Although I'd never have thought of him, I think Craig's an inspired choice. Unlike any of the other Bonds, he comes to the series with an excellent reputation as an actor (even Dalton, if truth be told, was regarded at the time of his signing as a bit of a failed matinee idol a la Brosnan), but more importantly he's much closer to Fleming's Bond than anyone since Connery and Lazenby - Bond isn't a pretty boy in the books, Fleming even once describing him as resembling Hoagy Carmichael!

The most encouraging thing is that by not going for a bland pretty boy or the monotoned housewives favourite Clive Owen, it does give an indication of what EON's intentions may be, and supports the notion that they want to get back to basics, something that never would have happened with Brosnan even if he hadn't so spectacularly burned his bridges with his three-year media hate campaign against EON. The fact that for all its massive takings the profit margin on DAD was comparatively small (it was hugely expensive) means that even if they lose a few million admissions on a new Bond, the film could still be more cost-effective, as the Bourne films have shown.

Personally, I'm psyched up for this: Craig has the potential to be a great real James Bond. And in a weird way I think the negativity to his casting can only work in his favour: most people don't know his work and are judging either on photos or his underwhelming press conference, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to exceed expectations. I didn't even bother seeing DAD in the theaters, but I'll be there for this one.

Carlson2005 wrote:Personally, I'm psyched up for this: Craig has the potential to be a great real James Bond. And in a weird way I think the negativity to his casting can only work in his favour: most people don't know his work and are judging either on photos or his underwhelming press conference, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to exceed expectations. I didn't even bother seeing DAD in the theaters, but I'll be there for this one.

I agree with you completely. My friend and I have been discussing this at length- I like that he's an actor who is flying "under the radar" and not many people here in America int eh mainstream would know him very well. Good! Any preconceived notions I would have had basing it on his previous performances is out the window- aside from ROAD TO PERDITION, I have no idea what he has been in!

I admit that I liked Brosnan quite a bit. I think he embodied a bit of all the screen Bonds- but something in me is saying that he could turn in a Lazenby-esque performance. He could be this guy who comes in and just knocks your socks off (as long as the screenplay and direction are good), and 20 years later you're saying how great he was.

I might be in the minority here, but over time I think Connery and Lazenby will always have the top spot. Personally, I put Brosnan just ever so slightly over Moore as I liked the harder edged Bond, then Moore and finally Dalton. Who knows where Craig will fall in there? I'm excited. Please, PLEASE let the script and direction be good. Don't leave Craig hanging on this one- I seriously think this one film could resurrect the Bond series. If it fails, I'll bet we see no more.

mkaroly wrote:

Carlson2005 wrote:Personally, I'm psyched up for this: Craig has the potential to be a great real James Bond. And in a weird way I think the negativity to his casting can only work in his favour: most people don't know his work and are judging either on photos or his underwhelming press conference, so it shouldn't be too difficult for him to exceed expectations. I didn't even bother seeing DAD in the theaters, but I'll be there for this one.

I agree with you completely. My friend and I have been discussing this at length- I like that he's an actor who is flying "under the radar" and not many people here in America int eh mainstream would know him very well. Good! Any preconceived notions I would have had basing it on his previous performances is out the window- aside from ROAD TO PERDITION, I have no idea what he has been in!

I admit that I liked Brosnan quite a bit. I think he embodied a bit of all the screen Bonds- but something in me is saying that he could turn in a Lazenby-esque performance. He could be this guy who comes in and just knocks your socks off (as long as the screenplay and direction are good), and 20 years later you're saying how great he was.

I might be in the minority here, but over time I think Connery and Lazenby will always have the top spot. Personally, I put Brosnan just ever so slightly over Moore as I liked the harder edged Bond, then Moore and finally Dalton. Who knows where Craig will fall in there? I'm excited. Please, PLEASE let the script and direction be good. Don't leave Craig hanging on this one- I seriously think this one film could resurrect the Bond series. If it fails, I'll bet we see no more.

The problem is that 007 doesn't need to be resurrected IF we're talking box-office. Each Brosnan film has been more successful pretty much than the last.

What they're trying to do (and we're hoping they do) is get back to basics -- kind of do what the intention of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was in the wake of MOONRAKER (it's really the same situation: they're coming off a massive box-office smash, but Eon apparently realizes they need to reel Bond back in, away from all the effects, and ground 007 in some kind of reality).

As far as ranking the 007s, I realize we all have our own preferences. For me, Brosnan MIGHT be a "better" Bond, but I don't think those four movies he made gave him a fighting chance. There's just so little development of the Bond character that he feels like a passerby in a big, overdone action extravaganza. They could have plugged anyone into those movies.

In contrast, Moore's features -- on balance -- were way, way more satisfying than the four Brosnan films. No question there's silliness here and there in the Moore era, but frankly, there's just as much outrageous excess in the Brosnan films -- and unlike the Moore pictures (which were lighthearted at times), the Brosnan movies OD'd on visual effects and action at the expense of story. Moore was very good, IMO, and maybe not up to Connery's standards, but let's be honest: Sean himself slept his way through his performances in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and especially YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Moore provided, in his own right, a very respectable 007.

Of course, I'm writing in generalizations here, but I'd take the Moore pictures any day over Brosnan. Too bad Brosnan came around at the wrong time -- as much as I liked Dalton (THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is, for me, the last, great "Classic" Bond film), I think the series would never have had a hiatus and needed to be "resurrected" had NBC let Brosnan out of his Remington Steele contract. Alas, we'll never know...but I do wish Craig the best, and I hope the series itself takes a turn toward story, character development, and the kind of "old school" 007 thrils Eon has broken away from completely in the Brosnan era.

The problem is that 007 doesn't need to be resurrected IF we're talking box-office. Each Brosnan film has been more successful pretty much than the last.

What they're trying to do (and we're hoping they do) is get back to basics -- kind of do what the intention of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was in the wake of MOONRAKER (it's really the same situation: they're coming off a massive box-office smash, but Eon apparently realizes they need to reel Bond back in, away from all the effects, and ground 007 in some kind of reality).

The real problem is that while each of Brosnan's films has grossed more, each has cost more to make and market, leaving EON and MGM/UA with a shrinking profit margin - one of the key reasons they don't do the profit participation Brosnan was demanding to return (had they paid him the $42.5m he was asking, they'd have to take $85m just to cover his salary before any other costs were added: you do the math).

Moonraker is the perfect example - the highest grossing Moore film, but massively less profitable than the much, much cheaper For Your Eyes Only, which only grossed about $8m less. It's probably got to the stage where EON need to reel in the budgets to keep the series viable.

In any event, I'm not worried about Casino Royale - EON usually do okay with the first Bond film from a new 007: it's the next film that the problems usually set in...

Yeah Andy- resurrect wasn't the word I was looking for- the "back to basics" thing was.....thanks! And not to harp on it too much, but there needs to be a compelling villain. The one thing I will admit about the Brosnan films that really irked me was the main villain never made me feel threatened enough. Blofeld was great- SMERSH and SPECTRE were great- etc. It just seemed in the Brosnan films that the villain "heavy" was more threatening than the actual villain! That was frustrating for me....

I saw TLD three times in the theater and countless times on TV- I loved that movie. Weak, weak villain though.

I think Brosnan just lost whatever credibility his admirers say he had in trying to make the series more gritty when he reveals in an interview in this month's Premiere that he wanted Brett Ratner to direct.