So according to Chris Evans this morning, he's had a conversation with DC and DC told him he is contracted for one more. So unless Eon have let him out of his contract I think we will be having an extended gap untill #25. I don't put any significance in DC's supposed dislike for bond he is quoted as saying in interviews as it's quite clear he dislikes doing them and finds most interviewers irritating. He actually did say he had most fun doing SP than any of the others.
Intresting news! That is so good to hear! (do you happen to have a source or link of this? ) I agree his comments on the dislike of Bond shouldn't be taken to seriously, he came out of a long and exhausting shoot when he was quoted saying that stuff, at the same time he also stated he had a blast with SP, he enjoys the producing role he got, and most importantely - he really is quite a fan of Bond himself and wants to do it justice! (Especially the mainstream media seems to forget or exclude all this, I can't believe how much mainstream reviews of people I've seen calling SP "Craig's swan song" or "a descent ending to his tenure" and such, as if it was officially stated to be his last one...)
My only concern is hearing about the contracts with the tv show and reading you guys talk about a possible 2018 or even 2019 release for Bond 25, that is quite concerning, what a long wait! - How long is Craig tied to the TV series anyway? I heared people say atleast untill january 2017...
But hypothetically, if the writers and producers started the writing of a script for Bond 25 this spring, and finished it up around the end of 2016. (Say october/ november) In the meantime Craig is doing his tv business and such. And if filming were to be starting around january 2017, to me it seems a november 2017 release would be possible in that way. So how long exactly is DC tied to other projects?
I'm pleased to see its not just me that thinks BB has an unhealthy for the franchise obsession with DC then!
Eon / BB may be willing to wait years for "their man" DC, but will the studio? As zaphod99 says - it's not all about the money - except when it is for the studio.
It's a sad fact that is all too obvious with the new Star Wars movies. A remake of Episode IV with an even bigger planet killer weapon that the Rebels can still find an exhaust port to blow up on + plus the story isn't even written by GL!?! My point is, as someone who grew up on the original triology and loves those first three movies, after the CGI disasters of the prequels and now this Disney factory production line tosh, I've walked away from the SW series, to relish the OT and forget the rest. So if I and many SW fans can do that, Eon shouldn't make the mistake of thinking Bond fans won't do the same if they try to stay in a perpetual money making rut of trying to repeatedly remake the Skyfall success recipe over and over again
I would rather see a GOOD fresh new actor, KEEN to play Bond in the role for a good run of REGULAR films, rather than wait years to see DC just 'turn in' another performance for the pay cheque, even if he is my favourite Bond so far.
Are you saying that Star Wars did the wrong thing with the new movie? Recreating the original film was a huge success for them. And most of my friends who are big Star Wars fans loved it and saw it multiple times. I agree that an original story would have been better, but remaking an old film completely worked for Star Wars with most of the fans.
I disagree that the Star Wars movie was a "remake." I think that's a lazy critique leveled by those who just couldn't find anything else negative to say about the film (Matt, I realize, did not necessarily intend this as a critique). Yes, there were similar themes from A New Hope that were repeated, but that is not the same thing as remaking the prior film.bif that were the case, all but a select few Bond films qualify as remakes.
As for fans "walking away," Matt is correct that the Star Wars film, by any possible measurement, was a colossal financial success. Likewise, no Bond fan who has not already abandoned the franchise during the Craig years is going to walk away now. There was nothing wrong with Craig's performance in SPECTRE, and I can't imagine him ever signing onto another Bond film unless he truly believes in the project and intends to devote himself to it fully. I see no risk of a Connery-in-DAF scenario.
That said, I'd have no problem with a new actor and a fresh take. But I don't think it's an essential ingredient for Bond 25 to be a great film.
If Daniel Craig is part of a television series, would the Bond producers have the same concern they had with Brosnan and not want to share their Bond with a television series?
Honestly after the Austin Powers car crash, snore fest of SPECTRE, I don't care if Craig returns or not, new actor, new director new writers give the series a new start with proper ,basic mission stories, make the series come alive again.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
He talks like he feels he has too much fame, so I'm sure he'd be okay with a lot less fame. I don't know how he feels about money, but I don't get the impression he spends his money like Nicolas Cage. He probably can live the way he wants with lower profile roles. Since Pierce Brosnan still has his Malibu beach house, I don't see why Craig can't do what he wants to do and make enough money.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Honestly after the Austin Powers car crash, snore fest of SPECTRE, I don't care if Craig returns or not, new actor, new director new writers give the series a new start with proper ,basic mission stories, make the series come alive again.
LOL, well we certainly agree about a fresh start, but I loved SPECTRE anyway. A perfect send off to Craig's Bond IMO. -{
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
I think that you are right. I think he never expected to be a Hollywood leading man and has always been somewhat uncomfortable with that aspect of being Bond. if one is being unkind he can on occasion give the impression that Bond is beneath him. He is however a consumate professional who even his greatest detractors could not fail to see that he did/does give it everything. I don't think he will have much problem with not being Bond, and will return to his careers initial trajectory and focus upon more independent arts oriented work where he will/would (he'said not gone yet) be in high demand.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
He talks like he feels he has too much fame, so I'm sure he'd be okay with a lot less fame. I don't know how he feels about money, but I don't get the impression he spends his money like Nicolas Cage. He probably can live the way he wants with lower profile roles. Since Pierce Brosnan still has his Malibu beach house, I don't see why Craig can't do what he wants to do and make enough money.
He might. I will simply say he and I are almost exactly the same age, and though everyone is different, one's perspective starts to change at various life stages. One can feel perfectly content and then a few years later, even with all the same toys and goodies, want something completely different.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
Entirely possible. But some actors who've had the same attitude go on to regret it years later.
Acting is an odd profession, especially in movies. Very few people achieve any real success in it, and once they do, it's not so much about the money but about the currency -- to be a part of the industry in some meaningful way. Offers pour in, they go more power and authority, and they form business partnerships that lead to artistic opportunities.
But currency can go down when they're not generating box office, and without currency, they may no longer be in demand for the projects they really want to do. So, it's almost always to their advantage to be current. Some actors can walk away and come back, and some really are happier once they leave the limelight, but others deeply regret it.
One thing I've noticed about Craig is that like Connery, he seems temperamental. He's probably more introverted than Connery, but Connery went through his resentful stage, too. He tried to do more arty films and to prove that he was a bona fide actor to those who thought he was essentially just playing himself as Bond. The result was a good decade of mostly awful work as a "has been" to all but his fans. Connery had to struggle to make a comeback, and he did. But it did not appear to be a happy or healthy period of life being on the outside looking in. To me, Craig has even less box office appeal outside of the Bond films.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
I think that you are right. I think he never expected to be a Hollywood leading man and has always been somewhat uncomfortable with that aspect of being Bond. if one is being unkind he can on occasion give the impression that Bond is beneath him. He is however a consumate professional who even his greatest detractors could not fail to see that he did/does give it everything. I don't think he will have much problem with not being Bond, and will return to his careers initial trajectory and focus upon more independent arts oriented work where he will/would (he'said not gone yet) be in high demand.
I agree with a lot here except the notion of his being in high demand once he leaves Bond. He did some good work before Bond, but it really was Bond that opened his career up to other high-profile things . . . most of which underperformed at the box office. And that's with the buzz from being Bond. Without it, and getting older, I'm not sure he will have much demand.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
I think that you are right. I think he never expected to be a Hollywood leading man and has always been somewhat uncomfortable with that aspect of being Bond. if one is being unkind he can on occasion give the impression that Bond is beneath him. He is however a consumate professional who even his greatest detractors could not fail to see that he did/does give it everything. I don't think he will have much problem with not being Bond, and will return to his careers initial trajectory and focus upon more independent arts oriented work where he will/would (he'said not gone yet) be in high demand.
I agree with a lot here except the notion of his being in high demand once he leaves Bond. He did some good work before Bond, but it really was Bond that opened his career up to other high-profile things . . . most of which underperformed at the box office. And that's with the buzz from being Bond. Without it, and getting older, I'm not sure he will have much demand.
I completely agree. Your take on fame in Hollywood is dead on (I am a professional screenwriter). Craig also bears the burden of having been the star of three potential franchises, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, which all underperformed. (You could throw in TINTIN too, I suppose.) I'm not saying he was at fault for those commercial disappointments. But his box office success has only come as Bond-- and everyone in the business knows it. Maybe if one or more of these other series had caught fire, he would feel less frustrated. The role of Bond always threatens to pigeonhole an actor for the rest of his working life, but Craig seems to chafe against the reality more than some of the other men who've played 007, and maybe with good cause.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
Entirely possible. But some actors who've had the same attitude go on to regret it years later.
Acting is an odd profession, especially in movies. Very few people achieve any real success in it, and once they do, it's not so much about the money but about the currency -- to be a part of the industry in some meaningful way. Offers pour in, they go more power and authority, and they form business partnerships that lead to artistic opportunities.
But currency can go down when they're not generating box office, and without currency, they may no longer be in demand for the projects they really want to do. So, it's almost always to their advantage to be current. Some actors can walk away and come back, and some really are happier once they leave the limelight, but others deeply regret it.
One thing I've noticed about Craig is that like Connery, he seems temperamental. He's probably more introverted than Connery, but Connery went through his resentful stage, too. He tried to do more arty films and to prove that he was a bona fide actor to those who thought he was essentially just playing himself as Bond. The result was a good decade of mostly awful work as a "has been" to all but his fans. Connery had to struggle to make a comeback, and he did. But it did not appear to be a happy or healthy period of life being on the outside looking in. To me, Craig has even less box office appeal outside of the Bond films.
I am afraid you have got Craig terribly wrong
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons
One of the quotes of spectre "I never do anything entirely for money..."
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
Entirely possible. But some actors who've had the same attitude go on to regret it years later.
Acting is an odd profession, especially in movies. Very few people achieve any real success in it, and once they do, it's not so much about the money but about the currency -- to be a part of the industry in some meaningful way. Offers pour in, they go more power and authority, and they form business partnerships that lead to artistic opportunities.
But currency can go down when they're not generating box office, and without currency, they may no longer be in demand for the projects they really want to do. So, it's almost always to their advantage to be current. Some actors can walk away and come back, and some really are happier once they leave the limelight, but others deeply regret it.
One thing I've noticed about Craig is that like Connery, he seems temperamental. He's probably more introverted than Connery, but Connery went through his resentful stage, too. He tried to do more arty films and to prove that he was a bona fide actor to those who thought he was essentially just playing himself as Bond. The result was a good decade of mostly awful work as a "has been" to all but his fans. Connery had to struggle to make a comeback, and he did. But it did not appear to be a happy or healthy period of life being on the outside looking in. To me, Craig has even less box office appeal outside of the Bond films.
I am afraid you have got Craig terribly wrong
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons
One of the quotes of spectre "I never do anything entirely for money..."
Craig also said if he did another Bond film ‘it would only be for the money’. I don't know how he could possibly have found the Cowboys and Aliens role interesting. The role in The Golden Compass could have been interesting if there was a sequel. But there was hardly anything for him to do in the film they made.
None of the men who have played Bond, including Connery, have ever done anything else for which they are better known. Part of this is because the producers choose actors who are not, at the time of selection, Hollywood "leading men."
I think Craig has always understood this and is at peace with it. It probably doesn't matter one way or the other in terms of his career prospects if he does another Bond. He was, theoretically, red-hot coming off of Skyfall. But what was the next film he made? SPECTRE. This tells me that he has no interest making Hollywood blockbusters, and perhaps little interest in making films at all. Most of the best drama/acting is on television now anyway. I'm not surprised to see that he's interested in exploring that medium.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
Entirely possible. But some actors who've had the same attitude go on to regret it years later.
Acting is an odd profession, especially in movies. Very few people achieve any real success in it, and once they do, it's not so much about the money but about the currency -- to be a part of the industry in some meaningful way. Offers pour in, they go more power and authority, and they form business partnerships that lead to artistic opportunities.
But currency can go down when they're not generating box office, and without currency, they may no longer be in demand for the projects they really want to do. So, it's almost always to their advantage to be current. Some actors can walk away and come back, and some really are happier once they leave the limelight, but others deeply regret it.
One thing I've noticed about Craig is that like Connery, he seems temperamental. He's probably more introverted than Connery, but Connery went through his resentful stage, too. He tried to do more arty films and to prove that he was a bona fide actor to those who thought he was essentially just playing himself as Bond. The result was a good decade of mostly awful work as a "has been" to all but his fans. Connery had to struggle to make a comeback, and he did. But it did not appear to be a happy or healthy period of life being on the outside looking in. To me, Craig has even less box office appeal outside of the Bond films.
I am afraid you have got Craig terribly wrong
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons
One of the quotes of spectre "I never do anything entirely for money..."
I do hope EON or Craig release some confirmation regarding these rumors, chriscoop mentioned (in post 86 of this topic) that Craig has recently mentioned being contracted to do one more Bond film. I'm not sure how valid that is? But I sure hope we are given something, also regarding Bond 25's possible release.
Craig said it in his own words. You need to look at them more closely and realise he isn't being hypocritical, but truthful. He's saying in a very clever way, that he won't do another Bond. He's a sarcastic git. The key word is 'entirely'.
I do hope EON or Craig release some confirmation regarding these rumors, chriscoop mentioned (in post 86 of this topic) that Craig has recently mentioned being contracted to do one more Bond film. I'm not sure how valid that is? But I sure hope we are given something, also regarding Bond 25's possible release.
I don't think we will hear anything while SP is still.rolling out on dvd/bluray etc.
Listening to the Chris Evans breakfast show, Evans was referring to tom hardy being a favourite to take over the bond role and he said "when I had a chat with Daniel he told me he is contracted to do one more. So it would be great to see tom in the role when Daniel has finished after the next one"
I heard the actual DC Chris Evans interview and this wasn't in that so I'm guessing it was an off air chat.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Craig does not appear to relish being recognised in the street, so perhaps he intends to focus on quirky projects? He is actually quite good in them - much better than as Bond, I would say. And he already has enough money to last a few generations, even without wise investments.
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons.
Could be. But actors are a fickle lot, people change as they live and grow, and many, many actors regret giving up what they had for what they thought they would get.
Certainly Lazenby easily fits that mold for this discussion, but there have been actors with significantly more talents and prospects than him who walked away only to discover that when they finally figured out what they wanted, no one wanted to offer it to them anymore. I don't believe Craig will ever again be as in demand as an actor again as he is as Bond. He is just too limited, not so much in talent but in appeal. He has options now. Many of those options will begin to evaporate once he leaves the role.
When you're on top and in demand, it's easy to say no. In fact, there's a kind of empowerment that comes from it. But that goes away when people stop asking. It'll be interesting to see how well he handles things when the excitement goes away. Maybe he'll be comfortable with it, but maybe he won't. Maybe his wife won't. Maybe his friends won't be as interested in hanging out anymore. Maybe he won't have as much choice on scripts, or once he starts acting, authority to make changes. Actors don't tend to crash when things are going well. They go into the profession for attention, and they tend to fare poorly when they don't get it.
Unless he's in a high concept franchise film, Daniel Craig's career will likely flag once he leaves Bond. He personally is not a big draw, and he tends to favor quirky projects that test his acting mettle to more substantial box office concepts. Bond actors before him have made similar choices only to see their careers take a nosedive, at least until they return to tent pole types of films.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
Craig does not appear to relish being recognised in the street, so perhaps he intends to focus on quirky projects? He is actually quite good in them - much better than as Bond, I would say. And he already has enough money to last a few generations, even without wise investments.
He might. So long as he gets them, he might be happy. Connery tried that, and it didn't work. But Craig might be able to go back to where he started. But there may also be a difference between being, say, 30 and doing quirky projects as an up-and-coming actor trying to get noticed and being 50 and finding yourself trying to get the same kinds of roles.
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons.
Could be. But actors are a fickle lot, people change as they live and grow, and many, many actors regret giving up what they had for what they thought they would get.
Certainly Lazenby easily fits that mold for this discussion, but there have been actors with significantly more talents and prospects than him who walked away only to discover that when they finally figured out what they wanted, no one wanted to offer it to them anymore. I don't believe Craig will ever again be as in demand as an actor again as he is as Bond. He is just too limited, not so much in talent but in appeal. He has options now. Many of those options will begin to evaporate once he leaves the role.
When you're on top and in demand, it's easy to say no. In fact, there's a kind of empowerment that comes from it. But that goes away when people stop asking. It'll be interesting to see how well he handles things when the excitement goes away. Maybe he'll be comfortable with it, but maybe he won't. Maybe his wife won't. Maybe his friends won't be as interested in hanging out anymore. Maybe he won't have as much choice on scripts, or once he starts acting, authority to make changes. Actors don't tend to crash when things are going well. They go into the profession for attention, and they tend to fare poorly when they don't get it.
Your putting a 'Hollywood' spin on the actor..
He's not. Deep deep down he's a scouser. He looks at things that way. Artistic integrity is more important
I don't think Rachel Weisman will put pressure on Craig. And he always come back for the interesting roles. And that, at a later date, won't be 'in Hollywood' roles.....but simple British ones
I'd like Craig to come back to doing those kinds of roles. Those features will fit Kings, generals, etc. He'd do a great Henry VIII?
He's not the kind of actor who will be chasing the shoot 'em up roles. He's no Sylvester Stallone...
Sylvester Stallone is a manufactured 'star' chasing those rolls
While Craig - like Dalton and Connery - is an actor
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Comments
Intresting news! That is so good to hear! (do you happen to have a source or link of this?
My only concern is hearing about the contracts with the tv show and reading you guys talk about a possible 2018 or even 2019 release for Bond 25, that is quite concerning, what a long wait!
But hypothetically, if the writers and producers started the writing of a script for Bond 25 this spring, and finished it up around the end of 2016. (Say october/ november) In the meantime Craig is doing his tv business and such. And if filming were to be starting around january 2017, to me it seems a november 2017 release would be possible in that way. So how long exactly is DC tied to other projects?
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
I disagree that the Star Wars movie was a "remake." I think that's a lazy critique leveled by those who just couldn't find anything else negative to say about the film (Matt, I realize, did not necessarily intend this as a critique). Yes, there were similar themes from A New Hope that were repeated, but that is not the same thing as remaking the prior film.bif that were the case, all but a select few Bond films qualify as remakes.
As for fans "walking away," Matt is correct that the Star Wars film, by any possible measurement, was a colossal financial success. Likewise, no Bond fan who has not already abandoned the franchise during the Craig years is going to walk away now. There was nothing wrong with Craig's performance in SPECTRE, and I can't imagine him ever signing onto another Bond film unless he truly believes in the project and intends to devote himself to it fully. I see no risk of a Connery-in-DAF scenario.
That said, I'd have no problem with a new actor and a fresh take. But I don't think it's an essential ingredient for Bond 25 to be a great film.
Craig may feel he has enough money and fame now, but he might think differently in a few years. If he is wise, he'll make at least two more Bond films. Not only would that pay well, but it would also keep him in the public eye. The interest in him will wane once he walks away from Bond. Purity may turn out to be a big hit, but on paper, it already sounds tedious and the sort of thing only English majors will love. But so long as he fancies himself an artist, he will let his ego get in the way, and that might reduce his career.
He talks like he feels he has too much fame, so I'm sure he'd be okay with a lot less fame. I don't know how he feels about money, but I don't get the impression he spends his money like Nicolas Cage. He probably can live the way he wants with lower profile roles. Since Pierce Brosnan still has his Malibu beach house, I don't see why Craig can't do what he wants to do and make enough money.
Oh dear. I've been following Daniel Craig since he was in Moll Flanders and the BBC's "Our man in the North' and that does not sound like Daniel Craig
He'll go back to the theatre and will keep making British films. He's not interested in big bucks, but quality of work..
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think that you are right. I think he never expected to be a Hollywood leading man and has always been somewhat uncomfortable with that aspect of being Bond. if one is being unkind he can on occasion give the impression that Bond is beneath him. He is however a consumate professional who even his greatest detractors could not fail to see that he did/does give it everything. I don't think he will have much problem with not being Bond, and will return to his careers initial trajectory and focus upon more independent arts oriented work where he will/would (he'said not gone yet) be in high demand.
Acting is an odd profession, especially in movies. Very few people achieve any real success in it, and once they do, it's not so much about the money but about the currency -- to be a part of the industry in some meaningful way. Offers pour in, they go more power and authority, and they form business partnerships that lead to artistic opportunities.
But currency can go down when they're not generating box office, and without currency, they may no longer be in demand for the projects they really want to do. So, it's almost always to their advantage to be current. Some actors can walk away and come back, and some really are happier once they leave the limelight, but others deeply regret it.
One thing I've noticed about Craig is that like Connery, he seems temperamental. He's probably more introverted than Connery, but Connery went through his resentful stage, too. He tried to do more arty films and to prove that he was a bona fide actor to those who thought he was essentially just playing himself as Bond. The result was a good decade of mostly awful work as a "has been" to all but his fans. Connery had to struggle to make a comeback, and he did. But it did not appear to be a happy or healthy period of life being on the outside looking in. To me, Craig has even less box office appeal outside of the Bond films.
I completely agree. Your take on fame in Hollywood is dead on (I am a professional screenwriter). Craig also bears the burden of having been the star of three potential franchises, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, which all underperformed. (You could throw in TINTIN too, I suppose.) I'm not saying he was at fault for those commercial disappointments. But his box office success has only come as Bond-- and everyone in the business knows it. Maybe if one or more of these other series had caught fire, he would feel less frustrated. The role of Bond always threatens to pigeonhole an actor for the rest of his working life, but Craig seems to chafe against the reality more than some of the other men who've played 007, and maybe with good cause.
I am afraid you have got Craig terribly wrong
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons
One of the quotes of spectre "I never do anything entirely for money..."
Craig also said if he did another Bond film ‘it would only be for the money’. I don't know how he could possibly have found the Cowboys and Aliens role interesting. The role in The Golden Compass could have been interesting if there was a sequel. But there was hardly anything for him to do in the film they made.
I think Craig has always understood this and is at peace with it. It probably doesn't matter one way or the other in terms of his career prospects if he does another Bond. He was, theoretically, red-hot coming off of Skyfall. But what was the next film he made? SPECTRE. This tells me that he has no interest making Hollywood blockbusters, and perhaps little interest in making films at all. Most of the best drama/acting is on television now anyway. I'm not surprised to see that he's interested in exploring that medium.
Acting is an odd profession, especially in movies. Very few people achieve any real success in it, and once they do, it's not so much about the money but about the currency -- to be a part of the industry in some meaningful way. Offers pour in, they go more power and authority, and they form business partnerships that lead to artistic opportunities.
But currency can go down when they're not generating box office, and without currency, they may no longer be in demand for the projects they really want to do. So, it's almost always to their advantage to be current. Some actors can walk away and come back, and some really are happier once they leave the limelight, but others deeply regret it.
One thing I've noticed about Craig is that like Connery, he seems temperamental. He's probably more introverted than Connery, but Connery went through his resentful stage, too. He tried to do more arty films and to prove that he was a bona fide actor to those who thought he was essentially just playing himself as Bond. The result was a good decade of mostly awful work as a "has been" to all but his fans. Connery had to struggle to make a comeback, and he did. But it did not appear to be a happy or healthy period of life being on the outside looking in. To me, Craig has even less box office appeal outside of the Bond films.
I am afraid you have got Craig terribly wrong
I read his autobiography the other day and it was very telling
Money isn't the object. Performance art is. He comes from the English actor, he's not American in any way. he doesn't think like an American. His great love is performing ie Shakespeare etc. You mention THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and THE GOLDEN COMPASS, some of which would have been interesting roles. He will do roles which interest him. He took the Golden Compass because Tim Dalton done the stagework and it was offered to Daniel. Daniel accepted it because he is a big fan of Phillip Pullmans novel.
Your thinking one way, I am telling you Daniel does stuff for entirely different reasons
One of the quotes of spectre "I never do anything entirely for money..."
Where did he say this? Just curious?
He did the Phillip Pullman novel because he was a big fan of the book
He said it here:
http://www.timeout.com/london/film/daniel-craig-interview-my-advice-to-the-next-james-bond-dont-be-****
I don't know if he meant it or not, but he did say it.
FYI, you messed up the quote above and it makes it look like I said things someone else said.
And on an American chatshow he clearly states "I never do anything entirely for money..."
I remember it clearly...
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
So essentially, his words mean nothing.
Craig said it in his own words. You need to look at them more closely and realise he isn't being hypocritical, but truthful. He's saying in a very clever way, that he won't do another Bond. He's a sarcastic git. The key word is 'entirely'.
Listening to the Chris Evans breakfast show, Evans was referring to tom hardy being a favourite to take over the bond role and he said "when I had a chat with Daniel he told me he is contracted to do one more. So it would be great to see tom in the role when Daniel has finished after the next one"
I heard the actual DC Chris Evans interview and this wasn't in that so I'm guessing it was an off air chat.
Craig does not appear to relish being recognised in the street, so perhaps he intends to focus on quirky projects? He is actually quite good in them - much better than as Bond, I would say. And he already has enough money to last a few generations, even without wise investments.
Certainly Lazenby easily fits that mold for this discussion, but there have been actors with significantly more talents and prospects than him who walked away only to discover that when they finally figured out what they wanted, no one wanted to offer it to them anymore. I don't believe Craig will ever again be as in demand as an actor again as he is as Bond. He is just too limited, not so much in talent but in appeal. He has options now. Many of those options will begin to evaporate once he leaves the role.
When you're on top and in demand, it's easy to say no. In fact, there's a kind of empowerment that comes from it. But that goes away when people stop asking. It'll be interesting to see how well he handles things when the excitement goes away. Maybe he'll be comfortable with it, but maybe he won't. Maybe his wife won't. Maybe his friends won't be as interested in hanging out anymore. Maybe he won't have as much choice on scripts, or once he starts acting, authority to make changes. Actors don't tend to crash when things are going well. They go into the profession for attention, and they tend to fare poorly when they don't get it.
Your putting a 'Hollywood' spin on the actor..
He's not. Deep deep down he's a scouser. He looks at things that way. Artistic integrity is more important
I don't think Rachel Weisman will put pressure on Craig. And he always come back for the interesting roles. And that, at a later date, won't be 'in Hollywood' roles.....but simple British ones
I'd like Craig to come back to doing those kinds of roles. Those features will fit Kings, generals, etc. He'd do a great Henry VIII?
He's not the kind of actor who will be chasing the shoot 'em up roles. He's no Sylvester Stallone...
Sylvester Stallone is a manufactured 'star' chasing those rolls
While Craig - like Dalton and Connery - is an actor