37 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Now on the main page:
http://commanderbond...4640/14640.html

Edited by Dustin, 14 August 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Yeah, I noticed that this morning and it made me feel a little un-easy.


Fair point I have to say, look at how the reception to 'Die Another Day' was against how loved Brosnan was in the role... no mercy from EON.

Well, I do hope 'Skyfall' ISN'T a flimsey one for Craig and shows he has plenty more gritty Bond offerings to give us.


Is Michael G. Wilson preparing us for something yet to come perhaps...?

[MajorB]

We don't know the context of his remark. He may have been asked about a specific scenario and gave a scenario-specific answer--"Yes, we're prepared for any eventuality." It's perfectly possible that he also added "We love Daniel, and he seems happy with us, and we hope he'll remain in the role for a long time to come," but that part just wasn't reported. Without more info, there's no reason to read significance into this.

[JimmyBond]

Incidentally, is there any timetable for this? I mean is there a specific time when we'll know whether or not Daniel is coming back for a fourth?

[Jim]

It's not a bad working principle though, and emits an implication that it won't all end when the current incumbent goes; they are in this for the even longer haul. Quite a positive message really.

I suspect they also recognise that an element of the perception of the Timothy Dalton films, whatever their intrinsic merits, is that the previous incumbent went on too long and a change to a new actor was hobbled as a result. Going through that again is probably pretty unwelcome, financially as much as anything.

[Dustin]

At a guess I'd say it's a bit of tactics on EON's part, nothing that necessarily will have consequences.

Incidentally, is there any timetable for this? I mean is there a specific time when we'll know whether or not Daniel is coming back for a fourth?

Phew, no idea really. If the pressure is on to get BOND 24 going it should be announced shortly after SF premiers. Obviously with a definite word on Craig, either way. But I don't think we will get much more information about such behind-the-scenes machinations.

[SecretAgentFan]

Can't imagine SKYFALL not being a huge hit. And MGM not wanting to get 24 in cinemas in 2014. To start production and find a new Bond in that short amount of time would be tough. Unless they have already one waiting.
But I doubt that they will nix Craig so fast.
For Bond 25 it's another story.

Still, going public with this after the love fest for Craig might suggest that negotiations for Bond 24 have become tougher than EON wanted...

[S K Y F A L L]

I have a love hate relationship with the producers, I don't understand why Brosnan didn't get another film. (Or maybe I do = Bourne)
They compare the 49 year old Brosnan with the 57 year old Moore and that is a 8 year difference, it P%&*^ me off.
And if Brosnan did another film in 2004 or 2005 he would still only be 51 or 52.
Thanks for crashing my childhood dreams EON.

I think if they want to ever move toward getting a Bond actor as young as Connery was when he started (32) they wouldn't want the last actor playing Bond to be so old that it shows, for example AVTAK (Moore, 57) to TLD (Dalton 41). Many EON wants a young Bond and a better transition between actors and their age gaps.

[Miles Miservy]

The franchise has morphed so many times over the past 5 decades that these questions seem almost innate. Speculation already exists amongst these threads as to whom will replace Daniel Craig when the time comes. At this time, it seems a bit premature but by no means inevitable. Who's to say that Michael Wilson will not be replaced as producer one day? Bond is bigger than just one man, right?

[L4YRCAKE]

Wilson's just hedging his bets and specifically referring to Brosnan. Think about it: unless it unexpectedly bombs replacing Craig after Skyfall would defy logic. Firing Brosnan may have seemed premature to some fans but it made sense really in the long run. After Die Another Day they knew they had no choice but to get back to Bond's roots. Do they do that with the actor who only has a film or two more in him? Or bring in a new actor that can start over in a way that gives the series legs again? QOS wasn't nearly as bad as its rep but it should've been much better. Daniel Craig has brought more to the Bond films than any producer could have dreamed and they make an origin story that is considered already a classic Bond film but only in crysalis form, make a sequel that was flawed when it shouldn't have been yet still worked even though at times it shouldn't have, and most likely follow it with the fully formed Bond film we've all been waiting for, only to start thinking about a replacement actor...?

No. Way.

This Bond's just getting started. Anyone who wants to see Mr. Craig replaced by a pretty boy who phones in his performances needs to stay out of his way.

[DamnCoffee]

Wilson's just hedging his bets and specifically referring to Brosnan. Think about it: unless it unexpectedly bombs replacing Craig after Skyfall would defy logic. Firing Brosnan may have seemed premature to some fans but it made sense really in the long run. After Die Another Day they knew they had no choice but to get back to Bond's roots. Do they do that with the actor who only has a film or two more in him? Or bring in a new actor that can start over in a way that gives the series legs again? QOS wasn't nearly as bad as its rep but it should've been much better. Daniel Craig has brought more to the Bond films than any producer could have dreamed and they make an origin story that is considered already a classic Bond film but only in crysalis form, make a sequel that was flawed when it shouldn't have been yet still worked even though at times it shouldn't have, and most likely follow it with the fully formed Bond film we've all been waiting for, only to start thinking about a replacement actor...?

No. Way.

This Bond's just getting started. Anyone who wants to see Mr. Craig replaced by a pretty boy who phones in his performances needs to stay out of his way.

Couldn't have said it better myself! Well done.

[JimmyBond]

I just read stuff like this and start to worry, is all. They were quick to replace Brosnan who's to say it won't happen again.

You guys do make some good points, but I think all of us felt it was even silly to entertain the notion of a Bond 21 without Brosnan.

[Napoleon Solo]

Can't imagine SKYFALL not being a huge hit. And MGM not wanting to get 24 in cinemas in 2014. To start production and find a new Bond in that short amount of time would be tough. Unless they have already one waiting.
But I doubt that they will nix Craig so fast.
For Bond 25 it's another story.

Still, going public with this after the love fest for Craig might suggest that negotiations for Bond 24 have become tougher than EON wanted...

MGM wants Bond 24 in 2014. As part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan in 2010, MGM said it wanted to get the series back on an every-other-year schedule.

Sony wants Bond 24 in 2014. A Sony executive announced that at an event with theater executives.

Barbara Broccoli is on record as saying "Nothing's been announced." (joint interview she did with Daniel Craig in the spring).

[FredJB007]

Much Ado about nothing.........just contract BS......Babs loves Dan and he isn't going anywhere without her approval.
Also if Skyfall is a huge hit, do you think Sony will want to bring in a new 007? I don't think so.
I think Dan leaves when he wants to.

[L4YRCAKE]

Wilson's just hedging his bets and specifically referring to Brosnan. Think about it: unless it unexpectedly bombs replacing Craig after Skyfall would defy logic. Firing Brosnan may have seemed premature to some fans but it made sense really in the long run. After Die Another Day they knew they had no choice but to get back to Bond's roots. Do they do that with the actor who only has a film or two more in him? Or bring in a new actor that can start over in a way that gives the series legs again? QOS wasn't nearly as bad as its rep but it should've been much better. Daniel Craig has brought more to the Bond films than any producer could have dreamed and they make an origin story that is considered already a classic Bond film but only in crysalis form, make a sequel that was flawed when it shouldn't have been yet still worked even though at times it shouldn't have, and most likely follow it with the fully formed Bond film we've all been waiting for, only to start thinking about a replacement actor...?

No. Way.

This Bond's just getting started. Anyone who wants to see Mr. Craig replaced by a pretty boy who phones in his performances needs to stay out of his way.

Couldn't have said it better myself! Well done.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I worry sometimes that my responses can be bombastic, so I appreciate the feedback.

[killkenny kid]

Much Ado about nothing.........just contract BS......Babs loves Dan and he isn't going anywhere without her approval.
Also if Skyfall is a huge hit, do you think Sony will want to bring in a new 007? I don't think so.
I think Dan leaves when he wants to.

As a Brosnan fan, I think I'm going to enjoy this to the end..

[Dustin]

I suppose - mind you, suppose - the reason behind this is really just the negotiation foreplay. Cubby and Moore supposedly used to have rather long-winding talks until the ink on the contract was dry, with Moore hearing about Connery's own contract for NSNA and understandably not wanting to come in cheap into Broccoli's stable. There is no reason to assume things have changed on that front. The producer still wants to spend as little as possible, while the star wants the opposite. There is still nothing to prevent them from coming to an agreement in the end.

[MajorB]

I agree that this is nothing. We don't even know that it is contract-related. If the news reports were correct and they did negotiate three films with an option for a fourth, then--from my putative understanding of what an option is--the terms for the fourth film are already locked in. Of course, I suppose Craig could always try a power play and insist on renegotiating. Or the reports of an option may have been wrong. But we have no particular reason to believe that any of this has to do with his contract. And since I think we still don't know (correct me if I've missed it) what the context of MGW's remark was to begin with, my feeling is this is all just noise and commotion.

[Dustin]

I agree that this is nothing. We don't even know that it is contract-related. If the news reports were correct and they did negotiate three films with an option for a fourth, then--from my putative understanding of what an option is--the terms for the fourth film are already locked in. Of course, I suppose Craig could always try a power play and insist on renegotiating. Or the reports of an option may have been wrong. But we have no particular reason to believe that any of this has to do with his contract. And since I think we still don't know (correct me if I've missed it) what the context of MGW's remark was to begin with, my feeling is this is all just noise and commotion.

No, I think that is why it's called an 'option'. Otherwise it would be a four film deal. The idea is to give both sides an exit should things don't go according to plan. But the actual figure Craig is to receive for his forth is still to be negotiated. Alternatively this need not be about the fee itself but about a further multiple-films contract that one side could want while the other doesn't.

But you are completely right, we know too little, if anything at all. On the other hand I do not think this piece about Wilson's appearance was merely made up or coincidental. It was there for a reason.

[L4YRCAKE]

Can't imagine SKYFALL not being a huge hit. And MGM not wanting to get 24 in cinemas in 2014. To start production and find a new Bond in that short amount of time would be tough. Unless they have already one waiting.
But I doubt that they will nix Craig so fast.
For Bond 25 it's another story.

Still, going public with this after the love fest for Craig might suggest that negotiations for Bond 24 have become tougher than EON wanted...

MGM wants Bond 24 in 2014. As part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan in 2010, MGM said it wanted to get the series back on an every-other-year schedule.

Sony wants Bond 24 in 2014. A Sony executive announced that at an event with theater executives.

Barbara Broccoli is on record as saying "Nothing's been announced." (joint interview she did with Daniel Craig in the spring).

Before Daniel Craig was announced as the next 007, I read an interview with Brosnan in New York Times magazine where he said he and Quentin Tarantino had approached the producers about doing Casino Royale as the next film and a period piece, and that the producers had shot it down, which at the time flabbergasted me. Yet now, it makes perfect sense because no matter how great that film could have been, there was no future to take that incarnation because Brosnan was not so much getting old as he wasn't exactly in terrific shape and rapidly becoming less and less convincing as an action hero, much like Roger Moore. (and apologies to both men, they made great movies too, but Bond's an incredibly physically demanding role, and in a tux no less)

Whether purely by luck or otherwise, the producers got, in Daniel Craig, an actor that took an icon that is vulnerable to tons of valid criticism for being one dimensional and has given him depth and logic as to his motivations. Craig's Bond is often criticized as nothing but a superficial response to the Bourne films, which is really pretty knee jerk. The Bourne movies showed that you could up the ante in physical action which Craig not only co-opted, but transcended (Jeremy Renner is not only no Daniel Craig, he's not even Matt Damon...). The new 007 is really a response to John LeCarre's valid dislike of the character's lack of morals combined with Steve McQueen's physical acting, style and flair, and his unique ability to pull off a three piece suit in a way that both flouts upper class snobbery and redefines cool. Casino Royale not only went back to source material, it improved upon it. If the producers have any smarts at all they'll let Mr. Craig make as many films as he sees fit because they've got a Bond the audience can't take their eyes off of and cannot wait to see where he's going.

[L4YRCAKE]

I agree that this is nothing. We don't even know that it is contract-related. If the news reports were correct and they did negotiate three films with an option for a fourth, then--from my putative understanding of what an option is--the terms for the fourth film are already locked in. Of course, I suppose Craig could always try a power play and insist on renegotiating. Or the reports of an option may have been wrong. But we have no particular reason to believe that any of this has to do with his contract. And since I think we still don't know (correct me if I've missed it) what the context of MGW's remark was to begin with, my feeling is this is all just noise and commotion.

No, I think that is why it's called an 'option'. Otherwise it would be a four film deal. The idea is to give both sides an exit should things don't go according to plan. But the actual figure Craig is to receive for his forth is still to be negotiated. Alternatively this need not be about the fee itself but about a further multiple-films contract that one side could want while the other doesn't.

But you are completely right, we know too little, if anything at all. On the other hand I do not think this piece about Wilson's appearance was merely made up or coincidental. It was there for a reason.

I'm reasonably certain that Daniel Craig can be offered a sum for future films that will be satisfactory to all involved, after all Quantum Of Solace took a critical drubbing but was still one of the most financially successful Bonds, no? And him and Sam Mendes planning his third Bond film while the studio was in limbo indicates to me that he's ultimately interested in making good films, long as he's earning what's rightfully fair. Maybe they'll offer him a percentage...?

[SecretAgentFan]

Maybe Wilson vented a bit? Was he always pro Craig? Or do I remember a quote by Campbell that he and Wilson were not convinced at first?

[L4YRCAKE]

Maybe Wilson vented a bit? Was he always pro Craig? Or do I remember a quote by Campbell that he and Wilson were not convinced at first?

My recollection was that it was down to Daniel Craig or Henry Cavill and for Craig's audition he showed up really tired and jet lagged and they really liked Cavill other than he seemed a little too young. Then supposedly they saw Craig's excellent 'Layercake' (and I admit there may be some bias on my part ) and were convinced that they'd found their new Bond.

I may not have all of that correct though.

[Major Tallon]

This story rather skews the publicity campaign for Skyfall, however. Now, instead of being asked about how great the film is or how he's playing the part, Craig can expect to be asked at every interview whether he's been "fired" or not renewed for future films. I'm not sure that the either the studios or the producers want that to be the focus of so many of the reports and interviews on the current film. Bearing in mind that I don't know the context in which the statement was made, or even the full quotation, and even if Wilson was merely leaving himself an out for future contract negotiations, he may have said too much, too soon.

[L4YRCAKE]

I myself was kinda thinking maybe Wilson or somebody would perhaps hold a press conference in the next couple of days to clear up any rumors that he may have started or to say that he'd mis-spoke. Guess we'll find out.

[Dustin]

I don't think Craig or EON are asked about it at all. Every Interview with either the star or the producers is only done with a list of 'no-nos' in advance, and contract details - or in fact any question regarding the contract - are strictly 'verboten'.

[SecretAgentFan]

It might be possible also that Wilson was merely misquoted.

[Napoleon Solo]

It might be possible also that Wilson was merely misquoted.

Judge for yourself:



The comments seem more hypothetical than Craig specific. Still, it's quite a contrast to his December remarks where he said he hoped DC would do eight movies and break Roger Moore's mark. Here, he's saying don't be afraid to replace your actor.

[MajorB]

Really? That's what all the fuss has been about?? Wilson makes general comments about how the frachise hasn't been afraid to make changes over the years, the Standard makes an absolutely wild extrapolation that this somehow means Craig's longevity as Bond is in peril, and we all go crazy? Man, are we desperate for things to talk about. Good night.

[Simon]

Grief - no fuss at all.

Very generic and an otherwise good talk which is basically saying, Don't be afraid of change, and portraying the phrase, If it ain't broke - don't fix it, as being a candidate for complacency.

Very interesting. You can absolutely see why these producers are so successful and that if it had been handed over to the Joel Silvers of this world, the series would have gone to four films only.