›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…3839414344…190

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    To be honest I could even lose her from FRWL. The scene is fairly pointless (just establishing Bonds scar for later really) and the whole thing feels a bit forced. To have her pop up in GF would really have been a step too far.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 054</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>CR's success had more to do with Craig('s acting) than with Fleming's words.</b></font>
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,723
    CR's success had to do with the backlash. People who would never have seen the film went anyway to see what the whole backlash was about, or to see if Craig would mock it up... and it had to do that DAD was a big box office success, so the new Bond factor would as usual improve the b.o. numbers. Had DAD not have been a box office hit, CR would not have been as successful.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    The adaptation of the story for today's world also had a lot of do with it. It was greatly expanded on. That coupled with Craig, someone the public loved when, everyone hated him to begin with, lead to it's success.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Samuel001 wrote:
    The adaptation of the story for today's world also had a lot of do with it. It was greatly expanded on.

    They destroyed the original novel more than anything else...
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I personally don't believe that Craig's sucess has anything to do with Fleming. Most of the film-going public probably haven't touched a Fleming book. I suspect it was more to do with Craig's acting, the beautiful photography, the slick action and Campbell's direction.

    That and the desire to see if Craig would screw up.

    Agree.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    The adaptation of the story for today's world also had a lot of do with it. It was greatly expanded on.

    They destroyed the original novel more than anything else...

    Yeah, that did but audiences loved all the parts not from the novel. eg. the freerunning.

    Why couldn't they just film the book? It can't have been that difficult.
  • RossiRossi
    edited March 2012 Posts: 157
    Samuel001 wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    The adaptation of the story for today's world also had a lot of do with it. It was greatly expanded on.

    They destroyed the original novel more than anything else...

    Yeah, that did but audiences loved all the parts not from the novel. eg. the freerunning.

    Why couldn't they just film the book? It can't have been that difficult.


    Wishful thinking of mine: just imagine Michael Fassbender in an eight episode HBO series set in the 50s. Completely faithful to the novel. An Alfred Hitchcock-like thriller. Not an action oriented movie. It would be awesome.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Rossi wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    The adaptation of the story for today's world also had a lot of do with it. It was greatly expanded on.

    They destroyed the original novel more than anything else...

    Yeah, that did but audiences loved all the parts not from the novel. eg. the freerunning.

    Why couldn't they just film the book? It can't have been that difficult.


    Wishful thinking of mine: just imagine Michael Fassbender in an eight episode HBO series set in the 50s. Completely faithful to the novel. An Alfred Hitchcock-like thriller. Not an action oriented movie. It would be awesome.

    Well we have the 1954 version. I think that's great and the best we'll ever get.

    *runs...*
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Rossi wrote:

    Wishful thinking of mine: just imagine Michael Fassbender in an eight episode HBO series set in the 50s. Completely faithful to the novel. An Alfred Hitchcock-like thriller. Not an action oriented movie. It would be awesome.

    Brilliant. You have me drooling. And then the rest of the series - in the right order. EON could make it happen. They would make money out of it and it wouldnt have to interfere with the film series. HBO would probably put up all the money and EON could get half the profits for doing nothing. Bond is a licence to print money and HBO would agree to such terms as it woud be a real moneyspinner if they did it right. Could film 3 a year and that way Fassbender could do all of Flemings novels back to back. Punishing schedule but would be awesome and stuff like CR,OHMSS, YOLT and TMWTGG done properly coupled with the responsibility of playing Bond would give an actor of his quality a reasonable challenge.

    Look at Sherlock Holmes. Currently a film and TV series with very different takes on the character but both in good health and enjoying success.

    Why couldnt we have a retro, faithful to Fleming Bond and a modern action packed spectacular Bond at the same time?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    What about a period adaptation by Quentin Tarantino?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited March 2012 Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    What about a period adaptation by Quentin Tarantino?

    This would've been brilliant. But I think I'd rather have had a modern day adaption with Tarantino.


    054- DISAGREE I don't think it was craigs acting OR flemmings book.

    CR was controversial from the start, people were already saying craig couldn't do it, and that he looked nothing like bond.

    I think it was a huge success because of all the backlash against craig and the reboot idea, people wanted to see how it turned out.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    @thelivingroyale certainly has a point that there was a curiosity factor, but had the word of mouth been poor the ultimate success of the film would have been hampered. Word of mouth however was positive, Craig in his speedos became iconic, the film was well received and well publicised
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Too true @NicNac. Just compare the legs of Casino Royale to Quantum Of Solace...

    It being that well liked only helped the end result.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    edited March 2012 Posts: 7,653
    I think that the extreme NAY-sayers when it comes to Daniel Craig did EON & CR a great service, and a free one too. When the press picked it up a lot of curiosity was caused and that combined with the Brand name James Bond 007 was in my view responsible to the succes of the movie.

    Daniel was not allowed to really act, they just sunk a house.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,723
    Yes. The extreme backlash on Craig made people very curious, even people who weren't Bond fans or wouldn't have seen the movie in the first place... people wanted to see if Craig would mock it up. So yes the Craig nay-sayers did a big favour to EON. They single-handidly brought non-Bond fans to the franchise.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Samuel001 wrote:
    The adaptation of the story for today's world also had a lot of do with it. It was greatly expanded on. That coupled with Craig, someone the public loved when, everyone hated him to begin with, lead to it's success.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I personally don't believe that Craig's sucess has anything to do with Fleming. Most of the film-going public probably haven't touched a Fleming book. I suspect it was more to do with Craig's acting, the beautiful photography, the slick action and Campbell's direction.

    That and the desire to see if Craig would screw up.

    Agree.

    Both of you guys hit the nail on the head perfectly. Though I will say having it be the first film in years to be based and named after a Fleming novel definitely helped with advertising.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2012 Posts: 13,356
    As well it being based on "the first novel".
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    1/2 Craig's fabulous acting, 1/2 Fleming's words.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited March 2012 Posts: 5,745
    It was successful in America simply because it was the only big name Blockbuster action movie out in months, if I'm honest. I'd say in the states, it was 50% the name 'James Bond' on the ticket, 50% starvation for action.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,387
    Disagree. I chalk it up equally, in thirds, to Fleming's story, Craig's acting, and Campbell's direction.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Thesis is not entirely accurate. Yes people were eager to see how a new James Bond would fare, quite successful after the event actually, but we can't put it all down to one individual

    The series ended on a poor note with Brosnans last release, big things were expected and Craig was a fairly well established actor by 2005 and some had high hopes for Casino Royale and were interested to see what the man could add to the long running series. But we can't pin the success of that release solely with Daniel Craig

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Since the difference between the release of the novel and the release of the film was 53 years, I didn't expect the film to be entirely true to the novel, but was glad it stuck to the basic premise. This was the last chance to recognize a Fleming Bond novel on film. Unlike TSWLM, the core of the story was in place. With talk of PB doing CR as his next film, EON was smart to wait until the next Bond arrived on the scene. While some were livid that Craig was picked, Craig had already established himself in films such as The Road to Perdition and Munich. I took the wait and see approach with Craig. I think the break from continuity worked and the action scenes, dialogue, acting and plot was a home run. I saw CR 5 times the first two weekends it was released.

    I'm going to give Craig the nod. My jaw dropped the first time I saw the African rundown. The Miami airport chase of Carlos was almost as brilliant. Craig convinced me he was the right man to be Bond before Fleming's CR was introduced into the film. CR is not in my Top 3 novels, but CR is in my Top 3 films.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I haven't read the original novel, I'll be honest, but am aware that a torture scene took place in the book. For anyone who's read it can they maybe elaborate on what actually took place, keeping it short. Was it merely some violation of Bond's genitals as in the 2006 release, but more tastefully done. I really don't know. The film release scene was a bit immature and childish I really felt and could of been left out, novel or not
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 055</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Darwinian theory: the Bond series has to evolve or it dies.</b></font>
  • MrEonMrEon
    Posts: 278
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 055</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Darwinian theory: the Bond series has to evolve or it dies.</b></font>

    ....well obviously!!? ;)

    Evolve Evolve Evolve......get my drift!! :-B
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Perhaps, but evolve too much and you'll lose part of the fanbase.
  • 0iker00iker0
    Posts: 501
    Totally agree, if you don't go with the times you get forgotten and get no more Bond Films, as has happened with other film series and tv series...
  • WVPoefWVPoef
    edited March 2012 Posts: 147
    Jip, that's why we can still enjoy Bond movies being made today.
    Need to keep up with the current times.

    DaltonCraig007

    You will say anything to be controversial.
    Your like my 16 year old nephew arguing that sky is pink...

    Mod edit: please avoid double posts by using the edit button.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    WVPoef wrote:
    DaltonCraig007

    You will say anything to be controversial.
    Your like my 16 year old nephew arguing that sky is pink...

    What did I say ? I just said that if you change too much the Bond formula you risk of alienating part of the fanbase, and even moviegoers.

Sign In or Register to comment.