Would CR have made as much money without Craig?

[The Sweeney]

I'm sure a Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen CR would have bombed.

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

[Skywalker]

I'm sure a Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen CR would have bombed.

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

I can't speak for everyone but I certainly did not want CR to bomb. I actually feel DC could be a great Bond. The problem for me is that this was not conveyed in CR.

My concerns stem from the direction of the film.

[Jack Wade]

I'm sure a Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen CR would have bombed.

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

OMG what?! I thought Deanna thanked everyone for a successful boycott...

[The Sweeney]

I'm sure a Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen CR would have bombed.

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

OMG what?! I thought Deanna thanked everyone for a successful boycott...

It was a success, didn't you know?

The 6 anti people on here boycotted it and didn't turn up to see it (at least I think they didn't - but there again, they all seem to have seen the film as they have an opinion on it).

Maybe they saw a pirated copy. Yes, that is the logical explanation.....

[Junior_Bond]

I'm sure a Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen CR would have bombed.

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

OMG what?! I thought Deanna thanked everyone for a successful boycott...

It was a success, didn't you know?

The 6 anti people on here boycotted it and didn't turn up to see it (at least I think they didn't - but there again, they all seem to have seen the film as they have an opinion on it).

Maybe they saw a pirated copy. Yes, that is the logical explanation.....

So far by SONY's calculations the boycott has cost them $50.

A huge dent in the current worldwide figure of $586,875,000

[Jack Wade]

Sounds pretty successful to me. I don't know about you guys.

[The Sweeney]

I'm sure a Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen CR would have bombed.

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

OMG what?! I thought Deanna thanked everyone for a successful boycott...

It was a success, didn't you know?

The 6 anti people on here boycotted it and didn't turn up to see it (at least I think they didn't - but there again, they all seem to have seen the film as they have an opinion on it).

Maybe they saw a pirated copy. Yes, that is the logical explanation.....

So far by SONY's calculations the boycott has cost them $50.

A huge dent in the current worldwide figure of $586,875,000

Exactly! EON should have realised what they were messing with when they picked Craig. I don't think they realised the awful damage a website could cause.

Just think what that $50 could've bought them. A large round of drinks, a couple of copies of The Matador, a nice meal at TGI's, a big slap-up Happy Meal at McDonalds.

That'll teach `em. EON will have to be a bit more careful with their next film.....

[Junior_Bond]

No, probably not either.

But then the very purpose of this site was to try and make CR bomb because of the actor playing Bond.....and it failed.

OMG what?! I thought Deanna thanked everyone for a successful boycott...

It was a success, didn't you know?

The 6 anti people on here boycotted it and didn't turn up to see it (at least I think they didn't - but there again, they all seem to have seen the film as they have an opinion on it).

Maybe they saw a pirated copy. Yes, that is the logical explanation.....

So far by SONY's calculations the boycott has cost them $50.

A huge dent in the current worldwide figure of $586,875,000

Exactly! EON should have realised what they were messing with when they picked Craig. I don't think they realised the awful damage a website could cause.

Just think what that $50 could've bought them. A large round of drinks, a couple of copies of The Matador, a nice meal at TGI's, a big slap-up Happy Meal at McDonalds.

That'll teach `em. EON will have to be a bit more careful with their next film.....

Yeah..........i suppose that means the budget for BOND 22 will have to be
reduced from around say $150,000,000 to $149,999,950.

That will be about 0.000000000000001 secs of film material removed.

Blimey!!!

[The Sweeney]

Yeah..........i suppose that means the budget for BOND 22 will have to be
reduced from around say $150,000,000 to $149,999,950.

That will be about 0.000000000000001 secs of film material removed.

Blimey!!!

Either that, or when it's Michael's turn at the bar for his round, he'll suddenly feel the pinch then. `Ouch! Where did that $50 go?'
An embarassed look at the barman. `Errr...I must have left my wallet at home.'

And then the shame and humiliation of having to do the long walk back across the pub to Babs and the crew who are sat waiting thirsty for their pints of real ale, and asking them to pay instead.

That'll teach him to pick Craig......

[Skywalker]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

[The Sweeney]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

This whole site is provocative and unreasonable (site - not forum), don't you think? So perhaps you can only exepct the same level of response from pro-Craig fans.

And when Craig is being criticized here, what do expect Craig fans to say in reply? Nothing? A comment about `well, that's your opinion?'

Of course they will respond with BAFTA nominations, BO takings, global praise from reviewers. What else will they rely on? After all, this site's whole purpose has been to dent the BO takings of CR, so to now mention how well CR has done at the BO seems a fairly logical response to me.

[Junior_Bond]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

I dont underdstand you 'Skywalker'.

What do you want from a Bond franchise.

People here are not being unreasanable.......there just stating facts!!!!!

If things bother you so much, why are you a Bond fan in the first place???

[Jack Wade]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

Simple.

It goes to show that not only the general public likes DC as Bond (please don't argue this with me, a movie doesn't make $585 million if the public hates the guy playing Bond), but also that the critics and the British Academy did.

Much better argument as to why Craig is a good Bond than he sucks because he has blonde hair.

[Skywalker]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

I dont underdstand you 'Skywalker'.

What do you want from a Bond franchise.

People here are not being unreasanable.......there just stating facts!!!!!

If things bother you so much, why are you a Bond fan in the first place???

DAD had more addmissions than LTK. Does this mean it's a better film?

I just get annoyed when the responses back are just the same and not answering the criticism's that have been made.

[Skywalker]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

Simple.

It goes to show that not only the general public likes DC as Bond (please don't argue this with me, a movie doesn't make $585 million if the public hates the guy playing Bond), but also that the critics and the British Academy did.

Much better argument as to why Craig is a good Bond than he sucks because he has blonde hair.

I do not deny or argue the film's addmission rates and general positive reviews. I agree that the movie was very popular with the general public, but then so was DAD.

[The Sweeney]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

Simple.

It goes to show that not only the general public likes DC as Bond (please don't argue this with me, a movie doesn't make $585 million if the public hates the guy playing Bond), but also that the critics and the British Academy did.

Much better argument as to why Craig is a good Bond than he sucks because he has blonde hair.

I do not deny or argue the film's addmission rates and general positive reviews. I agree that the movie was very popular with the general public, but then so was DAD.

As I stated before, the whole purpose of this site was to dent BO takings of CR. So this is why I and others are using this to counteract arguments made.

[The Sweeney]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

I dont underdstand you 'Skywalker'.

What do you want from a Bond franchise.

People here are not being unreasanable.......there just stating facts!!!!!

If things bother you so much, why are you a Bond fan in the first place???

DAD had more addmissions than LTK. Does this mean it's a better film?

I just get annoyed when the responses back are just the same and not answering the criticism's that have been made.

What was your criticism of the film? The direction? Fair enough, you didn't like the direction, I did. You may prefer more OTT Bond films, outlandish gadgets, more one-liners. I personally don't.

It's all a matter of taste. I don't know what else you want me to say here in answer to criticism of CR.....

[Skywalker]

Why is it when a perfectly good critique is made about DC's performance in CR do you 'Craig fan's' jump straight to the Box office takings, Bafta nominations etc....

Does this mean no-one can criticise Titanic because it got nominations by the bucket load and grossed sh*t loads of money.

The only people being un-reasonable and provocative on this site is the majority of DC fan's.

This whole site is provocative and unreasonable (site - not forum), don't you think? So perhaps you can only exepct the same level of response from pro-Craig fans.

And when Craig is being criticized here, what do expect Craig fans to say in reply? Nothing? A comment about `well, that's your opinion?'

Of course they will respond with BAFTA nominations, BO takings, global praise from reviewers. What else will they rely on? After all, this site's whole purpose has been to dent the BO takings of CR, so to now mention how well CR has done at the BO seems a fairly logical response to me.

I am new to this site and was not an initial member. I am a passionate Bond fan who has found a site that allows me to voice my opinions of my dislike of CR and DC's performance as Bond in the film. I condem hate campaigns as they are pointless and achieve nothing. This site has given fans the opportunity to voice concerns freely without being swamped by Pro DC lovers.

All I am asking for is structured opinions that don't keep going back to the safety net of BO takings, bafta's, etc......

[Skywalker]

What was your criticism of the film? The direction? Fair enough, you didn't like the direction, I did. You may prefer more OTT Bond films, outlandish gadgets, more one-liners. I personally don't.

It's all a matter of taste. I don't know what else you want me to say here in answer to criticism of CR.....

The one-liners, gadgets and the OTT sequences are a major part of the film franchise. I do personally enjoy these factors, but I also enjoy the dark, gritty sequences that all also essential parts of the films.

You seem to be (I could be wrong) a decent person who has good debating skills. Please use them.

I want you to post why you enjoyed the film and why you consider DC to be a good Bond. Then we can contest these issues properly.

[The Sweeney]

What was your criticism of the film? The direction? Fair enough, you didn't like the direction, I did. You may prefer more OTT Bond films, outlandish gadgets, more one-liners. I personally don't.

It's all a matter of taste. I don't know what else you want me to say here in answer to criticism of CR.....

The one-liners, gadgets and the OTT sequences are a major part of the film franchise. I do personally enjoy these factors, but I also enjoy the dark, gritty sequences that all also essential parts of the films.

You seem to be (I could be wrong) a decent person who has good debating skills. Please use them.

I want you to post why you enjoyed the film and why you consider DC to be a good Bond. Then we can contest these issues properly.

Thanks for the compliment.

I have always been more a fan of the novels than the films, and hated it when the films have strayed too far away from Fleming. My favourite films are FRWL, GF, OHMSS and LTK, so this should give you an idea of my particular taste in films.

I was excited when Brosnan was picked as Bond, but unfortunately his films never lived up to my expectations. They just weren't serious enough. Another reason why I'm not particularly keen on the Moore films either. And I felt with each Brosnan film, they were declining rapidly, until they reached DAD with the final insult.

After I came out of DAD, I had enough of the franchise. I thought EON had killed Bond forever. To make matters worse, watching films like Bourne, I became even more dismayed. `That is how Bond should be!' I said to myself after watching the Bourne films.

And when the announcement came out that Craig was the new Bond, I thought `Oh great, now they've even screwed the casting up too!'

It wasn't until I started hearing noises that the film would be a return to Fleming, more down-to-earth, back-to-basics, gritty, CGI-less, and more in the style of Bourne and Batman that I started to gain interest in Bond again. And slowly I grew to like the idea of Craig's casting, especially after seeing some of the released pics on the web.

The film itself is everything I dreamed Bond should have been. Gadget minimum, bloody after a brutal fight, scarred, no-nonsense, dark, edgy, not OTT, humour minimum, violent and above all, refers constantly to Fleming material.

These things I felt were missing with Brosnan's films. CR follows straight off the back of where LTK finished - only moreso.

Regarding Craig himself, he just seemed more believable in the role. He physically looked like someone who could kill. I never felt this with Brosnan. Craig looks like someone you wouldn't want to mess with, and I felt this is something that has been lacking since Connery/Lazenby.