Arthur Brain wrote:Forget DC's non Bond arty films.............of course they will make only a pittance.
The same applied to his predeccesors in the Bond role!
Come November, the public will flock to see QOS in there droves!!
Blimey.........its not rocket science
AB
E=mc2....F=MxA.....QOS does automatically=Success.
Are u trying to baffle us with science 'BJ'.........yes i understand that a big success for 'QOS' is not guaranteed..........but it would be very surprising!
The Sweeney wrote:I still don't understand this major concern for Craig's non-Bond films. He has already stated a million times that he doesn't want to be typecast, and that he tries to choose as many varied roles as possible, regardless of whether the film itself is a blockbuster vehicle or not.
Craig right now has the luxury of appearing in the big blockbuster movie (QOS) and then picking parts that he fancies that are not going to give him the massive paycheck. This is because he still first and foremost sees himself as an actor, not a movie star. Big difference.
Bj, why do you not understand this?
The context was Craig's appeal in the USA market, which has been proven quite weak. This COULD lower the revenue for TBM in the USA. I still am surprised the UK's love affair with Layer Cake did not run over to FLashbacks there.
No...........BJ........we dont have a love affair with Craig in the UK.......
but we do like good Bond films.
I mean very few people over here went to see the film 'The Invasion',
and the opening for 'A flashback of a fool' was miniscule.
We like the big blockbusters here in the UK as you do in the US!!
BJ..................the Dark Knight should do well here........but i'am expecting a big turnout for the next Indiana Jones film due out shortly, to
be the big hit of the summer here. We like the Indy films here...........great entertainment, i'am expecting another crackingly good story.
For example in 1989: 'The Last Crusade' had double the BO of 'Licence to Kill'.
Arthur Brain wrote:BJ..................the Dark Knight should do well here........but i'am expecting a big turnout for the next Indiana Jones film due out shortly, to
be the big hit of the summer here. We like the Indy films here...........great entertainment, i'am expecting another crackingly good story.
For example in 1989: 'The Last Crusade' had double the BO of 'Licence to Kill'.
AB
Using LTK is not a good example. LTK only did $8.7 million opening weekend in the USA and the critics did not like it.
Arthur Brain wrote:BJ..................the Dark Knight should do well here........but i'am expecting a big turnout for the next Indiana Jones film due out shortly, to
be the big hit of the summer here. We like the Indy films here...........great entertainment, i'am expecting another crackingly good story.
For example in 1989: 'The Last Crusade' had double the BO of 'Licence to Kill'.
AB
Using LTK is not a good example. LTK only did $8.7 million opening weekend in the USA and the critics did not like it.
Yes.........i know, but it had a good BO run in the UK, even better than TLD.
All i was proving was the big boxoffice draw of The Last Crusade!
I think in 1989 LTK ended up with around 8 mil pounds, but the Last Crusade had over 15 mil pounds.
In a recent USA Today interview, in regards to playing Bond, Craig says he 'prefers to explore the weak spots of a previously invulnerable hero". How do you feel about that?
bjmdds wrote:In a recent USA Today interview, in regards to playing Bond, Craig says he 'prefers to explore the weak spots of a previously invulnerable hero". How do you feel about that?
I don't mind. A truly invulnerable hero would be boring. Storytellers have known this since Homer wrote about Achilles. Where I disagree with him is in his analysis that Bond was "previously invulnerable". These weak spots are not a new invention. CR wasn't the first film to have Bond tortured, nor was it the first time Bond's weakness for a beautiful woman has proved to be his undoing.
"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
bjmdds wrote:In a recent USA Today interview, in regards to playing Bond, Craig says he 'prefers to explore the weak spots of a previously invulnerable hero". How do you feel about that?
I don't mind. A truly invulnerable hero would be boring. Storytellers have known this since Homer wrote about Achilles. Where I disagree with him is in his analysis that Bond was "previously invulnerable". These weak spots are not a new invention. CR wasn't the first film to have Bond tortured, nor was it the first time Bond's weakness for a beautiful woman has proved to be his undoing.
If you look at the Bond of the Moore films, I would call that previously invulnerable.
Also, the majority of the Brosnan films wasn't that far off either, with only subtle touches here and there, which got swamped and lost under all the OTT action.
Yup. Remember when Bond loses a woman that he had strong feelings for in Tomorrow Never Dies? Three minutes after her death Bond is in his BMW grinning and Paris is never mentioned again except for one moment but it was merely a throwaway line to make the villain more "eeeevil".
There should be consequences for Bond. At least they sort of tried in the PTS on DAF.
The Sweeney wrote:If you look at the Bond of the Moore films, I would call that previously invulnerable.
I would agree on most cases but on occasion vulnerability would be shown. When XXX brings up Tracy, Bond starts looking uneasy and stops her from going ahead. I always found moments like that from Roger Moore refreshing from his Saturday morning cartoon persona.
The Sweeney wrote:If you look at the Bond of the Moore films, I would call that previously invulnerable.
Also, the majority of the Brosnan films wasn't that far off either, with only subtle touches here and there, which got swamped and lost under all the OTT action.
But even the most cartoonish Bond films had to make the audience think that there was a possibility that Bond could be killed or seriously injured, even if at the back of our minds we all know that he won't. Without that illusion of danger, there's no story. That's why the creators of Superman, the nearest thing to a truly invulnerable hero, had to also create Kryptonite. Otherwise, the story would be: criminal commits crime, Superman flies in, beats up criminal and drops him in jail. Where's the suspense in that?
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
One of the best aspects of CR is that they didn't shy away from showing Bond getting hurt.I mean,he was in intensive care after his b@ll busting(actually it was a combo of the b@ll busting and crashing his car.)Plus,he got a bit beat up during the scenes at the embassy,and at the airport.
katied wrote:One of the best aspects of CR is that they didn't shy away from showing Bond getting hurt.I mean,he was in intensive care after his b@ll busting(actually it was a combo of the b@ll busting and crashing his car.)Plus,he got a bit beat up during the scenes at the embassy,and at the airport.
Thats something Craig has over some of the other ones. Timothy Dalton was one of the ones who looked like he was hurt. As much as i liked all of the old Bonds I always wondered why he never really got hurt with all the fights he got into.
