Sinking Ship

This is a public face of our private discussions.
We’re a collaboration fans and movie goers who strung a few thoughts together.
Currently our calm has been upset by the New James Bond shenanigans.

The views expressed here are our own, by us for us, and represent nobody else.
Opinions may not be valid in certain areas, during full moons, before or after low tide, lunar eclipses, the week before martian relay races, or neptunian dances.
And if the poles swap polarity then everything will be topsy turvy...

***To reiterate:
Views expressed on this web site do not necessarily represent those of all the people who have submitted comments. Everyone’s comments are considered to represent their own opinion on the matter and no others. No matter how brilliantly poignant they are.***

Table of Contents * Indicates new content

To make newer comments easier to find we created Quick Links to a separate page with the most recent entries.

Love the website. For the most part I find the arguments cogent,
provocative, and well thought out. As a lifelong Bond fan, I must register my
dismay at the casting of Daniel Craig as 007. Everything mentioned in
the innumerable critiques is on target so I won't repeat a lot here. As
an English professor, pop culture scholar, and writer, however, I would
like to address the connection that exists between a fan and his
favorite fictional characters.

As readers we visualize how characters should look. Sometimes we have
help, from book covers, Dickensian descriptions, movies or other graphic
representations. (Because of Judy Garland, we see Dorothy as being
taller and having darker hair than the Dorothy in the W.W. Denslow
illustrations for the Oz books. Likewise, Raymond Burr so marked Erle Stanley
Garner's "granite-jawed" Perry Mason that no other actor has played him
successfully since the 50s TV show; Monty Markham's attempted series
failed.)

Sometimes it is solely our imaginations which form our visions of
characters. Once the image is formed, we tend to cling to it, especially if
it is further reinforced by certain linchpins. Imagine Godzilla without
his signature trumpeting or a Superman of average height or Scrooge
without his snarl. Picture Sherlock Holmes in non-Victorian clothing,
standing 5'7", and completely lacking the imperiousness we've come to
love.

Because we feel such a connection to the fictional characters we love,
we have certain expectations. Superman will be tall and have both dark
hair and a guileless intensity. All the actors who have played Superman
have, to varying degrees, fit the part, right down to the curl. (Color
me relieved Tim Burton never got to do Superman with Nicholas Cage.
Yes, he made Batman work with a non-funny Michael Keaton, but Keaton wore
a mask. Superman's face has to be seen, and Cage's just doesn't fit.
Neither did Robert Redford's, when he was being discussed for the film
that eventually went to Christopher Reeve.)

Spenser once boxed as a heavyweight, so 6'2" Robert Urich was a good
bet to bring the detective to television. Professor Xavier is bald, so
Patrick Stewart fits the bill for the X-Men movies.

You get the idea.

Sometimes a character can become so iconic that ANYONE can play him,
which is why the list of actors who've played Philip Marlowe includes
Dick Powell, Humphrey Bogart, James Garner, Robert Mitchum, Elliot Gould,
and Danny Glover. But that usually happens only when a character has
attained a status that borders on lapsing into the public domain. (Think
Olivier doing Othello, James Earl Jones doing Lear, and Roger Moore
doing Holmes.) James Bond is indeed iconic but not yet so much of the
people that he has become a regular guy who can be played by just about
anyone. (Don Cheadle does a solid British accent but, much as I like him,
he's not right for Bond.)

Which brings us to Daniel Craig. He is neither Fleming's Bond (6', dark
hair, scar on his cheek, blue-gray eyes) nor Broccoli's Bond (taller
than 6', with dark hair, good looks, and a cool demeanor). When Fleming
wrote Bond, average height was probably 5'9", which made the 6' Bond
taller than average. Now average height is 5'10' or 11", which means the
previous Bonds, from 6'1" to 6'3" were taller than average. Bond is also darkly handsome, on book covers, in comic strips, and, finally, in the movies.
Taller than average height and dark good looks are two of Bond's
linchpins. At 5'11", the blond, pinched-faced Craig does not stand out
as Bond stands out. He is the equivalent of Danny Devito doing Sherlock
Holmes or Mickey Rooney doing Batman or Dave Chappelle doing Hamlet.
He's just not a good fit.

EON ought to consider the lessons learned by those who tampered not
with the formula but with the linchpins. The Independence Day people
ruined Godzilla's noise and the film flopped. Ever hear of Dolph Lundgren as
the Punisher? Take away that death's head shirt and you've got just
another vigilante movie. Perhaps it's best we not speak of Albert Molina's
game but pathetic attempt to modernize and make hip Agatha Christie's
Hercule Poirot in that dreadful remake of Murder on the Orient Express.
A dashing Poirot with a love interest? Dame Agatha must have spun in
her grave at that one.

I have a feeling that, come November, Ian Fleming will join her in a
ghastly pas de deux of the offended deceased.

EON, what were you thinking?

Gary Earl Ross is a professor at the University at Buffalo and
president-elect of the Mid-Atlantic Popular American Culture
Association.
He is the author of Shimmerville, Tales Macabre and
Curious, and won an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for his play Matter of Intent.

I recently saw a re-run of Aussie actor Anthony LaPaglia (of Without A Trace fame) interviewed on Denton's Enough Rope. Aside from being engrossed by his story of growing up the son of a migrant mechanic in Adelaide, and making it big in Hollywood despite the odds, he gave a very pointed critique of what is wrong with big budget films. In an effort to draw big at the box offices, producers will land big stars, pay them big dollars, and then revolve the script around them to maximize the time their faces appears on screen. Naturally, this is at the expense of the story telling and character development.

Which led me to think of what I disliked about the last Bond film, Die Another Day. While no man in his right mind, regardless of sexual persuasion, should complain about Halle Berry being on-screen, the character she played was obviously written into the script for particular reasons, none of which are relevant to the plot. The script could have done without the character she played, and the story would not have suffered in the least. She was written in for her curves and box-office appeal. Furthermore, her character seemed to be designed to appeal to the younger hip-hop audience, given the lingo used and her obvious appeal to young men. The result was a superficial tone to the whole movie, even though her presence arguably was a big determinant in yielding unprecedented commercial success for a Bond film.

Which leads me to the current state of the Bond franchise. Immensely popular with the public, critics and Bond aficionados alike, Pierce Brosnan completed his contract for four movies and in a shock turn of events was not renewed to continue playing the role. Brosnan's last Bond film grossed nearly half-a-billion dollars (with production costs totalling $142 million), and the previous three films around $1 billion in sum, resulting in Brosnan being labelled the "Billion-dollar-Bond".

Enter Daniel Craig. Little-known British actor Craig was offered the role after reports of several higher profile actors not being interested. The choice of Craig has triggered a furor amongst the Bond community. Two separate websites are devoted to cause of boycotting the 21st Bond film, dubbed Casino Royale after Bond creator Ian Fleming's novel, although little other than the name is shared. Both fansites protest the choice of Craig. It is hard to disagree that Craig looks the part of a Bond villain rather than the leading man himself. Reports that he cannot drive a car with manual transmission, has an anti-gun stance, and has been described as a gay icon for his role in the film "The Trench", all fly in the face of the 007 image that has been honed and crafted in Ian Fleming's novels and on the big screen for over three generations. Jung's collective conscious is definetly making things hard for poor old Craig (and yes, he does look much older and weathered than his late 30's age would suggest).

Both sites also object to the producers decision to "reboot" the series. No longer is Bond a patriotic ex-naval commander, who relies on wit and charm more than brawn. Instead the new 007 is a former SAS, and no longer begins his career during the cold war, but acquires his "00" status in the world of today (the "Bourne Identity" was the chosen template). Craig is on record as saying he wants to "dumb down" Bond. The anti-Craig and "reboot" sentiments expressed on the two fansites have been echoed in the press the world over, from Manilla to Montreal.

Past Bond's Connery and Moore have defended Craig as a "fine actor", but as noted in one of the anti-craig fansites, if fine acting skills are all that is required to be 007, then technically the likes of Tom Hanks would be suitable. Clearly strong acting credentials, while necessary, are not sufficient for the role.

Considering the commercial success of the last four films with Brosnan playing the role, such a drastic change in the direction of the franchise can only be seen as supremely risky. The motive? I suspect that Brosnan's demands for a cut of the profits (i.e., pay consistent with other actors whose films gross similar amounts of money), and his desire to have a considerable amount of creative control (he has long been critical of the lack of artistic integrity of the 007 films he has appeared in), did not sit well with the wallets or egos of EON, the production company who along with Sony Pictures hold the rights to the Bond film franchise. Furthermore, replacing a popular Bond has proven to be tough, both in terms of fan reaction and box office results. The choice of an unknown Aussie model, George Lazenby to replace Connery was deemed a failure at the time. More pointedly, the change from the retiring Roger Moore to Timothy Dalton almost sent the franchise to the grave.

It appears that the current producers decided that re-booting the series to be more in-line with common action films (i.e., unsophisticated stereotypical action man that can be played by just about any decent actor) would solve any future issues of finding a replacement for the role of 007, as well as potentially capturing a new fan base, one more attention span challenged than past generations. Not to mention having to avoid paying Brosnan loads of cash and future profits, and surrendering much of the control of the film making process to his capable hands (Brosnan owns his own production company and knows a few things about making good films).

Adopting a less cynical point of view, the decision to freshen the Bond franchise and save itself from inevitable staleness can be considered bold. However, the signs for Casino Royale are not good. EON's inability to land a big name actor as a replacement to Brosnan (apparently Hugh Jackman's request to see the script before deciding on the role was rejected) has been well-reported. Similarly, the reluctance of any of Hollywood’s leading lady's to sign on shows a lack of confidence in an unproven commoditty in Craig and the attempted "re-booting" of the series (whatever happened to the Bond tradition of plucking rare beauty from obscurity?). Furthermore, EA games decided to scrap the development of a tie-in video game, again raising questions as to a lack of confidence in the new Bond.

Judging from the trailer, the sophisticated and witty 007 I grew up watching will be no more. Despite this, the new film may still be worthwhile and enjoyable. Or the whole idea, along with the choice of Craig may backfire immensley. If the latter, one can only hope that the crafting of the 22nd Bond film, with its script, choice of cast, and historical context will be motivated by matters other than just greed.

Ron Grounds is a doctoral candidate in Cognitive Neuropsychology at La Trobe University, Melbourne Australia. For fun he consults in the audio visual industry, and despite access to some of the world's best home theatre equipment, he much prefers spinning an old record rather than watching what hollywood is currently offerring.

Gary Earl Ross

“After the last film, we spent eight months trying to come up with a story, but just couldn’t... There was nothing new left to do. So we decided to start all over with the story we’ve always wanted to tell how Bond became Bond in the first place.”
Michael G. Wilson to Entertainment Weekly on why EON
dumped Pierce Brosnan and rebooted 007.

Pierce Brosnan himself lamented the inertia that set in among 007 producers after Die Another Day, and now Michael Wilson has confirmed it. The problem, then, was lack of imagination on the part of creative staff. Instead of firing the writers who dreamed up invisible cars and preposterous science fiction motifs and spent eight months coming up dry, producers elected to fire the actor who spoke their lines.
Eight months?
As a writer, I have to wonder at the lack of ideas. At a Harlan Ellison reading I once attended, a would-be writer announced that he wanted to write but had no ideas. How did Ellison get his? “Then you’re not a writer,” Ellison said. “Writers have ideas.” Purvis and Wade, who penned the last three 007 films, had a remarkably new idea for the start of Die Another Day by having Bond spend time in a North Korean prison. Unfortunately, they abandoned the idea fairly quickly and reverted to formula before the film reached the first quarter mark. Much of the rest of the film mined material from previous Bond films for set pieces and twists masked as homage. Wilson’s admission that they were out of ideas for Bond should have come as no surprise to anyone.
But as Ellison said, writers have ideas, so I’m going to attempt to generate seven 007 ideas in this piece. Each will be character-driven. Each will be tough and gritty. Each will be something EON could have done to refresh the franchise without replacing a beloved lead with a craggy near-unknown, without replacing baccarat with Texas Hold ‘Em, and without featuring a control room with a ticking bomb or space-based weapon.

001. Bond goes rogue and is hunted by the world’s best government assassins. The pursuit is global and Bond must go underground to survive. He resorts to disguises, blends in with various populations, visits old lovers for temporary sanctuary, and retreats into the wilderness when necessary. While underground, he pursues his nemesis by tapping into phone lines and computer systems until he uncovers a far-reaching plot to overthrow the government of Great Britain. Yes, Bond has gone rogue before, briefly, in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, License to Kill, and Die Another Day. The catch this time would be that at the end of the film, Bond has a secret meeting with M and she refuses to cancel the sanction. At the end, in the arms of the “Bond girl,” 007 says, “You’re not safe with me,” to which she replies, “You’re not safe with me either.” Bond says, “Then let’s make the most of the time I have,” and she unloads the gun she would have used to kill him.

002. A major supporting character (M, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner, Robinson, Leiter, Wade) is assassinated or murdered, and Bond must investigate. If the victim is a fellow agent, he must follow the agent’s footsteps to the killer, who is part of a plot to a)destabilize world currency, b)place a world-class double identity terrorist at the head of the UN or a major western government, or c)use biological or chemical warfare to wipe out the West’s ten major cities simultaneously. The first half of the film would involve Bond’s pursuit of revenge. The second half would focus on his stopping the plot. He would take special pleasure in killing the killer but would revert to his usual efficiency for others in the plot. We’ve seen those glimmers of pleasure in a specific kill in Dr. No, Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only, License to Kill, and Goldeneye. If M is the victim, Bond can meet the new M at the end, which offers a nice segue to the next film. If Moneypenny is the victim, he can meet M’s new secretary. In a touching earlier scene, Bond can kiss Moneypenny’s casket. At the end, he can drink a toast to her picture: “Moneypenny, what will I ever do without you?”

003. Bond is on the trail of the world’s leading assassin, someone who is the mirror image of himself, who anticipates his moves and has countermeasures in place at every turn. The twist is that each is assigned by his government to take out the same Central American or Middle Eastern dictator. There will be no cooperation, however, for the other assassin wants to complete the mission and take out the legendary 007, forcing Bond into the same posture. If the other assassin is a female, Bond will have bedded her but will have to kill her at the end. He can be alone at the end of the film, contemplating his life over a drink at his club in London. A woman sits opposite him and he says, “009, what are you doing here?” “The same as you,” she says. “Trying to find comfort because I have a shite job.” He suggests they try to find comfort together, but she balks because of the service’s rules against agent involvement with each other. “If we’ve been colleagues enough to work together and walk away the next day . . .” he says. “They’ll never know.” They leave the club. The waiter then phones M, who says, “Good” and orders Robinson or Tanner to make sure they’re kept under surveillance but left undisturbed. “After what they’ve been through separately, a night together might be just what I need to keep my top people in top form.”.

004. On special assignment to train U.S. operatives, Bond uncovers a plot to awaken sleeper assassins in major U.S. cities for a coordinated attack on key government officials. Trying to work through the problem, Bond gets caught up with the bureaucracy of Homeland Security and wonders aloud how anything gets done. He strikes out on his own, first taking down the hidden assassins who have been activated and then finding the puppet master behind the plot. It is apparent that at least some of the sleepers are involuntary, so Bond must face the dilemma of whether to kill an innocent person unaware he or she has been programmed to kill. If the sleepers have some kind of implant that will explode if removal is attempted or the remote control device is destroyed, Bond’s choice will be harder. In fact, the explosion is the method the puppet master will use to carry out his assassinations. If the Bond girl is a sleeper, he must save her or kill her but he turns to Q, who encases the control device in a block of acrylic that is locked in a vault.

005. Bond goes to Africa. As an African-American I have long been disturbed by the lack of attention the West pays to Africa. If Shaft can go to Africa and The Constant Gardener can uncover a murder plot there, so can Bond. His mission will be to take down a genocidal dictator who has financial ties to a Russian oligarch who wants to return his own brand of communism to Russia. The plot permits the return of several Bond characters from previous films and books: Leiter, Wade, Draco, Anya Amasova. Roger Moore has said the poverty he witnessed in India while filming Octopussy helped inspire him to his active role in UNICEF. Exposure of wretched conditions in a Bond movie may go well beyond Tears of the Sun and can become a socially meaningful 007 flick if handled like The Constant Gardener and Hotel Rwanda.

006. While on assignment in South America, Bond gets involved in a plot to overthrow a government supported by drug cartels. Wounded by government agents, Bond goes into hiding in a village and becomes the village protector. Leading the villagers in an uprising against the drug lords who have enslaved them, Bond assassinates the corrupt president and M must scramble to keep his identity secret. Later, in London, he is visited by the woman who nursed him back to health. You may recognize Witness and The Magnificent Seven here but all plots come from somewhere.

007. Casino Royale. Bond is ordered to undermine a terrorist financial network run through a casino in Monaco. The catch is that this assignment is similar to one he received soon after he earned his 00, though this time he is not to gamble government money. He is there masquerading as an investment banker interested in infiltrating the finance mechanisms. His chief problem is that he keeps having flashbacks to his previous assignment, his torture at the hands of LeChiffre, and his betrayal by Vesper Lynd. The flashbacks impair his ability to complete his mission and he must face up to his demons to succeed. In lens-filtered flashbacks Bond is portrayed by a young actor who closely resembles Pierce Brosnan and who can assume the role when Brosnan retires. I must confess, however, that this idea is not wholly original. Both Quentin Tarantino and Pierce Brosnan suggested Casino Royale be the next 007 film, but I doubt seriously you’ll see either one get a story credit.

There you have it, seven quick ideas, dashed off between last night while my teens and their friends were on the other side of the living room watching Crash and this morning before I get on the ladder to repair my roof. Each is a rough idea that could be developed. Each is character-driven. None has a super villain with a scraggly cat, a media empire, or a DNA transplant. None has a control room or a space-based weapon involving diamonds, lasers, or EMP. None involves a set-up for a very bad pun at the end (see The World Is Not Enough and Moonraker).

Writers, you see, have ideas. If Purvis and Wade couldn’t come up with something, Michael and Barbara should have called me, or some of the thousands of other writers available. We’d all leap at the chance to do 007. But they’ve chosen to sink their ship.

Guess I’ll hold out hope for a call from whoever wants to make The Man from UNCLE.

_________________

Gary Earl Ross is the author of The Wheel of Desire and Shimmerville. His play Matter of Intent won the 2005 Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America.

As an actor, I have no opinion of Daniel Craig. I’ve never seen any of the movies he’s appeared in nor do I have any interest to. However, I do not envy him his position. Of all the actors that have ever played Bond, he has the most to lose. If “Casino Royale” is a flop, there is a great possibility that it will negatively impact his career. Unlike “Superman”, “Batman”, or “Star Wars”, which have a built-in fan base wherein the characters are the driving force, the “James Bond” series is unique in that the actor can make or break the character and, by extension, the franchise. If the audience does not buy an actor as James Bond, the film suffers. Timothy Dalton, both superlative as an actor and as Bond, did not have the same appeal as Sean Connery and Roger Moore before him. Whatever the politics behind the scenes during the six year hiatus notwithstanding, his tenure lasted only two films. George Lazenby, with his one effort, is considered the worst of the Bonds in many circles.

From all reports, Pierce Brosnan was touted as the second coming of Bond. This view is further cemented by the fact that he has been credited with being the savior of the franchise and also being credited with being the “Billion Dollar Bond”; i.e. his movies have grossed more than any of his predecessors. To replace Brosnan while he is still viable for one, maybe two, more Bond films makes no fiscal nor logical sense. To much of the viewing public, Brosnan is James Bond. His likeness purportedly appeared on the jacket covers of various John Gardner Bond novels, a likeness so striking that EON tried to suppress its use after the publication of “Brokenclaw”. During the Dalton years, he appeared as a faux Bond in many overseas commercials. What makes ever less sense is, after years of positive work in the name of the fictional majesty’s secret service, Brosnan was unceremoniously dumped. In all fairness, EON’s and Brosnan’s contractual obligations were met. However, the public was lead to believe during the press junket of “Die Another Day” that Brosnan would be invited back for a fifth. In the years that followed, a back and forth ensued regarding Brosnan’s viability as Bond. In the midst of contract discussions, EON abruptly ceased negotiations and advised Brosnan his services were no longer required. The reasons proffered were either a) Brosnan wanted more money (which he was arguably entitled to, given Hollywood pay structures); b) Brosnan’s advancing age; or c) that “Casino Royale” is Bond’s first mission, and Brosnan is inappropriate for that story (This is a fallacy. In the novel on which this movie is very-loosely based, Bond is a seasoned operative who is tired of the service and in fact contemplates resignation near the story’s end). This is strictly conjecture on my part, but it may simply come down to a case of bad blood between producer and actor. Rumors and statements abound about the creative differences between Barbara Broccoli and Brosnan. If this is the case, then this bit of sour grapes is not only unprofessional, but short sighted.

After such an apex, any one following Brosnan under normal circumstances would be facing a very steep nadir. Daniel Craig is not my first, middle, or last choice for Bond. As many have stated, he looks more like a Bond villain than Bond and in interviews has vacillated between showing reverence and outright disdain for the franchise in general and the character in particular. Can he act as Bond? I don’t know and I will never find out, for I will be boycotting “Casino Royale”. Due to their shoddy treatment and ostracizing of Pierce Brosnan and the casting of a completely unsuitable actor, to pay to see this movie would be rewarding the producers’ efforts. Cubby Broccoli had once shot down the “Bond Begins” idea in the mid-80s, reasoning that people pay to see Bond as he is, not as he was. This will be a very expensive lesson for the producers to learn should “Casino Royale” become the flop many expect it will be.

The Producers Have a Plan

Prologue: It was always a mystery, how come an unknown, unattractive man, known as Daniel Craig could ever be cast as a replacement to handsome, charming and incredibly popular (arguably MOST popular of them all) actor Pierce Brosnan in the role of James Bond. It always seemed so absurd that at first no one really believed it. "They're digging their own grave" we thought, but it all was a quick first impression. Producers behind
this idea have a plan.

Being a huge Pierce Brosnan's James Bond fan myself, I've spend alot of time
in the last year, as unfortunately have all TRUE James Bond fans, thinking about what
could have ever made them make such a terrible decision. "If it ain't broken --
don't fix it" they say. Nothing is broken in James Bond franchise, is there? There is now. Pierce was greatly successful in his role, loved by most common moviegoers, accepted as the second-best Bond after Sean Connery and even considered as simply the best James Bond performer ever among many fans (myself included). Brosnan’s Bond was the most commercially successful, and like, what ELSE could the producers ever wish for?

Part one: Producers.
First of all, what do you guys know about producers? They're greedy bastards that is, and they don't give a damn about anything as long as it works and brings more money into their pockets. Nasty people, never mess with anyone like them, but honestly... It's in every human nature. Money changes people. All of them. Even the best. For example... You have a pal. Not a best friend of yours, just a PAL. Nice guy/gal, really sweet person. You work in the same company, but in different areas. You see each other every day, you
chat, you laugh, maybe even you spend some time together after work. There was never
a misunderstanding between the two of you. But one day, you come to be your friend's boss. Your payment, your money depends on how good this man/woman does their work and maybe even at first the two of you are excited about working together, later you see that nothing is as good as it seemed to be in the beginning. Your pal is lazy. He/she just will not work as much as he/she can, sometimes they even spoil something and you start loosing money. YOU. MONEY. YOUR MONEY. Imagined that? Now, what's about your attitude towards this person now? Is it still good? NO. Did he/she ever do something PERSONALLY to you? Offended you? Your family? NO. But you know that you are losing money because of that person, YOUR hard-earned money and you start disliking this person! Why? No personal reason, it's all the job. Only the job. Maybe you even end up being enemies for the rest of your days. Pity, it all started so good!
So, the point is: producers look at a franchise as at a WORKER who gets them money. They DON'T give a damn about the franchise (you don't give a damn if your subordinate stays on after hours, or if he/she works in holidays, you just need the job done, because if isn’t done, you'll lose money). They're NOT fans of this franchise. They DON'T care about who's playing Bond as long as they get their money.

So, what was wrong with Pierce? Nothing. He brought alot of money to them. The most money of all the Bonds. But at some point, maybe even before filming "Die another day", they understood that along with getting more and more popular, Pierce is getting OLDER. And even I understand how hard is it to replace a favorite... People would want more, people would judge anyone who replaces their idol based on how much the new actor LOOKS and ACTS like the much beloved (by them) predecessor and if they don’t
like it (and they most likely wouldn't) they'll just won't go to that movie. BANG, producers lose money, especially since JB is a huge franchise and it involves alot of money. It's hard times for the producers. They're very limited in creativity, people want special effects -- it costs money, but people want good actors and scenario as well....... You can't use too much of violence and sex in your movie, 'cause this'll give it an "R" rating and teens won't be able to go on that movie and BANG! ...You lose your money... Quite hard to make a good movie without violence and sexual themes...... That is a problem. So producers of James Bond start thinkin' of a new plan...... HOW.

How not to lose money if the movie does well, but the budget is so big, that they lose money anyway.
First of all -- people are NOT stupid, ok? Every single time when you think that people ARE stupid and that you can do something like "Superman returns", "Van Helsing"...... I dunno....... "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and get away with this, just STOP... And think again. We WON'T buy a freak in blue-red-yellow outfit, with stupid curl who thinks he can fly. Fly away kiddo, we prefer Batman now. You may still be popular in USA, but it'll be a huge mistake to forget about that the WORLD doesn’t
end with US frontier. We WON'T buy a bullshit like Van Helsing just because there's Hugh Jackman in it and sexy vampires. Should you forget about PG-13 and add more blood, gore and naked boobs, maybe it'll work, but not the way it is. I won't even say a word about "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", it's just complete nonsense...
Point in OUR situation: it is too risky making a movie without Pierce Brosnan, but
with a high budget. Pierce and Pierce alone saved last Bond outing from an inevitable flop. If it had been some other actor, they would never have even gotten half of what it cost back. It's just stupid to deny that. Not even Sean Connery could have saved Die Another Day, only Brosnan. Maybe producers knew that this movie would make Pierce even more popular and they were ESPECIALLY thinkin' about making it as bad as possible (I personally don't think that Die Another Day is bad. It's quite good actually, but a race-changing villain, a henchman with diamonds in his face, and, most of all, Halle Berry -- that'll turn off any man), but surprise!! People love Brosnan so much, they just didn't give a damn! It was the most commercially successful movie of them all, what'd you do about it! Why would the producers want this movie to be bad? They planned it for a long time and they wanted people to be disappointed in Brosnan and move easily onto next actor, whoever he is. Well, it's just my guess. Maybe they REALLY thought it'd be cool to put diamonds in a man's face and think that he'll look like a badass... Maybe. Dunno.
Anyway, next stop is a look at other franchises that ARE doing good. Like Batman, which Begins. Forget about all that was before, start everything anew and try not to mess up the last chance you've got. Bond producers definitely loved this idea. I think that this movie exactly is responsible for an unfortunate decision to start everything anew in the James Bond universe. Another story is Jason Bourne. Another spy, pretty down-to-earth guy. Not a high-budget movie, doesn't have a famous actor, but quite popular and makes money. We have a base! We need a middle-budget movie. Like... $70,000,000 should work. Not a big money really. Now for...

Part two: Actors.
Oh, yeah, that's where the fun begins. Now I'm about to give you an answer
on your question 'WHY CASTING SOMEONE AS UGLY AS DAN CRAIG??!!" .....'Cause
he's very easy to REPLACE. You can't just replace Pierce Brosnan. Of course, if
they weren't gonna cast Craig from the beginning, then they definitely were trying to lure someone more fitting the role. Like, Hugh Jackman... Jackman himself said they've offered him a role, but wouldn't let him read the script, so, naturally, he refused. Clive Owen said some bullshit (at least I think it's a bullshit and I wonder if Clive himself even knows he ever said that?) "No one can replace Connery". .....Riiiiiiiight......... Next: Ewan
McGregor was too short... Like....... Craig is tall, is he? Ever heard about some movie tricks? So, there's Craig. Sometimes I think they've decided it long ago. They've just created this shit so we could see them "trying". "Oh, no, poor us, we've done what we could in bringing your favorite “Jackmans, McGregors, Owens, put-name-here, but they all, oh the bastards, refused! Can you imagine! We were giving them a whole 1.5 million dollars and they refused!! ...So, naturally we had to move with someone very talented, but lesser known. Danny, come here!”. Poor-man's Bond....... True....... This guy runs completely out of dignity... Anyway, producers now say we're gonna love him. Uh-huh... Sure. For dinner. With right sauce. This guy is stupid enough to say "They've scared all the shit outta me" after his boat ride with Royal Marines. The guy who is stupid enough to say that he hates LA... The guy, who's "talented performance" in, say, "Tomb Raider" I can't even remember. So much for the talent...... But at least this guy won't ask much and he's very easy to replace. Nobody's gonna miss him. He's cheapness is the only reason they cast him. And it the part where it turns out he's an idiot...... Well......... That's a
letdown...

Part three: Reboot.
Now. Alongside with Craig people often hate the whole "reboot" idea. Why do they need a reboot. See........... The thing is, the James Bond we’re used to know is no more. For now, or forever, but it's just like that. Alongside with casting Craig, they've created completely different Bond image. He's no longer charming, handsome, clever, he's nothing more than a hitman with good reflexes. Yep. Again, no charm, even EASIER to replace. I wouldn’t be surprised if they release the book called "how to learn to play James Bond in 3 minutes" and they'll post a few pics, demonstrating simple basic facial
impressions and tone of the voice for any of them.
Besides, they saw "Batman Begins" and they've decided: brilliant idea, let's
do that too!! The only problem is........ Batman WAS broken. Bond wasn't.
Then again, they were looking into the future and they did all they could to
create this "flopproof" wall around James Bond. Well......... I think they'll get what they want. The New Bond movies will never be considered a flop, they'll just make some little profit, but big enough to satisfy the producers.

So, in short... The plan is:
1. Fire Pierce Brosnan, before he gets even more popular (check)
2. Cast an unknown, unattractive, easy to replace actor (check)
3. Start everything anew, like there was never something before (it'll give
some advantage for the new kind of Bond. And besides Brosnan brought James
Bond back to the Zenith of popularity, now's the right time to do something
like this. They'd never do it if Bond wasn't as popular as he is now)
(check)
4. Before anything happens, don't let the moviegoers to decide if they like
him or not, work with "Roger Moore method" -- if they won't like him for the
first time, try, try and try again! ........Someday they'll just get used to
him... Like..:
- Wanna go to the new James Bond movie?
- Who's playing?
- The same. Craig.
- Oh..... Crap......... I dunno....... Well ok... Let's go...

Brilliant plan! Dangerous, but brilliant! They know that people are mostly a crowd, they can be convinced in ANYTHING, but still....... Not all of them are.......

New Bond Critique

Nothing irks a fan more than having a favorite character redone. It didn’t go over that well for the restart of Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, a second movie featuring the renewed Ryan still has yet to be made.

When the announcement was made in 2003 there would be a 5^th Pierce Brosnan film, people were eagerly awaiting the release date. Rumors surfaced that Pierce would not return were unconfirmed and largely dismissed, otherwise the fan fervor would have started years earlier. I for one was looking forward to the next installment, wondering if Valentin Zukovsky (Robbie Coltrane) had survived the World is not Enough (this was purposely left ambiguous), and what would happen with Bill Tanner (Michael Kitchen) described by Ian Fleming as “Bond’s only friend in the service”, also how the death of the original “Q” would affect James.

Its about expectations, the audience had expectations of another classic James Bond story, featuring the same tried and true formula that has somehow worked for all these years. Not an entire rework of the series, ruining the continuity and the feel fans had for the stories and the characters. For example, it is well known that Bond tragically lost his wife, now erasing that history to retell it is one thing, but having Vesper Lynd ,a traitor in the book, taking the place of Tracy Bond is just plain wrong.

The heavy handed tact currently being used by EON, I would have expected from a rival production company starting its own independent James Bond movie line.

“New Coke/New Bond, you love it, you just don’t know it yet.”

When every actor from the production past or present has to come out to defend your new choice as leading role, chastising those who dared to criticize, then you either have a very large public relations problem, hugely miscast the role, or production problems that even the Ford Pinto couldn’t have imagined.

Come to think of it I have never heard an actor say anything pertaining to another actor other than “fine actor they’ll do well in the role” or similar meaningless platitude.

Will actors even publicly criticize each other?

Somehow I doubt Sir Sean Connery made time to obtain a copy of Layer Cake let alone watch it.

I never before gave consideration to an independent production James Bond. I know Sony and a few others had wanted to start one. One idea had been to remake Thunderball for the umpteenth time, as was done in Never Say Never Again.

Alas Never Say Never Again only has merit because of Sean Connery’s return to a role that he alone defined, the other independent attempts don’t even seem worth mentioning.

We all have sat through our of favorite actor’s leaves turning, becoming a little too old to get away with playing Bond and talked amongst our selves about who could possibly be the next James Bond eventually agreeing there is nobody who stands out. (Ironically that’s exactly what EON went with.)

Pierce had at least one maybe two more Bond movies in him, before the general conscious would have been “Hey! That could be your granddaughter, back off a little!”

I almost wish there had been a movie line independent of EON set up, you can bet that Pierce Brosnan would have been snapped up to continue on as James Bond once he was released from EONs maniacal grasp.. Sadly we all now look to Sony for some common sense and common ground.

Perhaps the monopoly EON fought to maintain was a bad thing after all. One need only look as far as George Lucas to see how a good thing can be ruined, and how a new thing created by the same people is not always better, nor as good.

The New Bond is Crass not Class

All of fandom went wild with the release of the new Bond movie trailer and purported movie poster. EON threw gas on the fire that is the civil war they ignited with their fan base.

I showed the preview clip to over a dozen people, one of the ladies viewing the trailer thought the guy at the card table in the end of the trailer was the bad guy. In fairness without English it was hard to tell.

The rest felt assaulted by the opening black and white scenes.

Conjure images of a Transporter or Bourne movie not what we know of as Bond. Some of the younger guys thought it looked pretty cool, they were more Transporter, Fast & Furious fans, and like to be assaulted. Those of us that are Bond fans were hugely disappointed. This is not Bond, so much of it felt wrong, If it wasn’t for the iconic music, (which sounded great by the way), the fleeting glimpse of the car and a few of the other past series standards, it really wasn’t distinguishable as a James Bond preview. The beat down/ assault in the bathroom and the guy doing a Tigger, bouncing down the side of the building screamed Jason Bourne movie. What is with the bathroom scene turning into the legendary gun barrel motif? It comes off as lame or worse.

Aside from the fact movie poster more resembles Dr House (Hugh Laurie) at the card table than the star, Casino Royale does not have a lot in its favor so far. Only the hard core fans will be moved by the title, because we are only ones aware that Casio Royale was the first Bond story. But this isn’t a story made for the fans or nostalgia, its made for the producers to “reinvigorate” themselves. (the same reason George W Bush takes the month of August off.)

Producers complained that they couldn’t do much with the Bond they had, that Pierce Brosnan couldn’t make this movie. There is probably a good reason for that, none of the other Bonds in their prime could make this movie.

EON for decades had two actors as Bond, Dalton and Brosnan, who wanted to do something, anything more with the character. Brosnan is quoted on more than one occasion as saying that he wanted to bring more to the stories, more emotion, more depth. Instead they wrote the scripts they wrote and made the movies they made.

It is as if they put a teenage girl in charge of this production, flights of fancy and whims driven by the newest craze or fad to come into her sphere of influence.

Barbra Broccoli’s statement that she is making this movie for her father come off as disingenuous. While Cubby Broccoli didn’t have the rights to Casino Royale he had every chance to do a prequel story or to restart the series and never did. In fact he spoke out against it.

The film makers forgot what made a Bond movie a Bond movie, oddly the lampooning Austin Powers and Johnny English know the formula by heart.

The first rule is a likeable leading man, someone you can respect and admire. Wrongly or rightly Sean Connery defined who and what James Bond is. Whenever you search for an actor to play Bond your are looking for that generations Sean Connery. A claim that Daniel Craig can fully refute.

This is not the big screen Casino Royale movie that could have been made. This is not the experience of watching a legend be born, rather a desecration and degradation of a much beloved cultural icon. This is not recreating or careful retelling of the series in a thoughtful, provoking way, but a birth of a pierced, tattooed, surly in your face “I didn’t ask to be born” ingrate of a Bond.

After over 40 years of entrenched dogma what did EON expect the reaction would be.

In the books and movies James Bond wanted to do exactly what he was doing and was always motivated as a patriot (ok, sometimes revenge as well).

EON instead picked a man who “Never not wanted to be James Bond” and choose to make a movie where Bond never wanted to be 007. Lack of option drives his decisions rather than desire.

They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity, tell that to Michael Jackson.

If the fans are this upset, the general public is more likely to be disinterested than intrigued. Put off by the fan bickering. Like Star Trek fans (geeks) arguing, most people don’t care, don’t want to be involved and wouldn’t lift a finger to decide the issue.

If EON and Sony had been inclined to make two James Bond movie lines, (Bond Classic and Vanilla Bond if you will), then the fans wouldn’t have felt as slighted or left out in the cold. Come’on guys how about Bond classic revival for 2007. A year with 007 in you can’t lose.

In the end I feel sorry for Sony and yes even the craggy faced Daniel Craig, after all he’s just in it for the payday. Both parties signed up for the James Bond franchise based on the past success and popularity. Neither of whom could have possibly imagined the direction EON would take the series or the fervor of a fan base civil war.

Both are likely to be blamed if the current project fails, instead of EON on who’s shoulders the current fiasco clearly falls.

Casino Royale a 007 sized gamble for the franchise?

With Barbra Broccoli sudden emergence to the forefront as spokesperson for the 007 franchise, also brigs up a lot of questions.

Barbra Broccoli is the champion of the new craggy faced Bond, indeed she fights all of his battles for him. Maybe she is actually fighting for herself, maybe this is a James Bond esque gamble for the franchise. Once Casino Royale bombs out royally in the Box Office, perhaps Sony and the other investors have a chance to wrestle control of the franchise away from EON or even take over EON outright.

We have to wonder after the fans, well not just fans but the public in general had such a lukewarm reaction to the appointment of Craig as James Bond. Why go forward with production at all. Why not do a little market research first. A lot of fans believed that this was akin to a joke and would soon be corrected by the investors. Barbra has a history of bad Bond ideas, no really she does. There was a lot she fancied for the 007 series that her father wouldn't indulge.

The casting of Craig can only makes sense if:

1.) the investors really truly believe in EON can do no wrong.

or 2.) the investors cynically see a chance to gain control.

The current bad Box Office where even a sure thing loses, suggests this is power play. A chance for the studio to steal away the franchise, why else up the anti, why else would Barbra Broccoli be out there doing the Texas two step trying to gin up support for her man, when she has a history of staying far off in the background.

She is dancing publicly now, probably after dancing privately for the investors, because Craig is her choice, hers alone. She “badgered” him until he took the role. Most actors talk about being right for or wanting the role, not being hounded by some insane admirer till they took a role. Craig admits not wanting to be 007 and looking for the big payday, he also says he felt he had to do the movie. Did Barbra have anything to with it?

If she wanted to hire him so badly, why not, she has the money, he can be her personal pool boy or something. But not James Bond. Hell, start a spin off series based on James Bond about another cruder 00 agent.

006 anybody?

Bad English

It just doesn't make sense. Watching the new trailer was offensive, in English more so.

Sony quickly pull the trailer and prototype Casino Royale poster and release a statement that it was a big misunderstanding and a mistake on the part of those who released it. Sounds like trial balloon was shot down in flames after barely a day. Those of us who were on the fence waiting to see what would come of the new Bond, toppled off.

The comments from the various people shown the French and later English trailer to were not positive.

Most of the women, who have been not following the Craig/007 saga were shocked that the guy at the end of the trailer was Bond!!! “He's ugly!" “ Whats wrong with his face...” “That can not be the guy!” ”He's not 007!”

Old time Bond fans, who most have seen the of the original movies in the theater, some starting with Dr. No, thought the he would have been one of the henchmen in the good 'ol days, killed off quickly and quietly in the opening minutes.

The answer is simple give us back our suave sophisticated James Bond. Cancel this self-indulgent crap fest, and give us back the Bond we love, like and admire.

Flemish

The rallying cry to defend the new James Bond is that he is the Bond Fleming wrote.

We are told to accept this ugly reject of a man, if anyone quibbles about casting against type by choosing a man that would cause you to lock your car doors if he came too close. Those claming to be uber Fleming-nauts come out of the woodwork spouting he’s what Fleming wrote. Well he’s not.

The fact is the movie being made is not what Fleming wrote and Daniel Craig is not James Bond as Fleming described him. I could go on here, but others have made these points far better.

Just as an example of what Fleming thought:

At the time of casting Sean Connery Fleming thought Sean Connery was too "unrefined", not enough of a gentleman to be Bond. His choices were more along the lines of David Niven and Cary Grant.

If Fleming thought Sean Connery uncouth what would he make of Daniel Craig?

Books are a great medium that can honestly be credited with changing our world.

Books convey thoughts and ideas that can’t otherwise be captured. They also allow for a wide range of interpretation and imagination.

What one person takes away from reading a book another does not.

I own all of Ian Fleming’s James Bond books in hardcover, they are prominent part of my personal library, I have read and re-read them time and again.

I would welcome an accurate adaptation of all Fleming’s books (including the short stories and Chitty-chitty Bang-bang), portrayed in the age they were written for, starting with Casino Royale.

I’m not saying a true adaptation can’t be done, it hasn’t been done yet and is not being done here..

James Bond 007 has long out lived his creator, and has never been precisely depicted as he was written. Novels change as the are scripted for the screen, that’s just the way it is.

The movies are only an interpretation of what was written.

EON’s talk of retuning Bond to his root is disingenuous, there is nothing to go back to. You can’t miss a place you’ve never been.

The Interpretation they have offered as James Bond for over 40 years, is not the James Bond of the books. Of course in some instances the movies and actors came closer than others.

What would Ian Fleming want? The fact that this is even a debate tells us a lot.

The chosen literate few demand the stop of the movies series as it had been and endorse a restart of the James Bond story according to their strict interpretation. That’s fine, it’s their right to voice what they have found wrong with Bond and what they would like to see. I think in the past their voices have tethered Bond and helped to pull the stories back down to earth after too much time in the stratosphere.

What Ian Fleming wrote or didn’t write is no longer relevant. It doesn’t even come in to the scope of mattering.

What is relevant and what the debate is about is the movies. There was a past standard, quality and story telling to the Bond movies. A formula was developed that people liked.

Everybody who liked the what now must be considered the “old series” have a right if not a duty to demand the return of the James Bond they liked. The movie business is about “giving them what they want”, not us having to want what’s given.

Consider for a moment that the “what Fleming wrote” argument can work against the new production of Casino Royale. They (EON) are not being true to what Fleming wrote, adding elements that were never part of the original Casino Royale story. Screwing up the storyline with plot elements that were never there. Making it untenable to the rest of the movie series.

Yes, I know that my argument about what Fleming wrote not mattering can be used to defend the Casino Royal and Daniel Craig. But that’s my point!!!

My point was never they can’t make this movie, rather that they shouldn’t.

EON and Sony should listen to the concerns of the fans who have cared enough to publicly state them and bring attention to what they consider wrong.

Not respond by lecturing the fans, telling us you will like what is given, and if you chose not to then you don’t understand what Ian Fleming would have wanted. What Ian Fleming wrote is an ideal, and should be strived for, but the ideal hasn’t been met before so why start now. Save the Bond that Fleming wrote argument for the writers that continue the book series, where Fleming’s vision can actually be realized.

I’ve offer a middle ground to appease, put the release of Casino Royale on hold, get Brosnan back make a traditional Bond flick (for arguments sake call it Casino Royale as well), release them both in the year of 007, 2007.

One in May, one in November so they’re not in direct competition.

The reaction is little too much like that of King Solomon offering to divide the baby.

(No shared custody in his court.)

Ian Fleming never could have imagined what his creation would become, how popular he would be, or how much he would mean to people.

If Fleming were here to guide us now, would he care?

Are there any actors alive now that he would approve of?

Somewhere there is a séance going on right now to determine the answer.

Until we have the definitive answer I’ll leave you with one final thought.

Ian Fleming wanted to do a cross over story with contemporary author Rex Stout.

His James Bond 007 working with Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin.

I imagine the title would have been something like:

Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin meet James Bond

007 at Wolfe’s Door

The Poor Man’s James Bond

They hid their star’s face whenever they put up a poster of him. His craggy face is air brushed until it no longer resembles him, cover all but an eyebrow in darkness, anything to make his aspect a more pleasing one.

The trailer for the new movie inspired more people against CR. The script reviews have poisoned the waters. Some of the reviewers themselves are, in some cases positive (some aren’t positive that the character in the script is James Bond).

The more the average guys & gals learn about the changes to James Bond the more unhappy they are about it.

There area actually three camps of fan opposition:

Those who hate the casting of Daniel Craig, see him as completely inappropriate as James Bond.

Those who are accepting Daniel Craig, but not the reboot and the changed formula.

Those who vehemently oppose both the reboot and Daniel Craig.

You have to wonder, why they would take such a risk on a virtual unknown. Simple answer is money, they don’t want to part with it.

If Craig can be Bond then the standards are gone. Manny, Moe, and Jack ( or Larry, Moe, and Curly for that matter) can be Bond now. The guy washing windshields at the intersection for spare change, is now over qualified to be James Bond.

The casting of Craig not only shatters all previous expectations, but also breaks the ties to the old series. The impetus for this is greater future earnings, aka greed.

EON is planning ahead, they want to provide a generic substitute packaged as a name brand. They can cut production cost by providing lesser stories with less special effects and now they can hire the cheapest undiscovered, untalented, uncharismatic actor that can be found, put them together and its James Bond. But only because they say so. That’s the dangerous precedence they want so badly to establish.

Craig is a dull, henchman like, uncharismatic actor. Looks more along the lines of a traditional Bond villain. While undoubtedly he is making more than he ever has in his life, I suspect that his actor fees are bottom basement. Bond by the lowest bidder.

EON is trying so hard to break the molds and change the expectations, so that they can define the brand as what ever they want. They are scrapping the old series because it has too many memories, too many standards to meet. Deciding to cut their overhead cost by cutting the class, sophistication, and story telling. You get 40% less in a narrower package with more additives and filler. (there is a lot of money to be save without gadgets)

It used to be said of James Bond that every man wanted to be him and every woman wanted to be with him. Can that even be said now? Maybe after a lot of plastic surgery and 10 face lifts.

In a way I feel sorry for Daniel Craig. He thinks this is his big break, this could be the break that makes him undesirable for any role in anything else. He doesn’t realize it yet but his savior, Barbra Broccoli, is a poisonous cockatrice. There will be nothing left of him when she is finished with him and if she needs to cut him loose so she can survive, she will, without hesitation. He may never even get the full 3 picture deal.

Craig is not only being used, but he is also expected to be the first to fall on his sword if this fails. That’s a lot of hassle for a job he never really wanted anyway.

Right now EON is struggling to slay the James Bond that we all know and love, and disperse his supporters while muttering their distain of them. “bloody peasants”.

Well the real James Bond does not die that easy and his friends and supporters do not run away from megalomaniacs.

Whatever happens EON will never be able to escape the classic iconic image that will always overshadow any project they commit to.

The Maidment letters

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtmlxml=/news/2006/05/21/nbond21.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/21/ixuknews.html

We are just now learning how bad a shape the Bond series was in the early ninety’s, and how much life Pierce Brosnan breathed in to the series, bringing it back from the edge of the abyss and taking it to soaring heights.

One could say his discourteous dismissal shows the ingrate nature of EON that Sean Connery has complained of for years. Before the current debacle I would have never assumed it of them.

For brief moment I would like to take a closer look at the letters that show the behind the scenes accounting of the series. I am always a little bit suspicious of suddenly handy information. I wonder who “leaked” this, before the current debate, irrelevant information.

Several possibility present themselves.

It’s an innocent coincidence, the poor guy died and the family or executor found the information and then a Bond collector published information.

The powers that be, for whatever purpose decide to let the public in a what was an in house secret, that had only been speculated about before.

Could be “they” are showing the first signs of a white flag. Yes we hear you, there is more going on behind the scenes than you know and we share your concerns, but not publicly. Craig may never be invited to complete his full 3 picture contract, look what happened to poor Dalton.

Could be a warning a shot across the bow of the dissenters (us), look how close it came to ruin, don’t rock the boat too hard.

(Rather hard to read a warning out of it, but I tried anyway.)

Or could be it’s all innocent, nothing to read behind the reason of the revelation. Dumb luck that it appeared when most relevant.

I don’t believe in dumb luck, but it does happen.

Fun to speculate as to why, be here is what we do know.

To say that the series was on life-support is being too polite, the coffin lid had already been nailed shut. The paramedics decide for one last try at a pulse, the backers agree if Pierce Brosnan is brought on board as fresh blood.

From they way it reads, Goldeneye if it had failed could have been the final Bond adventure. As it happened it was a spectacular success, and the series was taken of life-support and started breathing on its own, started walking, then running. Back at its prime after years of decline. Healthy for the first time in years. Thanks to Pierce Brosnan.

It also shows that fan opinion does matter. It matters more than we have been lead to believe, and the companies keep a close track of it.

Timothy Dalton had a lot more going for him than Daniel Craig, but he and his portrayal of Bond were not readily accepted by the public and was being credited for the eventual decline of the series over all.

Now I don’t have a big problem with Timothy Dalton, the Living Daylights his first outing did comparably to the last movie by his predecessor. A good start, didn’t lose any ground, wasn’t shunned as Bond. But two movies in a row (his and Moore’s) didn’t make money right away. His next movie did worse, we can argue about the how to and where for’s. Personally I would blame the producers for taking a bad direction.

His last movie did have all of hype, pomp and circumstance to make it a success, it just didn’t come off that way.

With three loser movies waiting for future earnings to break even, understandably the backers shied away from taking a greater risk. For a variety of reasons, some that were publicized now appear to by flummery, a hold was put on the movies.

The series waited 6 years for right man to come around and resurrect it, breathing vitality into a tired collection of what had been a healthy collaboration.

There is no parallel to be drawn from Craig usurping the role from Pierce, to what Pierce did for the series. Pierce had to start with a flat line and work up to a pulse. Craig has a healthy and fully funded enterprise behind him, he can only tie for first or more likely go downwards from his starting point.

How do you breath vitality, as they claim they are doing, into an already vital organism?

Well it’s not going to supercharge it or give it super powers. More likely to become a mutant (the bad kind without powers) or stroke out.

Back to Top

Coincidence

Personally I don’t think that people make a peep out of Hollywood that the studios haven’t OK’ed. A bit conspiratorial I know, but look how then news works there, it’s mostly gossip, which is a shame. When the news is released it is like a big company (like Exxon or Wal-Mart) rolling out a product, which is what they are doing. A media blitz to trying to create favorable opinion. Nobody talks out of school. The only things you hear otherwise are from the critics and gossip mongers.

Two people, a director and an actor come out of the background with the news that Pierce Brosnan cost me a job (Pierce’s job at the time) or tried to hire me. The timing is suspicious, two stories one after the other. If they would have been released at different times in the last 2 years, that would have seemed more normal.

These people could see a chance to toot their own horn. Grab a little bit of attention. Say look what could of happened if I had been involved. Maybe they are auditioning in their own way.

The studios could be trying to suppress the pro Brosnan sentiment (look what he did, look what he tried to do) or they are fishing for better responses to a director and leading man than what they already have.

The problem EON had with Pierce Brosnan is that he has his own production company. He knows how both sides of the business works. He knows how to: hire actors, directors, scriptwriters, support staff, music, marketing, distribution. He also knows how much producers can make. In short he knows too much. The other actors took what was given without knowing any better.

The poor guy who created the gun barrel motif never got paid but for one job, it has been used in every Bond movie since Dr. No.
To be fair it was his decision when they asked him how he would like to be paid. Either he didn’t believe that there would be more movies or that they would ever use his design again, so he didn’t risk it and was paid for the one movie. If he had known more, who knows.

1.)Actor Dougray Scott says that Pierce Brosnan did “U-turn”, and returned to his role as 007. He says that EON was in talks with him before that.

I don’t know much about Dougray, I can remember him from the movies he was in, so he does have screen presence, unlike some. Whether he would be right for Bond, even he wasn’t sure.

I don’t doubt his truthfulness, but I doubt how truthful EON was being with him. Brosnan was signed for a four-film deal. If Pierce was playing hard to get for Die Another Day (his fourth film), then EON sounding out a replacement makes good sense. But its doubtful. Pierce has been the one actor to play Bond that the fans could count on.
With the number of young men coming forth saying EON offered or talked to them about being Bond, its more likely Barbra Broccoli just likes auditioning young men who will do anything to please her.

2.)Director Brett Ratner says that Pierce Brosnan approached him to direct the next Bond Film.
Kind of odd that Pierce would be the one shopping for directors. Might have been part of his contract if it was renewed. They may have told him to shop around for a director he liked, may have encourage him to be more involved.
Ratner’s revelation shows that Pierce was involved and wanted to make the next movie happen, he was enthused about it. We go from a actor who wants to make the movie, to a guy who only wants a big payday with the wishful realization of his big break finally happening.

If X-men 3 is a box-office smash EON is going to wish they had signed Ratner.

Fans have never missed Cubby Broccoli more than now.
If Cubby Broccoli were around, he would have known not to mess with a winning combination.

His children are having a very hard time filling his shoes.

Back to Top

For Bond’s Sake

The reason fans are upset is not because they hate Daniel Craig or the concept of the reboot. It is because they love James Bond. They can clearly foresee his imminent demise.

Think of them as the people who tried to stop the release of New Coke, the heroes.
I’m sure there were people phoning, writing and trying to get attention anyway they could to stop the formula change of a product they loved and knew in their heart wouldn’t work. Coca-Cola lost customers during that experiment that still have not come back.

Those willing to go along with whatever EON produces are upset that anyone dares to utter a dissenting voice, often accusing them of possibly harming the franchise. Well the franchise is already harmed, 40 years of goodwill spent in a matter of moments. If you can’t see that then you haven’t looked objectively.

Every day business lose customers, most don’t know it. Nobody bothers to tell them why they have lost their business. Bond fans have cared enough to gather on their own and try to save a beloved icon.
Trying to work out our differences, trying to help people understand what’s wrong.
If production hadn’t been rushed, this movie and likely Craig would have been stopped by early fan sentiment alone.

Usually what happens is a split, people disaffected walk away with out much notice. That has happened, a lot have left already and will not be returning.
Underestimating fan commitment is a mistake, it is a vein that runs deep.
Some of us didn’t know how much it mattered to us until now, we will not support this travesty in the theaters or on DVD.

Appropriate that Craig came ashore wearing a lifejacket, he is on a sinking ship. (pun intended)
His appearance and appointment marked a huge shift, the beginning of the end. A cleft.
People were not prepared for his appearance, it was a shock to the system. For years EON continued misleading people that Pierce Brosnan would return to the role, then suddenly they yank the rug out from under them. Not only is Pierce fired but you are told all of the old movies you like so much are rubbish.

Craig has yet to get really good press. Some people are excited for him that’s true. But more and more people from hard core fans to people on the street, and now movie critics are starting to question what the hell EON was thinking. George Lazenby is getting apologies and flowers sent to him. (not that he would want the flowers)
More has been done to pump Craig up, trying to persuade people that is good looking and appropriately cast in the role of Bond. That it is even necessary tells you that he is not.

Ignored in the shadows are the people sitting at home right now who aren’t going to get off their couches to go see Casino Royale, you’ll never hear from them, they just won’t show. They are the people more likely to be unmoved by the rebooted Bond, disaffected as the rest of us, but never bothering to say it.

Fans have never supported the movies alone, hundreds of thousands of people went to see the movies as well. This new formula and leading man assumes that they would have gone anyway and will continue to. It discounts the theory that they actually liked what a Bond movie was. Worldwide there is a cultural subconscious image of who James Bond is, what a Bond movie looks like. This new formula will not meet those expectations.

The real danger is the people who blindly follow EON. With their support they encourage the movie and harass all dissenters. The dissenters are right to voice their concerns, not just for what they like or don’t, but mostly out of concern that the restart/recast will not be well received and the series will die a lingering painful death. The new direction amputates all the success previous Bond movies have stood on. (only the name ,the music and producers are the same)

If the supporters are wrong and this movie, this Bond fails miserably at the theaters then they will be partially responsible the death of James Bond.

The responsibility for the demise of the franchise can only rest with the people who run it.

Jar-Jar

Somebody probably has already made the comparison.

I was going to compare the unveiling of Daniel Craig to the nomination of Herriet Miers for the supreme court.
The parallel is exact.
Both were pulled from relative obscurity, nominated for one of the most coveted jobs in their fields.
Both the greeted by the general public with, ”huh? Who are you again?” “What are you doing here?” “Oh!! It’s a joke! Ok, where’s the real nominee?”.
Both handled the questions from the critics the same way.
Both never wanted the job.
The only difference is Herriet realized she was out of her league and asked to have her nomination withdrawn, Craig has yet to notice the water has been getting increasingly hotter.

But I realized that most people living outside of the United Sates, Canada, and Mexico would not know of this wonderfully fitting parallel.

Who could I nominate next?... Jar-Jar Binks – until I find better.

The infamous Jar-Jar Binks of the Star Wars prequels, in a tuxedo as 007. The parallel is not exact, only absurd.
Thou Jar-Jar in a tux would ooze more charm than Craig has been capable of so far.
Both Craig and Binks are much beloved by their creators.
Both Craig and Binks are annoying.
Both Craig and Binks were greeted by lukewarm fan reaction.

Binks has the digital help for his face Craig so desperately needs.
Craig has one advantage over Jar-Jar, he can’t be construed as a racist stereotype. (or can he?)
Lucas against his desire eventually had to scale back the Binks character, bowing to pressures from fans and critics.

I haven’t posted it here, but George Lucas recently surrendered.
The original Star Wars Trilogy (New Hope, Empire Strikes, the Jedi Return) will be released in September on dvd without the special edition cuts and additions Lucas has been adding since the 90’s, something Lucas vowed he’d never do. Yes it’s a gimmick, and he’ll make more money re-releasing the same movies again for the umpteenth time. But it is a victory.
Greedo will not shoot first! Fans have demanded this DVD release for years!
Fans can prevail even in the face of official opposition.

James Bond has never been bigger than the star who plays him. This is recognized by the Maidment letters. “without a star big enough to take the leading role…”
They knew they needed a star capable of carrying the series, not the other way around.

Bond movies to not have the same fanaticism the Star Wars movies have behind them. Bond fans do not wait in line for up to 3 months before the movie is released, and will not go to see just any movie with a 007 sticker slapped on it. This was proven when License to Kill was still in theaters.

Not since the heady days of Sean Connery, has an unknown risen to stardom propelling the series. Huge difference between now and then, is that when Connery took the mantel, Bond was unknown, undefined. The precedence has never been repeated, everyone else to successfully take up the mantle has had a career, been widely known, known for similar roles and eventually accepted as Bond before their first outing, they also made more than one movie. (Sorry George, you can’t be counted as a successful. Cheer up! People are starting to see you in different light, you are not the Daniel Craig of James Bond.)

Craig does not have his this in his favor, he can’t match any of the previous Bonds, so they scrapped it. Start from scratch, cobbling together the kind of Bond Craig can play, borrowing heavily from Jason Bourne. Which is more disastrous than if Craig had tried to play James Bond the same as his predecessors did.

Now there is the talk of rushing into production a second Daniel Craig movie, that is even more insane. Talk about pompous, aside from their absolute belief, nobody has any idea if Craig’s first movie will succeed. But they don’t want to miss the opportunity to release a Bond movie in 2007 the year of 007,(where have I heard that before?).
It’s comparable to yelling at the captain of the Titanic, “Hey! There is an iceberg ahead!” and getting the reply “More Speed! We shall break the speed record on our first crossing!”

Wouldn’t it make more sense to release the CR a month and a half later?
EON is forgetting that some parts of the world won’t see it in the theaters until 2007 anyway. They are manically scrambling their way head first into a dark dead-end alley.
If they force out a sequel I guess they can count on Craig being there if the doors are open, its not like he has got better things to do.

Arrogance alone will wreck the series, there were reasons for spacing the movies out. Looks like that lesson is going to have to be relearned.
Compounding the problems is their attitude, asked in an interview about the fans concerns Daniel Craig said “When it comes out, if they still feel the same way then, you know, screw them!”

EON’s actions demonstrate that it wasn’t just the opinion of the star, but the opinion the entire production company has been operating under.