Craig is hotter now whilst playing Bond than any other Bond actor was during their run. The films haven't come out yet, but consider:
[list=*]
[*]Dragon Tattoo, looks to be a decent hit as Fincher's films will do, and Craig's signed for two sequels.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]Tintin, animated Spielberg holiday fare, be very surprised if that doesn't put up hefty numbers, and again Craig is on the hook for two sequels.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]Cowboys v. Aliens, great cast with the Iron Man director and targeted for a summer release, also will be surprised if that one doesn't do good at the BO, and again Craig is contracted for sequels.[/*]
[/list]
Counting Bond that's 4 big-ticket franchises the guy's involved in
And you even forgot to mention that he is signed for two sequels of The Golden Compass! )
If Cowboys & Aliens will be a success it rather will be despite Craig's appearance and not because of it. The one you want to see in this film is Harisson Ford (okay, and Olivia Wilde).
[quote]If Cowboys & Aliens will be a success it rather will be despite Craig's appearance and not because of it. The one you want to see in this film is Harisson Ford (okay, and Olivia Wilde).[/quote]
Saying the film will be a success despite Craig's appearance is rather harsh. The Golden Compass didn't fail (in the US anyway...did pretty well in Europe) because of Craig, it just wasn't very good. Harrison Ford by the way has a supporting role and plays against type as the town "Boss"in Cowboys and Aliens..
Funny how two stand-out Bond films and a billion dollars into Craig's tenure, there's still backlash. I guess EON was scared with Brosnan in the role as well? His Bond films all had winter releases too. 8-)
Funny how two stand-out Bond films and a billion dollars into Craig's tenure, there's still backlash. I guess EON was scared with Brosnan in the role as well? His Bond films all had winter releases too. 8-)
What backlash ? Does everybody have to worship the ground Craig walks on ? The worse anybody saying here is Craig isn't a box-office draw on his own.
Funny how two stand-out Bond films and a billion dollars into Craig's tenure, there's still backlash. I guess EON was scared with Brosnan in the role as well? His Bond films all had winter releases too. 8-)
What backlash ? Does everybody have to worship the ground Craig walks on ? The worse anybody saying here is Craig isn't a box-office draw on his own.
That's fine, but drawing that into EON being scared cuts across every Bond since Moore then.
Perhaps a better thread topic would be the shifting cinema landscape since the 70s, wherein we see superhero films eclipsing spy films at the box office? EON has a decade and a half and two Bonds worth of winter releases in this new paradigm, seems more savvy than scared, ie Bond films aren't going to beat out Batman/Iron Man/et al (including sparkly-in-the-sun vampires) no matter who they cast in the lead. Bond is still popular and pulls them in about the same Brosnan or Craig the last 15 years, but gone forever are the GF/TB days IMO, I certainly don't ever expect to see them back, times and movie tastes have shifted.
Barry doesn't like Crag in the role, I get that. Just think this thread question is silly and the winter releases are all about societal changes during the life a 50 year franchise more than Craig (or Brosnan). So yeah, reads like a bash by a hater to me.
Back in the late 50's and through most of the 60's the summer season was not considered prime movie time (in the USA anyway). Big pictures (back in the days of reserved seats and "roadshows") tended to be Christmas releases. These films generally just opened in major cilties and played in one theater per major city usually starting in New York, LA and then moving out to other larger cities. Many times these blockbusters didn't reach smaller cities or neighborhood theaters on a non-reserved seat basis until the spring and if the picture was a big enough hit would play for months. That all began to change in the 60's when movies began to open all over the country at multiple theaters in both cities and suburbs. The birth of the summer blockbuster began with "Jaws" and has grown into what we have now. EON is smart to release the Bond films before Thanksgiving when they can get the spotlight and the only competition are usually kids' films. With Harry Potter wrapping up this summer, the original date for Bond 23 in late fall 2011 would have been clears ailing for Bond as it should also be in late fall 2012. If Bond 23 is as good as CR, it should be able to sustain good box office through the New Year.
Sounds good to me, Howard, winter does seem to be working fine for Bond, and it may well not be a summer-type film as the market goes these days regardless of the actor in the role. Be interesting if EON does at some point in the future decide a summer release is best for Bond.
Interesting that Craig's name is nowhere on the Cowboys & Aliens poster (though to be fair neither is Harrison Ford's), which instead focuses on Favreau being the director of Iron Man.
Since the License to Kill box office debacle in the USA, EON has not been shy about moving its movies up or down so that they have less competition when they premiere. I seem recall CR getting shuffled around a couple of times because of the Harry Potter release date and QoS was moved back a week so it wouldn't need to compete with Madagascar II (penguins it seems have become Bond's achilles heel as of late). They also made a point of getting the word out that the trailer to Star Trek would play in front of QoS and I know for a fact that a lot of Trekkies were suddenly more interested in QoS because of it (yes, I was one of them).
I would expect EON to behave similarly with Bond 23, not necessarily out of fear but simply because it's good business sense and it helps to have any advantage that you can.
Interesting that Craig's name is nowhere on the Cowboys & Aliens poster (though to be fair neither is Harrison Ford's), which instead focuses on Favreau being the director of Iron Man.
Harrison Ford really hasn't been able to sell a film with his name above title in some time. After Air Force One, his films gained neither major critical or financial success. Indy IV you can't really count because it's a franchise character that ignited interest and not really Ford himself.
Barry doesn't like Crag in the role, I get that. Just think this thread question is silly and the winter releases are all about societal changes during the life a 50 year franchise more than Craig (or Brosnan). So yeah, reads like a bash by a hater to me.
Did you even read what I posted? How could anything I said be interpeted as hating Craig? In my intial post I didn't even mention Craig. In my follow-up post I didn't mention Craig. Not until you claimed people would be standing in line, no matter when the film was released, essentially because Craig is a big star and Dalton wasn't did I respond with a remark about Craig. And, even then, all I stated was that he has no hits to his name other than Bond, which is a fact. Don't try to make me, or this thread to be something it isn't.
Funny how two stand-out Bond films and a billion dollars into Craig's tenure, there's still backlash. I guess EON was scared with Brosnan in the role as well? His Bond films all had winter releases too. 8-)
What backlash ? Does everybody have to worship the ground Craig walks on ? The worse anybody saying here is Craig isn't a box-office draw on his own.
I agree. There does seem to be a general 'sensitivity' and defensiveness around here re DC. I'll go on record again and say that although not 'my Bond' I really hope that he does 23 but It may yet be interpreted as 'Craig bashing' Perhaps it's because of the general outrage/disbelief in some quarters (myself included) that drives it. I really do blame that terrible cheap looking media junket to introduce him. He looked bemused, frail, and way out of his depth, with terrible hair and a suit too big for him.
However he gave a sterling performance in CR and the ills of QOS were not with him. Perhaps when he has moved on we can have sensible balanced discussions re what he brought to Bond, how he changed the template, and his leagacy. But until then...,
Maybe one thing Craig has been and will likely always be is, the most divisive Bond? At least among the fan base, anyway. Love Craig or hate him, best hope is for 23 to do big BO, regardless of when it's released: if the brand stays a hit, Craig will age out of the role at some point and the new new guy will take over. Here's hoping EON has nothing to worry about. -{
Craig is Red Rackham in the Tintin film so I wouldn't imagine he's in it much. Red Rackham appears briefly in the book The Secret of the Unicorn in a story Captain Haddock tells Tintin about one of his ancestors. I love Tintin and think Herge was a genius but I always got the impression the series was more popular and known in Europe than the United States so I don't know how well the film will do overall. And blueman is right. Craig is the most divisive Bond. :v
Then again, perhaps not: it's just with all this interweb blogging and stuff, we've heard gripes about this most recent Bond change so much louder then previous changeovers. The Lazenby switch would seem to be the most, more than divisive, um strongly disliked changeover at the time I guess, judging from the BO dip. All the other new Bonds, regardless of the inevitable fan backlash (Moore = too soft, Dalton = too hard, Brosnan = too slight and smarmy, Craig = death of the series), had solid hits starting out. Post-Laz, fan opinion doesn't seem to equate to general public acceptance of a new Bond, apparently. And EON isn't scared, just wise about their brand.
Then again, perhaps not: it's just with all this interweb blogging and stuff, we've heard gripes about this most recent Bond change so much louder then previous changeovers. The Lazenby switch would seem to be the most, more than divisive, um strongly disliked changeover at the time I guess, judging from the BO dip. All the other new Bonds, regardless of the inevitable fan backlash (Moore = too soft, Dalton = too hard, Brosnan = too slight and smarmy, Craig = death of the series), had solid hits starting out. Post-Laz, fan opinion doesn't seem to equate to general public acceptance of a new Bond, apparently. And EON isn't scared, just wise about their brand.
Lazenby's popularity, or lack there of, wasn't the only reason for the decline in ticket sales. OHMSS had a long running time and as a result, the film's daily showings were reduced.
Then again, perhaps not: it's just with all this interweb blogging and stuff, we've heard gripes about this most recent Bond change so much louder then previous changeovers. The Lazenby switch would seem to be the most, more than divisive, um strongly disliked changeover at the time I guess, judging from the BO dip. All the other new Bonds, regardless of the inevitable fan backlash (Moore = too soft, Dalton = too hard, Brosnan = too slight and smarmy, Craig = death of the series), had solid hits starting out. Post-Laz, fan opinion doesn't seem to equate to general public acceptance of a new Bond, apparently. And EON isn't scared, just wise about their brand.
Lazenby's popularity, or lack there of, wasn't the only reason for the decline in ticket sales. OHMSS had a long running time and as a result, the film's daily showings were reduced.
Sure, but the biggest reason for the drop in BO was undoubtably Lazenby in the role, he just wasn't Connery. I like him better in the role, but then again I like Craig as Bond too, so there you go.
IMHO the figuers speak volumes
OHMSS, Cost $8m and Made $82m, e.g every Dollar spent made at least $10.= Failure
QOS, Cost $230m & made $577m, e.g Every Dollar spent made around less than $3 = Huge success and worlwide hit.
I must be missing something !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
IMHO the figuers speak volumes
OHMSS, Cost $8m and Made $82m, e.g every Dollar spent made at least $10.= Failure
QOS, Cost $230m & made $577m, e.g Every Dollar spent made around less than $3 = Huge success and worlwide hit.
I must be missing something !
Yes, every Bond film makes money. However OHMSS made much, much less than YOLT. Was it a bad film, or did it just not have Connery in it? Hmmm...
IMHO the figuers speak volumes
OHMSS, Cost $8m and Made $82m, e.g every Dollar spent made at least $10.= Failure
QOS, Cost $230m & made $577m, e.g Every Dollar spent made around less than $3 = Huge success and worlwide hit.
I must be missing something !
Yes, every Bond film makes money. However OHMSS made much, much less than YOLT. Was it a bad film, or did it just not have Connery in it? Hmmm...
I think it also had to do with the spy craze fading. The highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted, is Thunderball and YOLT was a sharp BO from that film which never has been reached again.
Hopefully won't be too Wild Wild West but I'm not sure the steampunk thing ever quite works in movies, it has a bad track record.
I should be taking weight loss tips from Craig!
I know this thread isn't about Cowboys and Aliens, but since you posted the trailer I thought I would comment. I didn't get a "I have to see this movie" feel from what I saw. The opening is poorly edited as you didn't get a real good feel for how Craig overcomes the three strangers, just some quick edits which takes away from that"wow that was cool" effect. Craig does make for a good dusty trails bad guy and Harrison Ford looks fine in his role. Lots of big names associated with this picture, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Ford, but not sure it will be a big hit in the crowded summer field.
Hopefully won't be too Wild Wild West but I'm not sure the steampunk thing ever quite works in movies, it has a bad track record.
I should be taking weight loss tips from Craig!
I know this thread isn't about Cowboys and Aliens, but since you posted the trailer I thought I would comment. I didn't get a "I have to see this movie" feel from what I saw. The opening is poorly edited as you didn't get a real good feel for how Craig overcomes the three strangers, just some quick edits which takes away from that"wow that was cool" effect. Craig does make for a good dusty trails bad guy and Harrison Ford looks fine in his role. Lots of big names associated with this picture, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Ford, but not sure it will be a ig hit in the crowded summer field.
Of course they really aren't going to give away everything in the trailer. This trailer is no more different then the lousy ones being made today but still, I can't see why anyone would not want to see this movie after watching it.
I'm only suprised they haven't tried to shoehorn in a Dinosaur as well to cover all the bases of their 5 to 9 year old audiance, Once again only my Opinion but the Trailer looks awful.It reminds me of another series of films with a cowboy, a spaceman etc. Toy Story! First D Craig played Bond now he's Playing Woody. I truly expect this to be the next Big Hit. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Hmm James Bond and Indy in one film? Yeah, thats enough to make me want to go and watch it (even if DC isn't among my favourite Bond's). That'll be the second 007 good ol' Harrison has shared screen time with
IMHO the figuers speak volumes
OHMSS, Cost $8m and Made $82m, e.g every Dollar spent made at least $10.= Failure
QOS, Cost $230m & made $577m, e.g Every Dollar spent made around less than $3 = Huge success and worlwide hit.
I must be missing something !
Yes, every Bond film makes money. However OHMSS made much, much less than YOLT. Was it a bad film, or did it just not have Connery in it? Hmmm...
I think it also had to do with the spy craze fading. The highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted, is Thunderball and YOLT was a sharp BO from that film which never has been reached again.
Yep, that was also going on then too. But put it this way: would OHMSS have done better BO if Connery had been in it? I think so, but I also think it would not have been as good a film. JMHO.
As for the C&A trailer, I love how dark it is, but agree with Barry it may not hit as big as I (or the filmmakers) first thought it would, just looking at the names on paper. Which begs the question: do you make a film to make money over all other concerns, or do you try to tell the best story possible knowing full well some of the choices you make will very likely leave a seat or two empty? As it relates to Bond, I think EON has made both choices with different films, but they do tend to go for filling seats with most of their Bond films IMO. I think that's why I like OHMSS and QOS so much, those two (comparatively speaking) stick out as damn good Bond stories first, BO fodder second - but telling difference between the two films, EON was practically forced into "taking a chance" on a film like OHMSS by Connery's departure, whereas EON obviously felt secure enough with CR's success to take a stretch on QOS (also speaks to the thread title IMO).
Yep, that was also going on then too. But put it this way: would OHMSS have done better BO if Connery had been in it? I think so, but I also think it would not have been as good a film. JMHO.
I think it would have been a better film if Connery was interested in the part as he used to be. I still would have liked to have seen a better actor in the role.
I think that's why I like OHMSS and QOS so much, those two (comparatively speaking) stick out as damn good Bond stories first, BO fodder second
QOS was box office fodder first and foremost. It was trying to be hip with it's cut-a-minute action sequences and Bourne style chases on roof tops and knife fights. OHMSS stuck to the prescedent already set within the series in addition to a more ambitious story.
I think that's why I like OHMSS and QOS so much, those two (comparatively speaking) stick out as damn good Bond stories first, BO fodder second
QOS was box office fodder first and foremost. It was trying to be hip with it's cut-a-minute action sequences and Bourne style chases on roof tops and knife fights.
I think that's why I like OHMSS and QOS so much, those two (comparatively speaking) stick out as damn good Bond stories first, BO fodder second
QOS was box office fodder first and foremost. It was trying to be hip with it's cut-a-minute action sequences and Bourne style chases on roof tops and knife fights.
I find it strange that in a way I agree with Both Blueman & Ricardo.C OHMSS is my Favorite Bond Film as is, I like Lazenby and think he gave Bond a more human touch.But with QOS I too think its the worst Bond film made yet (thats including NSNA).
My point (badly made, as always) is that OHMSS being a huge flop is a myth it made a huge Box Office,yet is alwas put down as a failure,yet with QOS a new myth is Borne (J Bourne) that it was a huge hit but the formular for money spent to money made is much smaller even less than LTK. Simply for QOS to equal even half the success of OHMSS it would of needed to make $1,150m 0r £2,300m to equal it.
Showbusiness is just that (bums on seats) Eon forgot that with QOS and let the budget get out of hand, QOS would never make that kind of money.Even with a slimmed down Connery,3d and all the Bond girls Naked in the opening titles.But thats what happens when you let your leading actor and Director throw out one script and work on their own, each adding a little of their own agendas to it. Still I don't want to get into an argument over it,It's just my worthless opinion. As with all of us here I just hope they do a better job with the next one.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
And you even forgot to mention that he is signed for two sequels of The Golden Compass!
If Cowboys & Aliens will be a success it rather will be despite Craig's appearance and not because of it. The one you want to see in this film is Harisson Ford (okay, and Olivia Wilde).
What backlash ? Does everybody have to worship the ground Craig walks on ? The worse anybody saying here is Craig isn't a box-office draw on his own.
Perhaps a better thread topic would be the shifting cinema landscape since the 70s, wherein we see superhero films eclipsing spy films at the box office? EON has a decade and a half and two Bonds worth of winter releases in this new paradigm, seems more savvy than scared, ie Bond films aren't going to beat out Batman/Iron Man/et al (including sparkly-in-the-sun vampires) no matter who they cast in the lead. Bond is still popular and pulls them in about the same Brosnan or Craig the last 15 years, but gone forever are the GF/TB days IMO, I certainly don't ever expect to see them back, times and movie tastes have shifted.
Barry doesn't like Crag in the role, I get that. Just think this thread question is silly and the winter releases are all about societal changes during the life a 50 year franchise more than Craig (or Brosnan). So yeah, reads like a bash by a hater to me.
Since the License to Kill box office debacle in the USA, EON has not been shy about moving its movies up or down so that they have less competition when they premiere. I seem recall CR getting shuffled around a couple of times because of the Harry Potter release date and QoS was moved back a week so it wouldn't need to compete with Madagascar II (penguins it seems have become Bond's achilles heel as of late). They also made a point of getting the word out that the trailer to Star Trek would play in front of QoS and I know for a fact that a lot of Trekkies were suddenly more interested in QoS because of it (yes, I was one of them).
I would expect EON to behave similarly with Bond 23, not necessarily out of fear but simply because it's good business sense and it helps to have any advantage that you can.
Harrison Ford really hasn't been able to sell a film with his name above title in some time. After Air Force One, his films gained neither major critical or financial success. Indy IV you can't really count because it's a franchise character that ignited interest and not really Ford himself.
Did you even read what I posted? How could anything I said be interpeted as hating Craig? In my intial post I didn't even mention Craig. In my follow-up post I didn't mention Craig. Not until you claimed people would be standing in line, no matter when the film was released, essentially because Craig is a big star and Dalton wasn't did I respond with a remark about Craig. And, even then, all I stated was that he has no hits to his name other than Bond, which is a fact. Don't try to make me, or this thread to be something it isn't.
I agree. There does seem to be a general 'sensitivity' and defensiveness around here re DC. I'll go on record again and say that although not 'my Bond' I really hope that he does 23 but It may yet be interpreted as 'Craig bashing' Perhaps it's because of the general outrage/disbelief in some quarters (myself included) that drives it. I really do blame that terrible cheap looking media junket to introduce him. He looked bemused, frail, and way out of his depth, with terrible hair and a suit too big for him.
However he gave a sterling performance in CR and the ills of QOS were not with him. Perhaps when he has moved on we can have sensible balanced discussions re what he brought to Bond, how he changed the template, and his leagacy. But until then...,
Lazenby's popularity, or lack there of, wasn't the only reason for the decline in ticket sales. OHMSS had a long running time and as a result, the film's daily showings were reduced.
OHMSS, Cost $8m and Made $82m, e.g every Dollar spent made at least $10.= Failure
QOS, Cost $230m & made $577m, e.g Every Dollar spent made around less than $3 = Huge success and worlwide hit.
I must be missing something !
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1950390553/
Hopefully won't be too Wild Wild West but I'm not sure the steampunk thing ever quite works in movies, it has a bad track record.
I should be taking weight loss tips from Craig!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think it also had to do with the spy craze fading. The highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted, is Thunderball and YOLT was a sharp BO from that film which never has been reached again.
I know this thread isn't about Cowboys and Aliens, but since you posted the trailer I thought I would comment. I didn't get a "I have to see this movie" feel from what I saw. The opening is poorly edited as you didn't get a real good feel for how Craig overcomes the three strangers, just some quick edits which takes away from that"wow that was cool" effect. Craig does make for a good dusty trails bad guy and Harrison Ford looks fine in his role. Lots of big names associated with this picture, Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Ford, but not sure it will be a big hit in the crowded summer field.
Of course they really aren't going to give away everything in the trailer. This trailer is no more different then the lousy ones being made today but still, I can't see why anyone would not want to see this movie after watching it.
As for the C&A trailer, I love how dark it is, but agree with Barry it may not hit as big as I (or the filmmakers) first thought it would, just looking at the names on paper. Which begs the question: do you make a film to make money over all other concerns, or do you try to tell the best story possible knowing full well some of the choices you make will very likely leave a seat or two empty? As it relates to Bond, I think EON has made both choices with different films, but they do tend to go for filling seats with most of their Bond films IMO. I think that's why I like OHMSS and QOS so much, those two (comparatively speaking) stick out as damn good Bond stories first, BO fodder second - but telling difference between the two films, EON was practically forced into "taking a chance" on a film like OHMSS by Connery's departure, whereas EON obviously felt secure enough with CR's success to take a stretch on QOS (also speaks to the thread title IMO).
I think it would have been a better film if Connery was interested in the part as he used to be. I still would have liked to have seen a better actor in the role.
QOS was box office fodder first and foremost. It was trying to be hip with it's cut-a-minute action sequences and Bourne style chases on roof tops and knife fights. OHMSS stuck to the prescedent already set within the series in addition to a more ambitious story.
Sorry, I think the film is total crap.
My point (badly made, as always) is that OHMSS being a huge flop is a myth it made a huge Box Office,yet is alwas put down as a failure,yet with QOS a new myth is Borne (J Bourne) that it was a huge hit but the formular for money spent to money made is much smaller even less than LTK. Simply for QOS to equal even half the success of OHMSS it would of needed to make $1,150m 0r £2,300m to equal it.
Showbusiness is just that (bums on seats) Eon forgot that with QOS and let the budget get out of hand, QOS would never make that kind of money.Even with a slimmed down Connery,3d and all the Bond girls Naked in the opening titles.But thats what happens when you let your leading actor and Director throw out one script and work on their own, each adding a little of their own agendas to it. Still I don't want to get into an argument over it,It's just my worthless opinion. As with all of us here I just hope they do a better job with the next one.