post by BJMDDS on Aug 25, 2007 22:41:20 GMT -5
Damn Bourne! But that's him (He stole Bond's initials ) He's the one who just mourns what he did and well he'd not all that effective a spy if he's gonna be so sympathetic. That's why I think in Bond 22 they need to stay as far away from the Bourne style completely. They would just be leeching off another franchise because they're failing a bit. So they ought to read over Fleming's original books, make Bond IN-character, the cold unrelenting killer he is. I still think Bourne will never be as iconic as Bond. He just doesn't have what Bond has. Bourne is a different type of spy, a renegade of sorts. Eon saw it was popular only in the USA, and ran with that concept internationally. Eon is leeching off a rival film, and will shamelessly continue to do so until the public says enough of it. As the Kryptonians banter in Superman I:"Jorel, be reasonable: My friend, I have been nothing but.....this madness is yours".....this is exactly how I feel when I see people enthralled with Casino Royale and Daniel Craig.
|
|
|
Post by JackBurton on Aug 26, 2007 10:33:58 GMT -5
Damn Bourne! But that's him (He stole Bond's initials ) He's the one who just mourns what he did and well he'd not all that effective a spy if he's gonna be so sympathetic. That's why I think in Bond 22 they need to stay as far away from the Bourne style completely. They would just be leeching off another franchise because they're failing a bit. So they ought to read over Fleming's original books, make Bond IN-character, the cold unrelenting killer he is. I still think Bourne will never be as iconic as Bond. He just doesn't have what Bond has. Bourne is a different type of spy, a renegade of sorts. Eon saw it was popular only in the USA, and ran with that concept internationally. Eon is leeching off a rival film, and will shamelessly continue to do so until the public says enough of it. As the Kryptonians banter in Superman I:"Jorel, be reasonable: My friend, I have been nothing but.....this madness is yours".....this is exactly how I feel when I see people enthralled with Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. 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.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Aug 26, 2007 13:31:59 GMT -5
That's why I think in Bond 22 they need to stay as far away from the Bourne style completely. They would just be leeching off another franchise because they're failing a bit. I hear ya, domino. And I agree totally that Eon needs to stay away from the Bourne style. But I don't think they have the courage to do that. The big success of the Bourne films has paved the way for this "style" of spy films, and Eon will be motivated to pursue it, especially since they made money with CR. I still think Bourne will never be as iconic as Bond. He just doesn't have what Bond has. The problem is, the actor playing the role is the "front-end" of the franchise, and I think Bond only reaches its iconic essence in the eyes of the public when you've got an actor who has the magneticism and the mystique required for that iconic stature. I don't think we have that in Craig, which is why the franchise seems to have slipped from public consciousness, especially since Eon basically moved away from that iconic essence by presenting a Bond that was somewhat like Jason Bourne, even Jack Bauer, in CR. By casting Craig and emmulating the Bourne series, the Bond character lost its mystique. To me, Eon's so-called reboot of CR was all about "Let's copy the style of the Bourne films, also add some of that origin stuff from super-hero films, since these are the things that are really hip with the public." Of course, supporters of CR will point out that CR was a box office hit, and that is true. But I believe it made its money through sheer marketing hype, lack of competion from other high profile adventure films at the time of CR's release, and the controversy surrounding Craig. Connery and Moore obviously lived up to the iconic stature of the role. Had Dalton and Lazenby gone on to do more films, they probably would've lived up to it. Brosnan certainly lived up to the iconic stature. After the 6 long years of emptiness (after LTK), the series struck back with GE, and Bond was suddenly "cool" again. Hollywood jumped on the spy-action bandwagon, and that's when we started to have the likes of Bourne, the XXX series, and even films like Charlie's Angels. The Bond franchise reaches its strength when you've got an actor who can carry that front-end. For example, throughout Brosnan's reign, his films were always up against tough competition, his films never had CR's luxury of not opening against other high profile adventure films, yet the Brosnan films were very successful.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Aug 26, 2007 13:35:10 GMT -5
Eon is leeching off a rival film, and will shamelessly continue to do so until the public says enough of it. I hope the public will say "enough" very soon. But I have a feeling that Eon will continue to leech off the Bourne series. That other franchise has become so popular. For some reason, it has struck a chord in the mood of society, its become the spy series of the time. The latest numbers of The Bourne Ultimatum at boxofficeguru.com are staggering. The film actually jumped back to second place, despite competition from other summer flicks that are still circulating in theaters: "Rising one spot to second place was Matt Damon's latest assassin flick The Bourne Ultimatum which slipped only 38% to an estimated $12.4M .... With $185.1M in the bank for Universal, Bourne has now outgrossed every James Bond film domestically (in nominal dollar terms), both previous Bourne films, and two of the three Mission: Impossible pics. Ultimatum is still on track to hit the $200M mark by the end of Labor Day weekend and will give a serious challenge to this decade's top action films that are not driven by special effects - Rush Hour 2 ($226.2M in 2001) and Mission: Impossible 2 ($215.4M in 2000)."
|
|
|
Post by Bourne on Aug 26, 2007 13:49:20 GMT -5
I wonder what numbers CR would have done in the US with a Hugh Jackman.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Aug 26, 2007 14:38:14 GMT -5
For some reason, it has struck a chord in the mood of society, its become the spy series of the time. I think Bourne speaks to that general sense of government mistrust many feel today. Despite his Cold War origins, the character has been successfully transformed into a very timely hero. But the secret to Bond's longevity has always been his entertainment value, rather than his ability to reflect the "real world". When Jason Bourne screws up a mission and threatens to expose his covert agency, his government tries to kill him. But when Bond does the same, he is sent to play poker with the government's money. (WTF?) EON are also limited by their own legacy. They want to be viewed as a "new" franchise, yet they can't let go of the past. CR would not have been remade if it had already existed as an EON production, because they still need to sell the dvd boxsets containing all the films. And audiences expect certain (traditional) things from Bond, which makes it harder to view him as a contemporary figure. For example, Bourne can remain faithful to his dead love, whereas Bond has to continually bed new women with every film. And if Bourne kills someone with a pen, it's exciting and inventive. But if Bond were to attempt the same, there would be a little disappointment that his pen didn't turn into something cool. 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?
|
|