› ›

The DANIEL CRAIG Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1…175176177178179181»

Comments

  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,459
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    248763c158760b865c8ea29b3d13dbea91d7572f.jpg

    First official poster. Trailer next week.

    Coming back 'round quite late but it is f*cking criminal that he didn't get an Oscar nomination for this.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,459
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    https://www.cbr.com/knives-out-3-gets-exciting-release-update-from-rian-johnson/

    I gotta give Rian Johnson credit for pushing for theatrical releases for these movies. I wonder if he will do a fourth movie. Or if he will go back to Star Wars again.

    https://movieweb.com/rian-johnson-star-wars-movie-knives-out-not-next-movies/

    Hopefully Johnson is allowed nowhere near Star Wars, or anything else, again.

    All I'll say is that I hope you aren't one of those people who parrots this bullshit and then proclaims themselves to be a Breaking Bad fan. If so, I have some real troubling news for you re: who directed the greatest episode of that show...
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited June 5 Posts: 2,255
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    248763c158760b865c8ea29b3d13dbea91d7572f.jpg

    First official poster. Trailer next week.

    Coming back 'round quite late but it is f*cking criminal that he didn't get an Oscar nomination for this.

    Wasn't it a too obvious Oscar bait?
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,459
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    248763c158760b865c8ea29b3d13dbea91d7572f.jpg

    First official poster. Trailer next week.

    Coming back 'round quite late but it is f*cking criminal that he didn't get an Oscar nomination for this.

    Wasn't it too obvious Oscar bait?

    Is everything that's well-made with strong performances "Oscar bait"? It's a ridiculous term that's thrown around with abandon these days. It's a two-and-a-half hour period piece arthouse film with a climax so cerebral that it goes borderline 2001: a space odyssey near the end. "Oscar bait" is the likes of Crash or Gandhi. Someone calling Queer "Oscar bait" with genuine earnest is someone who hasn't watched it.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,641
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more. If anything I think you could make the case Queer was always going to struggle getting those Oscar nods.

    I think Craig should have gotten nominated. Not a fan of Queer but his performance was better than Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan, or Sebastian Stan as Trump that year in my opinion.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,255
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,641
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited June 5 Posts: 2,255
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,641
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.

    Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...

    Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,255
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.

    Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...

    Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.

    Queer cost 50 millons. You don't spend that money if you don't have the awards in mind.

    Look at Babylon. 80 millions. How do you make money without the awards? It's impossible.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,641
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.

    Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...

    Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.

    Queer cost 50 millons. You don't spend that money if you don't have the awards in mind.

    Look at Babylon. 80 millions. How do you make money without the awards? It's impossible.

    I don't think either of those films would be the way they are if they were designed specifically to be 'Oscar baitey' (especially Babylon). Not saying no consideration for award prestige was made when marketing or even making big decisions for these films, but neither were made with the single and only purpose of winning an Oscar.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,255
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.

    Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...

    Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.

    Queer cost 50 millons. You don't spend that money if you don't have the awards in mind.

    Look at Babylon. 80 millions. How do you make money without the awards? It's impossible.

    I don't think either of those films would be the way they are if they were designed specifically to be 'Oscar baitey' (especially Babylon). Not saying no consideration for award prestige was made when marketing or even making big decisions for these films, but neither were made with the single and only purpose of winning an Oscar.

    Well, it must be that they are bad producers, then ;)
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,641
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.

    Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...

    Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.

    Queer cost 50 millons. You don't spend that money if you don't have the awards in mind.

    Look at Babylon. 80 millions. How do you make money without the awards? It's impossible.

    I don't think either of those films would be the way they are if they were designed specifically to be 'Oscar baitey' (especially Babylon). Not saying no consideration for award prestige was made when marketing or even making big decisions for these films, but neither were made with the single and only purpose of winning an Oscar.

    Well, it must be that they are bad producers, then ;)

    Who knows man. Maybe you know better than them ;)
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,255
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oscar bait’s a pretty meaningless term in itself. It implies certain films are only made to win Oscars and nothing more.

    I'm sure there are movies that only exist for the awards. Without them they would never really be made


    Well no, if a film doesn’t find an audience and make some profit it’s not much good. So no film is made with the single purpose of winning an Oscar, even if it’s ‘Oscar baitey’ in whatever way.

    Anyway, why bother specifically manufacturing an ‘Oscar film’ if you can just aggressively campaign to get the film acknowledged? Worked for Shakespeare in Love.

    The point is they make money "because the awards". That's the business.

    If what you are looking for is an audience, it's easier to find an audience for Steven Seagal movies. ;) So it's true, the awards business is real.

    Does Steven Seagal have much of an audience for his movies nowadays? Seems if anything very few people are watching those...

    Marketing a movie's a whole thing in itself. Yes, at some point the idea of 'prestige' and who will see this film will be considered. Yes, Oscar campaigns and the award business are real in that sense. But what I'm saying is no film is made with the single purpose of simply winning Oscars, even if they're steered in specific directions creatively or in marketing.

    Queer cost 50 millons. You don't spend that money if you don't have the awards in mind.

    Look at Babylon. 80 millions. How do you make money without the awards? It's impossible.

    I don't think either of those films would be the way they are if they were designed specifically to be 'Oscar baitey' (especially Babylon). Not saying no consideration for award prestige was made when marketing or even making big decisions for these films, but neither were made with the single and only purpose of winning an Oscar.

    Well, it must be that they are bad producers, then ;)

    Who knows man. Maybe you know better than them ;)

    Thank God it wasn't my money.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,677
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    248763c158760b865c8ea29b3d13dbea91d7572f.jpg

    First official poster. Trailer next week.

    Coming back 'round quite late but it is f*cking criminal that he didn't get an Oscar nomination for this.

    The poster?

    Just kidding.

    I found it ironic that DC didn't get a nom for playing (basically) William S. Burroughs...and Sebastian Stan did for his portrayal of Donald Trump.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,622
    Quite cool to see some unused CR teaser poster concepts in this photo. I rather like the one he's pointing at:


  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,433
    mtm wrote: »
    Quite cool to see some unused CR teaser poster concepts in this photo. I rather like the one he's pointing at:


    Seems Daniel really was involved with every aspect of the production.. :-O
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,622
    weboffear wrote: »
    Daniel Craig at the BFI Bond talk starts at 24 minutes in

    I watched this last night, I liked that Kermode asked him about his physicality; how he's very good at using and positioning his body in scenes. I think it's something you notice a lot in Bond in particular.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,756
    That's a good video. Glad to hear that he still has appreciation for the character.

    I watched Logan Lucky last week and forgot how much of a hoot he is in that.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 641
    He's excellent in LOGAN LUCKY. I wish he would do more roles like that -- it's probably my favorite of his performances. It would've been interesting to see Soderbergh direct him in a Bond movie.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,756
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    He's excellent in LOGAN LUCKY. I wish he would do more roles like that -- it's probably my favorite of his performances. It would've been interesting to see Soderbergh direct him in a Bond movie.

    Agreed. The whole scene when he's making the bomb with gummy bears and salt and then tries to explain the formula by writing it on the wall had me in stitches
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,708
    Great interview. My wife and I attended a similar event in Brooklyn last December ( presented by BAM). Kermode was the far stronger interview (Hilton Al's did the one in NY).

    Kermode definitely pulled more of Craig, even though they covered similar films and topics.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,622
    The comments say there’s bits trimmed out which is a shame, apparently he talked about the CR torture scene amongst other stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.