Producer says Daniel Craig's tenure may end when it peaks

1356716

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601

    Murdock wrote:
    One thing has me wondering, Who is going to be the successors of EoN Productions when Babs and MGW are no longer able to run things?

    Michael has a son, who is in the business. I think, he should take over from Michael soon. The man is not even 70 but looks very fragile and not too well. He could remain as adviser surely. Babs still has it for years to come IMO..

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Germanlady wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    One thing has me wondering, Who is going to be the successors of EoN Productions when Babs and MGW are no longer able to run things?

    Michael has a son, who is in the business. I think, he should take over from Michael soon. The man is not even 70 but looks very fragile and not too well. He could remain as adviser surely. Babs still has it for years to come IMO..

    Ah I didn't know MGW had a son. Thanks @Germanlady. :)
  • Posts: 5,767
    Elipsis wrote:
    And leaving at the peak is allways a good advice btw.
    I´m not so sure, to be honest. If the level after the peak is still high, then why give over to someone who would bring a lower level? Moore had his peak probably around the time of TSHLM, yet I wouldn´t want to miss any of his later Bond films. It was mentioned that Moore was too old in AVTAK. But then he was too old already in FYEO. And after DAD they could have made a down-to-earth gritty Bond film with Brosnan, much like Moore did FYEO after TSHLM and MR.
    By trying only to expand financially with each new film it´s going to be harder and harder to keep certain standarts. They should consciously have a rotation of building up towards bombast, and deflating the whole thing. Also in a financial way, making cheaper Bond films every now and then. That´s called breathing, the basis of all life.
    VeryBond wrote:
    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.
    The bet is on! I´ll bet anything that Craig can easily do a classic, suave Bond from start to end.
    And I totally agree that the audience in the long term doesn´t want EmoBond, but a feel-good film.
    I´m not sure about SF from what I learn from the trailer, but basically the scowling-Bond-stuff should be a thing of the past. The logical direction after QOS would be classic Bond saving the world and getting the girl.

  • Posts: 284
    well you fun lovers can watch Austin Powers and leave Bond to lovers of kick ass entertainment.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    Murdock wrote:
    One thing has me wondering, Who is going to be the successors of EoN Productions when Babs and MGW are no longer able to run things?

    I want to apply.
  • Posts: 165
    craigrules wrote:
    well you fun lovers can watch Austin Powers and leave Bond to lovers of kick ass entertainment.

    Well said. A bit rude, but well said. :-)
  • Posts: 12,526
    Have to say i am very surprised and concerned about this? If they think DC had overstepped the mark? They should deal with it behind closed doors? Depending how feelings are? I hope Skyfall is not DC's last film?

    Will he want to do another if there has been a bust up? Not what i want to read or hear when we are supposed to be building up to a big celebration!
  • boldfinger wrote:
    The logical direction after QOS would be classic Bond saving the world and getting the girl.

    This is what I want for SF, a happy ending with Bond stopping the villian, getting the girl, etc.
    craigrules wrote:
    well you fun lovers can watch Austin Powers and leave Bond to lovers of kick ass entertainment.

    So, because people want something a bit more light hearted after QOS it's automatically "pffft, go watch Austin Powers or DAD"

    I'm sick and tired of saying this. THERE CAN BE A MIDDLE GROUND! Just watch Dalton, Connery, Lazenby, sometimes Moore and Brosnan, and even in parts of CR and QOS (not as much though). There can be some good humour/one liners without going overboard.
  • Some folks just don't believe Craig can do a classic Bond it appears.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Some folks just don't believe Craig can do a classic Bond it appears.

    I think he probably can, some scenes in CR were really classic Bond. But I'm not going to know for sure unitl I see SF.

    That's why I'm looking forward to SF, moment of truth for me. Craigs played the rookie Bond well but now it's time to see if he can play classic Bond.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Don't understand MGW coming out with this? Especially after praising him up like Connery? Hope DC punches him in the Skyfall cameo? ;) :))
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RogueAgent wrote:
    Don't understand MGW coming out with this? Especially after praising him up like Connery? Hope DC punches him in the Skyfall cameo? ;) :))

    Consider him slimed!
  • Posts: 306
    craigrules wrote:
    well you fun lovers can watch Austin Powers and leave Bond to lovers of kick ass entertainment.

    Yeah, cuz the two are such mutually exclusive things.
    8-|

    And the franchise wasn't "kick-ass" for four decades before DC.

    Let's keep it intelligent.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    [[d saving the world and getting the girl.

    This argument will never end. Bond needs to adapt to the times to survive.
  • Posts: 1,492
    More then a little concerned about this.

    I have always liked MGW. I half penned my favourite Bond FYEO and always had a penchance for the thriller Bonds. I always thought he was the one who always gave us the different direction given by Dalton and Craig. Bond grew up during his tenure.

    But "change for change sake" is a very dubious reason. We had a CEO who boasted about "shaking things up" and "stopping people getting complacent" what actually happened was that his "changes" alienated every one. If there are changes, if there are sackings then there has to be a solid reason behind them not "we will do it because we are at the top of our game"

    And Bond is at the top of his game. His exposure at the Olympic ceremony was one of the highlights. No Bond, except maybe Connery has reached that heights. I suspect Dan is now commanding a scary amount of money. Pierce demanded 20 million dollars for his last film which is a hell of a lot of the budget.

    I am hoping it is one of the scare tactics the Broccolis use when negotiating with their leading man (everyone knows about Cubbys games with Roger) and its a reminder to Dans people he isnt indespensible.

    Because the thought of losing him after 3/4 films is unbearable.
  • Posts: 1,492
    VeryBond wrote:
    And the franchise wasn't "kick-ass" for four decades before DC.

    .

    Occasionally. It was also flabby, cringy and just plain sily before DC as well

  • tqb wrote:
    [[d saving the world and getting the girl.

    This argument will never end. Bond needs to adapt to the times to survive.

    I agree. That was something about QOS that was awesome, he didn't get the girl in the end. You have to throw a little twist in here and there or it becomes stale formulaic cliche like parts of the Moore and Brosnan eras became.

  • Posts: 12,526
    actonsteve wrote:
    More then a little concerned about this.

    I have always liked MGW. I half penned my favourite Bond FYEO and always had a penchance for the thriller Bonds. I always thought he was the one who always gave us the different direction given by Dalton and Craig. Bond grew up during his tenure.

    But "change for change sake" is a very dubious reason. We had a CEO who boasted about "shaking things up" and "stopping people getting complacent" what actually happened was that his "changes" alienated every one. If there are changes, if there are sackings then there has to be a solid reason behind them not "we will do it because we are at the top of our game"

    And Bond is at the top of his game. His exposure at the Olympic ceremony was one of the highlights. No Bond, except maybe Connery has reached that heights. I suspect Dan is now commanding a scary amount of money. Pierce demanded 20 million dollars for his last film which is a hell of a lot of the budget.

    I am hoping it is one of the scare tactics the Broccolis use when negotiating with their leading man (everyone knows about Cubbys games with Roger) and its a reminder to Dans people he isnt indespensible.

    Because the thought of losing him after 3/4 films is unbearable.

    Completely agree with you here. Age and ability to perform the role should be the main thing on whether an actor can continue with the role? I am atleast hoping for 5 movies from Dan the man! [-O<
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    tqb wrote:
    [[d saving the world and getting the girl.

    This argument will never end. Bond needs to adapt to the times to survive.

    So what? That doesn't mean he can't have a happy ending. Ok, maybe he doesn't save the world, depends on Silva's plan, but how about this: He stops the villian and gets the girl? Or is a happy ending not modern enough for you?
    tqb wrote:
    [[d saving the world and getting the girl.

    This argument will never end. Bond needs to adapt to the times to survive.

    I agree. That was something about QOS that was awesome, he didn't get the girl in the end. You have to throw a little twist in here and there or it becomes stale formulaic cliche like parts of the Moore and Brosnan eras became.

    Daltons films ended with him stopping the villians evil plan and getting the girl and his films weren't cliches.

    He hasn't gotten the girl at the end since DAD, it'd be fresher now to actually have him getting the girl.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    I think they need to try new things as much as possible ^. But its a matter of opinion- and ours don't matter since we're not making the movies.

    actonsteve wrote:
    And Bond is at the top of his game. His exposure at the Olympic ceremony was one of the highlights. No Bond, except maybe Connery has reached that heights. I suspect Dan is now commanding a scary amount of money. Pierce demanded

    Maybe he's demanding a lot of money- which would be funny- Craig needs Bond more than Bond needs him. His other movies haven't been doing as well. Dragon Tattoo was his best since CR
  • Posts: 306
    actonsteve wrote:
    VeryBond wrote:
    And the franchise wasn't "kick-ass" for four decades before DC.

    .

    Occasionally. It was also flabby, cringy and just plain sily before DC as well

    And DC's thug persona robbed it of wit, charm, sophistication, style and just plain enjoyment.

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited August 2012 Posts: 4,520
    Gus82 wrote:
    I wouldn't get too excited about this. I thought the comments about keeping going with Daniel Craig indefinitely was even more bizarre than this. He's a great actor and a superb Bond, but each Bond actors film will follow a natural arc and then the franchise needs a new actor to shake things up a bit.

    Personally I suspect there is room for a couple more Craig films. It would be neat for another double parter to bookend his time as Bond and finish off Quantum. So..

    Bond 24: Finds out more about Quantum, beats the bad guys and discovers the new ultimate villain...

    Bond 25: Chases down the head of Quantum and uncovers an epic evil plot of international proportions.

    I think by the producers planning ahead and acknowledging that one of these films will be Craig's last, would allow them to really push the boat out and do something unbeatable for the last one in his series of films.

    Atleast 2 movies are needed. If not then atleast things should finsihed in Skyfall and Bond 24 for a good start for Bond 25 with Bond 7.

    SaintMark wrote:
    It could mean that the negotiations for DC's 4th 007 have begun!!

    Would SF a comercial disaster the price would come down, but nobody is expecting the movie to fail.

    Do you mean negotiation with other people besides DC and Olga for Bond 24. Because negotiations about or he wil do Bond 24 not be case, mabey the money. I know you are not a fan of QOS (and mabey DC) but iam not a big fan of CR but stil whant things be made better/things who started get a good end. The return of Olga is only one thing, also very very negatief things i expect should no closed now there start with it. Don't give up so fast, t think that is something the producers, media and some fans should have learn from DAD.
    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!

    Don't think so, DC is a actor who don't mind. If Wilson said you can go he go. Also CR/QOS deliever a lot of money and skyfall possible be too.
  • Posts: 306
    tqb wrote:
    [[d saving the world and getting the girl.

    This argument will never end. Bond needs to adapt to the times to survive.

    I agree. That was something about QOS that was awesome, he didn't get the girl in the end. You have to throw a little twist in here and there or it becomes stale formulaic cliche like parts of the Moore and Brosnan eras became.

    It's not a "twist" anymore when it happens three films in a row.

    SF ends with a moody Bond alone on a rooftop contemplating death and his role in life.

    Wow! That will get people walking out excited!

  • Posts: 12,526
    tqb wrote:
    I think they need to try new things as much as possible ^. But its a matter of opinion- and ours don't matter since we're not making the movies.

    actonsteve wrote:
    And Bond is at the top of his game. His exposure at the Olympic ceremony was one of the highlights. No Bond, except maybe Connery has reached that heights. I suspect Dan is now commanding a scary amount of money. Pierce demanded

    Maybe he's demanding a lot of money- which would be funny- Craig needs Bond more than Bond needs him. His other movies haven't been doing as well. Dragon Tattoo was his best since CR

    Put it this way my friends? Another dimension to this is that Mendes did Bond because of Daniel Craig's take on the role. So no Craig? No Mendes! Skyfall will be a box office success. The producers want Mendes to do more as we saw at the press conference. So i would say both sides need to cool and calm down, if there has been tention?

    It was bad enough waiting 4 years for this movie! Please do not shoot yourselves in the foot and rob all of us of our hero for another 4 or 5 years! X_X
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,494
    @ TLR- Dalton's films were not cliched. They went in a completely direction in terms of returning the character to reality. Short of the lack of known Bondian cliches, that's exactly what has happened in the Craig era. TLD gave us a story that made you guess what was going on, and LTK took that one step further into uncharted territory. Bond was to be feared again.
    VeryBond wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    VeryBond wrote:
    And the franchise wasn't "kick-ass" for four decades before DC.

    .

    Occasionally. It was also flabby, cringy and just plain sily before DC as well

    And DC's thug persona robbed it of wit, charm, sophistication, style and just plain enjoyment.

    Obviously you've paid little attention to examples of this in the prior two films, or simply didn't see enough of it for your liking. Have we already decided Skyfall won't provide that, or that Craig is incapable of it?

    And how do you know he won't walk off with Eve in the end? You're an old timer, you should know better than making statements like that without seeing the film first. I think you just want to hate the guy.

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    VeryBond wrote:
    tqb wrote:
    [[d saving the world and getting the girl.

    This argument will never end. Bond needs to adapt to the times to survive.

    I agree. That was something about QOS that was awesome, he didn't get the girl in the end. You have to throw a little twist in here and there or it becomes stale formulaic cliche like parts of the Moore and Brosnan eras became.

    It's not a "twist" anymore when it happens three films in a row.

    Exactly! It was original in CR, fair enough for QOS since there was no sexual chemistry with him n Camille anyway, but you can't say that it's fresh anymore. If anything it'd actually more fresher and more different if they DID have the happy ending with the girl at the end again.
    @ TLR- Dalton's films were not cliched. They went in a completely direction in terms of returning the character to reality. Short of the lack of known Bondian cliches, that's exactly what has happened in the Craig era. TLD gave us a story that made you guess what was going on, and LTK took that one step further into uncharted territory. Bond was to be feared again.

    I think you read my post wrong, I said Daltons films weren't cliches but still had happy endings with him getting the girl, which proved to the guy I was replying to that Bond doesn't need to not have a happy ending to stay fresh and adapt.
  • Posts: 306


    Obviously you've paid little attention to examples of this in the prior two films, or simply didn't see enough of it for your liking. Have we already decided Skyfall won't provide that, or that Craig is incapable of it?

    And how do you know he won't walk off with Eve in the end? You're an old timer, you should know better than making statements like that without seeing the film first. I think you just want to hate the guy.


    I am coming to SF as hopeful as any Bond fan...but not blind to the two dozen bad omens I have seen in the trailers so far, and script, storyboards, etc. The dour tone, the personal plot, the lack of action, the big twist, the downbeat ending (knowing what we know, do you really believe this has an upbeat exhilarating ending of any kind?), and most of all, the inability of Craig to move his face or alter his line readings. That's just my take on what I've seen. It's very much the same thing we got in the last two Craigs. If I'm totally off, I'll be happy to say so.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,494
    @ TLR- There was a strong reason for CR, it's the way (not to the letter though which in this case was better than a dull suicide from pills) Fleming wrote it. QOS was the twist because the movie led the viewer to believe that Bond would walk off with Camille until he didn't. They played the chemistry between them when they met and led you to believe he could have her, but like him she became wrapped up getting her own QOS. He had Fields, it's not like he didn't have a girl in the movie. That much is understandable for those paying attention and not griping because their formula is missing. The definition of cliche- same old, same old. By AVTAK and DAD I was hopelessly bored with the scripts and how the character was being played. The last thing I wanted was a different actor to play it the exact same way.

    Bond had a happy ending for QOS. He got his QOS and was ready to move on to being a professional in the manner that the job demanded.

  • Posts: 1,492
    [q
    Exactly! It was original in CR, fair enough for QOS since there was no sexual chemistry with him n Camille anyway, but you can't say that it's fresh anymore. If anything it'd actually more fresher and more different if they DID have the happy ending with the girl at the end again.
    @ TLR- Dalton's films were not cliched. They went in a completely direction in terms of returning the character to reality. Short of the lack of known Bondian cliches, that's exactly what has happened in the Craig era. TLD gave us a story that made you guess what was going on, and LTK took that one step further into uncharted territory. Bond was to be feared again.

    I think you read my post wrong, I said Daltons films weren't cliches but still had happy endings with him getting the girl, which proved to the guy I was replying to that Bond doesn't need to not have a happy ending to stay fresh and adapt.

    The "Bond gets the girl" near a body of water became an abused cliche. In the Brosnan era they were misjudged and came across as trite and ridiculous. Stuck in at the end because it was expected by the unimaginative. They must have their boxes to tick.

    One of the most loved and acclaimed films of the lot has a very downbeat ending. His bride is killed in front of him. Do you think it would have been improved if it had finished with Laz making smart oneliners when his bride had been killed. Some stories need downbeat endings.

    And one of the best final scenes ever is CR with Craig maiming Mr White and then stalking up to say that line...

    Would you have preferred him on a pedalo on Lake Como surrounded by bikinied beauties giggling away?

    There is a reason for the downbeat endings. They work within the context of the film and Dan is very good at them.

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,494
    VeryBond wrote:


    Obviously you've paid little attention to examples of this in the prior two films, or simply didn't see enough of it for your liking. Have we already decided Skyfall won't provide that, or that Craig is incapable of it?

    And how do you know he won't walk off with Eve in the end? You're an old timer, you should know better than making statements like that without seeing the film first. I think you just want to hate the guy.


    I am coming to SF as hopeful as any Bond fan...but not blind to the two dozen bad omens I have seen in the trailers so far, and script, storyboards, etc. The dour tone, the personal plot, the lack of action, the big twist, the downbeat ending (knowing what we know, do you really believe this has an upbeat exhilarating ending of any kind?), and most of all, the inability of Craig to move his face or alter his line readings. That's just my take on what I've seen. It's very much the same thing we got in the last two Craigs. If I'm totally off, I'll be happy to say so.

    Well, if you are looking for Moore/Brosnan feelgood cliches, let's wait and see the film. Looked to me like he was having a good time drinking, wenching, "enjoying death" as he says. Caught him smiling and winking a few times in those dreaded trailers ;)

    Why can't he be serious while having his cliches? He and these new girls may well have a happy, flirtatious time with each other. The dialogue doesn't say that won't be happening. And any "fun mission" like MR and DAD should be avoided at any and all costs.

Sign In or Register to comment.