It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oh no? I don't want a female version of James Bond please!
Don't worry Bond won't be the next Disney princess.
Do you have a Link?
Er, I'm using my phone, sorry. The title of the article is:
Daniel Craig seen in London after refusing '£68m Deal to play Bond'
It was published just over 24 hours ago now. No new info, but they haven't backed down either.
Daniel Craig urges world leaders to 'start the biggest humanitarian movement in our history' at aid summit where Turkey fires barbs at the West for not doing enough for Syrian migrants
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605132/Daniel-Craig-urges-world-leaders-start-biggest-humanitarian-movement-history-aid-summit-Turkey-fires-barbs-West-not-doing-Syrian-migrants.html#ixzz49UxkTHoj
I agree with you BondJames, that SP took him back to too familiar territory. I'm a fan of Craig, not a fan of this decision.
I do believe however, that Craig is an actor of immense talent. If the right writers came on board, I'd like to see a grizzled veteran, near the end of his career, put in jeopardy. I think Craig would rise to the occasion.
Challenge the character/challenge the actor.
We'd see the final evolution of the character in a couple of films: that of the Lion in Winter.
Mr. Craig can have a better send off.
In the end, no matter what, it'll come down to the script. And if we have a couple of proper scripts that bring out the best in the Bond character, I see no reason to change the actor. Bring him full circle properly and not in the paint by numbers method they've used recently.
Then he can walk off into the sunset, gun holster strapped to shoulder, a little worse for wear, but still the same man we met in CR (older, just a little wiser, but someone who would still throw himself through a wall if it meant stopping the bad guy)
@Germanlady: until I read about the offer in a proper entertainment trade publication (Deadline Hollywood and its competitors), the news spin is just that: spin. These trade reporters pride themselves on breaking entertainment news, but none of the established publications mentioned it.
Craig turning down a raise like that is big news. Him being done with role, probably bigger (because with it is the potential of salacious gossip of why he left).
But the legit entertainment publications didn't even touch this "news".
I am not a fan of the wise cracking (relatively speaking), 'don't give a "F"' Craig Bond we had in SP. I wanted him to care. I wanted him to beat the living crap out of Blofeld. I wanted that death stare that Craig gave Yusef at the end of QoS (if looks could kill) and not that smirk he gave Blofeld across glass in SP. That's what Craig does better than most. When you have an actor of this calibre at your disposal, he must be stretched.
It could explain his frustrations of late. I don't think he's all that proud of SP but of course he can't come out and say it.
Unfortunately, given how SP ended, and the box they've put themselves into (at Craig's insistence or due to him not committing up front to a two picture deal?), I think if he returns we're just going to get more of the same rather than something more 'raw'. It's the direction the character has gone since he was cast. From rough around the edges to smooth relaxed veteran.
Precisely. =D>
I wouldn't say that was a given by any means. It depends on the script, the director and Craig himself. My guess is that he'll want to switch it up again should he do another.
@bondjames I wonder if much of this was based on Mendes' direction? It seemed he so desperately wanted his own "classic" take on the character.
BTW I didn't see Betrayal, but I intend on seeing Othello.
Creatively this may have been the idea - to give us something more 'classic'. I recall Craig saying he wanted the old irony back after SF. However, I think problems came about during the execution phase (including the obvious script problems) which resulted in a far more tumultuous shoot than previously envisaged & a less than ideal result.
Even though I'm not a fan, I appreciate it for being a more classic take on the character, and providing Craig with 4 very different films (he's almost an 'artsy' Bond, as I said in an earlier post - which suits his modus operandi outside of Bond).
I'm going to try and catch Othello as well.
@RC7 I agree. Craig seems to be an actor who likes "switching it up". He's had his fun. But it would be boring to replay this in the next one-- should he take on the role again (I still find it interesting that the main entertainment publications didn't even give this "news" one sentence this past week).
It'll start with the script. Babs and Co should invest their energy on getting this right, cut away the old and bring in fresh eyes.
Even if he did, so what? He's had a decade to do what he wanted. How could anyone claim that he is entitled to more?
@bondjames I agree, it seems whatever the vision was, the execution fell apart in a few places (and yes, that also started with the script and the lack of time they had to fix whatever it was Logan got up to. It goes to show a rushed script is usually never a good script).
I think you're correct on your Craig description. And, for that reason, depending on the script, and then the director, I think we can get a couple of more gems out of him.
The comments section are so laughably hateful.
Entitled to do more? He IS James Bond and as such is entitled to mull over another entry if it is on the table, and all the signs would suggest that offer is indeed on the table. The guy has been a monumental success.
Precisely.
Not nearly so laughable as the likes of DC offering up the head of Western civilization on a silver platter when his wealth inures him to the consequences of his beliefs. If DC really wants to help the Syrian invaders, then he should erect tenements in immediate propinquity to one of his palaces, and house the "poor" iPhone-toting "refugees" in them. He could then send Rachel Weiss out to minister to them...
We won't get that with the current writers. Here's hoping we get new and incredible talent working on here on out.
You could say the same thing about Connery in 1971. Again, you are confusing quality with success. I'm sure a fifth Craig film would be very successful, but that doesn't mean its the brave move on EON's part. After a decade in the role, to suggest that Craig hasn't been given a fair shake is quite frankly ludicrous.
Where did I say Craig hasn't been given a fair shake?
Well if you don't think that then why are you arguing that he should continue playing Bond? Unless you don't think that the role should go to the best guy for the job, and just the one we're feeling sentimental about at the moment?
All I said is that I imagine Craig would switch it up again 'if' he were to take on another film. Pretty simple concept.