Craig 'Not Giving Up On Bond'

zimovain

Really want to see him make two more!!

Daniel Craig has said that he is still willing to make more James Bond movies despite the financial problems that have forced studio MGM to pull the plug on the spy's 23rd outing.

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the 42-year-old admitted that his future as the British secret agent is "out of my hands", but said that he is "ready and willing" to return to the role if asked.

Discussing the financial problems surrounding franchise rights holders MGM, Craig said: "Unless MGM can sort themselves out, we can't make a movie. It's hard to talk about things that aren't happening.

"There will be more to say when things are happening. I'm really keen to get going, it's as simple as that. And I'm hoping that, in a while, we will."

Craig, who played Bond in Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace, added of his 007 tenure: "I felt as if we were just getting going and that we'd get the chance to make a couple more.

"I'd like fulfill the circle with the story. But, yes, there is nothing really to say until whoever gets that house [at MGM] in order. There's no chance of getting it made until those things are taken care of."

Spyglass Entertainment is currently in talks to take over MGM, which has been crippled by a $4 billion debt.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a261069/daniel-craig-i-wont-give-up-on-bond.html

MisterAnarchy

History is repeating itself,its exactly the same set of events that prematurely ended Timothy Daltons Bond career after 2 films.
Dalton was settling into the role nicely when MGM had the same financial difficulties 20 years ago.
The Bond franchise is a licence to print money ,its the the best way for MGM to make some money.

the_monkey

Well Quantum of Solace was absolute sh*t .. ,
but for Casino Royale alone I guess he deserves another go..

Duggy747

Yea, Craig shouldn't be unfairly ousted from this franchise as he makes a good Bond.

MGM really screwed up their finances and it could be at least another 2 / 3 years before we see another Bond flick.

the_monkey

the_monkey wrote: »

Well Quantum of Solace was absolute sh*t .. ,
but for Casino Royale alone I guess he deserves another go..

I think Quantum gets a lot of unfair slack, I think too many people went to it expecting a typical Bond stand alone escapade but instead got a film which was a direct continuation of the previous one. Watched back to back they really complement one another and while it does have its problems it's still miles ahead of the type of drivel that Brosnan was starring in.

The_D_Man

I thought Quantum of Solace was solid, not excellent like Casino Royale but still enjoyable. Plus, without Craig, QoS would have been ****e. He definitely deserves to reprise his role as Bond.

mikhail

I agree that QoS stands up better if it gets to lean on Casino Royale as a sequel, but it's pacing is a little leaden, the action scenes are hyper-edited in a fashion a lot of people detest, there's a noticable one-liner drought and the female lead compares rather poorly with her predecessor (not helped by having bugger all to do). It's an okay movie, but people expected more after Casino Royale.

For all the praise Craig has gotten for his Bond, I don't think he's anything special at it. He looks genuinely tough, handles the action scenes well and doesn't do much wrong, but QoS is supposed to be about Bond dealing with the consequences of the previous film, and he's kind of flat. Maybe that's the fault of the script, but if he were all that great I think he might have eeked a little more out of it.

robby^5

He was very flat in the second film I have to agree with that. Solace felt very sub-par as a sequel to Royale which was a great fresh start for Bond, it wasnt a bad film but it was far from good.

Personally I think he should be given one more shot and that should be it, I'd like to see someone younger take on the role. I know everyone does this after a popular film, but I'd love to see Tom Hardy take on the role after seeing him in Inception. He has charisma, charm, seriousness and can definately pull off total badass when needed.

Sad Professor

I thought Craig was really good in Solace. Though I suspect most of the nuance in his performance got lost in the editing. The film was mostly a victim of the writers strike, but I still think it gets too much flak.

irishh_bob

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Quantum gets a lot of unfair slack, I think too many people went to it expecting a typical Bond stand alone escapade but instead got a film which was a direct continuation of the previous one. Watched back to back they really complement one another and while it does have its problems it's still miles ahead of the type of drivel that Brosnan was starring in.

quantum was let down by both having a terrible bond vilian and bond girl

Ridley

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Quantum gets a lot of unfair slack, I think too many people went to it expecting a typical Bond stand alone escapade but instead got a film which was a direct continuation of the previous one. Watched back to back they really complement one another and while it does have its problems it's still miles ahead of the type of drivel that Brosnan was starring in.

#Sigmund Freud!

My issue with Quantum of Solace was that it fell all too quickly back into the clichés that asked for a reboot in the first place.

Doesn't help that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6CoNUE5Zho

is a far better theme.

TonyD79

irishh_bob wrote: »

quantum was let down by both having a terrible bond vilian and bond girl

She was great in Hitman but I agree she was dreadful in this. Thought it was good until he went to South America. Also this film brought Gemma Arterton to the fore, cant stand her and dont know what the fuss is all about.

me-skywalker

Casion Royale and Craig as this modern re-imaging of the Bond character and franchise totalled killed it off for me anyway.

Its suppose to be slick and suave not dirty and gritty never liked the new series.

irishh_bob

me-skywalker wrote: »

Casion Royale and Craig as this modern re-imaging of the Bond character and franchise totalled killed it off for me anyway.

Its suppose to be slick and suave not dirty and gritty never liked the new series.

connery was able to combine all four

they had to reinvent the series as it had become eclipsed by the bourne series in many ways

me-skywalker

irishh_bob wrote: »

connery was able to combine all four

they had to reinvent the series as it had become eclipsed by the bourne series in many ways

Yea I understand why they did, especially when you cnosider modern society and culture just wants more violence more blood,guts and sex.

But I still would have liked them to have kept Bond as a good alternative. I loved the cheesiness, the slick coolness, the charm and wit, because in a way it knew what it was.

Its like a sunny day shoot-out rather than a stormy night shoot-out both have their own allure and draw-backs.

Sad Professor

I dunno, but personally I'll take the dirty, gritty Bond any day over the old Bond. Mind you, I was never much of a Bond fan. Even as a kid, the cheesiness annoyed me. I loved the idea of Bond but not the execution. My favourite pre-Craig Bond film is OHMSS, which is most people's favourite whipping boy of the series.

me-skywalker

Sad Professor wrote: »

I dunno, but personally I'll take the dirty, gritty Bond any day over the old Bond. Mind you, I was never much of a Bond fan. Even as a kid, the cheesiness annoyed me. I loved the idea of Bond but not the execution. My favourite pre-Craig Bond film is OHMSS, which is most people's favourite whipping boy of the series.

While I do like really appreciate a proper gritty movie its just something Ive associated with the Bond series since Ive been a kid. The gadgets, the ott stunts, the smiles, the women, the wardrobe and the one-liners all classic Bond.

iMax

me-skywalker wrote: »

Casion Royale and Craig as this modern re-imaging of the Bond character and franchise totalled killed it off for me anyway.

Its suppose to be slick and suave not dirty and gritty never liked the new series.

If you read any of the books, the current incarnation (& to a slightly lesser extent Dalton's Version - Still my favourite bond) is exactly how 007 is written. He's arrogant, misogynistic, absolutely sociopathic. He'd kill you, then f**k your wife with your body stuffed under the bed. There's little or no quips. Very little use of the Walter PPK (he kills with his hands mostly). & no gadgets. He drinks & smokes heavy. He's an absolute double hard bastard.

Ironically, my all time favourite bond movie (with my least favourite bond) & the one I'd love to see a modern remake of is The Spy Who Loved Me, which has all of the things which are not in the book.

I think they should do at least one more with DC, just to finish off his trilogy. maybe they should only commit to trilogies with one actor so it doesn't get "old".

irishh_bob

Sad Professor wrote: »

I dunno, but personally I'll take the dirty, gritty Bond any day over the old Bond. Mind you, I was never much of a Bond fan. Even as a kid, the cheesiness annoyed me. I loved the idea of Bond but not the execution. My favourite pre-Craig Bond film is OHMSS, which is most people's favourite whipping boy of the series.

OHMSS is one of the best bonds if not the best , while lazenby couldnt act , he brought incredible physicality to the role ( check out the opening scene on the beach ) and who can forget diana rigg , the best bond girl of them all , also had the best bond theme IMO

Tryst

the_monkey wrote: »

Well Quantum of Solace was absolute sh*t .. ,
but for Casino Royale alone I guess he deserves another go..

agreed, i loved the first one but the second was so boring and disjointed it annoyed me.

irishh_bob

me-skywalker wrote: »

Yea I understand why they did, especially when you cnosider modern society and culture just wants more violence more blood,guts and sex.

But I still would have liked them to have kept Bond as a good alternative. I loved the cheesiness, the slick coolness, the charm and wit, because in a way it knew what it was.

Its like a sunny day shoot-out rather than a stormy night shoot-out both have their own allure and draw-backs.

oh i agree , i love bond for what it is , i dont care that the plot is more or less always the same ( super villian out for world domination ) and i love all the cliches , bond was a genre all of its own but that has in many ways changed since craig took over

ricero

i hope Craig gets an other outing as bond as i really love him as bond mind you my favorite bond was Rodger Moore. but if craig was to leave bond my first pick for the new bond would go to michael fassenbender he would be a brillant bond and bring back much needed wit and charm to the series

me-skywalker

iMax wrote: »

If you read any of the books, the current incarnation (& to a slightly lesser extent Dalton's Version - Still my favourite bond) is exactly how 007 is written. He's arrogant, misogynistic, absolutely sociopathic. He'd kill you, then f**k your wife with your body stuffed under the bed. There's little or no quips. Very little use of the Walter PPK (he kills with his hands mostly). & no gadgets. He drinks & smokes heavy. He's an absolute double hard bastard.

Yea Ild had heard this before alright, still havnt actually read any Bond books. But now thsi conversation has reignited my Bond interest again I might just pick up 1 of the books to start with and see if im liking it.

noodler

I think I am the only person on the planet who preferred Brosnan as bond.

mikhail

noodler wrote: »

I think I am the only person on the planet who preferred Brosnan as bond.

I liked him: he pulled off the suave, cheeky side of the character very well; my mental picture of Bond will probably be forever somewhere between Dalton and Brosnan. I think he'd be remembered more fondly if it weren't for the fact that all of the films he was in after Goldeneye were cack.

I outlined my reasons for thinking Craig was merely okay in the role on the previous page, but Casino Royale is fantastic and will colour people's impression of Craig's tenure, especially if it's ultimately cut short.