Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
bjmdds wrote:The Golden Compass went SOUTH at the box office, with just $26 million brought in for the weekend in the USA, even with the "star" appeals of Kidman/Craig/Green. This film may never reach the break even level with the budget suggested at $150-180 million, and it now looks doubtful that Craig will have to worry himself about coordinating future Bond films with making sequels to TGC. With Infamous, The Invasion, and The Golden Compass now put to rest, with none successful, Craig can move on to the role that he had to 'consider' taking, Bond, yet may very well be the ONLY films he does that anyone will ever remember.
Yes....$26 mil opening is very poor for a film of this magnitude in regards to production costs. The film will have to spectacular BO overseas just to break even.
From what i've read the film has great production values but little soul.
Craig is apparently only on screen for about 10 minutes of the film, but it has shown that he and Kidman have made some poor choices in the films they signed onto.
Bond 22 will be a different kettle of fish, and yes 'BJ' like Craigs predecesors in the role of Bond, i think Craig will only hit the bigtime with his Bond films.
EA
So you now will admit this 'great' actor is nothing of the hype? The prior Bonds did not have to hit it big time, for they were not as hyped as Craig's acting ability supposedly is. He has little, if any, star power as does Green or Kidman, and this ridiculous pairing of Kidman and Craig should stop at once. Two strikes so far;one more, they are both out.
I don't agree with this. I think in another couple of Bond films, Craig has the potential to hit it big time, to live up to the hype. Right now he is Connery in 1963, riding on the back of one Bond movie.
Whether he will choose to do this or not is a different matter though. He may want to keep away from the big Hollywood films.
Sweeney wrote:
I think in another couple of Bond films, Craig has the potential to hit it big time, to live up to the hype. Right now he is Connery in 1963, riding on the back of one Bond movie.
Whether he will choose to do this or not is a different matter though. He may want to keep away from the big Hollywood films.
So you agree that he's not a big star now! With Stocks comment that "well he was only in it for ten mins" in response to the Golden Compass flop, I can see that even Craig's fans realise that he doesn't live up to the Sony/Eon hype.
I think we should all wait and see how the film does internationally before writing it off. It has been hurt in Puritan America by a religious boycott, but I can't see that flying in more secular Europe.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
Sweeney wrote:
I think in another couple of Bond films, Craig has the potential to hit it big time, to live up to the hype. Right now he is Connery in 1963, riding on the back of one Bond movie.
Whether he will choose to do this or not is a different matter though. He may want to keep away from the big Hollywood films.
So you agree that he's not a big star now! With Stocks comment that "well he was only in it for ten mins" in response to the Golden Compass flop, I can see that even Craig's fans realise that he doesn't live up to the Sony/Eon hype.
Didn't Dame Dench get critical acclaim for just ten minutes in a film? Didn't Anthony Hopkins get critical acclaim for just 15 minutes in Silence Of The Lambs?(it seemed much longer but it wasn't) Craig's "ten" minutes still was followed by his face on billboard signs in theatres. I am curious myself to see how TGC does in the UK.
katied wrote:I have every confidence in Marc Forster.
As far as MI6 is concerned:
I don't think it's that bad.I think eliminating certain people(Read:Thrice) would help,but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.I do think that mentioning certain things(especially Blofeld)is asking for a cyber-beatdown.
Plus there's been a LOT of people posting news articles and turning them into what seem more like rumors and what with the way some people there are,they take it seriously.Then that wind up on websites like Cinematical where they're taken as gospel(the rumor about Bond 22 having more humor is a perfect example of this)
Katied, curiously enough, Forster's The Kite Runner will open one week after Craig's TGC, in the USA. I do not see any market for a film of such content, do you? How can this film possibly be successful anywhere? Forster will direct a James Bond film following this film, which includes a very disturbing scene as well? There will be back to back weekend box office underachievements with TGC and TKR, then both Craig and Forster move on to the next film together, TBM?(Bond 22). I just do not understand what Eon is doing with their franchise any longer, do you? http://www.miamiherald.com/movie/movie/8857.html
bjmdds wrote:I do not see any market for a film of such content, do you? How can this film possibly be successful anywhere?
It won't be a blockbuster success, because it's not that sort of movie, but I don't see why it shouldn't be as successful as Forster's other indie movies like Monster's Ball or Finding Neverland. And it won't be the first time an indie director has moved on to blockbuster movies. Sam Raimi went from the Evil Dead movies to the Spiderman films and the Harry Potter franchise has had great success using indie directors. The two films directed by mainstream hack Chris Columbus are generally considered to be the worst in the series.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
Sweeney wrote:
I think in another couple of Bond films, Craig has the potential to hit it big time, to live up to the hype. Right now he is Connery in 1963, riding on the back of one Bond movie.
Whether he will choose to do this or not is a different matter though. He may want to keep away from the big Hollywood films.
So you agree that he's not a big star now! With Stocks comment that "well he was only in it for ten mins" in response to the Golden Compass flop, I can see that even Craig's fans realise that he doesn't live up to the Sony/Eon hype.
I didn't say he doesn't live up to the hype. I just don't think he is a star.................................yet!
bjmdds wrote:I do not see any market for a film of such content, do you? How can this film possibly be successful anywhere?
It won't be a blockbuster success, because it's not that sort of movie, but I don't see why it shouldn't be as successful as Forster's other indie movies like Monster's Ball or Finding Neverland. And it won't be the first time an indie director has moved on to blockbuster movies. Sam Raimi went from the Evil Dead movies to the Spiderman films and the Harry Potter franchise has had great success using indie directors. The two films directed by mainstream hack Chris Columbus are generally considered to be the worst in the series.
Monster's Ball did $45 million worldwide. The Kite Runner may be more in line with Redacted or In The Valley of Elah's lack of success, and fall off the charts.
Last edited by bjmdds on Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bjmdds wrote:Monster's Ball did $45 million worldwide. The Kite Runner may be more in line with Redacted or The Valley of Elah's lack of success, and fall off the charts.
Well, The Kite Runner has an advantage that those other two films didn't, namely that it is based on a best-selling novel, and so has an inbuilt audience.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
If we take Craig's last 3 films released in 2007, and combine Forster's The Kite Runner's potential lack of success, and add on Haggis' failed In the Valley of Elah, what is there to assume that these 3 individuals can put their collective talents(?) together and generate a successful sequel to Casino Royale? Is Eon out on a limb here, to put it mildly?
bjmdds wrote:If we take Craig's last 3 films released in 2007, and combine Forster's The Kite Runner's potential lack of success, and add on Haggis' failed In the Valley of Elah, what is there to assume that these 3 individuals can put their collective talents(?) together and generate a successful sequel to Casino Royale?
Two words: James Bond.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
You may be giving the prior franchise stature a bit too much credit for future box office success. LTK was maligned by the critics in 1989 and it suffered greatly at the box office and it almost ruined the franchise, until Brosnan was able to resurrect it over 6 years later. The public is more discerning than to believe just because Eon is throwing out a Bond film on the screens with Craig/Haggis/Foster running the show, that it will be an automatic success.
Oh, I don't believe that Bond 22's success is guaranteed by any means, and have said so repeatedly in the past. I just think that if audiences stay away, it will be because they didn't like CR, and not because of The Kite Runner, In the Valley of Elah, The Golden Compass or any other non-Bond project.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
From what Forster has recently said about himself, I do not understand why Eon chose him. He admits to not be an action film director. He wants to do Bond 22 because of Craig's interpretation that Bond's psyche be explored. Is that what you want from Bond 22?
Sweeney wrote:
I think in another couple of Bond films, Craig has the potential to hit it big time, to live up to the hype. Right now he is Connery in 1963, riding on the back of one Bond movie.
Whether he will choose to do this or not is a different matter though. He may want to keep away from the big Hollywood films.
So you agree that he's not a big star now! With Stocks comment that "well he was only in it for ten mins" in response to the Golden Compass flop, I can see that even Craig's fans realise that he doesn't live up to the Sony/Eon hype.
I actually didn't know it flopped until Mazer Rackham ranted.
I knew he was only a supporting role and assumed he'd get 30 minutes of talk, I never knew it was that short.
Besides, it's like I said since the beginning, The Golden Compass has no effect on Daniel Craig's tenure as Bond. If EON cared about Brosnan's non-Bond career he would have been gone. And even today, Brosnan's only big films were the Bond films, unless you count Mrs. Doubtfire.
bjmdds wrote:From what Forster has recently said about himself, I do not understand why Eon chose him. He admits to not be an action film director. He wants to do Bond 22 because of Craig's interpretation that Bond's psyche be explored. Is that what you want from Bond 22?
Apparently, Craig chose him, so it sounds like a bit of a mutual admiration society they've got going on there. I wonder who previous Bond actors would have chosen as their directors if they had the same power over the franchise that Lady Broccoli's Lover enjoys? Brozza probably would have chosen Tarantino, so I suppose we should be grateful that they didn't.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
bjmdds wrote:From what Forster has recently said about himself, I do not understand why Eon chose him. He admits to not be an action film director. He wants to do Bond 22 because of Craig's interpretation that Bond's psyche be explored. Is that what you want from Bond 22?
I can name you a couple of directors that have never directed an action movie yet managed to make a big hit with their first action film.
Besides, every action director has a first time. No one is born being capable of directing action. Let's see how Forster does.
Stocksilvian wrote
Besides, it's like I said since the beginning, The Golden Compass has no effect on Daniel Craig's tenure as Bond. If EON cared about Brosnan's non-Bond career he would have been gone. And even today, Brosnan's only big films were the Bond films, unless you count Mrs. Doubtfire.
You are comparing Pierce Brosnan, TV actor who had just made a Mike Graham TV film to Daniel Craig who, according to whoever has been paid off by Sony this week, is the world's greatest and most exciting "young" actor.
If Craig is half the actor that people keep telling me he is, then he should get a new agent.
Boxofficemojo has the actual box office take for TGC at $25.8 million, and they stated the film did underperform, given it's budget. I too am tired of these bought off ratings Craig is getting from these obvious planted rankings. Who the heck is Daniel Craig to be considered the 3rd most sexy movie star out there? Are they kidding and believing the public even knows who he is? If DC walked down the streets of many worldwide cities, who would even notice him?
