Daniel Craig says he doesn't want to do another Bond; Spectre may be his last

18911131435

Comments

  • Posts: 12,511
    The key is Mendes but i am sure their are other Directors out there who DC would love to work with? It is a case of whether said people would want to helm a Bond movie?
  • Posts: 39
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    So ease-up on @dmwalker. He's taken the time to inform you of what an insider has told him, and though you might not like what you hear there's no reason for frothing at the mouth and being uncivil towards him.

    It's not about Daniel Craig and his contract.

    dmwalker said, that his source told him, dass the script wouldn't allow Daniel Craig to return in a future Bond movie.

    We all know, that Craig himself may say: "This is it!"

    But dmwalker's source says, that it's not possible for him to return after SPECTRE.
    And THAT's the only thing I think is bullshit. Because only Bond's death could lead to that. And I don't think Bond will die in SPECTRE.

    It's a ridiculous rumour. Sam Mendes has said Spectre is an origin story meaning a pre curser to the Bond adventures that followed forgetting about the years within Flemings novels. How can you have an origin story and kill Bond or retire him by the end of the film. Rumour goes against the directors own words. I think I would rather take Mendes words.

    That's funny, because Mendes was the one who told me it would be "impossible" for Craig to return.

    It's important that you understand that: I did not make that up. I don't know what "impossible" means either. That's why I felt compelled to post here in the first place. I doubt I would have if my only info was that DC wouldn't be coming back.

    And if - as has been suggested - I was mad enough to have posted lies here in an attempt to get attention, I certainly wouldn't have made up the "impossible" quote which doesn't even make sense to me! It implies either that Bond dies or the code-name theory applies, neither of which I think will be true; and both of these would no doubt be refuted when the film comes out, making me look like a proper arse. The best solution I have is that Mendes was perhaps being a little over-dramatic and making it sound like this "impossible" thing was a plot-point, when really it's a personal agreement between him and DC.

    Unless, of course, they've got a big surprise up their sleeves. One thing I can say categorically is that the FINAL shooting draft of SPECTRE is NOT in the public domain; and anyone using leaked drafts to support their arguments is a fool.

    And thank you to those who've responded soberly to my posts on this and other threads. I realise it's annoying to hear bad news and no doubt some will just think I'm name-dropping. But do remember that before Bond, DC was just an actor; if you'd gone to the Royal Court bar after performances of A NUMBER, you'd have found him there drinking like everyone else. I've met him a couple of times and we have good friends in common; and I've known several people involved with the Bond films over the years, many of whom I've worked with. There are several other factors that make Craig's departure very likely, imo, but which I won't go into here as they WOULD be breaches of confidence.

    Point being: These people aren't mythical creatures, like unicorns. It's not that thrilling or unusual to meet them when they're your peers. If anything, it's a bit disappointing: I liked it better when the Bond films were completely divorced from my reality.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Too many people here put Craig on a pedestal, maybe that's why they have such a hard time accepting the possibility that his 4th Bond movie could very well be his last.

    4 movies in a decade is a good run and nobody in the real world would complain if it was decided that a new actor will take over for Bond 25.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    trevanian wrote: »
    [q. te="NicNac;485138"]
    aspie wrote: »
    I am not sadden by this development. I am actually quite appalled that Babs has relinquished so much control to Daniel. Do you think Cubby would have given creative control to Connery? Not likely. Co-producer, absolutely not!!! Time to bring some glamour back to Bond, maybe in this era of Miley and whoever the fad of the day it won't appeal to folks but Fleming's Bond had more class than this iteration. Btw- Dalton did the serious Bond better.
    God Almighty, sometimes these forums make me want to kill myself.

    The forums I can usually take, it is the movies that usually piss me off.

    And yeah, of course Dalton did serious Bond better.

    Better than what?
    dmwalker wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    dmwalker wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    dmwalker wrote: »
    You don't have to take my word for it: If what you're saying
    was true, Craig wouldn't even be hinting at leaving, would he? He'd have no choice but to stay. Talk about confirmation bias!


    well with that kind of attitude - no, i wont take your word for it, thank you very much.. because who are you?... unless your name is either Barbara Broccoli, Michael Wilson, or Daniel Craig - your word means nothing to me.... it's just that, words... so step off...

    now, in terms of what Craig says - he does this ALL THE TIME... he did it after CR, after QOS he seemed to have to an interesting remark about "i wish i could tear up my contract and wipe my ass with it.".. "I've been trying to get out of it since i first signed." .. and so on and so on... he also says "i'll keep doing them as long as they are successful." .. and.. "i'll keep doing them for as long as they (the producers) will have me around." ...... any "hints" you seem to want to claim he is subtly - or not so subtly dropping, christ - it's been going on for years - he'll talk about staying one minute, then wanting out the next.... it only gains traction now for whatever reason - possibly because he's getting close to 50, and that seems to be when Bond actors are put out to pasture.. or simply because, people don't know the length or the terms of his contract.. and i'm sure there is just as many people who think - well Pierce was out after 4 films, this is Craig's 4th - he'll probably be out as well..

    My apologies. I foolishly assumed you had read the other posts in this thread or others; or perhaps some of the news items about Craig's recent comments; but clearly you're intent on taking "uninformed" to a whole new level.

    Though I'd suggest to you that there are perhaps a few more people than just Broccoli, Wilson and Craig that understand how contracts work. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in this, as I'll have to consider firing my agent if not.

    Interesting, though, that you choose to disregard Michael Wilson's statement on the "open" contract too, despite your unshakable belief in his acumen. You really should google "confirmation bias".





    Aren't you the same guy that made some outrageous obtuse claim that you just couldn't believe the filmmakers did in another thread??

    Sorry I can't stand pretense..

    I'd answer your question if it made any grammatical sense. Do you want to have another go, maybe with the pertinent words included?

    What I do know is that you've appeared on another thread advocating civility when I've personally found you to be one of the rudest people on here. So I guess you're okay with hypocrisy.

    Ah so you are. Thought so.

    [/quote]
    dmwalker wrote: »
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    So ease-up on @dmwalker. He's taken the time to inform you of what an insider has told him, and though you might not like what you hear there's no reason for frothing at the mouth and being uncivil towards him.

    It's not about Daniel Craig and his contract.

    dmwalker said, that his source told him, dass the script wouldn't allow Daniel Craig to return in a future Bond movie.

    We all know, that Craig himself may say: "This is it!"

    But dmwalker's source says, that it's not possible for him to return after SPECTRE.
    And THAT's the only thing I think is bullshit. Because only Bond's death could lead to that. And I don't think Bond will die in SPECTRE.

    It's a ridiculous rumour. Sam Mendes has said Spectre is an origin story meaning a pre curser to the Bond adventures that followed forgetting about the years within Flemings novels. How can you have an origin story and kill Bond or retire him by the end of the film. Rumour goes against the directors own words. I think I would rather take Mendes words.

    That's funny, because Mendes was the one who told me it would be "impossible" for Craig to return.

    It's important that you understand that: I did not make that up. I don't know what "impossible" means either. That's why I felt compelled to post here in the first place. I doubt I would have if my only info was that DC wouldn't be coming back.

    And if - as has been suggested - I was mad enough to have posted lies here in an attempt to get attention, I certainly wouldn't have made up the "impossible" quote which doesn't even make sense to me! It implies either that Bond dies or the code-name theory applies, neither of which I think will be true; and both of these would no doubt be refuted when the film comes out, making me look like a proper arse. The best solution I have is that Mendes was perhaps being a little over-dramatic and making it sound like this "impossible" thing was a plot-point, when really it's a personal agreement between him and DC.

    Unless, of course, they've got a big surprise up their sleeves. One thing I can say categorically is that the FINAL shooting draft of SPECTRE is NOT in the public domain; and anyone using leaked drafts to support their arguments is a fool.

    And thank you to those who've responded soberly to my posts on this and other threads. I realise it's annoying to hear bad news and no doubt some will just think I'm name-dropping. But do remember that before Bond, DC was just an actor; if you'd gone to the Royal Court bar after performances of A NUMBER, you'd have found him there drinking like everyone else. I've met him a couple of times and we have good friends in common; and I've known several people involved with the Bond films over the years, many of whom I've worked with. There are several other factors that make Craig's departure very likely, imo, but which I won't go into here as they WOULD be breaches of confidence.

    Point being: These people aren't mythical creatures, like unicorns. It's not that thrilling or unusual to meet them when they're your peers. If anything, it's a bit disappointing: I liked it better when the Bond films were completely divorced from my reality.

    Your claims are hearsay ...reporting as Mendes opinion without any supporting evidence.

    We don't even know your credentials or connection beyond if course what you are asserting.

    That's why your claims illicit such strong reaction. At least part of the reason.

    Now I do regret my initial response to your claims and did offer a sincere apology for that.

    However I still don't believe you.


  • Posts: 2,081
    dmwalker wrote: »
    Point being: These people aren't mythical creatures, like unicorns.

    So true. I don't look at anyone famous that way despite not being peers with anyone. A lot of people do, however - both in good and in bad, both here and all over the place. I've never understood it, and often find it quite disturbing.

  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,015
    dmwalker wrote: »
    One thing I can say categorically is that the FINAL shooting draft of SPECTRE is NOT in the public domain; and anyone using leaked drafts to support their arguments is a fool.

    Well, does it mean you have seen the final shooting draft and you have seen the leaked drafts, and checked that they are different as far as the plot are concerned ? I'm not 100% sure, but I think you said you didn't know how to find the December script, did it change ? Otherwise, you're making assumptions, like with the code-name theory, etc..

    Remember, what is indeed true, is that December shooting script is NOT on the Sony Leaks website. We can say categorically it's not that easy to find the December script if you don't know someone who has it. The original DropBox link (or at least the one that started with 6f...) is dead. On the other hand, older scripts are very easy to find, and they have quite some changes in the ending.

    So, IMO, "the ending is not the one on Sony Leaks" is still coherent with what we know so far, because yes, it's true. Remember that out there there is a script that was changed AFTER the Sony Leaks fiasco, so you really have to be aware of the hacking details to know what happened. If one thinks "Sony Leaks happenned on Monday, so the script we did on Thursday has not leaked", then he's wrong and he may not know it (I know a thing or two about the movie industry too, and I will not described the movie makers as "Internet aware", far from it)

    Unless of course you mean there are some lines here and there that are changed, and well, we already know that. And don't forget we could check quite a few clapperboards scene numbers too...


  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    This forum needs members that are above calling other members fools and pimples.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    This forum needs members that are above calling other members fools and pimples.

    This forum has that. Vocal minority and all that.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    This forum needs members that are above calling other members fools and pimples.

    It also needs a healthy pinch of salt.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    And take it with...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    dmwalker wrote: »
    It's a ridiculous rumour. Sam Mendes has said Spectre is an origin story meaning a pre curser to the Bond adventures that followed forgetting about the years within Flemings novels. How can you have an origin story and kill Bond or retire him by the end of the film. Rumour goes against the directors own words. I think I would rather take Mendes words.

    Huh? All an origin story means is that Bond's origins are explored, not that it ties into any Bond movie pre-2006. CR was a reboot, not a prequel.
  • Posts: 1,711
    Just like finishing a big lunch and somebody asks what you want for dinner. Give him a break. He just finished SPECTRE. The last thing on his mind is the next Bond film.
    In the meantime I am not wringing my hands over something I can't possibly know until the next film is announced either with him or without him.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 3,333
    Tuulia wrote: »
    What ramifications, though? Apart from the obvious fact that making a Bond movie is a long, no doubt exhausting process. He can still do smaller films in between if he chooses to. Between SF and SP he just chose not to.

    The ramifications would be his private life being the subject of showbiz news; the fact he can no longer go down the pub, have a quiet pint and go unnoticed; people wanting selfies with him and snapping unwelcome photos of him; having to move to New York where he feels he can go about his daily business unrecognised, albeit with hats and glasses to disguise himself. Long delays to Bond productions throwing into doubt any other projects he might have had an interest in but ultimately had to make a pass on. That'll do for starters. It might not sound like a big deal to you, but after having 11 years of it it would be enough to drive any sane man crazy.

    No offence, but what makes you think he suddenly chose not to do anything between Bond movies apart from a small stage production with his new wife? His agent might have had lots of possible movies he had to pass on due to the prolonged nature and uncertainty of SP. Let's be honest here, Babs & Mickey don't have the same appetite as Cubby and Saltz for getting these movies made and out in the cinemas. The gaps are getting bigger and bigger with no knowing when the next one will be made.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,081
    bondsum wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    What ramifications, though? Apart from the obvious fact that making a Bond movie is a long, no doubt exhausting process. He can still do smaller films in between if he chooses to. Between SF and SP he just chose not to.

    The ramifications would be his private life being the subject of showbiz news; the fact he can no longer go down the pub, have a quiet pint and go unnoticed; people wanting selfies with him and snapping unwelcome photos of him; having to move to New York where he feels he can go about his daily business unrecognised, albeit with hats and glasses to disguise himself. Long delays to Bond productions throwing into doubt any other projects he might have had an interest in but ultimately had to make a pass on. That'll do for starters. It might not sound like a big deal to you, but after having 11 years of it it would be enough to drive any sane man crazy.

    No offence, but what makes you think he suddenly chose not to do anything between Bond movies apart from a small stage production with his new wife? His agent might have had lots of possible movies he had to pass on due to the prolonged nature and uncertainty of SP. Let's be honest here, Babs & Mickey don't have the same appetite as Cubby and Saltz for getting these movies made and out in the cinemas. The gaps are getting bigger and bigger with no knowing when the next one will be made.

    I was responding to this:
    what ramifications it would have on him making smaller and more personal pictures
    so naturally I wasn't talking about his personal life. (Since you mentioned it, though, sounds like he really suffers from being a well known actor, and if so, that's unfortunate and sad and he never should have taken the Bond role if it makes his life miserable. I'm not convinced it does, though, and he doesn't seem crazy to me, either. ;) )

    I obviously don't know, but merely assume, like many others here do, that he chose not to do other movies between SF and SP. (I don't know him, have no inside knowledge, and haven't read the leaked mails or anything.)

    Even if there was some uncertainty about the exact schedule with SP, he still would have known before they even started shooting SF when he'd be free of his promotional obligations with it and all. And knew that he'd certainly have quite a bit of time after it to do other stuff. Roughly a year maybe, possibly more (as it turned out). Smaller films you say he'd certainly rather make can take only a few weeks to shoot. Possibly even less for an actor who isn't the lead. I realize that the work involved is more than just the time on set, but anyway. Actors can do 3, 4 or more movies in a year even if they don't work all the time.

    Now I also assume that people would be interested in working with him and he'd be offered stuff to choose from. He might have had more time between the 2 Bond movies than he initially expected, but that wouldn't explain not having had stuff scheduled for the earlier part of the break. I think he was supposed to do two movies, but dropped out from The Monuments Men, and whatever happened with the other. And somehow there was nothing else.

    It's hardly crazy to think it was his choice rather than forced upon him by the Bond producers.

    And he did do the play. I assume that was his choice as well. He rather did that than some movie maybe. Good for him. Not so good for those of us for whom New York is a bit too far away to go to the theatre for (London I would seriously consider). Still, can't complain if an actor rather does theatre sometimes. (The same goes for directors.)



  • Posts: 6,601
    He dropped out of MM (thankfully) to do the play. And out of that courtroom drama days before shooting started. I haven't heard of any legal issues directed at him, so there must have been real good reasons. So, 2 movies were scheduled.

    IMO, he had worked almost continuously for many years and finally found, there is a life beyond making movies. I see him directing, producing and doing whatever film interests him - small or larger and not necessarely in the lead. He has no problems playing second or even thrid fiddle, if the part is interesting and tempting. Maybe baddies, too.

    Rachel already started producing with Babs.

    EXCLUSIVE: UK sales outfit nabs drama executive produced by Barbara Broccoli and Rachel Weisz.

    http://www.screendaily.com/news/starline-warms-to-tom-brownes-radiator/5093117.article?blocktitle=LATEST-FILM-NEWS-HEADLINES&contentID=42422

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    What's MM?
  • Posts: 6,601
    Monuments Men ;) the Clooney directed film, that flopped.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 3,333
    My apologies @Tuulia. You're quite right, I appear to have inexplicably linked ramifications with his current lack of movies. Sometimes I get locked out when writing my posts on my mobile so I often write and post rather hastily without having the luxury to proof read my own comments. Sorry for the confusion.

    PS. Thanks @Germanlady for filling us in on the two scrapped DC movies inbetween Bond. Could there be more? I'm sure it'll come out eventually.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited September 2015 Posts: 1,727
    Dan's had a good run. If Spectre is the Bond movie he has wanted to do ever since the so far unfulfilled promise of CR then it makes perfect sense for him to call it quits after a winner.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,574
    The days of actors doing half a dozen or more Bond films are over (I would assume). The gap between productions now makes 3 or 4 far more realistic.

    I hope Craig does a 5th, and if I had to bet I would bet that he does do a 5th. But 4 is still a good run these days, and should be enough to 'immortalise' him as Bond as much as it has done Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The other two will be less well remembered over time for obvious reasons.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,970
    I don't think "the other two" will be forgotten, because the perception of both Lazenby and Dalton has improved over the years. No longer looked at as the failures they were claimed to be.

    Just my 2p as a minority member.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,574
    I didn't mean as failures, I meant that because they only did one and two respectively and so much time has passed since then, they are generally less well remembered. Not by the Bond community, but by film goers in general. It's bound to happen like that.

    OHMSS and TLD are two of my favourite Bond films, but the ignorance of young film critics tends to mean these films are dismissed.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Monuments men was not a flop
  • Posts: 6,601
    Monuments men was not a flop

    Yes, it was. In the leaks Clooney is even apologizing for the film. Doesn't matter to me, but it was.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Monuments men was not a flop

    Yes, it was. In the leaks Clooney is even apologizing for the film. Doesn't matter to me, but it was.

    Monuments Men was kind of a flop, it broke even more or less.
    So financially it didn't hurt the studio or producers but didn't make money either, or very little.

    But for a movie with such a stellar cast they sure had high hopes for at least 300 million USD worldwide.

    And quite frankly, the movie is boring as watching butter melt in the sun.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    NicNac wrote: »
    I didn't mean as failures, I meant that because they only did one and two respectively and so much time has passed since then, they are generally less well remembered. Not by the Bond community, but by film goers in general. It's bound to happen like that.

    OHMSS and TLD are two of my favourite Bond films, but the ignorance of young film critics tends to mean these films are dismissed.

    Chr*st almighty, you haven't half picked 'em there! Without those two the series would be in dire straits.
    Two of my top 5, and I won't be the only one.

    Goes to show the chasm between what fans consider good Bond movies and those the general media champion is significant.
  • Posts: 6,601
    ..and Nic was speaking about the general audiences, no more, no less. And like it or not. He is right. If they had relevance for the franchise is a totally different beast.
  • Posts: 2,081
    That's alright, @bondsum
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,970
    NicNac wrote: »
    I didn't mean as failures, I meant that because they only did one and two respectively and so much time has passed since then, they are generally less well remembered. Not by the Bond community, but by film goers in general. It's bound to happen like that.

    OHMSS and TLD are two of my favourite Bond films, but the ignorance of young film critics tends to mean these films are dismissed.

    No need to explain @NicNac. I was just saying that Dalton & Lazenby aren't held up as high as Connery or Moore (and I doubt they ever will). But the two have had.... not so much a renaissance, but a surge in popularity compared to when they were cast.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    NicNac wrote: »
    I didn't mean as failures, I meant that because they only did one and two respectively and so much time has passed since then, they are generally less well remembered. Not by the Bond community, but by film goers in general. It's bound to happen like that.

    OHMSS and TLD are two of my favourite Bond films, but the ignorance of young film critics tends to mean these films are dismissed.

    No need to explain @NicNac. I was just saying that Dalton & Lazenby aren't held up as high as Connery or Moore (and I doubt they ever will). But the two have had.... not so much a renaissance, but a surge in popularity compared to when they were cast.

    With fans like we are that's certainly true.

    Sadly when talking with my colleagues at work or in the football club about Bond it's always only Brosnan and Craig who get mentioned the most as being anybody's favourite. Connery gets a lot of respect of course, but Dalton is forgotten or simply viewed as the one that failed which always makes me sad.
This discussion has been closed.