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

1568101135

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    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.

    I basically agree. Forster did have some good scenes, namely the "character" scenes.

    Haggis could very well have been inspired by YOLT. Fleming figured out the only way you could fit a pregnancy/child in a Bond story.
  • I still think the folks who wrote the SPOOKS series would be terrific for at least one pass on a Bond script. I kinda get the feeling that some of those eps are launching points for the Craig films anyway, so it'd be nice to get the talent behind that in here instead of just an idea pinched here and there.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    trevanian wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The nugget of 'M's' death is a Logan idea as far as I'm aware,

    I thought that was the single item retained from Peter Morgan's time writing SF.

    Ah yes, you're right I think.

    I thought Morgan's idea was the Moneypenny old office hook?

    Btw the original screenplay was P&W then Logan. SP reversed that.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    trevanian wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The nugget of 'M's' death is a Logan idea as far as I'm aware,

    I thought that was the single item retained from Peter Morgan's time writing SF.

    Ah yes, you're right I think.

    I thought Morgan's idea was the Moneypenny old office hook?

    Btw the original screenplay was P&W then Logan. SP reversed that.

    Yes, Morgan's contribution was M's death.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    I think Craig was joking a little..
    He just finished shooting spectre and the movie isn't even in theaters he's probably exhausted and people are already saying what about the next one... I think he meant to say "I can't even think about doing that right now"

    So he wants to relax a little before they start pre production next year on the next one big deal...
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I think Craig was joking a little..
    He just finished shooting spectre and the movie isn't even in theaters he's probably exhausted and people are already saying what about the next one... I think he meant to say "I can't even think about doing that right now"

    So he wants to relax a little before they start pre production next year on the next one big deal...

    I agree taken out of context. He was simply stating he has a life outside of Bond, and a family and he wants to just enjoy being Dan again for the time being...and a see what happens.. If Mendes does go, I can't see Dan leaving EON with the task of finding a new bond and director. He and Barbs and Michael have become like family. I am pretty sure he will come back for 1 more I expect Mendes to change his mind as well.

    Dan's tenure has been extraordinary he has put in so much from style, clothing. Was only willing to do it if they got rid of the silly pastiche elements. Gave Bond more credibility. But more importantly his friendships with his peers have seen excellent world actors like mikkelsen, Bardem (who told DC he wanted to be a villain at a party), Amalric (worked with in "Munich") and Waltz (who again met through a party at Tarantino's and declared his interest) all join the Bond world.

    Compare that to Caryle, Stephens and Pryce and Madonna under the Brosnan era who with all due respect are not in the same league.

    When Dan leaves it will take more than just replacing Bond it's going to be a massive rebuild to continue to attract the high profile supporting cast.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,574
    Yes I agree the actors in main villain roles during Craig's era have been exceptional, truly exceptional. But Brosnan's were certainly only a tier or two down. Jonathan Pryce is a highly regarded stage and screen actor, Sean Bean was and is a big star, Sophie Marceau as well.
    Bond films have been attracting the great and the good for a long time. Walkan, Lee, Savalas amongst others. I'm hoping the Bond brand will continue to attract top stars/actors to the franchise in the future regardless of Craig's involvement.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree that the main villains have been top notch during Craig's tenure, but I also agree that Brosnan's main villains were not all bad either (Stephens likely was instructed to channel Dr. Evil or something silly in DAD....& even then he's not that bad in a caricature sort of way).

    It's in the other supporting cast where the Craig years have been far superior to the Brosnan (and even later Moore) years, not only in terms of their abilities, but in terms of the directors being able to extract the best performances from them.

    Giannini, Murino, Wright, Christensen, Abkarian, Bankole, Sinclair (in the CR opener), Arterton, Katic, Harbour, McCrory, Rapace, Woodeson etc. etc. have all been truly excellent, credible and impactful, even in small roles.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    NicNac wrote: »
    Yes I agree the actors in main villain roles during Craig's era have been exceptional, truly exceptional. But Brosnan's were certainly only a tier or two down. Jonathan Pryce is a highly regarded stage and screen actor, Sean Bean was and is a big star, Sophie Marceau as well.
    Bond films have been attracting the great and the good for a long time. Walkan, Lee, Savalas amongst others. I'm hoping the Bond brand will continue to attract top stars/actors to the franchise in the future regardless of Craig's involvement.

    Pryce is a fine Theatre actor, just not on film for me. Bean, my problem with Bean in Goldeneye is that he gives Brosnan a lesson in acting. Every scene they are in a scene together he out shines Bond right from the start. I remember at time thinking Bean as Bond was one missed much more screen presence and danger about him. Trevelyan was a better villain than Mr Greene or even Silva IMO. I am not hater of Brosnan I think his movies were a victim of their time, they are not timeless like Connery or early Sir Roge. I think the way Dan's tenure films have been filmed they will be timeless pieces. But yeah! Sean Bean great actor one of the best villains we have had IMO.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Forster was more interested in the themes of fire-water-earth-air than in an actual story. I think that had as much, if not more, to do with the situation than the writer's strike.

    I picked up on this emphasis more than anything else, starting with the opening shot...and ending with snow in the final shot. Note: the Bregenz Opera House is known for its floating stage, on the lake. No coincidence there, right?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2015 Posts: 7,527
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that the main villains have been top notch during Craig's tenure, but I also agree that Brosnan's main villains were not all bad either (Stephens likely was instructed to channel Dr. Evil or something silly in DAD....& even then he's not that bad in a caricature sort of way).

    It's in the other supporting cast where the Craig years have been far superior to the Brosnan (and even later Moore) years, not only in terms of their abilities, but in terms of the directors being able to extract the best performances from them.

    Giannini, Murino, Wright, Christensen, Abkarian, Bankole, Sinclair (in the CR opener), Arterton, Katic, Harbour, McCrory, Rapace, Woodeson etc. etc. have all been truly excellent, credible and impactful, even in small roles.

    Ola Rapace, for some reason, really stands out for me as a great secondary adversary to Bond. Couldn't really tell you why.

    I also really like when they were fighting in the shadows in the skyscraper in Shanghai, where they (intentionally, IMO) made it difficult to see who was who. Thought it was a nice blurring of lines between Hired Assassin, and British Secret Agent with License to Kill.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    I think Craig was joking a little..
    He just finished shooting spectre and the movie isn't even in theaters he's probably exhausted and people are already saying what about the next one... I think he meant to say "I can't even think about doing that right now"

    So he wants to relax a little before they start pre production next year on the next one big deal...

    spot on... read the interview - and nowhere does it say he doesn't still want to do it..

    what i got from his response to the question was pretty much exactly how you worded it - they literally just wrapped, and i'm sure he's had to do some ADR work as well.. so he's fresh off filming (which does beat you down - anyone that has worked extensively on a set knows what i am talking about).. the last thing you want to do is think about doing the next one.....

    i compare it to someone who loves drinking - goes out on a weekend, boozes it up - wakes up next morning with a hangover, swears he wont touch another bottle ever...... and by next weekend they are back out drinking and living it up again..

    Dan will return..
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I'm still convinced it is not depending on Craig if he returns but on BB + MGW if they are capable of planning and doing Bond 25 in a reasonable amount of time.
    If not, Craig will be gone, Bond 25 would have to happen by 2017.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    I'm still convinced it is not depending on Craig if he returns but on BB + MGW if they are capable of planning and doing Bond 25 in a reasonable amount of time.
    If not, Craig will be gone, Bond 25 would have to happen by 2017.

    why wouldn't they be?..... if they had been able to have their way the past 10 years might have looked something like this..

    CR (2006)
    QOS (2007)
    SF (2009)
    SP (2011)

    - QOS was originally planned to be out in 2007, but since Campbell didnt want to return - and since they couldn't find a director who wanted to helm a film with such a quick turn around, and basically rush through preproduction, they pushed it back to 2008.

    - SF (then Bond 23) should've been out in 2011.. but because of MGM's financial debacle that took place between 2009-2011, the release was pushed back to 2012 - which turned out to be perfect, since it would be the 50 year anniversary mark.

    - they also wanted to SP (then Bond 24) for 2014.. but they also wanted Sam back - so they were willing to sit and wait an additional year to get Sam back..

    so.. it sounds like Babs & MGW are still perfectly capable of doing these things every other year if they want to - but, in order to get the right people, or the people (more specifically) that they want, they are willing to wait.... so to suggest that they have some sort of problem getting these films made in a reasonable amount of time, i think is foolish and erroneous.. they've been doing just fine.
  • The original Quantum release date was early May 2008 (which would have been around 18 months since Casino Royale). Then it got pushed back to the fall. After Quantum vacated that date, Paramount put in Iron Man, the first Marvel-produced movie.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @haserot

    I disagree, fact is they didn't do it in that timeline you say would have been possible.
    After the 4 year gap they accepted another 3 year gap just to have Mendes back when there would have been other choices. That was stubborn.

    Bond 25 should be made by 2017, and that is absolutely no problem at all. But we'll wait another 3 years just for some insane reason again, that I'm sure of.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    @haserot

    I disagree, fact is they didn't do it in that timeline you say would have been possible.
    After the 4 year gap they accepted another 3 year gap just to have Mendes back when there would have been other choices. That was stubborn.

    Bond 25 should be made by 2017, and that is absolutely no problem at all. But we'll wait another 3 years just for some insane reason again, that I'm sure of.

    so because they dont make these films based on your schedule, and when YOU want them out - that means they are failing to make them in a reasonable amount of time?

    i dont call waiting to want someone they enjoyed working with, and had tremendous amount of success with being stubborn.. i call that being loyal, courteous, professional, respectful.. anything but stubborn... they could've easily broomed past him to the next director if they chose to - but they didn't because of the reasons i stated above.. Sam showed a tremendous amount of patience and class during the MGM crisis, and hung around the project when he easily could've walked and told the producers "thanks, but no thanks".
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Dear lord there is so much running around here and there in this thread it's getting so tiring !
    BB & MGW and for that matter everyone else at EON are doing their upmost to bring us Great Bond action films so its not in any way surprising that they could all use a rest
    Dan himself must be in the mood for a holiday at the very least and there is still so much left to do after all it's not had the premier yet and look at all the hard work and the traveling that is involved in launching the film to the public !
    So Give the man a chance to chill out a bit before asking him to do another film and then he will be back and as good as ever
    End of.
  • Posts: 43
    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.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    vxwxsGa_zpsftnpar3w.gif
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,574
    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.
  • Posts: 43
    Sycophants for Craig. What's next ladies, are you close this thread because you don't like what I said?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    no, but how many times must we hear the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... it literally sometimes feels like it's the same voice coming out different accounts on these threads..

    what you said literally brought nothing to the table... it's just seizing yet another opportunity to bash Craig, EON or whoever..

    and its not about being a suck up to Craig or anyone else.. its about intelligent or entertaining conversations being dragged down to a screeching halt, time and time again.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,683
    I would say that any lack of bashing should be equal on all fronts. I'm not a Craig hater - aside from SF, I've absolutely loved his era thus far - but as I've said in the past, it's not fair to rag on those who bash Craig, when there are countless threads that result in Brosnan bashing somehow, even when the topic doesn't remotely relate to him. And no, this defense isn't because I love his time as Bond, for I'd say the same thing for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, or Dalton. Either everyone is fair game, or everyone is off limits. But, since we can't really have that, of course people will voice their distaste for what they don't like, whether we're huge Bond fans or not.
  • Posts: 43
    Your opinion. I think the fact that Babs has given him control of the franchise and co-producing credit is ridiculous and is relevant. Connery meant more to Bond and never got that kind of treatment. Your take is predominant amongst fandom and carries the day at the production offices of EON. Now back to your regularly scheduled praise of Craig and how Bond will end when he leaves.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    HASEROT wrote: »
    no, but how many times must we hear the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... it literally sometimes feels like it's the same voice coming out different accounts on these threads..

    what you said literally brought nothing to the table... it's just seizing yet another opportunity to bash Craig, EON or whoever..

    and its not about being a suck up to Craig or anyone else.. its about intelligent or entertaining conversations being dragged down to a screeching halt, time and time again.

    Well, in general it takes two sides to drag down the conversation to a screeching halt.

    What I noticed reading the stuff about Craig as co-producer:

    Some went almost crazy of excitement as their King Craig finally made it big within EON fulfilling their secret wishes that Craig might never step away from the role.

    Some went berserk reading the crazies comments how fabulous it is to have Craig named as producer and immediately tried to convince them how silly they are, probably being jealous of Craig and having their nightmare come true that Craig might never step away from the role.

    Some went delusional to think Craig will stay on as producer in the future when he's not Bond anymore, writing scripts etc.

    Some are only reading this thread and probably laughing their socks off...

    Some are totally ignoring the fact that an actor co-producing a movie is the most normal thing nowadays in Hollywood, and yes, it's the first time in the Bond franchise but nevertheless a normal development in the business.

    Some (me) are sarcastic rascals and think Craig is a co-producer only to make big bucks when Spectre hits the billion dollar mark.

    Now go figure...

    <:-P
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I would say that any lack of bashing should be equal on all fronts. I'm not a Craig hater - aside from SF, I've absolutely loved his era thus far - but as I've said in the past, it's not fair to rag on those who bash Craig, when there are countless threads that result in Brosnan bashing somehow, even when the topic doesn't remotely relate to him. And no, this defense isn't because I love his time as Bond, for I'd say the same thing for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, or Dalton. Either everyone is fair game, or everyone is off limits. But, since we can't really have that, of course people will voice their distaste for what they don't like, whether we're huge Bond fans or not.

    i agree... but it's the same rhetoric on almost every other thread, and it just gets annoying after a while... regardless of who, or what film it's bashing... a few posts every now then is acceptable - tolerable.. but when a topic starts to get hijacked, and it goes violently off topic - that gets annoying... people repeating the same bashing insults in different threads over and over gets annoying.... perfect example is your interview thread, which almost turned into a "lets trash TMWTGG train" (which i admit, i was a part of - in good fun).. but i caught myself before letting it go too far - because thats not what the topic is about.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,683
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I would say that any lack of bashing should be equal on all fronts. I'm not a Craig hater - aside from SF, I've absolutely loved his era thus far - but as I've said in the past, it's not fair to rag on those who bash Craig, when there are countless threads that result in Brosnan bashing somehow, even when the topic doesn't remotely relate to him. And no, this defense isn't because I love his time as Bond, for I'd say the same thing for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, or Dalton. Either everyone is fair game, or everyone is off limits. But, since we can't really have that, of course people will voice their distaste for what they don't like, whether we're huge Bond fans or not.

    i agree... but it's the same rhetoric on almost every other thread, and it just gets annoying after a while... regardless of who, or what film it's bashing... a few posts every now then is acceptable - tolerable.. but when a topic starts to get hijacked, and it goes violently off topic - that gets annoying... people repeating the same bashing insults in different threads over and over gets annoying.... perfect example is your interview thread, which almost turned into a "lets trash TMWTGG train" (which i admit, i was a part of in - in good fun).. but i caught myself before letting it go too far - because thats not what the topic is about.

    It's bound to be that way in this thread because it's discussing the possibility of SP being his last film, so of course those who don't like Craig's tenure as Bond will voice their opinions as such.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    no, but how many times must we hear the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... it literally sometimes feels like it's the same voice coming out different accounts on these threads..

    what you said literally brought nothing to the table... it's just seizing yet another opportunity to bash Craig, EON or whoever..

    and its not about being a suck up to Craig or anyone else.. its about intelligent or entertaining conversations being dragged down to a screeching halt, time and time again.

    Well, in general it takes two sides to drag down the conversation to a screeching halt.

    What I noticed reading the stuff about Craig as co-producer:

    Some went almost crazy of excitement as their King Craig finally made it big within EON fulfilling their secret wishes that Craig might never step away from the role.

    Some went berserk reading the crazies comments how fabulous it is to have Craig named as producer and immediately tried to convince them how silly they are, probably being jealous of Craig and having their nightmare come true that Craig might never step away from the role.

    Some went delusional to think Craig will stay on as producer in the future when he's not Bond anymore, writing scripts etc.

    Some are only reading this thread and probably laughing their socks off...

    Some are totally ignoring the fact that an actor co-producing a movie is the most normal thing nowadays in Hollywood, and yes, it's the first time in the Bond franchise but nevertheless a normal development in the business.

    Some (me) are sarcastic rascals and think Craig is a co-producer only to make big bucks when Spectre hits the billion dollar mark.

    Now go figure...

    <:-P

    i personally dont care what he is..

    he can be the lead actor, producer, director, composer - hell, if he could find a way to operate the camera and still be able to act at the same time - even better.... i couldn't care less what he does, as long as we get a good film.. at the end of the day, that is all that matters..

    exploding upon the fact that he is listed as a co-producer is just silly.... my god, he should've gotten a writing credit on QOS with all the work he had to do on set with the director to try and make something out of that mess.. and he probably even should've gotten a producer or writing credit on SF, considering how hands on he was with that one as well...

    bottom line is...

    hans_zpsc7708f41.jpg


    lets move on..
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I would say that any lack of bashing should be equal on all fronts. I'm not a Craig hater - aside from SF, I've absolutely loved his era thus far - but as I've said in the past, it's not fair to rag on those who bash Craig, when there are countless threads that result in Brosnan bashing somehow, even when the topic doesn't remotely relate to him. And no, this defense isn't because I love his time as Bond, for I'd say the same thing for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, or Dalton. Either everyone is fair game, or everyone is off limits. But, since we can't really have that, of course people will voice their distaste for what they don't like, whether we're huge Bond fans or not.

    Give that man a sausage.
This discussion has been closed.