|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Daniel Craig in "Munich"
| Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #284015] |
Fr, 23 Juni 2006 04:24 |
|
Recently rented "Munich", where Daniel Craig has a small supporting
role (very good movie BTW, albeit a bit long) and IMHO he did a good
job playing an tough, hard-nosed assassin, though with his limited
screen time (Eric Bana was the lead actor) we have yet to see whether
he can pull off a leading role as an action hero.
Personally I think he'll do fine as Bond, the tough part will be to try
to get audiences to forget about Pierce Brosnan. From the trailers,
CR looks pretty good, although it looks considerably colder and
grittier than the Brosnan Bond films (which I think is the whole point,
I think they wanted to go back to the hard-edged Fleming novel-type of
Bond). But because Craig is a virtual unknown in the US, they're
going to have to market the hell out of it to get anywhere close to
Brosnan's box office success as Bond.
-Frank
P.S. For the record, here's how Pierce Brosnan's Bond films did at
the box office:
Domestic Worldwide
GE: $106 million $349 million
TND: $125 million $339 million
TWINE: $127 million $362 million
DAD: $161 million $432 million
Talk about a tough act to follow. Craig's got his work cut out for
him.
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #284019 ] |
Sa, 24 Juni 2006 03:46 |
|
Frank wrote:
> But because Craig is a virtual unknown in the US, they're
> going to have to market the hell out of it to get anywhere close to
> Brosnan's box office success as Bond.
>
<polite snip>
>
> P.S. For the record, here's how Pierce Brosnan's Bond films did at
> the box office:
>
> Domestic Worldwide
> GE: $106 million $349 million
> TND: $125 million $339 million
> TWINE: $127 million $362 million
> DAD: $161 million $432 million
>
> Talk about a tough act to follow. Craig's got his work cut out for
> him.
(Frank - please don't take any of the following as a response to my
interpretation of what you've just said. I'm talking in general terms
here rather than trying to have a go at you.)
I don't know how accurately I'm reading things or whether there's any
way of proving whether I'm right or wrong, given the number of
'intangibles' involved, but here are my thoughts on this:
Although the popularity of the actor who plays Bond is a factor in a
film's box-office success, it's only one part of a far more complex
equation, and to blame or praise the star for the failure of a Bond
movie or sequence of Bond movies is *way* too simplistic. (If you want
to claim that it's the leading man who makes all the difference, then
think about this: judging by the box-office figures alone, Roger Moore
took the series into terminal decline, then revived it spectacularly,
then led it into terminal decline again. Conversely, Timothy Dalton,
despite the negative press he's had as a 'failed Bond' presided over a
mild revival in the series' fortunes with TLD.)
Over a forty-odd year period, the fortunes of any movie franchise are
going to rise and fall. Each of Connery's first four films outgrossed
its predecessor, but with YOLT the box-office takings started to
dwindle. After a huge success like TB (or DAD) quite often the only
way to go is down. I would be willing to bet that even a Brosnan-led
Bond 21 would have been unlikely to make the money that DAD did.
CR may well not take as much at the box-office as DAD - in fact, for
the reasons mentioned in the above paragraph, I'm pretty much convinced
that it won't. I'm sure EON and Sony are quite prepared for this, but
the questions are how much of a loss they can take before they get
panicky, and whether the tabloid press will end up hounding and blaming
Craig as unfairly as they did Lazenby and Dalton.
Finally, I'm not completely sure that what happens at the box-office is
a tremendous concern of mine as a fan. There will be further Bond
films made even if CR tanks completely, and if it turns out that the
film audience in general don't want to see Craig as Bond in an
adaptation of Fleming's CR, then that's OK: at least the film will have
been made. OHMSS was a relative flop, and I dislike a lot of the Bond
films which were made after in response to the negative audience
reaction, but at least that film is there and will be forever. AFAIC
there's a 'damn the torpedoes' approach being taken to CR which I find
admirable, and I'd rather see EON going down that route than playing
things utterly safe. If the price that's paid is that CR fails and the
next few Bond movies turn out to be as bland and predictable as Mike
Love-led Beach Boys albums, I suspect that at least I will feel that
EON *tried* to do something I wanted to see them do.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #284023 ] |
Sa, 24 Juni 2006 05:06 |
|
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1151113569.179445.169280 [at] r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Frank wrote:
>
>> But because Craig is a virtual unknown in the US, they're
>> going to have to market the hell out of it to get anywhere close to
>> Brosnan's box office success as Bond.
>>
> <polite snip>
>>
>> P.S. For the record, here's how Pierce Brosnan's Bond films did at
>> the box office:
>>
>> Domestic Worldwide
>> GE: $106 million $349 million
>> TND: $125 million $339 million
>> TWINE: $127 million $362 million
>> DAD: $161 million $432 million
>>
>> Talk about a tough act to follow. Craig's got his work cut out for
>> him.
>
> (Frank - please don't take any of the following as a response to my
> interpretation of what you've just said. I'm talking in general terms
> here rather than trying to have a go at you.)
>
> I don't know how accurately I'm reading things or whether there's any
> way of proving whether I'm right or wrong, given the number of
> 'intangibles' involved, but here are my thoughts on this:
>
> Although the popularity of the actor who plays Bond is a factor in a
> film's box-office success, it's only one part of a far more complex
> equation, and to blame or praise the star for the failure of a Bond
> movie or sequence of Bond movies is *way* too simplistic. (If you want
> to claim that it's the leading man who makes all the difference, then
> think about this: judging by the box-office figures alone, Roger Moore
> took the series into terminal decline, then revived it spectacularly,
> then led it into terminal decline again. Conversely, Timothy Dalton,
> despite the negative press he's had as a 'failed Bond' presided over a
> mild revival in the series' fortunes with TLD.)
>
> Over a forty-odd year period, the fortunes of any movie franchise are
> going to rise and fall. Each of Connery's first four films outgrossed
> its predecessor, but with YOLT the box-office takings started to
> dwindle. After a huge success like TB (or DAD) quite often the only
> way to go is down. I would be willing to bet that even a Brosnan-led
> Bond 21 would have been unlikely to make the money that DAD did.
>
> CR may well not take as much at the box-office as DAD - in fact, for
> the reasons mentioned in the above paragraph, I'm pretty much convinced
> that it won't. I'm sure EON and Sony are quite prepared for this, but
> the questions are how much of a loss they can take before they get
> panicky, and whether the tabloid press will end up hounding and blaming
> Craig as unfairly as they did Lazenby and Dalton.
>
> Finally, I'm not completely sure that what happens at the box-office is
> a tremendous concern of mine as a fan. There will be further Bond
> films made even if CR tanks completely, and if it turns out that the
> film audience in general don't want to see Craig as Bond in an
> adaptation of Fleming's CR, then that's OK: at least the film will have
> been made. OHMSS was a relative flop, and I dislike a lot of the Bond
> films which were made after in response to the negative audience
> reaction, but at least that film is there and will be forever. AFAIC
> there's a 'damn the torpedoes' approach being taken to CR which I find
> admirable, and I'd rather see EON going down that route than playing
> things utterly safe. If the price that's paid is that CR fails and the
> next few Bond movies turn out to be as bland and predictable as Mike
> Love-led Beach Boys albums, I suspect that at least I will feel that
> EON *tried* to do something I wanted to see them do.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
I have found that the box office success of a Bond film does not necessarily
mean the film will inevitably be popular with enthusiasts or true Bond fans.
You bring up OHMSS as a perfect example. The inverse is MR: a very popular
film at the box office but one that very few fans cite as one of the best of
the series. IMHO, DAD, DAF and OP fall into that category, too. All popular
films, but not among the most memorable. I think you are right that it will
be difficult to top the box office receipts of the some of the latest Bond
films, simply because the tone of the films, as well as the spectacular
stunts, appealed to a younger crowd. I don't think the younger crowd will be
flocking to CR, based on the apparent gritty tone of the film. So they will
lose part of their audience right there. I'm still trying to figure out
whether people will go see the film out of curiousity for DC, or stay home
because he is fairly unknown. Quite a few people were curious about TD after
the disastrous AVTAK. But I think moviegoers expect different things now
then they did 20 years ago. The action, CGI sequences, violence, etc. have
been ramped up so much in the past eight years. If Bond becomes less
spectacular and more character-driven, will it sell? Are audiences ready for
that type of film with a virtual unknown as the lead actor? Time will tell.
I know I'll be there !!
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #284024 ] |
Sa, 24 Juni 2006 06:55 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Each of Connery's first four films outgrossed
> its predecessor, but with YOLT the box-office takings started to
> dwindle. After a huge success like TB (or DAD)
or MR, in Moore's case...
> quite often the only
> way to go is down.
Yes, you're probably right. We've talked about this in a previous
thread, how both Connery and Moore peaked in the box office in their
4th Bond movie and went downhill after that, and the producers probably
wanted to prevent history from repeating itself with Brosnan, hence
they decided to go in a brand-new direction, with a brand-new Bond as
well.
> I would be willing to bet that even a Brosnan-led
> Bond 21 would have been unlikely to make the money that DAD did.
>
Of course, we'll never know if DAD was a peak for Brosnan or not, since
he didn't get the chance to do another one. I think most people still
believe Pierce deserved that chance from DAD's success, but the
producers thought otherwise.
> CR may well not take as much at the box-office as DAD - in fact, for
> the reasons mentioned in the above paragraph, I'm pretty much convinced
> that it won't. I'm sure EON and Sony are quite prepared for this, but
> the questions are how much of a loss they can take before they get
> panicky, and whether the tabloid press will end up hounding and blaming
> Craig as unfairly as they did Lazenby and Dalton.
>
Given enough time, the public should accept any new Bond; the question
is whether the producers will give Craig enough time to be accepted.
It took a few years for the public to accept Moore, according to what
I've read. The producers had good reason to fire Moore after TMWTGG's
dismal box office performance, but they didn't, and decided to make
TSWLM starring him, and the rest, they say, is history.
If CR flops, the producers will be under serious pressure to search for
another new Bond or perhaps even bring Brosnan back. Let's hope, for
the franchise's sake (and Craig's), they stay the course and don't pull
the trigger so quickly. From the previews, CR, like Batman Begins,
looks like an excellent way to reboot a long-dormant franchise.
-Frank
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #284045 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 00:58 |
|
Much food for thought there, Frank, so many thanks for an excellent
post. You wrote:
> Given enough time, the public should accept any new Bond; the question
> is whether the producers will give Craig enough time to be accepted.
> It took a few years for the public to accept Moore, according to what
> I've read.
A minor point of which I've only just thought: both Moore and Brosnan
had the advantage that their films started being shown on television
while they were still playing Bond in cinematic releases. I don't know
how important that is, and I don't think there's any way of measuring
its significance, but I'm sure it didn't hurt them in terms of public
acceptance, particularly since they'd already played Bond-style roles
on TV. The general viewing public didn't get anything like the same
chance to become as familiar with Lazenby or Dalton in the role before
they were gone: they never escaped the reaction of 'who the hell is
this guy?' which is one of the current problems plaguing Craig.
(IMHO Connery never had to worry about being accepted as a credible
Bond in the same way as the actors who followed him. Most of the
people who went to see DN had never read a Bond novel - if one compares
ticket sales for the movie against the number of books Fleming had sold
to date, I don't think anybody could argue that point - so most
filmgoers didn't have a preconceived idea of what Bond should be like.
Connery had a distinct advantage in that respect...)
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #284047 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 00:58 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> (IMHO Connery never had to worry about being accepted as a credible
> Bond in the same way as the actors who followed him. Most of the
> people who went to see DN had never read a Bond novel - if one
> compares ticket sales for the movie against the number of books
> Fleming had sold to date, I don't think anybody could argue that
> point - so most filmgoers didn't have a preconceived idea of what
> Bond should be like. Connery had a distinct advantage in that
> respect...)
IIRC, Connery won a number of reader's polls in newspapers prior
to being cast. A lot of the public perception of Bond came from
the excellent (and faithful) Daily Express newspaper strips.
Connery also had one distinct disadvantage (one none of the others
has had to suffer): Ian Fleming publicly voiced his disapproval of
Sean's casting.
Should be noted that it was only *after* Connery displayed a
level of commitment to the role *none*, and I stress *none*, of
his successors demonstrated that Connery won Fleming over; so
much so that Fleming later declared him "perfect."
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Heather Mills at Dr. Evil's next board meeting."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #290925 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 14:25 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4g8oi1F1lv3ubU1 [at] individual.net...
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> (IMHO Connery never had to worry about being accepted as a credible
>> Bond in the same way as the actors who followed him. Most of the
>> people who went to see DN had never read a Bond novel - if one
>> compares ticket sales for the movie against the number of books
>> Fleming had sold to date, I don't think anybody could argue that
>> point - so most filmgoers didn't have a preconceived idea of what
>> Bond should be like. Connery had a distinct advantage in that
>> respect...)
>
> IIRC, Connery won a number of reader's polls in newspapers prior
> to being cast. A lot of the public perception of Bond came from
> the excellent (and faithful) Daily Express newspaper strips.
>
> Connery also had one distinct disadvantage (one none of the others
> has had to suffer): Ian Fleming publicly voiced his disapproval of
> Sean's casting.
>
That is a very good point, Mac. Initially, Fleming wanted someone else to
portray Bond. That is certainly not a confidence builder for an actor just
getting his feet under him, as Connery was at the time.
> Should be noted that it was only *after* Connery displayed a
> level of commitment to the role *none*, and I stress *none*, of
> his successors demonstrated that Connery won Fleming over; so
> much so that Fleming later declared him "perfect."
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of Heather Mills at Dr. Evil's next board meeting."
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291811 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 18:20 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4g8oi1F1lv3ubU1 [at] individual.net...
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> (IMHO Connery never had to worry about being accepted as a credible
>> Bond in the same way as the actors who followed him. Most of the
>> people who went to see DN had never read a Bond novel - if one
>> compares ticket sales for the movie against the number of books
>> Fleming had sold to date, I don't think anybody could argue that
>> point - so most filmgoers didn't have a preconceived idea of what
>> Bond should be like. Connery had a distinct advantage in that
>> respect...)
>
> IIRC, Connery won a number of reader's polls in newspapers prior
> to being cast. A lot of the public perception of Bond came from
> the excellent (and faithful) Daily Express newspaper strips.
>
> Connery also had one distinct disadvantage (one none of the others
> has had to suffer): Ian Fleming publicly voiced his disapproval of
> Sean's casting.
>
> Should be noted that it was only *after* Connery displayed a
> level of commitment to the role *none*, and I stress *none*, of
> his successors demonstrated that Connery won Fleming over; so
> much so that Fleming later declared him "perfect."
What is this 'level of commitment' that you refer to above? I don't think
I'm aware of any commitment made by Connery that was above and beyond what
others have made.
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of Heather Mills at Dr. Evil's next board meeting."
>
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291812 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 19:35 |
|
Of course, Brosnan had no absolutely trouble being accepted as Bond
when he finally got the job in '94, considering nearly everyone thought
he had gotten shafted 8 years earlier when NBC wouldn't let him out his
Remington Steele contract in '86. Most of the general public thought
Pierce was long overdue, and that Dalton was simply the "Bond by
default," even though he was considered for the role long beforehand
(they almost cast him for OHMSS, from what I read).
Whether Brosnan would have been accepted as readily by the public had
he actually gotten the Bond role in '86, I'm not sure, considering how
much younger he was at the time, and the fact that he hadn't separated
himself from his comical Remington Steele character on TV. But we've
discussed that in yet another thread a while ago.
-Frank
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Much food for thought there, Frank, so many thanks for an excellent
> post. You wrote:
>
> > Given enough time, the public should accept any new Bond; the question
> > is whether the producers will give Craig enough time to be accepted.
> > It took a few years for the public to accept Moore, according to what
> > I've read.
>
> A minor point of which I've only just thought: both Moore and Brosnan
> had the advantage that their films started being shown on television
> while they were still playing Bond in cinematic releases. I don't know
> how important that is, and I don't think there's any way of measuring
> its significance, but I'm sure it didn't hurt them in terms of public
> acceptance, particularly since they'd already played Bond-style roles
> on TV. The general viewing public didn't get anything like the same
> chance to become as familiar with Lazenby or Dalton in the role before
> they were gone: they never escaped the reaction of 'who the hell is
> this guy?' which is one of the current problems plaguing Craig.
>
> (IMHO Connery never had to worry about being accepted as a credible
> Bond in the same way as the actors who followed him. Most of the
> people who went to see DN had never read a Bond novel - if one compares
> ticket sales for the movie against the number of books Fleming had sold
> to date, I don't think anybody could argue that point - so most
> filmgoers didn't have a preconceived idea of what Bond should be like.
> Connery had a distinct advantage in that respect...)
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291813 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 23:54 |
|
MikeSo wrote:
> What is this 'level of commitment' that you refer to above? I don't
> think I'm aware of any commitment made by Connery that was above and
> beyond what others have made.
The method-like sleeping in the Saville Row suit; studying etiquette to
erase his rough edges; conversations with Ian Fleming about the
character, etc.
Of course, the latter would have been tough for the others...
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range being
found in the hands of a killer cyborg."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291815 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 01:56 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4gb3dpF1lm0d2U1 [at] individual.net...
> MikeSo wrote:
>
>> What is this 'level of commitment' that you refer to above? I don't
>> think I'm aware of any commitment made by Connery that was above and
>> beyond what others have made.
>
> The method-like sleeping in the Saville Row suit; studying etiquette to
> erase his rough edges; conversations with Ian Fleming about the
> character, etc.
>
> Of course, the latter would have been tough for the others...
>
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range being
> found in the hands of a killer cyborg."
>
I was not aware that Connery had done these things ... and yes, sitting with
Fleming do discuss the character would have been difficult for the others
(although perhaps Moore might have had the opportunity at some point along
the way). Learn something new every day!
Thanks Mac!
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291816 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 02:27 |
|
Mac wrote:
> IIRC, Connery won a number of reader's polls in newspapers prior
> to being cast. A lot of the public perception of Bond came from
> the excellent (and faithful) Daily Express newspaper strips.
True, but how widely were those strips circulated outside the UK?
Surely the international success of Connery's Bond and DN can't be
accounted for on this basis alone?
> Connery also had one distinct disadvantage (one none of the others
> has had to suffer): Ian Fleming publicly voiced his disapproval of
> Sean's casting.
Well, as you note later, none of them ever had either the advantage or
disadvantage of having had Fleming around to comment. One wonders what
he would have made of the announcement that an Australian male model
was to take over the role.
Also, I'm not sure that completely contradicts my point about the
difference in size between the established audience for Fleming's
novels and the moviegoing audience who ended up going to see DN. Yes,
Fleming's public disapproval of Connery might have put off people who'd
already read the Bond novels or even the comic strips - although many
of them might have gone to see the film anyway to see what the fuss was
about - but how many average moviegoers would have cared one way or
another?
I don't know, I may be wrong here, but I think to the majority of the
viewing public Connery's Bond, rather than Fleming's, is the yardstick
by which all subsequent actors have been measured, and he's seen as the
original and best. To this day, the people who care one way or the
other about whether the character on screen matches up to Fleming's
description are a minority, and I suspect that was the case even in
1962.
> Should be noted that it was only *after* Connery displayed a
> level of commitment to the role *none*, and I stress *none*, of
> his successors demonstrated that Connery won Fleming over;
Connery really pushed himself, of that there's no doubt. Of course,
Terence Young's encouragement didn't hurt, and Connery has never been
anything less than generous in praising what Young did for his
portrayal of the role. Lazenby came closest to Connery in terms of
transforming himself to fit the role, I guess.
However, I'd make the point that Connery and Lazenby *had* to transform
themselves in order to be credible as the character Fleming had
described, and while their effort in doing do was hugely admirable, I'd
just add that if Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan didn't put as much effort
into making themselves into Bond, it was partly because it wasn't quite
so necessary for them to do so at those stages in their careers. Sure,
they might have needed the odd bit of fine tuning, but they didn't have
to undergo the radical overhaul Connery did: for better or worse they
were already pretty close to the vision of Bond EON had at the time
they were hired, and so didn't need the makeover to which Connery
willingly and enthusiastically agreed.
To put it in a less convoluted way, the three most recent actors to
have played Bond had already demonstrated over the courses of their
careers that they could play suave, look good in a suit, act
middle-class, handle action, etc. Connery didn't have that track
record and so worked flat-out to prove that he could do all those
things, and all credit to him for his efforts. I'd argue that Moore,
Dalton, and Brosnan didn't have to work as hard as Connery did once
they'd been signed as Bond, but that may well be because they'd done
that work at drama school and in their earlier movies and theatre
roles. Connery had to pay his dues all at once and within a
ridiculously short space of time, but those guys had done a lot of the
same groundwork over a longer period, and I'd be hesitant to argue that
they didn't put in as much effort: the effort was less concentrated,
perhaps, but it was still there.
(It's a common complaint among actors that these days casting
directors, when trying to find candidates for a role, aren't interested
in potential or acting ability, they merely want the exact person as
physically described in the script to walk through the door. In the
past filmmakers had a bit more imagination and were prepared to take a
few more risks, and Connery is a good case in point. This is one of
many reasons I'm intrigued and excited by Craig playing Bond in CR,
because it's a high-profile casting which has bucked that regrettable
and unimaginative trend.)
> so much so that Fleming later declared him "perfect."
I am going to sound terribly cynical here, but as much as Fleming was
won over by Connery's performance - and I believe genuinely that he was
- he was also savvy enough to realise that despite his initial
displeasure at the casting he could be losing a major marketing
opportunity if he distanced his Bond from EON's. Fleming openly
admitted that he wrote for money (although I think he secretly hampered
after greater critical acclaim) so his endorsement of Connery might
have been a smart commercial move as well as a heartfelt reaction.
There's no doubt in my mind that Fleming did grow to admire Connery,
and vice versa. In a TV interview many years ago - and I regret to say
that this is a childhood memory for which I've yet to find a reference
- Connery said that he thought Fleming was 'a terrible snob, but a
great companion', which suggests that both men had to grow to accept
and admire each other. However, my reading of Fleming is that he knew
when he was on to a good thing in commercial terms, and that perhaps he
might eventually grudgingly have accepted an even less obviously
suitable Bond than Connery once he realised that it could sell a few
more books.
(Thinking back to the photos on the GF DVD, the body language between
Fleming and Connery in the on-set photos shows a mutual respect and
confidence which I have a sneaking suspicion wasn't there on their
first meeting. Again, it may be a heartening thought for Craig that
the power of performance can often win over people who started out as
naysayers...)
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291818 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 04:06 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
> > IIRC, Connery won a number of reader's polls in newspapers prior
> > to being cast. A lot of the public perception of Bond came from
> > the excellent (and faithful) Daily Express newspaper strips.
>
> True, but how widely were those strips circulated outside the UK?
> Surely the international success of Connery's Bond and DN can't be
> accounted for on this basis alone?
>
> > Connery also had one distinct disadvantage (one none of the others
> > has had to suffer): Ian Fleming publicly voiced his disapproval of
> > Sean's casting.
>
> Well, as you note later, none of them ever had either the advantage or
> disadvantage of having had Fleming around to comment. One wonders what
> he would have made of the announcement that an Australian male model
> was to take over the role.
>
> Also, I'm not sure that completely contradicts my point about the
> difference in size between the established audience for Fleming's
> novels and the moviegoing audience who ended up going to see DN. Yes,
> Fleming's public disapproval of Connery might have put off people who'd
> already read the Bond novels or even the comic strips - although many
> of them might have gone to see the film anyway to see what the fuss was
> about - but how many average moviegoers would have cared one way or
> another?
>
> I don't know, I may be wrong here, but I think to the majority of the
> viewing public Connery's Bond, rather than Fleming's, is the yardstick
> by which all subsequent actors have been measured, and he's seen as the
> original and best. To this day, the people who care one way or the
> other about whether the character on screen matches up to Fleming's
> description are a minority, and I suspect that was the case even in
> 1962.
--- It's highly doubtful that Fleming's approval or disapproval of
Connery as Bond would've made much news back then. Remember, 1961 was
an era when the Internet and newsgroups were just a figment of one's
imagination, if at all. Satellite broadcasting alone didn't happen
till the following year and really wasn't widespread at the beginning,
as with all things just starting out. So one's access to the opinions
of a fiction writer could only be gotten through very limited means,
i.e. generally regional newspaper and magazine articles or TV
interviews, and usually only if you somehow knew that he would be in a
publication or TV show through some other very limited means of
information. And how often would his views on Connery have been put
out at that time to generate any kind of collective consensus among the
public? Most people back then, if they had come across an article or
of Fleming on TV discussing his disapproval of Connery, would've been
basically entertained by what was essentially useless knowledge at the
time, unlike now when Fleming's views [if he were still alive] on Craig
would've been pumped out to death and beyond on every imaginable
instant multi-platform media highway so that no human on this planet
would be left untouched by what he thought of the new guy, and the news
of that would be played up to being tantamount to the start of World
War 5, hence a fabrication of impact. The internet and newsgroups and
blog writers would all be running amuck with Fleming's take on the new
guy, people's lives would come to a crashing halt as a result and the
world would be spinning wildly around that piece of trivia. No, I
don't think anybody cared much about whether Connery got the Bond part
or not except Fleming. His disapproval may've been the kiss of death
in this era, but it was likely just a fleeting blip of forgettable
disenchantment from an author in that era - if anyone was even aware of
it at all.
>
> > Should be noted that it was only *after* Connery displayed a
> > level of commitment to the role *none*, and I stress *none*, of
> > his successors demonstrated that Connery won Fleming over;
>
> Connery really pushed himself, of that there's no doubt. Of course,
> Terence Young's encouragement didn't hurt, and Connery has never been
> anything less than generous in praising what Young did for his
> portrayal of the role. Lazenby came closest to Connery in terms of
> transforming himself to fit the role, I guess.
>
> However, I'd make the point that Connery and Lazenby *had* to transform
> themselves in order to be credible as the character Fleming had
> described, and while their effort in doing do was hugely admirable, I'd
> just add that if Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan didn't put as much effort
> into making themselves into Bond, it was partly because it wasn't quite
> so necessary for them to do so at those stages in their careers. Sure,
> they might have needed the odd bit of fine tuning, but they didn't have
> to undergo the radical overhaul Connery did: for better or worse they
> were already pretty close to the vision of Bond EON had at the time
> they were hired, and so didn't need the makeover to which Connery
> willingly and enthusiastically agreed.
>
> To put it in a less convoluted way, the three most recent actors to
> have played Bond had already demonstrated over the courses of their
> careers that they could play suave, look good in a suit, act
> middle-class, handle action, etc. Connery didn't have that track
> record and so worked flat-out to prove that he could do all those
> things, and all credit to him for his efforts. I'd argue that Moore,
> Dalton, and Brosnan didn't have to work as hard as Connery did once
> they'd been signed as Bond, but that may well be because they'd done
> that work at drama school and in their earlier movies and theatre
> roles. Connery had to pay his dues all at once and within a
> ridiculously short space of time, but those guys had done a lot of the
> same groundwork over a longer period, and I'd be hesitant to argue that
> they didn't put in as much effort: the effort was less concentrated,
> perhaps, but it was still there.
>
> (It's a common complaint among actors that these days casting
> directors, when trying to find candidates for a role, aren't interested
> in potential or acting ability, they merely want the exact person as
> physically described in the script to walk through the door. In the
> past filmmakers had a bit more imagination and were prepared to take a
> few more risks, and Connery is a good case in point. This is one of
> many reasons I'm intrigued and excited by Craig playing Bond in CR,
> because it's a high-profile casting which has bucked that regrettable
> and unimaginative trend.)
>
> > so much so that Fleming later declared him "perfect."
>
> I am going to sound terribly cynical here, but as much as Fleming was
> won over by Connery's performance - and I believe genuinely that he was
> - he was also savvy enough to realise that despite his initial
> displeasure at the casting he could be losing a major marketing
> opportunity if he distanced his Bond from EON's. Fleming openly
> admitted that he wrote for money (although I think he secretly hampered
> after greater critical acclaim) so his endorsement of Connery might
> have been a smart commercial move as well as a heartfelt reaction.
>
> There's no doubt in my mind that Fleming did grow to admire Connery,
> and vice versa. In a TV interview many years ago - and I regret to say
> that this is a childhood memory for which I've yet to find a reference
> - Connery said that he thought Fleming was 'a terrible snob, but a
> great companion', which suggests that both men had to grow to accept
> and admire each other. However, my reading of Fleming is that he knew
> when he was on to a good thing in commercial terms, and that perhaps he
> might eventually grudgingly have accepted an even less obviously
> suitable Bond than Connery once he realised that it could sell a few
> more books.
>
> (Thinking back to the photos on the GF DVD, the body language between
> Fleming and Connery in the on-set photos shows a mutual respect and
> confidence which I have a sneaking suspicion wasn't there on their
> first meeting. Again, it may be a heartening thought for Craig that
> the power of performance can often win over people who started out as
> naysayers...)
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291820 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 04:24 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> True, but how widely were those strips circulated outside the UK?
> Surely the international success of Connery's Bond and DN can't be
> accounted for on this basis alone?
I was responding to your point about Connery not having to deal with
a public perception of Bond. The British public had a perception
of Bond. EON didn't buy a cold property. Remember, the film was
aimed initially at the British market and it was DR NO's success there
alone which saw FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE ushered into production.
> I don't know, I may be wrong here, but I think to the majority of the
> viewing public Connery's Bond, rather than Fleming's, is the yardstick
> by which all subsequent actors have been measured, and he's seen as
> the original and best. To this day, the people who care one way or
> the other about whether the character on screen matches up to
> Fleming's description are a minority, and I suspect that was the case
> even in 1962.
Is that because they didn't care, or because the character they got in
1962 was pretty close to the character from the novels and strips?
I don't think anyone could argue that the first, and subsequent three,
films (and Connery's performances therein) tried to remain faithful to
the source.
> To put it in a less convoluted way, the three most recent actors to
> have played Bond had already demonstrated over the courses of their
> careers that they could play suave, look good in a suit, act
> middle-class, handle action, etc. Connery didn't have that track
> record and so worked flat-out to prove that he could do all those
> things, and all credit to him for his efforts. I'd argue that Moore,
> Dalton, and Brosnan didn't have to work as hard as Connery did once
> they'd been signed as Bond, but that may well be because they'd done
> that work at drama school and in their earlier movies and theatre
> roles. Connery had to pay his dues all at once and within a
> ridiculously short space of time, but those guys had done a lot of the
> same groundwork over a longer period, and I'd be hesitant to argue
> that they didn't put in as much effort: the effort was less
> concentrated, perhaps, but it was still there.
There's this perception of Connery, perhaps borne of Fleming's comments,
possibly part fan whimsy, that he was a dog-rough milkman dragged off
the streets and turned into James Bond by Svengali Terence Young.
I'm not entirely convinced of the accuracy of this. Alongside theatre
work, including "The Seagull" with Sybil Thorndike, Connery had appeared
on television playing the leads in "The Crucible," "Macbeth," the male
lead in "Anna Karenina" and had received acclaim for his performance in
"Requiem for a Heavyweight" long before he was cast as James Bond. The
fact he topped a Daily Express reader's poll goes to show he already
had some sort of public profile (in the UK); he actually *turned down* the
lead in 1961's EL CID to nurse Diane Cilento to health!!
It's the fact that he'd done a handful of movies before Bond that people
refer to often ignoring a resume of work more impressive than some of
the "experienced" men who followed.
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Heather Mills buying an apartment at Goldeneye."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291821 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 04:39 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- It's highly doubtful that Fleming's approval or disapproval of
> Connery as Bond would've made much news back then.
The casting of James Bond was made a competition in a
daily newspaper, the major media of the day, and the papers
were not (remember this!) enthusiastic about Connery's casting as
Bond and were only too happy to report Fleming's comments. This
is mentioned in John Cork's "The Legacy."
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Heather Mills kicking herself (whilst sitting down) about
missing out on Aaron Spelling."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291824 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 05:59 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>
> > --- It's highly doubtful that Fleming's approval or disapproval of
> > Connery as Bond would've made much news back then.
>
> The casting of James Bond was made a competition in a
> daily newspaper, the major media of the day, and the papers
> were not (remember this!) enthusiastic about Connery's casting as
> Bond and were only too happy to report Fleming's comments. This
> is mentioned in John Cork's "The Legacy."
--- Yes, but beyond the reach of that local newspaper, who else in the
rest of the world could've possibly known about it to the extent that
people would know about such things now from innumerable sources and
much more instantaneously and on an ongoing basis? A contest about
getting someone to play Bond may've taken a few days to cross the
Atlantic to register as any kind of news in North America, on TV and
newspapers at least [it may've taken a couple of weeks or a month
before it appeared in magazines or theater newsreels which were still
being played in cinemas here and there], and then it would be only
mentioned in passing without any real scrutiny by anything like an
Entertainment Tonight and its myriad of other high-profile clone
entertainment news shows and magazines and web sites because none of
that existed back then. More than anything else, at that time it
would've been mentioned as a brief lightweight item at the very end of
a TV newscast and likely without any pictures. Again, this was in the
media-primitive year of 1961. I still remember what happened in 1969
when George Lazenby was showcased as the man next chosen to play Bond.
I was so clued out about what was happening with the next Bond film
that I didn't even know they were looking for a new Bond, that's how
uninterested the media at large was back then with really trivial
pieces of information. Lazenby's one and only appearance that I came
across anywhere was at the very end of a national newscast, being with
some film of him as he stepped out onto a tarmac from a jet liner to
model himself out in Bond mold. If he was showcased anywhere else on
TV or in print after that, it went completely right by me, just as the
search for a new Bond did. It was a time when you either caught the
news item on one of two daily newscasts on either of two or three TV
stations or you happened to just hear it on the radio or you happened
to just come across it in a newspaper or on magazine covers at
newsstands. That's how people got their news back then. Nowadays, you
just can't get away from any kind of news even if you wanted to.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of Heather Mills kicking herself (whilst sitting down) about
> missing out on Aaron Spelling."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291826 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 12:20 |
|
WQ wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --- It's highly doubtful that Fleming's approval or disapproval of
>>> Connery as Bond would've made much news back then.
>>
>> The casting of James Bond was made a competition in a
>> daily newspaper, the major media of the day, and the papers
>> were not (remember this!) enthusiastic about Connery's casting as
>> Bond and were only too happy to report Fleming's comments. This
>> is mentioned in John Cork's "The Legacy."
>
> --- Yes, but beyond the reach of that local newspaper, who else in the
> rest of the world could've possibly known about it to the extent that
> people would know about such things now from innumerable sources and
> much more instantaneously and on an ongoing basis? A contest about
> getting someone to play Bond may've taken a few days to cross the
> Atlantic to register as any kind of news in North America, on TV and
> newspapers at least
I'm not talking about North America, I'm talking aboout Britain. The
Express is a national newspaper in Britain. Bond didn't really become a
item in the rest of the world until GOLDFINGER.
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
'The World is Not Enough' being the Mills' family motto too."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291827 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 14:39 |
|
Beg pardon, but this is a mis-reading of the "Method." What would
sleeping in a 1200 dollar suit prove? 1) Method (generally speaking)
is about internal psychology and action being reflected onto the
external world, not the other way around, 2) if you wanted to sleep
like Bond... isn't that nude with a gun under your pillow? Or in
London, in pyjamas with a gun under your pillow?
Waking up in a rumpled suit is hardly Bond's way. Besides, Bond was
MIDDLE class, he would have valued the suit too highly. He would have
brushed it and hung it up the night before.
If the Saville Row story is true, and not publicist flummery, then I
suspect it was useless, adding nothing to Connery's natural talent and
style.
Not that method acting at ALL is called for in a Bond film. It's not
really an internal thing...
Not that it's NOT called for... Dalton proved it can work very well
indeed.
Mac wrote:
> MikeSo wrote:
>
> > What is this 'level of commitment' that you refer to above? I don't
> > think I'm aware of any commitment made by Connery that was above and
> > beyond what others have made.
>
> The method-like sleeping in the Saville Row suit; studying etiquette to
> erase his rough edges; conversations with Ian Fleming about the
> character, etc.
>
> Of course, the latter would have been tough for the others...
>
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range being
> found in the hands of a killer cyborg."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291828 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 16:25 |
|
"Jeremy Kareken" <jeremy.kareken [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151411980.334468.101110 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Beg pardon, but this is a mis-reading of the "Method." What would
> sleeping in a 1200 dollar suit prove? 1) Method (generally speaking)
> is about internal psychology and action being reflected onto the
> external world, not the other way around, 2) if you wanted to sleep
> like Bond... isn't that nude with a gun under your pillow? Or in
> London, in pyjamas with a gun under your pillow?
>
> Waking up in a rumpled suit is hardly Bond's way. Besides, Bond was
> MIDDLE class, he would have valued the suit too highly. He would have
> brushed it and hung it up the night before.
I believe it was an attempt by Terence Young to get *Connery* to feel
comfortable in the suit. For the wearing of it to become a second nature
kind of thing. Not that Bond would sleep in it.
> If the Saville Row story is true, and not publicist flummery, then I
> suspect it was useless, adding nothing to Connery's natural talent and
> style.
Oh, absolutely agreed. Connery's talent was already present in raw, natural
form. Young just attempted to refine his style.
It seemed to have worked.
Tom Zielinski
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291830 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 18:05 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > Mac wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> --- It's highly doubtful that Fleming's approval or disapproval of
> >>> Connery as Bond would've made much news back then.
> >>
> >> The casting of James Bond was made a competition in a
> >> daily newspaper, the major media of the day, and the papers
> >> were not (remember this!) enthusiastic about Connery's casting as
> >> Bond and were only too happy to report Fleming's comments. This
> >> is mentioned in John Cork's "The Legacy."
> >
> > --- Yes, but beyond the reach of that local newspaper, who else in the
> > rest of the world could've possibly known about it to the extent that
> > people would know about such things now from innumerable sources and
> > much more instantaneously and on an ongoing basis? A contest about
> > getting someone to play Bond may've taken a few days to cross the
> > Atlantic to register as any kind of news in North America, on TV and
> > newspapers at least
>
> I'm not talking about North America, I'm talking aboout Britain. The
> Express is a national newspaper in Britain. Bond didn't really become a
> item in the rest of the world until GOLDFINGER.
--- That's obvious. My point is that to the world at large at the
pre-GF time, being everything beyond the borders of the local reach of
the Express, practically nobody knew about Fleming's initial
disapproval of Connery because it's not something that would've
registered as a noteworthy news item and thus would've had no impact on
moviegoing audiences back then. As Phil said, some people still
would've gone to see Dr. No just to see what the fuss was all about,
but those "some people" who would've known about the fuss would've been
just that localized or regionalized population served by the Express,
and in box office terms, they really added up to an insignificant lot.
This then means that Dr. No actually succeeded on its own merits with
the help of whatever publicity campaign for the film and nothing else.
So essentially what Fleming thought about Connery at the beginning was
irrelevant, while today, if he were alive and gave his views on Craig,
his approval or disapproval of him would probably carry more weight as
it would instantly reach around the world with the help of all the
multi-platform media avenues out there for everybody to discuss and
micro-examine to death ad nauseum, which in turn might ultimately have
some effect on audience acceptance or rejection of Craig and the box
office take of CR.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
> 'The World is Not Enough' being the Mills' family motto too."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291836 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 20:53 |
|
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "Jeremy Kareken" <jeremy.kareken [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Beg pardon, but this is a mis-reading of the "Method." What would
>> sleeping in a 1200 dollar suit prove? 1) Method (generally speaking)
>> is about internal psychology and action being reflected onto the
>> external world, not the other way around, 2) if you wanted to sleep
>> like Bond... isn't that nude with a gun under your pillow? Or in
>> London, in pyjamas with a gun under your pillow?
>>
>> Waking up in a rumpled suit is hardly Bond's way. Besides, Bond was
>> MIDDLE class, he would have valued the suit too highly. He would
>> have brushed it and hung it up the night before.
>
>
> I believe it was an attempt by Terence Young to get *Connery* to feel
> comfortable in the suit. For the wearing of it to become a second
> nature kind of thing. Not that Bond would sleep in it.
Indeed, to become his second skin.
>> If the Saville Row story is true, and not publicist flummery, then I
>> suspect it was useless, adding nothing to Connery's natural talent and
>> style.
>Oh, absolutely agreed.
I don't know. Many actors find props and costumes help them inhabit a
character. Connery seemed to find it valuable. What works for one
actor doesn't necessarily work for all.
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a red card in a World Cup match."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291837 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:00 |
|
Jeremy Kareken wrote:
> Not that method acting at ALL is called for in a Bond film. It's not
> really an internal thing...
>
> Not that it's NOT called for... Dalton proved it can work very well
> indeed.
Dalton's actually quite dismissive of method acting, described
it as nonsense to an acting class.
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Heather Mills concocting a plan to marry Fort Knox."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291838 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:11 |
|
WQ wrote:
> film and nothing else. So essentially what Fleming thought about
> Connery at the beginning was irrelevant, while today, if he were
> alive and gave his views on Craig, his approval or disapproval of him
> would probably carry more weight as it would instantly reach around
> the world with the help of all the multi-platform media avenues out
> there for everybody to discuss and micro-examine to death ad nauseum,
> which in turn might ultimately have some effect on audience
> acceptance or rejection of Craig and the box office take of CR.
I doubt it. Anne Rice's well-publicised views in the age of the Internet
didn't do Tom Cruise or INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE a lot of harm. Has
your view of Craig been altered by Sean Connery's positive opinion of
him?
CASINO ROYALE will have a large look-see audience of people curious
to see the new Bond, this happened before with LIVE AND LET DIE and
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. It will be Craig's second Bond film (and I will
have a ten pound bet with you there will be a second Craig Bond right
here and now) that will clarify his acceptance or rejection as Bond.
Ultimately, the audience will decide.
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a Heather Mills sig on afjb."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291840 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:38 |
|
Of course props and costumes are important... I don't think that
sleeping in your armor makes you a better King Arthur... and neither
would Strasberg or any Method-y type.
If you're trying to recreate the inner life, sleeping in a suit won't
do a damn thing. As for comfort, and to stop Connery from scratching
at his neck, p'raps.
Mac wrote:
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>
> > "Jeremy Kareken" <jeremy.kareken [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >> Beg pardon, but this is a mis-reading of the "Method." What would
> >> sleeping in a 1200 dollar suit prove? 1) Method (generally speaking)
> >> is about internal psychology and action being reflected onto the
> >> external world, not the other way around, 2) if you wanted to sleep
> >> like Bond... isn't that nude with a gun under your pillow? Or in
> >> London, in pyjamas with a gun under your pillow?
> >>
> >> Waking up in a rumpled suit is hardly Bond's way. Besides, Bond was
> >> MIDDLE class, he would have valued the suit too highly. He would
> >> have brushed it and hung it up the night before.
> >
> >
> > I believe it was an attempt by Terence Young to get *Connery* to feel
> > comfortable in the suit. For the wearing of it to become a second
> > nature kind of thing. Not that Bond would sleep in it.
>
> Indeed, to become his second skin.
>
> >> If the Saville Row story is true, and not publicist flummery, then I
> >> suspect it was useless, adding nothing to Connery's natural talent and
> >> style.
>
> >Oh, absolutely agreed.
>
> I don't know. Many actors find props and costumes help them inhabit a
> character. Connery seemed to find it valuable. What works for one
> actor doesn't necessarily work for all.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of a red card in a World Cup match."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291841 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:52 |
|
Jeremy Kareken wrote:
> Of course props and costumes are important... I don't think that
> sleeping in your armor makes you a better King Arthur... and neither
> would Strasberg or any Method-y type.
Then I shall retract "method-like" and substitute it with "approach." He
obviously felt this.... approach helped his performance!
> If you're trying to recreate the inner life, sleeping in a suit won't
> do a damn thing. As for comfort, and to stop Connery from scratching
> at his neck, p'raps.
LOL
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Heather Mills attempting to date JK Rowling."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291842 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 23:11 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > film and nothing else. So essentially what Fleming thought about
> > Connery at the beginning was irrelevant, while today, if he were
> > alive and gave his views on Craig, his approval or disapproval of him
> > would probably carry more weight as it would instantly reach around
> > the world with the help of all the multi-platform media avenues out
> > there for everybody to discuss and micro-examine to death ad nauseum,
> > which in turn might ultimately have some effect on audience
> > acceptance or rejection of Craig and the box office take of CR.
>
> I doubt it. Anne Rice's well-publicised views in the age of the Internet
> didn't do Tom Cruise or INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE a lot of harm. Has
> your view of Craig been altered by Sean Connery's positive opinion of
> him?
--- Internet was barely visible in 1994 when Vampire was released.
Internet traffic then was only 14 Gigabytes per second. Compare that
to 2000, when it was 868 Gbps. And though I don't have the figures for
after 2000, I'm sure by now it's at least double 868, and probably a
lot more than that. So her comments would've had barely a ripple
effect on the net in '94. And has my view of Craig been altered by
Connery's positive opinion of him? Oh, perish the thought. I'll
believe him - or not - when I see him for myself.
> CASINO ROYALE will have a large look-see audience of people curious
> to see the new Bond, this happened before with LIVE AND LET DIE and
> THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. It will be Craig's second Bond film (and I will
> have a ten pound bet with you there will be a second Craig Bond right
> here and now) that will clarify his acceptance or rejection as Bond.
--- Only a 10 pound bet? I thought you'd be more convinced than that.
But yeah, it's a sure bet that you'll win and I'd lose if Barb has it
her way - and she will, boffo b.o. or no boffo b.o.
> Ultimately, the audience will decide.
--- Barb.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of a Heather Mills sig on afjb."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #291843 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 23:11 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Internet was barely visible in 1994 when Vampire was released.
> Internet traffic then was only 14 Gigabytes per second. Compare that
> to 2000, when it was 868 Gbps. And though I don't have the figures
> for after 2000, I'm sure by now it's at least double 868, and
> probably a lot more than that. So her comments would've had barely a
> ripple effect on the net in '94.
Yeah? Google it. You're merely shifting goalposts because it suits you.
Her comments were also widely reported on the very TV shows that seem to
matter to you (Oh, and *more* people were watching network TV in 1994
than they are now).
> --- Only a 10 pound bet? I thought you'd be more convinced than that.
> But yeah, it's a sure bet that you'll win and I'd lose if Barb has it
> her way - and she will, boffo b.o. or no boffo b.o.
>
>
>> Ultimately, the audience will decide.
>
> --- Barb.
Ah. Just when I thought you'd started being rational again.
--
-- Mac
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292240 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 01:07 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Internet was barely visible in 1994 when Vampire was released.
> > Internet traffic then was only 14 Gigabytes per second. Compare that
> > to 2000, when it was 868 Gbps. And though I don't have the figures
> > for after 2000, I'm sure by now it's at least double 868, and
> > probably a lot more than that. So her comments would've had barely a
> > ripple effect on the net in '94.
>
> Yeah? Google it. You're merely shifting goalposts because it suits you.
--- I did Google it - http://www.galbithink.org/bandwidth.htm
> Her comments were also widely reported on the very TV shows that seem to
> matter to you (Oh, and *more* people were watching network TV in 1994
> than they are now).
--- You sure it was on network TV and not on syndicated TV, which fewer
people watch? No matter. Anyway, I kind of forget now what the whole
point of this is with Anne Rice and I'm too lazy to check on the
previous post. You shouldn't snip these things, keep the previous
posts intact with your reply.
> > --- Only a 10 pound bet? I thought you'd be more convinced than that.
> > But yeah, it's a sure bet that you'll win and I'd lose if Barb has it
> > her way - and she will, boffo b.o. or no boffo b.o.
> >
> >
> >> Ultimately, the audience will decide.
> >
> > --- Barb.
>
> Ah. Just when I thought you'd started being rational again.
--- How about if I bet you 10 pounds that if CR makes less than half of
what DAD made in the first two months of release, Barb will still o.k.
Craig for a second Bond. Now that's a bet. Just gotta find now what
DAD made in its first two months. And I say two months only because
she's already gone on record as saying that a second one is already
being planned and quite possibly for an '07 release, which means
everyone would have to know by mid-January what's going to happen with
that second one based on the b.o. take to that point.
> --
> -- Mac
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292241 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 01:52 |
|
WQ wrote:
>> Ah. Just when I thought you'd started being rational again.
>
> --- How about if I bet you 10 pounds that if CR makes less than half
> of what DAD made in the first two months of release, Barb will still
> o.k. Craig for a second Bond. Now that's a bet. Just gotta find now
> what DAD made in its first two months. And I say two months only
> because she's already gone on record as saying that a second one is
> already being planned and quite possibly for an '07 release, which
> means everyone would have to know by mid-January what's going to
> happen with that second one based on the b.o. take to that point.
It's not a bet because I believe Craig will make more than one
Bond, regardless of the box-office take of CASINO ROYALE. I'm
convinced, even now, five months before release, Craig *will*
star in Bond 22. That was a certainty all along.
Sony and EON will only re-examine their options if neither Bond film
performs well and, contrary to your own opinions, I believe Barbara
Broccoli and Michael Wilson re-cast with the good of the franchise
uppermost in their minds. Daniel Craig has the most impressive
credentials of *any* of the actors to have played Bond to date.
However, I firmly believe EON will be prepared to part with their
man rather than drive the property into the ground should Craig
not prove as popular as they'd hoped.
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Heather Mills using the line: "you handle those dice like
a monkey handles coconuts!" in the near future."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292242 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 02:02 |
|
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of a Heather Mills sig on afjb."
LOL
Mike
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of Star Jones
Reynolds at an all-u-can-eat buffet."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292243 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 02:13 |
|
WQ wrote:
>
> --- How about if I bet you 10 pounds that if CR makes less than half of
> what DAD made in the first two months of release, Barb will still o.k.
> Craig for a second Bond. Now that's a bet.
I hope not. I just don't feel Craig would be a good fit for my
submitted Bond 22 screenplay: BEAK OF THE PTERODACTYL.
Mike
Leiter: "That bird has the most voracious appetite for destruction
I've ever seen, James."
Bond: "Yes, I know. But thankfully neither of us is dating Heather
Mills. Now, what should we do about this pterodactyl that's on the
loose?"
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292244 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 02:17 |
|
Mac wrote:
> I was responding to your point about Connery not having to deal with
> a public perception of Bond. The British public had a perception
> of Bond. EON didn't buy a cold property. Remember, the film was
> aimed initially at the British market and it was DR NO's success there
> alone which saw FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE ushered into production.
Apologies, I generalised, probably a little wildly since when I post
late I get lazy, hyperbolic, and even wildly inaccurate - and if you
want, you can read that as a further apology in advance for the errors
which are bound creep into the rest of this post :-) . Certainly
plenty of people in the UK knew Bond from the Express strips and
Fleming's novels but I wouldn't have thought that they made up even a
significant majority of the audience which made DN such a success. I
could well be wrong, and I can't think of any way to find this out for
sure, but I would be willing to bet that the number of people who went
to see DN in the UK significantly outstripped the combined readership
of Fleming and McLusky, and that it was people who knew little or
nothing of Bond who made a difference, as indeed they did worldwide.
> There's this perception of Connery, perhaps borne of Fleming's comments,
> possibly part fan whimsy, that he was a dog-rough milkman dragged off
> the streets and turned into James Bond by Svengali Terence Young.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced of the accuracy of this. Alongside theatre
> work, including "The Seagull" with Sybil Thorndike, Connery had appeared
> on television playing the leads in "The Crucible," "Macbeth," the male
> lead in "Anna Karenina" and had received acclaim for his performance in
> "Requiem for a Heavyweight" long before he was cast as James Bond.
Well, yeah, the version of events which casts Connery as Cinderella and
EON as the Fairy Godmother is a vast exaggeration and doesn't take
account of the facts that Connery had been a working actor for over
half a decade, he'd trained with Yat Malmgren, one of the UK's leading
drama tutors, he'd had significant stage and television experience,
etc, etc. An awful lot of what he brought to the role of Bond must
have been in place long before EON hired him, otherwise how could he
have passed the audition?
However, it's also well-documented that EON took it upon themselves to
knock off what
they perceived as his 'rough edges' (Ken Adam has indeed said that when
Connery arrived in the role he was a 'diamond in the rough' and as I
understand it, ideas such as sleeping in the suit were Terence
Young's). EON hired a potential Albert Finney or even Stanley Baker
type and then set about trying to give him some of the qualities of a
Cary Grant, with Connery's willing collusion.
> The fact he topped a Daily Express reader's poll goes to show he already
> had some sort of public profile (in the UK); he actually *turned down* the
> lead in 1961's EL CID to nurse Diane Cilento to health!!
Aagh! The polls! The polls! You forget that this is a subject about
which you really don't want to get me started.
With that caveat, can I just ask what the date of the poll was and what
other names were on the list?
> It's the fact that he'd done a handful of movies before Bond that people
> refer to often ignoring a resume of work more impressive than some of
> the "experienced" men who followed.
*Perhaps*, but I'm not sure it's quite so simple. Acting is a business
which is notorious for building people up and then knocking them down.
It's not at all unknown for people to become leading men for two or
three big projects and then disappear off the radar, while people who
work steadily in smaller roles over a long period of time gain much
greater public recognition. It also depends on what you class as being
experienced or having an impressive resume. With regard to his
experience, Connery may have played half-a-dozen lead roles on TV and
stage within the space of a couple of years, but there can't be much
argument that with the exception of Lazenby, the other Bonds had more
time in the business and many more projects under their belt than
Connery did when they took on the role. As for the resume, OK, Connery
played some great roles, but there are a few factors to bear in mind
here. Firstly, TV in the early 1960s was a much more ephemeral medium
in the early 1960s then than it is now. An actor could do a terrific
job in a role, get good reviews the day after, and within a very short
space of time be forgotten: with no repeats and nothing but a vague
memory to remind the public of the job he'd done, it wasn't unusual for
a once highly praised actor in single TV plays to vanish from the
public consciousness very quickly. (At the time Connery was doing
theatre it was probably a better bet in terms of public recognition and
longevity than one-off TV projects were!)
Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan had the advantage of becoming leading actors
in an age when their films and TV appearances could be repeated,
syndicated, and otherwise recycled, and the general public, directors,
and casting directors could say 'oh yeah, I remember him from...'.
However impressive Connery's resume may have looked on paper, his
career was in a slightly tenuous position in 1961/1962 in that every
lead role he'd done to date (theatre, live or unlikely-to-be-repeated
TV) was likely to disappear into the ether very quickly indeed. If
Bond hadn't come along, there's a definite possibility that Connery's
turning down 'El Cid' could have turned out to be the end of a
once-promising career: thank goodness he got a second bite at the
cherry, since so many acting careers are all but destroyed by the
decision to pass on a particular plum role.
Best
Phil
(Pretty sure I've just shifted the goalposts a long way into the car
park outside...)
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292245 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 02:43 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> which are bound creep into the rest of this post :-) . Certainly
> plenty of people in the UK knew Bond from the Express strips and
> Fleming's novels but I wouldn't have thought that they made up even a
> significant majority of the audience which made DN such a success. I
> could well be wrong, and I can't think of any way to find this out for
> sure, but I would be willing to bet that the number of people who went
> to see DN in the UK significantly outstripped the combined readership
> of Fleming and McLusky, and that it was people who knew little or
> nothing of Bond who made a difference, as indeed they did worldwide.
I think I am losing track now! My point had nothing to do with
the number of people who made Bond a cinematic success vs those
who read Fleming beforehand. That's not even worth debating. You
suggested that Connery had it easy because hardly anyone had a
preconceived notion of James Bond. I countered it wasn't that cut
and dried, trying to provide some evidence to illustrate James Bond
wasn't entirely unknown to the public.
>> The fact he topped a Daily Express reader's poll goes to show he
>> already had some sort of public profile (in the UK); he actually
>> *turned down* the lead in 1961's EL CID to nurse Diane Cilento to
>> health!!
>
> Aagh! The polls! The polls! You forget that this is a subject about
> which you really don't want to get me started.
It's not that he came top, Phil. I have little respect for polls (newspapers
of Grahams) myself. My point is that he *featured* How many "unknown"
actors feature in polls?
> With that caveat, can I just ask what the date of the poll was and
> what other names were on the list?
I'd guess it was '60-61, when the films were announced. No other names
in the books I have.
--snipped-- Great points re: careers. (we could go round and round...)
--
-- Mac
"Heather Mills. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of an unloved mother-in-law."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292247 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 03:13 |
|
Mac wrote ..well he wrote some damn good stuff and pointed out several
instances in which I'd contradicted myself, but to paraphrase an old
Gary Larson cartoon, 'Can I be excused now, Sir? My brain is full.'
In other words, you win on points ;-)
Best
Phil
(Be warned - I have a full thread regarding the strict definition of
'Method acting' in reserve if I really want to get everybody, myself
included, confused...)
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #292248 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 03:20 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote ..well he wrote some damn good stuff and pointed out several
> instances in which I'd contradicted myself, but to paraphrase an old
> Gary Larson cartoon, 'Can I be excused now, Sir? My brain is full.'
>
> In other words, you win on points ;-)
I lost. Lost my train of thought, dignity, the point....
> Best
>
> Phil
>
> (Be warned - I have a full thread regarding the strict definition of
> 'Method acting' in reserve if I really want to get everybody, myself
> included, confused...)
I've always been confused about the method!
--
-- Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of.... who gives a fuck? Really...."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #293271 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 13:34 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4ge3rsF1mb11aU1 [at] individual.net...
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>> Mac wrote ..well he wrote some damn good stuff and pointed out several
>> instances in which I'd contradicted myself, but to paraphrase an old
>> Gary Larson cartoon, 'Can I be excused now, Sir? My brain is full.'
>>
>> In other words, you win on points ;-)
>
> I lost. Lost my train of thought, dignity, the point....
>
>> Best
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> (Be warned - I have a full thread regarding the strict definition of
>> 'Method acting' in reserve if I really want to get everybody, myself
>> included, confused...)
>
> I've always been confused about the method!
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of.... who gives a fuck? Really...."
LMAO!
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #293272 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 13:39 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4gdunfF1m7jq2U1 [at] individual.net...
> It's not a bet because I believe Craig will make more than one
> Bond, regardless of the box-office take of CASINO ROYALE. I'm
> convinced, even now, five months before release, Craig *will*
> star in Bond 22. That was a certainty all along.
I think that is definitely true. While I think CR will be a success
commercially, I don't believe EON will waver on Craig if it's not. He's
their man, and much gratitude to them for rolling the dice on what looks to
be a superior James Bond film.
> Sony and EON will only re-examine their options if neither Bond film
> performs well and, contrary to your own opinions, I believe Barbara
> Broccoli and Michael Wilson re-cast with the good of the franchise
> uppermost in their minds. Daniel Craig has the most impressive
> credentials of *any* of the actors to have played Bond to date.
>
> However, I firmly believe EON will be prepared to part with their
> man rather than drive the property into the ground should Craig
> not prove as popular as they'd hoped.
I'd be willing to wager $100 that Craig portrays 007 in at least three
films. (How many is he signed for anyway?)
Any takers?
Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman."
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know a good bet when I see one..."
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #293273 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 14:39 |
|
Mac wrote:
> Jeremy Kareken wrote:
>
> > Of course props and costumes are important... I don't think that
> > sleeping in your armor makes you a better King Arthur... and neither
> > would Strasberg or any Method-y type.
>
> Then I shall retract "method-like" and substitute it with "approach." He
> obviously felt this.... approach helped his performance!
So be it! So retracted! The ghost of Stanislavski sleeps well
tonight. The ghosts of Adler, Strasberg and Meisner shall do what they
always did, argue throughout eternity.
-J
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #293279 ] |
Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:06 |
|
Jeremy wrote:
> So be it! So retracted! The ghost of Stanislavski sleeps well
> tonight. The ghosts of Adler, Strasberg and Meisner shall do what they
> always did, argue throughout eternity.
....until David Mamet finally arrives and kicks all four of their
mouldering arses...
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Daniel Craig in "Munich" [message #293298 ] |
Do, 29 Juni 2006 16:15 |
|
Hey, I like Mamet as much as the next guy, more perhaps. But he's not
as anti-Method as his True and False would have you believe. And it's
not like DeNiro, Pacino and Duval haven't given the Mamet any service
in his life...
And they were trained by Adler, Strasberg and Meisner, in that order.
Besides, Mamet himself was trained by Meisner... not asked back to the
Playhouse, I might add, but his plays are practically repetition
exercises in their own right.
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> > So be it! So retracted! The ghost of Stanislavski sleeps well
> > tonight. The ghosts of Adler, Strasberg and Meisner shall do what they
> > always did, argue throughout eternity.
>
> ...until David Mamet finally arrives and kicks all four of their
> mouldering arses...
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 02:38:48 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10955 Sekunden |
