31 replies to this topic

[Blue07]

Got the impression from the press conference and Wilson and Craigs reluctance to talk about how many he'd signed for, that Craig might end up being a one movie Bond. There was too much talk about 'having to think about whether to take the role' and 'typcasting' - you what? You should be down on your knees thanking them for the role. THE role in the movies. Also Craggy is one of those 'serious' thesps that I think reckon Bond is a lot of nonsense and not worth taking seriously. You should not have to think about whether to take this role or not. It reminds me of when Christopher Eccelston was cast as Dr. Who - an odd choice who turned out to be great then messed with the series be quitting just after the first episode. If EON are serious in Craggy then they should have him signed for three movies - continuity is neccesary with Bond. Why not talk about it? It was common knowledge that the great Irishman signed for three with an option of a fourth - shame he didn't do a fifth. Craggy another Lazenby? Slightly above all this spy nonsense? Hope not.

[Michigansoftball#1]

He's signed a three-pictuyre deal. I don't think it will matter how CASINO ROYALE performs at the box office.

Past experience has shown us that EON is prepared to stick with their actor regardless of how they do at the box office.

Lazenby decided to walk away from the role after one movie and Dalton did two and would have done a third if he hadn't decided to leave the role (the old did he walk or was he pushed controversy)

Edited by Michigansoftball#1, 18 October 2005 - 08:23 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

Not that it means anything, but we've had a progression of "many bond film" actors followed by "few Bond film" actors.

Connery's 5 to Lazenby's 1.

Moore's 7 to Dalton's 2.

Where Craig fits in, I don't know, but I would assume that he will follow the pattern and make fewer films than his predecessor.

[Blue07]

It just seems that with Craggy we've got a guy who doesn't seem to truely value the role he's got - Pierce got it, loved it and it showed. He deserved more. Just get the impression Craggy will walk and that he seems slightly embarrassed at being the worlds greatest spy. Hope he doesn't. I wasn't in favour of him but now hes got it we should stick with him and hope for at least three great movies.

Hello to all of you out there as well. Pleasure to be here.

Edited by Lappaman, 18 October 2005 - 09:25 PM.

[Mona Lovesit]

Depends on how many bullets he has.

[SeanValen00V]

He's signed a three-pictuyre deal. I don't think it will matter how CASINO ROYALE performs at the box office.

Tell that to Sony who are flucking 100 million into the picture.


Sure it'll make profit, but how much will Sony ask.
It's their first bond film under their watch, it's gotta make a decent impression. Sony will be thinking, errr, wish we had Brosnan maybe, we would of made more LOL.
That might come into it.

[J.B.]

In watching the press conference (in its entirety thanks to CBn)I got the impression the Craig is an opportunist and he sees this opportunity so he took it. He is different than, as you have stated here, a Brosnan who wanted the role, loved it and would do it with a cane if given a chance. In fact, during the press conference, Craig wouldnt say how many pictures were in the contract, only that they were in agreement with the terms of the contract. I was at first under the impression that it was EON that didnt want to nail him down to three pictures until the first picture came out to see if it succeeded. BUT, if just may be that HE didnt want to name a number to see whether another "opportunity" came along that he would jump the Bond ship and do "serious" work elsewhere and EON's desire is to pin him to three pictures.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

Will Daniel Craig only be Bond for one film?

We can only hope!

[Pussfeller]

I don't care if he is a brief Bond. As long as he keeps the role long enough to prevent Brosnan from returning, he'll be a success in my book.

[Sam Fisher]

I don't care if he is a brief Bond. As long as he keeps the role long enough to prevent Brosnan from returning, he'll be a success in my book. 

I think that Casino Royale is over and done with Bronsan won't even care to return, he'll be what? 54? I don't think he'll want the part then.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

In watching the press conference (in its entirety thanks to CBn)I got the impression the Craig is an opportunist and he sees this opportunity so he took it. He is different than, as you have stated here, a Brosnan who wanted the role, loved it and would do it with a cane if given a chance. In fact, during the press conference, Craig wouldnt say how many pictures were in the contract, only that they were in agreement with the terms of the contract. I was at first under the impression that it was EON that didnt want to nail him down to three pictures until the first picture came out to see if it succeeded. BUT, if just may be that HE didnt want to name a number to see whether another "opportunity" came along that he would jump the Bond ship and do "serious" work elsewhere and EON's desire is to pin him to three pictures.

Yeah, after all the mans (Daniel Craig's) family doesn't have much respect for the Bond franchise. DC's own father says that the Bond films aren't great, and that there are better movies out there. How great when your own father has an attitude of I can take it or leave it about the franchise that your in.

And Daniel Craig has said neggative things about the Bond franchise in the past.

[Andrew]

Yeah, after all the mans (Daniel Craig's) family doesn't have much respect for the Bond franchise. DC's own father says that the Bond films aren't great, and that there are better movies out there. How great when your own father has an attitude of I can take it or leave it about the franchise that your in.

And Daniel Craig has said neggative things about the Bond franchise in the past.   

You guys are really pulling at strings now.

Also, Brosnan has been saying some unkind things about the franchise recently, does that mean you don't want him back?

It's incredible how everyone has closed Craigs casket before the death. If this movie fails it's because of the close minded fans.

[Michigansoftball#1]

I don't care if he is a brief Bond. As long as he keeps the role long enough to prevent Brosnan from returning, he'll be a success in my book. 

Amen....I agree with you...keep the role just long enough to prevent a return by Brosnan. The Brosnan era was 8 years longer than it should have been.

[Agent007.5]

I think Daniel Craig is just a temp for this one film, than for Bond 22, they'll go with Clive Owen- who I believe was too busy to do CR, but will hopefully not too busy for 22 in 2008.

[Scottlee]

I really can't see Craig doing less than at least two Bond films, the same number Dalton did.

The reason? No way on earth will Eon/Sony have risked signing an actor on a one film deal. That would just be the craziest risk ever.

[Byron]

[quote name='Michigansoftball#1' date='19 October 2005 - 03:14'][quote name='Pussfeller' date='18 October 2005 - 23:10']I don't care if he is a brief Bond. As long as he keeps the role long enough to prevent Brosnan from returning, he'll be a success in my book.

[tdalton]

I really can't see Craig doing less than at least two Bond films, the same number Dalton did.

The reason? No way on earth will Eon/Sony have risked signing an actor on a one film deal. That would just be the craziest risk ever.

I agree completely. Craig will at least get 2 Bond films, Casino Royale and Bond 22. CR will probably be a hit anyway just because of the curiosity over a new Bond actor as well as the fact that it'll be 4 years since the last Bond movie came out, and people want to see the Bond movies.

I also agree with the others in this thread who said that Craig's tenure will be a success even if it's only one film as long as he holds out long enough to prevent a Pierce Brosnan return.

[TheBritishEnd]

The fact that they are already fasttracking Bond 22, James Bond In New York, tells you everything you need to know. If they're more interested in a two-hour film about a man making eggs (than trying to sell Craig as Bond), it doesn't suggest a lot of confidence.

Should CBn even cover Casino Royale?

[JimmyBond]

The fact that they are already fasttracking Bond 22, James Bond In New York, tells you everything you need to know.  If they're more interested in a two-hour film about a man making eggs (than trying to sell Craig as Bond), it doesn't suggest a lot of confidence.

Should CBn even cover Casino Royale?

No offense, but I'm not even sure I can take your post seriously. And I thought the Serenity bashers were bad

[Dmitri Mishkin]

There was too much talk about 'having to think about whether to take the role' and 'typcasting' - you what? You should be down on your knees thanking them for the role. THE role in the movies. Also Craggy is one of those 'serious' thesps that I think reckon Bond is a lot of nonsense and not worth taking seriously. You should not have to think about whether to take this role or not.

All respect to the Bond series, but if you are a talented, diverse actor such as Daniel Craig, you do have to think seriously about taking this role. Bond is a once in a lifetime opportunity, certainly, but in choosing Bond, Craig also misses out on a lot of potential other opportunities. Perhaps he feels he can get the best of both worlds here, but it remains to be seen if he can reenergize his non-Bond acting career at the end of his tenure.

If EON are serious in Craggy then they should have him signed for three movies - continuity is neccesary with Bond.

Martin Campbell has said that the requirement for casting Bond was a 3 picture commitment: "It's difficult to find the man that every woman wants to go to bed with and every man wants to be. It's a tough call. And whoever plays Bond has to do it for three movies because they are contracted for three."

http://commanderbond...es/2946-1.shtml

I believe Craig will fulfill his contractual three, then move on and return to his acting career. I don't see him doing anymore beyond that, because he simply seems too ambitious an actor to stay with one franchise for that long, Bond or not.

[avl]

In watching the press conference (in its entirety thanks to CBn)I got the impression the Craig is an opportunist and he sees this opportunity so he took it. He is different than, as you have stated here, a Brosnan who wanted the role, loved it and would do it with a cane if given a chance.

I don't buy all this "saint Brosnan" stuff. He took the role because it was an opportunity to become an international star and make himself a lot of money, and fair enough to him. Ditto Craig. They are both acotrs with careers, not voulnteer workers in the "Preserve the values of Bond" charity

[Blue07]

Getting the role of Bond is obviously a big pay day and the greatest bit of actor exposure you can get. The difference with Brosnan and Craig is that Pierce coveted the role, and cherished it - yes it boosted his profile as an actor but I don't believe for one minute that he didn't truely appreciate what he got. Craig on the other hand - well I just think he seems too uncomfortable with it and as if he wants to apologise for being the worlds number one spy. He has recieved a lot of praise from critics over here in the UK, he's long been touted as the next big thing and I think that in the end his desire to prove himself as a 'serious' actor (what a joke - your Bond man! Enjoy it!) will see him walk after a short time. Can you not be a great and well respected actor and Bond? Yes Mr. Craig I think you can have your Layer Cake and eat it.

[Red Renard]

The problem seems to be that Craig seemed ill at ease in front of the press, in contrast to Brosnan who is a showman. I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that means that Craig lacks enthuasiasm for the role. With Brosnan I always got the impression that he was more of a kid in a candy score. He'd gotten the gig he'd wanted for years and was enjoying himself accordingly. Craig seems to be less of an extrovert as a person, less giving of himself in public. But we're not looking for someone to tell knock-knock jokes... we're looking for someone to be Bond! And I don't think you can read his intentions towards this role (which IS a BIG DEAL!)from the fact that he *isn't* like Brosnan!

The Christopher Eccleston comparison... I don't think Craig is as willfull an actor as Eccleston (who had previously walked out on Cracker). Plus these are movies, not a tv series, so Craig would have time for other projects that Eccleston wouldn't have had. I'd say that Craig fully intends to do his three films, and hopefully he'll do so successfully.

[L00 puoq s3wvf]

"The problem seems to be that Craig seemed ill at ease in front of the press, in contrast to Brosnan who is a showman. "

Or in contrast with Brosnan who whined like a five year old girl for the last 18 months!

[Blue07]

I certainly hope so. Continuity is needed even if it is Craig. It always seems that each actor needs at least two, usually three, movies to get in the feel of Bond, it would be a waste if he walked. I do still believe he is that sort of a person, the commitment may be less than a TV series but with the press and the whole sell of the film then thats a lot more than a six month shoot. Then there's the whole 'typecasting' thing which i've always found a bit of a cop out. Craig is just becoming known as a very good actor in critics eyes, he's just worked with Spielberg, and even without Bond is on his way up, I think there's a chance he will think that this sort of film might dry the sort of work he's getting now. I hope i'm wrong, I really do even though i'm not in favour of him, but unless (and I really hope not) CR is so grounded and down to earth a spy film that it has no feel of Bond, then I think he might do a Lazenby and stroll away from a series he thinks has no relevance. Though if Pierce comes back or Craig is really just keeping the tux warm for Owen then thats cool.

[marktmurphy]

I believe Craig will fulfill his contractual three, then move on and return to his acting career.  I don't see him doing anymore beyond that, because he simply seems too ambitious an actor to stay with one franchise for that long, Bond or not.

I'd agree. I think he'll be excellent, but he is a similar actor to the previously-mentioned Eccleston; he needs challenges and doesn't really relish fame. He knows he'll be forever called 'the James Bond actor Daniel Craig' and he's okay with that. He's done it because he believes in the script, not for any other reason. Check out his career to date if you don't believe this:
http://www.tiscali.c...craig_biog.html

[Loomis]

He's done it because he believes in the script, not for any other reason.

Must be one sensational script, then. I don't think I could be any more excited about CASINO ROYALE. Craig most definitely does not "need" Bond. That he's taken the role shows that we're in for some genuine quality.

No, Craig will not be a one-shot Bond. And, yes, I think he'll do his three and move on (and why not?).

Call me a fool, but I think that when they actually see Craig as Bond in CR, people will go ballistic.... with enthusiasm. He's going to be very, very good indeed.

[Blue07]

He's done it because he believes in the script, not for any other reason.

Must be one sensational script, then. I don't think I could be any more excited about CASINO ROYALE. Craig most definitely does not "need" Bond. That he's taken the role shows that we're in for some genuine quality.

No, Craig will not be a one-shot Bond. And, yes, I think he'll do his three and move on (and why not?).

Call me a fool, but I think that when they actually see Craig as Bond in CR, people will go ballistic.... with enthusiasm. He's going to be very, very good indeed.

I suppose if I keep reading enthusiasm like that up until the film is released I might just believe it!

[J.B.]

[quote name='Andrew' date='18 October 2005 - 22:11'][quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='19 October 2005 - 02:49']Yeah, after all the mans (Daniel Craig's) family doesn't have much respect for the Bond franchise. DC's own father says that the Bond films aren't great, and that there are better movies out there. How great when your own father has an attitude of I can take it or leave it about the franchise that your in.

And Daniel Craig has said neggative things about the Bond franchise in the past.

[avl]

My comments are based on impressions made by Craig back when the race was on for the new Bond and you heard Craig state things about Bond films. That, combined with his statements in the news conference just made that impression on me that he is an opportunist here.

There was no doubt Brosnan considered this an honor. That shows respect for the franchise. Craig came off like "ehh, this is just another role for me."

Will it effect how he acts or how the film turns out. No. And I hope it is good and I'm looking forward to it. Even though I think Brosnan was the best.

I didn't get that. Sure he said he "tried" to look at it as he would any other part - emphasis on the word tried. He told us he'd seen all the films "many times". In the GQ article he said "to be honest I'd love to play him". I think he knows it is a big deal, and he's coping with it by trying to act normal and approach the role as an actor as he would any other - ie do the best job with it that he can and not focus on the expectation and the baggage that goes with it. Which can only be the right thing for him to do, in my opinion.

I'm looking forward to it too. Even though I sometimes think Connery and sometimes Dalton is the best