146 replies to this topic

[S K Y F A L L]

What do you think happened in the negotiations that it turned out DC will only be doing 2 more films rather then the 5 M.G.Wilson was hoping for?
They don't seem to worried about trying to get back to the 2 year schedule that we were use too IMO.

[L4YRCAKE]

What do you think happened in the negotiations that it turned out DC will only be doing 2 more films rather then the 5 M.G.Wilson was hoping for?
They don't seem to worried about trying to get back to the 2 year schedule that we were use too IMO.

My wild guess is that Wilson probably got excited and said some super optimistic things that probably will come to pass and then some (but of course, who knows?) and then everybody's lawyers stepped in and went, let's walk this back and take things one or two steps at a time. Hoping Craig is Bond for a good, long time and negotiating a contract for a big star attached to a huge 'franchise' (god, I hate that word!!!) are two very, very different areas of mind. And Bond is a big, big machine with big, big money attached.

Having enough confidence that you've got a hit on your hands to lock in two more movies is plenty for the time being. If this and the next two are as good as they ought to be I'm sure the last thing they'll be doing is looking for a replacement for Mr. Craig. I'm sure they would have kept Sean Connery as Bond until the 80's had he been willing.

Super bummed to hear Mr. Connery won't be participating in the 50th celebration, btw. For once, he ought to let bygones be bygones and help celebrate the character he had a hand in defining, instead of carrying old grudges. But whatever, my gut told me something like this was going to happen.

[Iceskater101]

That was my worry, is Daniel Craig getting to old for the part? To be honest, I don't think so. I mean look at him. Have you seen his body? He has great abs and biceps. I am pretty sure he can handle the part of James Bond for a while.

[Pussfeller]

I think he'll get tired of it before he gets too old for it.

[Redneck007]

I am all for Craig doing as many Bond films as he wants. The more the better. I just wish that we could get some consistency in the director's chair for at least 2-3 films in a row. The gaps in time are also slightly because of the revolving circus of Bond directors. If Skyfall does well EON needs to get Mendes to return for the next one...less on-the-job training. I felt they missed the boat not getting Campbell back for QOS.

Edited by Redneck007, 17 October 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[JimmyBond]

He was offered, but he passed.

[L4YRCAKE]

He was offered, but he passed.

Did he really? I wonder why? I wonder if it would've made all the difference. Or not...

I'll be shocked if Mendes doesn't come back for at least Bond 24, as well as 25.

[IcedCamaro]

I think he'll get tired of it before he gets too old for it.

This.

[SecretAgentFan]

Two more is a pretty good perspective IMO. And after that, who knows, he might get the option to do more.

But I also believe that changing Bond actors after a while is good and necessary for the series.

[Iceskater101]

Wait Daniel Craig passed it up? On movie pilot.com it says that Bond 24 is already in planning and Benedict Cumberbatch from Sherlock Holmes TV show and the new Star Trek movie is rumored to be playing the villain.

[Pussfeller]

I believe that "he" refers to Martin Campbell passing up the director's chair for QOS.

[L4YRCAKE]

I'd bet Mendes will direct Bond 24 and 25, with Craig as Bond. And then I wouldn't be surprised if Christopher Nolan steps in and offers Mr. Craig his ideas for at least one or two more films that Craig will stick around for. Nolan's gonna have a good while to think about it and let his ideas for the character percolate, as I'm sure they've already been. Wouldn't be surprised if he and Craig have had a secret conversation and a gentlemen's agreement about it over a few cocktails at a party.

[Pussfeller]

Really, Cake? For Mendes to direct three Bond films in a row, he would be essentially devoting a decade of his career exclusively to Bond. That seems like an extreme act of devotion. I can see him coming back, but not immediately for Bond 24.

I do agree that the producers should develop more enduring relationships with directors, and consider contracting them for multiple films in one go. Not only does this reduce the latency between films, it would result in more balanced films. If a director has been contracted for multiple Bond films, he will feel less pressure to cram every good idea into a single film. This would cut down on the "lobster taco" phenomenon.

I also think it would be cool for Craig to become an executive producer on the Bond films after he retires from the lead role. Or a creative consultant or something. He seems so passionate and intelligent regarding Bond, it would be a shame to lose his influence.

[L4YRCAKE]

Well... I just feel that there's going to be more of a linear quality to the Bond films with Craig, and keeping Mendes on board for another or two would be logical to everyone involved. Plus, not to sound cynical, but I'm sure Mendes' paycheck for a Bond film is on a whole new level from his usual fare, critically acclaimed as they may be. A couple more Bond films can surely mean that Sam Mendes can make all the Revolutionary Roads he wants for the rest of his life. Craig has re-incorporated the classic elements of Bond while entering new territory, it's quite a trick to go back to his roots and push forward at the same time. It seems to me if he feels he's got a director that gets this, why switch and bring in an unknown element now? Then again, maybe that is a stretch simply in terms of practicality.

[DaveBond21]

Well... I just feel that there's going to be more of a linear quality to the Bond films with Craig, and keeping Mendes on board for another or two would be logical to everyone involved. Plus, not to sound cynical, but I'm sure Mendes' paycheck for a Bond film is on a whole new level from his usual fare, critically acclaimed as they may be. A couple more Bond films can surely mean that Sam Mendes can make all the Revolutionary Roads he wants for the rest of his life. Craig has re-incorporated the classic elements of Bond while entering new territory, it's quite a trick to go back to his roots and push forward at the same time. It seems to me if he feels he's got a director that gets this, why switch and bring in an unknown element now? Then again, maybe that is a stretch simply in terms of practicality.

Don't blame him or EON if he doesn't come back though.



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[L4YRCAKE]

Well... I just feel that there's going to be more of a linear quality to the Bond films with Craig, and keeping Mendes on board for another or two would be logical to everyone involved. Plus, not to sound cynical, but I'm sure Mendes' paycheck for a Bond film is on a whole new level from his usual fare, critically acclaimed as they may be. A couple more Bond films can surely mean that Sam Mendes can make all the Revolutionary Roads he wants for the rest of his life. Craig has re-incorporated the classic elements of Bond while entering new territory, it's quite a trick to go back to his roots and push forward at the same time. It seems to me if he feels he's got a director that gets this, why switch and bring in an unknown element now? Then again, maybe that is a stretch simply in terms of practicality.

Don't blame him or EON if he doesn't come back though.



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Don't blame Eon if Mendes doesn't come back? I'd imagine the choice would be his to come back or not, and if he doesn't I'm sure he'll have sufficient reason. Making a Bond film must be an intense experience, to say the least.

[plankattack]

I do agree that the producers should develop more enduring relationships with directors, and consider contracting them for multiple films in one go. Not only does this reduce the latency between films, it would result in more balanced films. If a director has been contracted for multiple Bond films, he will feel less pressure to cram every good idea into a single film. This would cut down on the "lobster taco" phenomenon.

Sorry Pussfella mate, I kind of agree and disagree. I get the "lobster taco" phenomenon, but I do worry that EON (at least old EON) got too comfortable having too many people around for too long. Guy Hamilton, John Glen, Lewis Gilbert, you could argue that both did at least one too many, when they were doing them in a row.

I don't have a problem with a director doing multiple Bonds but I think a gap helps everyone. Gilbert and Campbell are both great examples of this - when they return to the franchise their next effort is better than their previous one.

That being said, if the story is part of an arc, then yes, it's not a bad idea for the same director to helm, but with the exception of CR and QoS, the series has never thought of itself as a serial. In the early days perhaps, but you don't have to have seen DN to enjoy FRWL, is you see what I mean.

I guess I just feel a little burned by EON 75-85, where every film seem like a poorly-disguised variant of the one before. I didn't think that at the time, of course, but I'm older now (!!!) and have been spoilt by CR!!!

[L4YRCAKE]

I do agree that the producers should develop more enduring relationships with directors, and consider contracting them for multiple films in one go. Not only does this reduce the latency between films, it would result in more balanced films. If a director has been contracted for multiple Bond films, he will feel less pressure to cram every good idea into a single film. This would cut down on the "lobster taco" phenomenon.

Sorry Pussfella mate, I kind of agree and disagree. I get the "lobster taco" phenomenon, but I do worry that EON (at least old EON) got too comfortable having too many people around for too long. Guy Hamilton, John Glen, Lewis Gilbert, you could argue that both did at least one too many, when they were doing them in a row.

I don't have a problem with a director doing multiple Bonds but I think a gap helps everyone. Gilbert and Campbell are both great examples of this - when they return to the franchise their next effort is better than their previous one.

That being said, if the story is part of an arc, then yes, it's not a bad idea for the same director to helm, but with the exception of CR and QoS, the series has never thought of itself as a serial. In the early days perhaps, but you don't have to have seen DN to enjoy FRWL, is you see what I mean.

I guess I just feel a little burned by EON 75-85, where every film seem like a poorly-disguised variant of the one before. I didn't think that at the time, of course, but I'm older now (!!!) and have been spoilt by CR!!!

Hopefully we're about to get spoiled again with Skyfall...!

Lobster taco, that's a new one to me.

[Redneck007]

I'm really up for whatever as long as the films maintain a consistent sheen and quality. Directing a Bond film has to be extremely stressful personally and professionally. It comes down to passion for the product. As for Craig I would rather see him age as Bond gracefully with quality scripts than get more like "Cowboys and Aliens" and "The Invasion." If the producers and writers stay enthusiastic and innovative and try not "go through the motions" like they did in the Brosnan era after Goldeneye then I think Craig will be on board for the foreseeable future.

[S K Y F A L L]

I guess the only chance of this deal coming true is if they can keep to a 2 year pace, two more sounds great and I can't wait to find out who will be directing Bond 24.

[solace]

After having seen Skyfall today, at least 2 please.

[SecretAgentFan]

German tabloid today quotes Craig himself in an interview during the shooting of "SPECTRE" that he wants to play Bond as long as the producers want him to: http://www.bild.de/u...41100.bild.html

 

Slow news day, I know.

[glidrose]

German tabloid today quotes Craig himself in an interview during the shooting of "SPECTRE" that he wants to play Bond as long as the producers want him to: http://www.bild.de/u...41100.bild.html
 
Slow news day, I know.

Not at all. Welcome news, in fact.

[Stuart]

Suits me.  I would love a movie without a "this time, it's personal" angle, though.

[Guy Haines]

Daniel Craig was quoted as being up for Bond until "his knees gave out". I guess we'd better keep an eye on how well his legs are bearing up in Spectre! Frankly I'm all for him going for as long as possible.

[sharpshooter]

"As long as the producers want me" is very pleasing to hear from Craig himself. I think perhaps not beating Moore's record, but maybe...just maybe...equaling it could be possible. 

[Professor Pi]

When all is said and done, I'm thinking the Craig era will be 15 years and 6 films.  We'll be introduced to a new Bond on the 60th anniversary.