Its difficult at this time to give a valid opinion..........but the feelingbjmdds wrote:Sweeney and EA. Read Haggis' thoughts on Bond and tell me if your vision of Bond jives with what he wants to do.bjmdds wrote:This is Haggis' view of what Bond should be. Do you agree? I do not. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=36631 This mindset is the great divide amongst our fandom.
I would say if that happen it might have to do with the film being sub-par. Same situation happened with Brosnan's second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, making less than GoldenEye at the box-office but enough to keep the series alive and Brosnan made two more films. I can't see why Craig can't keep playing Bond if he has the same unfortunate situation Brosnan's second film had.bjmdds wrote:If Bond 22 drops off substantially from CR, will you attribute that to the storyline, Craig, or the lack of controversy suurounding the,as yet untitled,new film?
Unfortunately he did not leave, he was axed,by Eon, and we will never know how successful his 5th film could have been;however,maybe we will see some Bond elements in The Topkapi Affair. I would like to see production start on it already for it is taking far too long.Skywalker wrote:Cut non-essential posts to the replied question, otherwise it takes up an entire page.
I think it is a much fairer system to analyse admissions or inflation adjusted value BO takings to obtain a more accurate summation of performance.
That said PB's DAD was better received at the Box office than TWINE. The only Bond actor to leave with his last Bond film being more popular than his previous.
Do you want Bond utilizing knives to kill with and removing blood from women's fingernails, or would you prefer a Walther PPK followed by a sexual romp?Arthur Brain wrote:Its difficult at this time to give a valid opinion..........but the feelingbjmdds wrote:Sweeney and EA. Read Haggis' thoughts on Bond and tell me if your vision of Bond jives with what he wants to do.bjmdds wrote:This is Haggis' view of what Bond should be. Do you agree? I do not. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=36631 This mindset is the great divide amongst our fandom.
i get is that we can expect a Bond film similar in tone to CR.............
ie a more down to earth thriller storyline with more personal development of the main characters.
Even though Bond 22 is expected to follow CR, i hope it is a film that stands on its own and is not something like CR part 2.
EA
I think it will be very Bondian.bjmdds wrote:however,maybe we will see some Bond elements in The Topkapi Affair. I would like to see production start on it already for it is taking far too long.
I certainly hope that it is!Matt Helm already is, I believe. Flint was intended as a parody, so a more serious version would be pointless. It would be like making a darker, grittier Austin Powers movie.bjmdds wrote:Do any of you have ANY interest in the 1960s other 2 spy genres,Derek Flint or Matt Helm? Would you care to see them remade in this era with a serious tone to them, ala Bourne?
Brosnan will be making a statement with it ,once it gets made.Eye Of The Tiger wrote:I think it will be very Bondian.bjmdds wrote:however,maybe we will see some Bond elements in The Topkapi Affair. I would like to see production start on it already for it is taking far too long.
Even the first one often felt similar to a Bond film, and I think this time around it will feel more like a Bond film than Casino Royale did? After The Sunset felt more like a Bond film to me than Casino Royale did!
I'm anxiously awaiting for The Topkapi Affair to hit theaters and later DVD!
How do you know that Brosnan will be making a statement with it?bjmdds wrote:Brosnan will be making a statement with it ,once it gets made.Eye Of The Tiger wrote:I think it will be very Bondian.bjmdds wrote:however,maybe we will see some Bond elements in The Topkapi Affair. I would like to see production start on it already for it is taking far too long.
Even the first one often felt similar to a Bond film, and I think this time around it will feel more like a Bond film than Casino Royale did? After The Sunset felt more like a Bond film to me than Casino Royale did!
I'm anxiously awaiting for The Topkapi Affair to hit theaters and later DVD!
By the way, in the USA, in 2776 theatres, Craig's Invasion with Kidman,has grossed a whopping $12 million total in 2 weekends,with a production budget of $80 million to boot! Where is this so-called star power, or does he need Eon's massive money behind him?The producers are getting slaughtered by this film with Craig.I can hardly wait to see how the UK responds in October to it. Watch what happens December 7th with Craig/Kidman's next collaborative effort,with Eva Green thrown in for good measure,The Golden Compass. That has a massive budget of $150 million, twice The Invasion! Do you expect big numbers here Sweeney, or will these producers get slaughtered as well having Craig attempt to portray an Indiana Jones type character? I think Craig is not that big an established star yet to draw in such massive BO figures. Neither film really interests me either, so I probably won't be bothered seeing these films at the cinema.bjmdds wrote:It is now marked for the Sweeney as well, very late in the evening in the UK.
I also recall Connery doing `The Offence' straight off the back of DAF, which was a massive flop too.....Arthur Brain wrote:................'The Invasion' has been a major flop in the US.
For a start, the film had a troubled shoot, with some of it being reshot,
and what ended up was a film with different styles.
The film was generally a vehicle for Nicole Kidman!
But i think the reason it failed was that no one was interested in another
version of the Body Snatchers, particularly a botched up version.
In reply to the question about Bond actors BO power for non Bond films,
remember that Connery's in between Bond films did generally little
business (i.e Women of Straw, A Fine Madness). Even his hitchcock film
'Marnie' didn't do paricularly well.
Roger Moore was the only Bond to have some success with other films,
in between his Bonds such as 'Gold, Shout at the Devil and Wild Geese'.
But there were some failures as well, including 'North Sea Hijack (which
i thought was quite a good film), unfortunately the film was called 'Ffolkes'
for the US release........ A dreadful title if ever (i'am sure some Americans
know where the North Sea is!!).
Anyway it will be interesting to see how Craig does in his non Bond films
when he plays the leading role.
Bond is still a big thing, and we should be grateful. I think a Jackman/Bale/Brosnan 2006 Bond would have added $100 million in the US and been successful abroad.But Bond is Bond. Bond sells - not Craig! DAD was an awful film, yet raked in a huge amount. Craig was practically unknown in his first Bond outing, yet managed to beat DAD.
You thinking is not an actual event or dollar value that can be used though Gazza.Gary Seven wrote:Bond is still a big thing, and we should be grateful. I think a Jackman/Bale/Brosnan 2006 Bond would have added $100 million in the US and been successful abroad.But Bond is Bond. Bond sells - not Craig! DAD was an awful film, yet raked in a huge amount. Craig was practically unknown in his first Bond outing, yet managed to beat DAD.
The other Bond actors were not so-called as accomplished an actor as Daniel Craig has been purported to be, that is the difference. Look at all the praise his followers have given him, as if he is the reason CR surpassed DAD in BO numbers. It proves it was not Craig in CR, but a serious Bond film, that people were curious to see. Gary 7 is probably correct. With a better suited choice as Bond, say Butler, or the others he mentioned, the $592 million of CR might have topped $650-700 million worldwide. Craig was nothing, the graphic tone was the draw, and as we see by his other films that were released (Infamous($2.4 million),Invasion($12 million))recently, he has NO personal draw.Arthur Brain wrote:................'The Invasion' has been a major flop in the US.
For a start, the film had a troubled shoot, with some of it being reshot,
and what ended up was a film with different styles.
The film was generally a vehicle for Nicole Kidman!
But i think the reason it failed was that no one was interested in another
version of the Body Snatchers, particularly a botched up version.
In reply to the question about Bond actors BO power for non Bond films,
remember that Connery's in between Bond films did generally little
business (i.e Women of Straw, A Fine Madness). Even his hitchcock film
'Marnie' didn't do paricularly well.
Roger Moore was the only Bond to have some success with other films,
in between his Bonds such as 'Gold, Shout at the Devil and Wild Geese'.
But there were some failures as well, including 'North Sea Hijack (which
i thought was quite a good film), unfortunately the film was called 'Ffolkes'
for the US release........ A dreadful title if ever (i'am sure some Americans
know where the North Sea is!!).
Anyway it will be interesting to see how Craig does in his non Bond films
when he plays the leading role.
Yet? He will be 40 next year, and has been studying acting since he was 16. When will he become this 'established star'? Never? In fact, the very role he hesitated to take could be the only role he is ever known to be identified with in his career, pretty ironic for such a reluctant decision he had to make.The Sweeney wrote:I think Craig is not that big an established star yet to draw in such massive BO figures. Neither film really interests me either, so I probably won't be bothered seeing these films at the cinema.bjmdds wrote:It is now marked for the Sweeney as well, very late in the evening in the UK.
But Bond is Bond. Bond sells - not Craig! DAD was an awful film, yet raked in a huge amount. Craig was practically unknown in his first Bond outing, yet managed to beat DAD.
Regardless of what happens to Craig's other films, Bond 22 will be massive. Anyone thinking otherwise is just deluding themselves...
