Since I read the books first, my perspective is unavoidably different. I watched the 60s Bond movies as "films-of-the-books" and observed in real time how they gradually drifted away from their source material and began to form their own continuity. Being a Fleming fan, I was happier when they stuck to the original stories (updating them as necessary, and accepting that) and getting annoyed at what I saw as unnecessary deviations from them (eg, in YOLT Bond claims to have gone to Cambridge which is against what Fleming had written in that exact novel).
Fleming himself made continuity errors (the colour of Mary Goodnight's hair or the light outside M's office, the surname of Honey- though these can be rationalised quite easily) most glaringly with Bond's age- though there are clear reasons for that!
The important point is that when Fleming started writing the novels, or ten years later when Broccoli & co started making the films, no-one had the slightest idea that James Bond would still be thriving deep into the 21st century, with new films and novels arriving on a regular basis. The continuity had to fall apart, since no one man could have lived through all the adventures and experiences 007 is supposed to have had. At a certain point, the "original" Bond simply becomes too old to continue his adventures- whether that Bond is Fleming's (who was involved in WW2 and earlier before IF started writing about him in the 50s) or Broccoli's (who had been working for the Secret Service for ten years before DN).
As I've said before, the film makers decided to ignore Bond's age around the point that Dalton replaced Moore and treat 007 as ageless. In the literary world, John Gardner (in conjunction with Glidrose, later IFP) froze Bond in his 40s slightly earlier. These were active decisions, not lazily ignoring the facts, and make demands of the audience to either accept the conceit or give up following 007's adventures.
As we all know, this changed in the filmic world with CR06- in the literary world, things ran a little differently (Charlie Higson's "Young Bond" series for example, or William Boyd's "Solo")- which leads us to the situation as currently presented: James Bond is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His stories can take place in the 30s (Steve Cole's "Shoot To Kill", published in 2014), the 2010s (SPECTRE, released any day now), or the 60s ("Solo", set in the 60s, published 2013)- a myth transcends all considerations of time.
So, to summarise: James Bond (007) is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His adventures, be they literary or filmic, can occur any time between the 1930s (when he was a boy) and now (whenever now is- it's been the 1960s and the 2010s). He does not exist, he's a mythical hero in the same line as many before and no doubt after. You can sit back and enjoy the ride, or nitpick all you want- it won't change anything, he'll still be pulling his Walther PPK from his shoulder holster after we're all gone.
Even myths and legendary stories have continuity and structure and fit together into a bigger whole, so even treating Bond as a character like Robin Hood or King Arthur doesn't invalidate or erase there being - or being a need for - a semblance of continuity and structure to his adventures.
Even myths and legendary stories have continuity and structure and fit together into a bigger whole, so even treating Bond as a character like Robin Hood or King Arthur doesn't invalidate or erase there being - or being a need for - a semblance of continuity and structure to his adventures.
You can link the stories of King Arthur, Robin Hood, Hercules, Jason and Argonauts, Sinbad, etc. into a singular continuitous whole without it having any effect whatsoever on the mythical or legendary nature of said stories.
You can link the stories of King Arthur, Robin Hood, Hercules, Jason and Argonauts, Sinbad, etc. into a singular continuitous whole without it having any effect whatsoever on the mythical or legendary nature of said stories.
Ok yeah, I get that. Sorry, I was being kind of a smart a$$ there. My point is that there's a difference between the "continuity" of mythical, legendary stories like King Arthur and Hercules and a strict continuity as we understand it in our current pop-culture landscape. The idea is that the Bond series has a looser continuity and relies more on its own mythology to connect the stories, like the Arthur legend or green mythology, rather than beholding itself to the stricter continuity of current film franchises like Avengers and other superhero movie series'.
Having said all that, I'll also echo the sentiments of chrisisall and others. Try enjoying each bond film individually on its own merits before giving this topic too much further thought. Or don't. I guess everyone enjoys Bond in their own way. Screw everything
You can link the stories of King Arthur, Robin Hood, Hercules, Jason and Argonauts, Sinbad, etc. into a singular continuitous whole without it having any effect whatsoever on the mythical or legendary nature of said stories.
Ok yeah, I get that. Sorry, I was being kind of a smart a$$ there. My point is that there's a difference between the "continuity" of mythical, legendary stories like King Arthur and Hercules and a strict continuity as we understand it in our current pop-culture landscape. The idea is that the Bond series has a looser continuity and relies more on its own mythology to connect the stories, like the Arthur legend or green mythology, rather than beholding itself to the stricter continuity of current film franchises like Avengers and other superhero movie series'.
That's true. There was never a strict continuity in Bond until the Craig reboot. Even with Craig there are some faults, but they've definitely tried to link all the Craig stories. None of the continuity in previous Bond films had any effect of the individual stories, what truly matters.
I see the films as a set of individual adventures linked together by a secret agent named James Bond. Looking for a timeline will ultimately prove futile. The films were made as pure entertainment and if over analysed in the search of a timeline will make little sense, (Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS for example).
A timeline for me means the films have to be watched in sequence to get a full understanding of story and character but you can watch the Bond films in any order and not spoil the enjoyment.
Maybe originally the films were supposed to follow on from each other (Dr No is mentioned in FRWL and Sylvia Trench makes a second appearance) but I think the producers soon realised this would be a massive undertaking and may cause problems in the future so made direct references between films very rare. I mean you could watch DAF and Tracy doesn't even get mentioned.
The only direct sequel in my eyes is QOS following on from Bond's first assignment as a 00 in CR. But then the supposed timeline is ruined in SF when Mallory says to Bond "it's a young man's game". Does this mean Bond is not a "young man" anymore after just three missions? Or does it mean the films are to be watched and enjoyed in any order. -{
Since I read the books first, my perspective is unavoidably different. I watched the 60s Bond movies as "films-of-the-books" and observed in real time how they gradually drifted away from their source material and began to form their own continuity. Being a Fleming fan, I was happier when they stuck to the original stories (updating them as necessary, and accepting that) and getting annoyed at what I saw as unnecessary deviations from them (eg, in YOLT Bond claims to have gone to Cambridge which is against what Fleming had written in that exact novel).
Fleming himself made continuity errors (the colour of Mary Goodnight's hair or the light outside M's office, the surname of Honey- though these can be rationalised quite easily) most glaringly with Bond's age- though there are clear reasons for that!
The important point is that when Fleming started writing the novels, or ten years later when Broccoli & co started making the films, no-one had the slightest idea that James Bond would still be thriving deep into the 21st century, with new films and novels arriving on a regular basis. The continuity had to fall apart, since no one man could have lived through all the adventures and experiences 007 is supposed to have had. At a certain point, the "original" Bond simply becomes too old to continue his adventures- whether that Bond is Fleming's (who was involved in WW2 and earlier before IF started writing about him in the 50s) or Broccoli's (who had been working for the Secret Service for ten years before DN).
As I've said before, the film makers decided to ignore Bond's age around the point that Dalton replaced Moore and treat 007 as ageless. In the literary world, John Gardner (in conjunction with Glidrose, later IFP) froze Bond in his 40s slightly earlier. These were active decisions, not lazily ignoring the facts, and make demands of the audience to either accept the conceit or give up following 007's adventures.
As we all know, this changed in the filmic world with CR06- in the literary world, things ran a little differently (Charlie Higson's "Young Bond" series for example, or William Boyd's "Solo")- which leads us to the situation as currently presented: James Bond is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His stories can take place in the 30s (Steve Cole's "Shoot To Kill", published in 2014), the 2010s (SPECTRE, released any day now), or the 60s ("Solo", set in the 60s, published 2013)- a myth transcends all considerations of time.
So, to summarise: James Bond (007) is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His adventures, be they literary or filmic, can occur any time between the 1930s (when he was a boy) and now (whenever now is- it's been the 1960s and the 2010s). He does not exist, he's a mythical hero in the same line as many before and no doubt after. You can sit back and enoy the ride, or nitpick all you want- it won't change anything, he'll still be pulling his Walther PPK from his shoulder holster after we're all gone.
Does inverting DaF so it's the follow-up to YOLT work in relation to OHMSS, though? That's mainly what I was wondering.
Not really. Strictly speaking Blofeld SEES Bond in YOLT, so either you have to completely discount OHMSS as nonsense, or discount YOLT as nonsense so that OHMSS makes complete sense.
Now I have a headache.
Just have fun with them man.
Does inverting DaF so it's the follow-up to YOLT work in relation to OHMSS, though? That's mainly what I was wondering.
Not really. Strictly speaking Blofeld SEES Bond in YOLT, so either you have to completely discount OHMSS as nonsense, or discount YOLT as nonsense so that OHMSS makes complete sense.
Now I have a headache.
Just have fun with them man.
My theory is that Bond's disguise in OHMSS is better than we see it.
But I'm glad they purposely disregarded continuity in favour of the story, particularly staying true to Fleming's OHMSS.
Does inverting DaF so it's the follow-up to YOLT work in relation to OHMSS, though? That's mainly what I was wondering.
Not really. Strictly speaking Blofeld SEES Bond in YOLT, so either you have to completely discount OHMSS as nonsense, or discount YOLT as nonsense so that OHMSS makes complete sense.
Now I have a headache.
Just have fun with them man.
My theory is that Bond's disguise in OHMSS is better than we see it.
But I'm glad they purposely disregarded continuity in favour of the story, particularly staying true to Fleming's OHMSS.
Glad you pointed this out. I think the fact that they disregarded continuity in favor of staying true to the source material almost proved that the pre-Craig films are NOT beholden to a strict continuity.
Since I read the books first, my perspective is unavoidably different. I watched the 60s Bond movies as "films-of-the-books" and observed in real time how they gradually drifted away from their source material and began to form their own continuity. Being a Fleming fan, I was happier when they stuck to the original stories (updating them as necessary, and accepting that) and getting annoyed at what I saw as unnecessary deviations from them (eg, in YOLT Bond claims to have gone to Cambridge which is against what Fleming had written in that exact novel).
Fleming himself made continuity errors (the colour of Mary Goodnight's hair or the light outside M's office, the surname of Honey- though these can be rationalised quite easily) most glaringly with Bond's age- though there are clear reasons for that!
The important point is that when Fleming started writing the novels, or ten years later when Broccoli & co started making the films, no-one had the slightest idea that James Bond would still be thriving deep into the 21st century, with new films and novels arriving on a regular basis. The continuity had to fall apart, since no one man could have lived through all the adventures and experiences 007 is supposed to have had. At a certain point, the "original" Bond simply becomes too old to continue his adventures- whether that Bond is Fleming's (who was involved in WW2 and earlier before IF started writing about him in the 50s) or Broccoli's (who had been working for the Secret Service for ten years before DN).
As I've said before, the film makers decided to ignore Bond's age around the point that Dalton replaced Moore and treat 007 as ageless. In the literary world, John Gardner (in conjunction with Glidrose, later IFP) froze Bond in his 40s slightly earlier. These were active decisions, not lazily ignoring the facts, and make demands of the audience to either accept the conceit or give up following 007's adventures.
As we all know, this changed in the filmic world with CR06- in the literary world, things ran a little differently (Charlie Higson's "Young Bond" series for example, or William Boyd's "Solo")- which leads us to the situation as currently presented: James Bond is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His stories can take place in the 30s (Steve Cole's "Shoot To Kill", published in 2014), the 2010s (SPECTRE, released any day now), or the 60s ("Solo", set in the 60s, published 2013)- a myth transcends all considerations of time.
So, to summarise: James Bond (007) is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His adventures, be they literary or filmic, can occur any time between the 1930s (when he was a boy) and now (whenever now is- it's been the 1960s and the 2010s). He does not exist, he's a mythical hero in the same line as many before and no doubt after. You can sit back and enoy the ride, or nitpick all you want- it won't change anything, he'll still be pulling his Walther PPK from his shoulder holster after we're all gone.
...Can I just say that that was great? B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not really. Strictly speaking Blofeld SEES Bond in YOLT, so either you have to completely discount OHMSS as nonsense, or discount YOLT as nonsense so that OHMSS makes complete sense.
Now I have a headache.
Just have fun with them man.
My theory is that Bond's disguise in OHMSS is better than we see it.
But I'm glad they purposely disregarded continuity in favour of the story, particularly staying true to Fleming's OHMSS.
Glad you pointed this out. I think the fact that they disregarded continuity in favor of staying true to the source material almost proved that the pre-Craig films are NOT beholden to a strict continuity.
They key word you said is "strict". The Bond's office scene is an obvious move at trying to create some continuity between Connery's and Lazenby's Bond.
The longer this discussion goes and the more I learn, the more convinced I'm becoming that this franchise is going to be what most fans thought that The Legend of Zelda franchise was: something that did have a defined continuity, albeit one that would never be confirmed by the franchise's creators themselves officially.
My theory is that Bond's disguise in OHMSS is better than we see it.
But I'm glad they purposely disregarded continuity in favour of the story, particularly staying true to Fleming's OHMSS.
Glad you pointed this out. I think the fact that they disregarded continuity in favor of staying true to the source material almost proved that the pre-Craig films are NOT beholden to a strict continuity.
They key word you said is "strict". The Bond's office scene is an obvious move at trying to create some continuity between Connery's and Lazenby's Bond.
The way I always saw it was that the pre-DC movies TRIED to be a single timeline but only struggled because of actors ages and the decades that passed in the real world making it impossible almost for Brosnan to have done everything Connery and Moore had done in the actual years those films were released. Given also that each film has very specific elements from the year it was released so we can’t really collapse them timeline-wise as some have tried to do in this thread. Each film really seems to happen in the year it was made, technologically and geopolitically. So it’s hard for me to accept Brosnan as the same guy that was doing missions in the 60s portrayed by Connery, but I can just look past the age thing and accept it anyway as an almost accurate single timeline with some connections film to film.
Then DC movies are a reboot that start in 2006 with him first being 007 as though Fleming was writing about an agent in the 21st century not during the Cold War or WWII. A reimagining. Which is a great idea as the box office proves. And then this new world cycles back to a world almost the same as the way things were in DR NO, but updated for modern times! That perspective brings me the most satisfaction from the DC movies. I always imagined the next Bond films after SPECTRE is set up as the enemy (but as a 21st century version) we would get essentially remakes of DR NO and so on given the setup of a male M with the same looking office as M always had. I LOVED that part of the DC films. Seeing everything start to be familiar again. I grew up with Roger Moore as a kid but went back and read all books and watched Connery etc. So to see the DC movies go back to those familiar elements, just updated for 21st century, was pure delight for me. And I don’t really take it much further even though I love this thread so much. Im looking forward to them continuing Bond post DC (who feels to me a perfect choice for a younger more immature Bond pre-DR NO missions, even though I realize Craig is actually pretty old now, because for me, by DR NO Bond is much more certain of himself and for that I’m ready for a new actor). So maybe casting someone that matches remaking the Connery and Moore era that would work well for continuing on from there, the male M, the classic office, Q and Moneypenny etc etc. My favorite pick is Henry Cavill for that job! Someone young enough to continue for 7-8 movies but not too young that he doesn’t have that assuredness that Connery and Moore had.
I really hope they take the reboot and remake stories and reimagine it from the reboot perspective. A new From Russia With Love??? I would love that. Still love the classic. Just like we can enjoy the new Star Trek movies as rehashing the older stories and characters in new interesting ways. (Even though many classic fans hate the Kelvin timeline, I’m not a huge fan either with Vulcan destroyed, but I can still enjoy the reimagining knowing there’s still the original universe for me to enjoy as well. A new universe doesn’t take away from the old one in my opinion).
I’ll probably get skewered for suggesting they remake FRWL but I would love it and I think it would bring these old stories to a new generation of Bond fans!
“In June of this year, when I finished this movie, the last thing in the world I wanted to do was make another Bond movie. I now feel much more pumped up about the idea of taking this on, and it’s going to be interesting.”
This quote reminds me of the ''rather slashing my wrists'' except all the trouble. I think it confirms that Craig does like making the movies, it's just a very hard and exhausting task.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
“In June of this year, when I finished this movie, the last thing in the world I wanted to do was make another Bond movie. I now feel much more pumped up about the idea of taking this on, and it’s going to be interesting.”
This quote reminds me of the ''rather slashing my wrists'' except all the trouble. I think it confirms that Craig does like making the movies, it's just a very hard and exhausting task.
Poor poor Daniel...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
Fleming himself made continuity errors (the colour of Mary Goodnight's hair or the light outside M's office, the surname of Honey- though these can be rationalised quite easily) most glaringly with Bond's age- though there are clear reasons for that!
The important point is that when Fleming started writing the novels, or ten years later when Broccoli & co started making the films, no-one had the slightest idea that James Bond would still be thriving deep into the 21st century, with new films and novels arriving on a regular basis. The continuity had to fall apart, since no one man could have lived through all the adventures and experiences 007 is supposed to have had. At a certain point, the "original" Bond simply becomes too old to continue his adventures- whether that Bond is Fleming's (who was involved in WW2 and earlier before IF started writing about him in the 50s) or Broccoli's (who had been working for the Secret Service for ten years before DN).
As I've said before, the film makers decided to ignore Bond's age around the point that Dalton replaced Moore and treat 007 as ageless. In the literary world, John Gardner (in conjunction with Glidrose, later IFP) froze Bond in his 40s slightly earlier. These were active decisions, not lazily ignoring the facts, and make demands of the audience to either accept the conceit or give up following 007's adventures.
As we all know, this changed in the filmic world with CR06- in the literary world, things ran a little differently (Charlie Higson's "Young Bond" series for example, or William Boyd's "Solo")- which leads us to the situation as currently presented: James Bond is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His stories can take place in the 30s (Steve Cole's "Shoot To Kill", published in 2014), the 2010s (SPECTRE, released any day now), or the 60s ("Solo", set in the 60s, published 2013)- a myth transcends all considerations of time.
So, to summarise: James Bond (007) is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His adventures, be they literary or filmic, can occur any time between the 1930s (when he was a boy) and now (whenever now is- it's been the 1960s and the 2010s). He does not exist, he's a mythical hero in the same line as many before and no doubt after. You can sit back and enjoy the ride, or nitpick all you want- it won't change anything, he'll still be pulling his Walther PPK from his shoulder holster after we're all gone.
It kind of does actually.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
You can link the stories of King Arthur, Robin Hood, Hercules, Jason and Argonauts, Sinbad, etc. into a singular continuitous whole without it having any effect whatsoever on the mythical or legendary nature of said stories.
Do you have any, interest in the Bond films or books ?
Ok yeah, I get that. Sorry, I was being kind of a smart a$$ there. My point is that there's a difference between the "continuity" of mythical, legendary stories like King Arthur and Hercules and a strict continuity as we understand it in our current pop-culture landscape. The idea is that the Bond series has a looser continuity and relies more on its own mythology to connect the stories, like the Arthur legend or green mythology, rather than beholding itself to the stricter continuity of current film franchises like Avengers and other superhero movie series'.
Having said all that, I'll also echo the sentiments of chrisisall and others. Try enjoying each bond film individually on its own merits before giving this topic too much further thought. Or don't. I guess everyone enjoys Bond in their own way. Screw everything
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
That's true. There was never a strict continuity in Bond until the Craig reboot. Even with Craig there are some faults, but they've definitely tried to link all the Craig stories. None of the continuity in previous Bond films had any effect of the individual stories, what truly matters.
A timeline for me means the films have to be watched in sequence to get a full understanding of story and character but you can watch the Bond films in any order and not spoil the enjoyment.
Maybe originally the films were supposed to follow on from each other (Dr No is mentioned in FRWL and Sylvia Trench makes a second appearance) but I think the producers soon realised this would be a massive undertaking and may cause problems in the future so made direct references between films very rare. I mean you could watch DAF and Tracy doesn't even get mentioned.
The only direct sequel in my eyes is QOS following on from Bond's first assignment as a 00 in CR. But then the supposed timeline is ruined in SF when Mallory says to Bond "it's a young man's game". Does this mean Bond is not a "young man" anymore after just three missions? Or does it mean the films are to be watched and enjoyed in any order. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Now I have a headache.
Just have fun with them man.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Spot on, Chief of Staff!
My theory is that Bond's disguise in OHMSS is better than we see it.
But I'm glad they purposely disregarded continuity in favour of the story, particularly staying true to Fleming's OHMSS.
Glad you pointed this out. I think the fact that they disregarded continuity in favor of staying true to the source material almost proved that the pre-Craig films are NOT beholden to a strict continuity.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
...Can I just say that that was great? B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
They key word you said is "strict". The Bond's office scene is an obvious move at trying to create some continuity between Connery's and Lazenby's Bond.
enjoy it
Agreed.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
The way I always saw it was that the pre-DC movies TRIED to be a single timeline but only struggled because of actors ages and the decades that passed in the real world making it impossible almost for Brosnan to have done everything Connery and Moore had done in the actual years those films were released. Given also that each film has very specific elements from the year it was released so we can’t really collapse them timeline-wise as some have tried to do in this thread. Each film really seems to happen in the year it was made, technologically and geopolitically. So it’s hard for me to accept Brosnan as the same guy that was doing missions in the 60s portrayed by Connery, but I can just look past the age thing and accept it anyway as an almost accurate single timeline with some connections film to film.
Then DC movies are a reboot that start in 2006 with him first being 007 as though Fleming was writing about an agent in the 21st century not during the Cold War or WWII. A reimagining. Which is a great idea as the box office proves. And then this new world cycles back to a world almost the same as the way things were in DR NO, but updated for modern times! That perspective brings me the most satisfaction from the DC movies. I always imagined the next Bond films after SPECTRE is set up as the enemy (but as a 21st century version) we would get essentially remakes of DR NO and so on given the setup of a male M with the same looking office as M always had. I LOVED that part of the DC films. Seeing everything start to be familiar again. I grew up with Roger Moore as a kid but went back and read all books and watched Connery etc. So to see the DC movies go back to those familiar elements, just updated for 21st century, was pure delight for me. And I don’t really take it much further even though I love this thread so much. Im looking forward to them continuing Bond post DC (who feels to me a perfect choice for a younger more immature Bond pre-DR NO missions, even though I realize Craig is actually pretty old now, because for me, by DR NO Bond is much more certain of himself and for that I’m ready for a new actor). So maybe casting someone that matches remaking the Connery and Moore era that would work well for continuing on from there, the male M, the classic office, Q and Moneypenny etc etc. My favorite pick is Henry Cavill for that job! Someone young enough to continue for 7-8 movies but not too young that he doesn’t have that assuredness that Connery and Moore had.
I really hope they take the reboot and remake stories and reimagine it from the reboot perspective. A new From Russia With Love??? I would love that. Still love the classic. Just like we can enjoy the new Star Trek movies as rehashing the older stories and characters in new interesting ways. (Even though many classic fans hate the Kelvin timeline, I’m not a huge fan either with Vulcan destroyed, but I can still enjoy the reimagining knowing there’s still the original universe for me to enjoy as well. A new universe doesn’t take away from the old one in my opinion).
I’ll probably get skewered for suggesting they remake FRWL but I would love it and I think it would bring these old stories to a new generation of Bond fans!
“In June of this year, when I finished this movie, the last thing in the world I wanted to do was make another Bond movie. I now feel much more pumped up about the idea of taking this on, and it’s going to be interesting.”
This quote reminds me of the ''rather slashing my wrists'' except all the trouble. I think it confirms that Craig does like making the movies, it's just a very hard and exhausting task.
Poor poor Daniel...