Do Anti-Craiger's now accept he has been a successful Bond?

[Dr. No]

A genuine question I have been wondering for a while now.

Ever since the positive reviews started flooding in, the BO takings started rocketing, forum members on Mi6, AJB and CBN rejoicing, and CR/DC being nominated for awards, do the anti fans here now accept the boycott failed, and it appears as though the world at large has not just accepted Craig as the new Bond, but celebrated the fact that he is a great Bond?

This is not a thread to start flame wars, get people riled, or provoke silly answers. I would like careful, considered, intelligent, thoughtful replies please if possible.

It doesn't mean you have to like Craig to say yes to this, obviously, and this by no means suddenly reflects a warming to the idea of Craig as Bond either. I would just like a response on this question, and whether you now (grudgingly) accept Craig has been a success in his first film, even if you still hate him as Bond.

To me Cr is not a Bond film it is a average action adventure.
But I long ago gave up hope of the boxoffice rewarding the best films.(all films in general not just Bond films)

Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is a billion dollar movie, but not the best one of the summer. Got roped in to seeing that one over the sum,er holidays.

I don’t think CR was ever going to be a failure. It would have been nice since it really wasn’t a Bond film for it to fail as that. Which it has as a bond film. As a average action flick it had its draw and that may have served it better than the Bond name.

[Skywalker]

A genuine question I have been wondering for a while now.

Ever since the positive reviews started flooding in, the BO takings started rocketing, forum members on Mi6, AJB and CBN rejoicing, and CR/DC being nominated for awards, do the anti fans here now accept the boycott failed, and it appears as though the world at large has not just accepted Craig as the new Bond, but celebrated the fact that he is a great Bond?

This is not a thread to start flame wars, get people riled, or provoke silly answers. I would like careful, considered, intelligent, thoughtful replies please if possible.

It doesn't mean you have to like Craig to say yes to this, obviously, and this by no means suddenly reflects a warming to the idea of Craig as Bond either. I would just like a response on this question, and whether you now (grudgingly) accept Craig has been a success in his first film, even if you still hate him as Bond.

CR has done really well at the box office and it has proved to be a successful start for DC (Not as well as Sir Roger on his debut as Bond).

The BAFTA nominations are always a sign of a good film.

The problem for me is that it is not a 'good' Bond film. The marketing for CR was aggressive and utilised shots of DC coming out of the water very well. This boosted the attendance figures with many more women going to see the film.

Finally, a well-thought, well-constructed, intelligent response.

This is what I was looking for. Well done Skywalker!!

Thank you.

On a side note to my earlier comment., The BBC news today highlighted that most men now aspire to look like DC. This was the verdict of Men's Health magazine. I wonder if this has stemmed from men watching CR with their partners and the females commenting on how good DC looked.

[The Sweeney]

A genuine question I have been wondering for a while now.

Ever since the positive reviews started flooding in, the BO takings started rocketing, forum members on Mi6, AJB and CBN rejoicing, and CR/DC being nominated for awards, do the anti fans here now accept the boycott failed, and it appears as though the world at large has not just accepted Craig as the new Bond, but celebrated the fact that he is a great Bond?

This is not a thread to start flame wars, get people riled, or provoke silly answers. I would like careful, considered, intelligent, thoughtful replies please if possible.

It doesn't mean you have to like Craig to say yes to this, obviously, and this by no means suddenly reflects a warming to the idea of Craig as Bond either. I would just like a response on this question, and whether you now (grudgingly) accept Craig has been a success in his first film, even if you still hate him as Bond.

CR has done really well at the box office and it has proved to be a successful start for DC (Not as well as Sir Roger on his debut as Bond).

The BAFTA nominations are always a sign of a good film.

The problem for me is that it is not a 'good' Bond film. The marketing for CR was aggressive and utilised shots of DC coming out of the water very well. This boosted the attendance figures with many more women going to see the film.

Finally, a well-thought, well-constructed, intelligent response.

This is what I was looking for. Well done Skywalker!!

Thank you.

On a side note to my earlier comment., The BBC news today highlighted that most men now aspire to look like DC. This was the verdict of Men's Health magazine. I wonder if this has stemmed from men watching CR with their partners and the females commenting on how good DC looked.

In that case, guilty as charged, because I'm one of these sad people....

[carl stromberg]

For me personally he is not a successful Bond as I did not enjoy Craig's interpretation as Bond. But commercially, like Pierce Brosnan before him (including Die Another Day) he has been a success!

[Commander 0077]

To me Cr is not a Bond film it is a average action adventure.
But I long ago gave up hope of the boxoffice rewarding the best films.(all films in general not just Bond films)

Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is a billion dollar movie, but not the best one of the summer. Got roped in to seeing that one over the sum,er holidays.

I don’t think CR was ever going to be a failure. It would have been nice since it really wasn’t a Bond film for it to fail as that. Which it has as a bond film. As a average action flick it had its draw and that may have served it better than the Bond name.[/quote]

I agree, Doctor.
1. CR is more a generic action film rather than a Bond film (70% generic, 30% Bond). I suppose you can do an in-depth study. Stuntwork, scenery, pacing, music etc > all these can be found in any action flick. But what makes a Bond film a Bond film?
a. The character of James Bond himself. Does he have a definable character? As we can see, it's open to debate.
b. The background of James Bond. This is less open to debate, as clearly Bond's background has been tweaked - both from the Book-Bond and the Movie-Bond.
c. And so on .... music (should it be melodic?) ... action (is it supposed to be 'realistic' with blood and entrails )

2. Pirates 2 made a lot of BO bucks, too. But it is far the lesser of the Pirates franchise. It's taken a fantasy pirate and made him a total Disney cartoon pirate. One can argue that he isn't the same Jack Sparrow. Of course, that's the argument on Bond. Is he the same Bond?

Let's all go to the courtroom and bring in all the evidence pro and con.

[The Sweeney]

I agree, Doctor.
1. CR is more a generic action film rather than a Bond film (70% generic, 30% Bond). I suppose you can do an in-depth study. Stuntwork, scenery, pacing, music etc > all these can be found in any action flick. But what makes a Bond film a Bond film?
a. The character of James Bond himself. Does he have a definable character? As we can see, it's open to debate.
b. The background of James Bond. This is less open to debate, as clearly Bond's background has been tweaked - both from the Book-Bond and the Movie-Bond.
c. And so on .... music (should it be melodic?) ... action (is it supposed to be 'realistic' with blood and entrails )

2. Pirates 2 made a lot of BO bucks, too. But it is far the lesser of the Pirates franchise. It's taken a fantasy pirate and made him a total Disney cartoon pirate. One can argue that he isn't the same Jack Sparrow. Of course, that's the argument on Bond. Is he the same Bond?

Let's all go to the courtroom and bring in all the evidence pro and con.

I think we should all sit patiently and wait to see how he develops in Bond 22, then make your minds up. CR is only the beginning of the story.....

[Skywalker]

I think we should all sit patiently and wait to see how he develops in Bond 22, then make your minds up. CR is only the beginning of the story.....

Reading an interview by DC, he states that he will be a lot more refined in Bond 22. Let's hope so.

[Kristatos]

It doesn't mean you have to like Craig to say yes to this, obviously, and this by no means suddenly reflects a warming to the idea of Craig as Bond either. I would just like a response on this question, and whether you now (grudgingly) accept Craig has been a success in his first film, even if you still hate him as Bond.

I don't hate him as Bond, I just don't think he looks the part. But yes, I accept that the film is a critical and commercial success. I think you'd have to be in complete denial not to.

[The Sweeney]

It doesn't mean you have to like Craig to say yes to this, obviously, and this by no means suddenly reflects a warming to the idea of Craig as Bond either. I would just like a response on this question, and whether you now (grudgingly) accept Craig has been a success in his first film, even if you still hate him as Bond.

I don't hate him as Bond, I just don't think he looks the part. But yes, I accept that the film is a critical and commercial success. I think you'd have to be in complete denial not to.

Thanks for your post, Kristatos and welcome to the funhouse.....

[carl stromberg]

I think we should all sit patiently and wait to see how he develops in Bond 22, then make your minds up. CR is only the beginning of the story.....

....I can't wait for the end.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

I think we should all sit patiently and wait to see how he develops in Bond 22, then make your minds up. CR is only the beginning of the story.....

Is that a good or bad selling point?
Don't mean to be too picky I don't know if it is a good idea to have a story that -when looked back on- will not be a good stand alone movie. Trilogies always have a weak link. Even LOTR. The 2nd Matrix movie comes to mind as a bad 1 out of 3.

The best plan would be good stand alone movies that don't need a set up. -with Bond being Bond

How can he be the greatest Bond ever when he never developed in to Bond?
Some of it is going to be –understandably- promotion. Some are going to be people genuinely thrilled.
As I said I don't hate Craig, but I don't see Bond in CR.

But it is worrisome that we can’t judge him because its part of a trilogy and he may develop in to Bond eventually –some day.
Maybe you don’t mean it that way.

[The Sweeney]

I think we should all sit patiently and wait to see how he develops in Bond 22, then make your minds up. CR is only the beginning of the story.....

Is that a good or bad selling point?
Don't mean to be too picky I don't know if it is a good idea to have a story that -when looked back on- will not be a good stand alone movie. Trilogies always have a weak link. Even LOTR. The 2nd Matrix movie comes to mind as a bad 1 out of 3.

The best plan would be good stand alone movies that don't need a set up. -with Bond being Bond

How can he be the greatest Bond ever when he never developed in to Bond?
Some of it is going to be –understandably- promotion. Some are going to be people genuinely thrilled.
As I said I don't hate Craig, but I don't see Bond in CR.

But it is worrisome that we can’t judge him because its part of a trilogy and he may develop in to Bond eventually –some day.
Maybe you don’t mean it that way.

I am a huge fan of Bond (novels moreso) and I thought this was Fleming's Bond in CR. However, I know this is still some way away from the refined, cool, smooth-talking, unruffled, gadget-crazy cinematic Bond that we have seen developing over the years.

I think the producers will bring more of these more traditional cinematic elements into Bond 22, but for me CR was perfect. I say this `wait and see' more for the doubters. How can you say Craig will never be like Bond until you see how the story develops?

CR is the first time it began a story and didn't conclude it since OHMSS. And also the first time ever that we have been allowed to see Bond develop into Bond. Sure, artistic license has played a part here, and some didn't like the reboot concept. I personally loved it.

[Skywalker]

I think we should all sit patiently and wait to see how he develops in Bond 22, then make your minds up. CR is only the beginning of the story.....

Is that a good or bad selling point?
Don't mean to be too picky I don't know if it is a good idea to have a story that -when looked back on- will not be a good stand alone movie. Trilogies always have a weak link. Even LOTR. The 2nd Matrix movie comes to mind as a bad 1 out of 3.

The best plan would be good stand alone movies that don't need a set up. -with Bond being Bond

How can he be the greatest Bond ever when he never developed in to Bond?
Some of it is going to be –understandably- promotion. Some are going to be people genuinely thrilled.
As I said I don't hate Craig, but I don't see Bond in CR.

But it is worrisome that we can’t judge him because its part of a trilogy and he may develop in to Bond eventually –some day.
Maybe you don’t mean it that way.

I am a huge fan of Bond (novels moreso) and I thought this was Fleming's Bond in CR. However, I know this is still some way away from the refined, cool, smooth-talking, unruffled, gadget-crazy cinematic Bond that we have seen developing over the years.

I think the producers will bring more of these more traditional cinematic elements into Bond 22, but for me CR was perfect. I say this `wait and see' more for the doubters. How can you say Craig will never be like Bond until you see how the story develops?

CR is the first time it began a story and didn't conclude it since OHMSS. And also the first time ever that we have been allowed to see Bond develop into Bond. Sure, artistic license has played a part here, and some didn't like the reboot concept. I personally loved it.

After hearing an interview from DC about Bond 22 I am hopeful that the Bond that was lacking in CR will return in the new movie.

My main concern is that it is a big step forward in the refinement stage of his personality. If DC delivers the ultra cool agent in Bond 22 then I will be happy man.

[carl stromberg]

Can Craig really play the "normal Bond"?

[BondFan007]

Easily, he's played refined in other roles.

[Skywalker]

Easily, he's played refined in other roles.

It's a shame Martin Campbell didn't allow him to be in CR.

[BondFan007]

There were hints at it, especially in Venice and when he was ordering the food and drink, but, as others have said, he was shown growing into the part.

I hope his interpretation of Bond goes more inline with Connery/Lazenby/Dalton than the Bond of Moore/Brosnan, as they seem to suit his acting style more.

[007]

I'm not sure Craig can play the traditional Bond. Surely the whole point of his casting was to change the character and bring him more into line with modern action heroes like Jason Bourne.

[agent english]

Yes DC hs been accepted as Bond, and will continue to reign in the role
for perhaps the next decade. The debate that Bond is now a copycat of the
Bourne series is ridiculous.
Anyway outside the US, Jason Bourne is not in Bond leagues.

[BondFan007]

The debate that Bond is now a copycat of the
Bourne series is ridiculous.

Agreed. The Bourne series borrowed alot from Fleming's novels and earlier Bond films. The "You Only Live Twice"/"Man with the Golden Gun" subplots for example.

Casino Royale may have become more series because of the Bourne films, but only because it showed that's what's popular now. Bond films have always followed other film trends:

Live and Let Die (Blaxploitation)
Moonraker (Star Wars)
Licence to Kill (Die Hard style)

(Die Hard 2 even borrowed from Licence to Kill)