Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 11, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I think that it'll be someone like a Dominic Cooper: a young actor who's known to audiences in a general sense, but not so well known that they bring a lot of baggage or an established persona, an approach which worked pretty well with Daniel Craig. Cooper probably wouldn't be available due to his commitments to Preacher and Agent Carter, but he's baseline for the sort of actor I think EON might look for.
In terms of who I would want to see as Bond, as opposed to who I think will get it, I'd like to see them take a risk and go for Idris Elba, Chiwitel Ejiofor, or Riz Ahmed, all of whom have qualities which I think would make them perfect Bonds.
Jason Barney: I wouldn't mind seeing Benedict Cumberbatch as Bond.
Ben Gruchow: I would be perfectly willing to write to whomever it takes to see Chiwetel Ejiofor take a crack at Bond.
Felix Quinonez: OK, I'll let you guys in on a secret, it's going to be me.
Bruce Hall: You will accuse me of dodging the question, but I think it will be Daniel Craig.
I mean really, it all depends on whether or not he fulfills the final film in his contract. If he does, that film isn't likely to hit theaters until...let's say 2018.
If that's the case, the one after that we won't see until after the beginning of the next decade. And in that scenario, I'd wager you can probably cross fan favorites like Damian Lewis (currently 44-years-old) and Idris Elba (42) off your list right now.
Also, with the distribution rights to the franchise about to go up for bids, I can see a scenario where say, Warner Bros takes over and decides to capitalize quickly. Maybe they recast the role early, hoping to take things in a fresh direction. In that case, all bets are off.
There's just so many questions right now that it's impossible to make an informed guess, because there's literally no information available.
But for the sake of having fun with it, I will assume that Craig finishes his contract and we don't get a new Bond until 2019 or so. Based on who's "hot" right now, I'll throw out Henry Cavill, Dan Stevens and Tom Hardy.
Still, something tells me that the man who ultimately wins the role is someone that nobody is taking about right now.
Like...I don't know. Felix Quinonez?
Michael Lynderey: I think the Dan Stevens choice is brilliant, Bruce. He's exactly what they might be looking for - somewhat known so as to not be too obscure, but not too famous like a Tom Hardy (or a Benedict Cumberbatch, come on - although Cumby would make a great Bond villain!). Stevens is a bit more of the old-school Bond than Craig is, but the at same time he's got a somewhat strong physical presence, too, so he can pull his own weight in a brawl. He's vaguely blond, but not so blond as Craig or so brunet as Connery, so he's an effective transition between the two. And he's gotten good reviews for his steely charm in movies like The Guest, while pulling off comedy in Night at the Museum (I imagine he could simply use the former film as an audition tape).
As I understand it, Henry Cavill was under serious consideration in 2005, but he was passed over because of his age, 22. These days, he's playing Superman and he's done the similar Man from U.N.C.L.E., so I'm guessing he'll now ironically be seen as too experienced for the job. Certainly a good choice on paper, however.
Kim Hollis: I'd agree that Cavill seems a terrific choice. I almost felt like U.N.C.L.E. was his Bond audition. Richard Madden might be an interesting choice as well. At least he'd be real Scots.
Kim Hollis: The Peanuts Movie earned $44.2 million this weekend. What do you think of this result?
Ben Gruchow: For the record, I would like to note that another short film about Scrat from the Ice Age franchise ran before The Peanuts Movie, presumably as an extended trailer for their sequel next year. It involves outer space, and I just...can't. The teaser poster is a riff on The Martian. I wish they'd stop.
$44 million is appropriate. October came and went without a family film that skewed toward the younger set, and this reminds me of The Rugrats Movie from 1998 and how it blew up on opening weekend. That was close to the same release weekend, and the last family movie before that had been Antz two months prior. Adjusted for inflation, The Rugrats Movie made about $48 million its opening weekend. It's a case of a movie coming out at the right time for its market.
Edwin Davies: The release date plays a big part, especially since the last major family release was the seven week old Hotel Transylvania 2 (and arguably Goosebumps, but it might be a little too horror-inflected to count, and it's also four weeks old). You can't discount the Peanuts name, though, which has the kind of recognition of an Alvin and the Chipmunks since it cuts across multiple generations, so nostalgic parents will be more willing to take their kids along. It helped that the film was fairly true to the spirit of the original, even as it updated the visual style, making it akin to the Hollywood equivalent to Paddington. It appealed to kids because it looked fun, it appealed to adults because it brought back familiar characters, and it was pretty good. That's a potent combination.
Jason Barney: I think this is a great opening....and $100 million for this to come to theaters might be a little high, but that number is going to be in the rearview mirror pretty quickly. Peanuts should do extremely well through the holidays considering the positive reviews and word-of-mouth.
Felix Quinonez: I think it's a really good number. I'm actually a bit surprised it resonated with so many people. It will definitely see a profit but I wonder how well it will hold up against Pixar's The Good Dinosaur.
Bruce Hall: I think it's impressive. Peanuts is one of those things I really loved as a child, and looking back, I'm not sure why. The comic is pretty forgettable, and my mother probably liked the characters much more than I did. But keeping in mind that Peanuts is a) Something that's been around since the Truman Administration and b) Nobody was really asking for a CGI adaptation of it, this is actually significantly more than I was expecting.
I also think that Peanuts has one more week of glory, when all the codgers who left the kids at home to see Spectre take the family to the cineplex for some quality time. Then, the Hunger Games finale will render everything irrelevant, and The Good Dinosaur will absorb the Family Friendly demographic for a week or two.
While I don't see Charlie Brown and friends translating well overseas, I do think that Peanuts will eventually make money back, and Fox is clearly hoping to have a franchise on its hands. Time will tell, but signs are encouraging.
Michael Lynderey: I had serious reservations about whether the modern-day uber-sophisticated generation of American children would embrace the simple and wholesome Americana of Charles M. Schulz. I thought they would not. Obviously, I was very, very, wrong. Kudos to the marketing campaign, which was ubiquitous, to the filmmaking team, which has turned out a quality, well-reviewed film, and to whoever decided to tie the film to the still-successful Ice Age franchise (a new Ice Age short precedes screenings). There's no question that a new franchise is born here, and for now, The Peanuts Movie should have very good legs throughout the next two and a half months.
Kim Hollis: It's a great result. I saw so many people speculating that it wouldn't do well because it's a comic that was in its heyday so long ago. But anyone who loved the TV specials was assuredly taking their kids to see it, and because the adaptation is so faithful, it's pleasing to almost everyone. My screening had applause, and I was right there with them. I love love loved Snoopy when I was young. I have probably drawn his face a thousand times. I'm thrilled that the movie was exactly what I would have hoped for as a fan and based on comments I'm seeing from many viewers, it's going to hold up well over time.