What's new

James Bond/Daniel Craig

proxy.php
 
If you're referring to me, I'm in my 20s (although that is considered old by some). There is no "argument" to BTFO here. From my perspective, this is a discussion and an exchange of opinions that I hope remains civil.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not concerned about the "wish fulfilment" aspect of Bond...I just find the aspect of the 007 change lazy, forced and a poorly-veiled attempt by the studio at showing how diverse, aware/"woke", groundbreaking and wonderful they are by doing something that has been done before but passing it off as if it is revolutionary/original and insightful of modern social issues.

You previously stated that a virtue-signalling approach is counterintuitive as such films make less money (i.e. why would a film studio make such films knowing they'd bomb in the box office?) and I'm suggesting that such studios and staff haven't learnt the lesson yet that trying to push a weak, overdone political message doesn't sell well (i.e. they are so out-of-touch with public opinion that they think such films will sell well despite contrary evidence)...unless there is something else I'm missing in what you previously said?

So your whole argument is predicated on the assumption the studios, who pour MASSIVE amounts of money and time into market research, and have a track record of printing money with these established franchises, know less about what the market wants than you.

Got it.

With all civility, your post suggests you really don't understand signaling theory very much. Additionally, you are presenting what other people often use as very sanitized language used to exclude people unlike themselves from partaking in many things (in this case portraying a fictional role). However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and rather than accuse you of doing the same, merely point out that your posts are in strong danger of reading that way, too.
 
So your whole argument is predicated on the assumption the studios, who pour MASSIVE amounts of money and time into market research, and have a track record of printing money with these established franchises, know less about what the market wants than you.

Got it.

The conclusion is based on how well (or not so well) films with preachy political messages do. It's not just an assumption, it's proven by how badly "woke" films do in box office sales. Films with political messages are fine, just not when they are in comedy/action films/films where they are out of place...the general public clearly don't like it. Market forces and changes in demand/supply will eventually lead such "woke" strategies to be phased out in favour of strategies that sell well, but it takes time for any company/industry to respond to the market, no matter how good the research and data (which also takes time to collect) is. The continued release of relatively low-grossing "woke" films despite poor reception could be due to this delay in response, and yes, it's plausible that some of the executives in the entertainment industry are arrogant/out-of-touch enough with public demand that they refuse to accept such reality (we do see glimpses of the arrogance of some individuals in the industry).

If the 007 change is another forced, thinly-veiled attempt to appear diverse for the sake of preaching, it will reflect in sales figures, critic reviews and public opinion. Only time will tell what happens though.
 

shavefan

I’m not a fan
The financial aspect is an interesting one, studios placing their "bets" and all that. Bond movies historically haven't been block busters but they've done well. Going back a little bit...
  • 2006 Casino Royal $600MM
  • 2008 QoS $586MM
  • 2012 Skyfall $1,101MM
  • 2015 Spectre $880MM
Only time will tell how "Bond 25" does, and if the transition to the new 007 sticks
 
For me there is only Roger Moore. End of story. He was supreme.
Roger Moore was my favorite Bond too....... until I saw another Bond. My first exposure to Bond was Moore in Live And Let Die. I was pretty much on board with his first 3-4 movies and then things went south real quickly. Once his newness wore off I wasn't really buying into the connection between him and the role. Then I saw a couple of the early Connery bond pics and knew instantly that he was a much superior Bond. He had the suaveness but more importantly, he had the behavioral and physical heft/gravitas to make him a much more convincing and believable Bond. He made Moore look like a butler. I've never seen the Dalton Bond but I'm curious to check him out. From the very start I was never convinced Brosnan fit in the role of Bond so I've never seen the whole of any of his movies. I've seen bits and pieces of his movies and from what I've seen, I was right in my initial assessment. Then came Daniel Craig. After the opening action sequence of Casino Royale I was astounded. This was a much more grounded and gritty Bond. Gone was the campy silliness, stupid bon mots and ridiculous gadgets. This was the kind of Bond I wanted to see all along but didn't totally know it until I saw it. Connery is a close second. I would love to have seen him as he was back in the day in the type of gritty and more serious movie like those Craig appears in.
 

FarmerTan

"Self appointed king of Arkoland"
Lol. YMMV, even in Bond actors! I really liked Brosnan, he was kind of a cross between Moore and Connery to me.

Coming from a Cosmetologist, this might make sense to some of you: James Bond is not a blonde.
 
Lol. YMMV, even in Bond actors! I really liked Brosnan, he was kind of a cross between Moore and Connery to me.

I blame it on Remington Steele. I always thought he looked like a Popsicle stick under a helmet of hair.

Coming from a Cosmetologist, this might make sense to some of you: James Bond is not a blonde.

Well that's not a very progressive point of view! :001_rolle:001_302: That Craig was a blonde didn't even remotely occur to me as a thing and then I read online that a lot of people were upset about it. To a degree I'm a purist too but that one never even caused a blip on my radar.
 
Connery is also my all-time favourite Bond with Moore a close second. The Bonds up to Craig seemed more suave and smooth, they'd use some sort of gadget/trick to get out of a problem whereas Craig would just punch or run his way through a problem, but that's not a bad thing necessarily
 

FarmerTan

"Self appointed king of Arkoland"
I enjoy a good fight scene. But I've always seen Bond, James Bond as a smooth talker that enjoys outwitting baddies. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that these movies are victims of the era in which they are filmed. Tall, DARK, and handsome is probably not PC anymore.

But I doubt that any female 007 movies will be as well received as the ones of my youth were. Yes, I know, I'm not "woke" whatever the heck that is. And I'm just too old to care. I appreciate looking at attractive ladies at the movies needing saving from the speeding train. So sue me.

Movies are a break from our collective droll existences. Is there anyone here old enough to have seen the first "Indiana Jones" film? On opening night as I did? Why did it succeed? It was a throwback to a time when men went to war and were barely 17 years old. They worked hard, played hard and drank hard.

If Bond becomes a woman it might be great, but it won't be the same.

And before you say I'm a knuckle dragging misogynist, please know that I married Wonder woman, lol. And the short lived "Agent Carter" show on ABC was phenomenal. She both outwitted and out slugged the men, which is what would happen in real life to this old man if my lovely War Department didn't enjoy my company.
 
The financial aspect is an interesting one, studios placing their "bets" and all that. Bond movies historically haven't been block busters but they've done well. Going back a little bit...
  • 2006 Casino Royal $600MM
  • 2008 QoS $586MM
  • 2012 Skyfall $1,101MM
  • 2015 Spectre $880MM
Only time will tell how "Bond 25" does, and if the transition to the new 007 sticks
in dollars of their time, they were huge. $20 in the 1960's was blockbuster.
 
They won't do it, but imagine if all of the Bonds ended up with all of the Doctors (save one), courtesy of stepping into the wrong police box at the wrong time.
 
I don't understand the whole concept of reusing agent numbers as agents pass on for whatever reason. My understanding would be that James Bond was the 7th in a line of successive secret agents and that those who followed would be 008, 009, 010 and so on up until 999 when the agency would be confronted with the pickle of having no more 3-digit numbers. ("Oh wait a minute, the next agent could be 1000!" "Put a gold star in that staffer's service file!") The number represents a specific person. Wouldn't any old person representing a specific number be like putting the cart before the horse? Maybe the movie will provide some reasonable explanation for reassigning the number (or not). In any event, I'll probably go and see the movie in the theater rather than wait for the DVD.

The "00" designation was to denote "license to kill."
 
Top Bottom