Craig's new movie "the Invasion"

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:55 pm

Craig's new movie the Invasion opens low. #5 BO under the Simpson's movie out for 24 days.

Crappy movie or does it show Dan is not a star yet?

Post by **bjmdds** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:21 pm

Movie may not even go to DVD I would bet. Craig is no star;Bond is the star. Kidman and Craig have NO hold on the public.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:49 am

I would definitely say that in the USA, Daniel Craig is not an A list star. but other than CR, what films has he had that have been big Box Office?

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:15 am

Not to mention Craig isn't even in most of the film, he's only getting second billing because the studios know the film is that bad and will use any kind of marketing gimmick they can get. If Craig was offered the part in this film after signing with Bond, he probably wouldn't have ever accepted it.

And I don't think this is a case of Kidman and Craig not drawing the audience but rather that the film itself looks like crap. I'm a fan of Craig (not to be confused, I am a Bond fan too) yet I'll probably never see this film unless I switch channels and end up on this if there isn't anything else on.

And concerning Bond, can anyone tell me which actor besides Connery drew in audiences for a non-Bond film that made it a success?

Post by **Dr. No** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:56 am

Case of a bad movie. Kidman is close to being unmarketable. We rented her last one the interpretor what a waste that was.

They used Craig's name because of Bond but it wasn't a draw in here in the states. Maybe overseas will see a bump. Doubt it, the movie really is bad.

Post by **Kristatos** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:42 pm

I think the reason it isn't doing well, is that there simply isn't the need for another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The original film and the 1978 remake both get shown on TV regularly, and this version doesn't seem to add anything new.

Post by **Blowfeld** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:23 pm

Box Office Mojo.com

Meanwhile, audiences avoided The Invasion. Originally scheduled for release a year ago, Warner Bros.' reportedly $80 million sci-fi horror emerged with an estimated $6 million at 2,776 sites, a comparable start to the similarly-themed The Astronaut's Wife from August 1999 and The Puppet Masters.

Nicole Kidman in The Invasion
The Invasion is a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers but that branding was minimized. The trailer ends with the words "You won't feel a thing," indicative of how the marketing sapped the thrills and fun from the B-movie premise, which has a mixed past commercially anyway. Adjusted for ticket price inflation, the 1978 version made the equivalent of over $70 million today, but Body Snatchers, barely distributed by Warner Bros. in 1994, equaled less than one percent of that.

Post by **Blowfeld** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:38 pm

Kristatos wrote:I think the reason it isn't doing well, is that there simply isn't the need for another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The original film and the 1978 remake both get shown on TV regularly, and this version doesn't seem to add anything new.

Precisely. This rendition is the, what 5th Invasion of the Body Snatchers film.

Although I do think there was an attempt to use the James Bond image to save this film.
Personally I want Daniel to have outstanding success outside of 007. That way he will abdicate the throne sooner.

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:32 am

Craig's new flick did worse than I said. When it was all said and done its number 6 behind STARDUST!

Post by **carl stromberg** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:34 pm

I'm sure an interesting low-budget TV film version could be made with an interesting director.

I'm not sure someone commissioned a bland, high budget remake.

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:36 pm

Not out over here yet but word of mouth and buzz is complete disaster on the cards and another remake of body snatchers!

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:32 pm

does anybody else find it ironic that Craig could end up being typecast as Bond?

Post by **Kristatos** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:38 pm

paco chaos wrote:does anybody else find it ironic that Craig could end up being typecast as Bond?

Just what we need, a bored Craig staying in the role for a million years just to pay the bills. Let's hope The Golden Compass is a success worldwide (I can't see a movie based on an avowedly anti-religious novel being a hit in the US, even if they have reportedly toned down those aspects, much to the disgust of the book's fans).

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:10 am

paco chaos wrote:does anybody else find it ironic that Craig could end up being typecast as Bond?

A real shame if true, because he's far better than the other four (Connery isn't among them).

Post by **Blowfeld** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:25 am

paco chaos wrote:does anybody else find it ironic that Craig could end up being typecast as Bond?

Definitely ironic

The lest like 007, being type cast for movies that are so dissimilar to rest of the franchise they are unidentifiable as "Bond" movies.

Post by **Blowfeld** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:30 am

stockslivevan wrote:
paco chaos wrote:does anybody else find it ironic that Craig could end up being typecast as Bond?
A real shame if true, because he's far better than the other four (Connery isn't among them).

I am sorry. I think you are selling Timothy way too short here.

A besides Connery was already making a good name for himself before 007, not that 007 didn't make him world famous over night. Or was it that he made 007 world famous

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:23 pm

Blowfeld wrote: I am sorry. I think you are selling Timothy way too short here.

Don't get me wrong, I love Dalton. He's third and far seperated from those behind him as far as I am concerned. His Bond just lacked a sense of humor so that's why I have him behind Craig. I would have loved to see him continue the role after LTK.

Gary Seven · Post by **Gary Seven** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:25 pm

His Bond just lacked a sense of humor so that's why I have him behind Craig.

Craig did not have a sense of humour, IMHO.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:52 am

Gary Seven wrote:
His Bond just lacked a sense of humor so that's why I have him behind Craig.
Craig did not have a sense of humour, IMHO.

Well I certainly disagree.