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
http://www.timeout.com/london/film/daniel-craig-interview-my-advice-to-the-next-james-bond-dont-be-shit
Note the following:
1) "Slit my wrists" isn't in the headline.
2) Interview is presented in question-and-answer format. You get a pretty good idea of the context of all comments.
3) There are 22 questions. "Slit my wrists" is part of the answer to question 17.
4) There is a follow-up question trying to elicit more context to what he was saying.
5) While the interview was done only a few days after SPECTRE finished filming, it wasn't published until Oct. 7, 2015. Other outlets also published interviews with Craig at the same time. Apparently, Craig did a series of these interviews in July and they were embargoed until early October.
"Slit my wrists" became a thing when other outlets summarized this interview.
I mention all this because I've seen people criticize the reporter *for even asking the question* that elicited the answer. In an interview, depending on how much time you have, you ask all sorts of questions.
Fact for me is, that Daniel Craig gave his best when he was on set. After three films where he was more or less emotionally conflicted, he gave us a more 'fully rounded' and more 'typical' portrayal of Ian Fleming's secret agent. He had his emotions better in check, and he was certainly at his funniest in SP.
Regarding the choice for a new Bond diretor, I always look at all the films, and not if he/she has a past record of Bond films.
Martin Campbell delivered one of the best Bond films of the franchise, but he was greatly aided by.....a book. "Casino Royale" was the first film since the 1970's that was based on a novel (and not some short story material).
And if you look at Campbell's entire filmography, then his movies "Edge Of Darkness", "Beyond Borders" and "The Green Lantern" weren't actually good stuff. To put it mildly.
My general convention with "SPECTRE" is this: I like the film. It isn't as groundbreaking as CR or SF. But it landed slowly on mor familiar waters. Perhaps the team behind SP tried a bit too hard to make SP the best Bond film. But when looking at the typical Bond formula, SP already had more of these elements then the previous three Craig films.
Despite the tropes and the typical Bond formula being more present in SP, I got more of a Bond vibe from CR.
Yep and that's because of CR's overall good story telling and execution. No forced or shoehorned tropes. No try hard at attempting to feel like a Bond film. Campbell doesn't try to be clever with his Bond films and because of this he's able to focus on conveying a good story with interesting characters that result in something spectacular.
GE
TND
TWINE
DAD
CR
QOS
SF
SP
In my opinion EON still knows how to make Bond films. Cubby's prime rule was: The public decides. When the money comes in...then we know if the people think it feels like a real Bond film or not.
Having said that, I think what people perhaps should say in the case of SP vs. CR: They got from both movies a Bond vibe, but one of them gave me more of a 'better film-vibe'.
SP isn't perfect. And if people look at my rankings, they see that CR is comfortably in my TOP 3 of Best Bond films. SP isn't in there. But to imply that EON doesn't know how to make Bond films, is like saying the Democrats can't run a country :-).
With all due respect, Gustav, now you're just asking for a lashing. I have to listen to political talk all day from all sides; the last place I'd like it shoe-horned even further is in yet another thread on this forum.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. It wasn't even my intention to bring politics into here. I just think know it's bullocks that people slam EON so much.
Look, I'm looking at some poll results. And I find it a bit over the top by saying EON isn't able to make Bond films anymore.
I truly think some people are just a bunch of negative whiners. Let's be frank now, the last four Bond films have all been more critically acclaimed than the Brosnan ones on average. Just compare the acting skills alone.
You can criticize a film yes. I have done that in my review of SP too.
You know, a lot of this is personal opinion too. But many people who voting in The Big Bond Poll aren't really posting discussions in here, or simply are newbies. From those I see a bit different opinion of SP.
By the way @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, if you're only referring to my last sentence? Come. On friend. I wasn't saying any bad stuff or offensive stuff. And my post was about more than just that. Implying that I transfer politics like a disease in other topics.....is really a bit exaggerated.
I don't think it was great actually. 'Greatness' to me applies to only the TOP 5 of Best Bond Films. "SPECTRE" doesn't belong to that category if you ask me.
We don't need to use this as another opportunity to point out the negativity we know exists, nor do we need to slam Brosnan again out of nowhere, especially since he was loved and is still very much cared for in the role. For me Craig outacts most of the Bond actors, but that doesn't devalue the films of the other actors.
Each Bond era has aspects that give them a greater draw than any other. Connery's era is the go-to set for watching the coolest interpretation around with a man that nailed all aspects of the Bond performance and made history. Roger's era nails the location shooting and atmosphere Bond films should always endeavor to have, which is seen greatly in films like TSWLM and MR. Dalton briefly showcases the mileage that can be garnered by playing a Bond more in touch with the source text in plots that feel very grounded in comparison to Roger's campier era. Brosnan's films are big in action and thrills that almost feel like video games at times, and the films contain a consistent number of some of the strongest female characters the franchise has ever seen, which I feel gets overlooked a lot in discussions of them. And of course, Craig's era has nuance and depth with films that have actual thematic material, and that take the world of Bond to the level of high cinema at moments. Each era is special, and each one brings aspects other eras don't or aren't interested in showcasing. Because of this, they're all viable.
As for the Bond poll, what it is is what it is. I like SP and think it's got fruitful content in it that is very stimulating, especially in its thematic material. At the end of the day my enjoyment of it is secured, and not much else bothers me at this point. I've soured of arguing in its case, as I did with QoS and SF in many respects. It will speak for itself in time.
If....such a sentence is already poisonous, then we should in hindsight condemn Sherrif J.W. Pepper's remarks about Democrats in TMWTGG. When it comes down to your remark about the actual film, then I agree with you. But I think you're making a too big issue about something that was there to highlight something I wholeheartedly disagree with: That EON can't make Bond movies.
Sorry if I have offended you. But if this becomes the case in more topics I will shut up. And I will also ask moderators to block me...for my own protection. I don't want to be a sickness. Sorry.
@Gustav_Graves, for me Spectre is in my top 3 firmly sitting at #2 so for me personally, It's great. ;)
This kind of behavior, helps none of us. You're not doing anything wrong, so don't accept so easily that you've flubbed. Save the self-deprecation to me, I've got it covered on all fronts and the market cornered. ;)
I understand the limbo B25 is in now but an encouraging word even if not one of commitment would be nice to here from Craig. A positive statement would help soften that dreadfully timed wrist statement still haunting the franchise.
Everybody is just too quiet. Last positive bit was Greg Wilson mentioning relevant ideas for plot.
As much as I love Dan, I also understand how the playfully irreverent, uncompromising and very abrupt and up-front nature of how he handles himself in interviews bothers some. He's not a PR machine, and simply says what is on his mind without filter, and often says things just to be frivolous and get a rise out of the interviewer, who then spins his words as gospel, as in that interview. He's certainly not the sort to "play the game" along with everyone else and fall in line to put on a pretty smile if he's not feeling the mood. With Dan's approach to interviews in mind, that style of answering questions asked can either end up being harmless, endearing and entertaining to watch, or it can create a firestorm and get people on his heels due to his comments, playful or otherwise.
I think he undoubtably adores the franchise and loves having the chance to do these types of projects and add to Bond's legacy, but I will also be the first to concede that his behavior while promoting the film can often see him toeing a very fine line greased in butter.
WHOA. Go back and read the interview. Again, "slit my wrists" isn't in the headline. The interview is in question-and-answer format. Just the questions and what he said. It comes up in QUESTION 17. One follow up question was asked to provide additional context. Craig gave an answer and that's presented as well.
That's it. No spinning.
Given how people don't want to look for themselves, here are questions 17 and 18 and their answers.
Can you imagine doing another Bond movie?
‘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.’
You want to move on from Bond for good?
‘I haven’t given it any thought. For at least a year or two, I just don’t want to think about it. I don’t know what the next step is. I’ve no idea. Not because I’m trying to be cagey. Who the fuck knows? At the moment, we’ve done it. I’m not in discussion with anybody about anything. If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money.’
The "spinning" of Dan's words I'm talking about is how many outlets following this particular interview borrowed the story, quoted his words out of context and painted a picture that displayed him as resentful and miserable about his part in the Bond movies, which is obviously not true.
In conclusion, the original article as posted didn't twist his words, it was the many publications afterwards, as I've said many, many times in this thread and others. I thought that much at least was clear.
OK. I have seen a number of postings (here and other message boards, social media, etc.) that have criticized *the question even being asked* I wanted to be sure the original interview and context were clear.
@AlexanderWaverly, you're saying that people were upset publications were asking him whether he'd be doing another Bond film? Just trying to understand your position here, and what other people elsewhere have said.
True. And people tend to forget that Daniel said that stuff with a big smile. It's the kind of guy who doesn't see any harm in saying "fuck it" :-).
Given all of that, I think there has to be an asterisk next to Spectre's box office take. In that kind of climate, getting any oxygen at all was going to be tough, and taking home $900 million has to be considered a win.
Yes, I have seen people upset that a reporter even asked the question whether Craig would be doing another Bond film. These people have said the reporter was stupid (or misguided or rude or whatever) for asking. So, in other places (specifically Facebook), I did a breakdown of that interview, how that outlet specifically didn't sensationalize the comments, how that happened later when the article was summarized, etc.
Main reason was the U.S. market: $200 million vs $304.4 million for Skyfall. Also, it took SPECTRE 154 days to get to $200 million, while Skyfall was in theaters for 108 days. So on a per-day in the theaters basis, the gap is even higher.
Having said that, having almost $900 million should be seen as a win under any circumstances. Any financial issues are a cost problem, not a popularity one.
I'm surprised SP didn't gross $900 million seeing as it had a theatrical run that lasted almost a whole 7 months.
It did made Jurrasic World, FF7, Star Wars and Mad Max look good in the script and idea department and still such a high BO.