Personally, I don't view a desire for financial independence as 'greed' at all---particularly if it's money fairly agreed-upon, and lawfully earned, according to what the market will bear---but that's just me
Perhaps, but surely there is nothing more vulgar than openly angling for more money. :v
Personally I'll be happy with however many Bond films Craig decides to do: on the basis of Casino Royale I should think he considers the role and how to play and develop it deeply. He also happens to be rather good at it; the best, in my opinion. I would take this news with a heavy grain of salt, however if true I'd be very happy indeed.
If Craig is contracted to do five Bonds there will be no new Bond before 2014-15 at least.
That's a long time! Henry Cavill will be about 32 by then. Other potential candidates (if Cavill isn't too famous or something by then)we have probably never heared of yet.
Why on earth would you risk it? You've got a hugely successful movie with a celebrated star but you decide to wait until a few years later to secure him for more? That's a crazy risk. Snap him up immediately.
I'm not talking about risking it. I'm talking about waiting until Bond 22. If Bond 22 isn't overly successful, they haven't wedged themselves into a corner. If it is successful, then they can make a new deal.
Well they wouldn't wedge themselves into a corner- I'd be fairly sure that, as the people getting Craig to sign to them, they would find it rather easy to slip in a get-out for clause for them at any time. I doubt the contract is about job security for Craig, but to ensure they can get him when they want him!
So to leave it until two years after the event would seem a strange choice to me.
I don't think that wanting more money makes you greedy.
I didn't say that you did (you don't have to argue with everything I say, you know!); just that many others are saying that the only way that they could possibly have got him to sign up to more is with loads of money; and I'm not sure how they've reached that conclusion.
If Craig is contracted to do five Bonds there will be no new Bond before 2014-15 at least.
That's a long time! Henry Cavill will be about 32 by then. Other potential candidates (if Cavill isn't too famous or something by then)we have probably never heared of yet.
I dunno- having seen his performance in The Tudors I'm not convinced... but then they did say his Bond audition was good, so who knows?
Brosnan's Bond was very well received when GE came out...and they didn't offer him that kind of deal. Besides, is it really MGM/Sony's choice as to who plays Bond, or is it Eon's?
Besides, is it really MGM/Sony's choice as to who plays Bond, or is it Eon's?
Good point; I thought Sony effectively left Eon alone when making CR- perhaps this is just something they strongly suggested and Eon agreed with? Even the Spider-Man guys (Sony's most recent big franchise) were only pinned to a three film contract, weren't they?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
...many others are saying that the only way that they could possibly have got him to sign up to more is with loads of money; and I'm not sure how they've reached that conclusion.
Who said that? ?:)
I think I'm the only one in this thread who's talked about the money at any length, and all I said is that it would have to be persuasive---hence my flippant remark about the armoured car, and the pallet of cash, causing Craig to come round to their point of view---particularly in terms of the creative freedom it would allow Craig to do his own thing, film-wise...but I'm can't find where anyone (including myself) came to the conclusion that it was the "only way possible."
Daniel Craig is an actor; James Bond is a role that pays well. It's steady work, with long-term prospects---a fount from which many professional actors are not fortunate enough to drink. This isn't rocket science
My own conclusion about the inherently persuasive nature of an increased salary was arrived at rather easily, truth be known! I can't imagine that 5 million pounds for #22, and 8 million pounds for #23 (and the upwardly-inclined numbers implied for #24 and #25) wouldn't figure into Mr. Craig's decision-making process
(Which is quite a long way from "painting him as a greed-driven man," BTW Only the most purely altruistic among us would steadfastly refuse a pay raise, no matter how much we love our job...)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Personally, I don't view a desire for financial independence as 'greed' at all---particularly if it's money fairly agreed-upon, and lawfully earned, according to what the market will bear---but that's just me
Perhaps, but surely there is nothing more vulgar than openly angling for more money. :v
Fortunately, there's no evidence of that having gone on in this particular instance
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't have a problem at all with the idea that Craig is signing on for more Bond films solely, mostly or partly for more money or that he is angling for more money. If Craig tells Eon that he will only play Bond after his contract finishes for X amount of money, it is up to Eon to determine whether to pay him that. No actor is as big as Bond, so Eon can not argue that they had no choice in paying Craig what he wanted. They may feel that he is worth it, so regardless the decision is Eon's to make, and if Craig is able to get more money, then I say good luck to him.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
They may feel that he is worth it, so regardless the decision is Eon's to make, and if Craig is able to get more money, then I say good luck to him.
I agree completely {[] He serves at the pleasure of Eon, and when someone wants to make a change---whether that someone is Broccoli/Wilson, or the actor of the moment---that change will happen; just ask Brozzer
I just haven't heard anything about Craig actually angling for more money---certainly not from the one sentence in the Hollywood reporter story, or the added conjecture by MI6...for now, that should probably be filed with 'lost his teeth' and 'can't drive a stick' )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree completely {[] He serves at the pleasure of Eon, and when someone wants to make a change---whether that someone is Broccoli/Wilson, or the actor of the moment---that change will happen; just ask Brozzer
I just haven't heard anything about Craig actually angling for more money---certainly not from the one sentence in the Hollywood reporter story, or the added conjecture by MI6...for now, that should probably be filed with 'lost his teeth' and 'can't drive a stick' )
Yeh, I actually got that from Lazenby880. The thing is I don't really care how important money is to Craig, just as I have never cared about his or any other Bond's driving abilities. ) (The 'lost his teeth' story doesn't need mentioning.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Hardly at all, anymore, really! We merely discuss, occasionally debate, and then ultimately agree to disagree :v
Detente, indeed -{ If only it were always that easy with everyone...!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I don't think it's out of the question to make assumptions about money, since doing so makes up much of our fun discussions. The issue of money certainly plays into each Bonds' career, differing only in balance, just as other drives come into play such as prestige and of course "art." Then there are concerns for commercialism, typecasting and selling out.
For example, I think money tipped over more for Moore and less with "arty" Dalton. I find Craig curious however, because before Bond, not only was he artistically actualized to a level many actors would kill for, but he had also just begun to taste financial success, arguably a combination that drew Connery from the role the 1st time around.
Just as I thought it a paradox for Dalton to accept the role, the thought of 5 films for Craig really surprised me and this speaks for how highly I think he regards his craft. Extending these assumptions further, Craig must be very optimistic to artistically and commercially rebound from the role...or maybe he realistically doesn't see himself significantly advancing like how Connery eventually did (and how Brosnan hopes to do) Or, it could just plainly be that he realizes that he has "arrived" and it's time to kick back and enjoy the rest of the ride.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
...many others are saying that the only way that they could possibly have got him to sign up to more is with loads of money; and I'm not sure how they've reached that conclusion.
Who said that? ?:)
I think I'm the only one in this thread who's talked about the money at any length, and all I said is that it would have to be persuasive---hence my flippant remark about the armoured car, and the pallet of cash, causing Craig to come round to their point of view---particularly in terms of the creative freedom it would allow Craig to do his own thing, film-wise...but I'm can't find where anyone (including myself) came to the conclusion that it was the "only way possible."
You said you'd 'be surprised if they could get him to commit to four more' unless they gave him loads of cash: I'm hardly extrapolating from what you said- just paraphrasing!
I'm sure money does play a part- I somehow don't think he's playing this role out of the kindness of his heart(!), but to infer that money would be the only thing which would attract him (i.e. to say that you'd be surprised if they get him not using the attraction of a truckload of cash) is to play him a disservice, I think.
Just as I thought it a paradox for Dalton to accept the role, the thought of 5 films for Craig really surprised me and this speaks for how highly I think he regards his craft.
I know what you mean, but somehow I think we all give credit to Dalton for being more of a 'serious' actor than he actually is; perhaps he started with the classics and a bit of Shakespeare or whatever, but would a real luvvie have done Charlie's Angels and Flash Gordon?
Craig's taken a bit more of an intelligent career path and done some really interesting stuff, but he's also made no bones about the fact that he wants to win an Oscar: he wants to do interesting stuff but also embraces the idea of being a movie star; not just actor, I think.
I need to be clear that I was not for a moment suggesting that Daniel Craig is openly angling for more money, although I can see why it might have looked like that. My point about openly angling for more money was in relation to Loeff's argument about the desire for financial independence vis-à-vis greed: (openly) focusing too much on money in the pursuit of happiness is somewhat vulgar, regardless of what the 'market will bear'. Money may be important but is not everything, and to discuss it too much is a touch crass. My original comment was an inatriculate attempt at facetiousness, and apologies for any misunderstanding. ;%
Daniel Craig does not strike me as someone who would do something just for the money but I really don't know, although obviously he wants to be successful. It doesn't matter, of course, as this has absolutely no effect on his (superlative) portrayal of the Bond character.
Funny, I read this just the opposite: MGM is effing desperate, and after CR's humongous take threw whatever they needed to at Craig to ensure four more Bond hits. The studio needs Craig far more than Craig needs Bond, IMHO. That he took whatever massive deal just means he's not stupid.
Why does the studio need Craig? The last five Bond movies have all made truck loads of money, do we really know that CR would not have been a hit if some other actor had played the Bond role. Other than CR show me a movie that Craig made that was a hit. To argue Craig is important to the box office is a bit of a stretch IMO. His name sure didn't help The Invasion.
Good point, BN. Sloan was mentioning that franchises were important for the studio to stay afloat. Bond will remain a tentpole for MGM/Sony regardless of who's playing Bond. Even if Craig sticks with the three film deal, the studio is going to be looking to Bond (whoever he is) to make them money.
Well, hopefully it is true. For some reason - probably the stereotyping side of being Bond - I have always thought that we had DC for a maximum 3 films. I thought that he would walk away at the peak of his powers, with nothing more to prove. I think this new contract - if such a things exists - will ensure that he will make at least 4 films, with the fifth movie being optional on both his part and Eons/the studios.
If he bowed out on his fourth movie, then potentially we would see a similar situation to Brosnan in DAD - last/fourth movie in a celebration year. This is based on the assumption that Bond 24 would be released in 2012.
Good news about the contract anyway.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
...many others are saying that the only way that they could possibly have got him to sign up to more is with loads of money; and I'm not sure how they've reached that conclusion.
Who said that? ?:)
I think I'm the only one in this thread who's talked about the money at any length, and all I said is that it would have to be persuasive---hence my flippant remark about the armoured car, and the pallet of cash, causing Craig to come round to their point of view---particularly in terms of the creative freedom it would allow Craig to do his own thing, film-wise...but I'm can't find where anyone (including myself) came to the conclusion that it was the "only way possible."
You said you'd 'be surprised if they could get him to commit to four more' unless they gave him loads of cash: I'm hardly extrapolating from what you said- just paraphrasing!
Paraphrasing....very loosely---to the point of active, deliberate misrepresentation! ) Your own insertion of the word 'unless' (which I didn't use) is key, here :v
Well...at least we've narrowed down this nebulous list of 'many others!' )
I'm sure money does play a part- I somehow don't think he's playing this role out of the kindness of his heart(!), but to infer that money would be the only thing which would attract him
I never said (or inferred) that money would be the "only thing!" Your implying I did (or your own independent reinterpretation of my comments) simply doesn't make it so
(i.e. to say that you'd be surprised if they get him not using the attraction of a truckload of cash) is to play him a disservice, I think.
Wow |) You're killing me Once again...never said it. Then again... :v perhaps Eon should court Craig for an overall five-picture deal, offering nothing at all in the way of a pay raise, and see if that plane flies!
You've latched onto that bit from my first post---a fleeting joke about money being ponied up---and (for whatever reason) simply can't let it go. Well...you just keep ruminating on it, and perhaps you'll figure it out ) Or not B-)
Anyone else with lingering doubts about my feelings, re: Daniel Craig's alleged 'greed'...PM me, whilst em searches for a new dance partner )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Because for the first time since the 60s Bond is hip again, and a lion's share of credit for this belongs at the feet of Mr. Craig. Bond films are only as successful as their leading man and for the first time since Connery they have an actor who will draw fans in simply due to his screen magnetism and presence. The fact that none of the Bond actors since Connery have had this elusive quality (actually Lazenby had it, but he didn't stick around long enough to properly develop it) should testify to its scarcity and also to why the studio should do everything in their power to keep Craig around.
Brosnan was a B-movie has-been before GE, that Craig wasn't an A-lister before CR shouldn't be held against him when he's obviously the right Bond at the right time...like other actors before him. Disagree with the notion, CR would've been as huge a hit with [insert actor of choice here]. Would GE have been as big a hit with Purefoy? Like it or lump it (and I lumped it after Brosnan in GE...just not my cup of Bond tea regardless of the box office for it), EON has a knack for getting the right guy at the right time, at least with the last two Bonds, unless one assumes just anybody could've done the 4 Bonds previous to CR (while I may like to think so, hard to argue Brosnan's success in the role, and nobody but Purefoy comes to mind as someone who could've--maybe--had a similar run of it, although the type of Bonds EON made with Brosnan would've not been the best fit for Purefoy anyway IMO).
Craig has raised the Bond bar significantly, having him signed for 4 more is an awesome thing for the franchise. Just not seeing a negative here at all, but then again Craig has been my first choice for Bond since LAYER CAKE. Great time to be a Bond fan IMO. :007)
Not in my opinion. Brosnan is a far more interesting actor than Purefoy. I'm not keen on the four Brosnan Bonds, but the only way you could make GE, TWINE, or DAD worse is to have James Purefoy starring in them.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
edited October 2007
I found Purefoy's portrayal of Marc Antony in HBO's Rome riveting, and I can certainly see him as James Bond...but he probably wouldn't have drawn the numbers Brozzer did (purely conjecture on my part).
As far as Craig, and his (rumoured-to-be) extended contract is concerned: lest anyone think, because of what I've been accused of in this thread---painting Craig as greed-driven, ad nauseam 8-) ---I just got off the phone with my brother, who has provided valuable perspective:
1) Actors do what they do because they love it. There are many easier, more reliable ways to earn a living.
2) Daniel Craig comes from a working-class (read: Not To The Manor Born!) background. If he were asked, right now, whether he is a wealthy man, our guess is that he'd probably say 'no'---despite the fact that he's been trumpeted as the Highest-Paid Actor in Britain. He's a professional actor who's earned everything that's come his way, scraping and working hard...and the ethos of the working actor is thus: Make what you can, when you can...because you don't know when the next gig's coming down the pike, and it could all end tomorrow. This isn't greed, to our reckoning; it's healthy self-interest---and it's true whether you're Brad Pitt, Harrison Ford...or Daniel Craig.
Ford has always declared that he acts (works) for money. Ian Fleming wrote primarily for money. Does this make them greedy, merely because they were successful in their chosen endeavours...and negotiated satisfactory deals?
We don't think so
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
EON has a knack for getting the right guy at the right time, at least with the last two Bonds
This is exactly why I find it hard that Eon would sign Craig for a five picture deal. Regardless of what people think of Brosnan (myself included) Brosnan was the Bond that people would respond to at that time...but even he was axed after four films. Craig may be hot now, but audience tastes change. After three more films, we'll be saying about Craig what we were saying about Brosnan in DAD: "Gee, he's looking a little too wore out to be playing Bond."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Just as I thought it a paradox for Dalton to accept the role, the thought of 5 films for Craig really surprised me and this speaks for how highly I think he regards his craft.
I know what you mean, but somehow I think we all give credit to Dalton for being more of a 'serious' actor than he actually is; perhaps he started with the classics and a bit of Shakespeare or whatever, but would a real luvvie have done Charlie's Angels and Flash Gordon?
I don't know about Charlie's Angels, but maybe he had a tactical lapse with Flash Gordon (which I liked very much) thinking if Mike Hodges, Max Von Sydow and Topol, it must have been a good move! Actually, I'm more concerned about Hot Fuzz...
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Bond films are only as successful as their leading man and for the first time since Connery they have an actor who will draw fans in simply due to his screen magnetism and presence. The fact that none of the Bond actors since Connery have had this elusive quality (actually Lazenby had it, but he didn't stick around long enough to properly develop it) should testify to its scarcity and also to why the studio should do everything in their power to keep Craig around.
I don't agree. I think that Moore and Brosnan also had that quality, more so that Craig IMO. This is purely subjective although I certainly concede that Craig did play a part in CR's success.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
EON has a knack for getting the right guy at the right time, at least with the last two Bonds
This is exactly why I find it hard that Eon would sign Craig for a five picture deal. Regardless of what people think of Brosnan (myself included) Brosnan was the Bond that people would respond to at that time...but even he was axed after four films. Craig may be hot now, but audience tastes change. After three more films, we'll be saying about Craig what we were saying about Brosnan in DAD: "Gee, he's looking a little too wore out to be playing Bond."
Craig in his first Bond film >>>>> Brosnan is his first Bond film (really night and day IMO). Box office returns may have been similar but studio heads keep their jobs by assessing talent and acting accordingly. Hence the different direction (immediate extension) MGM has taken in regards to Craig. Pretty obvious which actor's been accorded of more value to the franchise from their respective get-goes. IMHO.
Perhaps there were thoughts all along, if Brosnan keeps up his demands, we can always jump ship to Purefoy (going with Loeff's assessment)? I dunno, but something kept them from signing Brosnan for more when they could've (and given Brosnan's unseemly exit from the role, I doubt it was him saying no). But maybe it's just a lesson learned from dealing with Brosnan: sign Craig "cheap" now, before he starts asking for $25 mil per picture.
I also don't think Brosnan was "axed" because he was unpopular with audiences...not like DAD (as bad as it was) made peanuts.
Whatever the motivation (as simple as a good deal all around?), it's still a good thing.
Comments
Personally I'll be happy with however many Bond films Craig decides to do: on the basis of Casino Royale I should think he considers the role and how to play and develop it deeply. He also happens to be rather good at it; the best, in my opinion. I would take this news with a heavy grain of salt, however if true I'd be very happy indeed.
That's a long time! Henry Cavill will be about 32 by then. Other potential candidates (if Cavill isn't too famous or something by then)we have probably never heared of yet.
Well they wouldn't wedge themselves into a corner- I'd be fairly sure that, as the people getting Craig to sign to them, they would find it rather easy to slip in a get-out for clause for them at any time. I doubt the contract is about job security for Craig, but to ensure they can get him when they want him!
So to leave it until two years after the event would seem a strange choice to me.
I didn't say that you did (you don't have to argue with everything I say, you know!); just that many others are saying that the only way that they could possibly have got him to sign up to more is with loads of money; and I'm not sure how they've reached that conclusion.
Ha! That's a good point- so the 'young Bond' thing almost works!
I dunno- having seen his performance in The Tudors I'm not convinced... but then they did say his Bond audition was good, so who knows?
Good point; I thought Sony effectively left Eon alone when making CR- perhaps this is just something they strongly suggested and Eon agreed with? Even the Spider-Man guys (Sony's most recent big franchise) were only pinned to a three film contract, weren't they?
Who said that? ?:)
I think I'm the only one in this thread who's talked about the money at any length, and all I said is that it would have to be persuasive---hence my flippant remark about the armoured car, and the pallet of cash, causing Craig to come round to their point of view---particularly in terms of the creative freedom it would allow Craig to do his own thing, film-wise...but I'm can't find where anyone (including myself) came to the conclusion that it was the "only way possible."
Daniel Craig is an actor; James Bond is a role that pays well. It's steady work, with long-term prospects---a fount from which many professional actors are not fortunate enough to drink. This isn't rocket science
My own conclusion about the inherently persuasive nature of an increased salary was arrived at rather easily, truth be known! I can't imagine that 5 million pounds for #22, and 8 million pounds for #23 (and the upwardly-inclined numbers implied for #24 and #25) wouldn't figure into Mr. Craig's decision-making process
(Which is quite a long way from "painting him as a greed-driven man," BTW
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Fortunately, there's no evidence of that having gone on in this particular instance
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree completely {[] He serves at the pleasure of Eon, and when someone wants to make a change---whether that someone is Broccoli/Wilson, or the actor of the moment---that change will happen; just ask Brozzer
I just haven't heard anything about Craig actually angling for more money---certainly not from the one sentence in the Hollywood reporter story, or the added conjecture by MI6...for now, that should probably be filed with 'lost his teeth' and 'can't drive a stick'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yeh, I actually got that from Lazenby880. The thing is I don't really care how important money is to Craig, just as I have never cared about his or any other Bond's driving abilities.
Detente, indeed -{ If only it were always that easy with everyone...!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
For example, I think money tipped over more for Moore and less with "arty" Dalton. I find Craig curious however, because before Bond, not only was he artistically actualized to a level many actors would kill for, but he had also just begun to taste financial success, arguably a combination that drew Connery from the role the 1st time around.
Just as I thought it a paradox for Dalton to accept the role, the thought of 5 films for Craig really surprised me and this speaks for how highly I think he regards his craft. Extending these assumptions further, Craig must be very optimistic to artistically and commercially rebound from the role...or maybe he realistically doesn't see himself significantly advancing like how Connery eventually did (and how Brosnan hopes to do) Or, it could just plainly be that he realizes that he has "arrived" and it's time to kick back and enjoy the rest of the ride.
You said you'd 'be surprised if they could get him to commit to four more' unless they gave him loads of cash: I'm hardly extrapolating from what you said- just paraphrasing!
I'm sure money does play a part- I somehow don't think he's playing this role out of the kindness of his heart(!), but to infer that money would be the only thing which would attract him (i.e. to say that you'd be surprised if they get him not using the attraction of a truckload of cash) is to play him a disservice, I think.
I know what you mean, but somehow I think we all give credit to Dalton for being more of a 'serious' actor than he actually is; perhaps he started with the classics and a bit of Shakespeare or whatever, but would a real luvvie have done Charlie's Angels and Flash Gordon?
Craig's taken a bit more of an intelligent career path and done some really interesting stuff, but he's also made no bones about the fact that he wants to win an Oscar: he wants to do interesting stuff but also embraces the idea of being a movie star; not just actor, I think.
Daniel Craig does not strike me as someone who would do something just for the money but I really don't know, although obviously he wants to be successful. It doesn't matter, of course, as this has absolutely no effect on his (superlative) portrayal of the Bond character.
If he bowed out on his fourth movie, then potentially we would see a similar situation to Brosnan in DAD - last/fourth movie in a celebration year. This is based on the assumption that Bond 24 would be released in 2012.
Good news about the contract anyway.
Paraphrasing....very loosely---to the point of active, deliberate misrepresentation!
Well...at least we've narrowed down this nebulous list of 'many others!'
I never said (or inferred) that money would be the "only thing!"
Wow
You've latched onto that bit from my first post---a fleeting joke about money being ponied up---and (for whatever reason) simply can't let it go. Well...you just keep ruminating on it, and perhaps you'll figure it out
Anyone else with lingering doubts about my feelings, re: Daniel Craig's alleged 'greed'...PM me, whilst em searches for a new dance partner
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Because for the first time since the 60s Bond is hip again, and a lion's share of credit for this belongs at the feet of Mr. Craig. Bond films are only as successful as their leading man and for the first time since Connery they have an actor who will draw fans in simply due to his screen magnetism and presence. The fact that none of the Bond actors since Connery have had this elusive quality (actually Lazenby had it, but he didn't stick around long enough to properly develop it) should testify to its scarcity and also to why the studio should do everything in their power to keep Craig around.
Craig has raised the Bond bar significantly, having him signed for 4 more is an awesome thing for the franchise. Just not seeing a negative here at all, but then again Craig has been my first choice for Bond since LAYER CAKE. Great time to be a Bond fan IMO. :007)
Not in my opinion. Brosnan is a far more interesting actor than Purefoy. I'm not keen on the four Brosnan Bonds, but the only way you could make GE, TWINE, or DAD worse is to have James Purefoy starring in them.
As far as Craig, and his (rumoured-to-be) extended contract is concerned: lest anyone think, because of what I've been accused of in this thread---painting Craig as greed-driven, ad nauseam 8-) ---I just got off the phone with my brother, who has provided valuable perspective:
1) Actors do what they do because they love it. There are many easier, more reliable ways to earn a living.
2) Daniel Craig comes from a working-class (read: Not To The Manor Born!) background. If he were asked, right now, whether he is a wealthy man, our guess is that he'd probably say 'no'---despite the fact that he's been trumpeted as the Highest-Paid Actor in Britain. He's a professional actor who's earned everything that's come his way, scraping and working hard...and the ethos of the working actor is thus: Make what you can, when you can...because you don't know when the next gig's coming down the pike, and it could all end tomorrow. This isn't greed, to our reckoning; it's healthy self-interest---and it's true whether you're Brad Pitt, Harrison Ford...or Daniel Craig.
Ford has always declared that he acts (works) for money. Ian Fleming wrote primarily for money. Does this make them greedy, merely because they were successful in their chosen endeavours...and negotiated satisfactory deals?
We don't think so
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is exactly why I find it hard that Eon would sign Craig for a five picture deal. Regardless of what people think of Brosnan (myself included) Brosnan was the Bond that people would respond to at that time...but even he was axed after four films. Craig may be hot now, but audience tastes change. After three more films, we'll be saying about Craig what we were saying about Brosnan in DAD: "Gee, he's looking a little too wore out to be playing Bond."
I don't know about Charlie's Angels, but maybe he had a tactical lapse with Flash Gordon (which I liked very much) thinking if Mike Hodges, Max Von Sydow and Topol, it must have been a good move! Actually, I'm more concerned about Hot Fuzz...
Craig in his first Bond film >>>>> Brosnan is his first Bond film (really night and day IMO). Box office returns may have been similar but studio heads keep their jobs by assessing talent and acting accordingly. Hence the different direction (immediate extension) MGM has taken in regards to Craig. Pretty obvious which actor's been accorded of more value to the franchise from their respective get-goes. IMHO.
Perhaps there were thoughts all along, if Brosnan keeps up his demands, we can always jump ship to Purefoy (going with Loeff's assessment)? I dunno, but something kept them from signing Brosnan for more when they could've (and given Brosnan's unseemly exit from the role, I doubt it was him saying no). But maybe it's just a lesson learned from dealing with Brosnan: sign Craig "cheap" now, before he starts asking for $25 mil per picture.
I also don't think Brosnan was "axed" because he was unpopular with audiences...not like DAD (as bad as it was) made peanuts.
Whatever the motivation (as simple as a good deal all around?), it's still a good thing.