It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
A point raised in the video above by the interviewer (at 4:14) is that Bond now seems more adapted for our times. Craig even says it wasn't really a conscious decision to do, just to way it fell and happened to turn out.
I believe the 21st Bond film was always going to be Casino Royale but when, for whatever reason, Bond was recast, the film became what it did due to Craig as EON having found their man wanted to please him and as said before becuase it's the type of film Craig likes to make, with character growth and a slightly damaged lead.
I honestly think we would have got the Bond films the way they are now whenever Craig was playing Bond as that's who he is as an actor and what he likes to do, be it 1996 or 2006. Bourne was just there at the time to draw comparisons to.
As for Craig, I am not so sure we wouldn't have gotten him had it not been for Bourne. I believe that Barbara Broccoli was very enthusiastic about casting him and besides that, yes, he's different, but I don't recognize any Matt Damon quality in him. I agree that Craig's Bond isn't like Brosnan's Bond, but for all I know they decided, after DAD, to simply change direction altogether. I feel that the criticism they got for DAD is an underestimated factor in these discussions, whereas the whole Bourne thing get's too much attention. But that's just me.
There is no real evidence is there?
Bond has always ploughed its own furrow. Granted there have been a few pop cultrue references in the sixties and seventies films and one film in particular decided to jump aboard the Sci-Fi bandwagon but it has never followed trends for an entire era. You are giving this Bourne nonsense too much credence. Whenever the Broccolis have looked around for inspiration they went back to the books.
After the OTTness of the Brosnan era they had a stroke of luck to have Casino Royale be avialable. That is the inspiration for the Craig era and Daniel Craig himself. Craig is not going to do a jokey louche Bond. He is not that kind of actor. He comes from the British school of realism. He is naturally going to be a tougher grittier Bond then Pierce who comes from TV glamour.
To be honest, like Rog and Tim, Dan took the role, got it in a stranglehold and marched it in a direction he wanted.
Bourne could have as much influence on Craigs Bond as The Wind in the Willows or Doctor Who and the Silurians..
Its just hypothesising....
Sorry @actonsteve, but your examples are well off course... ;-)
As for Craig I think he got the role on his own merits and his performance has shown that. The people who complain that Craig doesn't look like "Fleming's Bond" should also be complaining about Moore then - with his light brown hair and lack of "cruel looking eyes and mouth". As for Craig being a "hulk Bond" (WTF?) or not sophisticated enough I really see him as a modern version of Connery - can wear a suit well but is also a two-fisted man's man.
Alexander Witt, who was a second unit director for Bourne Identity, a highly popular and critically acclaimed action/spy series rival was hired as second unit director for Casino Royale. Coincidence? Unlikely but possible.
Dan Bradley, a second unit director for Bourne Supremacy (and later Ultimatum) was then hired as second unit director for Quantum of Solace. Coincidence again? Really?
Listen, obviously Bourne wasn't the only reason the Bond franchise made massive changes after Die Another Day. Brosnan's salary demands, his age, his attitude, the criticism about DAD being over the top, getting the rights to make Casino Royale and it being the first novel and thus a perfect opportunity to hire a new actor and start fresh all played a role, no question, but to claim that since there's no acknowledgement from EON regarding Bourne's influence in CR and QOS, that it didn't play a role is ridiculous, even if only for the editing and action, is simply burying your head in the sand!
The Bond franchise has always had to be reactionary towards popular trends, and popular films to survive. The drastic change towards a more believable and intense style is just the latest, before that were many others, like the Star Wars influenced Moonraker, or the Martial Arts / Jackie Chan type casting of Michele Yeoh in TND. There's nothing to be ashamed by this, Bond has always had to adapt itself to the times in order to survive!
Casino Royale has an old style elegance that Mr Damon and his bunch could not hope to match. I suspect these are the real reason to change direction rather then a slavish desire to copy Bourne.
I tend to think it has been forgotten already. And its importance overstated,
Looking at those numbers, Babs & Mikey knew where to go. MI2 and Bourne has shown that the US public wanted believable and fast paced action.
US Domestic Gross (Int'l Gross)
2000-05 MI II 215.4M (331.0)
2002-06 Identity 121.7M (92.4M)
2002-11 Die Another Day 160.9M (271.0M)
2004-07 Supremacy 176.2M (112.3M)
2005-10 - Craig announced as Bond
2006-05 MI III 134.0M (263.8M)
2006-11 Casino Royale 167.4M (426.8M)
2007-08 Ultimatum 227.5M (215.4M)
2008-11 Quantum of Solace 168.4M (417.7M)
In other words, the Bourne Franchise is just as significant as Bond in the states. Cultural phenomenon? No. But still, MI and Bourne have proved just as significant if not more than Bond in US box office, much more at peaks.
Yes, CR was going to be B21, yes, Brosnan was not going to come back... But the whole reboot thing was done in answer to Bourne. EON would have prefered to simply recast and change the tone of the films had Bourne not posed a threat. The whole reboot thing was an extreme decision, and it wasn't decided out of thin air. EON would not make such risky decisions as rebooting and casting Craig just for the heck of it. There was a thread to Bond's believability, and Bourne was a serious contender, so something big had to happen.
Dutch Box Office results over the whole year:
() The position of the year list. For example Batman Begins 37 means the 37th place of the year 2005.
Feb 2002 Spy Game $924,335 (40)
Sep 2002 Identity $2,016,953 (19)
Aug 2002 Jack Ryan: The Sum of All Fears $1,141,337 (33)
Oct 2002 Triple X $2,411,188 (15)
Jan 2003 DAD $7,348,890 (4) Ticket prices: € 7,70-8,25
April 2003 Johnny English $4,235,689 (11)
Aug 2003 Tomb Raider 2 $1,431,757 (34)
Oct 2003 Bad Boys 2 $3,577,612 (13)
Sep 2004 Supremacy $2,202,967 (24)
Nov 2004 The Incredibles $5,708,600 (6)
Apr 2005 Triple X Next Level $503,525 (73)
July 2005 Mr. & Mrs. Smith $4,585,304 (8)
July 2005 Batman Begins $1,404,056 (37)
May 2006 Mi3 $2,739,424 (15)
Nov 2006 CR $10,559,951 (2) Ticket Prices: € 9,00-€9,50
June 2007 Die Hard 4 $3,192,702 (16)
Sep 2007 Ultimatum $3,812,124 (13)
Oct 2007 Kingdom $1,133,257 (44)
Jan 2008 Kite Runner $7,147,285 (6)
May 2008 Jones 4 $6,858,076 (7)
July 2008 TDK $7,220,399 (5)
July 2008 Mamma Mia $9,812,663 (1)
Nov 2008 Body of Lies $1,097,269 (54)
Nov 2008 QOS $8,856,996 (2) Ticket Prices: € 10,00
You have also to remember that Eon is based in Mayfair. Babs and Mickey are over here for alot of the year as most of the auditioning and hiring and firing is done over here. Let alone the script. I am sure they looked at the market share and I am sure MGM executives pointed it out to them but I am not convinced it was a major thing with them.
But Bourne isnt very big over here. Bond has the primetime Saturday afternoon spot on the major terrestrial channels at the moment. Bourne pops up once every blue moon on a digital channel.
If Bourne inspires Bond to a new perspective at action sequences I´m fine. If Bourne inspires Bond to get hunted all the time by his own bosses, or if Bond should lose his memory in a different way than described in the TMWTGG novel, I´m not gonna be happy.
As for amnesia, I´d say it´s a little late for that now, but something like in the TMWTGG novel could be very intriguing.
But still the idea how Fleming described it was good. Maybe in 15 years or so ;-) .
Honestly, barely no-one hangs around on niche-group forums like this one.
The problem has always been that Bond in the 60s pioneered the action/adventure film and everyone copied it. Eventually talented film makers like Speilberg did such good copies that they improved the genre, until the day came when the Bond makers began to play catch up.
However now its nip and tuck. Bond still shows it can be influenced by other films, and equally is still capable of creating moments of cinematic magic that people talk about for years after (Craig emerging from the sea is an iconic movie moment regardless of what anoracs think about it).
Why does it bother some people so much? I agree with thelordflasheart, Craig is the nearest we have had to Connery, and if people think Craig isn't good enough for Fleming's legacy, then neither was Connery.