43 replies to this topic

[kneelbeforezod]

Typical bit of reporting from today's Sunday Mirror, where an unremarkable story (of questionable veracity) is given a negative spin. I'd love to know who the so-called "Bond insider" actually is, or if he/she even exists...


Nobody does it cheaper
Sunday Mirror; 20 August 2006

JAMES Bond star Daniel Craig has signed up for two more movies as the suave super-spy - but at a knockdown price.

Blond Daniel is being paid far less for the role than 007 predecessor Pierce Brosnan.

Craig, 38, is banking

[bernsmartin007]

That's BS

They knew they would have had far better odds on making more money if they kept Brosnan and did the same old thing, whatever he asked to be paid.

They are gambling with Craig and it's not about money...obviously because it's a much bigger challenge to make this film as successful. It's because they want to make a good film.

I bet you anything that "Bond insider" was an email from one of those losers at CnB or whatever the hell it is now.

Edited by bernsmartin007, 20 August 2006 - 06:21 PM.

[Gobi-1]

That actual feels about right. Actor's salaries are out of control and EON will want to keep Craig's price tag at a low, but still reasonable sum for his first three films. However if he does a fourth it could be significantly higher, although still modest to other Hollywood paychecks. Even Brosnan paychecks was smaller to what Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey get paid.

[DamnCoffee]

The Sunday mirror says:

Nobody does it cheaper
Sunday Mirror; 20 August 2006

JAMES Bond star Daniel Craig has signed up for two more movies as the suave super-spy - but at a knockdown price.

Blond Daniel is being paid far less for the role than 007 predecessor Pierce Brosnan.

Craig, 38, is banking

Edited by mharkin, 20 August 2006 - 06:31 PM.

[bernsmartin007]

Brandon Routh got half a million for Superman, the most expensive and high profile blockbuster for a number of years.

If you find out what Pierce Brosnan got paid for Goldeneye I think you'll find it was about the same as what Craig is getting for the time.

Edited by bernsmartin007, 20 August 2006 - 06:34 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

Godamn it i hate the press

[JCRendle]

How much was Brosnan payed for GoldenEye?

[DamnCoffee]

The same as Craig for CR apparently

[Prav_007]

I remember Pierce Brosnan getting

[bernsmartin007]

I believe Brosnan was paid $1million for Goldeneye and later was paid an addition $3million as the film did well. This part of Daniel Craig's contract has not been mentioned.

This was an initial salary of

Edited by bernsmartin007, 20 August 2006 - 07:42 PM.

[Prav_007]

I believe Brosnan was paid $1million for Goldeneye and later was paid an addition $3million as the film did well. This part of Daniel Craig's contract has not been mentioned.

Yea Craig probably will get bonuses or some form of commision depending on the box-office.

[DaltonCraig]

I heard Dalton got $750,000 for TLD and then $1.5 Million for LTK. So this is about right. Although he was making $$$$, Brosnan's pay was getting a bit out of control when you consider the production and marketing costs. But Brosnan started out I think at $2 million for Goldeneye.

Wonder what Roger got paid?

[bernsmartin007]

http://www.freewebs....ercebrosnan.htm

"Note that it has been reported in numerous sources that Brosnan's salary started at $1,000,000 for GoldenEye, then had built in percentage increases after that. However that was just his base salary. His original contract gave him base pay, for example $1,000,000 in GoldenEye, with built in increases for subsequent films, but also included an additional pay based on how much each of the film's grossed. In the case of GoldenEye for example, he was paid an additional $3,000,000 based on how much the film grossed. Many sources report Brosnan's salary for the Bond films based on just his base pay, which is incorrect. The salary figures listed above are his total pay for the Bond films and are the correct figures."

Daniel Craig's BASE PAY is $2,821,995 (

Edited by bernsmartin007, 20 August 2006 - 07:53 PM.

[Gobi-1]

I'd be happy to play Bond for twenty bucks and a gift certificate to IHOP.

[Santa]

I'd pay them to let me do it.

[DamnCoffee]

Same here, i'll play him for free

[jaguar007]

I heard Dalton got $750,000 for TLD and then $1.5 Million for LTK. So this is about right. Although he was making $$$$, Brosnan's pay was getting a bit out of control when you consider the production and marketing costs. But Brosnan started out I think at $2 million for Goldeneye.

Wonder what Roger got paid?

If I recall in 1983, Connery got paid 6 million for NSNA (a record in 1983) and Moore was paid 4 million for Octopussy.

[AnGer 007]

I'd pay them to let me do it.

You and Daniel Craig apparently, that's the real reason they chose him.

[I Like Sharks]

I'd hoped these Craig-bashing stories were behind us. 'He's being paid less...therefore he must be rubbish as Bond...'

Bloody tabloids

[Skudor]

I'd pay them to let me do it.

I would pay it for you... just for the entertainment value.

[Dr. Noah]

I'd hoped these Craig-bashing stories were behind us. 'He's being paid less...therefore he must be rubbish as Bond...'

Bloody tabloids

Just think what the reporter got to write that story. Enough to buy all the macaroni and cheese he's surviving on for the week... Meanwhile he's slipping bad spec screenplays under the door at EON, hoping to escape his miserable life.

[JimmyBond]

I'd pay them to let me do it.

You and Daniel Craig apparently, that's the real reason they chose him.

Do you even read threads anymore?

[medrecess]

What he is getting is by no means less.He is not a major star or something
.Before Bond many people didnt even know this guy.After all hes done movies
like Sylvia ad low budget flicks.THe papers will write anything to prove
that they have a hate for hi ut fans stand by him as they know they
wont get a videogame like film.

[Santa]

I'd pay them to let me do it.

I would pay it for you... just for the entertainment value.

Thank you, sweet pea xxx I'd be bloody excellent as Bond.

[K1Bond007]

A bunch of places reported when Craig was first mentioned in 2005 (Early, like April) that it was 3 films for

[SecretAgentFan]

I'd hoped these Craig-bashing stories were behind us. 'He's being paid less...therefore he must be rubbish as Bond...'

Bloody tabloids

Exactly. Just when we thought that the tabloids had stopped bashing Craig, here comes another try. Typically, written by someone who calls himself a reporter but does not check with current and past pay rates of actors in the Bond role.

Forget it. Craig will blow them away with the sheer quality of CR.

[dee-bee-five]

[quote name='kneelbeforezod' post='590872' date='20 August 2006 - 19:14']
Typical bit of reporting from today's Sunday Mirror, where an unremarkable story (of questionable veracity) is given a negative spin. I'd love to know who the so-called "Bond insider" actually is, or if he/she even exists...


Nobody does it cheaper
Sunday Mirror; 20 August 2006

JAMES Bond star Daniel Craig has signed up for two more movies as the suave super-spy - but at a knockdown price.

Blond Daniel is being paid far less for the role than 007 predecessor Pierce Brosnan.

Craig, 38, is banking

[bogard]

[/quote]

One is reminded what Roger Moore said to a reporter who had the temerity to ask what he was getting paid for A View To A Kill - "It's terribly vulgar to talk about money."

But, then, the Sunday Mirror is a terribly vulgar newspaper.
[/quote]

Ah, Roger. You gotta love the fella. Nobody does it better indeed.

[Broadsword]

So to sum up. I think this is right.

DC is getting paid MORE for his first BONd outing than PB did. Right?

So the newspaper could have spun it the other way..

"EON are so happy with their new Bond and confident in his abilities that they are paying him more for his first film than they did Brosnan"

They could then make something up by saying
"an insider says, he is so cool we just can't stop throwing money at him"

All those 'insider says', 'close friends', 'passer by' etc are all made up. Even little kids know the newspapers make up sources. they are funny. Like they think we belive them.

So, have I summed that up correctly?

[kneelbeforezod]

So to sum up. I think this is right.

DC is getting paid MORE for his first BONd outing than PB did. Right?

So the newspaper could have spun it the other way..

"EON are so happy with their new Bond and confident in his abilities that they are paying him more for his first film than they did Brosnan"

They could then make something up by saying
"an insider says, he is so cool we just can't stop throwing money at him"

All those 'insider says', 'close friends', 'passer by' etc are all made up. Even little kids know the newspapers make up sources. they are funny. Like they think we belive them.

So, have I summed that up correctly?

You have!