Bond 24 - SPECTRE

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
DavidBanner

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#46 Post by DavidBanner »

I strongly recommend people actually read the full interview Daniel Craig did with Time Out.

http://www.timeout.com/london/film/dani ... nt-be-****


This is being blown way out of proportion by multiple outlets, and I don't think it's what he meant. He certainly didn't say "F___ them".

The tone of the interview is that he talked to Time Out in July right after finishing a difficult shoot of many months, and a lot of long hours. (Among other things, he notes that they continued working on the script throughout the shoot, so the earlier draft that leaked during the Sony hack may or may not be reliable as to what the completed film is.) He says that he was happy that Sam Mendes came back to do another movie, and admitted that he and Mendes didn't have as much conflict with each other as they had on Skyfall. He definitely indicates that Bond films will see more of the things they would like in this movie, including some gadgets.

His basic position at the time that he did this interview is that he was exhausted. He'd run through all his ideas of stuff to be done in a Bond film and past that was tired of the constant physical regimen and the long hours. Having done some very long shoots as well, I understand the exhaustion - it can be overwhelming. Saying he'd rather slit his wrists than do another one doesn't sound like a direct shot at Barbara Broccoli or Michael Wilson. It sounds like a guy who is, as he himself put it, out of gas at the moment. His only production issue that he mentions is that someone suggested doing two movies back to back when they were shooting Skyfall and that it was a nonsensical crazy idea. (And he's right, frankly)

But I wouldn't assume that Craig won't do another Bond. He just needs a year or so to do something else and then he'll be interested again. If the movie does extremely well, I'm sure they'll want him back. If anything, the tone of his comments indicates he's really dedicated to doing these films as well as he can, not that he hates them.

And again, don't just read a quick quote from the interview in Variety or anywhere else. Read the full interview. It's a good piece.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9713
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#47 Post by Monterey Jack »

Isn't Craig contractually bound for at least one more movie? And I can't see him passing up the chance to be in both the 50th anniversary Bond movie (Skyfall) and the 25th Bond movie overall.

andy b
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#48 Post by andy b »

On top of all this, if anyone has ever worked on a Bond (I did 2 Moore's & the 2 Dalton's), even being associated with them, there is almost a constant hassle from the fan base.

Some where out there is an autograph book with totally worthless scrawl of my name as I was walking out of the Odeon Leicester Square after the premiere from the crew section & this guy pestered me all the way to the underground station (subway/tube station) until I signed his Bond autograph book!

I can not even begin to imagine what someone like Daniel Craig must go through & after a very intense shoot, these people must be at their nerve endings & often being asked the same questions over & over again by the press!

So his comments may be more of a snap reply from a long working period, than a thought out response from a more rested mood.

Either way I look forward to the new film & we will see when the next 007 adventure comes out who is above the title.

Enjoy what your watching

Andy B

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#49 Post by AndyDursin »

Monterey Jack wrote:Isn't Craig contractually bound for at least one more movie? And I can't see him passing up the chance to be in both the 50th anniversary Bond movie (Skyfall) and the 25th Bond movie overall.
Yeah I mean, he'll be back if he's bound for another one. He might be back regardless if they dangle enough dough his way. David's right, Variety pulled quotes out but he sounds more exhausted than irritated...not much new from anyone who has played Bond (Connery in particular) in the past.

On the other hand, it's a hugely difficult existence, making millions playing James Bond. I'm sure there are a few people who might want to trade places with him. ;)

And he hasn't even been in a non-Bond movie since GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and COWBOYS AND ALIENS in 2011. He's that tired from that schedule??

DavidBanner

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#50 Post by DavidBanner »

Andy's right that Craig hasn't done a movie since Skyfall, so he was off for at least 18 months after he finished all the various Bond promotional gigs in 2012. On the other hand, he had done a fair number of movies back to back that all came out in 2011, and then also plunged straight into Skyfall, so I'm not surprised that he was exhausted before he even started Spectre. (And again, hearing the producers talk about doing two of these movies back to back is one of those things where you gasp in astonishment.)

And it's true that millions of people would be happy to have the problems that Craig has in getting to work as James Bond in these movies and get paid a lot of money to do so. But yes, it's very possible that he was worn out in 2013 after working that many movies back to back, including a Fincher and a Bond, and very possible that he was this worn out from the schedule of Spectre, which sounds like it was pretty demanding. In the past, I worked with James Garner on a television series, when he was in his mid-70s. He was a dedicated professional but could be grumpy at times, noting that his legs and knees were fairly shot, after years of doing his own action on shows like Rockford Files and Maverick. Some friends of mine at that time said they thought that he should have been grateful to have had so many great career opportunities. I simply noted that the guy had worked pretty hard his whole life and that his body had paid the price. I'm sure that Craig, who is far younger than Garner was of course, is feeling the same. I'd also note that the Bond films tend to be more physically involved than just doing a standard drama or comedy. With the exception of doing either for David Fincher.

But it's just silly to hear people attacking Craig for statements that I don't think were really out of line. Ellen Pompeo in particular should not be lecturing anyone else, given her behavior on her own show.

sprocket
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#51 Post by sprocket »

I wonder how much of this is just to generate publicity. Not on behalf of Daniel Craig, but to publicize the movie. Bond movies in particular seem to be very creative in remaining in the news throughout their production cycle.

In other words, they have a good publicity machine. :lol:

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#52 Post by AndyDursin »

Those are fair points David but I guess I'm skeptical. I can certainly understand the grind like an actor like James Garner had working on a 24 (or whatever it was) episode TV season, but I don't see the comparison there between actors working on a TV series and these modern Bond movies, not when they're already made concessions to Craig to give him "time off" inbetween sequels. Besides, these days, I can't imagine actors are doing more than they once did -- seems to me with CGI they're probably doing far less, especially when working on the likes of a Bond film. I'm sure the Bond movies are still "physically demanding" but I wonder how physically demanding in 2015 they still are in comparison with decades ago.

Frankly I was taken aback looking at Craig's schedule. He's hasn't made one movie outside of Bond since 2010 (when COWBOYS AND ALIENS and GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO were likely shot), and here we are 5 YEARS later, and he's complaining about how hard it is making Bond movies -- when they didn't even go "back to back" after SKYFALL? They've spaced out his films so there was a 4-year release gap between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL. Then another 3 years between SKYFALL and this film. This isn't even remotely like when Connery was working on these movies, when there were 1 or 2 year gaps between his Bond movies -- AND he was working on other films inbetween!

I realize Variety pulled some of Craig's words out of context but his comments are still tone deaf and puzzling for a man making millions of dollars playing one of the most legendary roles of all-time. Seems to me MGM and Eon have bent over backwards -- more than they have for any other actor to inhabit the role -- based on the gaps between the last three installments, so really, what's this about? Is he just looking for additional leverage for the next one?

Regardless, I think we can all rest easy that Craig is getting lots of time on the golf course inbetween his Bond stints. :lol:

DavidBanner

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#53 Post by DavidBanner »

Andy, I think we agree that it's not the hardest work in the world to be an actor, or to work on movies in general. Many industries have much tougher working conditions. I would just note as someone who works in the business that the hours themselves can be very long and you're on your feet for much of that time. It is not unusual on a movie or a TV show for someone to regularly work twice the hours you'd see on a regular job. It's a normal situation to have an actor report to work around 5am and work until 8pm or 9pm, and then need to be back the next morning.

Craig was in several movies that came out in 2011, that he seems to have worked on back to back without much of a break - I believe Dragon Tattoo was the last one to shoot, starting shooting in fall 2010 in Sweden and then continuing into 2011 in the UK and other places.

We should also remember that Skyfall wasn't delayed to help Craig's schedule, although his regular work after Quantum of Solace did complicate when they could start up. (They were making room for him to do other movies) Skyfall was mostly delayed by the bankruptcy debacle of MGM, which hamstrung the financing until 2010. And at that point, they then had another year of prepping and tinkering with the script before they started shooting in late 2011. And my understanding of the prep that Craig went through for these movies has been considerable also.

Again, this doesn't mean that he's working in the coal mines or any other heavy labor job. I just think that there's been a huge overreaction to a tired actor at the end of a long gig.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#54 Post by AndyDursin »

I would just note as someone who works in the business that the hours themselves can be very long and you're on your feet for much of that time. It is not unusual on a movie or a TV show for someone to regularly work twice the hours you'd see on a regular job. It's a normal situation to have an actor report to work around 5am and work until 8pm or 9pm, and then need to be back the next morning.
Absolutely (I'm well aware of all of these things. lol. ;) But what you are saying plays into my point. I just believe doing 1 James Bond movie every 2 or 3 years is a hell of lot lighter in terms of a workload than someone doing 24 episodes of a TV series (to say nothing of folks who make a movie on hiatus from certain shows too) every year. Craig certainly hasn't been overextending his film schedule recently. That's my point. It's been years since he's done anything other than Bond, and I have more sympathy for actors or behind the scenes personnel grinding out the schedule you are laying out than a big-time star like him carping when he's really been taking it easy here for quite some time.

I do agree it's overblown though. He's clearly tired of the process of making a Bond film, which pretty much everyone who has played the role has complained about at one time or another (some more than others!).

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#55 Post by Eric W. »


User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#56 Post by AndyDursin »

Variety also high on it, though they panned the song and Thomas Newman's score. Also lamented the 150 minute running time (the longest film in the entire series) and generally didn't feel it matched Skyfall

http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/sp ... 201622685/

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#57 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:Variety also high on it, though they panned the song and Thomas Newman's score. Also lamented the 150 minute running time (the longest film in the entire series) and generally didn't feel it matched Skyfall

http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/sp ... 201622685/
Probably.

I'll say again: I like Thomas Newman in the right circumstances but I didn't and still don't buy him as composer on something like this. They should have kept Arnold or maybe some of these newer composers I saw you all mention favorably in another thread that could even yield us a "best score of 2015" discussion worth merit.

BobaMike
Posts: 558
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:57 pm

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#58 Post by BobaMike »

After listening to the score twice now, here are my thoughts (crossposted from fsm)

I've never been so *bored* by a Bond score before! I did like Skyfall , but this, after 2 listens has zero memorable tracks.

Half of the score is dull (example: The Eternal City= 5 minutes of bland underscore, mixed so quietly I forgot it was on).

The other half is action music that without the nervous drumbeat/strings (that sound like Finding Nemo) only comes to life when the Bond theme is quoted. And when it is, its usually the rising/falling part of the theme, not the more famous part.

The end credits sums up the score: annoying action & suspense, then the love theme(which is pretty, but nothing memorable).

Maybe it works in the film, and I'll change my tune.....

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#59 Post by AndyDursin »

Thanks BM for the impressions but I'm sure it'll add nothing to the movie at all. This genre isn't Thomas Newman's forte, and I haven't been moved to buy any of his scores in two decades plus (since the peak of SHAWSHANK and LITTLE WOMEN imo)

He got these Bond gigs strictly because of his relationship with Mendes, and no other reason. If Mendes doesn't return, there's no chance Newman does. In fact his whole involvement with Bond reminds me of how out of his element Randy Newman was doing AIR FORCE ONE (a score that, today, would seem positively brilliant by comparison lol).

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Bond 24 - SPECTRE

#60 Post by Paul MacLean »

A friend of mine in the UK saw the film, and had this to say...

"Spectre seen and it did stir up quite some excitement. Stellar first half. The gags and faithful formula are all back. I won't reveal any spoilers but you are a fan you'll be love it. If you want Skyfall II no chance, the grit has gone."

Post Reply