Jump to content


Photo

Daniel Craig 'to become longest-serving James Bond?

New deal seems to suggest so!

  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24011 posts
  • Location:England.

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:35 PM



Daniel Craig has reportedly been offered a multi-million pound deal to star in five more James Bond movies.

The mooted deal will see the 43-year-old star in a total of eight Bond pictures, overtaking
Roger Moore as the actor to have spent the longest time playing the spy.

Moore starred as James Bond a total of seven times between 1973 and 1985, starting with Live And Let Die and ending with A View To A Kill.

Craig made his debut as the iconic character in 2006's Casino Royale, which was followed by
Quantum Of Solace in 2008 and the upcoming 23rd film in the series Skyfall, due for release on October 26, 2012.

"Daniel's been a terrific Bond, a superb actor and a ­terrific man," producer
Michael G Wilson told The People. "The fans love him and I don't think there's a better actor to play the part. It's certainly something we'll be ­discussing with him once we finish shooting Skyfall."

He added: "Filming has gone very well so far and I'd love Daniel to surpass Roger's record and do eight pictures. Daniel's been an absolute pleasure to be around because he takes the role so seriously.

"There's really no-one more passionate about making these films work than him - he's a filmmaker's dream. A lot of people have said Daniel's been their favourite Bond since
Sean Connery and I can't argue with them. He's doing a great job."

Craig revealed this week that he also
wrote parts of Quantum Of Solace due to the writer's strike of 2007 and 2008.


Edited by Mharkin, 20 December 2011 - 11:41 PM.


#2 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10105 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:39 AM

Hopefully this is true and EON offers Craig a long-term contract extension. He's been fantastic in the role and it would be nice to not have to face another four year gap while they search for a new Bond anytime in the near future.

#3 __7

__7

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 119 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:56 AM

Best Bond news in a while if true.

#4 Cody

Cody

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1377 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:16 AM

Wilson says he'd like to see Craig reach 8, but the articles saying that there's an actual deal on the table have gotten a bit ahead of things.

#5 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4033 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:35 AM

The original source seems to be http://www.people.co...02039-23642989/. The reporter seems to have conjured the entire thing out of a leading question. By the looks of it, he asked Wilson if Craig would do five more films, Wilson didn't explicitly deny it, and the reporter treated this as confirmation.

Hypothetically, I would welcome a long Craig era, as long as he remains relatively well-preserved, and provided that his character is allowed to age naturally and acquire a more mature style. I'd hate to see Craig devolve into a toupee-clad, crinkly-necked spray-tanned geezer performing computer-assisted feats of athleticism and then buying ice cream for little girls. I have no doubt that Craig is the finest actor ever to have played James Bond, but superficialities cannot be ignored indefinitely.

The idea of an eight-film era is wildly optimistic given the current rate of production. Why should the producers suddenly regain the ability to stick to a two-year schedule? And even if Eon keep their end up, they can do little to prevent another financial snafu from above. An eight-film era is not remotely probable. Six films is conceivable, but very optimistic. I'm betting on five.

#6 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1333 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:28 AM

The original source seems to be http://www.people.co...02039-23642989/. The reporter seems to have conjured the entire thing out of a leading question. By the looks of it, he asked Wilson if Craig would do five more films, Wilson didn't explicitly deny it, and the reporter treated this as confirmation.


Conjured? Wilson told the reporter this:

“Filming has gone very well so far and I’d love Daniel to surpass Roger’s record and do eight pictures"

Wilson is the one who brought up the idea that Craig might do as many as eight movies. Now, the reporter might have done a little more research (or just do the math) to project how old Craig would be after doing another five movies and how he'd be at least 54 (IF Eon could actually produce five more movies on an every-other-year schedule). But this is not conjuring. Michael G. Wilson brought up the idea of Craig doing eight movies.

#7 killkenny kid

killkenny kid

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6581 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York

Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:28 AM

Be careful, Daniel. I think I've heard this one before......

http://www.mi6-hq.co...id=4&t=mi6&s=cr

#8 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7705 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:01 AM

I wonder if Wilson would even suggest such a thing to a publication if he hadn't already discussed the possibility with Craig and/or his agency.

#9 Mr Teddy Bear

Mr Teddy Bear

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1144 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:25 AM

Only 8? I was hoping he'd do 9.

#10 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3694 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 08:34 AM

Why not twelve?

#11 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 08:51 AM

Two - possibly three - things:

1. These Producers are awfully fickle folk. Just ask Mr Brosnan....
2. Craigy doesn't age as well as some. Now if EON allow Bond to age with him - i.e. 46/47 year old Craig is playing a 46/47 year old Bond, with appropriate action and leading ladies, - fine. However, the action genre is notorious for being uncomfortable with the idea of the older action hero.... (and in EON's case ref point 1)
3. Let's see SKYFALL first....

#12 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5568 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM

I seriously doubt Craig will surpass Moore and Connery's records

#13 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:13 PM

Seems like a reporter over spinning the Wilson quote. Eight is possible, but is frankly far too long a timeline for either EON or Craig to sign up to.

#14 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7705 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:44 PM

Why not twelve?


I ask that everyday.

#15 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1260 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:28 PM

Irrespective of whether that article is true material, on theory I would love Craig to do many more.
First, because we'll settle in a long-term relationship with Bond, which to me is essential if you want to really care about the character and feel for him and actually be so tied to him that you want him to come back as soon as possible. Too many different faces in a short period of time tend to make Bond too much of a theoretical figure. If you share a somehow long period of time with one actor as Bond, he would really become a recurring friend.
Second, because if he were to do more, then he would get the opportunity to do "lighter" Bonds alongside the previous "serious" ones.
Third, simply because he's terrific in that part.

#16 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4411 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:40 PM

Why not twelve?


That's what she said.

#17 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1260 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:51 PM


Why not twelve?


That's what she said.


compared to Rog's "13 times"...

Posted Image

#18 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:24 PM



Daniel Craig has reportedly been offered a multi-million pound deal to star in five more James Bond movies.

The mooted deal will see the 43-year-old star in a total of eight Bond pictures, overtaking
Roger Moore as the actor to have spent the longest time playing the spy.

Moore starred as James Bond a total of seven times between 1973 and 1985, starting with Live And Let Die and ending with A View To A Kill.

Craig made his debut as the iconic character in 2006's Casino Royale, which was followed by
Quantum Of Solace in 2008 and the upcoming 23rd film in the series Skyfall, due for release on October 26, 2012.

"Daniel's been a terrific Bond, a superb actor and a ­terrific man," producer
Michael G Wilson told The People. "The fans love him and I don't think there's a better actor to play the part. It's certainly something we'll be ­discussing with him once we finish shooting Skyfall."

He added: "Filming has gone very well so far and I'd love Daniel to surpass Roger's record and do eight pictures. Daniel's been an absolute pleasure to be around because he takes the role so seriously.

"There's really no-one more passionate about making these films work than him - he's a filmmaker's dream. A lot of people have said Daniel's been their favourite Bond since
Sean Connery and I can't argue with them. He's doing a great job."

Craig revealed this week that he also
wrote parts of Quantum Of Solace due to the writer's strike of 2007 and 2008.



If there's any truth to this at all, I think these guys better do the math. Years ago, in the Connery/Moore/Dalton era, they cranked these films out every 2 years. Now that movies are getting more and more complex, the gap between releases is getting wider (TWINE 1999, DAD 2002, CR 2006, QOS 2008 and now SKYFALL at 2012)

Your average lapse between films is like 3 years. Having said that, by the time Daniel Craig will have fulfilled his contract, he'll be 61 years old. Consider for a moment that Roger Moore was already 58 by the release of AVTAK and Sean Connery was 53 at the release of NSNA. This is a bad idea. This could KILL the franchise.

#19 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1333 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:00 PM

If there's any truth to this at all, I think these guys better do the math. Years ago, in the Connery/Moore/Dalton era, they cranked these films out every 2 years. Now that movies are getting more and more complex, the gap between releases is getting wider (TWINE 1999, DAD 2002, CR 2006, QOS 2008 and now SKYFALL at 2012)

Your average lapse between films is like 3 years. Having said that, by the time Daniel Craig will have fulfilled his contract, he'll be 61 years old. Consider for a moment that Roger Moore was already 58 by the release of AVTAK and Sean Connery was 53 at the release of NSNA. This is a bad idea. This could KILL the franchise.


First technical point: Sir Roger was still 57 (AVTAK came out in the late spring of 1985 and he didn't turn 58 until October), but yes he was getting up there as a Bond.

For Craig to do eight films, at a minimum he'd be 54 when his eighth Bond came out -- and that assumes an every-other-year schedule. As noted above, the gap has been increasing. Some of it is outside the producers' control (MGM's bankruptcy). But in the case of Skyfall, even if the bankruptcy hadn't happened, it was going to be a three-year gap. Michael G. Wilson had even said so, citing the need to recharge batteries, etc., etc.

Personally, I think Wilson might have got a little excited during the interview and went out on a limb without necesarily thinking it through. That happens sometimes. As the original story itself noted, nothing has been signed. At the same time, if the long-time producer of the James Bond series (who has been associated with the series longer than his stepfather) says he'd like Craig to do as many as eight films, there's no way you don't write it. Has the reaction been a little strong? Perhaps. But it still comes down to the fact that Wilson said it. And he didn't have to say it.

#20 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 830 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:59 PM

Yes, eight films seems very excessive. I don't see Craig doing a Roger and turning up as Bond at 57.
I think 4 Craig films(provided Skyfall doesn't flop of course, is a definite), and 5-6 Craig Films is definitely realistic for Craig, he would be about 48-50 years old if he did the 5-6 film range. But I don't see any more than that happening, loved to be proved wrong though.

#21 __7

__7

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 119 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:12 PM

I don't know, the idea of exploring an older Bond as part of the story is certainly within Craig's acting wheelhouse. It would be a problem if they just put a 57 year old Craig on screen with a 30-40 year old Bond plot.

#22 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10105 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:35 PM

I don't know, the idea of exploring an older Bond as part of the story is certainly within Craig's acting wheelhouse. It would be a problem if they just put a 57 year old Craig on screen with a 30-40 year old Bond plot.


I would very much like to see them go down this route. After 23+ films, there is only so many ways to tell a story in a Bond film where Bond is basically the same character each time out. It would be very interesting to see him deal with getting older, deal with the limitations that might put on him and other such things that getting older in such a physically demanding profession would entail.

#23 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3694 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:36 PM

Personally, I think Wilson might have got a little excited during the interview and went out on a limb without necesarily thinking it through. That happens sometimes. As the original story itself noted, nothing has been signed. At the same time, if the long-time producer of the James Bond series (who has been associated with the series longer than his stepfather) says he'd like Craig to do as many as eight films, there's no way you don't write it. Has the reaction been a little strong? Perhaps. But it still comes down to the fact that Wilson said it. And he didn't have to say it.


I agree mostly. But for this to be anything else than wishful thinking there would have to be a second pre-production/earlybird team that's constantly planning and developing the next entry while the current production is still shooting. Hardly realistic when they have little idea what the next film will be about, what story, tone and setting it will have.

A two year schedule was a challenge even back in the 60's when they had Fleming books and rough plots that allowed to send a couple of writers and location scouts out early to try and get the preliminaries done. Today practically nothing safe Craig as Bond is a given about Bond 24, a film which will for the largest part depend on the shape and outcome of SKYFALL. It's almost impossible to decide on anything important for the follow-up when so much depends on SKYFALL's success and what will be en vogue two years onwards.

#24 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2972 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:31 PM

The Expendables.

50 today is the new 30.

Craig can do it as long as he stays in shape like Stallone did with Rambo, and he will.

#25 Trevelyan 006

Trevelyan 006

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Statue Park

Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:36 PM

As Long As Craig Sticks It Out For The 25th, I'd Be Satisfied. Anything More Would Be An Added Bonus.

#26 DominicGreene

DominicGreene

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:44 PM

Why not twelve?


Why not 6 million, 2 hundred-thousand?

#27 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6701 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:11 AM

May I suggest something here? All this talk about "Craig does not age well" is utter crap. A human being gets wrinkles when growing older. If people actually think that humans have to look like twenty year olds even if they approach fifty then they have already bought the illusion the youth-obsessed media and industries wants to sell.

And why would it be terrible to have someone actually look his age? Bond never was supposed to be a twenty-something! He is a seasoned and experienced agent!

I would love to have someone portray Bond not with a continuing baby-face but with lines, wrinkles and greying hair.

When will the young ones finally understand that "old" does not mean "bad" and that they actually only badmouth something they will become themselves very soon?

#28 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1260 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:38 AM

I don't know, the idea of exploring an older Bond as part of the story is certainly within Craig's acting wheelhouse. It would be a problem if they just put a 57 year old Craig on screen with a 30-40 year old Bond plot.

I would very much like to see them go down this route. After 23+ films, there is only so many ways to tell a story in a Bond film where Bond is basically the same character each time out. It would be very interesting to see him deal with getting older, deal with the limitations that might put on him and other such things that getting older in such a physically demanding profession would entail.

It would indeed be very interesting. I for one would love to see that. But it would also eventually mean the end of the Bond franchise after 1 or 2 of such "ageing Bond movies": how could the producers go on filming Bond movies once Bond is definitely too old?
They could always reboot, of course, but I'm not sure the audience would fall for that trick once more.

#29 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6701 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:47 AM

Since this is a generational thing it would probably work perfectly to reboot Bond again after Craig´s eight films. I doubt that there is anyone on this board who was at the movies in 1962 when Connery started out as Bond. My first Bond film as an 8 year old was THE SPY WHO LOVED ME - and I have welcomed three new and younger Bonds since then. I definitely will welcome more of them if I have the chance. And the audience which will grow up with Craig as their first Bond will happily see the character resurrected with a new timeline. Doesn´t necessarily have to be "Bond begins" again - but just a new and younger Bond. Not too young, of course. (See my rant above)

#30 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1260 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 22 December 2011 - 09:53 AM

Well, yes and no. I mean, we've had various Bonds, but (theoretically) they were all conituing where the others left off. Of course in reality it would be impossible to have the same agent from 1962 to 1999 still in his forties, but the magic of the cinema is such that we were to believe it's been the same guy throughout the whole timeframe.
Then came the reboot, bringing about a hyphenation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users