4014 replies to this topic

[Surrie]

 

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

Sure, 'cos SPECTRE was a resounding success, right?

 

 

Maybe it would have been had all the creative decisions been left to the creatives? 

[Odd Jobbies]

Bond is different. In my opinion as soon as you sign the contract for the role, then he is an employee. After all he is being paid to play this character - and as far as I'm aware the creative license should remain with the production team. Yes he was credited with 'Exec. Producer' recently, but is that really necessary?! His job is to play Bond, not dictate the movie he is happy to play Bond in. 

 

Any actor worth their salt wants to see the script before committing and personally i'd prefer an actor who's worth their salt, which Craig has proven without he indeed is.

 

Besides, if he is in a position to take or leave Bond 25, then he is obviously not contractually signed on to the role, which makes this all rather moot.

[Orion]

 

I must say I´m starting to get irritated by Craig´s apparent disinterest in Bond.

 

It´s perfectly fine if he wants to move on with his career.  He has given a lot, he was great, and it´s maybe everything he can do in that role.

 

But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

 

C´mon. If you´re Bond, you should want to be Bond.  Of course, EON won´t hire an idiot to direct, and, of course, everybody involved will strive for a great script.  Naturally, and Craig has experienced this, every great script that people get excited about will have to weather the stormy process of development and actual production, often resulting in a subpar film.  

 

So, saying: "Guys, I won´t say anything before I approve of director, script (and certainly female co-star and male counterpart)" - that´s what a pampered star would say.  Not someone who remembers that he was a nobody looking for jobs and finally getting the chance of a lifetime.

 

The way EON has treated Craig so far should have built up enormous trust and loyalty.  But right now, it seems Craig has conveniently forgotten all that and gone... well, Hollywood.

 

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

 

 

...But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

Makes perfect sense to me. It's how every other role works so why should Bond be any different. You think Eon would hire an actor without auditioning him first?

 

 

Bond is different. In my opinion as soon as you sign the contract for the role, then he is an employee. After all he is being paid to play this character - and as far as I'm aware the creative license should remain with the production team. Yes he was credited with 'Exec. Producer' recently, but is that really necessary?! His job is to play Bond, not dictate the movie he is happy to play Bond in. 

 

and he did just work as a employee for four films but If he has a first refusal clause in his contract regarding Bond 25, that is EXACTLY his job, to decide whether he wants to do it or not. This is how EVERY contract works, it's why studios make actors sign up for three films right off the bat, they hate actors having any control, even if it is just deciding whether or not they want to be in sequel to the film. Jon Hamm of Mad Men fame once said he turns down comic book movies for exactly this reason, that, whilst he may be perfectly happy with the script and director he's looking at for the first, the studio insists he's also in 2 and 3 whether he thinks they're any good or not.


​As a side note: is anyone else sick of reading "the slash my own wrists" quote? Coming up on a year since he actually said that (very ill-chosen) comment - is it really still so news-worthy to be printed in all Bond related articles? every. single. article.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

Sure, 'cos SPECTRE was a resounding success, right?

 

 

Maybe it would have been had all the creative decisions been left to the creatives? 

 

Are you really suggesting that it was Craig's input as an Exec Producer which is responsible for SPECTRE's shortcomings?

 

For me it's a great movie, but with serious flaws almost exclusively in the unnecessary London finale, which i believe is thanks to P&W, hired probably at the behest of the studio who thought it needed more action in the finale (not something i imagine Craig demanding).

 

i'd guess that the 'London-ending' was originally written just as an epilogue for the M vs C story to be resolved; a short, but very satisfying addendum to the movie. Then it's ill-advisadely extended beyond all comprehension and intertextual sense into a full blown finale-after-the-finale. Overloaded with Pseudo-psycological imagery which take a subtext that was subtly suggested and sticks pictures of it on the wall just to make sure the cheap seat understood...  Sometimes less is more (and less P&W is always more).

[Surrie]

 

 

I must say I´m starting to get irritated by Craig´s apparent disinterest in Bond.

 

It´s perfectly fine if he wants to move on with his career.  He has given a lot, he was great, and it´s maybe everything he can do in that role.

 

But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

 

C´mon. If you´re Bond, you should want to be Bond.  Of course, EON won´t hire an idiot to direct, and, of course, everybody involved will strive for a great script.  Naturally, and Craig has experienced this, every great script that people get excited about will have to weather the stormy process of development and actual production, often resulting in a subpar film.  

 

So, saying: "Guys, I won´t say anything before I approve of director, script (and certainly female co-star and male counterpart)" - that´s what a pampered star would say.  Not someone who remembers that he was a nobody looking for jobs and finally getting the chance of a lifetime.

 

The way EON has treated Craig so far should have built up enormous trust and loyalty.  But right now, it seems Craig has conveniently forgotten all that and gone... well, Hollywood.

 

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

 

 

...But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

Makes perfect sense to me. It's how every other role works so why should Bond be any different. You think Eon would hire an actor without auditioning him first?

 

 

Bond is different. In my opinion as soon as you sign the contract for the role, then he is an employee. After all he is being paid to play this character - and as far as I'm aware the creative license should remain with the production team. Yes he was credited with 'Exec. Producer' recently, but is that really necessary?! His job is to play Bond, not dictate the movie he is happy to play Bond in. 

 

and he did just work as a employee for four films but If he has a first refusal clause in his contract regarding Bond 25, that is EXACTLY his job, to decide whether he wants to do it or not. This is how EVERY contract works, it's why studios make actors sign up for three films right off the bat, they hate actors having any control, even if it is just deciding whether or not they want to be in sequel to the film. Jon Hamm of Mad Men fame once said he turns down comic book movies for exactly this reason, that, whilst he may be perfectly happy with the script and director he's looking at for the first, the studio insists he's also in 2 and 3 whether he thinks they're any good or not.


​As a side note: is anyone else sick of reading "the slash my own wrists" quote? Coming up on a year since he actually said that (very ill-chosen) comment - is it really still so news-worthy to be printed in all Bond related articles? every. single. article.

 

 

Yes - he has the right to first refusal. But, IMO he is either done with the character or he is not. He can't and shouldn't be demanding to have directors he wants to work with, creative teams he likes, and stories he likes before he has decided he is even Bond anymore. We need a yes or a no. If no, then leave and let someone else take on the role who is passionate about playing the character, and JUST the character - not God at the same time. 

 

 

 

 

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

Sure, 'cos SPECTRE was a resounding success, right?

 

 

Maybe it would have been had all the creative decisions been left to the creatives? 

 

Are you really suggesting that it was Craig's input as an Exec Producer which is responsible for SPECTRE's shortcomings?

 

For me it's a great movie, but with serious flaws almost exclusively in the unnecessary London finale, which i believe is thanks to P&W, hired probably at the behest of the studio who thought it needed more action in the finale (not something i imagine Craig demanding).

 

i'd guess that the 'London-ending' was originally written just as an epilogue for the M vs C story to be resolved; a short, but very satisfying addendum to the movie. Then it's ill-advisadely extended beyond all comprehension and intertextual sense into a full blown finale-after-the-finale. Sometimes less is more (and less P&W is always more).

 

 

No one will know why SPECTRE suffered the short-comings that it did. So we cannot attribute either way that Craig was at fault or that he may actually saved it from a worse off fate. That argument is futile. 

 

What I'm merely pointing out is that he should stick to his job as an actor - and a very good actor he is. He is allowed to provide an opinion on who he would like to work with and what story lines he likes, but this should not underpin whether he takes the role or not, and what direction the whole movie goes in.

[Odd Jobbies]

No one will know why SPECTRE suffered the short-comings that it did. So we cannot attribute either way that Craig was at fault or that he may actually saved it from a worse off fate. That argument is futile. 

 

What I'm merely pointing out is that he should stick to his job as an actor - and a very good actor he is. He is allowed to provide an opinion on who he would like to work with and what story lines he likes, but this should not underpin whether he takes the role or not, and what direction the whole movie goes in.

 

It's either a buyer's market, or a seller's. If Craig is what's up for sale here, then it's definitely a seller's market (hence $100, if true).

 

What kind of idiot signs up blindly  if he doesn't have to ?   I don't want that kind of idiot playing Bond.

[Orion]

In fairness we don't know if Craig actually is wanting specific teams or not, we have no solid facts at all just lots of tabloid speculation (most of which will be just pulled out of their arse) Going from my own acting experience, I would speculate that he just wants to read a script first, which is what you normally do when deciding whether to take up a role or not, whether that be a flat out acceptance like Craig's would be, theoretically, for Bond 25 or just deciding if you're going to audition, like it was for Casino Royale.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

No one will know why SPECTRE suffered the short-comings that it did. So we cannot attribute either way that Craig was at fault or that he may actually saved it from a worse off fate. That argument is futile. 

 

What I'm merely pointing out is that he should stick to his job as an actor - and a very good actor he is. He is allowed to provide an opinion on who he would like to work with and what story lines he likes, but this should not underpin whether he takes the role or not, and what direction the whole movie goes in.

 

It's either a buyer's market, or a seller's. If Craig is what's up for sale here, then it's definitely a seller's market (hence $100, if true).

 

What kind of idiot signs up blindly  if he doesn't have to ?   I don't want that kind of idiot playing Bond.

 

 

This is not about being an idiot.  It is about an actor making everything more difficult.

 

Of course, he could say: I want input into the script.  But what he apparently says: I want to see a script before I decide whether to pull out or not.

 

What does he expect?  BOND 25 will be - shock - a Bond film.  With all its pros and cons.

 

This is not a case of an unknown story and character which an actor has to think about taking on.

 

Let´s be honest here:  Craig could make it easy for EON and MGM, telling them that he will stay on, giving them a big bargaining tool for the new distributor.

 

Instead, he shrugs of their situation, enjoying the power he still holds because as a proven commodity the studios will want to stick with him as long as possible.

 

And no, that kind of powerplay - while totally normal within the film industry - is not decent at all.  And it is completely ungrateful.  Again, no one would care about Daniel Craig if it had not been for EON stubbornly risking everything by casting him. 

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

No one will know why SPECTRE suffered the short-comings that it did. So we cannot attribute either way that Craig was at fault or that he may actually saved it from a worse off fate. That argument is futile. 

 

What I'm merely pointing out is that he should stick to his job as an actor - and a very good actor he is. He is allowed to provide an opinion on who he would like to work with and what story lines he likes, but this should not underpin whether he takes the role or not, and what direction the whole movie goes in.

 

It's either a buyer's market, or a seller's. If Craig is what's up for sale here, then it's definitely a seller's market (hence $100, if true).

 

What kind of idiot signs up blindly  if he doesn't have to ?   I don't want that kind of idiot playing Bond.

 

 

This is not about being an idiot.  It is about an actor making everything more difficult.

 

Of course, he could say: I want input into the script.  But what he apparently says: I want to see a script before I decide whether to pull out or not.

 

What does he expect?  BOND 25 will be - shock - a Bond film.  With all its pros and cons.

 

This is not a case of an unknown story and character which an actor has to think about taking on.

 

Let´s be honest here:  Craig could make it easy for EON and MGM, telling them that he will stay on, giving them a big bargaining tool for the new distributor.

 

Instead, he shrugs of their situation, enjoying the power he still holds because as a proven commodity the studios will want to stick with him as long as possible.

 

And no, that kind of powerplay - while totally normal within the film industry - is not decent at all.  And it is completely ungrateful.  Again, no one would care about Daniel Craig if it had not been for EON stubbornly risking everything by casting him. 

 

You're over simplifying this, saying all that changes with each successive script is the story/characters. But of course the quality of the writing also changes with each and every script due to the many variables, including, obviously the writer's skill and form. Each script is very unique and so a decision can't be made until it's read.

 

If Eon want to use Craig as a bargaining chip, then it's on them to get a good script written soon as possible in order to get him on board.

[RMc2]

I agree with SAF. There's a strong whiff of ingratitude about DC's reported approach to Bond 25, given how he owes so much to EON.

 

But, in Craig's defence, I can absolutely sympathise with him wanting to take a proper break from Bond before committing to all the physical and creative effort required to make Bond 25 - especially given the pressure he'll probably feel to deliver a properly good film after SP's mixed reception. The fact that he (or at least his representative) is hounded about it at every opportunity won't be helping him take that break. I suspect his non-commitment is really procrastination. 

 

But how do we know he hasn't had private words with Michael and Barbara? They might all be in on a secret and have agreed not to say anything.

[Surrie]

 

 

No one will know why SPECTRE suffered the short-comings that it did. So we cannot attribute either way that Craig was at fault or that he may actually saved it from a worse off fate. That argument is futile. 

 

What I'm merely pointing out is that he should stick to his job as an actor - and a very good actor he is. He is allowed to provide an opinion on who he would like to work with and what story lines he likes, but this should not underpin whether he takes the role or not, and what direction the whole movie goes in.

 

It's either a buyer's market, or a seller's. If Craig is what's up for sale here, then it's definitely a seller's market (hence $100, if true).

 

What kind of idiot signs up blindly  if he doesn't have to ?   I don't want that kind of idiot playing Bond.

 

 

This is not about being an idiot.  It is about an actor making everything more difficult.

 

Of course, he could say: I want input into the script.  But what he apparently says: I want to see a script before I decide whether to pull out or not.

 

What does he expect?  BOND 25 will be - shock - a Bond film.  With all its pros and cons.

 

This is not a case of an unknown story and character which an actor has to think about taking on.

 

Let´s be honest here:  Craig could make it easy for EON and MGM, telling them that he will stay on, giving them a big bargaining tool for the new distributor.

 

Instead, he shrugs of their situation, enjoying the power he still holds because as a proven commodity the studios will want to stick with him as long as possible.

 

And no, that kind of powerplay - while totally normal within the film industry - is not decent at all.  And it is completely ungrateful.  Again, no one would care about Daniel Craig if it had not been for EON stubbornly risking everything by casting him. 

 

 

Precisely my point. 

 

I agree with SAF. There's a strong whiff of ingratitude about DC's reported approach to Bond 25, given how he owes so much to EON.

 

But, in Craig's defence, I can absolutely sympathise with him wanting to take a proper break from Bond before committing to all the physical and creative effort required to make Bond 25 - especially given the pressure he'll probably feel to deliver a properly good film after SP's mixed reception. The fact that he (or at least his representative) is hounded about it at every opportunity won't be helping him take that break. I suspect his non-commitment is really procrastination. 

 

But how do we know he hasn't had private words with Michael and Barbara? They might all be in on a secret and have agreed not to say anything.

 

Exactly, we don't know this. Tabloid speculation is all we have to go from, and that's not a good starting point for anything. 

[Odd Jobbies]

I agree with SAF. There's a strong whiff of ingratitude about DC's reported approach to Bond 25, given how he owes so much to EON.

Er, let me know if i'm alone on this, but to my mind Eon owes more to Craig, who's presence has surely been hailed across the board as the greatest positive factor in his films.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

I agree with SAF. There's a strong whiff of ingratitude about DC's reported approach to Bond 25, given how he owes so much to EON.

Er, let me know if i'm alone on this, but to my mind Eon owes more to Craig, who's presence has been the greatest positive factor in his films.

 

 

Craig before EON - bit player in supporting roles.

 

Craig since his breakthrough as Bond - major star commanding million dollar-fees.

 

EON without Craig - the home of the Bond franchise which is bigger than any actor that is taking on the role.

 

 

And, to sum this up - sure, we all discuss this here based on tabloid rumours.  But what else do we get so far?  This is the internet, so we can at least speculate, right?

 

The facts:

 

- Craig has not officially withdrawn from the role.  Yet, he is busy taking on parts in other films.  And he publicly did not state that he wants to return. 

 

- A new distributor has not been announced yet.

 

- It is only six months since the last Bond film was in theatres.

 

- Craig has been Bond for a decade now, with four films made - the same amount Pierce Brosnan did.  Most Bond actors were Bond for about a decade.

 

- There will be a new Bond film anyway.

[Surrie]

 

 

I agree with SAF. There's a strong whiff of ingratitude about DC's reported approach to Bond 25, given how he owes so much to EON.

Er, let me know if i'm alone on this, but to my mind Eon owes more to Craig, who's presence has been the greatest positive factor in his films.

 

 

Craig before EON - bit player in supporting roles.

 

Craig since his breakthrough as Bond - major star commanding million dollar-fees.

 

EON without Craig - the home of the Bond franchise which is bigger than any actor that is taking on the role.

 

 

And, to sum this up - sure, we all discuss this here based on tabloid rumours.  But what else do we get so far?  This is the internet, so we can at least speculate, right?

 

The facts:

 

- Craig has not officially withdrawn from the role.  Yet, he is busy taking on parts in other films.  And he publicly did not state that he wants to return. 

 

- A new distributor has not been announced yet.

 

- It is only six months since the last Bond film was in theatres.

 

- Craig has been Bond for a decade now, with four films made - the same amount Pierce Brosnan did.  Most Bond actors were Bond for about a decade.

 

- There will be a new Bond film anyway.

 

 

Most important part of the above: "EON without Craig - the home of the Bond franchise which is bigger than any actor that is taking on the role."

[Odd Jobbies]

Eon before Craig - surfing tsunamis with Lee Tamahori

 

Eon with Craig - attracting Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins & Oscar talk.

 

He breathed new life into the franchise drawing comparisons far and wide to the previously untouchable heyday of the Connery era. Something his other predecessors, nor fellow Bond auditionees could come close to. Eon owe Craig their current status and offering [a rumoured] $100m shows how well they know that.

[Surrie]

Precisely - rumoured $100. 

 

It could be argued that Brosnan was the one to breath new life into the franchise after the 6-year hiatus. It's all a matter of perspective.

[SecretAgentFan]

Surfing tsunamis with Lee Tamahori brought EON one of the most successful films within their series´ history.  

 

And to be fair: it was not Craig who attracted Mendes.  In fact, Mendes officially did not consider Craig to be a good choice for Bond.  When Mendes came on board (due to his need for getting employed and having the chance to do a big blockbuster again), he brought Deakins because he always worked with him.  The Oscar nomination and win only went to Adele - a sure thing since she was (and remains) a megastar.

 

Also, to be fair: when Dalton took over, journalists also compared him to Connery.  And when Brosnan took over, journalists again compared him to Connery.  It´s their favorite schtick, like saying "This is Bowie´s best album since SCARY MONSTERS".  Or "Woody Allen´s return to form".

 

And, again, to be really fair: no actor alone breathes new life into any project.  It´s always, always, always a combination of everyone involved who make an actor´s contribution look great - combined with the right timing.

 

Does EON owe something to Craig?  Of course.  But they have shown their gratitude time and again, giving him lots of money and exposure, even crediting - a first - as a co-producer on SPECTRE.

[Odd Jobbies]

C'mon, DAD's financial success was down to marketing and the brand, not word of mouth or critical acclaim, which both quickly soured.

 

Sure every new actor may find a comparison to Connery, but only Craig has maintained if not improved upon that comparison (i don't mean comparison in terms of aesthetics or acting style, but competence in the role).

 

RE Oscars, certainly Adelle was the only winner, but i was talking about nominations (a massive achievement for Bond's non-technical department). To be clear it was also nominated for best cinematography and score. Both Deakins and Newman came aboard via Mendes and according to Mendes & Craig, Mendes signed up thanks to Craig out right asking him to do it at a party. So one can definitely trace back these Oscar nominations to Craig's involvement in Bond.

 

As for that anecdote about Mendes not thinking Craig was suitable for Bond, that was when Craig was first offered the role; his friend Mendes suggesting he turn it down. Mendes has been clear that he was wrong on this score and Craig is a fantastic Bond.

 

My guess is that if not for Craig, then we'd have had a top draw effort from Campbell capably introducing another actor, who would then have been shafted with hacks and ill fitting directors the way Brosnan was. The franchise post-Craig is almost unrecognisable for the better and that's all thanks to the higher caliber talent Craig has attracted.

[Orion]

I know this might be the wrong crowd, but is it possible that no-one is hired for Bond 25 becuase they legally can't? You might recall Sam Mendes "consulting with an eye to direct" job on the unititled Bond 23 when EON really wanted to get started but culdn't hire anyone as Sony werent on board yet, as we're now back at the stage again, theres every chance EON have everyone in place un-officially but can't actually hire them unti MGM get themselves a new partner.

[Surrie]

I know this might be the wrong crowd, but is it possible that no-one is hired for Bond 25 becuase they legally can't? You might recall Sam Mendes "consulting with an eye to direct" job on the unititled Bond 23 when EON really wanted to get started but culdn't hire anyone as Sony werent on board yet, as we're now back at the stage again, theres every chance EON have everyone in place un-officially but can't actually hire them unti MGM get themselves a new partner.

 

This is a good point, and not one that crossed my mind until now. Doesn't disguise the fact that Craig is still playing hard-ball though! 

[SecretAgentFan]

You argue under the assumption that EON is a clueless bystander, stumbling on people who know better (Craig, Mendes).

 

Also, who can really differentiate why a film becomes a financial success.  Any other criteria (competence, asthetics) are only subjective and therefore cannot apply.

 

Fact is: DAD was the most successful Bond film within the Brosnan tenure.  And word of mouth surely would have hurt the box office very quickly if the majority of the world wide audience would not have liked the film.  It was just the opposite.

 

Would Mendes not have chosen to direct a Bond film if it had not been for Craig?  I sincerely doubt that.  Sure, the personal connection made the contact to EON quicker.  But Mendes was coming off a string of flops and needed a hit.  It´s no wonder that he was not asked to direct one of the other Hollywood blockbusters.  In fact, Mendes has been off the Hollywood radar for a long time.  Bond rescued him.  Not vice versa.

 

Hacks and ill-fitting directors in the Brosnan era?  Not so.  Campbell, Spottiswoode, Apted and Tamahori were critical darlings with some of their films - just like Mendes was.

 

Again, don´t confuse your personal preference with the facts.

[Orion]

 

I know this might be the wrong crowd, but is it possible that no-one is hired for Bond 25 becuase they legally can't? You might recall Sam Mendes "consulting with an eye to direct" job on the unititled Bond 23 when EON really wanted to get started but culdn't hire anyone as Sony werent on board yet, as we're now back at the stage again, theres every chance EON have everyone in place un-officially but can't actually hire them unti MGM get themselves a new partner.

 

This is a good point, and not one that crossed my mind until now. Doesn't disguise the fact that Craig is still playing hard-ball though! 

 

The thing is we don't know if he is. He might have already told EON definitely no, or he might have signed on, but as there is no film to sign on to until they have a financial backer we aren't going to get anything more than, probably made up on a slow news day, tabloid speculation. Craig himself has said nothing since Spectre before came out, though at the time it was a different answer for each journalist ranging from that too often quoted slit his wrists quote to feeling he had one more in him via he'll decide once he had a bit of a break.

[SecretAgentFan]

I know this might be the wrong crowd, but is it possible that no-one is hired for Bond 25 becuase they legally can't? You might recall Sam Mendes "consulting with an eye to direct" job on the unititled Bond 23 when EON really wanted to get started but culdn't hire anyone as Sony werent on board yet, as we're now back at the stage again, theres every chance EON have everyone in place un-officially but can't actually hire them unti MGM get themselves a new partner.

 

I guess it´s different since it´s not a question of legal rights but "merely" a question of financing.

 

Of course, nobody can be hired at this point since this question has to be answered.  But you´re right: EON will definitely plan ahead.  And the reports of a meeting with Mendes and Hiddleston at least indicate that EON is contemplating how to move on.  I would not be surprised if Mendes indeed returns - with or without Craig.

[Orion]

 

I know this might be the wrong crowd, but is it possible that no-one is hired for Bond 25 becuase they legally can't? You might recall Sam Mendes "consulting with an eye to direct" job on the unititled Bond 23 when EON really wanted to get started but culdn't hire anyone as Sony werent on board yet, as we're now back at the stage again, theres every chance EON have everyone in place un-officially but can't actually hire them unti MGM get themselves a new partner.

 

I guess it´s different since it´s not a question of legal rights but "merely" a question of financing.

 

Of course, nobody can be hired at this point since this question has to be answered.  But you´re right: EON will definitely plan ahead.  And the reports of a meeting with Mendes and Hiddleston at least indicate that EON is contemplating how to move on.  I would not be surprised if Mendes indeed returns - with or without Craig.

 

Well given the options seem to be (according to wild speculation) writing a finale for Craig's Bond or introducing a new one, I can see Mendes being game for either of those story hooks. 

[Orion]

Though in regards to Hiddleston it occurs to me that EON would have to make a deal with Disney/Marvel to ensure his availability (like the one they had to make regarding Daniel Craig for The Girl WIth The Dragon Tattoo) as Hiddleston has one of Marvel's nine film contracts so that he has to turn up to appear even if the role wouldn't amount to a minute of screen time. Admittedly Marvel have always given Hiddleston a good chunk of screen time across his three (soon four) appearances, but as he will still have five films contracted for Marvel post Thor 3, this is something EON will have to take into account - Does Marvel want to risk loosing their most acclaimed cinematic villain?

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think Marvel still wants to employ Loki that much.  But if they do it should present no problem - Hiddleston is doing lots of other films, and it all comes down to scheduling.

[Orion]

You're proably right, Disney aren't going to be as...is possessive the right word? of their cast as MGM have been with Craig.

[Odd Jobbies]

You argue under the assumption that EON is a clueless bystander, stumbling on people who know better (Craig, Mendes).

 

Also, who can really differentiate why a film becomes a financial success.  Any other criteria (competence, asthetics) are only subjective and therefore cannot apply.

 

Fact is: DAD was the most successful Bond film within the Brosnan tenure.  And word of mouth surely would have hurt the box office very quickly if the majority of the world wide audience would not have liked the film.  It was just the opposite.

 

Would Mendes not have chosen to direct a Bond film if it had not been for Craig?  I sincerely doubt that.  Sure, the personal connection made the contact to EON quicker.  But Mendes was coming off a string of flops and needed a hit.  It´s no wonder that he was not asked to direct one of the other Hollywood blockbusters.  In fact, Mendes has been off the Hollywood radar for a long time.  Bond rescued him.  Not vice versa.

 

Hacks and ill-fitting directors in the Brosnan era?  Not so.  Campbell, Spottiswoode, Apted and Tamahori were critical darlings with some of their films - just like Mendes was.

 

Again, don´t confuse your personal preference with the facts.

The way Mendes spins it Bond was not on his radar until Craig asked him, so unless he's lying, no he probably wouldn't have done it, so Deakins and Newman would probably never have been involved.

 

To my mind Oscar winning Mendes was critically  in a different league to the captains of Brossa's ships, but it sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on that, as well as everything else in this topic including the idea that Craig should blindly accept anything Eon toss him like a grateful lap dog.

I know this might be the wrong crowd, but is it possible that no-one is hired for Bond 25 becuase they legally can't? You might recall Sam Mendes "consulting with an eye to direct" job on the unititled Bond 23 when EON really wanted to get started but culdn't hire anyone as Sony werent on board yet, as we're now back at the stage again, theres every chance EON have everyone in place un-officially but can't actually hire them unti MGM get themselves a new partner.

Could well be the case, although by the time the studio deal is done it may no longer be the case.

[Cody]

BirthMoviesDeath has been able to confirm that Tom Hiddleston is in "advanced talks" to take over as Bond. Hiddleston wants the job, but has yet to receive an official offer.

 

There are a couple ways to parse this news. One is to take it at face value: Daniel Craig is out, the role of 007 is open, and it may very well be Hiddleston’s for the taking. Another is to apply the lessons Vincent Chase and Ari Gold taught us back on Entourage: Eon might be talking to other actors in an attempt to catalyze a response from Craig.  

[Tiin007]

 

BirthMoviesDeath has been able to confirm that Tom Hiddleston is in "advanced talks" to take over as Bond. Hiddleston wants the job, but has yet to receive an official offer.

 

There are a couple ways to parse this news. One is to take it at face value: Daniel Craig is out, the role of 007 is open, and it may very well be Hiddleston’s for the taking. Another is to apply the lessons Vincent Chase and Ari Gold taught us back on Entourage: Eon might be talking to other actors in an attempt to catalyze a response from Craig.  

 

 

I am not familiar with BirthMoviesDeath.  Is it a reliable source?

 

Best line in the article: "There are, historically, three varieties of Bond casting: actors not terribly well-known when cast (Sean Connery/Timothy Dalton/Daniel Craig); popular favorites/household names (Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan); and George Lazenby."