› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…701702703704705707»

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 12 Posts: 16,762
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I have to agree with @007ClassicBondFan the pressure for GoldenEye to succeed, was more than Casino Royale to do likewise. When Brosnan left Bond, he left successfully. Die Another Day with all its unfavorable reviews, still found a huge audience. It's not as if the series was in a terrible state after DAD. People even wanted more of Brosnan's Bond.

    So yes, no GoldenEye today, no more James Bond. People only complained when Craig was unveiled as James Bond, but never feared for Bond's relevance during the making of Casino Royale, like they did GoldenEye.

    I completely agree. I think if Craig didn’t hit it with the public then the aftermath would’ve been similar to that of Dalton whereas if Brosnan didn’t hit it off with the public then Bond would’ve died there and then.

    I don't know; I think if Bond #5 had been received with Dalton-style levels of lukewarmth, there was still enough buzz around a new, relaunched 007 series to keep it going a bit longer, plus GoldenEye itself was a very strong Bond film and I think folks would have been up for more regardless. I'm not saying Brosnan didn't contribute to its success, but even without him I think it would have done well.
    Basically probably the worst thing they could have done would have been to actually put Dalton in it, because literally everybody but him had the curiosity factor of a new Bond, and generally audiences knew they weren't all that in love with Dalton as Bond. It had to not be him, and as long they got someone vaguely competent (and why wouldn't they) the Bond series would have kept going.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,197
    I'm not so sure that there was 'always' going to be a course-correct after DAD, tbh. The crunch seems to have been when BB, MGW and Lee Tamahori went to see The Bourne Identity a couple of months before DAD's release and, famously, said that they came out thinking that 'we were dead in the water.' Without that providing the impetus, would the course have been 'corrected' to anything like the extent that it was?
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited January 12 Posts: 2,311
    mtm wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I have to agree with @007ClassicBondFan the pressure for GoldenEye to succeed, was more than Casino Royale to do likewise. When Brosnan left Bond, he left successfully. Die Another Day with all its unfavorable reviews, still found a huge audience. It's not as if the series was in a terrible state after DAD. People even wanted more of Brosnan's Bond.

    So yes, no GoldenEye today, no more James Bond. People only complained when Craig was unveiled as James Bond, but never feared for Bond's relevance during the making of Casino Royale, like they did GoldenEye.

    I completely agree. I think if Craig didn’t hit it with the public then the aftermath would’ve been similar to that of Dalton whereas if Brosnan didn’t hit it off with the public then Bond would’ve died there and then.

    I don't know; I think if Bond #5 had been received with Dalton-style levels of lukewarmth, there was still enough buzz around a new, relaunched 007 series to keep it going a bit longer, plus GoldenEye itself was a very strong Bond film and I think folks would have been up for more regardless. I'm not saying Brosnan didn't contribute to its success, but even without him I think it would have done well.
    Basically probably the worst thing they could have done would have been to actually put Dalton in it, because literally everybody but him had the curiosity factor of a new Bond, and generally audiences knew they weren't all that in love with Dalton as Bond. It had to not be him, and as long they got someone vaguely competent (and why wouldn't they) the Bond series would have kept going.

    Perhaps, it’s sort of hard to tell either way. I remember MGW mentioned a Wall Street Journal article that called Goldeneye a $60 Million Dollar gamble that wasn’t worth taking and that always stuck with me ever since. It just seemed that there wasn’t much goodwill towards the franchise (probably off the back of the John Glen years.) In either event it was for the best that we got both Brosnan and Craig and their respective debuts.

    Was Dalton really that poorly received? I was always under the impression that critics liked him a bit more than they did Roger Moore back then even if the films weren’t huge hits.
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'm not so sure that there was 'always' going to be a course-correct after DAD, tbh. The crunch seems to have been when BB, MGW and Lee Tamahori went to see The Bourne Identity a couple of months before DAD's release and, famously, said that they came out thinking that 'we were dead in the water.' Without that providing the impetus, would the course have been 'corrected' to anything like the extent that it was?

    Personally I would say yes going off the drastic change in tone from Moonraker to FYEO. Even Dalton was a drastic course correction from Moore’s Bond. Bourne provided a challenge yes, but one that EON overcame in the past.

    If anything I think Batman Begins may have been a bit more influential on Bond than Bourne was, with the whole reboot concept and all.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,069
    Bond influences Bourne and then Bourne influences Bond? Or Batman. Or Hitchcock. My hope is Bond can move forward without the series borrowing from or being influenced by other films. Similarities are one thing, but I prefer seeing a Bond that looks and feels fresh instead of "yeah, that's right out of........"
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,414
    There'll always be that take and give with regards to whatever else is being released during the time of a Bond film. You can't really help it. It's how we make anything (or to use an arguably pompous term in this scenario 'art', and a slightly less pompous one 'entertainment').

    You can't make something out of nothing essentially.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,332
    In this day and age, the challenge lies in ensuring that Bond stays true to his roots while maintaining relevance. The 'problem' is that Bond likely has to keep playing a similar game to avoid straying too far from familiar territory. With others tackling aspects of that same formula, achieving complete originality becomes a daunting task. That said, I’ve always felt that Skyfall and Spectre stood out as remarkably original in their storytelling, cinematography, action, and more. I’ve yet to encounter many films quite like them.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,527
    We've officially gone 1200 days since Bond.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited January 13 Posts: 1,513
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I have to agree with @007ClassicBondFan the pressure for GoldenEye to succeed, was more than Casino Royale to do likewise. When Brosnan left Bond, he left successfully. Die Another Day with all its unfavorable reviews, still found a huge audience. It's not as if the series was in a terrible state after DAD. People even wanted more of Brosnan's Bond.

    So yes, no GoldenEye today, no more James Bond. People only complained when Craig was unveiled as James Bond, but never feared for Bond's relevance during the making of Casino Royale, like they did GoldenEye.

    Well, I don't think there was that much risk after True Lies. You would have to be blind to think that it wasn't possible to make more Bond movies. In any case they were too cautious.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 2,012
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I have to agree with @007ClassicBondFan the pressure for GoldenEye to succeed, was more than Casino Royale to do likewise. When Brosnan left Bond, he left successfully. Die Another Day with all its unfavorable reviews, still found a huge audience. It's not as if the series was in a terrible state after DAD. People even wanted more of Brosnan's Bond.

    So yes, no GoldenEye today, no more James Bond. People only complained when Craig was unveiled as James Bond, but never feared for Bond's relevance during the making of Casino Royale, like they did GoldenEye.

    Goldeneye is always the Bond movie I point to to anyone who has never seen a Bond movie before and wants to start watching. Its the perfect start up Bond film IMO
  • BMB007BMB007
    Posts: 578
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Bond influences Bourne and then Bourne influences Bond? Or Batman. Or Hitchcock. My hope is Bond can move forward without the series borrowing from or being influenced by other films. Similarities are one thing, but I prefer seeing a Bond that looks and feels fresh instead of "yeah, that's right out of........"

    The books exist in conversation with other pulp thriller literature and travelogue style writings. Nothing is itself.
Sign In or Register to comment.