If Casino Royale is a failure, what next?

[Henry Hill]

The future of Casino Royale as far as initial popularity seems murky.While most of us Bond fans are happy to see a more serious 007 film, there are those that feel that this is breaking a formula that works, financially at least. I fear that we are looking at another OHMSS, a film that is refuted but eventually gains the respect it deserves after aging for a few years. Say the worst scenario takes place, Royale is given good reviews, but the people decide to spit out Craig? Like they spat out Lazenby and Dalton. Will we see another light hearted film like Diamonds are Forever, perhaps with Brosnan? Will there be an unusual gap like there was between LTK and GE? Or will this be the final nail in the coffin for the Bond series?

 

[Agentsands77]

Here are the scenarios I foresee:

1. EON, not willing to admit defeat with their bold casting choice of Craig, continue on with BOND 22 with Craig in the role.

2. EON, desiring to stay with Craig, is told by Sony to let Craig go. Bitter negotiations ensue, stalling progress on any future Bond films for a number of years.

3. After failure, Daniel Craig politely "bows out" of the role (after being asked to leave by Sony, undoubtedly), and EON hires a safer choice, Hugh Jackman, and continues on with BOND 22.


I don't think it at all likely for Brosnan to be returning to the Bond role. It's just not a really feasible option. EON would have to come crawling back on hands and knees to him after hiring Craig. They'd look like total fools and would be humiliated. When Cubby went for Connery, it was because Connery had left of his own accord. Brosnan was tossed - to go after the thing you threw away is somewhat shameful. Even if pressured to toss Craig, I think they'd much rather go with a different, more popular actor than Brosnan. Hugh Jackman, or such. Not to mention, bringing Brosnan back for one film is somewhat problematic, because one he's gone, you're in the same "search-for-a-new-Bond" pickle you were last time. And then the obvious choice of Hugh Jackman will probably be so far gone in his career, he won't want to give Bond a thought.

Furthermore, why is it at all in Brosnan's interests to come back? He's done nothing but moan and complain about how awful it was being in the part since he's left, he's found a newfound artistic freedom and credibility as an actor, and is in a position to really escape any Bond "shadow" as a performer.

And while this is purely speculative on my part, I don't think Brosnan, while very popular in the role, has the sort of draw that bringing him back would really be all that big of an event. He's not where Connery was, where Connery was really the *one and only* name attached to the role, so that further success in the franchise almost necessitated his return. I'm not sure that heralding "PIERCE BROSNAN IS BACK" would really be that profitable.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Here are the scenarios I foresee:

1. EON, not willing to admit defeat with their bold casting choice of Craig, continue on with BOND 22 with Craig in the role.

2. EON, desiring to stay with Craig, is told by Sony to let Craig go. Bitter negotiations ensue, stalling progress on any future Bond films for a number of years.

3. After failure, Daniel Craig politely "bows out" of the role (after being asked to leave by Sony, undoubtedly), and EON hires a safer choice, Hugh Jackman, and continues on with BOND 22.


I don't think it at all likely for Brosnan to be returning to the Bond role. It's just not a really feasible option. EON would have to come crawling back on hands and knees to him after hiring Craig. They'd look like total fools and would be humiliated. When Cubby went for Connery, it was because Connery had left of his own accord. Brosnan was tossed - to go after the thing you threw away is somewhat shameful. Even if pressured to toss Craig, I think they'd much rather go with a different, more popular actor than Brosnan. Hugh Jackman, or such. Not to mention, bringing Brosnan back for one film is somewhat problematic, because one he's gone, you're in the same "search-for-a-new-Bond" pickle you were last time. And then the obvious choice of Hugh Jackman will probably be so far gone in his career, he won't want to give Bond a thought.

Furthermore, why is it at all in Brosnan's interests to come back? He's done nothing but moan and complain about how awful it was being in the part since he's left, he's found a newfound artistic freedom and credibility as an actor, and is in a position to really escape any Bond "shadow" as a performer.

And while this is purely speculative on my part, I don't think Brosnan, while very popular in the role, has the sort of draw that bringing him back would really be all that big of an event. He's not where Connery was, where Connery was really the *one and only* name attached to the role, so that further success in the franchise almost necessitated his return. I'm not sure that heralding "PIERCE BROSNAN IS BACK" would really be that profitable.

It would be to an extent, but the fact is Brosnan would be simply too old by that point. Brosnan did four movies, three decent ones, and is widely accepted as one of the best. There is nothing he could achieve by coming back, all he could do is tarnish his Bond reign - look at both Diamonds are Forever and Never Say Never Again.

 

[raybia]

I've moved on from Bond to a series that gets it.

Bourne. Everything that Bond should be.

 

[Agentsands77]

I've moved on from Bond to a series that gets it.

Bourne. Everything that Bond should be.

Not everything. It's not exotic or luxurious or as bizarre as Bond should be. Bond needs to be considerably more extravagant and have a some more touches of outright fantasy than Bourne would ever allow.

 

[supermanager]

bourne identity is rubbish

a joke for kids movie

mat damon is the worst actor in living history
he and his brother benn assfleck

 

[Agentsands77]

bourne identity is rubbish

a joke for kids movie

mat damon is the worst actor in living history
he and his brother benn assfleck

Such an eloquent statement! I'm suddenly won over to your point of view!

 

[the_joker]

Supermanger is right about Damon being a shoddy actor. He is the sort of bland "average" guy you see on the streets, and would be better suited sticking to comedy like 'stuck on you'. Don't think him and Affleck (love what you did there by the way) are brothers anyways.

BUT anyways, Casino Royale isn't going to be a failure, don't be so pessimistic!

 

[JamesBond007]

I think this thread has become pretty irrelevant at this stage.

 

[Abaddon]

then why did you bump it?

 

[Everyman]

It's interesting to see the speculations long before the movie was released... The obstacles to CR were huge.

 

[Furious Styles]

The obstacles Casino Royale faced were rather large, however in retrospect, I would have to think not as significant as Goldeneye. However, that statement may not be true, depending on whether or not you believe reintroduction or reinvention to be the more difficult task.

I think many people (including myself) underestimated the power of James Bond. Here is a cultural icon at its zenith of popularity, forging ahead (somewhat into the unknown) and some people thought to bet against it.

It'll be amazing to watch what happens when Craig has to step down and his replacement is found.

 

[Everyman]

I think CR's success was much more uncertain than GE's, because Brosnan was a more obvious choice to play Bond then than Craig was when he was cast (in a way, Brosnan was a more credible Bond before he became Bond) and because LTK had been a financial disappointment. DAD was total rubbish, but it was financially successful, and some people could have said that going louder, thicker and dumber was the way to go with the franchise.