I'm not so sure Cubby would have shown Craig the door - he let Connery walk after You Only Live Twice then had to eat a giant plate of crow to bring him back after Lazenby went off the deep end. When Dalton's two Bonds didn't click with audiences, Cubby then had to call back the guy he fired - Pierce Brosnan. Ultimately, the James Bond movies are a business - and a family business at that. The Broccoli family twice found out the hard way if audiences don't buy who's Bond...they don't buy Bond. Craig's Bonds made boatloads of money - Skyfall alone made a billion dollars - and that kind of success gives Daniel Craig plenty of muscle when it comes to contract negotiation. Yes, there are other actors who could fill the tux - and will, eventually - but no matter how good Henry Cavill, Chris Hemsworth, Idris Elba or the Player To Be Named Later could be, they're still a risk at the box office. Craig, on the other hand, is a well that's proven itself and the role remains his for as long as he wants it. ...but Craig's work outside of 007 hasn't exactly been a slam dunk with the public (those Stieg Larson sequels clearly aren't happening any time soon) so I'm sure one last juicy windfall before heading out into a less secure post-Bond world suits his future financial plans nicely.
Cubby never fired Brosnan; when he was ready to play Bond, the Remington Steele contract forced him to come back and EON hired Dalton just because Brosnan was unavailable. Brosnan was subsequently fired or, his contract was not renewed after "Die another Day", not by Cubby, but by Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson. I cannot recall the details, but unless I'm mistaken, his agent asked for a riduculous amount of money and he was deemed to be too old, but at 52 he was much better looking than Craig in his 40s (pic from the "After the sunset" premiere with Naomie Harris, for a more Bondish effect ) Now Broccoli and Wilson are giving an ageing Craig a ridiculous amount of money. Also, in one of the old interviews that were available on the special edition DVDs, Cubby Broccoli said that he wasn't in that business to start a partnership with an actor. Now his daughter and stepson allowed a Bond actor to be a producer. While it's true that the Craig movies made a lot of money, it's all about the concept and another guy wouldn't have been much different for the B.O. "Skyfall" was his big hit at the right time too (not much competition at the B.O. at that time), but adjusted for inflation, the Brosnan films were equally or even more successful. And "Tomorrow never dies" opened the same day as "Titanic". Also, cheaper to make and probably more profitable. Heck, the budget for "Spectre" was $245 million I'll go ahead and say that honestly, to me Craig looked more like a thug than a suave superspy and so I never truly accepted him in the role. He's a wonderful actor (check "Layer Cake", "Sylvia" "Enduring love", "The mother") but not a great Bond. Also, in the early editions of the Casino Royale Blu ray, interviewed for one of the extra feature, he said he never was a fan of the franchise while Brosnan was super happy to land the role. Futhermore, all this whining/tormented 007, and the retire/not retire/come back from MI6/ongoing storyline stuff in the Craig movies has worn out its welcome...good times when an unapologetic 007 was given a mission, slept with 3 or 4 beautiful babes, and some humour was brought to the screeen. The older Bonds, except for Dalton were great comedy actors too. That really isn't Craig playfield. Honestly, he's not well served by the lame Purvis/Wade writers, but so wasn't Brosnan, whom only had a satisfying movie overall and another great one. Then Purvis/Wade arrived... As for Craig in the Larson movies, a sequel was released in 2018 and the guy who played Borg in the "Borg vs McEnroe" film replaced him. Regarding Craig in more movies, outside 007 he has collected a good amount of low grossing films and some authentic Box office bombs ("Cowboys and aliens", "Flashbacks of a fool", "Dream house" "Kings" anyone?) even after his 007 star status. People won't pay a ticket to see a movie just because Daniel Craing is in it. So, he's grabbing as much money as he can. Who can't blame him?
True. Also, it seems that once an actor takes on Bond, he is relegated to co-star status in their other non-Bond films. Only Connery escaped that fate.
I thought Tim Dalton's portrayal of Bond was better than Pierce Brosnan's. The only Pierce Brosnan film I liked was Goldeneye. As for Bond 25, I hope they don't scrap the whole "Blofield" story or make it some silly thing like the beginning of For Your Eyes Only where he dunks him off the helo and into a smokestack. I think they ought to bring back that character for Bond 25 and have this be the final movie in the Craig series (Bond dies or goes missing or something). Then bring in a new actor (like a new guy gets hired to be 007) and make a run of movies with that actor. Idris Elba and Henry Cavill are believable as Bond. Chris Hemsworth isn't. They really have to tie up the Craig series with a good final movie for me to want to go see it. If it's just going to be "oh yeah we totally forgot about what happened in the last movie" like Diamonds Are Forever, then I'll skip it.
Right ! Now I find. Something tells me the films release doesn’t look good disregarding the actual film potential. Trainspotting director breathes a oh oh sigh of relief.
Another set back Malek has conflicting film schedules and the film is being postponed yet again. Bond producers are trying to find away to fit Malek into the film’s shooting schedule somehow.
FYI re: Pierce Brosan earlier discussion. He gave a great performance as a sort of low rent 007 in the 'Tailor of Panama'. Sort of a 'realistic Bond movie' skillfully adapted from John Lecarre's novel. Very good John Boorman film that deftly touches on the moral complexities of espionage in way that Bond films never will (and maybe never should). So while you're waiting for 25....
Seems a bit like the movie press are going a bit crazy speculating about this based on someone who said something to someone. The way it's being written about seems a bit like Blade Runner 2024 where Harrison Ford is sort of in it but the main role is Ryan Gosling or maybe even like Metal Gear Solid 2 where you suddenly found yourself playing as Raiden instead of Solid Snake. Bond being the outsider is a common enough story in Bond films but him being in retirement rather than going rogue as he seems to do every other movie these days could make for an interesting plot, but will the film still be told from Bond's perspective? Answers that won't come until the film is out really. Some of the press is trying to make it out like they're trying to get rid of the Bond in the Bond franchise so that they can be all woke and PC with a new exciting woman 007 in future movies but I don't really think that's the case.
Even if Lynch is the 'new' 007 in the upcoming film - and I'll take that with a pinch, or frankly a pillar, of salt until I see it myself - it doesn't mean she's the new Bond; 1) Bond is retired at the start of this new film, so it makes sense that a new agent will have been assigned the 007 designation. 2) I do not think for one nano-second that EON are considering Lynch as The Craig's replacement proper... a woman (black or otherwise) in that role would not only be stupid and contrived, not only would it kill the franchise stone-cold dead, but Babs Broccoli herself has said Bond should be played by a man... case closed. 3) There's been female agents - and black ones at that, no? - in Bond films before, so what's the big deal!? My problems with the new 007 opus have more to do with (unconfirmed but well-sourced) reports about how they're almost writing the film on the fly as they still didn't have a completed script before they simply had to start filming if they wanted to make a release date anytime in 2020. Now, that doesn't mean it'll be a trainwreck - the Bourne trilogy was largely written on the fly and turned out like gangbusters! - but one would think that after four freakin' years since the last 007 film went before the cameras, they wouldn't be so crammed for time leading up to production of the new one. Anything less than a stone-cold classic next year and I'm done with the Bond films... they're already on very thin ice with me after Spectre.
The surprising thing about James Bond movies is that they've never stopped making them. The "brand" has far outlived the time it was created for, not to mention all its imitators. I suspect one reason is because they've never "updated" the format in the sense of throwing out what's worked before and presenting it as a "big change."
Cubby Broccoli used to say that the format works and his exact words were: "don't screw it up". It seem his daughter and stepson forgot about his advice.
