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
At some point we'll have to accept that there will be changes however. If not after B24 then definitely after B25. I don't see him staying on past that.
Very true. I was actually pretty surprised when I found out that adjusted for inflation Craig made less money for his first 3 Bond movies than Brosnan did, given how Craig's movies were more successful. Craig seems to put the quality of the scripts above the money in terms of priorities while Brosnan always seemed more concerned with the number of zeroes on his paycheck. Don't forget that was a big reason EON opted against resigning him. Some reports stated he wanted a cool 20 mil for Bond 21. Others claim it was as much as $25 million.
Oh, what am I on about here? ALL threads are Brosnan bashing threads waiting to happen, yes? Silly me.
I didn't know that Craig made less than Brosnan adjusted for inflation with SF..... Surely SF made more (in the US & globally) than any Brosnan Bond?
I knew the first few Craig did were not making as much, inflation adjusted, but was ok with that, since the quality was improving.
RE: Broza's spat with EON after DAD - I was always disappointed that he made it about the money. I remember some comments he made suggesting the movies were making more money each time, so he was justified in asking for more, or something along those lines. Just seemed a little cheap and poorly handled. EON handled it poorly too. A big mess.
First off, I'd appreciate people keeping any news/rumors/spoilers SPECTRE related out of threads where nobody is asking for them. Like this one, for example.
Secondly, I wouldn't call Daniel a man trying to pave his legacy or win Oscars/Baftas/whathaveyous. He obviously takes pride in his work and wants to always take on the material he finds challenging and interesting, but bent on getting accolades, he is not. He seems much happier just doing his thing, and if people like his work and want to laud him for it, then great. If they don't, that's fine too, as long as he's happy with where he's at. He reminds me of an old school thespian in that way; more married to the love of the craft than all of the attention and awards it can give you. It's why I respect the hell out of him and am proud Bond has been blessed to have him even this long.
Agreed regarding the rumour. Shouldn't have done it. I did not realize the protocol on these things, given that's just a rumour and not a plot leak. It's just speculation like any other rumour, with absolutely no factual validity. Neither Craig, Mendes or Eon have said anything about it, and I'm sure EON will fight tooth and nail to stop it.
RE: Craig - I'm in agreement here too. I respect him immensely as an actor. Caught him in person on Broadway last year with his wife in Betrayal and thought he was amazing. We're very lucky to have someone of his calibre as Bond. I'm not suggesting he's chasing an Oscar (in the sense that his head is too big for Bond), & I wouldn't want that impression conveyed.
Just that we have to realize he has needs as an actor and he has to be stretched. Bond can only give him so much. He's an actor's actor first and foremost. So for those hoping he'll stay in this role for longer than B25, I think reality must set in. Bond cannot stretch him that much (no matter how much fans like me would like to think otherwise) in comparison to other roles he can get, in the prime of his career.
That's my view, and I'm sticking with it.
Yep Brosnan's salaries were higher. Adjusted for 2014 dollars Pierce Brosnan made a total of $31,459,186 for his work on GE, TND, and TWINE (I'm not counting DAD as we don't know how much Craig is making for SP) while Craig earned a total of $29,164,806 for CR, QOS, and SF. Yes one can say that only makes a difference of $2,294,380 (as if that's a small amount) but I find it alittle odd that Brosnan made more for his movies when you take into account that Craig's films had been far more financially successful. Maybe Brosnan had a better agent or possibly he just nagged them more for money.
Obviously I'm not taking into account the bonuses each actor probably made for each film as those are usually not disclosed but EON is notorious for not offering backend deals to their leading stars so those numbers are probably pretty close.
Wow. That's amazing to learn nonetheless. Craig's done a lot for the franchise over these past 8 years. Even though those are big numbers, I'd say the man is underpaid.
After the $1.1 Billion Skyfall brought in I'm sure while Craig was renegotiating his contract two years ago he made sure he'd earn a pretty penny for SP and Bond 25. I remember reading that the success of SF earned Craig alot more more leverage with Sony and EON.
Considering how amicable this board is I don't really see any bashing, per se, just some very opinionated criticism. Pierce himself said similar things about his portrayal.
He was fine. Nothing more. Just like Laz was 'fine', and Moore was 'fine' in his first 2 films. Nothing special, but serviceable.
The Brosnan 'bashing' is just a reactionary thing - with Craig on the throne, Pierce's take on the 007 role is just not fashionable. He was too nice etc. But he was EXACTLY what the public wanted in the 90's. Both the general masses & the media were GAGA about Brossers. I remember it well. I never understood it, but hey, horses for courses...
Even Connery, who perhaps deserves more credit than any one else for helping create the Bond cinemaitc legend, struggled after Bond.
For Roger, Bond was more of a culmination of quite a long career already, and lots of hard work. I think it's why he loved it so much and really appreciated it - he knew how lucky he was and how he could have just stayed trapped in TV serials for the rest of his career. He could really appreciate it from a mature and experienced position. You could say the same of Pierce as well, as he'd lost the part to Dalton and never thought he'd get another crack at it. I also admire Brosnan for the way he's used Bond, and his limited acting range, to really forge a very respectable career post-Bond.
I think Brosnan has improved later in his career, but he's still not a great actor. Having said that, when he's properly cast, I do think he brings something very worthwhile to the screen and is enjoyable to watch. I think his looks have led him to be cast in certain heroic, traditional leading man roles that don't always suit him. The Ghost Writer and Taylor of Panama really played to his strengths as an actor. I'd like to see him given a really twisted nasty part to play - something that doesn't hold back.
I disagree with the comments above about Brosnan not being given the material to explore the part a bit more. There is nothing really in any of Craig's outings that was not offered by the materials and scripts that Brosnan had. It's just Brosnan wasn't able to step up to the plate and deliver as an actor. EON were piling on the dramatic scenes in TWINE, but Brosnan just didn't handle them very well. A better actor, like Craig, would have taken what he was given and just made more of it. That's what good actors do.
I like to think of Brosnan as an enjoyable actor rather than a great one. I've seen him in a few post-Bond films and he always made me smile but I wasn't screaming Oscars!
I was watching The Railway Man the other night with Colin Firth and it occurred to me that not only is Firth an excellent actor but he's got an apparently genuine personality that audiences like. He can accept the public attention but not become "diva" like as some can. Craig doesn't have that sort of appeal. He's liked because he's Bond.
Thinking about it I agree with others about Craig struggling once Bond has finished - not that he'll care much though.
@Getafix. You should watch The Fourth Protocol with Brosnan and Michael Caine in which Brosnan plays a villainous KGB agent. He's pretty good in that.
I personally really liked The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake (it was an extremely brave project for Hollywood to tackle in the way that it tackled it given some of the difficult subject matter it had to traverse - rape etc. - they did not sugarcoat it) and it's near criminal that they have not made the 2nd one yet. Craig was amazing in it. Cowboys and Aliens was just too wacky conceptually for a summer flick IMO and I don't know why he took that role.
It was my observation of his performance last year in Betrayal on Broadway that made me realize what an absolutely phenomenal actor he is. I've seen some of the greats on Broadway and Craig is definitely up there with them. He mesmerized and held the audience single handedly in that performance. Very humble person too. He took time to really thank the audience for coming to see him. The others in the play (primarily Rachel Weisz) were pedestrian in comparison. By way of contrast, I don't think we'll ever see Brosnan on Broadway, but I could be wrong.
RE: post - Bond roles: he'll obviously have to be careful what he takes on. He may choose to go for secondary roles in major movies (therebye allowing him to stretch his range while still keeping fame) or he may choose to do arthouse style movies. Who knows. As you said @BAIN123, I really don't think he'll care as long as it's a meaty enough role.
RE: your point @DarthDimi about losing a Craig Bond due to the gap between QoS and SF, I agree and I'm disappointed by it - however I think there was little they could do in that instance due to MGM. What I find very unfortunate though is the loss of time between SF & SP - that to me is unforgiveable. I don't buy this discussion about having more than 2 years to get a script etc. That's baloney. This was a Mendes holdup, pure and simple. I'm one of the few who probably think QoS was excellent and would have been so much better without a writer's strike and without the crappy editing. So 2 years is more than enough. In fact, many of the concepts and ideas from QoS are being revisited in SP, so in retrospect, I think QoS is going to rise in fan perception over time, despite it being made only 2 yrs after CR. It's going to go the way of LTK IMO.
I say bring them on every 2 yrs. The longer they wait between releases, the more pressure on them to make more money and create something even bigger, while all of us get a little older, greyer etc.
My biggest fear is the post-Babs world at EON and what could happen to the Bond legacy then. Something we don't have to fear for a while but one day Bond could be swallowed into the bureaucratic studio accounting machine, and that could be the end of quality Bonds forever.
That's my theory too. Sounds like SP is going to help rehabilitate QoS.
QoS is one of those odd one out films that really divides people, like OHMSS and LTK have done in the past. Lots of people at the time see them as 'not Bond', but over time I think this percpetion will change, as it has done with OHMSS and LTK.
I've always enjoyed QOS more than most people and find it an underrated entry in the series. It accomplished it's goal of working as sort of an epilogue to CR. Personally I've always viewed it as part 2 of one big epic Bond movie which functions as a reintroduction of James Bond. In that respect it makes QOS possibly the single most unique film in the Bond canon. It's the only Bond film where you need to see the previous one to fully understand it.
Some think Dan will have a bit of a hard time career wise after Bond, and they may be right. Obviously an iconic character like Bond doesn't come to the doorstep of just any actor, and it's often a blessing to be considered for the role and brought into the Bond family. Daniel will almost certainly never have another role as big as this one, because it's James freaking Bond. He's one of the main figures of the cinematic universe, someone recognizable by all. You can't really hope to top that.
And that's something I don't think Dan is the least bit worried about, nor do I think he gives a rat's arse about "superstardom." He's not a fan of events that make him the star of the show, and he is very awkward when he is put on a pedestal. He doesn't pick roles to make him famous, he picks them because he loves acting and believes they will either challenge him, allow him to work with great talent, or obviously, be a fun ride. Luckily for him, the Bond films gave him all three. He's a private man who just wants to do what he loves, and I think he may actually like his post-Bond career when that attention won't be quite as strong.
For those worried, Dan will be known as Bond his entire life, far after he hangs up his holster, so that recognition of all he has done for the franchise will still be there. Sean, George, Roger, Tim, Pierce: all of them will forever be known as Bond as well, because the character is so iconic is becomes an unforgettable role for any of the men lucky enough to be chosen for it. Once you've played Bond, you've really reached the heights, grasped cinematic legacy in its purest form and felt its beating heart far more than other actors in the business. Dan has gotten to be part of this massively influential franchise, and though he might not care, he's preserved himself forever as an actor in one of the greatest roles of all time. Obviously coming down from that iconic character won't be easy, but like I said, I don't think that bothers Dan in the slightest and in a way, may be a personal blessing.
Kinda cute eh :-P.
My first ever Bond experience was, I think, 1989. Dutch broadcaster AVRO did broadcast a film on channel Nederland 1. And it had this weird metal slide in it. Bond fell in it when the floor tilted. It sucked me in the TV screen. Later that was "You Only Live Twice". I was 8 years then.
And my first cinematic experience was the same year, "Licence To Kill". Although it turned out my parents weren't very happy afterwards when they finished seeing the film :-O. Bit too much horror for an 8 year old no? Exploding heads....and so on....
CR was 007 getting his licence to kill and proving himself.
QoS was just a weak ass hashed up film because of the script writers strike.
SF now builds M, Moneypenny and Q back into the series.
Which means in all tense and purposes Spectre shall be a Bond film in the traditional sense of the word. I say this, as with each Bond film I am waiting for the 'gunbarrel' sequence to be back at the beginning....
You have to ignore some of what has gone before with the previous Bond films but SF was far better than QoS, the only thing that really saves QoS is the opening when Mr White is in the boot of the Aston. It also gave an incline to Spectre coming back with 'we have people every where' and in the current climate having this organisation back isn't a bad thing.
So SF has now established all the characters and Craig's Bond a bit like DN, FRWL and GF so now we are awaiting our Thunderball.... it seems to be following the same pattern to...
As GF was a completely unrelated story unlike DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF.
Which is the same kind of thing with CR, QoS and Spectre where SF is unrelated but has establish key characters.
I can't wait for Spectre and hopefully some bond type music and get that gun barrel back in the right place as that what sets Bond apart from any other movie.
My feeling is that SF is about 2/3 of a great Bond film. The PTS is good-apart from no gun barrel. My quibles would be with Bond surviving such a great fall into water with two bullets in him, but whatever; and with Eve not taking the wide open shot she had for several seconds after shooting Bond. I know people have said she lost her nerve, but I feel like that's shockingly incompetent. Maybe that was intentional though, with her being relegated to office duties as punishment. In which case it makes sense. The whole mess could have been avoided if it had been exposited that she only had one round left. However those are pretty easy issues to overlook. I love Bond in Shanghai and Macau. Exotic, Severine is extremely sexy. Bond intentionally getting himself captured seems iffy but I think it's a deliberate plan knowing he has a tracking device (perhaps there's even a microphone so they know when to send in the cavalry).
Where things start to go wrong is with Silva's escape. Obviously he had to escape or the film is over. My issue is the manner of escape. It starts with Q doing something that even a Sony IT guy wouldn't be dumb enough to do: plug an infected computer from a known hacker into his network. How did Silva know Q was this incompetent? Who knows. Some have said that Q was just arrogant. I'm afraid that doesn't wash with me. There's a difference between being arrogant and being a damn fool. If Q doesn't plug in that computer nothing happens. Silva doesn't escape. M lives. The DB5 lives. And then we get the line from Q that's the second "Oh come on!" moment: that Silva planned the entire thing-stealing the list knowing MI6 would come after it, knowing Bond was being sent, knowing he wasn't ready, somehow (that word comes up a lot when describing Silva's plan) knowing that Bond would get that casino chip from what's-his-name and knowing that Bond would go to the casino and cash the chip in, knowing Severine would betray him, somehow knowing that Bond being captured by him would lead directly to Silva being captured by MI6. Now for the subway chase and attacking M at parliament: did Silva know ahead of time that Q would plug in the computer allowing his escape at exactly the same time that M starts a session with parliament? Was this part ad-libbed? Did he plant explosives all over the Underground just in case, or did he know Bond would catch up to him in that particular tunnel? And that a train would be coming at that time? By this point Silva seems damn near omniscient.
The rest of the movie isn't bad either. I think Bond's plan is stupid in that he decides to go completely alone, but I can suspend my disbelief that there's no one they can trust and/or that M doesn't want anyone to die because of her mistakes. The battle at Skyfall is good, Kincaid is an idiot (running around with a flashlight when you're trying to hide? Use your head man!). I love the last scene with M. My only big problem is the plot holes that all come out in the London sequence.
You're absolutely correct on all fronts. The movie has holes up the wazoo.
What I can't understand really is why scriptwriters are brought in to write this crap, and then are paid for it.... You and I could have done a better job most likely.
Having said all that, I really enjoyed SF very much. When you think about it, It's amazing how we can forgive a movie with such glaring logic plot holes due to other factors that overwhelm us (cinematography, acting, locations, casting, music, pacing, action etc. etc.)
Given the nature and development process of a Bond script (and to be fair, films in general) it's slightly unfair to lay the blame squarely on the shoulder of the screenwriters. I haven't read the Sony leaks, but if the content does indeed stretch to script notes (which from the brief glimpse I saw, it does) then it might give you a clearer idea of how difficult it is for a screenwriter to maintain an internal logic throughout 120 pages that are being critiqued by various parties with differing agendas. I'm by no means giving them a pass, I have voiced my opinion on the logic of SF many a time, but there are many people equally responsible for these failings and Mendes is right up there.