Seems EON has discovered--for the first time since the early 60s--they can make a quality Bond film AND make money with it. Other film companys do the same thing all the time, now that the new EON has figured it out (rediscovered it...) not sure why I'd be thinking they'd spin back to the other way of doing things, I mean Cubby isn't in charge anymore and he was the one driving the same-old same-old boat.
Being as objective about Bond as a Bond fan can be (IMHO), predicting more of the current same, which is in so many ways so very different from the last 30 years of Bond, seems a safe bet. EON has evolved IMO, and while they could revert back to flinging their poo I'd be really sad if that were to happen. Nothing really points to that (except a history that is dead) IMO, but I guess we'll see. Just think there are reasons it's more than wishful thinking to expect more of CR. Different strokes. {[]
I'm afraid that the word "objective" in the context of your post makes it a misnomer, and further qualifying it as your (falsley) humble opinion further weakens its energy. |)
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2007
I find the notion of James Bond Films v. the stock market an interesting analogy. They both have their ups and downs, some quite unnerving the short run, but overall...the numbers do tend to go up...and up...and up. James Bond is a good bet.
Not mere hopefulness, or wishful thinking; more an extrapolation based upon previous history.
The flip side of this extrapolation, of course, is the notion---equally supported by historical data---that Eon can't make five consecutive films without producing a misstep that is looked down upon by (at least) a plurality of its loyal fans
Oh, well. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
A separate notion from purely financial success, to be sure...but still more proof (IMRO), that there remains ample room for variation in tone, over time---even within a given actor's tenure
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Ahhh, but the wildcard as someone else brought up earlier, is Sony, which is a shark compared to the flounder MGM has turned into in the past decades. The studio focus is no longer survival, but market domination. The stakes are higher and there arguably is a greater focus on entertainment with Sony in charge. The implications would be more telling had the studio been a larger (?) than Time Warner or Disney.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Kind of nice to have the shark on Bond's side, for a change...I doubt MGM is extending Craig against Sony's wishes.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is all starting to remind me of Craig can't be Bond because X and Y and Z discussions, before CR was even released. Lots of conjecture, enough past history to support any argument posited, and nobody credits anybody else's position.
I thought supes' question re wishful thinking a good one, and gave reasons why there seems to be more than just that indicating good things ahead. I'm content to see it play out over the next decade, the jump point is certainly a high one, and markedly different than the past 30 years of Bond status quo.
This is all starting to remind me of Craig can't be Bond because X and Y and Z discussions, before CR was even released. Lots of conjecture, enough past history to support any argument posited, and nobody credits anybody else's position.
Well, in my mind, the main topic of this thread is conjecture since there really hasn't been any corroboration of Craig's five-film deal.
The crux of my thoughts is that there is more historical (and factual) data that aligns with Craig not signing a five-picture deal:
1) Stories cite the same source (The Hollywood Reporter) that did not directly quote MGM's Sloan regarding Craig's contract. The words came from a (possibly mistaken) reporter.
2)The choice to play Bond is Eon's, not Sloan's, so he's a questionable source to begin with.
3)Even after GE and Brosnan's supposed 'revival' of the Bond films, Eon didn't give Pierce that kind of deal. If they had, it would seem Brosnan would have jumped all over it (given his reaction of being dumped after DAD)
4) Craig is extremely critical of his choice of films. The story goes that he wouldn't do CR until he was happy with the script. Therefore, it seems uncharacteristic of Craig to sign on to a five-picture deal 'script unseen'
5) Still no confirmation of the story by people in the know. The fact that this news was released at a Forbes Conference, and no one else picked up on it, is a strike against its validity.
6) Eon is a company that has thrived on making Bond appeal to the masses for the moment. There is no garauntee that Craig is going to 'fit the bill' that far into the future. Would Babs and Micheal push the envelope like Cubby did with Roger Moore?
These are all just thoughts and conjecture at this point. I'm sure that anyone here can give a list of reasons why it is possible that Craig signed a five-picture deal. But regardless of what stance one takes, it's going to be conjecture.
BTW: Sloane also stated there would be no WGA strike.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Kind of nice to have the shark on Bond's side, for a change...I doubt MGM is extending Craig against Sony's wishes.
Hmmm, seeing your use of italics, I wonder if anyone at present was actually thinking along those lines, that arm twisting was being done to Sony by MGM or anyone else. Sony has always been in a dominant position from Day One of the new business structure, and some might even argue that Sony indeed attempted some of their own arm twisting on EON back in the fall of 2005.
To rephrase my earlier point just so it's clear, money talks, and earlier I'm not sure if Sony considered a Craig Bond being able to speak at a respectable volume. Evidently Sony thinks differently now, though I doubt they were won over by the art or quality.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...earlier I'm not sure if Sony considered a Craig Bond being able to speak at a respectable volume. Evidently Sony thinks differently now, though I doubt they were won over by the art or quality.
Well...I suppose that's a point to be endlessly debated by Bond Savants like us; Art and quality are subjective---to a surrealistic degree---in the internet era. Cash money, on the other hand, can actually be counted...or, as you intimated, heard.
The point is, apparently they were won over...and they appear to have 'doubled down' on Craig as Bond for the foreseeable future...unless, as some fervently hope, it turns out to all be 'just a dream,' as when Bobby Ewing stepped out of the shower B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
BTW: Sloane also stated there would be no WGA strike.
Not really; he merely took the standard, patented 'company ownership' line that he "sees hope in the talks," he hoped the situation could be resolved, that they weren't as 'anti-union' as portrayed, and that the latest proposal by the studios was "the beginning of a constructive discussion," etc.
All of which, unfortunately, tend to be precursors to a strike
Labour disputes suck
But your point about it all still being purely conjecture* is a good one.
* Until Eon confirms it, probably in the midst of #22's principal photography, to keep the publicity parade marching :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Isn't it interesting that those who believe the news tend to be CR fans and those who don't believe the news are not CR fans?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This is all starting to remind me of Craig can't be Bond because X and Y and Z discussions, before CR was even released. Lots of conjecture, enough past history to support any argument posited, and nobody credits anybody else's position.
Well, in my mind, the main topic of this thread is conjecture since there really hasn't been any corroboration of Craig's five-film deal.
I was thinking more about the conjecture of what 5 Craig Bonds would look like. That the story about the deal has been picked up by so many outlets, and no word of denial from EON or Craig makes me think it's truth. Maybe it isn't, but seems somebody would've stepped up and said so by now. Can't imagine why EON/Sony/MGM wouldn't be giddy over Craig signing for two more/5 total after CR's critical and box office success. Yeah it's different from how EON's done business in the past, but so's CR.
The only thing I take from the past is that one actor CAN ride out 5 Bond films just fine (more than that pushes the envelope IMO), also makes me wonder why Brosnan wasn't extended after GE, and let go after only 4 (not that I don't have conjecture about that, lol :v ).
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Isn't it interesting that those who believe the news tend to be CR fans and those who don't believe the news are not CR fans?
Indeed; it dovetails perfectly with the story of those convinced CR would fail, versus those who wanted to see what Eon had come up with for #21...just it case it didn't suck. For the benefit of the newer members, this period is remembered as The Craig WarsTM...
And the ratios/percentages of the two camps remain more or less unchanged since the month following CR's debut---much like the 'No Man's Land' of the WWI Western Front.
It's the same old sumo circle...exhaustively trodden by endless matches
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I read in a local paper that this alledged new contract could net Craig $67 million over 10 years (I'm not sure if it's Australian or US dollars.) Apparently, the contract will incorporate a sliding salary based on how much each consecutive film makes at the box office and in merchandising. This means that if Craig has indeed signed on for four more films, he could end up earning alot of money.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Id imagine its in Australian dollars, usually they translate it for Australian papers.
Finally - there'd have to be a bail out clause for the studios.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2007
This is interesting (particularly if this whole story is false, a hoax, a screwup by the Hollywood Reporter, etc., ad infinitum)...
According to MI6 (referencing the Chicago Sun-Times), apparently Eon shelled out $100 Grand for extensive market research on Daniel Craig---and his appeal to fans both domestic and international---before making this latest move, re: Craig's contract extension:
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is interesting (particularly if this whole story is false, a hoax, a screwup by the Hollywood Reporter, etc., ad infinitum)...
According to MI6 (referencing the Chicago Sun-Times), apparently Eon shelled out $100 Grand for extensive market research on Daniel Craig---and his appeal to fans both domestic and international---before making this latest move, re: Craig's contract extension:
In this month's GQ Craig is asked two questions about his rewards for the success of CR. At first he's coy; "I got a week in Butlins." But then he's asked about a new deal and this is his answer.
"I'm going to try to strike a new deal and it would be wrong of me not to. Because that's business. And business is business. And I'm not stupid. I'm not out to f*** anybody over and I'm sure nobody is out to f*** me." GQ magazine, page 329.
He also admits he enjoys playing Grand Theft Auto. I like this guy. {[]
I suspect a deal has been done, but whether the figures match up to what is being touted, I'm not sure.
In this month's GQ Craig is asked two questions about his rewards for the success of CR. At first he's coy; "I got a week in Butlins." But then he's asked about a new deal and this is his answer.
"I'm going to try to strike a new deal and it would be wrong of me not to. Because that's business. And business is business. And I'm not stupid. I'm not out to f*** anybody over and I'm sure nobody is out to f*** me." GQ magazine, page 329.
He also admits he enjoys playing Grand Theft Auto. I like this guy. {[]
I suspect a deal has been done, but whether the figures match up to what is being touted, I'm not sure.
Apparently, he also enjoys being James Bond...which I find tremendously comforting.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
This is interesting (particularly if this whole story is false, a hoax, a screwup by the Hollywood Reporter, etc., ad infinitum)...
According to MI6 (referencing the Chicago Sun-Times), apparently Eon shelled out $100 Grand for extensive market research on Daniel Craig---and his appeal to fans both domestic and international---before making this latest move, re: Craig's contract extension:
This is interesting (particularly if this whole story is false, a hoax, a screwup by the Hollywood Reporter, etc., ad infinitum)...
According to MI6 (referencing the Chicago Sun-Times), apparently Eon shelled out $100 Grand for extensive market research on Daniel Craig---and his appeal to fans both domestic and international---before making this latest move, re: Craig's contract extension:
I read in a local paper that this alledged new contract could net Craig $67 million over 10 years
Well, then...we know it couldn't be just money that would entice him. :007)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2007
Oh, the humanity
)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is interesting (particularly if this whole story is false, a hoax, a screwup by the Hollywood Reporter, etc., ad infinitum)...
According to MI6 (referencing the Chicago Sun-Times), apparently Eon shelled out $100 Grand for extensive market research on Daniel Craig---and his appeal to fans both domestic and international---before making this latest move, re: Craig's contract extension:
Good thing they didn't ask me or Tee Hee or Rogue or....... )
Or Dan Same, or JennyFlexFan, or Napoleon Plural...
EON, my phone line is open to you anytime you want to chat.
Oh, and make the check payable to "Dan."
Wait a second... Rogue and I agree on Craig's awfulness? We agree on something AT ALL??
So what is that? About 8 people in the Anti-Craig Camp? At least it's a fun, squirrel-friendly camp.
For the record, I don't like to consider myself anti-Craig, he just isn't my vision of Bond. He has the role now and he gave it everything he had in CR. Just about everyone on this board has a Bond they didn't care for, for me it is the current guy.
Just like Loeffs, Blue, HH and others were twisting in their chairs during Roger Moore's tenure, it is now my turn to sit and squirm.
Or Dan Same, or JennyFlexFan, or Napoleon Plural...
EON, my phone line is open to you anytime you want to chat.
Oh, and make the check payable to "Dan."
Wait a second... Rogue and I agree on Craig's awfulness? We agree on something AT ALL??
So what is that? About 8 people in the Anti-Craig Camp? At least it's a fun, squirrel-friendly camp.
For the record, I don't like to consider myself anti-Craig, he just isn't my vision of Bond. He has the role now and he gave it everything he had in CR. Just about everyone on this board has a Bond they didn't care for, for me it is the current guy.
Just like Loeffs, Blue, HH and others were twisting in their chairs during Roger Moore's tenure, it is now my turn to sit and squirm.
The odd thing for me is, outside of AJB, I haven't found anyone who thinks much of Craig. Friends, family, and co-workers just sort of shrug their shoulders. One guy hasn't even bothered to see CR since Craig held no real interest for him. Go figure.
The odd thing for me is, outside of AJB, I haven't found anyone who thinks much of Craig. Friends, family, and co-workers just sort of shrug their shoulders. One guy hasn't even bothered to see CR since Craig held no real interest for him. Go figure.
Same result here. None of my friends and coworkers could even muster the interest to go see CR; to this day, most of them still haven't seen it. They weren't fans of Bond to begin with and CR did nothing to shake them out of their indifference.
There's a James Bond thread over at a videogame site I frequent which gets updated from time to time. There's a lot of guys over there who liked Craig and CR but they really weren't fans of the series prior to CR. However, and this is what I find interesting, nobody there really wants to see another movie with the same tone as CR. They're pretty much in agreement that re-inserting bits of the formula and especially a little more humor would be a welcome thing. It's also interesting how even the people who liked CR comment on how it doesn't feel like a Bond movie relative to past entries. That's about as close as I've come to a casual fan's perspective. Make of it what you will.
Going forward Craig's tenure will only be as solid as the success of his last Bond film. And I don't think Bond 22 will have as easy a go it in Winter 2008 as there look to be more blockbuster movies for it to contend against this time around. Dalton was also received warmly after Living Daylights and there was all kinds of enthusiasm back then for the series long term health. That all changed pretty quickly after LTK.
As for Craig, he hasn't had much commercial success outside of Bond lately. Invasion was a flop and Golden Compass doesn't look to be generating any vibe in America at least. Not sure if that's due to that fact that the movies aren't any good or if it's the Bond typecasting curse already rearing its head.
As for me, hearing Craig was signed to a 5 picture deal was a little like swawllowing my own vomit. He just didn't do it for me in CR and I find I have zero interest in Bond 22 right now. Maybe something will come up that will spur my interest again but Haggis' comments that the movie will have much in common with CR have wiped out what little curiosity I may have had and I can't even muster enough motivation to read any articles on it, either here or at other sites.
Comments
I'm afraid that the word "objective" in the context of your post makes it a misnomer, and further qualifying it as your (falsley) humble opinion further weakens its energy.
Not mere hopefulness, or wishful thinking; more an extrapolation based upon previous history.
The flip side of this extrapolation, of course, is the notion---equally supported by historical data---that Eon can't make five consecutive films without producing a misstep that is looked down upon by (at least) a plurality of its loyal fans
Oh, well. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
A separate notion from purely financial success, to be sure...but still more proof (IMRO), that there remains ample room for variation in tone, over time---even within a given actor's tenure
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I thought supes' question re wishful thinking a good one, and gave reasons why there seems to be more than just that indicating good things ahead. I'm content to see it play out over the next decade, the jump point is certainly a high one, and markedly different than the past 30 years of Bond status quo.
Well, in my mind, the main topic of this thread is conjecture since there really hasn't been any corroboration of Craig's five-film deal.
The crux of my thoughts is that there is more historical (and factual) data that aligns with Craig not signing a five-picture deal:
1) Stories cite the same source (The Hollywood Reporter) that did not directly quote MGM's Sloan regarding Craig's contract. The words came from a (possibly mistaken) reporter.
2)The choice to play Bond is Eon's, not Sloan's, so he's a questionable source to begin with.
3)Even after GE and Brosnan's supposed 'revival' of the Bond films, Eon didn't give Pierce that kind of deal. If they had, it would seem Brosnan would have jumped all over it (given his reaction of being dumped after DAD)
4) Craig is extremely critical of his choice of films. The story goes that he wouldn't do CR until he was happy with the script. Therefore, it seems uncharacteristic of Craig to sign on to a five-picture deal 'script unseen'
5) Still no confirmation of the story by people in the know. The fact that this news was released at a Forbes Conference, and no one else picked up on it, is a strike against its validity.
6) Eon is a company that has thrived on making Bond appeal to the masses for the moment. There is no garauntee that Craig is going to 'fit the bill' that far into the future. Would Babs and Micheal push the envelope like Cubby did with Roger Moore?
These are all just thoughts and conjecture at this point. I'm sure that anyone here can give a list of reasons why it is possible that Craig signed a five-picture deal. But regardless of what stance one takes, it's going to be conjecture.
BTW: Sloane also stated there would be no WGA strike.
Hmmm, seeing your use of italics, I wonder if anyone at present was actually thinking along those lines, that arm twisting was being done to Sony by MGM or anyone else. Sony has always been in a dominant position from Day One of the new business structure, and some might even argue that Sony indeed attempted some of their own arm twisting on EON back in the fall of 2005.
To rephrase my earlier point just so it's clear, money talks, and earlier I'm not sure if Sony considered a Craig Bond being able to speak at a respectable volume. Evidently Sony thinks differently now, though I doubt they were won over by the art or quality.
Well...I suppose that's a point to be endlessly debated by Bond Savants like us; Art and quality are subjective---to a surrealistic degree---in the internet era. Cash money, on the other hand, can actually be counted...or, as you intimated, heard.
The point is, apparently they were won over...and they appear to have 'doubled down' on Craig as Bond for the foreseeable future...unless, as some fervently hope, it turns out to all be 'just a dream,' as when Bobby Ewing stepped out of the shower B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not really; he merely took the standard, patented 'company ownership' line that he "sees hope in the talks," he hoped the situation could be resolved, that they weren't as 'anti-union' as portrayed, and that the latest proposal by the studios was "the beginning of a constructive discussion," etc.
All of which, unfortunately, tend to be precursors to a strike
Labour disputes suck
But your point about it all still being purely conjecture* is a good one.
* Until Eon confirms it, probably in the midst of #22's principal photography, to keep the publicity parade marching :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I was thinking more about the conjecture of what 5 Craig Bonds would look like. That the story about the deal has been picked up by so many outlets, and no word of denial from EON or Craig makes me think it's truth. Maybe it isn't, but seems somebody would've stepped up and said so by now. Can't imagine why EON/Sony/MGM wouldn't be giddy over Craig signing for two more/5 total after CR's critical and box office success. Yeah it's different from how EON's done business in the past, but so's CR.
The only thing I take from the past is that one actor CAN ride out 5 Bond films just fine (more than that pushes the envelope IMO), also makes me wonder why Brosnan wasn't extended after GE, and let go after only 4 (not that I don't have conjecture about that, lol :v ).
Indeed; it dovetails perfectly with the story of those convinced CR would fail, versus those who wanted to see what Eon had come up with for #21...just it case it didn't suck. For the benefit of the newer members, this period is remembered as The Craig WarsTM...
And the ratios/percentages of the two camps remain more or less unchanged since the month following CR's debut---much like the 'No Man's Land' of the WWI Western Front.
It's the same old sumo circle...exhaustively trodden by endless matches
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Finally - there'd have to be a bail out clause for the studios.
According to MI6 (referencing the Chicago Sun-Times), apparently Eon shelled out $100 Grand for extensive market research on Daniel Craig---and his appeal to fans both domestic and international---before making this latest move, re: Craig's contract extension:
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=5527
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Good thing they didn't ask me or Tee Hee or Rogue or.......
Yup; I think that's about the full list!
"I'm going to try to strike a new deal and it would be wrong of me not to. Because that's business. And business is business. And I'm not stupid. I'm not out to f*** anybody over and I'm sure nobody is out to f*** me." GQ magazine, page 329.
He also admits he enjoys playing Grand Theft Auto. I like this guy. {[]
I suspect a deal has been done, but whether the figures match up to what is being touted, I'm not sure.
I may have misjudged Craig. He's not that bad.
Apparently, he also enjoys being James Bond...which I find tremendously comforting.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Or Dan Same, or JennyFlexFan, or Napoleon Plural...
EON, my phone line is open to you anytime you want to chat.
Oh, and make the check payable to "Dan."
-Roger Moore
You can add me to that list. I despise Craig and his so called reboot. Go Cinematic Bond Traditionalists! -{
Well, then...we know it couldn't be just money that would entice him. :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Wait a second... Rogue and I agree on Craig's awfulness? We agree on something AT ALL??
So what is that? About 8 people in the Anti-Craig Camp? At least it's a fun, squirrel-friendly camp.
For the record, I don't like to consider myself anti-Craig, he just isn't my vision of Bond. He has the role now and he gave it everything he had in CR. Just about everyone on this board has a Bond they didn't care for, for me it is the current guy.
Just like Loeffs, Blue, HH and others were twisting in their chairs during Roger Moore's tenure, it is now my turn to sit and squirm.
The odd thing for me is, outside of AJB, I haven't found anyone who thinks much of Craig. Friends, family, and co-workers just sort of shrug their shoulders. One guy hasn't even bothered to see CR since Craig held no real interest for him. Go figure.
Hey! What about me? What am I, chopped liver?
Same result here. None of my friends and coworkers could even muster the interest to go see CR; to this day, most of them still haven't seen it. They weren't fans of Bond to begin with and CR did nothing to shake them out of their indifference.
There's a James Bond thread over at a videogame site I frequent which gets updated from time to time. There's a lot of guys over there who liked Craig and CR but they really weren't fans of the series prior to CR. However, and this is what I find interesting, nobody there really wants to see another movie with the same tone as CR. They're pretty much in agreement that re-inserting bits of the formula and especially a little more humor would be a welcome thing. It's also interesting how even the people who liked CR comment on how it doesn't feel like a Bond movie relative to past entries. That's about as close as I've come to a casual fan's perspective. Make of it what you will.
Going forward Craig's tenure will only be as solid as the success of his last Bond film. And I don't think Bond 22 will have as easy a go it in Winter 2008 as there look to be more blockbuster movies for it to contend against this time around. Dalton was also received warmly after Living Daylights and there was all kinds of enthusiasm back then for the series long term health. That all changed pretty quickly after LTK.
As for Craig, he hasn't had much commercial success outside of Bond lately. Invasion was a flop and Golden Compass doesn't look to be generating any vibe in America at least. Not sure if that's due to that fact that the movies aren't any good or if it's the Bond typecasting curse already rearing its head.
As for me, hearing Craig was signed to a 5 picture deal was a little like swawllowing my own vomit. He just didn't do it for me in CR and I find I have zero interest in Bond 22 right now. Maybe something will come up that will spur my interest again but Haggis' comments that the movie will have much in common with CR have wiped out what little curiosity I may have had and I can't even muster enough motivation to read any articles on it, either here or at other sites.