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
Bad directing by Sam Mendes ?
I blame Sam for screwing up Spectre Big time , as i give credit to Terence Young ,Martin Campbell and John Glen for their Great bond films.
Good point.
I can't recall another instance where a director got so much out of his cast (including relative newcomers like Marlohe) and then failed to achieve the same thing the next time out. Unless it was deliberate and he wanted SP to have a different feel to SF (a yin to yang thing like MR to TSWLM), in which case he's a genius.
I'll always remember that launch announcement in 2014 (when they gave us the title and revealed the DB10). Something just seemed off at that event. It lacked spark. Who really knows what happened behind the scenes on this film.
Check out him out in Flushed Away. He doesn't appear in physical form - it's just his voice but wow - a great comedy performance. You'd never believe it was the same guy that did Wolverine!
Jackman has great versatility. Hard to know what his Bond might have been like but you never know, he might have been a great surprise.
It was an epidural for a weak feature. But even that sequence felt contrived.
(insert FRWL homage here)
Mendes shouldn't have been given a second go. They should've seen his arthouse SF as the only trick he had.
Craig does not have a face like Rog, so, please, filmmakers, when he fights a giant like Hinx, he shoulda been bloodied, battered and bruised, like Craig Bond from the previous films (not banging the token girl right after this life or death experience; not unless we believe the danger he was truly in)...
I don't blame Craig, nor the writers for these scenes-- Mendes shoulda shown the ass kicking that Bond got: black and blue, and blood.
Once they killed Hinx (yes, no cheesy return, like in a Moore film; this is Craig Bond, they shoulda killed Hinx definitively); Maddy should be nursing his pain and injuries away, and that's when Bond pulls her to him--
This would be a nice throwback scene to "that's because you don't know what I can do with my little finger" angle again without the melodrama and b.s. we got in SP.
DC wanted him back that's why he got the job and he probably got a big pay rise.
$10 million as a guess.
Anyone know what he could have been paid for Spectre ?
This is a great observation; also check him out in Prisoners, particularly the bathroom interrogation scene! He has an ability to both charm and terrify that few actors possess.
Look, playing the Wolverine is not as easy as it may seem. And seeing what he did in LOGAN, that right there should shut every critic of his up real good. Forget SWORDFISH and REAL STEEL, rather focus on THE PRESTIGE and PRISONERS, films which explore Jackman's multidimensional acting abilities. The man has range, and a lot of it.
The 47-year-old actor is set to become the highest paid Bond ever with the amount he’ll be making on the latest in the franchise, even taking into account inflation.
He’ll be laughing all the way to the bank with the alleged £39million he’ll be pocketing to crack out the old line ‘shaken, not stirred’ for the fourth time in the role.
A source told The Sun: ‘Daniel’s deal means he’ll bank $24million (£15.66m) for acting, around $6million (£3.82m) for endorsements and $30million (£19.58m) if the financial projections are on course.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/08/daniel-craig-was-paid-how-much-to-be-bond-actor-is-the-highest-paid-007-ever-5428883/#ixzz4n8dcR4TJ
And MGW gets a pass why? In the Sony leaks he was unhappy with the script...
But it turned into a monster. They fired the original writer. Tore up the script and began anew, all with a looming release date.
They should have pulled the plug on the release date, but, my feeling is, they feared they would have lost Craig if they delayed another six, nine, twelve months (after all, the guy's an actor and hadn't done anything on film since SF!!)
Daniel Craig was instrumental in bringing Sam Mendes onboard for Skyfall. For the following film, SPECTRE, he told our film critic Robbie Collin, he “pestered the hell out of” the director to return.
“I was desperate for him to do it, not least of all because I thought we’d started something in Skyfall, and certainly he had,” the 47-year-old actor added.
“The plan always was to bring things back in and to reintroduce them in as smart a way as possible”. The pair were keen to make this a “classic Bond movie” with nods to the past.
When asked what sort of film he’d like to make in order to “decompress”, Craig said he’d much rather “do nothing to decompress: read books and go to the cinema and see my family.”
DANIEL CRAIG ON SPECTRE AND THE RETURN OF SAM MENDES
Craig has been particularly busy with the Bond films. Not only involved as an actor, he also concerned himself the franchise’s scripts and finances. In 2012 he defended the franchise’s £28 million deal with beer brand Heineken, saying “The simple fact is that, without them, we couldn't do it. It's unfortunate but that's how it is.”
In an interview with International Business Times in August, Craig said that he was called upon to write his own jokes for his first movie, 2006’s Casino Royale. During the writing process of 2008’s Quantum of Solace, Craig told Time Out in 2011, the film had “the bare bones of a script, and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do… There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.”
For the 24th official Bond film, Craig stepped in as an additional screenwriter, an inside source told the Daily Mail. His role in the film, share of the profits and sponsorship deals have, according to The Sun, earned him £39 million, making Craig the highest paid Bond actor.
This level of involvement has been essential in bringing out what Craig calls the “great story” at the core of SPECTRE. But it is unclear whether the actor will be sticking around for another film. Asked if he would be doing the next Bond movie in his Time Out interview, Craig said: "Now? I'd rather break this glass and slash my wrists. No, not at the moment. Not at all. That's fine. I'm over it at the moment. We're done. All I want to do is move on." Yet only days before, Craig told the Daily Mail that he might be returning for another film "I am contracted for one more," the actor said, "but I don't want to make predictions."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/daniel-craig-interview-sam-mendes/
But they wanted their goose that lays the golden eggs to be happy (that would be DC again)...
In the end, I think everyone's heart was in the right place; the "company" thought they could catch lightning twice.
They were wrong.
It happens all the time.
It's how they bounce back now...
I've come to realize, that what I don't quite love about his films, are the movies themselves ie., the personal dramas and other touches that filmmakers such as Haggis, Forster, Logan and Mendes bring.
Mind you, Craig has been a collaborator with these guys, so he is also part of the "problem"
I think he is now frustrated with Bond. I don't think he knows what more he can do with the character, that might be considered bold or different or progressive or whatever, and I'm not sure he's entirely thrilled with what he has managed to do thus far, either.
He peaked early with CR, was roundly lauded, but his three follow-ups have been subjected to a more mixed response.
Personally, I think his best work as Bond was in QoS and SP, but I am not a fan of either film, although my reservations have nothing to do with him.
I think he's good for Bond 25, because why not?
I think from his perspective, the money has to be a big lure .He's young enough that growing his wealth would still have appeal.
I also think the pressure might be off now.
Again there's not much more to be done with the character.
I think at this stage, he can really just relax and do the role justice for one more film.
I think that's what we will get from him with Bond 25 --a relaxed self assured performance.
If someone like Mendes directs, or some other auteur type, the film will of course reflect their touch, for better or worse.
Probably worse IMO.
C'est la vie.
DC earned him £39 million for Spectre..
How much do they have to pay him to return for B25 ? £50 ?
In an interview with International Business Times in August, Craig said that he was called upon to write his own jokes for his first movie, 2006’s Casino Royale. During the writing process of 2008’s Quantum of Solace, Craig told Time Out in 2011, the film had “the bare bones of a script, and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do… There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.”
For the 24th official Bond film, Craig stepped in as an additional screenwriter, an inside source told the Daily Mail. His role in the film, share of the profits and sponsorship deals have, according to The Sun, earned him £39 million, making Craig the highest paid Bond actor.
I like your criteria for evaluating Bond's behavior (bolded text above), even though I don't agree with your conclusions on the matter. In my opinion, generally speaking, Spectre Bond is supremely confident and a bit of a provocateur, but without becoming unlikable. He reminds a bit of Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies. I do agree it is a fine line to walk, and the Bond character can't go much further in that direction without becoming unlikable.
Anyway, I think Bond's edgy behavior in Spectre makes sense in the first scene with C: coming off a tense situation with M, Bond meets the man supervising the restructuring of MI6 to do God knows what with it, and the man who may in fact facilitate the closing of the 00 section. There are reasons for being untrusting toward C, and C himself doesn't miss the chance to be passive-aggresive, when he says "my door is always open... for my employees". Bond has a bad feeling about this guy, and with reason, as we later find out.
I also have no problem with the line about the drink in the health clinic. I don't think it is particularly boorish, given the way the bartender is presented; as more of an excuse for a joke (an Elvis, if you will) than a realistic human being.
What I think does make for boorish behavior is the bit with Q and the cats. I still enjoy the scene because it plays on the new, different dynamic between Bond and this younger quartermaster, and because it is meant to be, once again, slightly cartoonish rather than serious, but admittedly it is cruel of 007 to behave like that. However, I don't chalk that up to Daniel Craig's acting, but the script.
It's clear Spectre has its share of flaws, but as explained, for the most part I don't count Bond's behavior among them. In fact, I prefer my Bond like this instead of slightly dull and stiff, as in Skyfall. Filmic Bond should never, ever be dull or uninteresting.
But that goes to show you how the same thing can elicit diametrically opposing views, which is just fine. ;)
I can think of one reason why Craig won't want to return to Bond 25 - acting fatigue. If Purity goes ahead and it's a five months shoot and Eon/MGM want Bond 25 to go into production when the show ends, I can't see Craig agreeing. It will mean 5 months tv work followed by 6-7 months Bond work = total amount around a year. I don't think Craig wants that sort of grinding schedule.
I reckon there will have to be a gap between Purity and Bond 25 with Craig. That's likely to mean a 2019 release date. Having said that, Purity may not happen. The filming start date hasn't been confirmed.
Regarding Craig's fee for Bond 25 - there's no reason to think he'd do the role for the same amount he got for SPECTRE. It goes without saying if EON/MGM went with a new guy they'll save millions of dollars but I guess it depends how much B Broccoli wants Craig. Despite her obvious affection for Craig, my gut feeling is she is a smart businesswoman first, Daniel Craig friend's second, so she'll weigh up the monetary pros and cons and make her decision based on that criteria.
Purity is not happening anytime soon. I doubt there'll be any problem with Craig's schedule concerning Bond 25 and the Showtime TV show.
A) Why can't the current Bond producers already develop some proper pre-production work regarding Bond #25? I know there's no distribution deal yet between EON/MGM and another movie distributor (like Fox, WB or Universal), but in the mean time both Barbara and Michael (and also Greg) can already come up with some nice story ideas no? Where's the 'zest for creativity' when it comes to that? There used to be a time when Michael Wilson wrote some ideas himself.
B) Why can't we enjoy a bunch of producers who never appear to be creatively exhausted about the Bond phenomenon, and who don't feel the necessity to indulge in non-Bond related projects like "Love Letters", "Chariots Of Fire" (Broadway musicals, full producer credits), "Othello" (Theatre play), "The Rhytmn Section" and "Nancy" (full movie producer credits)? If someone is saying that these projects are not to blame for much later Bond film releases, for at least some mild delays, then I can't help but feel some delusion and ignorance getting the better of us.
C) Why do we have to endure quotes from long-time Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, in which their line of defense for not working on a simple, less serious continuation of the Bond franchise is: “Each time you’ve got to say something about Bond’s place in the world, which is Britain’s place in the world. But things are moving so quickly now, that becomes tricky. With people like Trump, the Bond villain has become a reality.”? With all due respect, but that's a geopolitical development one should creatively embrace and translate it in a wonderful slightly larger-than-life Bond universe....like the late Fleming did! Also, both Purvis & Wade are currently working on other projects and not on Bond #25, being the TV-Mini Series "SS-GB". Why not investing time in a good Bond story now and not later.
D) Why are the Bond producers not involving us, Bond fans, a bit more into the creative pre-production process of a Bond film? Are we Bond fans not passively observing the franchise from the sidelines a bit too much, especially in comparison with, let's say, Trekkies or Star Wars fans? J.J. Abrahms involved fan-filled panels for his "Star Trek" movies, Alex Kurtzman is doing the same for the new "Star Trek: Discovery" TV Series, and even Disney ("Star Wars") and Marvel have such panels. I think it's time EON takes the Bond fans a bit more serious this way.
E) Why can't an actor like Daniel Craig simply....enjoy a certain amount of typecasting, by focussing on continuation of a fully rounded character instead of constantly trying to re-invent the wheel? I mean, look at Tom Cruise who is currently filming the next "M:I"-film. He will be playing our dear dear Ethan Hunt now for a 6th time. Hugh Jackman however, who has played Logan/Wolverine in the "X-Men"-series, has now played the character a stunning 9 times (in both smaller, but mostly bigger incarnations). And we knew how much the late Sir Roger Moore enjoyed playing Bond for so many times (7).
F) And why can't the producers focus on a production process that involves some earlier filming as compared to the always strict premiere date? Usually a Bond film goes into production (and principal photography) exactly one year before the premiere date? Why not extending this period? It's what some blockbuster producers are actually doing right now, and it could make the principal photography a bit more...'easier' for actors like Daniel Craig; less physically/mentally heavy.
G) Perhaps both the prodducers/Bond-actor and the writers are taking the Bond franchise a bit too serious? Perhaps they are a bit too much focused on making 'artsy' films with important messages? Because let's not forget that Her Majesty's Secret Agent 007 is by default not a very original franchise anymore. Especially not after 24 official films. Perhaps the producers should embrace that fact a bit more!
So there you have them. 7 questions. Perhaps you know the answers already. Perhaps you find them 'stupid' or irrelevant. I do find them important though. It makes me realize that currently EON Productions doesn't seem to be interested in A) both making interesting, creatively original films within the frame of a relatively 'unoriginal' Bond franchise and B) actually speeding up that very process of getting an interesting, creatively original Bond film in cinema's ASAP?? I am very well aware that currently it's hard to actually produce a Bond film, since both EON Productions and MGM have no distributor skills and will mostly be dependent on contracts with larger movie distributors.
But that does not mean one should sit still, let a certain uninspired and exhausted aura take control of the media cycle, and indulge in so many other productions. Yes, I am not worried that James Bond will not return. But I am worried that now a 4-year gap or even a 5-year gap between films becomes the 'new normal'. The Bond franchise also makes itself in the long-term a less relevant action franchise, since so many other competing franchises do it 'faster' these days and perhaps even better. The adage that Bond is already relevant for me is too easy. Bond is also susceeptible to time, and to developments that do not make the franchise better and stronger in the long-term.
So as a Bond fan I am worried. Worried that, despite my love for Daniel Craig (I'd love him to return), despite some of my patience, the Bond franchise is heading into a direction that would not be mine to choose. I hope we Bond fans can be a bit more 'verbal' about that....
Bingo! Superb post @Gustav.
I think ultimately they need to take a break, and come at Bond from a new angle. Part of the reason that they're dragging their heels so much is down to there not really being a clear direction to take things with this Bond. Ever since 2012 the series has essentially been rudderless, and SP is what we have gotten as a result.
When I look at cinema nowadays, things have moved on in two respects, and Bond has been left behind. The first is tone. Action movies especially are moving away from dark, brooding tone towards a more colourful, irreverent feel. Just look at Baby Driver, Atomic Blonde, and Spidey Homecoming. The second respect is run time. See that new WWII Epic Nolan has coming out. That's got to be 2 and a half hours at least, surely? Nope, 1 hr 46 minutes. Clearly stories are being made more digestible, so people can enjoy the experience more for what it is, without getting bogged down. I think the latest Mad Max was only 2 hrs? Pirates of the Carribean and Transformers just had their shortest entries to date. This is not just one instance, it's industry wide shift. So why are 145 minute Bond films still getting made. Again, Bond hasn't caught up, and I'm afraid they will need a new actor before that truly happens. A lighter approach, and more focus on carefree thrills is where the series is headed, which is why the much talked about Craig acting ability will be essentially redundant. They seriously need to think about recasting when the ability that won the incumbent actor the role in the first place has been rendered redundant by changes in industry practices.
It did need a shorter running time, but not because it's fashionable to do so, but because it didn't deserve or need a lengthy running time.
Why and when did the run time of a movie nessicitate a replacement actor as James Bond.
Really?
Definitely my favourite in his ever more desperate list of pro-Turner statements.