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
Daniel Craig in 2013
I'm a straight guy but I wouldn't call him gorgeous. Seems a preposterous statement.
He's not exactly like James Dean, is he?
🤭
And Craig was the only Bond that said in public "I'll only come back for the money."
I'm glad Broccoli is gone and so too ungrateful Craig. Maybe Amazon can cast an actor that actually appreciates the role. And good riddance to a producer (Broccoli) gaslighting the world that Craig is the greatest Bond. Oh I forgot, the greatest Bond just stood there and missiles killed him. Very heroic, that. 🤭 There was my thinking James Bond actually saved the day. Nope. Apparently the greatest Bond just dies so Eon can cash in a billion dollars and quit.
This woman said so much bs. Just my opinion.
Not true. If Brosnan did a fifth he would have already been 51 by 2004, which is the same age Craig was in 2019 when NTTD went into production. Besides, CR demanded a better actor and Craig delivered what Brosnan would have struggled to bring to the table.
Lmao, are you kidding me? The guy had four films under his belt. He completed his contract, Eon was under no obligation to do another film. And the wonderful thing was that the world moved on without his Bond. Craig Bond was quickly embraced and went onto greater success than Brosnan did, and the only grumps still stewing over that are folks like that guy running the GoldenEye Dossier Twitter account.
If any Bond was underserved it was absolutely Timothy Dalton, who only got half of what Brosnan did.
But yes, I deeply regret that TLD and LTK is all we got from Tim. His Bond showed so much potential, and Dalton seemed very committed. What Craig would popularize, Dalton had already brought two decades before, i.e. that slightly darker side of Bond.
But Barbara never fawned over Pierce Brosnan the same way she does with Craig. Some of you are not great at reading between the lines.
Clearly Barbara had a better sense when it came to picking Craig over Brosnan.
To be fair so many beautiful women fawn over Pierce especially these days. He’s actually considered the “desired” of all the Bonds actors according to this article;
https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/01/sexiest-james-bond-revealed-popular-daniel-craig-21908879/amp/
Hey and at least his Bond made it alive to the end of his tenure!
I'd have liked to have seen him with a different director, maybe. I found him much more charismatic and 'bigger' somehow in stuff like Rocketeer or Hot Fuzz, I don't know if that was direction or what but I think his Bond could used it. As you say, Craig popularised the grittier angle where Dalton couldn't, and I think that's because he added in the swagger of Bond which audiences react to, and Dalton missed that out.
That scene in CR where he crashes the Germans' Range Rover in the car park and casually tosses their keys over his shoulder? He is cool AF in that bit, in full swagger mode, completely Bond - and Dalton never really gets any of that. I even find it hard to imagine him in that scene, all I can see is him kind of nervously dashing the keys to the ground and striding purposefully in, no fun. Brosnan would get it too.
I don't know if he got screwed. Bond is a movie star entertainment role and there are parts to it you need to hit, it's not really about perfectly embodying the book character when you're fifteen films in (and it's arguable as to whether he did). He got two films to crack it which is more than all other actors in the world apart from four got, and audiences didn't gel with him.
Women place more value on personality and charisma than looks. Craig had a ton of charisma in CR, it's the reason why he became a sex symbol despite being shorter and less classically-handsome than the other Bonds.
yes he never get the fair well he or the fans would have liked but EON didn't owe Brosnan anything after DAD. He fufilled his 4 film contract.
Oh if Brosnan did a 5th movie it wouldn't have been CR. Probably be another DAD type movie.
Craig also fulfilled his contract for four with Spectre, but there was an option for a fifth available to both actors.
Brosnan confirmed his acceptance of a fifth as soon as DAD was released, and still they dropped him and swept his tenure under the rug without care. Conversely, they waited what, 2+ years hoping Craig would agree to return for his grand finale.
There was a markedly different level of respect given to these actors, and it's clear Barbara had a preference given she didn't choose Brosnan in the first place. I happen to love Casino Royale and think Craig was an excellent Bond, but how they treated Brosnan will always leave a sour taste in my mouth.
He got paid a lot of money, he's okay. They don't have to make these films with the same actor until he drops, they get to choose. It's no slight on Brosnan that they wanted to go a different way with it, nor does the precise number of films signify anything.
I doubt it. Amazon purchased MGM in May 2021. NTTD was in the can for more than a year before then.
She couldn't have known what was going to happen with MGM.
Oh I totally agree Barbara gave Craig way more respect, love, and admiration than Brosnan. No doubt about that. Craig was her Bond that she picked while Pierce was Cubby's choice. And yes there might have been a verbal agreement that Pierce would do a 5th film but verbal agreements don't mean shit. So they didn't owe him anything. Yes it's hypocrisy that they waited for Craig to give him a final but not Brosnan.
and Craigs orginal contact was only for 3 films. SP and NTTD were separate contracts.
And they had just gotten the rights to the first Bond novel, so it made sense to start over with a new actor. And 9/11 happened and the movie spy world looked less frivolous--it's right in the text of DAD.
And if Brosnan were truly MGM's and not Eon's guy (Dalton), it makes sense that Eon would feel more loyalty to the Bond they picked, Craig. Making these films are a grind and who wouldn't want a good business partner in the Bond actor?
Just because she's a woman doesn't mean that she wanted to get into Craig's pants.
She's a professional.
I completely agree with you. Dalton's Bond was the template for Craig; Dalton was ahead of his time, really. You can see Barbara and Michael's affection for him, and his statement after the sale was lovely. He seems like the kindest Bond actor.
Brosnan kind of got screwed on the way in (although he signed the Remington Steele contract, so that's on him) and on the way out, but he did raise his acting profile and became a millionaire many times over in the process.
Why is that hypocrisy? It’s two different situations. Hiring one actor for a longer period isn’t hypocrisy, it’s just incident.
Let’s not forget that they had Brosnan star in four huge movies for them, making him a way bigger star than he was, and repaying him for the earlier time he won the role and lost it: and he got to do double the number of films his replacement did. And how did he repay them the first time he lost the role? By running off and trying to start a rival Bond series with Kevin McClory. It’s kind of amazing Cubby forgave him for trying to steal his living like that, but that’s business, and so he can hardly complain that his time as Bond ended in a businesslike manner too.
Interesting. That would make SP Craig's YOLT (I totally enjoy both of those films) & NTTD Craig's DAF (DAF was way more fun.....).
I suppose so. I’d say Connery and Craig both suffer for the same reasons in each respective film. You can clearly tell that the enthusiasm once present in their earlier films has sort of waned away. At least Craig had “meatier” material to work with so he comes across slightly better imo.
To be frank, one need only look at “I’d rather slit my wrists” to get a sense of how exhausted Craig was with Bond. With that in mind, I do have to wonder just why Barbara would want to continue with Craig; there was an excellent quote from Dana Broccoli on the DVD documentary for Diamonds Are Forever where she was quoted as saying that both Cubby and Harry felt they shouldn’t beg a reluctant actor to act when it came to bringing Connery back into the fold. Why want to work with somebody who isn’t eager to continue the role? Say what you will about Brosnan approaching McClory, but that shows a determination to play the part no matter the costs - and that’s to be commended in my book.
Really? First time im hearing this
The Time Out article has been discussed on this site a lot. I don't think Craig meant it to come across the way it did; the odd thing is that Time Out and the interviewer buried that line. It was never publicized as a scoop. And this is likely because they knew he was just talking, joking around. They didn't think it was a quote of any significance. But then it blew up. What I have noticed in many of DC's interviews is that he can wear his heart on his sleeve; he is prone to saying what is on his mind in any given moment. In some interviews, as though wary of this trait in himself, he'll be guarded and come across like an a-hole.
The best interview? Rolling Stone in 2012. That's the one I would point to that really gets to the heart of who he is.
I think it is safe to say that nobody threw themselves into the role, physically, like Craig did. And he busted himself up quite a bit in the process. He has admitted that the role is a blessing and a curse at the same time. He's not the first to say it. So at times, he seemed tired of it, and at other times he was delighted and showed real energy with it. That's just being human.
I’m sure Craig didn’t mean for the comment to come across the way that it did - but nonetheless it’s quite an odd choice of words when you consider the amount of fame and success the role brought him. I don’t know if maybe it was a subconscious slip up as a result of some internal thoughts on the matter but regardless it’s out there and will be remaining out there; it’s not really a good look in the eyes of someone who isn’t quite in tune with Craig’s personality. Compare that to Brosnan who has done nothing but confess his love and enjoyment of his time playing the role, even if he ends up being harsh on himself.
Needless to say I don’t disagree with the idea that Brosnan was unceremoniously kicked to the curb; in fact I’d say that’s quite an accurate statement. Its a conversation that I’ve had on this website before and I’ve articulated enough, but when it boils down to it Brosnan’s salary demands for Bond 21 were simply too high and they decided not to renew his contract. Now do with this info what you will but when looking at Craig’s demands to come back for NTTD, those were greater than what Brosnan was asking for and EON had no problem giving in. I already know people are going to go saying “well Craig’s contribution’s were greater than Brosnan’s” completely ignoring that Craig’s contributions only happened because he was the only Bond that EON allowed a creative say on the films he was in (and if we’re being honest some of the films that Craig had the most creative involvement in are also the films that are amongst the most critically panned in the series.) I think both Brosnan and Craig were in very similar situations after their fourth films, but while Pierce may have had a better leg to stand on than Craig given DAD’s box office - the producers decided to give Craig his 5th film off an entry deemed to be “less than ideal.” I can see why people think that’s favoritism; it is and EON hasn’t done anything to show people otherwise. In many ways they have only themselves to blame for this “optics” problem.
Craig is not a traditionally good looking guy, yes that’s subjective, but he has immense magnetism.
Because Daniel Craig made them a lot of money and restored their standing in the public consciousness in a way that Bond hadn't been since the 60s. It's not a complicated question. Yes, the Brosnan films also made money ("Tomorrow Never Dies" is a very impressive box office run given what it went up against) but they didn't have the crossover and critical success in the same way.
It's also possible, and this is speculation on my part, that they learned from what happened with Brosnan and didn't want that to happen again with Craig. It's also possible that they knew from actually knowing Craig (something no one here does) that his comment did not represent his actual emotions.
Craig’s era was critically and financially successful yes but to imply that Craig’s era somehow restored some lost faith in EON that hadn’t been present since the 60’s is a massive reach. Craig suddenly didn’t make Bond “popular” or “cool”
again, and the notion that his era somehow did is naive. What people don’t like talking about is how Bond had been on a steady increase since Brosnan’s run and continued into Craig’s, which post Skyfall is when things started to take a dip at the box office. That implies that audiences started to lose interest in Craig’s Bond in a way that they hadn’t with Pierce. Think of it another way, Craig’s final years in the part were filled with rumors about who would potentially replace him; I don’t think people were as eager for Brosnan to leave the role - and the fact that so many people wanted him to do a 5th film and even still want him to come back as an “Old Man Bond” says something I think.
And like I said earlier, I’m sure Craig didn’t mean those words either, but not everyone is going to give him the benefit of the doubt like we would. It still gets used against him for his apparent “lack of enthusiasm” and it’s really no one’s fault but his own for choosing those words. Not like anything happened as a result anyhow.
TD did get screwed over by outside forces. However, he did have a good career outside of Bond. I think he's arguably the best Bond actor outside of Bond, along with SC. Above all, yes he did deserve a better (acting) director than John Glen. I read in one of the Bond resource books that Tanya Roberts said the same thing. Granted, I miss Tanya Roberts, but she wasn't the strongest actress, even with decent material, Bond or not.
PB did get screwed as well. How EON did it was terrible both personally and professionally. However, he did get a great video game to go out on, Everything or Nothing. That game is a better finale than DAD or NTTD. It saddens me that there is no novelization of it. It truly belongs on a shelf with other Bond novels. He always gave a great Bond performance, no matter the material. No other Bond actor can say that, even with great material.
As for DC, I can't really say anything else that hasn't already been said. As for some of his unreasonable and ungrateful comments, let's not forget that criticizing Bond (like all media) has been around since the beginning of its inception. How many times did Richard Maibaum criticize others? Notice that despite his ego, Cubby Broccoli kept employing him to write screenplays for Bond, all but three times. So egos and clashes are nothing new in Bond.
As for BB, it's better to go out on a high note as much as possible. In the words of Jason Alexander on the Seinfeld finale: there can (and often does) come to a point where you can't truly surprise your audience anymore. There's no denying that EON could make great action scenes, like Seinfeld with funny episodes. Both crews are great at the idea of action and comedy. Honestly, both series could pull off the other genre at times. So, BB and MGW aren't entirely out of line for selling. It's a shame that Gregg Wilson can't help with the transition more. I'm just worried about Purvis and Wade being apart of that possible writing room. There were two people that MGW and BB showed too much loyalty to over the years. Along with Judi Dench as M. She got repetitive with their writing. They basically wrote SF for her.
As for SC, Cubby and Harry, I have some theories. Arguably the reason that Connery wasn't made a partner, was because Bond became bigger than ANYONE could have imagined, in particular they themselves. So, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation. Arguably what EON and Amazon thoughts are going through now.
https://www.cbr.com/jane-seymour-comments-amazon-james-bond/
I'd be ok with Jane Seymour coming back. Even as an older Solitaire. She still looks great! There are still ways that Solitaire could be written, 1962-2002 time line or reboot style. I have a few ideas of my own with her.
Under EON, we all know script and director came first before the actor, but under Amazon who knows how they will play this. The actor could be seen as the crucial first step.