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

13468935

Comments

  • No one here tends to use the billion dollar argument though, and plenty here have problems with Skyfall

    You are having a debate with yourself.

    Plenty don't like QOS either
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    What's Babs or Craig got to with QOS's poor reception? Blame Forster and MGM's problems for that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Well I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions.

    But the worship towards BB and Craig from many here and at the same time being totally uncritical to what EON has given us since 2008 is as shocking as some of my opinions may be.

    And of course, always the billion dollar argument and of course the Oscars!

    CAN YOU SAY AVATAR. Oscars and box office has nothing to do with the quality of a movie.

    I don't care about BO or Oscars, and I also have certain issues with the recent trajectory, but it could be so much worse. My criticism has context. To think we'd be better off with Disney or the like is, if you'll excuse my language, fucking stupid.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    What's Babs or Craig got to with QOS's poor reception? Blame Forster and MGM's problems for that.

    Craig is only an actor and cannot be blamed for a movie being either great or bad. If he gives his best, goal accomplished in any case.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited September 2015 Posts: 5,080
    What's Babs or Craig got to with QOS's poor reception? Blame Forster and MGM's problems for that.

    Craig is only an actor and cannot be blamed for a movie being either great or bad. If he gives his best, goal accomplished in any case.

    Then you answered my question. Part of it.
  • echo wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    SF got Oscars, the first time since I believe 1965. Craig got critical acclaim and was even talked up as an Oscar contender himself for CR. Babs and MGW rejuvenated the franchise to near-'60s levels. Bond became culturally relevant again.

    They're doing something right.

    "Cubby" would dance with joy if he sees what their daughter and stepson have been doing to the franchise. And the family saga continues, as Michael's son Gregg is gradually taking over now he is associate producer (similar to what Barbara did back in the 1980's):

    https://vimeo.com/user12209688
    3830911_300x300.jpg
    strea_l.jpg
    Bond3.jpg

    By the way, it's pretty frikkin' unique that one family company still keeps this movie franchise going. Marvel doesn't have that. I'm following the man Gregg Wilson now for quite a while, and he also has a really interesting hobby, as you can see here:

    Also listen to this music piece from Gregg Wilson, Michael Wilson's son and associate producer on the Bond films. Simply astonishing:

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2015 Posts: 7,527
    It's more about respect than 'worship'. As @Thepastykid said, there is plenty of criticism of Quantum of Solace, Skyfall and even Casino Royale discussed around here ad nauseum. Barbara, Michael and Daniel brought the franchise to a high point, even if things like Oscars and the most financially successful british film of all time don't mean anything to you.
    Box office is important because it means more Bond films. It's all a business as I'm sure you know.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    doubleoego wrote: »
    You never know with BB. She might go for a 45 year old actor because she wants to make Bond even more "self-doubty, deep, melodramatic and angst-ridden" and show him in his middle aged phase.
    She has already proven, she will cast anyone if she likes him. So if she likes Tatum Channing as she likes Craig, we will get Channing as the next Bond.

    Why are you so....against the current Bond producers?? I actually admire them.

    I'm not convinced that he fully knows what he's talking about.

    His comments on 70s cinema kind of demonstrated that

    Yeah sure, I obviously hit a nerve as well with that comment.

    Why am I not allowed to see the 70's as the weakest decade in Hollywood???
    And the far more important question that not one has answered yet, if not the 70's then which decade is less good or best rank the decades from say 50's to 00's to get a perspective on where the 70's stand in general consensus on this forum.

    But I get the bigger picture.
    I like Brosnan, I like DAD, I'm critical of Craig, I'm overly critical of Skyfall, and I'm very critical of how EON (BB + MGW) have acted since 2006.
    That's not a good combination to make any friends in forums like this, I'm fully aware of this.
    Nevertheless those are my opinions and sometimes I state them bold and simple.
    But I believe most of the time I give valid arguments and reasons.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 553
    You didn't hit a nerve....you looked clueless

    Opinion is fine..you are getting this reaction from people as you are coming across as boorish, and aggressive...inventing things people supposedly say. Like whatever you like...no need to be an ass about it though

    ..and I did answer..which decade is "less good" than the 70s?"..all of them

    Your opinion isn't the problem, your tone and attitude is
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    I think the onus is more on you to pick a decade you prefer and list the films that support your argument. Those who like the 70's have posted extensive lists of films that came out in that decade, as well as comprehensive reasons why certain directors were able to put out good projects in the filmmaking climate of the 70's. All you've said is that it's the weakest decade without backing up your argument with anything.
    Makes it look like you're just posting opinions to get a rise out of people, or trolling.
  • Posts: 11,425
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    Personally I think Babs and MGW have done a better job since 2004. I agree about Purvis and Wade though. To be fair they did try and get rid of them but then it turned out they had problems with Logan (not all that surprising given he is pretty weak on plot and story as well).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Getafix

    I didn't know they wanted to give them the boot. The writing seems to be the weakest link in the franchise since TND.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I would probably say the 1970's is my favourite decade for film lets look at what we got, our Swiss friend is talking out of backside and clearly doesn't realise what an important decade that was for film.

    The Godfather
    The Godfather 2
    Dirty Harry
    Chinatown
    The Taking of Pelham 123
    The Exorcist
    The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
    Jaws
    Star Wars
    Close Encounters of the Third Kind
    Apocalypse Now
    One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
    Dog Day Afternoon
    The Conversation
    The Wickerman
    Get Carter
    All The Presidents Men

    I'm sure I could go on and others could add more, yeah it looks like a terrible decade for films, we are entitled to our opinions but his on cinema won't be taken seriously by me after such asinine comments.

    Please tell me those films above aren't some of the greatest and most influential motion pictures of all time?
  • Posts: 9,822
    worship is a bit much the Craig era has been my personal favorite era for 007 but was a Bond fan before Casino Royale and will likely be a Bond fan after Craig's Depature (and if Tom Hardy is Bond 7 then my fandom may be as strong as it was for the Craig Era)


    I love Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Skyfall is deeply Flawed but It has grown on me and sits around 14 in ranking after my last viewing I don't think it will ever be top 10 for me. As For Quantum there are a few things I would change about it but not as much as others because I love the film. I have tried to hate it as it's the in thing to do but sorry I love the film. As for Spectre based on everything I read this could be a low top 10 for me possibly 7 or 8. I will give a full and thorough review in November.

    Are the issues with craig era in general I have well of course

    The lack of great Craig as Bond video games for one
    and of course that like Brosnan we might only get 4 from him in a perfect world I would want him for 5-7 films. I also wish WB swopped in 2008 and bought MGM and a huge price because well then we would of had a bond film in 2010 and then one in 2012.


    To sum it all up This could be the finale Craig film this might not to be fair there was a time in 2009 I honestly believed Quantum was the final Craig Bond Film and possibly the final bond film ever. in a perfect world Craig will be back for 2 more and one of those 2 will use one more short story title.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Well you all had your go at me now, please be good boys and continue with staying on topic of this thread.
    I got it, I was wrong to boldly say the 70's is the worst decade of Hollywood.
    It is my least favourite decade for movies, that's that.
    I did explain why earlier, that explanation should have been in my original post. That's my mistake entirely.

    @Shardlake
    Very nice list (did you post it into the "favourite movies of the 70's thread" already?
  • Posts: 11,425
    @Getafix

    I didn't know they wanted to give them the boot. The writing seems to be the weakest link in the franchise since TND.

    I 200% agree. I find it inexplicable that they are still working for EON. The plots and writing have been the Achilles heal of the series for years.

    Purvis and Wade were actualy sacked after SF but when Mendes rejoined for SP they were rehired.
  • Well you all had your go at me now, please be good boys and continue with staying on topic of this thread.
    I got it, I was wrong to boldly say the 70's is the worst decade of Hollywood.
    It is my least favourite decade for movies, that's that.
    I did explain why earlier, that explanation should have been in my original post. That's my mistake entirely.

    @Shardlake
    Very nice list (did you post it into the "favourite movies of the 70's thread" already?

    We all have our favourites..I get that.

    Do you have a favourite decade?

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I'm convinced Craig will do Bond 25 in 2018, maybe wanting to keep Craig will speed things up so a 2018 release seems realistic.

    But if Spectre is his last, what do you people think about the supporting cast??

    Should Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, Ben Whisaw, Neomie Harris stay around and welcome the new Bond actor or should they all get the boot for a completely new era?
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    I would probably say the 1970's is my favourite decade for film lets look at what we got, our Swiss friend is talking out of backside and clearly doesn't realise what an important decade that was for film.

    The Godfather
    The Godfather 2
    Dirty Harry
    Chinatown
    The Taking of Pelham 123
    The Exorcist
    The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
    Jaws
    Star Wars
    Close Encounters of the Third Kind
    Apocalypse Now
    One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
    Dog Day Afternoon
    The Conversation
    The Wickerman
    Get Carter
    All The Presidents Men

    I'm sure I could go on and others could add more, yeah it looks like a terrible decade for films, we are entitled to our opinions but his on cinema won't be taken seriously by me after such asinine comments.

    Please tell me those films above aren't some of the greatest and most influential motion pictures of all time?

    the 70s. the greatest decade in cinema...
    I think we can add to that list -
    Annie Hall
    Manhattan
    The Deer Hunter
    Barry Lyndon
    Superman:TheMovie
    Days Of Heaven
    Rocky
    Taxi Driver
    The French Connection
    Network
    Alien
    Patton
    The Last Picture Show

    oh and Airport' 75...only kidding!




  • I can't imagine the sr broc saying anything other than 'why is the short ugly guy wearing the tux?'

  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I'm convinced Craig will do Bond 25 in 2018, maybe wanting to keep Craig will speed things up so a 2018 release seems realistic.

    But if Spectre is his last, what do you people think about the supporting cast??

    Should Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, Ben Whisaw, Neomie Harris stay around and welcome the new Bond actor or should they all get the boot for a completely new era?

    That was what I was thinking as well. Does Wishaw see this as a long term gig that will keep him ticking over while he does other more serious stuff on the side? It is a nice gig to have tbh. He is never likely to be a leading man himself and has a promising career as a character actor ahead of him. A permanent job as Q is quite desirable for an actor in his position.

    I like to think EON has the main supporting cast on long term multi-film contracts.

    Idris Elba with Naomi Harris? ;)
  • What's Babs or Craig got to with QOS's poor reception? Blame Forster and MGM's problems for that.

    Craig is only an actor and cannot be blamed for a movie being either great or bad. If he gives his best, goal accomplished in any case.

    That's simply not true. If you look at early editions of Leonard Maltin's review book, he cites Shatner in the first TREK movie as giving one of the worst lead performances ever in a film of that magnitude. The guy could not use acting talent or star charisma to get folks to go along with the movie over its many uneven patches - yet that is pretty much what a star is there for. You can argue that there's not much an actor can do when the director leaves in 90 second stretches where the camera is just showing the weird stuff outside the ship, but in the portions dealing with people, the movie is often a big emotional zero, and that falls on Shatner's shoulders (something Harlan Ellison pointed out in his review of the same film as well.) A good example of how a performer can help a film along is in lots of Connery pics where his presence simply compensates for any number of failings in cast and production value around him, like OUTLAND and WRONG IS RIGHT, and even to a degree DR NO, which has some pretty flat scenes that he energizes (and a few he overplays, I give you that.)

    With Craig, you have a actor-turned-star (god knows how) who all of a sudden thinks he can write during QUANTUM. I don't think Forster got adequate support from the producers on QUANTUM during prep or shooting (if they had really laid it all out for him, I think he would have just said 'I can't work that way'), and that just left the incredibly brief post period to make it into his movie, for which he only partly succeeded.

    If the producers were doing their job on QUANTUM, then no one would have been surprised when Haggis turned in the crazy 'Vesper's kid' crap -- in fact, he'd not have been allowed to BEGIN writing if that was his big idea and they had their heads on straight. The fact that QUANTUM is the only reboot-era film I can rewatch speaks magnitudes about Forster managing to do some -- only some -- things very well.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    To be fair, Everyone sucked in Star Trek the motion picture. Everyone was freaking grumpy and not themselves. Those ugly onsie uniforms didn't help either as stage hands had to help the actors out of them to use the bathroom.
  • I'd say Bones was still Bones, but director Wise kept calling him back to redub his lines with less anger and character, essentially deballing the character (and that was after re-re-rewriting McCoy's scenes, diluting down every time he called Kirk out on his failings.)

    Wise really did not understand TREK at all, and with Roddenberry and Livingston he had two guys with totally different attitudes about it rewriting each other all the way through, a terrible way to make a movie. I still love parts of it, but I feel bad as that film was the biggest missed opportunity in so many ways.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Agreed for the most part but we should probably keep the Trek talk here. :P
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/67/star-trek#latest
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    trevanian wrote: »
    What's Babs or Craig got to with QOS's poor reception? Blame Forster and MGM's problems for that.

    Craig is only an actor and cannot be blamed for a movie being either great or bad. If he gives his best, goal accomplished in any case.

    That's simply not true. If you look at early editions of Leonard Maltin's review book, he cites Shatner in the first TREK movie as giving one of the worst lead performances ever in a film of that magnitude. The guy could not use acting talent or star charisma to get folks to go along with the movie over its many uneven patches - yet that is pretty much what a star is there for. You can argue that there's not much an actor can do when the director leaves in 90 second stretches where the camera is just showing the weird stuff outside the ship, but in the portions dealing with people, the movie is often a big emotional zero, and that falls on Shatner's shoulders (something Harlan Ellison pointed out in his review of the same film as well.) A good example of how a performer can help a film along is in lots of Connery pics where his presence simply compensates for any number of failings in cast and production value around him, like OUTLAND and WRONG IS RIGHT, and even to a degree DR NO, which has some pretty flat scenes that he energizes (and a few he overplays, I give you that.)

    With Craig, you have a actor-turned-star (god knows how) who all of a sudden thinks he can write during QUANTUM. I don't think Forster got adequate support from the producers on QUANTUM during prep or shooting (if they had really laid it all out for him, I think he would have just said 'I can't work that way'), and that just left the incredibly brief post period to make it into his movie, for which he only partly succeeded.

    If the producers were doing their job on QUANTUM, then no one would have been surprised when Haggis turned in the crazy 'Vesper's kid' crap -- in fact, he'd not have been allowed to BEGIN writing if that was his big idea and they had their heads on straight. The fact that QUANTUM is the only reboot-era film I can rewatch speaks magnitudes about Forster managing to do some -- only some -- things very well.

    Both of you don't like Craig and that's fine. To each his own.

    But I actually think Forster did many things well ...just not to many fans taste.

    They were trying to think outside the box... no the kid idea didn't work ..although possibly inspired by Fleming's YOLT ..who knows.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    I love Craig as Bond and his films. No complaints from me. :D
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    1. "At the moment, no." This is such a tongue-in-cheek comment from DC.
    2. As @RC7 stated: forget contracts or contractual obligations. DC can come back ir leave on his own. Michael Wilson put that issue to bed: his contract is wide open.
    3. DC is always a walking talking contradiction. One moment he says he wants out of playing Bond and the next he is saying how much he loves it. It has been this way for nine years.
    4. I would bet on DC being back for Bond 25. And I'd say it is 50-50 for Mendes to do another.
  • @Getafix

    I didn't know they wanted to give them the boot. The writing seems to be the weakest link in the franchise since TND.

    Y'know if they'd cloned Maibaum before he went in the ground, by now they'd probably have a grownup who was smart enough to write a bunch of decent Bond movies.

    That's the deal with the first postmodern Bond movie: villain wants better motivation, so he clones excellent dead writer then waits on his plans till the guy is able to instill compelling drama in his conceits and actions.

    Better save that for the FLINT reboot, I guess.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The Bond movies really miss Maibaum.
This discussion has been closed.