Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

I can't wait till Craig is done....


84 replies to this topic

#31 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 18 March 2014 - 05:49 PM

 

I would go even further and claim that Bond cannot be a trendsetter ever again.  

 

The character has become an institution.  Everybody knows what Bond movies can offer and expects certain things of it.  Sure, one can withhold Q and Moneypenny for a while, but any kind of re-booting would have to include the basic characteristics.  So where does that leave room for something really original?

 

I agree, in so much as I don't think that the Bond films can ever really set a trend again.  The trend that they set back in the day was primarily for their depiction of sex and violence on the big screen.  That kind of stuff is no longer taboo, and now there are films that push the envelope much more in that department than Bond.

 

I do think that they could do something original with the films, though.  That won't, however, happen until someone else makes their own James Bond film.  So far, we've only seen how the Broccoli family would make a Bond film.  We know what to expect from their type of Bond film, and there's not going to be much that would change from their offerings, aside from some stylistic differences here and there.  The formula is set, and neither of the two currently running EON are inclined to change that.  Putting Bond in someone else's hands, however, someone who isn't bound by the formula, could yield some surprising results.  I'm very much hoping that that day comes at some point in my lifetime, because I'd very much like to see a totally radical take on the Bond character, something that I was hoping to get with Casino Royale.

 

I was about to write something. you just wrote it in better words I would ever use. In that sense, the CR project by Tarantino could have been very interesting.

Yes, Bond is an institution but saying that it will never never change scares me. This is the longest Franchise in history, should the producers have the b..., there is no risk for proposing something really new/suprising (if not a trendsetter). Maybe,it will not work but there is always a Bond to come after and we we know that we will pay our ticket for it



#32 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 18 March 2014 - 06:07 PM

So many different, divergent, credible views to please - steering a course between them must be bloody difficult after fifty years. Perhaps that's why they're the billionaires and we're...not.



#33 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 25 March 2014 - 12:25 PM

Only read the original post and this is a direct response to it. I'll have a read of the rest of the thread a bit later when I have time. So apologies in advance if I step on anyone's toes.

 

These criticisms being leveled at Craig are nothing new - many feel the same way. I did myself for a while! I had a heated discussion with a much older friend of mine about Craig's tenure not too long ago - and he said that Craig's take on the role isn't really the way it should be done - and to him it just isn't Bond. He then waxed lyrical about the way things used to be done and expressed a desire for it to go back that way. 

 

I'm a fairly young man - but I'm old enough to remember the classic era (I grew up with Brosnan and despite it having some new progressive elements that era was STILL part of the original continuity and retained the core elements that many are sad to have seen jettisoned in this rebooted age).

 

What one has to remember is Bond belongs to its audience now. It belongs to the world. Fleming God rest his soul has been gone for a very long time. Whilst the original era is still classic stuff - that kind of approach doesn't really work in spy stories anymore. By Die Another Day it was starting to become seriously tired. There was nothing new to see.

 

Now we live in a post 9/11 world and live in a more threatening global climate - and this kind of thing impacts greatly on art and entertainment. There are really spies out there working to protect us normal folk. Now quite frankly - if someone is out there doing something to try and protect me I don't want him lounging around in casinos and thinking with his phallus, and getting pissed on vodka martinis. The time for that has seriously gone. It isn't tasteful to handle matters of espionage in such a flippant manner. I think the people who make the movies recognised this stark fact aswell.

 

I think the new movies and new interpretation of Bond have gone the right way about it. Those wanting a more classical traditional approach - it's just not there anymore. 

Granted it took some getting used to - but to be honest with you right now at this moment in time I wouldn't have it any other way. We need a guy out there who is kicking ass and who's mind is on the job. Someone who has the guts to do something WE wouldn't in the cause of the greater good. For these purposes - Daniel Craig is perfect and long may his reign continue. 



#34 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 March 2014 - 02:12 PM

I think the series and character are headed in the right direction, but they don't need to completely toss some of the classic elements to maintain this. Just do them the right way, not in a forced way.

 

Certain scenes in the previous era seemed to shoehorned in. I think of TWINE where Bond goes to Zukovsky's casino in tux and ordering the vodka martini. That seemed really out of place and an excuse to add in that element. The same with snow/skiing scenes. They worked in the past, let's toss in another one since the audience expects it seemed to be the thinking. And I really don't need to see Bond beating a guy named Bunky to show he's a great gambler. That's another offender.

 

But I'll point to scenes from the Craig era where those elements have worked: Bond getting pissed on vodka martinis or whatever it was in QoS on the plane with Mathis. His visit to the casino in SF was important to the plot. And then there's the classic response in CR when asked if he wants his martini shaken or stirred: "Do I look like I give a damn?" That got a laugh of recognition from about half the audience I saw it with who got it. So do those but do them right.

 

Don't kid yourself, though. Bond doesn't necessarily belong to the audience. It's not under the iron fist of Cubby anymore, but they also won't be making decisions necessarily based on what audiences think. No, they aren't George Lucas saying they're his films and he doesn't make them for the audience. But if they belonged to the audience we may have had Pierce Brosnan for 2-3 more pictures based on his box office success and identification in the role. It took guts to put the series on hold and go with basically an unknown who didn't fit what seemed to be a majority of people's vision of Bond and reboot it.  

 

People love Bond for certain touches and they should stay fresh or otherwise you run the risk of it becoming Bourne, which it already gets accused of in enough people's opinions.



#35 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 25 March 2014 - 05:10 PM

 But if they belonged to the audience we may have had Pierce Brosnan for 2-3 more pictures based on his box office success and identification in the role. It took guts to put the series on hold and go with basically an unknown who didn't fit what seemed to be a majority of people's vision of Bond and reboot it.  

 

Yes - that's how it was at the time for sure but you can arguably say they saw what was coming and took a gamble. 24 was on TV and the Bourne movie was a big success and sequels were announced. It was fairly obvious at the time that it's the way things were heading and audiences were already responding to it. I think they wanted to do it whilst it was still their own decision - as opposed to being forced to do it later down the line. 

 

There's also the possibility that they thought the new approach could win NEW fans. I know plenty of people who loved 24 but hated Bond. 

 

The Bourne Identity and Die Another Day came out in the same year. The Bourne Identity was as critical a success as it was a commercial one. Audiences really responded. Die Another Day was a commercial success but when the dust settled many claimed it looked a bit old fashioned when Our Man was compared to the likes of Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne. 


Edited by ChickenStu, 25 March 2014 - 05:14 PM.


#36 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 March 2014 - 06:06 PM

I remember that "The Bourne Identity" performed rather unspectacularly.  DAD was a huge blockbuster.



#37 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 25 March 2014 - 06:36 PM

I remember that "The Bourne Identity" performed rather unspectacularly.  

 

Well... Hollywood doesn't generally greenlight sequels to films that perform unspectacularly. Granted - it's the two sequels that really raked in the dough for the series but they would not have been allowed to go ahead if the original didn't bust some blocks. You can take that to the bank I promise you. 

 

Look at the trouble they are having getting a sequel to Dredd made...



#38 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 25 March 2014 - 07:16 PM

I remember that "The Bourne Identity" performed rather unspectacularly.

 
Well... Hollywood doesn't generally greenlight sequels to films that perform unspectacularly. Granted - it's the two sequels that really raked in the dough for the series but they would not have been allowed to go ahead if the original didn't bust some blocks. You can take that to the bank I promise you. 
 
Look at the trouble they are having getting a sequel to Dredd made...


In the US market, TBI made 3/4 of what DAD did. TBI got better reviews, but DAD got its fair share of good and excellent reviews. Here's a quick handful. Lots more out there.

Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman: "The savviest and most exciting Bond adventure in years, and that's because there's actually something at stake in it."

New York Daily News Jami Bernard: "As strong on action as it is weak on the interpersonal stuff. If Bond can get a new car for each episode, how about some new pickup lines?"

Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert: "Die Another Day is still utterly absurd from one end to the other, of course, but in a slightly more understated way. And so it goes, Bond after Bond, as the most durable series in movie history heads for the half-century."

Rolling Stone Peter Travers: "Brosnan, in his fourth time up at the Bond bat, hits this one out of the park."

Miami Herald Howard Cohen: "Amped to the max, with firepower and fisticuffs flying, this is Bond as we have come to know him in the post-Roger Moore years: bigger, badder, better."

New York Post Megan Lehmann: "Aside from a jarringly fake computer-generated avalanche scene that momentarily challenges the necessary suspension of disbelief, the big-bang set pieces are superbly crafted."

Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman: "The picture should satisfy both diehard fans, who liked the plotting and interaction of early Bond films, and "Die Hard" fans, who prefer Bond shaken and stirred by massive explosions, vehicular crashes and gunplay befitting a Central American revolution."

Leonard Maltin's film guide gave it three stars out of four, objecting only to the CGI and overlength.

#39 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 March 2014 - 07:59 PM

Still not particularly convinced in the case of the Bourne thing. I recall people saying Rambo, the Die Hards and Lethal Weapons would be the end of Bond. Then it was True Lies. The series stayed true to its identify and won fans, many because of the GoldenEye video game, who discovered there was a deeper legacyand watched the old films. Anybody recall how XxX was going to render Bond obsolete according to its star before DAD?

 

I don't deny the Bournes helped Eon up its game, but at no point will I think these will be anything more than a solid series that contributed well to the genre. The underwhelming response to The Bourne Legacy is a perfect example of that series maybe not having the longevity or goods to stay ongoing. Whereas the Bond series could change lead actors it still went on and rebuilt and had success after success. Did people only want Matt Damon, was Jeremy Renner not convincing? He did pretty well on the spy front as a member of the team in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Was Greengrass' departure a huge factor?

 

I also know people who don't like Bond, but many more who do. And I still hear a lot of people ask when a new Bond is coming out and have yet to hear any ask when the next Bourne will come out.



#40 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:26 PM

Glidrose. That was 12 years ago.

 

http://www.rottentom...ie_another_day/

 

http://www.rottentom...ourne_identity/

 

The percentage each gets is based on critic reviews. Have a look on how the scores are calculated. It speaks for itself. 



#41 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 26 March 2014 - 03:19 AM

If Craig ages well and depending on how many years they have in between films, I would be fine Craig did a 6th or 7th film. I just love continuity I guess...



#42 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:14 AM

Glidrose. That was 12 years ago.

 

http://www.rottentom...ie_another_day/

 

http://www.rottentom...ourne_identity/

 

The percentage each gets is based on critic reviews. Have a look on how the scores are calculated. It speaks for itself. 

 

IMO, it´s silly to quote sites as rottentomatoes.com as reliable sources for... well, what exactly - critical consensus?

 

Whether a review gets a "fresh" or "rotten" score is very subjective.   Rarely, reviewers totally pan a film.  But at what stage does a review weigh more towards "fresh" or "rotten"?  I have read reviews which IMO remained positive but still got a "rotten" from this site.  And vice versa.

 

In the end, reviews don´t mean anything - they are just personal opinions (often guided by strategical connections to studios etc.).

 

In the case of "The Bourne Identity" it is very obvious that it was a property the studio wanted to use and build up.   But the well-publicized difficulties surrounding the making of the first film and the disappointment about its box office performance explain the effort to change things up for the second film "The Bourne Supremacy".  Hiring Paul Greengrass was a major factor to "reboot", so to speak, and to give this planned series an edge.

 

Which worked.  The second film was a blockbuster and ignited interest which was held for the third film.  But by then, the "shaky-cam"-idea was already not as fresh anymore.  And the story was, in fact, told.  "Bourne" had ended.

 

Of course, Jeremy Renner was not as big a draw as Matt Damon.  But the main problem of the fourth film was, IMO, its obvious effort to convince the audience that there was a much bigger story behind the previous story - and then this "bigger story" actually felt quite familiar, more of the same.  Yes, they want to do another movie with Renner - but this is, make no mistake, just because the "Bourne" rights are too valuable to disregard in this "franchise is better than starting a new, original idea"-mentality.

 

Returning to the influence of "Bourne" on Bond:  "Die another Day" was a mega-hit, the most successful Brosnan-Bond.  Another Brosnan-Bond was planned and suggested by MGM, and it would have been more of the same.

 

But Brosnan was getting older, his knee injury during the making of DAD was a painful reminder of that.   And he demanded a huge raise for his already huge salary.  The relationship between him and EON was not at its best anymore.  And EON got the rights to "Casino Royale" - which would have been wasted making it with an "old" Bond; it needed a younger actor.

 

Also, 9/11 had happened.  "DAD" could not react to that because it went into production shortly after that.  But now, making another spy movie without reacting to the real-life turmoil would have increased the fantasy aspect of the next Bond film, removing it from relevancy even further.  And this is where "The Bourne Supremacy" became an important factor.  That was a film that took spies much more seriously, taking a gritty approach to filming action - and succeeding brightly at the box office.  

 

EON had to react.  So, they re-booted.  Thereby they could make Bond ready for the future and get rid of Brosnan.


Edited by SecretAgentFan, 26 March 2014 - 06:15 AM.


#43 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:01 AM

So many different, divergent, credible views to please - steering a course between them must be bloody difficult after fifty years. Perhaps that's why they're the billionaires and we're...not.

 

Yeah thats pretty much how i look at it too.



#44 Moore'sStuntDouble

Moore'sStuntDouble

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 20 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:38 PM

I found SKYFALL to be beautifully made, but also annoying and superficially "profound" (and why do Bond movies nowadays always seem to be about the Bond series? Seems a little bit, um, hopelessly deriviative and self-obsessed to me.). I too prefer the joy and those subtleties of the older films that Eddie Burns mentioned. 

 

I very much feel the same way, and I share many of the OP's concerns about the direction of the series, but frankly, I don't see it going any other way. The installments that have taken a darker, more Bourne-esque and more Nolan-esque turn have been so warmly embraced by audiences around the world that I doubt we'll see a change in tone anytime soon. The general complaint I see is that Bond is taking inspiration from other films (Bourne, Dark Knight) rather than inspiring others ("trend-setting") as it used to do. And I'm very sensitive to that point of view. But, for better or worse, this is what audiences want an action movie to look like now. As much as I love the levity of the the early films, that just ain't selling right now.

The thing I do think should change is the characterization of Bond himself. In the past two film, Bond has become such a burdened character that it's no wonder people think Craig isn't having any fun doing it. Bond himself hasn't been allowed to have much fun in the past two films. That I do think should change, though I admit I'm not hopeful. Again, audiences seem to want conflicted, tortured action heroes, even if that trope is boring the S*** out of me at this point. I'd much rather see Bond enjoying himself. 



#45 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 11:40 PM

Glidrose. That was 12 years ago.


So what? The film is also twelve years old.

#46 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 28 March 2014 - 01:54 PM

Mention has been made of Bond "enjoying himself". I'm not sure what to make of that. Bedding the ladies, enjoying the Vodka Martinis, that I can understand. But do we include his main preoccupation as enjoyment - licenced state sponsored killing in the call of duty? Somehow I doubt it. Not even the Bond of the books enjoyed that side of his life, even though, as Craig's Bond remarked in CR, he wouldn't be very good at his job if it bothered him.



#47 Moore'sStuntDouble

Moore'sStuntDouble

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 20 posts

Posted 28 March 2014 - 02:10 PM

Mention has been made of Bond "enjoying himself". I'm not sure what to make of that. Bedding the ladies, enjoying the Vodka Martinis, that I can understand. But do we include his main preoccupation as enjoyment - licenced state sponsored killing in the call of duty? Somehow I doubt it. Not even the Bond of the books enjoyed that side of his life, even though, as Craig's Bond remarked in CR, he wouldn't be very good at his job if it bothered him.

 

I don't mean enjoying killing/not taking the job seriously. I was thinking more along the lines of "Let's have a little fun with Mr. Goldfinger."



#48 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 28 March 2014 - 03:12 PM

 

Mention has been made of Bond "enjoying himself". I'm not sure what to make of that. Bedding the ladies, enjoying the Vodka Martinis, that I can understand. But do we include his main preoccupation as enjoyment - licenced state sponsored killing in the call of duty? Somehow I doubt it. Not even the Bond of the books enjoyed that side of his life, even though, as Craig's Bond remarked in CR, he wouldn't be very good at his job if it bothered him.

 

I don't mean enjoying killing/not taking the job seriously. I was thinking more along the lines of "Let's have a little fun with Mr. Goldfinger."

 

I agree on that. We need that coolness. Bond is the best. We know that and Craig should know that also



#49 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 28 March 2014 - 04:12 PM

I've no problem with "coolness", in fact if you look at the first part of CR 2006, Craig's Bond demonstrates some of that himself. He's got the issues with Vesper out of his system - unless in some future film he finally confronts the "mastermind" behind Quantum and it all comes back to him - and the events of the last film are over and done. He can afford to relax and enjoy life a bit, but Craig's Bond will never be the same as Connery's, Moore's or anyone else's, and personally I wouldn't want him to be. I'm quite content with this version of Ian Fleming's "blunt instrument", and I think an attempt to make him more like some version of Bond we knew and loved from past movies wouldn't really work.

 

He's been put through the wringer by the screenwriters and producers. Maybe Bond 24 will see Craig's Bond enjoying more of what his predecessors did (It would be nice to see him and the leading lady make it through to the final reel intact, for example.) But it will still be his version of Bond we'll see.



#50 DavidJones

DavidJones

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:15 AM

I'm trying my damnest to like him, as he's going to be here until 2019/21, because Barbara Broccoli fancies him.



#51 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:46 PM

So the perception of Craig staying in the role is because "Barbara Broccoli fancies him?" Nothing to do with the public, whose box office dollars have termed him successful, probably 95 percent of whom have no clue who Barbara Broccoli is?



#52 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:51 PM

So the perception of Craig staying in the role is because "Barbara Broccoli fancies him?" Nothing to do with the public, whose box office dollars have termed him successful, probably 95 percent of whom have no clue who Barbara Broccoli is?

 

I guess the billion dollars that he helped to make EON and the studios with Skyfall doesn't have much of an effect on his job status either. ;)


Edited by tdalton, 05 May 2014 - 09:52 PM.


#53 saint mark

saint mark

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 146 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:57 PM

So the perception of Craig staying in the role is because "Barbara Broccoli fancies him?" Nothing to do with the public, whose box office dollars have termed him successful, probably 95 percent of whom have no clue who Barbara Broccoli is?

 

We all know how making a shedload of money gives you a job assurance in this franchise. :D



#54 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:27 AM

I dont agree at all, Craig's performance in Skyfall is easily my favorite performance in any Bond film since Connery's prime. He absolutely nailed it. 



#55 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 June 2014 - 12:11 PM

So the perception of Craig staying in the role is because "Barbara Broccoli fancies him?" 

 

Where does this "BB cast Daniel because she fancied him"-crap actually come from?

 

Some rumor based on people who were trying to get the DanielCragisnotBond.com running?



#56 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:17 PM

The perception of a fan who isn't enjoying the Craig era and when a producer praises her star it gets translated as something more to suit their imaginations.



#57 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 25 June 2014 - 06:54 PM

I think everyone has the right to their own opinions. I however, really enjoyed Skyfall and Casino Royale. Do I think Craig is my favorite Bond ever? No. I do agree with what you have to say though about him talking about the role of Bond. He does seem to be doing it for the money not for his of the character. 



#58 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 25 June 2014 - 08:32 PM

For the money? I can't agree with that. I think he really enjoys playing Bond and has a lot of fun trying to get the movies in a different direction than how it was in the past.

But it's not my favorite Bond. Connery and especialy Moore are the best for me.



#59 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 26 June 2014 - 03:04 AM

Connery and especialy Moore are the best for me.

 

Those are my top two as well, effectively immovable. Craig is my third favourite, and I think he's in that same league. Those guys really made the role their own. Craig has impressed me with all of his performances. I am now very eager for Bond 24, and think the general public will be too.



#60 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 June 2014 - 05:03 AM

I think everyone has the right to their own opinions. I however, really enjoyed Skyfall and Casino Royale. Do I think Craig is my favorite Bond ever? No. I do agree with what you have to say though about him talking about the role of Bond. He does seem to be doing it for the money not for his of the character. 

 

My impression is that Craig´s perspective has changed.  During the PR for "Casino Royale" he stressed the fact that it took a long time persuading him to play the character (which probably means: he was scared of failure and being stuck in a role that no major actor wanted before, but since he needed a big break he took it on for the money).  When he was widely praised he became more comfortable with the role, and since the success of "Quantum of Solace" proved he was no one-hit-wonder, he could also use his status to do other films.  With "Skyfall" becoming a mega-hit he has often said how great the whole franchise is.

 

So, the money is, of course, a big draw.  But this was true for all Bond actors.  Connery even dropped out because he did not get enough money.  Moore always threatened to leave when his demands weren´t met.  Lazenby... well, he wasn´t asked back - but I´m sure he would have wanted a raise.  And Brosnan... rumor has it that his demands for a fifth Bond film were so high that this was one aspect of EON´s decision to re-boot.