I'm sure MGM is frustrated, but I suspect that carries as much power as your bankrupt uncle disapproving of what car you choose to drive. MGM doesn't have a pot to piss in. They're frustrated and probably at Eon's (and Craig's?) mercy. If whatever studio steps in to do the heavy lifting wants Craig back, I'd be surprised if MGM even gets a vote.
Of course MGM gets a say. Bond is their baby. Sony - or any other distributor - don't get to call the shots because it's James Bond, but MGM would get a vote. It may not have as strong a say as Eon, but they will fight to the very end if they don't agree on something.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
"Cranky over a Daniel Craig interview" isn't going to fly as an excuse to the shareholders of a studio that not only can't afford to theatrically release a film on its own, but can't even keep a home video division going. If it makes financial sense to keep Craig, Gary Barber will get over his hurt feelings real quick.
Perhaps, but Daniel Craig himself allegedly not interested in doing it, his age, the step-down in box office returns from SF and the lukewarm reception of SPECTRE would only add to his ammunition.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
I'm guessing Craig will get asked the Bond question, and it would be ludicrous for him to play coy. Enough time has passed since SPECTRE. He knows whether he wants to come back or not.
Maybe DC doesn't know himself yet? I suspect he would return if they delivered a killer script and story, but without those available how can he commit?
I'm guessing Craig will get asked the Bond question, and it would be ludicrous for him to play coy. Enough time has passed since SPECTRE. He knows whether he wants to come back or not.
I have no doubt that he'll play coy about it. He knows the answer, but he's not going to give it to us. He'll give an answer that the media can play with, but it won't be a real answer.
I have to say, I agree with Matt - Craig will take the Sir Roger route, and use it as a negotiation ploy - not just financially but over a good script too. He won't want his swansong to be weak.
I'm guessing Craig will get asked the Bond question, and it would be ludicrous for him to play coy. Enough time has passed since SPECTRE. He knows whether he wants to come back or not.
I have no doubt that he'll play coy about it. He knows the answer, but he's not going to give it to us. He'll give an answer that the media can play with, but it won't be a real answer.
I fear that you are spot on. I for one am getting mighty bored with the current state of play and starting to not care much about the answer. If the outcome is either Turner or Hiddleston it will be a bit 'meh' rather than excitement. If Craig were to come back a lot of good will will have been lost and the suspicion that it's a cynical money move would dampen my enthusiasm. This is still unlikely in my view as I think Daniel takes his craft seriously but still a possibility. Maybe Mendes is right and they will surprise us again, I do hope so.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
My desire to see a new Bond has more to do with the end of SPECTRE than any ill feelings about Craig. I'm just not sure where they'd go with his Bond from there. And given how poor the SPECTRE script was, I don't trust them to figure it out.
I think Craig is done, and he knows he's done. If that's the case, then playing coy might serve a purpose, but it isn't a negotiating tactic.
My desire to see a new Bond has more to do with the end of SPECTRE than any ill feelings about Craig. I'm just not sure where they'd go with his Bond from there. And given how poor the SPECTRE script was, I don't trust them to figure it out.
I think Craig is done, and he knows he's done. If that's the case, then playing coy might serve a purpose, but it isn't a negotiating tactic.
I don't think that they have painted themselves into a corner with the ending of SPECTRE. Many a film hero has walked away at the end of the film, tossing their gun or badge (lest we forget the end of the 1st Dirty Harry film) into a convenient body of water and then return for the next sequel. In the old days, Bond would return as if the events of previous film barely existed. In the Craig era this has changed and continuity is generally adhered to...however they wouldn't really need to stretch much to pick things up a couple years later. Plenty of scenarios could be cooked up: Bond and Madeleine have parted ways (lets face it, Bond is probably no picnic to live with) Bond having difficulty with civilian life and returned to active "00" status; Blofeld is still in jail and away we go on a standalone adventure. Or we go with my choice, the OHMSS / YOLT melding titled "The Garden of Death" and have Bond either marry or have married Madeliene and Madeliene is either murdered or dies suspiciously at the hands of the survived Mr. Hinx, now in a wacky bullet proof kevlar neck brace (ode to OHMSS), Bond again returning to active "00" status and EON gets to mine plenty of Fleming once more and as we know, the more Fleming the better the Bond film.
With regards to your second point; I agree, I tend not to believe Craig is involved in any type of negotiating ploy for salary. My guess is the money is not the issue. I am sure EON, et al has offered him a big hunk of $$$$ to return. I do believe it is not out of the realm of possibility that Craig's return could possibly hinge on what type of script and director EON can come up with. If they knock his socks off, maybe he returns.
My desire to see a new Bond has more to do with the end of SPECTRE than any ill feelings about Craig. I'm just not sure where they'd go with his Bond from there. And given how poor the SPECTRE script was, I don't trust them to figure it out.
I think Craig is done, and he knows he's done. If that's the case, then playing coy might serve a purpose, but it isn't a negotiating tactic.
I don't think that they have painted themselves into a corner with the ending of SPECTRE. Many a film hero has walked away at the end of the film, tossing their gun or badge (lest we forget the end of the 1st Dirty Harry film) into a convenient body of water and then return for the next sequel. In the old days, Bond would return as if the events of previous film barely existed. In the Craig era this has changed and continuity is generally adhered to...however they wouldn't really need to stretch much to pick things up a couple years later. Plenty of scenarios could be cooked up: Bond and Madeleine have parted ways (lets face it, Bond is probably no picnic to live with) Bond having difficulty with civilian life and returned to active "00" status; Blofeld is still in jail and away we go on a standalone adventure. Or we go with my choice, the OHMSS / YOLT melding titled "The Garden of Death" and have Bond either marry or have married Madeliene and Madeliene is either murdered or dies suspiciously at the hands of the survived Mr. Hinx, now in a wacky bullet proof kevlar neck brace (ode to OHMSS), Bond again returning to active "00" status and EON gets to mine plenty of Fleming once more and as we know, the more Fleming the better the Bond film.
With regards to your second point; I agree, I tend not to believe Craig is involved in any type of negotiating ploy for salary. My guess is the money is not the issue. I am sure EON, et al has offered him a big hunk of $$$$ to return. I do believe it is not out of the realm of possibility that Craig's return could possibly hinge on what type of script and director EON can come up with. If they knock his socks off, maybe he returns.
Sounds exciting, and a great idea. Could you please start work on your script?
I would wager a very large amount of money Craig is done with Bond. I've seen him interviewed enough times over the years regarding his take on the series and the character and what the direction he wanted to take it, and it seemed very clear to me he was going to only commit to a certain number of years to the role - depending on the box office of course - and that would be it. To Craig, Bond was only a job. Sure he acknowledges the cultural icon it has become, but in the end it was a good paycheck and a great acting experience to tuck into is career. Now that he's wealthy and can pick any job he wants (or even create his own projects) he has no reason to return, no matter how good the script would be or how much money was offered. These films took a toll on his physical health and took an enormous amount of time to make and I just don't believe he is now at this point in his career and life that he would want to return to it. I think he was more than satisfied at how the last film left his version of the character and he's moved on permanently.
I think you maybe right but I still think as I've said before and as HowardB says a great story and script could see him return, I don't personally think DC was overjoyed by how SP turned out or how his Bond ended up. A lot of what happened was a direct contradiction of comments and opinions hes made in good interviews an example being how he doesn't do schtick and how Bond now has to be careful not to be parody older bond films as Austin Powers has done that and parallels between bond and Austin Powers should be completely avoided as "we owe Bond more than that" so how happy DC must have been to read Blofeld's bonds sort of brother.
I totally agree with howardb's ideas except I'd rather have Swann go the way of nearly all the previous bond girls more personal angst and private life issues can wait, I want a bond on a proper mission next time around.
Disagree that it was just a job for him. No Bond actor committed themselves to the role at the level he did. For better or worse, he had creative input and - a first for any Bond actor - a producer credit.
He might well be done, but he took it 100% seriously while he did it, and we couldn't have asked for a more invested actor in the role.
Disagree that it was just a job for him. No Bond actor committed themselves to the role at the level he did. For better or worse, he had creative input and - a first for any Bond actor - a producer credit.
He might well be done, but he took it 100% seriously while he did it, and we couldn't have asked for a more invested actor in the role.
I agree Bond isn't just a job to Craig. He is entirely dedicated to being the character on screen. But I do think he never made his peace with the baggage that comes with being Bond.
I think also he is the only Actor not to have felt the 'bond typecasting' curse that has affected the other 5 bonds to greater or lesser degrees. With Craig being the actor that sees a life after bond more than any other I can imagine him wanting to get out whilst the going is good and on his own terms, rather than get dropped due to rising age or falling box office.
I think DC has been the most committed and originally I think we were heading for DC's bond vision, I think that changed to Mendes vision when he joined the party, I also think typecasting is not as prevalent these days that said DC is a smart cookie and as much as Im a big fan of his I'd hate to see him return without being fully invested.
I don't believe Craig approached Bond as just another payday. From all indications, Craig approached Bond as a serious role and put himself into it 100%. Craig also had more input into the films than any other previous Bond actor. I will say that when it comes to whether Craig will return or not, we really just don't know....nothing would surprise me. Every theory/scenario posted here is could be correct until it's proven wrong by some official announcement one way or another.
My desire to see a new Bond has more to do with the end of SPECTRE than any ill feelings about Craig. I'm just not sure where they'd go with his Bond from there. And given how poor the SPECTRE script was, I don't trust them to figure it out.
I think Craig is done, and he knows he's done. If that's the case, then playing coy might serve a purpose, but it isn't a negotiating tactic.
Intrigued. What purpose would it serve and for whom? I also feel it's not a negotiating tactic. It's possible that he genuinely is undecided I guess.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Disagree that it was just a job for him. No Bond actor committed themselves to the role at the level he did. For better or worse, he had creative input and - a first for any Bond actor - a producer credit.
He might well be done, but he took it 100% seriously while he did it, and we couldn't have asked for a more invested actor in the role.
My reference to it being just a job is in regards to actors who take all their roles seriously, like Craig or say, Harrison Ford. No matter what the cultural significance is to their roles, they keep their attitudes to them in perspective as oppose to those of the public and press - which is why they often feel uncomfortable doing unending interviews for their films. It would be like a stone mason building a cathedral. They don't just erect the building - they also have input on how it's done as their expertise is essential to it's successful completion. They are well aware of the cultural importance of the project they are working on, but at the end of it it's still a job or craft that they put their best in and once it's finished, they move on to the next job. So, in essence, to any dedicated craftsman such work is still a job that they've been hired to do and maintaining that perspective is how they get through it - especially when it's one that is producing such a costly, large project -be it a cathedral or a Bond film.
Comments
I'm sure MGM is frustrated, but I suspect that carries as much power as your bankrupt uncle disapproving of what car you choose to drive. MGM doesn't have a pot to piss in. They're frustrated and probably at Eon's (and Craig's?) mercy. If whatever studio steps in to do the heavy lifting wants Craig back, I'd be surprised if MGM even gets a vote.
Hard to say. Could be just a way to sell tickets
I have no doubt that he'll play coy about it. He knows the answer, but he's not going to give it to us. He'll give an answer that the media can play with, but it won't be a real answer.
I fear that you are spot on. I for one am getting mighty bored with the current state of play and starting to not care much about the answer. If the outcome is either Turner or Hiddleston it will be a bit 'meh' rather than excitement. If Craig were to come back a lot of good will will have been lost and the suspicion that it's a cynical money move would dampen my enthusiasm. This is still unlikely in my view as I think Daniel takes his craft seriously but still a possibility. Maybe Mendes is right and they will surprise us again, I do hope so.
Also I can't imagine the demise of 'Hiddleswift' *Wretch* would be viewed as a negative in the eyes of MGM or EON.
I think Craig is done, and he knows he's done. If that's the case, then playing coy might serve a purpose, but it isn't a negotiating tactic.
I don't think that they have painted themselves into a corner with the ending of SPECTRE. Many a film hero has walked away at the end of the film, tossing their gun or badge (lest we forget the end of the 1st Dirty Harry film) into a convenient body of water and then return for the next sequel. In the old days, Bond would return as if the events of previous film barely existed. In the Craig era this has changed and continuity is generally adhered to...however they wouldn't really need to stretch much to pick things up a couple years later. Plenty of scenarios could be cooked up: Bond and Madeleine have parted ways (lets face it, Bond is probably no picnic to live with) Bond having difficulty with civilian life and returned to active "00" status; Blofeld is still in jail and away we go on a standalone adventure. Or we go with my choice, the OHMSS / YOLT melding titled "The Garden of Death" and have Bond either marry or have married Madeliene and Madeliene is either murdered or dies suspiciously at the hands of the survived Mr. Hinx, now in a wacky bullet proof kevlar neck brace (ode to OHMSS), Bond again returning to active "00" status and EON gets to mine plenty of Fleming once more and as we know, the more Fleming the better the Bond film.
With regards to your second point; I agree, I tend not to believe Craig is involved in any type of negotiating ploy for salary. My guess is the money is not the issue. I am sure EON, et al has offered him a big hunk of $$$$ to return. I do believe it is not out of the realm of possibility that Craig's return could possibly hinge on what type of script and director EON can come up with. If they knock his socks off, maybe he returns.
I totally agree with howardb's ideas except I'd rather have Swann go the way of nearly all the previous bond girls more personal angst and private life issues can wait, I want a bond on a proper mission next time around.
He might well be done, but he took it 100% seriously while he did it, and we couldn't have asked for a more invested actor in the role.
I agree Bond isn't just a job to Craig. He is entirely dedicated to being the character on screen. But I do think he never made his peace with the baggage that comes with being Bond.
I think also he is the only Actor not to have felt the 'bond typecasting' curse that has affected the other 5 bonds to greater or lesser degrees. With Craig being the actor that sees a life after bond more than any other I can imagine him wanting to get out whilst the going is good and on his own terms, rather than get dropped due to rising age or falling box office.
Intrigued. What purpose would it serve and for whom? I also feel it's not a negotiating tactic. It's possible that he genuinely is undecided I guess.
My reference to it being just a job is in regards to actors who take all their roles seriously, like Craig or say, Harrison Ford. No matter what the cultural significance is to their roles, they keep their attitudes to them in perspective as oppose to those of the public and press - which is why they often feel uncomfortable doing unending interviews for their films. It would be like a stone mason building a cathedral. They don't just erect the building - they also have input on how it's done as their expertise is essential to it's successful completion. They are well aware of the cultural importance of the project they are working on, but at the end of it it's still a job or craft that they put their best in and once it's finished, they move on to the next job. So, in essence, to any dedicated craftsman such work is still a job that they've been hired to do and maintaining that perspective is how they get through it - especially when it's one that is producing such a costly, large project -be it a cathedral or a Bond film.