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
No disrespect to Craig meant. I have a lot of respect for him and he is one of my favorite actors.
Take a nap
Contracts mean nothing. Let's clear that up right away. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that EON and Sony don't get their act together after Spectre, and it's a six-year gap to Bond 25. You still think Craig, at 53, will be ready/willing to play Bond? Or would be legally required to do so? No. So if you think "contractual obligation" is a 100% guarantee that Craig is back for Bond 25, you're making a poor argument.
Whether or not Craig returns for Bond 25 will not be based on contract or money or script or director. It will be based on Craig himself and how he feels. That's the bottom line. As a huge Craig fan, I want him to do two or three more films, if possible. But also, as someone who's studied Craig and researched him extensively, I also know that the Bond role has taken its toll on him. So, no, it would not be a surprise if he decided not to do Bond 25. But this doesn't mean I think he'll walk away after Spectre. It'll depend on how quickly Bond 25 is ready to shoot. Reports are that Craig will start shooting The Girl Who Played With Fire/Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest right after Spectre, and that would put Bond 25 out as a 2017 shoot, with a 2018 release, at the earliest. Craig will be 49 in 2017. Craig insists on doing most of his own stunts. Unless he backtracks what he's said in the past, about wanting to play the part physically, it'll be tough on him--he'd need the stunt double more than ever before.
If Craig walked up to Michael and Barbara, after Spectre, and said, "I don't have another one in me," the response would be: "OK. Be good. Take care. Thank you."
it wouldn't be that simple... if an out clause isn't already in place, then i'm sure there would be some monetary repercussions for wanting out of a contract. Because in signing a contract for X amount of films, that is a pact between you and the producers - to renege on that without it being an option in his contract i think would catch EON off guard, and they may take him to court over it (not forcing him to play the role, but forcing him to pony up some $ in wanting to be terminated from his deal)... who knows really..
no one other than EON and Daniel know the specifics of his contract - if it allows him an out at any time, or if after so many years of not producing a Bond movie he could walk away (ie: Dalton and the 6 year gap in the early 90s)... so all we can do is speculate (at best) as to what the future holds based on what we do already know...
personally, i think Daniel is a man of his word and he'll honor the contract he signed.. if he didn't want to do more than 3 or 4 films, he wouldn't have signed the contract 6 years ago.. a lot can change in 6 years - but i do believe had he wanted out, it would've come before Skyfall - there was plenty enough time between QOS and SF where he could've bowed out, but he didn't, he stuck by the franchise and said more or less "he'll keep doing them as long as he thinks he can still do them.".. and if SP is another smash hit, then it's even more incentive to end on a high note for Bond 25 - and if that is another hit, he has stands the chance to make a f### ton of money on a 1 picture deal for Bond 26...
EON right now has their guy - it's completely different than it was with Broz, Dalts, Rog or Laz... meaning personal taste in the films aside, and looking at it from an objective point of view, the run Craig is on, has the potential to only be rivaled by that of Connery's era (in terms of film quality, critical acclaim, money, and popularity).. but unlike the past with Cubby Harry and Sean, i think Babs and Michael are doing everything in their power to keep Dan happy - at least for the tenure of his deal.
now, in terms of EON/MGM and Sony.... once Spectre is out in theaters, their deal is over with... there is no "getting their act together." .... MGM (if they wanted) could retake 100% control over production - Sony's only there to foot the bill for distribution and half of production.... it would make more sense for MGM to partner up with FOX, who already controls home video sales... but we shall see... i dont think we will get another long gap between SP and Bond 25 unless something catastrophic happens... but the horizon looks clear right now.
And this is likely going to be the case. I'm just saying: don't rule out "completely" the notion that DC would walk away after Spectre. Then again, it's possible that DC signs on for B26, too, if he's feeling up to it.
This is a fair question, considering he's done a last-minute withdrawal on two films recently: The Monuments Men and The Whole Truth.
There has been nothing said about more films and one thing I very much doubt Fincher will be involved, he has projects with HBO, one being the US take on Utopia and more exciting a 50's set noir series written by the great James Ellroy.
I hope he does direct but it's looking likely he won't but if it's green lighted tomorrow with Craig, Mara and Fincher directing I'll be very happy but I don't see it, so I doubt this will be the reason Craig isn't in Bond 25.
He dodged a bullet with Monuments Men and The Whole Truth sounds like another turkey, he's got enough of those on his C.V, I said it before he needs Michael Fassbender's agent.
for all we know, those could've been verbal commitments / agreements, not signed deals or contracts...
and there is a big difference between verbal commitments and signed contracts
http://deadline.com/2015/01/ben-affleck-david-fincher-gillian-flynn-strangers-on-a-train-remake-warner-bros-gone-girl-1201348983/
What makes you think that?
This is still in the very early stages of development. There is already a script in place for TGWPWF, and one that Fincher has publicly commented on. It's not rumor that the film is set: it was exposed in the Sony hack.
I'm not saying they won't get made but it's looking like Fincher will only be involved as a producer if at all. He said towards the end of last year that they are likely to get made as the money Sony spent on the rights but I don't see anything that says he's directing them.
Also what it says in those leaks is not gospel, this private conversations between film executives not set in stone, if these films were happening it would be announced and it hasn't and until it is I won't believe it, you are taking these leaks far too literally, they've become some peoples equivalent of a green light if you listen to some here.
Tons of lawyers and judges ( not to mention ga-billions in litigation) would side eye that statement. Ever hear of "Pay or Play." Many actors and other major players in film have that clause in their contracts so that they will get paid if the film is a no go. They have set aside the time in their calendar that could otherwise be taken by another paid project. One would hope that, with all the crap that Craig has already gone through with delays in his films, this clause is in his latest contract. But given that his agent is best buddies with Amy P. as noted in the leaks, one can only wonder about the double dealing that went on between his agent, EON and Sony and how badly Craig may have been screwed in his latest contract.
I would love to know what Craig's actual take was for SF given he was the one who selected Mendes and had major input in the script process. His published $17m seems very low given it was his 3rd Bond and his considerable role in SF's development and huge success. He should have gotten points for SF, but EON has a well earned rep for greed and for treating their Bonds badly. It was interesting that Mendes introducted Craig at the SP photo event as his "collaborator." Babs likes to gush in print about Craig, but gush is very cheap.
I think Spectre for Daniel Craig will be more like a whistle duck than a swan-song my dear...
badly... fair... it's all a point of view and of which side of the dotted line you are on..
if $17m is not enough for Craig, then maybe he and his agent should've negotiated for better terms, or for a percentage of the box office in his contract... at the end of the day, he and his agent both agreed to the contract he is currently under... if he feels like he deserves more, then he can negotiate for it after his current contract is over with, should he come back for Bond 26.
EON is in the business of making films, and making money... IMO, from their side of the table, i think they treat their Bond actors fair per the contracts that they sign them to.. if an actor wants more money - then negotiate better.
No Bond actor has ever had much clout when negotiating with EON to get salaries comparable to stars in other franchises who usually get much higher salaries and back end participation that have given them huge wealth. I have read that even blocks of wood like Taylor Lautner in secondary roles in the Twilight stuff have made more than Bond actors. Obviously the dynamics of any given franchise can be very varied and for sure, they are all lucky that Bond was their entre into major careers. But the same is true of most actors in other franchises, and most of them have been comparitively far better paid.
EON has always had an iron hand on contracting and salaries, and has never been known to be generous. The only real "clout" a Bond has is, like Laz, to walk away. Hardly a great bargaining chip. If they were so fair, Connery and Broz wouldn't have had such negative feelings about EON. Again, Broz's case was complicated by EON gaining rights to CR, but it was written that Broz was asking for $20m for his 5th film (which is what Craig's SP salary supposingly is) and EON thought he was just to expensive for their profit margin. David Picker, an executive at UA who was very involved in the Connery/Bond years writes about how badly Connery was treated by EON in his well reviewed book about his years at UA. He was there, and obviously knew the facts. I thought it was very interesting that he showed up at the Producers Guild presentation to EON a few years ago. Water under the bridge I guess.
When DC finished Spectre, he wil do the millenium sequels and then next Bond movie.
You missing the news that Universal take over the work from Fox with Spectre. Possible because Fox take over Dreamworks who previously done by Paramount/Universal.
They have one of the most bankable franchises of all time, and easily the longest running. The Bond film's success do rest to some extent on the shoulders of the actor but not as much as other franchises.
This series has gone for 50 yrs and 6 actors so it's arguable that the actor, while important, is not all that, no matter how successful he may be.
From what I understand, only Connery, pre-DAF, was shafted by EON. The others definitely made a good living out of the role, including Craig.
Craig has yet to demonstrate that he is massive box office outside of Bond. Although I loved TGWTDT it is clear the sequel has not yet been made because the original did not make enough money, despite it being absolutely freaking awesome.
It's the Bond universe that makes money.
Having said that, Craig is back for B25. I'm pretty sure of it. He is likely to do one more after that too. After that age is likely to catch up with him.
No Bond will ever be more important than Connery as he got the franchise started, and EON was also very lucky with Moore, who seems to be a sweetheart of a guy, kept Bond going through many films, and never gave EON a day of trouble.
No actor is luckier today than Downey. He got $75m in salary and points for Iron 3 and half his role was done by stunt men in the Iron suit, while he sat on a stool in some studio doing voice overs. He's good, but is he really worth that much. His last film, the Judge made about $80 million world wide and was a flop. One can only guess how huge his pay days will be for the next Avengers. I guess the luckiest franchise actors are the more recent ones that get to start a franchise off like Twilight, Taken, Iron Man etc as they then have huge leverage with the studios that need to keep them for follow up films. Crazy business. They are all over paid, but some more so.
And dangerous again. =D>
His films have help reinvigorate me as a fan !, damn I can't wait for spectre. :D