thoughts on the critcs

Luke

One of things, I think, that makes Casino Royale so different started with a basic change in emphasis. It wasn't simply the reboot, or a "back to basics" focus. I think the thing that really makes this film so odd is a shift in target audience.

For years, the bond films have succeeded by appealing to the fans. This, I believe, is the first bond film in many, many years to target an audience apart from the followers. In other words, this seems to be a movie that nearly EVERYONE likes except for a portion of bond fans.

I'm serious. Look at the reviews...talk to some guys on campus who went to see the movie. It was made for the people instead of the fans. What we have here is CRITICALLY well-done film. The critics loved it (see rottentomatoes.com), and most people who went to see the film thought it was good. The people who are unhappy are the fans.

Not to say all fans are unhappy--most seem to have fallen for the new film. But still. I think this is really the first time since Connery that we've had a film that purposefully ignored the wishes of fans. The fans loved Brosnan, and they dropped him for someone who, INITIALLY, the fan-boys hated.

Personally, I think I like the change. I was beginning to tire of seeing Bond B-Films in theaters.

caractacus potts

I dont know what subpopulation you are defining as "the fans" but I somehow have been excluded

jamesbondagent007

I agree with most of what you said, except for the generalization about 'the fans'. Judging by what I've read here and on other forums, as well as that poll on our front page, the vast majority of fans love it. There is only a small portion that does not.

Gassy Man

Interestingly, I had the opposite interpretation -- I think it was made for the fans of the 1960s films, when they were aimed at an older audience than more recent ones, relied as strongly on character development and interaction as action sequences, and had not quite yet gotten into self-parody and predictable jokiness. The fact that Craig was cast as Bond signaled to me an attempt to get back to basics, as it were, though with the compromises that come with the (sadly) inevitable changes in audience tastes. I applaud the effort -- this is the Bond film I've been waiting 20 years for.

Sir Hillary Bray

I'm confused -- who are "the fans"? Who are "the people"? Which am I, because I loved it? These generalizations are useless.

darenhat

DAD was an entirely different sort of movie and made a boatload of money...that wasn't just the fans in those theater seats. That was the general populace. If anything, IMO, Casino Royale was made to boil Bond back to what the original fan-base wanted, not the FX-laden, gadget-rife, techno-porn monstrosity it had become.

Hardyboy

I think the hardcore fans of the novels and the Bond flicks of the 1960s were extremely hard on DAD and that the film was more popular with the general public. It looks to me that the majority of Bond "purists" love CR, yet it has tremendous crossover appeal to general audiences. It could be that, for the first time in ages, EON has made a Bond film that appeals to everybody.

Lyle Dark-008

Luke wrote:

One of things, I think, that makes Casino Royale so different started with a basic change in emphasis. It wasn't simply the reboot, or a "back to basics" focus. I think the thing that really makes this film so odd is a shift in target audience.

For years, the bond films have succeeded by appealing to the fans. This, I believe, is the first bond film in many, many years to target an audience apart from the followers. In other words, this seems to be a movie that nearly EVERYONE likes except for a portion of bond fans.

I'm serious. Look at the reviews...talk to some guys on campus who went to see the movie. It was made for the people instead of the fans. What we have here is CRITICALLY well-done film. The critics loved it (see rottentomatoes.com), and most people who went to see the film thought it was good. The people who are unhappy are the fans.

Not to say all fans are unhappy--most seem to have fallen for the new film. But still. I think this is really the first time since Connery that we've had a film that purposefully ignored the wishes of fans. The fans loved Brosnan, and they dropped him for someone who, INITIALLY, the fan-boys hated.

Personally, I think I like the change. I was beginning to tire of seeing Bond B-Films in theaters.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, Luke. However, I didn't see this as a 007 film. But it was a great action film however.

Luke

Well Lyle,

It is a bond movie by any objective standard you might follow. It was made by the bond producers, so its not as if this is a subjective issue. If you don't like the film that is by all means fine.

Anyway, as I said in my title post, most of the fans seem to have applauded the new film. My point was that the only people who don't like it seem to be fans. Not all fans, or most fans, but of those who are going crazy about this new gig, its people in the community.

Lyle Dark-008

Yeah, true. But........... Who knows Luke, I think...... probably in a few decades, they will start all over again.

highhopes

Luke wrote:

Well Lyle,

It is a bond movie by any objective standard you might follow. It was made by the bond producers, so its not as if this is a subjective issue. If you don't like the film that is by all means fine.

Anyway, as I said in my title post, most of the fans seem to have applauded the new film. My point was that the only people who don't like it seem to be fans. Not all fans, or most fans, but of those who are going crazy about this new gig, its people in the community.

I agree, Luke. I think this is one where Eon just said,"Screw it, we're going to do it this way, damn the torpedos." Sure, there were people like me and others who were hoping to see this kind of Bond, but I don't think Wilson and Babs made CR with us -- or the traditionalists -- in mind. And I think you're right that the people who seem most opposed are part of Bond geekdom. More casual Bond fans may have been a little surprised by Craig's casting because he doesn't look like past 007s, but they don't necessarily have as fixed an idea of what Bond should be as the rest of us. Speaking for myself, I hope Eon continues to follow its muse.

Loeffelholz

highhopes wrote:

I think this is one where Eon just said,"Screw it, we're going to do it this way, damn the torpedos." Sure, there were people like me and others who were hoping to see this kind of Bond, but I don't think Wilson and Babs made CR with us -- or the traditionalists -- in mind. And I think you're right that the people who seem most opposed are part of Bond geekdom. More casual Bond fans may have been a little surprised by Craig's casting because he doesn't look like past 007s, but they don't necessarily have as fixed an idea of what Bond should be as the rest of us. Speaking for myself, I hope Eon continues to follow its muse.

I hope so, as well.

For most casual moviegoers (and an apparent majority of Bond Savants), Craig and CR seem to be the right Bond/Bond film at the right time. It's a rare thing when the planets line up as they have for this one; even as the days and weeks go by, and the box office begins its inexorable decline, I believe CR will be considered an unqualified success---even if it doesn't top DAD's final numbers.

Currently, the poll at AJB lists the film at an 84% '007' rating; I'm fairly sure that you can find at least 16% of Bond fans who will dislike (or at least be ambivalent about) any Bond film you can come up with---Classic Era or not.

Moore Not Less

Loeffelholz wrote:

Currently, the poll at AJB lists the film at an 84% '007' rating; I'm fairly sure that you can find at least 16% of Bond fans who will dislike (or at least be ambivalent about) any Bond film you can come up with---Classic Era or not.

If someone had told me a year ago that Daniel Craig would get universal praise from the media, a high approval amongst the members here at AJB plus an 84% approval rating for Casino Royale, I would never have believed them. At the time, I would have anticipated that the ratings would be more like the other way round.

It's a remarkable achievement by Babs/Mickey/Campbell/Craig and all involved in the making of Casino Royale.