No Time To Die: Production Diary

19199209229249252507

Comments

  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    A fan favourite and a masterpiece aren't the same thing, however. I don't think outside the Connery era, and perhaps OHMSS (even though it has its haters mostly because of Lazenby), Bond really had a masterpiece. SF is a fan favourite, not a masterpiece. Far from it. CR, on the other hand, comes close in its own way.

    That said, ditching the downer endings three of Craig's films possess, I'd like something along the lines of both From Russia with Love and The Living Daylights. That's as decent and balanced as the Craig Bond would get.

    CR, as great as it was/is, is far too stripped down, and its semi-repetitive cycle for the rest of the current actor's tenure really grew the formula of it rather old. SF should never be repeated. And SP should have just deleted what was necessarily destroying the third act which didn't go unnoticed even during pre-production. Cut out the middle man (London Finale, that was always the problem) and expand the Blofeld lair. That set could've cost less than some "realistic world record earning" big explosion and an ugly bespoke car that is the DB10. It's not even a practical car to be driven. They could've just taken an existing car and it would've cost them by far less.

    Very good post. Especially the part in bold.
  • Posts: 170
    I must be tired because I'm not sure what that criticism is. By 'stripped down' do you mean too basic?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The_Donald wrote: »
    I must be tired because I'm not sure what that criticism is. By 'stripped down' do you mean too basic?
    Yes, in a way. It deals with a basic problem that isn't crucial as the rest of the Bond adventures, per se. Then again, that also was the case in the novel, so it felt rather great for that one entry. But, constantly having to repeat the same tone, character drama with the maintenance of the same Bond Begins story arc for the rest of the three films just made the category tiresome as hell.

    There are by far more dangerous and other sorts of threats in the world than surveillance problems or rogue agents trying to sell out MI6. What ever happened to the larger-than-life overseas menace? One would think a foreign intelligence agency like MI6 would go after them rather than constantly trying to be MI5.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Wait, some people want Madeline Swann for two more films, and others want her not mentioned at all?

    One film was more than enough for me. Three total would be unbearable.

    I'm completely in agreement with you on this.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    bondjames wrote: »
    For me, the Vesper/Bond dynamic, the casino sequence & the Bahamas sequences made CR special. It was elegant, refined and the sequences had time to breathe, recalling classic Bond films.

    The rest of it was fairly run of the mill, except for the parkour sequence which was a real thrill & the ball whacker where Craig shined.

    So pretty much the whole film?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    For me, the Vesper/Bond dynamic, the casino sequence & the Bahamas sequences made CR special. It was elegant, refined and the sequences had time to breathe, recalling classic Bond films.

    The rest of it was fairly run of the mill, except for the parkour sequence which was a real thrill & the ball whacker where Craig shined.

    So pretty much the whole film?
    Not quite. Miami was serviceable. After ball whacker I'm not too fond of it actually (I hardly watch it because of this). It's only really that middle bit at the casino that really elevates the film to greatness for me. It's in the dialogue and the acting during that entire section.
  • If he pulled off another CR, I believe that would cement him as the best Bond for many (certainly for me).

    Another film on a par with CR and I think I'd have to agree with you there.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Perfect world for me, Bond 25 a continuation of Spectre where Madeline dies at the end (not a remake of OHMSS but an ending similar to it), than Bond 26 in 2022 being a faithful adaptation to YOLT.

    And that ends Craigs run as Bond

    I'd be happy with that.

    But given we have had someone die being the climax of two out of four of Craig's films I'd have B25 be just a classic 'stop the villains scheme' film with gadgets and all that bollocks and with Madeline surviving. Blofeld would barely feature and the main villain would be a Largo type SPECTRE number 2.

    The end of the film would be as Hunt intended with Bond and Maddy driving off into the sunset.

    Then B26 would have Maddy being killed off in the PTS and be a very dark character driven piece with Bond's breakdown and depression and the ominous tone of the novel realised on screen and only one or two big action set pieces as a sop to the audience who expect these things. The end of the Craig era sees a broken Bond heading off towards Vladivostok. With a well written script (i.e. not by P&W) and the right director Dan might even blag himself an Oscar nomination as he bows out.

    But we literally just got a film with gadgets and a secret base and stuff that ended with Bond and Madeline driving off into the sunset. What would be the point in keeping her around for another film (don't see how you can do a "traditional" Bond film with her anyway since she made it clear it was her or the job), only to end it in the exact same way SP ended? You might not like the film but they already did Hunt's ending. It takes them long enough for them to make these films as it is so if they're going to do that storyline they need to do it now instead of dragging out that story arc for the sake of giving Craig a straightforward Bond on a mission film (SP had most of the tropes anyway and here's a thought, maybe he doesn't want one? He has some amount of creative input and seems to like the personal angle his films have taken).

    If Craig comes back for Bond 25, it has to be a YOLT adaptation imo. Madeline dies in the PTS, after the titles it's months later and Bond is back at MI6 but it isn't really working out because he's depressed (I'd argue that he doesn't actually love Madeline but she was a way out for him, a chance at a normal life, he could be in bits about losing that). If Craig returns and they don't use YOLT at all, or if Craig returns and they stall it for a film as you suggested, giving him two more and delaying the next actor/fresh start by near enough another decade at the rate they make films now, then I'll be very disappointed.

    I still think that SP felt like the end and there's no need for another, but one more Craig film that gives us a faithful adaptation of YOLT I can just about get on board with. I think the premise is pretty boring at this point but if they manage to make it really good then I can't really complain as that's actually my favourite Bond novel. But two more? He's going to be 51 when Bond 25 comes out and he looks his age. He's already been Bond for almost as long as Roger Moore and if he does two more films we'll be looking at the best part of ten years before we get a proper fresh start. I think he's great too but Bond thrives off change. If Craig does two more then by the time the next actor debuts it'll probably have been 20 years since CR. That's too long. He should have done at least one more film (there should have been a grounded but straightforward Bond on a mission film in between QoS and SF imo) but I think he's been Bond for that long now that the time for that is past. If they want to do YOLT for Bond 25 then okay. I can get behind that. But please let that be the last.
  • Posts: 170
    The_Donald wrote: »
    I must be tired because I'm not sure what that criticism is. By 'stripped down' do you mean too basic?
    Yes, in a way. It deals with a basic problem that isn't crucial as the rest of the Bond adventures, per se. Then again, that also was the case in the novel, so it felt rather great for that one entry. But, constantly having to repeat the same tone, character drama with the maintenance of the same Bond Begins story arc for the rest of the three films just made the category tiresome as hell.

    There are by far more dangerous and other sorts of threats in the world than surveillance problems or rogue agents trying to sell out MI6. What ever happened to the larger-than-life overseas menace? One would think a foreign intelligence agency like MI6 would go after them rather than constantly trying to be MI5.

    Thanks for elaborating. I agree with your criticism about the apparent need for an arc hanging like a dead weight around Craig's films, culminating in the bizarre retcon in SP. I don't mind a 'small scale' threat like in CR, which I think is by far Craig's best btw. Ironically I also thought CR was less weighed down by 'character drama' than his others.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The only possible way Craig does 2 more is if their back to back. He wont wait 3-4 more years after B25. too old. I have a feeling this next one in 2019 is Craigs last outing that brings his character full circle.
  • Posts: 1,970
    I take Craig for another 10 more years than a new actor
  • Posts: 1,970
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If he pulled off another CR, I believe that would cement him as the best Bond for many (certainly for me).

    Another film on a par with CR and I think I'd have to agree with you there.
    Not for me.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Perfect world for me, Bond 25 a continuation of Spectre where Madeline dies at the end (not a remake of OHMSS but an ending similar to it), than Bond 26 in 2022 being a faithful adaptation to YOLT.

    And that ends Craigs run as Bond

    I'd be happy with that.

    But given we have had someone die being the climax of two out of four of Craig's films I'd have B25 be just a classic 'stop the villains scheme' film with gadgets and all that bollocks and with Madeline surviving. Blofeld would barely feature and the main villain would be a Largo type SPECTRE number 2.

    The end of the film would be as Hunt intended with Bond and Maddy driving off into the sunset.

    Then B26 would have Maddy being killed off in the PTS and be a very dark character driven piece with Bond's breakdown and depression and the ominous tone of the novel realised on screen and only one or two big action set pieces as a sop to the audience who expect these things. The end of the Craig era sees a broken Bond heading off towards Vladivostok. With a well written script (i.e. not by P&W) and the right director Dan might even blag himself an Oscar nomination as he bows out.
    Are you really advocating for this thing being dragged out over two more films? One is more than enough for me at most. I also think we're getting ahead of ourselves with thoughts of Oscar noms for a Bond role. It's very unlikely.

    Well I'd sooner see it done well over two films than shambolically cobbled together into one.

    If they're going to do an adaptation of YOLT they need to set it up properly which they haven't done with SP. This way they could use B25 to dig themselves out of the SP hole and then go full tilt into a decent version of YOLT for B26. What I don't want to see is Blofeld escape, Maddy die and Bond be depressed before being sent off to Japan all in the first half hour of B25.

    I didn't say an Oscar nom was likely. But with the right script and director YOLT certainly has the heft to give a Bond actor a chance at a nomination. But of course given the rank mismanagement and reliance on P&W the odds of it happening are infintessimal.
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that it needs a revitalization. I just don't have the belief that some others do here that Craig has to be the man to do it. That has nothing to do with a dislike of him (he's my third favourite) but rather a strong feeling that in the interests of the long run health of the franchise, SP marked a clear ending (accentuated by its critical tepid reception) and EON should blaze forward with a new path after a 2nd long 4 year break.

    I can't see how it makes sense to go gritty and dark with a new approach on B25 with him in tow and then refresh again for B26. That runs the risk of potentially resembling the jumbled continuity (and tonal) mess that was the Roger Moore transition to Dalton for two before a long break and Brosnan. Or even the Connery to Laz to Connery to Moore switch. I don't want that kind of messy transition again just to benefit one actor's legacy.

    You have every right to dislike SP but you're slightly rewriting history by claiming it got a tepid critical reception. Most of the reviews I read (admitedly mainly from the UK) were glowing.

    Here's a sample of the critically "tepid" reaction SP got:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/spectre-20151104

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/review/

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden

    For every positive UK review there's a US one slating it. The UK reviewers seemingly blinded by patriotic Bondian fervour were oblivious to its flaws whereas the yanks saw straight through it.

    So what?

    Does that change the fact that the UK reviews (and presumably European and Asian too) were actually wildly positive?

    Yes we know the US market and critics responds differently. LTK went down well in the UK and Europe but tanked in the US.

    The fact American critics may not have liked SP doesnt negate the fact it was very well received elsewhere and did highly respectabLe box office.
    If you think US box office and word of mouth doesn't matter, even today with a smaller piece of the global pie, you're in for a surprise.

    They control the narrative and the loudspeaker. Production costs are measured in US$ and with exchange rates being volatile, revenue and net profit conversion into US $ will be quite important for a future studio, who only takes a small piece of the pie (With EON & MGM retaining the bulk based on Sony data). All of the studios vying for the distribution job are US based and retain a higher % of the pie in US theatres (according to what I've read) due to arrangement with theatre chains.

    US critical reception and opinion does matter disproportionately even today.

    LTK? Widely regarded as a flop, despite its global positive grosses.

    Oh, and btw, we are all aware that UK critics went mad for SP. You're not stating anything that we don't know. When have they not gone mad for a Craig Bond film? That's not the point and is irrelevant. It's a home grown entity. There was a coordinated marketing approach taken with SF (positive reviews for two weeks prior to US release) which worked brilliantly to create positive market buzz and it backfired with SP. I even called attention to it 'before' SP's release anywhere as a possible risk on the box office thread that was active at the time (e.g. stating that the US word of mouth would be critical to keeping the momentum built in the UK going, as had happened with SF). I also mentioned a few weeks back that with the fall in the UK £ since Brexit, UK gross will likely be less relevant going forward.

    Where did I say anything about the US box office being irrelevant?

    I didn't even say US critics are irrelevant. What I objected to was the implication in your post that whatever US critics say can be taken as representative of the global response to a film. Increasingly this is not the case - actually, was it ever true?

    As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.

    Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?

    Films can tank or just perform moderatley well in the US and still go on to be very successful commercially. Film financiers have known this for years, even if this seismic shift in the globalisation of film finance and consumption seems to have passed you by.

    UK BO for SP was $135m and U.S. BO was $200m. Given the relative size of the two markets (the U.S. is what, five times larger), UK BO is still obviously very important to Bond, out of all proportion to the size of the respective markets. Therefore why on earth would you insist that the response of UK critics is irrelevant?

    Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.

    Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?

    I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.

    But the fact is that SP was given a massive critical thumbs up in one of its key markets and this helped drive hefty global BO, including in the US.

    You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.

    I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.

    As for exchange rates, which you've brought into the equation, SP's global BO take would have actually rivalled SF if the $ had still been at its 2012 level. All smoke and mirrors and fairly irrelevant to my appreciation of Bond, but nevertheless you are wrong.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.

    I think Queen Elizabeth looks old.

    Sjee, since when is the casting for a new Bond film a new pageant show from Trump tower? Give Mr Craig a break man. There's one big important thing that separates him from The Rock, Tom Cruise or Eggsy: Acting!
  • Posts: 11,425
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.

    Well they deliberately played up his age in SF and alllowed him to "look old" which you'd never normally do. He looked fine by the end of SF although the crewcut always makes him look older than he needs to.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    He looked great during the Macao scenes.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Murdock wrote: »
    He looked great during the Macao scenes.

    Thats true
    Getafix wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.

    Well they deliberately played up his age in SF and alllowed him to "look old" which you'd never normally do. He looked fine by the end of SF although the crewcut always makes him look older than he needs to.

    Perhaps it was his haricut and maybe his stuble too
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Most general audiences will be put off by a 54 year old Craig playing Bond, and rightly so. The man just isn't aging well. All the comparisons to Liam Neeson and others don't work because the Taken franchise is about a much older man who has already retired from service. That's the conceit of the film, so an actor of Neesons age is appropriate. Then you have someone like Tom Cruise who already looks younger than Craig, who is playing a younger character and increasingly part of an ensemble. Do we want to see Bond, Q, Moneypemny and Tanner running around in the feild as a team together? Because that's what mission impossible is.
    Frankly, I don't think people are so pro-Craig since his said he would slash his wrists, only Craigites who think he can do no wrong.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Most general audiences will be put off by a 54 year old Craig playing Bond, and rightly so. The man just isn't aging well. All the comparisons to Liam Neeson and others don't work because the Taken franchise is about a much older man who has already retired from service. That's the conceit of the film, so an actor of Neesons age is appropriate. Then you have someone like Tom Cruise who already looks younger than Craig, who is playing a younger character and increasingly part of an ensemble. Do we want to see Bond, Q, Moneypemny and Tanner running around in the feild as a team together? Because that's what mission impossible is.
    Frankly, I don't think people are so pro-Craig since his said he would slash his wrists, only Craigites who think he can do no wrong.

    The desperation is palpable.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.

    Diamonds_Are_Forever_924-7003.jpg
    005-diamonds-are-forever-theredlist.jpg

    There were days when age didn't matter and when we were praying for the return of a particular actor for many many times.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Well said. It's Bond, not Magic Mike.

    As fans would we really rather not have had DAF and OP just because Conners and Rog looked a bit past it? They're essential parts of the series. Even AVTAK is I'd argue worth having.

    If Craig can still bring the crowds in he should keep at it. I'd say he has two more in him - IF they do B26 as a relatively rapid follow up.

    Craig's replacement could be abysmal. We've seen dreadful casting decisions previously - you know his name.

    Martin Campbell wanted to cast Henry Cavill FFS in CR!

    There is a parallel universe where Bond films are still retarded Michael Bay-Esque dreck aimed at 8 year olds.

    Enjoy and appreciate Craig - clearly one of the best Bonds - while we have him and stop the whinging!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.

    Diamonds_Are_Forever_924-7003.jpg
    005-diamonds-are-forever-theredlist.jpg

    There were days when age didn't matter and when we were praying for the return of a particular actor for many many times.

    I am conflicted with that example as it is a very poor Connery performance in a not-very-good film and to me it seems like it should have mattered with that one.

    But on the other hand, we probably wouldn't have made it to 24 films without it.

    I don't think the same scenario applies to Dan.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Would you rather we didn't have DAF, for all its flaws?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I don't even think it's about DAF's quality. I think the point GG is trying to make is back then, many people wanted Connery back after OHMSS. Many people want Daniel back as well despite what people thought of Spectre.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I would rather had seen a trim Lazenby going out for revenge, than a passed his prime Connery being chummy with Blofeld. Connery is like Ali, in his day he might have been "The Greatest" but come DAF, it's like watching Ali c1980. As for Moore, it's a case of one (possibly two) film(s) too many. It might hurt her dearly, but Barbara is going to have to replace Craig at some point. Given how he has that that he has wanted out from the moment he has signed up, why not now give him what has wanted?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Isn't this whole 'what people thought of Spectre' line being overdone? The film was commercially successful (if not as much as EON would have hoped), and garnered very favourable reviews in many parts of the world. LOTS OF PEOPLE WENT TO SEE IT.

    Was it a classic? No. But was it an unmitigated disaster that's brought the series to its knees? Also no.

    I sincerely believe that if it weren't for Brofeld, there wouldn't be all this carping and criticism on here. It would be seen as the fairly solid middle ranking entry that it is. And I doubt the general movie going public care much about this any way - if they even remember it.

    So really the question is why on earth wouldn't EON want to bring Craig back for another? The counter argument is yet to be made in anything other than rather muddled and emotional rants about how awful SP supposedly was.
    I would rather had seen a trim Lazenby going out for revenge, than a passed his prime Connery being chummy with Blofeld. Connery is like Ali, in his day he might have been "The Greatest" but come DAF, it's like watching Ali c1980. As for Moore, it's a case of one (possibly two) film(s) too many. It might hurt her dearly, but Barbara is going to have to replace Craig at some point. Given how he has that that he has wanted out from the moment he has signed up, why not now give him what has wanted?

    I don't think DC has wanted out since he signed up. He's grown increasingly fond of 'being Bond' and at ease with the role from what I can tell.

    Yes a proper Lazenby follow up to OHMSS would have been amazing. I'd have loved to have seen it. But as @Gustav_Graves said, would the series still be going now if Laz had continued in the role? OHMSS was widely regarded as an embarrassing turkey until relatively recently. Connery coming back probably saved Bond and set things up for Roger nicely. Frankly, DAF feels very similar to Roger's first two in tone. Plus, despite probably being Connery's worst entry, DAF is still full of enjoyable moments.

    If any one can point to an obvious replacement for Craig right now then go ahead. Fassbender is the only one I'm convinced by, but does he even want it? It's all moot and pointless any way. EON want Craig back. The cinema going public are more than happy for Craig to come back. And there is every indication DC wants to come back as well. So there it is. All pretty straightforward really.
  • Posts: 11,119
    To be very honest, Connery to me looked better in DAF than in YOLT. In YOLT he looked tired, it was as if his imporvisational skills as an actor were close to zero. To me it seemed as if he studied the obligatory lines by heart, but gave no real fun or soul in them.

    With DAF that was very different to me. The film still is very flawed, but as an actor Connery looked like he really had fun again. There was no crazy Japanese press 'killing' him. He had great on-set Chemistry with Jill St. John, whereas those Japanse actresses could barely speak a word English off set.

  • Posts: 11,425
    You're probably right. And yes Connery does seem to be enjoying himself in DAF. Probably one of the reasons it still 'works'.

    I love YOLT though. Bored or not, it's one of my favourites.
  • @Getafix I loved SP and I've made a few detailed posts on why I don't want Craig to do another. There's two reasons. First of all he's been Bond for ages and change is always good, it keeps things fresh. Second, I think SP was written as a finale in case Craig didn't want to return, and because of that it works well as an ending to the Craig era and I find it hard to imagine a follow up that wouldn't feel boring and played out at best (Madeline dies, revenge film), or tacked on and undermining SP at worst (they sweep it under the carpet and do a Bond on a mission film).
  • Posts: 11,425
    @Getafix I loved SP and I've made a few detailed posts on why I don't want Craig to do another. There's two reasons. First of all he's been Bond for ages and change is always good, it keeps things fresh. Second, I think SP was written as a finale in case Craig didn't want to return, and because of that it works well as an ending to the Craig era and I find it hard to imagine a follow up that wouldn't feel boring and played out at best (Madeline dies, revenge film), or tacked on and undermining SP at worst (they sweep it under the carpet and do a Bond on a mission film).

    Both those options would be in the tradition of Bond, particularly the latter.

    Until I get the sense that EON have the energy and ideas to do a proper re-imagining then I'd prefer to stick with Craig. The fact P+W are back doesn't fill me with much confidence that EON are going to do anything very different.

    Ditching Craig would be pointless - even highly risky - in such circumstances.
Sign In or Register to comment.