Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
November 18, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Quantum of Solace, the 22nd James Bond movie, did $67.5 million in its opening weekend. How is it that it did so much better than all of the previous 007 films?
Tim Briody: I don't have a specific answer for this, but I really don't feel all that shocked by this performance, and I blame The Dark Knight. That rewrote the rules for what a film, especially a venerable and very well liked franchise, can pull in seemingly out of nowhere.
Pete Kilmer: As successful as the first Craig Bond film was...I still think a lot of people put off watching it until DVD. They obviously came out this weekend to see the new one.
Scott Lumley: I think Tim and Pete have nailed this one entirely. I know I personally put off watching Casino Royale until it came out on DVD just because I thought that Craig was a weak choice as Bond and I was especially unimpressed about them remaking Casino Royale. Of course, when I watched he DVD I realized that I was a massive tool for not giving this a chance. I think a lot of filmgoers this weekend remember how impressed they were by the previous film and decided to see this one early.
If I had to add anything, I would also say that the trailers did a very good job of selling this film, which is even more impressive considering the goofy name the producers saddled this with. Somebody in the marketing department deserves a cookie.
Eric Hughes: It simply comes down to a heightened level of anticipation for the next Bond movie after the brilliance that was Casino Royale. At least for me, Quantum of Solace, poor title and all, was the first Bond movie I was actually anxious to go and see. I was ecstatic on Thursday when I was unexpectedly given the opportunity to see an advanced screening. I can't tell you the last time I was that giddy about seeing a new movie in theaters.
Additionally, people had to be interested in seeing the franchise's first true sequel. Quantum of Solace smartly recognized Bond with an actual memory instead of starting from scratch with each new film.
Brandon Scott: I am with Eric to some extent, from the standpoint of actually kind of being interested in Quantum. That being said, truth is, I have never seen Royale, nor many of the previous Bond films. They have all been too ridiculous for me to consider. I like the casting of Daniel Craig, which has put me on the precipice of taking a look at both of his entries, though. I think the number came in about what I anticipated. I think this had a good trailer, an established franchise, and it even ha(d)(s) me interested in checking out the film. The revenge aspect of it seems particularly cool. Now if they can drop the horrific Judi Dench and up the sex quotient, we might have something!
Scott Lumley: Drop Judi Dench? Are you kidding? If there's an actor or actress more perfectly suited for that role than Dame Judi Dench I don't know who it would be.
Sean Collier: Damn right, Scott. I will have no sullying of the good name of Dame Judi.
Tim brings up the big point of comparison, I think - The Dark Knight. (Hah! I found a way to talk about it more!) The Batman franchise was completely redesigned by Batman Begins, and it led to critical praise and copious word-of-mouth - both about that film and where they would go next. Where they went next was, of course, the biggest opening of all time. The same is true of Casino Royale. That film threw out the Bond playbook, taking a stale franchise and making it fresh and modern. Just like Batman Begins, people started talking and anticipating. The title and the marketing were almost irrelevant with all that buzz - they could've called it James Bond's Wonder Emporium and still made almost $70 million.
Kim Hollis: I mentioned it when I did the forecast and I'll mention it again here. I would definitely compare this to the Bourne films and their increases as the series gained more and more fans. Casino Royale gave James Bond the chance to reach an entirely new audience thanks to the fact that it's really creating a Bond universe and world that didn't quite exist previously due to all of the individual Bond films standing on their own and the numerous recastings. Casino Royale was so good that it was able to build a new, engaged audience that previously might have found earlier Bonds to be too far over-the-top or even past their prime. Quantum of Solace definitely benefited from this.
Kevin Chen: While Quantum of Solace benefited from the recreation of the Bond universe provided by Casino Royale, the jury is out on whether the sequel built upon it. If I had to take a stab at the opening for James Bond will return in _______, I'd say it doesn't match this movie's level of success.
Jamie Ruccio: Having seen enough crappy Bond films, I took a wait and see attitude with Casino Royale. There was no way I was going to spend money on it to see it in the theaters. I waited for it to hit DVD and then saw it. I recognized it for what it was, a reimagining of the entire atmosphere and environment of James Bond through the lens of Jason Bourne. This was fine with me as I very much liked Casino Royale and considered it a much more faithful telling of the Jason...err...James Bond I knew from one of the early books. The weekend gross somewhat surprises me but not entirely.
Max Braden: The edgy action we've come to expect after the Bourne and Batman series as everyone has mentioned is the likely reason. I think Kim has it right too, where the bulk of the audience is now a new generation who may not have even read the books or seen any Bonds earlier than Brosnan. The old guard like me who think Craig isn't right for the role don't seem to have held him back. Frankly I was disappointed in Casino Royale (both because of Craig and because of the pace) and thought that audiences weren't going to be that interested in this sequel, so I'm really surprised by the opening figure.
Jason Lee: The opening weekend for QOS is about $10 mil more than I was expecting - a turn of events that I'm definitely pleased with. Overall, I believe that the film benefited from two major points:
1. A renewed sense of excitement around the franchise due to the brilliant Casino Royale (a point that's been reiterated in this discussion already)
2. An overall movement in the film industry towards more realistic, relevant stories as opposed to kitschy, somewhat cheesy films. Bond benefits from capitalizing on this, as did Dark Knight, Iron Man and even Star Wars Episode III to a certain extent (with its focus on a Bush-like dictator that acts unilaterally without regard to the interests of the larger world community).
Big question: Will next summer's Star Trek benefit as well?
After the success of Mamma Mia!, perhaps an all-singing, all-dancing Bond is in order for Pierce Brosnan
Kim Hollis: Do you believe the Bond films would be having the same level of success if Pierce Brosnan was still doing them?
Pete Kilmer: I think that's a "what if" question we can't play. It would have been a totally different film. I think if Brosnan had done another one, we would have gotten the Quentin Tarantino version of Casino Royale. So who knows what would have happened.
Scott Lumley: You know, I actually like Tarantino a lot, but the thought of him having anything at all to do with the Bond franchise runs a chill down my spine.
Eric Hughes: I agree with Pete. The product wouldn't be anywhere near the same. However, at the same time I don't see Brosnan ever opening a Bond film with a first weekend take like Daniel Craig. Sure, Brosnan's box office figures steadily grew with each film, but I feel like it would have topped out well before reaching Quantum of Solace numbers.
Brandon Scott: Brosnan is aging (not so gracefully, perhaps) and he reached his peak with Bond (as far as I know). I know he was bitter about the franchise having been re-cast with Craig. Craig is younger and simply fresher and I think that spoke to a whole new audience. Anyone who saw Layer Cake had to take a liking to Craig (not that he wasn't around before then, but that gave a glimpse that he could be cool).
Scott Lumley: There are several actors out there now who would be far better choices than Brosnan. At the time when Craig was cast as Bond I was shocked that Clive Owen wasn't cast. Yet Craig has been great in the role, thanks in part to the extremely successful reboot. There are times when I don't even remember that Brosnan wore the Bond mantle at all, something the producers in the Bond series seem to recognize.
Sean Collier: While it's true that the franchise would never have been rebooted with Brosnan in the title role, I still think it's safe to say there would've been a nosedive if he had pressed on. The previous few Bond films had been nothing but retreads. Furthermore - it's an odd point, but I think a relevant one - the last few Bond films coincided with the Austin Powers movies. It's hard to keep doing the same old schtick when someone else is making more money lampooning it. If any more Pierce-led Bond movies had been introduced, franchise loyalists would've gone out of habit, but that'd be about it.
Kim Hollis: I agree that Brosnan - whether he wanted to or not - probably needed to move on from playing Bond. The series was stale, and frankly, Die Another Day wasn't very good. The producers understood that they simply weren't engaging a younger audience anymore, and took steps to correct the issue. I wouldn't necessarily credit the success to Craig himself, but he is sort of ideal for the Bond they've created.
Kevin Chen: It's a pity that the franchise had become so cartoonish by the time Brosnan took over the role, because he completely personified the icon of the suave, debonair, unflappable hero. While I do appreciate both Sean Connery and Roger Moore for their work in establishing the character, I can only imagine what the movies might have been like if Pierce Brosnan had been born a decade or two earlier.
Jamie Ruccio: I don't think if Brosnan had been still playing the part it would have had the same level of success. I don't think it much matters if Brosnan had done another one, however, so much as it matters who had creative control over the script writing. If Brosnan had been given the script to Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace (whose title I seem to be the outlier for as I really like it) it may have been successful, especially QoS with Casino as a foundation. But I think it benefits tremendously from a reboot with a different actor, especially someone like Craig who seems to be far more menacing than any previous Bond save for Connery.
If I remember correctly, the rumor was that Brosnan finally left the franchise because of the scripts and lack of control over them. I do wonder what Brosnan would have done with the role had he accepted the offer during his Remington Steele days and had a script that wasn't as campy as some of the others.
I also wonder why they don't pick someone to play the part who isn't in his late 30s when they start but ten years younger to maximize the time someone can play the role.
Max Braden: Brosnan couldn't have rebooted but there's no reason he couldn't have done the Quantum of Solace story with the same team that Craig had. I think Goldeneye started off with the right tone but they kept sliding into Roger Moore territory in the following movies. Brosnan became the Starbucks/theme park brand of Bond - well marketed, adventurous, but hardly edgy or dangerous. Brosnan could have given us improved films but I doubt his box office would have reflected that.
Jason Lee: I agree with Eric, Pete and Kim. The franchise needed an entire new look and persona - as good as an actor as Brosnan is, there is no way that he could have delivered the raw, visceral Bond that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace delivered.
Daron Aldridge: Plain and simple, Max nailed it with his take on the Brosnan/Moore parallel in quality. They just got silly but the box office openings for Brosnan as Bond held steady and then increased. Goldeneye opened in 1995 with $26.2 million, Tomorrow Never Dies in 1997 with $25.1 million, The World is Not Enough in 1999 with $35.5, and Die Another Day in 2002 with $47.1 million. In theory, it could have continued the increase but not likely, because of the aforementioned appearance of Jason Bourne on the scene as a fresh alternative. I would also argue that Halle Berry was a box office factor for Die Another Day as she had just won her Oscar and was prominently featured in all the ads/marketing.
Jason Bourne gonna sue somebody
Kim Hollis: Do you feel that emulating the Bourne franchise's grittier, more realistic style of espionage is a good step for Bond or does it make it too derivative?
Tim Briody: After how popular and successful the Bourne films were, this decision was a masterstroke that took the franchise out of the '60s and '70s.
Pete Kilmer: I think taking the "Bourne" formula of action and putting it in these reboot films of the Bond films was very smart. It doesn't take anything away from Bond, but only adds to him I think. Craig has shown that he can be just as suave and ladykiller-like the other men who've played Bond. I think having Craig do the action and fighting sequences that they've had him do has been a smart, smart move.
Scott Lumley: I recently had a discussion with my friend and he mentioned his favorite part of Casino Royale was the aborted car chase at the end of the film. I hadn't earmarked that part of the film as a favorite, but it is the point when the producers killed cartoon Bond dead and replaced him with gritty real life Bond. Watching Craig sweat and bleed and cry in that basement made me completely forget all the campy cartoonish antics that we were subjected to in the previous Bond films and I loved it. This is a brilliant reboot of a venerable Hollywood character and it was done perfectly. The only film that compares in scale to what happened in this series is Batman Begins, and I think we've already seen the parallel here with this massive opening weekend.
Brandon Scott: There is no question it is derivative (everyone who has seen it says so) and this has had some critics up in arms...see Roger Ebert who proclaims, "Bond is not an action star!". Now that being said, there is no question it has helped from a box office standpoint. Bourne has been and will likely always be, more popular with American audiences, but the box office results are proof positive that people are happy with the upping of the action quotient. Kudos from a marketing standpoint.
Sean Collier: It's more about modernization. The Bourne franchise were modern thrillers, the Bond movies were not. When 007 went 21st century, it was bound to be similar to other films doing the same things. I wouldn't necessarily label it derivative - at least not consciously so.
Kim Hollis: Sean, I actually agree that the new Bond films aren't consciously derivative. I believe this was simply a direction they needed to move. It was getting hard to take 007 seriously, and they've corrected that problem by taking it a darker direction. Real spies don't lead the lives that Bond led when he was being portrayed by Roger Moore, Sean Connery and the like. In a post-9/11 world, people are more aware that espionage involves little glamour. It was important to recognize that fact and move into the 21st century.
Jamie Ruccio: I don't think the Bond Franchise had any choice but to emulate the Bourne series. There was no chance that the Bond franchise could compete and survive against the comparison that happens with Bourne. But several things are good news for Bond when the franchises are compared. First, Bond has elements that Bourne does not. Bourne is unremittingly stark and bleak. There is almost no other story telling element that is not directly tied to the main character. Bond has additional elements beyond the espionage, love interests (although my understanding is that Quantum of Solace mutes this more than any other Bond film previously), additional characters and other story elements. Bond has a measure of sophistication and glamor whereas Bourne is simply the story of a lost foot soldier. In this regard the advantage goes to the Bond franchise. It is also ironic that Quantum of Solace, from my understanding, is more of a return to the original Bond of the novels and really less of a stylistic theft from Bourne. If anything Bourne is more like the original Bond.
Max Braden: I wouldn't say derivative and I would say they were smart to go this route, but it does run the risk of seeking short term gains at the expense of the brand. Does anyone feel that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace really fit in with the style of the rest of the films? What's memorable about them? You can sell grit, but if it starts looking like other grit, audiences may jump ship more frequently to the flavor of the moment.
Jason Lee: I do not feel at all like Bond is emulating Bourne. What impresses me so much about this new Bond is that a majority of the action has emanated from a very specific emotional place for the character - this wounded animal that is almost blindly seeking vengeance. Knowing eventually where Bond will end up (the womanizing, one-liner delivering super spy), this early story has all the more "weight" and "impact" for me.
David Niven really had it all going on.
Kim Hollis: Rank the Bond actors in order of your favorite to least favorite.
Pete Kilmer:
Daniel Craig
Sean Connery
Pierce Brosnan
Timothy Dalton
George Lazenby
David Niven
Peter Sellers
Barry Nelson
Roger Moore
Scott Lumley: Does Peter Sellers even count?
Sean Collier: I was never a big Bond fan until Casino Royale, to tell you the truth. So Daniel Craig is an easy favorite for me. This, of course, is with all due respect to Sean Connery, since we almost have the same name and all.
Kim Hollis: I'm always going to be partial to Sean Connery, and even though they're campy as all get-out, I'm a pretty big fan of the Roger Moore films as well (admittedly, I'm fairly alone in that respect). So I suppose if I skip the guys who only did one film (since I've never seen any of those), the ranking would be:
Sean Connery
Roger Moore
Daniel Craig
Pierce Brosnan
Timothy Dalton
Jamie Ruccio: Daniel Craig is my favorite as his performance feels more like the Bond that I know from a novel.
Connery is next because, while campy, he managed to imbue several other Bond characteristics into the performance, wit, charm, sophistication and as much menace as the scripts allowed.
Dalton: See Connery.
Brosnan: He epitomized suave.
Max Braden: Dalton, because he most embodied the temper of the book character and looked at home both in the ballroom and on the battlefield > Connery for the same reasons > Lazenby was much better than conventional wisdom allows because he was hurt by scripted dialogue > Brosnan had the highest level of adrenaline and GQ style> Craig brings a good level of do-or-die brutality, but he's all thug and not the naval officer Bond is > Moore was just too British Peerage.
Daron Aldridge: Points to Pete for being very, very inclusive. Following Kim's lead about only ones that I have seen, my preference would be:
Sean Connery (Never Say Never Again ignored)
Daniel Craig
Pierce Brosnan
Timothy Dalton
Roger Moore
I think that if Craig and the filmmakers continue with this approach, then he might unseat or at least be tied to Connery. I really like GoldenEye and thought the same thing for Brosnan and then the quality dipped and dipped and dipped. I think that Dalton is underrated and the less said about Moore, especially in that later years, the better.
Scott Lumley: Where's all the love for Roger Moore? He requited himself so well in the Spice Girls movie!
Live and Let Die! Live and Let Die!
Kim Hollis: What are your favorite Bond films? How about least favorite?
Pete Kilmer: Some of my favorite Bond films are Dr. No, Goldeneye, Casino Royale (Craig version), Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Scott Lumley: I think Austin Powers and Casino Royale ruined my previous appreciation for the earlier Bond films. I used to love Moonraker, but now it just seems horribly dated. Kind of like the hot math teacher you had in grade nine that you see at the 25 year reunion and she hasn't aged well. At all.
Sean Collier: Casino Royale and A View to a Kill are favorites. I didn't make it all the way through Goldeneye.
Kim Hollis: My favorite Bond film is Live and Let Die, which I've seen countless times. I also like Goldfinger and Diamonds Are Forever a great deal. Probably my least favorite is Die Another Day. Admittedly, I haven't come close to seeing all the Bond flicks, but there are some (like View to a Kill and Octopussy) that I have seen dozens of times due to their repeated showings on HBO when I was a teen.
Kevin Chen: My top three are, in no particular order, From Russia with Love, Casino Royale (the remake), and Goldfinger. Goldeneye deserves a mention if only for licensing the single best Bond videogame ever created.
Max Braden: My favorites are The Living Daylights in part because Dalton is my favorite Bond actor, On Her Majesty's Secret Service because it showed Bond as human, and GoldenEye for the action. I liked Connery's movies but the directing style, musical orchestration, and fight choreography of the era really bored me. The Man With the Golden Gun is probably my least favorite because of the absurdities.
Best and worst theme songs: GoldenEye and Die Another Day
Best and worst villains: Auric Goldfinger and Elliot Carver