Did Craig dislike QoS?
#1
Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:12 PM
So, is there any evidence of Craig's opinion of the film and the response it got, or is it just an impression that he's given us?
#2
Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:24 PM
So... yes?
#3
Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:46 PM
#4
Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:49 PM
I thought there was an indirect, loose quote from Craig with the Mendes announcement which suggested that he (Craig) personally wanted Mendes in order to [and now I will loosely paraphrase my loose memory of the indirect, loose quotation of Craig] "correct some of the issues evident in QOS".
So... yes?
Thanks for the info. I wonder if Craig will give an honest appraisal of QoS when doing the promotional tour for Bond 23 - "This one is much more like CR and has a sense of fun that QoS lacked" etc. If so, it would remind me of Steven Spielberg's interviews about Last Crusade versus Temple of Doom back in '89.
#5
Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:57 PM
I highly doubt it. The only honest criticisms I've heard of any Bond picture from crew come from Sean Connery as unofficial one liners in passing.I wonder if Craig will give an honest appraisal of QoS when doing the promotional tour for Bond 23 - "This one is much more like CR and has a sense of fun that QoS lacked" etc.
Craig may very well talk about how much fun the next one's going to be, but I doubt it will be said in contrast to QOS. He'll graciously leave that to us fans to read into.
#6
Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:01 PM
On the other hand, perhaps they honestly loved it.
Edited by I never miss, 12 January 2010 - 08:01 PM.
#7
Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:05 PM
#8
Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:06 PM
I highly doubt it. The only honest criticisms I've heard of any Bond picture from crew come from Sean Connery as unofficial one liners in passing.
Didn't Brozza criticise the incumbent film each time he was shooting a new one? You know stuff like "this time I get to do some real acting", and then three years "this time we're not taking it so seriously, it will be fun". I guess it was still up to us to infer what he meant, be he didn't leave much ambiguity.
#9
Posted 12 January 2010 - 09:49 PM
I highly doubt it. The only honest criticisms I've heard of any Bond picture from crew come from Sean Connery as unofficial one liners in passing.
Didn't Brozza criticise the incumbent film each time he was shooting a new one? You know stuff like "this time I get to do some real acting", and then three years "this time we're not taking it so seriously, it will be fun". I guess it was still up to us to infer what he meant, be he didn't leave much ambiguity.
Indeed. When promoting TND it was: "This one is less complicated, I mean what the hell was supposed to be happening in the beginning of the film?"
Then TWINE comes around: "This one has more meat on the story (or something like that, probably what you already typed SS).
With DAD, like you typed he said something like: "This one is much more fun."
Hehe, Brosnan basically slammed each one of his films when he was promoting the new one. If he had done a fifth he would have put DAD down as well.
#10
Posted 12 January 2010 - 10:03 PM
Anyone with even half a brain will tell you that CR was an outlier in 'critical circles' in a series that's hardly meant to be Merchant Ivory.
It's not as if QOS was as critically or commercially as dissapointing as Golden Gun or LTK or 'Tomorrow, is it?
Quantum was as successful as Craig's first film, something which neither Moore nor Dalton can say...and something Lazenby doesn't even have the luxury of having.
Anyone who knows anything about James Bond films will tell you that Craig already said (about 10 months ago) that Bond 23 would be (paraphrasing) 'more fun'.
In other words, Bond 23 will be a departure from both CR and Quantum.
We know this.
Don't we?
#11
Posted 12 January 2010 - 10:10 PM
#12
Posted 12 January 2010 - 10:53 PM
I highly doubt it. The only honest criticisms I've heard of any Bond picture from crew come from Sean Connery as unofficial one liners in passing.
Didn't Brozza criticise the incumbent film each time he was shooting a new one? You know stuff like "this time I get to do some real acting", and then three years "this time we're not taking it so seriously, it will be fun". I guess it was still up to us to infer what he meant, be he didn't leave much ambiguity.
Indeed. When promoting TND it was: "This one is less complicated, I mean what the hell was supposed to be happening in the beginning of the film?"
Then TWINE comes around: "This one has more meat on the story (or something like that, probably what you already typed SS).
With DAD, like you typed he said something like: "This one is much more fun."
Hehe, Brosnan basically slammed each one of his films when he was promoting the new one. If he had done a fifth he would have put DAD down as well.
I remember Brosnan, post-DAD, inferring that he still hadn't made the Bond movie he'd expected to make. He said something along the lines of "You can make a From Russia with Love style film and still have lots of action. It doesn't have to be either-or. With Bond, you can have your cake AND eat it".
I think this eventually happened when they made Casino Royale. Without him.
#13
Posted 12 January 2010 - 10:57 PM
I'm old enough to remember (as I'm sure I've said before) when Star Trek: The Motion Picture premiered at the theatres. After the credits rolled, people walked out with dazed looks on their faces. "It was wonderful," they choked out.
Heck, it had been a decade since the TV series; nothing else was the horizon. Dare not speak of how bad it obviously was, for fear of not getting another.
And, by the way, it made huge revenues.
In our own world, Moonraker beat every James Bond film before it. So, think: The Spy Who Loved Me, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia with Love. Depending on who you are, when you entered "the club" here, the truly great in your opinion. If it's box office, Moonraker was better.
More and more, it's looking like it will take a miracle to see the next 007 film in 2011; it's looking 2012 at best. And that's a real momentum-buster. For fans, who today have much less attention span than ever before. For Daniel Craig, as an actor with increasingly broader interests, and, of course, aging. (No offense: If memory serves, Sean Connery got older, too, between Dr. No and Never Say Never Again.) MGM is in trouble and they are in bed with Our Man.
Who wants to say anything negative, with all that fear that "they" will cut us off?
Now, what do you really think of Quantum of Solace?
It'll be Bond 24 at the earliest before we'll get any true honesty on that.
That's the way it always goes.
And will continue to go now, I fear.
#14
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:16 AM
I have to say though, he isn't alone in his feelings (if indeed he feels that way.)
#15
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:17 AM
Well I think he is a little disappointed at the overall result and reaction to it, but as said on many other posts, we will never know until post Bond interviews and even then Craig strikes me as someone who won't retroactively piss and moan (unlike some other actors I won't mention )
I have to say though, he isn't alone in his feelings (if indeed he feels that way.)
#16
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:20 AM
#17
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:25 AM
I do like the idea of them fixing the small issues that QOS seemed to have, for example the editing.
#18
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:30 AM
Why were people dissapointed? Casino Royale was just too boring with the poker scenes and Eva Green acting is laughable. Quantum of Solace was way better. Its too bad his films are like Bourne. If it wasn't for Craig I wouldn't like his films and this is coming from a die hard Brosnan fan. Maybe I will like him better than Brosnan if we get the traditional film back.I am sure that Daniel was slightly disappointed in the reaction from critics compared to those about Casino Royale. I think that's a good thing.
I do like the idea of them fixing the small issues that QOS seemed to have, for example the editing.
#19
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:44 AM
#20
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:50 AM
Why were people dissapointed? Casino Royale was just too boring with the poker scenes and Eva Green acting is laughable.I am sure that Daniel was slightly disappointed in the reaction from critics compared to those about Casino Royale. I think that's a good thing.
I do like the idea of them fixing the small issues that QOS seemed to have, for example the editing.
Casino Royale too boring? FRWL, OHMSS, TB, DN and TLD must send you into a coma.
#21
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:51 AM
Why were people dissapointed? Casino Royale was just too boring with the poker scenes and Eva Green acting is laughable.I am sure that Daniel was slightly disappointed in the reaction from critics compared to those about Casino Royale. I think that's a good thing.
I do like the idea of them fixing the small issues that QOS seemed to have, for example the editing.
Casino Royale too boring? FRWL, OHMSS, TB, DN and TLD must send you into a coma.
Then goodness knows what you thought of Olga's then. ( and leave my Eva out of it! )
#22
Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:18 AM
Why were people dissapointed? Casino Royale was just too boring with the poker scenes and Eva Green acting is laughable.I am sure that Daniel was slightly disappointed in the reaction from critics compared to those about Casino Royale. I think that's a good thing.
I do like the idea of them fixing the small issues that QOS seemed to have, for example the editing.
Casino Royale too boring?
Well he is a 'die hard Brosnan fan'. Perhaps if we inserted some scenes of shoulder-biting into CR it would make it more palatable?
#23
Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:09 AM
Why were people dissapointed? Casino Royale was just too boring with the poker scenes and Eva Green acting is laughable.I am sure that Daniel was slightly disappointed in the reaction from critics compared to those about Casino Royale. I think that's a good thing.
I do like the idea of them fixing the small issues that QOS seemed to have, for example the editing.
Casino Royale too boring?
Well he is a 'die hard Brosnan fan'. Perhaps if we inserted some scenes of shoulder-biting into CR it would make it more palatable?
I think the kid might be moomoo.
#24
Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:42 AM
Quantum is a gorgeous looking film with some truly beautiful frames, but I will admit the cuts are too quick even in the quiet scenes. Forster had so many lovely shots, and I think he was trying to get all of them into the film. The result is a very good movie, however it's one that suffers from noticeable ADD. If Craig didn't care much for it, I'd say it would only be to this degree, as he seemed to really like Marc.
Yes, I'd go along with that. I think that Craig, and the producers were more than happy with Forster during filming and the way things were progessing. I also believe that they did have a wonderful finished article before they started the editing process.
It's the way things are chopped up that spoils many of the scenes - from action scenes like the Siena footchase, to the quieter ones - Bond's arrival in Haiti, Bond and Mathis chatting over wine....
#25
Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:58 AM
Yes, I'd go along with that. I think that Craig, and the producers were more than happy with Forster during filming and the way things were progessing. I also believe that they did have a wonderful finished article before they started the editing process.
It's the way things are chopped up that spoils many of the scenes - from action scenes like the Siena footchase, to the quieter ones - Bond's arrival in Haiti, Bond and Mathis chatting over wine....
I will totally agree with that. I think they probably filmed a really good movie, and then messed it up in the editing room by trying to make it too stylized.
#26
Posted 13 January 2010 - 03:09 AM
Yes, I'd go along with that. I think that Craig, and the producers were more than happy with Forster during filming and the way things were progessing. I also believe that they did have a wonderful finished article before they started the editing process.
It's the way things are chopped up that spoils many of the scenes - from action scenes like the Siena footchase, to the quieter ones - Bond's arrival in Haiti, Bond and Mathis chatting over wine....
I'm sorry but I can't quite go along with that line of thinking. Wilson had to have known of Forster's intentions, after all the Bond films are still producer lead films, sure Forster might have been given more leeawy. But at the end of the day Wilson and Brocolli are the one's who ultimately have final say.
Whether or not you like the way the editing turned out is not the point I'm trying to make (at the moment). Wilson knew what he was getting, he could have steered the film in a different direction but he went along with it. Nothing wrong with taking risks, but not everybody is going to like it (as is the case wit this film).
#27
Posted 13 January 2010 - 03:27 AM
Yes, I'd go along with that. I think that Craig, and the producers were more than happy with Forster during filming and the way things were progessing. I also believe that they did have a wonderful finished article before they started the editing process.
It's the way things are chopped up that spoils many of the scenes - from action scenes like the Siena footchase, to the quieter ones - Bond's arrival in Haiti, Bond and Mathis chatting over wine....
I will totally agree with that. I think they probably filmed a really good movie, and then messed it up in the editing room by trying to make it too stylized.
For a fact, most of the work we did in Panama was gutted in the editing room. I almost feel I wasted my time during those weeks. I got in touch with some of the other extras after the film hit the theaters, and we all share the same opinion. I have a love/hate felling about Quantum b/c of it. Love b/c I was part of it, hate b/c the outcome was lousy.
#28
Posted 13 January 2010 - 03:51 AM
My sentiments as well.Why would Craig be critical of a film which was both good and successful?
Anyone with even half a brain will tell you that CR was an outlier in 'critical circles' in a series that's hardly meant to be Merchant Ivory.
It's not as if QOS was as critically or commercially as dissapointing as Golden Gun or LTK or 'Tomorrow, is it?
Quantum was as successful as Craig's first film, something which neither Moore nor Dalton can say...and something Lazenby doesn't even have the luxury of having.
Nobody expected CR to be what it was and it took most people by surprise. You would have to find QoS something of a letdown from that height. But not a major drop in quality.
There seems to be a little too much emphasis on action, but there's more than enough good and interesting stuff going on in that film that I find it a very successful follow-up to CR.
#29
Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:33 PM
My sentiments as well.Why would Craig be critical of a film which was both good and successful?
Anyone with even half a brain will tell you that CR was an outlier in 'critical circles' in a series that's hardly meant to be Merchant Ivory.
It's not as if QOS was as critically or commercially as dissapointing as Golden Gun or LTK or 'Tomorrow, is it?
Quantum was as successful as Craig's first film, something which neither Moore nor Dalton can say...and something Lazenby doesn't even have the luxury of having.
Nobody expected CR to be what it was and it took most people by surprise. You would have to find QoS something of a letdown from that height. But not a major drop in quality.
There seems to be a little too much emphasis on action, but there's more than enough good and interesting stuff going on in that film that I find it a very successful follow-up to CR.
I think Criaig would be and should be very proud of his work in QOS.
#30
Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:01 PM
My sentiments as well.Why would Craig be critical of a film which was both good and successful?
Anyone with even half a brain will tell you that CR was an outlier in 'critical circles' in a series that's hardly meant to be Merchant Ivory.
It's not as if QOS was as critically or commercially as dissapointing as Golden Gun or LTK or 'Tomorrow, is it?
Quantum was as successful as Craig's first film, something which neither Moore nor Dalton can say...and something Lazenby doesn't even have the luxury of having.
Nobody expected CR to be what it was and it took most people by surprise. You would have to find QoS something of a letdown from that height. But not a major drop in quality.
There seems to be a little too much emphasis on action, but there's more than enough good and interesting stuff going on in that film that I find it a very successful follow-up to CR.
I think Criaig would be and should be very proud of his work in QOS.
Indeed.
He was a physical tour de force, his acting trumped all others and he delivered lines as if they were instant classics.
Craig makes Lazenby look like an cheap amateur who was completely out of his depth.