4014 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

What is Hiddleston supposedly "thinking about"? If I were offered the role of Bond the only thing I'd have to think about is how much can I afford to pay Broccoli for the role.

 

It´s all politics.  Of course, he would not be allowed to say anything yet.

[Surrie]

 

 

C´mon, BB was and is married, too.  And his being "more haggard" now will definitely not be a factor in the cooling down of their relationship.

 

It´s just what it always is during a long-term business relationship between an actor and a producer.  The actor believes that he/she should have more power and more money and begins to dictate conditions.  And the producer at some point says: no more.

 

I do agree with this in terms of the business relationship coming to an end. But that doesn't explain why he was reportedly offered £68mil to return... unless of course BB offered this figure on an actor only basis with no producer accreditation too. All good things come to an end.  

 

 

If that figure is correct it is just a typical sum for a major franchise player and, of course, not paid in full just like that - but in installments and advertising deals.

 

Lots of money?  Absolutely.  But if you look at the tons of money that are made with blockbuster movies worldwide actors who draw audiences do deserve that. 

 

 

 

Regardless of how successful Craig's installations have been, that's still an extraordinary amount to offer an actor who BB is reportedly not 100% satisfied with in terms of actor/producer ratio. If he had been offered that amount, then I say that it was down to one of two things:

 

1. BB is still very much enjoying working with Craig 
2. Eon had a story-arc they wanted to play out with Craig

[Odd Jobbies]

Regardless of how successful Craig's installations have been, that's still an extraordinary amount to offer an actor who BB is reportedly not 100% satisfied with in terms of actor/producer ratio. If he had been offered that amount, then I say that it was down to one of two things:

 

1. BB is still very much enjoying working with Craig 
2. Eon had a story-arc they wanted to play out with Craig

 

I think that's pretty sound logic.

[SecretAgentFan]

Or 3. Financial considerations make Craig the sure thing and therefore he has to be paid what is considered persuasive enough.

 

You don´t think Marvel just loves Downey jr. and therefore gives him millions and millions again?

[Surrie]

Or 3. Financial considerations make Craig the sure thing and therefore he has to be paid what is considered persuasive enough.

 

You don´t think Marvel just loves Downey jr. and therefore gives him millions and millions again?

 

No I don't. But BB has been outspoken for years about her love for Craig's performances. 

[SecretAgentFan]

As every producer who wants to keep his star happy will do.

 

Sure, she was very happy with Craig - she was the one who picked him and fought for him.  Obviously, she must have felt great satisfaction that the audience embraced someone who was the opposite of the familiar Bond type.

 

I´m just saying: no producer pays his star tons of money because of "fondness".  And BB is known for driving a very hard bargain.

[Surrie]

As every producer who wants to keep his star happy will do.

 

Sure, she was very happy with Craig - she was the one who picked him and fought for him.  Obviously, she must have felt great satisfaction that the audience embraced someone who was the opposite of the familiar Bond type.

 

I´m just saying: no producer pays his star tons of money because of "fondness".  And BB is known for driving a very hard bargain.

 

Obviously there are other factors in addition to BB's fondness of Craig. But, I find it hard to believe that financial considerations of the franchise and success of his previous films were the only reason he was reportedly offered that figure. For me, the story arc rumour and their established working relationship were the main motivators to have Craig back. But that's just my 2 cents!

[DavidJones]

I don't think suits care about story arcs, myself. It's business to them, not creative.

Edited by DavidJones, 22 June 2016 - 09:34 PM.

[wdj89]

Yeah - I think IF that offer is real, then it would have been a compromise - you can keep your associate producer credit like on Spectre and we'll give you more money but we won't be giving you more control than you have

 

Obviously, EON is a family business and they've run James Bond successfully forever... and i think it sounds like maybe Daniel Craig tried to make his way into that and force his way into the business and that probably didn't go down too well - but he is worth keeping around for his valuable star power (as James Bond at least - not sure it translates to other films) so the offer makes sense - but beyond that - its not like it would ever be Barbara Broccoli & Daniel Craig present Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in Coldenpie... and maybe that's what he wanted?

[Jim]

 

 

To me, Hiddleston looks like Bond a great deal. He is attractive with a piercing glare. I believe he could be a cold hearted assassin and a playboy enjoying the finer things in life.

 

I thought Broccoli was infatuated with Craig. I guess the honeymoon ended a while back.

 

 

Although Broccoli has indeed been infatuated with Craig from the get-go (after seeing Layer Cake, she immediately proclaimed "I'm in love with Daniel Craig! He's the next Bond!") she may not fancy him as much now that he's a bit more haggard than he was. Twelve years, after all, is a long time and her infatuation may have waned, particularly as he's married now.

 

 

Reads a touch grubby, this.

[sharpshooter]

I think it's vitally important to respect Craig through all this. He's given us everything he has. No matter what, he has my respect. 

[SecretAgentFan]

And let´s never forget: these are all speculations based on rumours on the internet.

 

Apart from that, I wonder how Craig´s Bond will be regarded two decades from now.  He certainly went from being a laughing stock to the "best Bond ever" - both opinions totally overexaggerated, IMHO.  Probably a sign of these times in which people seem only to express things in extremes, not sensible evaluations of pros and cons.

 

For me, Craig´s looks were jarring at first, I admit it.  Of course, he was the total opposite of his predecessor(s).  But Craig won me over and I began to enjoy his take on Bond very much.  Naturally, he had his strengths and his weaknesses, too.  This seems to be ignored by some fans, probably because they grew up with Craig and were introduced to Bond through him.  A very familiar dynamic, happening to every actor... well, maybe except Lazenby.  (Would be interesting, though, to hear from fans who were introduced to Bond through him.)

 

Also, I cannot describe him as "the best Bond ever" simply because with Connery and Moore there already were two actors defining the different shades of this character so well.  To praise Craig as better than these two feels like disregarding the series´ history.  And I´m absolutely sure that the next actor(s) taking over will bring out other ideas for Bond as well, better or worse, too.  

 

The MovieBond is a vessel, and it never stays fixed so no actor will ever be able to incorporate everything the character is about.

[Guy Haines]

I'll predict just one thing. As soon as Daniel Craig stands down - which I hope isn't yet - and a new man is announced, he will instantly become "yesterday's Bond". And I don't just mean that as a statement of the blindingly obvious. The media will focus on the new guy, and if his first film is a hit you will read about how much of a refreshing change he is to his immediate predecessor.

In other words, in their efforts to promote Bond Number Seven to the skies, they will also find that they didn't rate Bond Number Six that highly after all.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, at least DC has given his opinion on today´s Brexit vote:

 

https://twitter.com/...9193984/photo/1

[Surrie]

Well, at least DC has given his opinion on today´s Brexit vote:

 

https://twitter.com/...9193984/photo/1

 

I knew I always liked him 

[Quantumofsolace007]

If Craig has to leave there are only 4 actors I would really want

1. Michael Fassbender
2. Tom Hardy
3. Tom Hiddleston
4. Cillian murphy

[Tiin007]

I don't understand the support for Tom Hardy at all. Nothing about him feels Bondian to me. 

 

And Cillian Murphy would be a weird choice-- but then again, my only exposure to him has been Batman Begins and Red Eye. 

 

Either Fassbender or Hiddleston would be great. My vote goes to Hiddleston, who just so happens to be the perfect age for a nice long tenure in the role (although that's not why he is my top choice, just an added benefit). 

[SecretAgentFan]

Same here.  Hardy, IMO, seems like a loose cannon, one of those guys who have talked themselves into believing that they are a true actor´s actor... resulting in shameless overacting.  And so many critics are falling for that.

 

Apart from that, his diction lacks training, resulting in a flat voice.  And if one believes what a pain he was for George Miller during MAD MAX:FURY ROAD one should not be surprised that that film dropped as many scenes with the title character as possible and focused on Theron´s character.

 

A franchise player who loves to return for the next installments?  Not even if Nolan will direct, I guess.

[Odd Jobbies]

Same here.  Hardy, IMO, seems like a loose cannon, one of those guys who have talked themselves into believing that they are a true actor´s actor... resulting in shameless overacting.  And so many critics are falling for that.

Well everyone's entitled to their opinion. I've thought him the real deal since the BBC movie Stuart: A Life Backwards...

 

 

IMO a unbelievably detailed, nuances performance like that, along with Bronsan, Warrior, Locke (Legend (average movie with an outstanding turn as Reggie) and recently he totally stole the show in his  episode of Peaky Blinders, puts him up there with the genius of early Brando and De Nero.

 

Along with a cue of Hollywood casting agents i don't see any overacting going on here, just masses of talent.

[Dustin]

If anything the deal breaker would be loose cannon. They had Lazenby, they looked at Lewis Collins and maybe at Oliver Reed too. And the one thing they want to avoid seems to be somebody with less than professional attitude and perhaps also a 'diva' reputation. And I 'm inclined to agree with this politics.

[Odd Jobbies]

May well be the case off-screen, though we only have Theron's apparent word for it and i've heard the crew of Max eulogise about him. But imo that's a separate issue to making a judgement upon his on screen performances, which i think are top tier and it was his acting chops i'd run to the defence of, rather than his chances of being Bond.

 

Personally i'd take the gamble on him, but i also appreciate the potential fallout if he were to break contract and walk (though i don't know of any history of him behaving this way).

 

btw, i was under the impression that Reed was high on the list for the part until he was glassed in a bar fight around the time they were casting and that the sinister facial scar made him lose out (ironic, since Fleming himself gave Bond a facial scar). Anyway, i think i heard that on the OHMSS dvd doco, though i'm aware that elsewhere his reputation is cited as the reason he lost out. I think he'd have been a fantastic Bond.

[Dustin]

I'm not aware of the particular details of the Reed issue. What I believe is that any producer tries to avoid actors with a certain reputation if they can. Obviously it's not always an option.

Eon went over a patch of rough road with Connery, then they recast with an amateur who threw their offer - together with his career - out of the window and they had to deal with Connery again. I can easily see how they valued Moore's approach over a number of other characters simply because you could count on him. He wasn't cheap, he went nowhere near any limits they couldn't deal with and he delivered on cue like a clockwork. These are the qualities you need when you plan on a whole series, not the genius but the workman.

In an ideal world this workman is also a genius...

[Odd Jobbies]

From what i've read and heard from his past collaborators, Hardy is indeed a thorough workman and many might call him a genius.

 

RE Reed, check out that doco on the OHMSS dvd (i haven't gotten round to re-watching them, but i imagine they're the same on the BDs).

 

Personally i'd prefer a tumultuous production of short lived genius to the clockwork repetition, but it is a business first and foremost, unfortunately.

[Orion]

Don't want to join in with gossip and chinese whispers but I would prefer Hiddleston to Hardy at this stage, simply because I think we need a very different replacement just simply to give EON (and indeed the actor) enough breathing room to be their own thing and try to reduce comparisons to Craig as much as feasibly possible and Hardy being a more similar actor to Craig than HIddleston is will somewhat invite those comparsions. I do however love Hardy as an actor so wouldn't complain if he did. 

[Pierceuhhh]

I would kill to have had Oliver Reed in OHMSS. The Assassination Bureau will have to do!

[Odd Jobbies]

I would kill to have had Oliver Reed in OHMSS. The Assassination Bureau will have to do!

That it will.

 

 

Don't want to join in with gossip and chinese whispers but I would prefer Hiddleston to Hardy at this stage, simply because I think we need a very different replacement just simply to give EON (and indeed the actor) enough breathing room to be their own thing and try to reduce comparisons to Craig as much as feasibly possible and Hardy being a more similar actor to Craig than HIddleston is will somewhat invite those comparsions. I do however love Hardy as an actor so wouldn't complain if he did. 

 

I tend to agree. On one hand, in years to come some (myself included) will probably lament the missed opportunity of seeing Hardy's Bond in much the same way some lament not seeing Reed, or Richard Burton's Bond. But there does need to be a slight gear shift in order to help the new Bond make it his own. I certainly wouldn't pull back on the realism, or open the door to slap stick. I think Craig has brought the tone of the franchise to a very interesting and respectable place and if we want to continue to attract top writing and directing talent then we shouldn't throw the bathwater out with the baby, so to speak.

 

I know some here crave a return to the director-for-hire, script de jour a la template. But not i (am i alone in this?)

 

I think the right casting alone does the job - a slightly different presence allowing this now established grit and depth to feel fresh. Hardy would in this respect perhaps be more of the same. However it's pretty naive for liitle ol' me to assume how a talent like Hardy would interpret the role. But if for the sake of argument we assume that it would be fairly 'Craigish' (wonderfully laconic, dower and perfectly sardonic with an emphasis on the physical), then there is a logic in seeing this as 'more of the same'

 

To fill Craig's shoes in a way that feels fresh, yet doesn't need to jerk the tone into lightness, or somewhere even heavier Dan Stevens (check out the movie The Guest), and a close 2nd, Turner would do this pretty well. Hiddleston could also pull it off, but for me he lacks the visceral quality that Bond needs.

 

btw, i wonder if / how the referendum result might effect casting and the tone of B25. Perhaps there'll be a little more 'us against the world - flag waving - keeping the British end up', as opposed to the opaque uncertainty of the Craig era.

[SecretAgentFan]

Hard to say, of course.  But BB and MGW have publicly urged the UK to remain in the EU.  I doubt that they will produce a film that caters to the nationalists.

 

As for Dan Stevens - yep, he would be an interesting candidate as well.  Unfortunately, he seems to be tied up in a tv show for now.

 

As for Hardy - well, obviously I´m not a fan and consider him a one-note-actor.  But as you pointed out: he would be too close to Craig´s take on Bond.

 

And going for a lighter tone does not mean one cannot attract great directors.  Which, by the way, is again a matter of definition.  And let´s be frank: every so-called great director has made terrible clunkers.  It´s all about bringing the right director with the right subject matter and the right writer, actor, cinematographer etc. together.  Mendes is a perfect example.

[Odd Jobbies]

So no post-referendum union jack parachutes then?  

 

Indeed, Skyfall was a kismet of talents (with only the script being perhaps the weaker element). I agree we can hopefully lighten up at moments and still attract talent, just so long as we don't veer into slapstick (eg. the old couple's reaction at Craig jumping onto the back of a tube train).

 

Shame about Stevens (do we really need an X-Men tv series....?) Hopefully it'll get canned early doors and free him up

[Dustin]

btw, i wonder if / how the referendum result might effect casting and the tone of B25. Perhaps there'll be a little more 'us against the world - flag waving - keeping the British end up', as opposed to the opaque uncertainty of the Craig era.

I would have to rewatch all the films with an eye on it to be sure but actually I feel as if SKYFALL already features the Union flag more often than all previous films together. I suppose it's largely due to the setting of major parts in Britain but I found it remarkably heavy on the theme. Perhaps not intentionally so.

[Odd Jobbies]

BB trying to influence the vote, perhaps