The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
M
Flagging myself as Off Topic, I'd love to hear the definitive qualities of the previous 4 Bonds that Brosnan encompassed. I love Pierce's Bond but I don't agree that he was a pastiche of the earlier Bonds. Not to start another chance for a Bond debate because I hate them every time I try to start one.
I always viewed Brosnan as a slightly edgier version of Moore. He's more convincing at action than Moore was, but he still falls on the side of style over substance for me. There's nothing wrong with that approach, and for certain eras ('70s, '90s) it seemed to be the preferred mode for the films. I just find that it's an approach that doesn't age well.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
M
Flagging myself as Off Topic, I'd love to hear the definitive qualities of the previous 4 Bonds that Brosnan encompassed. I love Pierce's Bond but I don't agree that he was a pastiche of the earlier Bonds. Not to start another chance for a Bond debate because I hate them every time I try to start one.
I added a thread in the OT section so as to not hijack this thread.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
M
Flagging myself as Off Topic, I'd love to hear the definitive qualities of the previous 4 Bonds that Brosnan encompassed. I love Pierce's Bond but I don't agree that he was a pastiche of the earlier Bonds. Not to start another chance for a Bond debate because I hate them every time I try to start one.
I added a thread in the OT section so as to not hijack this thread.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
M
Wow.
I even like Roger Moore better than Brosnan.
Of course, I'm a big fan of "that other guy".
;)
**OFF TOPIC**
I like them all. Love Roger Moore, but its almost not fair to compare the movies across different generations. The change in actor is what everyone talks about for the most part, but movies/Hollywood and the world was just much different than when Moore was making Moonraker compared to when Brosnan was staring in The World Is Not Enough.
The James Bond franchise never recovered after Connery left. And Lazenby. And Connery again. And Moore. And Connery again (sort of). And that other guy. And Bronsan. And Craig. And who ever comes after that. Straight down the tubes.
Though the scripts weren't good, I'd argue Bronsan breathed new life into the series & is the best Bond. He encompassed the best, definitive qualities his predessors brought to the Bond character.
M
Wow.
I even like Roger Moore better than Brosnan.
Of course, I'm a big fan of "that other guy".
;)
**OFF TOPIC**
I like them all. Love Roger Moore, but its almost not fair to compare the movies across different generations. The change in actor is what everyone talks about for the most part, but movies/Hollywood and the world was just much different than when Moore was making Moonraker compared to when Brosnan was staring in The World Is Not Enough.
Yeah, the conventions of filmmaking are entirely different.
The comparisons between Bond, Jack Ryan and Nightcrawler are ridiculous. When they changed Bond the first time it was a disaster, financially and initially critically, hence why they brought Connery back. Bond carries his franchise, and it wasn't until Roger Moore that people got the idea that he'd change actors every few years and that this was a good thing. Jack Ryan, well that's barely a franchise at all because they keep changing actors. The fact that Harrison Ford is the only actor to repeat an appearance of Jack Ryan has kept it from being in the same league as Bond. The new movie will flop too, because, while we all know who he is, the general public isn't going to go, "Hey, Clear and Present Danger was awesome 20 years ago. And it really held up with Sum of All Fears 10 years ago. I bet Jack Ryan will be the best Jack Ryan movie ever."
As for Nightcrawler, the issue is that it was never going to be more than a cameo or a bit part, not the main character of a solo franchise, so why bother going through all the recasting drama if it doesn't enhance the movie in anyway, but does distract from it. The X-franchise doesn't need Nightcrawler to survive. If we were talking about whether or not they could successfully replace Jackman in this movie, then I think we'd be comparing apples to apples.
First. I would watch a solo Nightcrawler movie any day of the week. Don't dis my boy Kurt Wagner.
Second. The x-men franchise doesn't need Hugh Jackman to survive. It's an ensemble with a huge and rich cast of characters to draw from. No one is indispensable.
Third. The comparisons aren't ridiculous. The point was main characters in movies can change without damaging the franchise. Batman would be another example. Doctor Who perhaps another. Or if you want a minor character the girlfriend in Back to the Future would work or the other Darren in Bewitched.
Fourth. You facts are wrong. Connery wasn't "brought back" because Moore was a flop. Never Say Never Again was made by Warner Brothers in competition with MGM's Octopussy in 1983. Octopussy had a worldwide gross of $187 Million to Never say Never's $160 million. It had been 12 years since Connery played Bond.
Fourth. You facts are wrong. Connery wasn't "brought back" because Moore was a flop. Never Say Never Again was made by Warner Brothers in competition with MGM's Octopussy in 1983. Octopussy had a worldwide gross of $187 Million to Never say Never's $160 million. It had been 12 years since Connery played Bond.
Actually I was refering to Connery in "Diamonds are Forever", after "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" when the Broccolis' did an about face because they thought they had doomed their franchise. And I'm arguing that Nightcrawler WOULDN'T be a main character in any x-men movie so what's the point of replacing him. And I think X-men could go on without Hugh Jackman, X-men First Class proved that,but to REPLACE him would be a different story and how it's handled would be a better comparison to Bond or Ryan.
Why would Nightcrawler NOT be a major character in ANY X-men movie. He was a major character in X2. For me Kurt is part of the core team. He could easily be as big or significant as any other member of the team.
Fourth. You facts are wrong. Connery wasn't "brought back" because Moore was a flop. Never Say Never Again was made by Warner Brothers in competition with MGM's Octopussy in 1983. Octopussy had a worldwide gross of $187 Million to Never say Never's $160 million. It had been 12 years since Connery played Bond.
Actually I was refering to Connery in "Diamonds are Forever", after "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" when the Broccolis' did an about face because they thought they had doomed their franchise. And I'm arguing that Nightcrawler WOULDN'T be a main character in any x-men movie so what's the point of replacing him. And I think X-men could go on without Hugh Jackman, X-men First Class proved that,but to REPLACE him would be a different story and how it's handled would be a better comparison to Bond or Ryan.
Jackman & RDJ seem to be the exceptions to the rules here. I think you could replace every single character with different actors, but these 2 guys ARE the characters. I'm actually surprised with TRYING to write Stark like RDJ that they haven't tried to grow Wolverine to a 6 ft-something guy.
Why would Nightcrawler NOT be a major character in ANY X-men movie. He was a major character in X2. For me Kurt is part of the core team. He could easily be as big or significant as any other member of the team.
We're talking about the same franchise that just wrote off Cyclops right? Even in X2 he was set dressing. Let's not even talk about Gambit, or Psylocke or Angel.The franchise has made a choice as to who they think is relevant to their success and its Professor X, Magneto, and Wolverine. Everyone else just services the plot. If there was a sudden wave of interest in Nightcrawler outside the comic fandom this would be a different story.
I'm saying there is very little invested in a character that is a little too notable to replace without notice to make it worth their while, because a Nightcrawler solo isn't happening and they don't need to use him ever if they don't want to because they have so many characters to choose from. Replacing the actor seems like more of a hassle than a benefit to me. Let Cummings performance stand as one of the few characters the franchise got almost completely right.
...When they changed Bond the first time it was a disaster, financially and initially critically, hence why they brought Connery back....
Not a disaster. One of the top movies of the year: "It topped the North American box office when it opened with a gross of $1.2 million.[57] The film closed its box office run with £750,000 in the United Kingdom (the highest-grossing film of the year),[58] $64.6 million worldwide,[59] half of You Only Live Twice's total gross,[58] but still one of the highest-grossing films of 1969.[60] After re-releases, the total box office was $82,000,000 worldwide"
Lazenby chose to leave the role before the movie was even released.
...When they changed Bond the first time it was a disaster, financially and initially critically, hence why they brought Connery back....
Not a disaster. One of the top movies of the year: "It topped the North American box office when it opened with a gross of $1.2 million.[57] The film closed its box office run with £750,000 in the United Kingdom (the highest-grossing film of the year),[58] $64.6 million worldwide,[59] half of You Only Live Twice's total gross,[58] but still one of the highest-grossing films of 1969.[60] After re-releases, the total box office was $82,000,000 worldwide"
Lazenby chose to leave the role before the movie was even released.
I think that if the most successful franchise in the world at the time suddenly drops to half the grosses of the previous movie that constitutes a disaster.
Comments
M
I even like Roger Moore better than Brosnan.
Of course, I'm a big fan of "that other guy".
;)
M
I like them all. Love Roger Moore, but its almost not fair to compare the movies across different generations. The change in actor is what everyone talks about for the most part, but movies/Hollywood and the world was just much different than when Moore was making Moonraker compared to when Brosnan was staring in The World Is Not Enough.
As for Nightcrawler, the issue is that it was never going to be more than a cameo or a bit part, not the main character of a solo franchise, so why bother going through all the recasting drama if it doesn't enhance the movie in anyway, but does distract from it. The X-franchise doesn't need Nightcrawler to survive. If we were talking about whether or not they could successfully replace Jackman in this movie, then I think we'd be comparing apples to apples.
Second. The x-men franchise doesn't need Hugh Jackman to survive. It's an ensemble with a huge and rich cast of characters to draw from. No one is indispensable.
Third. The comparisons aren't ridiculous. The point was main characters in movies can change without damaging the franchise. Batman would be another example. Doctor Who perhaps another. Or if you want a minor character the girlfriend in Back to the Future would work or the other Darren in Bewitched.
Fourth. You facts are wrong. Connery wasn't "brought back" because Moore was a flop. Never Say Never Again was made by Warner Brothers in competition with MGM's Octopussy in 1983. Octopussy had a worldwide gross of $187 Million to Never say Never's $160 million. It had been 12 years since Connery played Bond.
M
I'm saying there is very little invested in a character that is a little too notable to replace without notice to make it worth their while, because a Nightcrawler solo isn't happening and they don't need to use him ever if they don't want to because they have so many characters to choose from. Replacing the actor seems like more of a hassle than a benefit to me. Let Cummings performance stand as one of the few characters the franchise got almost completely right.
Lazenby chose to leave the role before the movie was even released.
BLINK!
Looks very very promising.
M
M