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
That's exactly what I was thinking. Personally, I think Daniel has two more films in him.
I agree with this. What MGW says makes sense from a business point of view, I don't think we should take it as a hint at any creative differences or whatever. From my limited understanding, it's always been Barbara who took charge of the creative side, like someone said about, when Barbara says something like this then I'd listen, but given MGW's context in saying it and role as the 'business producer', I don't think what he said should be taken as a barometer of Craig's Bond fortunes.
I think one more at the very most after SF.
Show biz is quick to change, and very fickle. Craig isn`t aging as well as others, and I dare say they will go for a more classic looking Bond next time around.
Anyway, lets get the most out of him while we can eh?
;;)
Craig is starting to look old, as many would with the regime he has himself under to keep fit in the role. He didn't look that old in TGWTDT, because he eased up on the muscle. This constant bulking up, toning down does have an affect on how your face is defined.
But, I don't want a repeat of what happened with Brosnan, who was extremely enthusiastic about making a fifth film, which I'm sure he knew would have been his final outing. Craig has given us one great, one solid, and another potentially great film. He deserves to finish off his Quantum storyline, at least. And I think Craig is smart enough to know when to stop, he won't be like Roger.
Well, that's my opinion anyway.
Completely (but respectfully) disagree, speaking from personal experience; putting on muscle, losing fat, regular, high intensity exercise can only make you look younger. Sure, if you aren't sleeping enough you can look haggard, but Craig looks really good for his age, could easily pass for 5 years younger than he actually is.
Thank you for being the first person to think exactly was I did as I first read this 'news'.
Where is Craig mentioned in this news piece? It seems more likely, that Wilson was quizzed on why Brosnan was let go.
This headline is very misleading and has caused nearly everyone else to run around like headless chickens. Did they even read it?
The last we heard on Craig, it was all good news, so I'll continue to think that is the case, until we actually do hear otherwise.
And leaving at the peak is allways a good advice btw.
That´s exactly my point too. But I would add that Bronsnans later films suffered from week scripts or stories. I don't blame the actor.
Wilson said he had no qualms about replacing Craig if Skyfall turns out to be his peak.
There you go.....
We have no context to go on.
Would SF a comercial disaster the price would come down, but nobody is expecting the movie to fail.
I agree, this is all being blown up into a "significant story" but MGW seems to be simply
explaining to his select audience that Bond is such an iconic character that even if Skyfall is Craig's peak, it doesn't mean they cannot or will not re-cast the role if they think the time is right. He appears to be backing up their decision to re-cast Brosnan and explaining that it wasn't anything other than wanting to move forward with a new angle on the character at the right time. And I think they were right.
I suspect Craig is a lock for Bond 24, but that may indeed be his final film after all.
It could be it: IF Wilson really made a comment about ending things with Craig at his peak, it might be a way to tell the actor 'I have no problem with letting you go' to get the price down.
It could be!
I'm not going to make anything of this. MGW probably just lost his dog.
FMUN is right about Craig. I don't know why people don't understand that Craig assisted with the script because he HAD to, let alone blast him for the result like it was his fault. It's not part of his job description, never was nor will it ever be. He pitched in to try and complete a half finished script or the movie wasn't going to get made, and there was no option to postpone with contracts for everyone involved signed and locations reserved. You can rightfully blame the producers for hiring Bourne people to film, for hiring Marc Forster if you didn't like his direction, but what no one should be blamed for is for the damage the writer's strike inflicted, which was far and away the greatest problem with QOS. They did the best anyone could under the circumstances and I doubt any of the critics here on this board could have done any better.
As far as the comments, no one knows when Craig's "peak" will happen. It sounds like idle speculation from MGW. He doesn't have an answer for when and neither does Craig. The only thing said by Craig is that he'll keep doing them as long as he physically can and has the desire to, and EON are not fools despite the occasional moronic comment to the contrary. He only seems to be stating the obvious, something EON has learned over the years, that no one actor is bigger than the role itself, or they never would have survived Connery's leaving in 1967. Is it a message to Craig and his agent regarding money? Maybe. But as long as his movies are making half a billion a shot, that will take care of itself, EON won't have any problem paying him as they know the results will be worth it.
I know things
Like I said, its surely not about money. DC isn't a greedy little prick, who asks more then they are ready to pay, so there is no need to push him into shape over money.
Fellow Agents,
Great post from "The Black007", I think he nails it.
Personally, I'd be a lot more motivated if eon spent their time talking about finding the absolutely correct story and directors for Bond movies.
By the looks of things, I think they have struck gold with Sam Mendes but who will come next?
As for Craig's successor - long may he continue but when the time comes Fassbender would be great.
Regards, Bentley
There are a lot of things I could say... The mythos that DAD was so bad that they 'needed' to fire Brosnan is such BS. They could have easily given him a swan song film that was more grounded. Hell, he deserved it! He never got the Bond film he really deserved. And yet he and his films were hugely successful and popular. The Broccolis are fickle, mercurial and they don't like their power usurped in any way. Maybe this is, in fact, just a shot across the bow, a negotiating tactic to keep DC from thinking he's running things. DC basically hired the director for this film and shaped the script to his liking - if it is not well received critically (like DAD, the box office will be huge no matter what) then he bears a large responsibility for it.
So.. It's also possible that MGW could be having second thoughts about the direction of the series from what he is seeing in the finished product of SF. I have said this from the start, you cannot keep making Emo Bond films that explore his personal life and history and have downbeat endings. It doesn't fulfill what audiences have come to expect and want from a 007 film. It worked as a novelty with CR, but it can't keep on like that. People want a fun, feel good Bond film. And by casting a scowling killjoy like Craig, you're locked in to this one-note downer. You have to keep bending the franchise to fit him. It lasted only two movies with Dalton, and it won't last more than one more movie with Craig. I'll take any bets.
Call it the Dark Bond trilogy - SF could be a melodramatic step too far.
Whatever happens, Craig will claim it's his choice when he goes...even though every other movie he has done has bombed and audiences show no interest in his Non-Bond work