Craig gets pay raise

blueman

BOND'S CONTRACT TO KILL FOR
BIG DEAL: Craig will get £13m for next two films

Sunday July 22, 2007
Sunday Express


DANIEL CRAIG is to become Britain’s highest-paid actor after signing a new multi-million pound deal to play James Bond.

The 39-year-old has won a huge pay rise on the back of the astonishing success of Casino Royale which took over £300 million at the box office to make it the biggest-grossing Bond film ever.

He will get an estimated £5 million for his next outing as 007 and £8 million for his third film – double the sums he originally negotiated with Bond production company Eon.

Leon Forde of movie magazine Screen International, said: “The fact is that he’s become integral to the success of the Bond franchise and I’m not surprised that he’s been given a new contract. Eon are obviously doing everything they can to keep him on board.”

The Chester-born actor, who left home at 16 to enrol at London’s National Youth Theatre, made his name in TV’s Our Friends In The North in 1996 before taking starring roles in films as diverse as Sylvia, in which he played poet Ted Hughes, Road To Perdition with Paul Newman, Tomb Raider and Steven Spielberg’s Munich.

Despite his huge 007 success Craig recently voiced his desire not to be typecast saying: “I don’t want to make just spy films.”

And since Casino Royale he has completed sci-fi thriller The Invasion, with Nicole Kidman, The Golden Compass, adapted from a Philip Pullman book, and low-budget British movie, Flashbacks Of A Fool – an example of how Craig is using his new-found clout to take on projects for a fraction of his Bond fee because they are dear to his heart.

The £5million indie movie Flashbacks Of A Fool sees him playing a troubled Hollywood actor who returns to Britain to confront his demons after hearing his childhood best friend has died.

It is written and directed by debut film-maker Baillie Walsh, an acclaimed pop promo maker who has worked with bands such as Massive Attack and Oasis.

He told the Sunday Express: “We were lucky. Daniel liked the script and wanted to do the film and he delivers a fantastic performance in the title role.”

Walsh salutes Craig’s talents as an actor, as well as his readiness to make smaller films when he could be picking up colossal Hollywood fees.

He added: “You only have to see Daniel’s films, be it Enduring Love or Layer Cake, to realise what a brilliant actor he is and that’s why casting agents in Britain and America are falling over themselves to have him in their films.

“The fact that Daniel is still making films like mine when he could be earning 10 times as much in Hollywood is a
tribute to him as a person.”

The success of Casino Royale was sweet vindication for Craig who was subjected to a hate campaign when cast as Pierce Brosnan’s replacement.

Walsh commented: “There were bound to be doubters because Bond is such an institution, and anyone who steps into the role is going to be subjected to intense scrutiny.

“The only thing he ever wanted to be judged on was his acting and his performance as Bond. And there’s no doubt that he’s a great Bond.”

Last night Eon, refused to comment on Craig’s bumper new deal. A spokesman said: “We never discuss such matters.”

Good for Daniel, Bond is setting him up for life, seems a fair trade for what he's done for Bond. {[]

HowardB

If this report is true, it is IMO a smart move by EON. In being fair/generous to Craig they will have a happy actor on board for 22 and 23 and not someone who is resentful and can't wait to leave. The truth is playing Bond will give Craig much more freedom and financial independence to pick and choose roles in between Bond films that will satisfy him as an actor and not be based upon making a large salary. Also, for EON's and the francises own sake, they probably will also have an easier time signing Craig on for Bond 24 and possibly even Bond 25 if they can avoid the financial acrimony and resentment that they have contributed to in the past with their infamous "stinginess". Of course EON's new found generosity may also be a product of their partnership with the deep pockets of Sony.

jetsetwilly

Hmmm, pinch of salt if you ask me. Going way back to Connery, Bonds have never been signed up on a film by film basis. Every 007 has been given a minimum of 3 films on terms; if reports are believed, the standard is three films whether the actor likes it or not, and a fourth film if the producer deems that they are fit - hence FYEO being written to accomodate a new actor, and Brosnan's ignominous departure following DAD.

Question; you are a successful, popular film production company who has discovered through forty years experience that the lead actor in a role can be replaced and you will still make a profit. You have signed an actor for three films on x terms, and the first film on x terms has been wildly successful. Why, therefore, would you alter the terms of x for the next two films when you have the actor's name signed on the dotted line? What would be the point? Keeping him sweet so that in eight years time, when he may have put on a few pounds and lost his appeal, you will get him for a fifth, instead of replacing him with someone younger and cheaper?

Loeffelholz

This is interesting. I'd be curious to know whether or not a mid-contract renegotiation is completely unprecedented in Eon's history If so, then it might indeed be a false story---but not necessarily. This Eon is different than Cubby's; prima facie evidence of this is the fact that the reboot actually happened.

Sweetening Craig's paycheck, at this point in his Bond run (while perhaps not a traditional move in the 'old world' sense), would certainly be a good way of preserving mutual good faith when it came time to negotiate a possible Fourth Picture deal.

The most plausible alternative to this being true---at this particular moment in time---would be the much more cynical notion of this story having been simply manufactured, in order to fill a 'publicity gap' before #22 pre-production begins in earnest...

I'd rather not be cynical...but cynicism is probably more often rewarded than its alternative {:)

blueman

Perhaps they're simply being nice? Keeps everything fair, everyone happy, and the cogs of Bond well-greased through 2010 at least. And, I wouldn't judge this EON by the old EON's standards, it's almost like they're two different companies altogether, the only thing that's the same is Wilson's cameo. {:) Just more evidence that this ain't your daddy's EON. :007)

The Sly Fox

I would like to believe they're just being nice... Eon obviously loves him as Bond, they did even before CR was made. It's understandable that they wouldn't want the same repercussions that they had with Brosnan's infamous departure. It's bad for business, as they say. Since the most of the public seems to love him too, it would be wise for them to preserve good relations with him so he'll stick around for more films after his contract is up. Personally, I'm hoping it all goes back to the Connery or Moore days in which we keep the same actor for several films. I really don't want to see another "Good job, old chap. You've made us some money and saved our franchise, but now you're fired. Auf weidersehen..."

taity

I think I'll put this story down to being partially true - and the reason for his pay rise is that those chaps at EON are ever so nice.

CR suprised just about everybody in its success. And alot of this does fall down on Craig's shoulders (after all, its very hard to say a movie is a success when its lead role is miscast.)

I have a feeling that EON feels that if they keep Craig happy for as long as they can, he'll stay doing the movies - which will make them happy. Whilst history shows Bond can be recast, history has also shown us that George Lazenby can be cast as well.

EONs probably looking at it as if 1 or two million now may be nothing compared to 100 or 200 later.