« Rourke says no Sin City 2 | Filmstalker | Twilight sequel loses director »


Craig repeats no Bond Trilogy

DanielCraig.jpgBack in October I wrote about Daniel Craig saying no to a Quantum of Solace sequel, no to the Bond trilogy, and now he's repeating it again with almost the same wording. He doesn't want the third in the series, and it would seem he is indeed tired of this Bond.

Quantum of Solace (Filmstalker review) set-up both a sequel and a move on from the series, the next Bond film could go either way since they hacked apart the ending so, but Craig only wants one thing, a move towards the old Bond.

Back in October Filmstalker carried the video interview where he, quite forcibly, perhaps rudely, and looking very fed up, put the interviewer right on a few things, a few things that I wasn't sure if he was indeed right on. Here's what he said.

"I don't see a trilogy, everybody else is suggesting a trilogy, I don't actually see a trilogy..."

...and when pressed further...

"No, no, I genuinely think that's stories finished now"

Marc Foster doesn't see that though, he was still talking about a sequel, if he got the chance that is. Personally I hope he doesn't because his Bond film was terrible to watch.

However Daniel Craig is still talking about it, and it's pretty clear that he wants the old Bond back.

At the press junket for Defiance, Craig was asked once again about the franchise and repeats his comments from a few months back. Collider

"No [expletive removed - Richard] way. I'm done with that story. I want to lie on a beach for the first half an hour of the next movie drinking a cocktail."

Those are almost identical to the words he used in that past interview. He goes onto say what he does want for the series:

"We've finished this story as far as I'm concerned. We've got a great set of bad guys. There is an organization that we can use whenever we want to. The relationship between Bond and M is secure and Felix is secure. Let's try and find where Moneypenny came from and where Q comes from. Let's do all that and have some fun with it."

So he wants the old Bond back, he's tired of this new look Bond already and would like to move further towards the classic characters.

For me I think that's a mistake. I do think we've lost what Bond was in this latest outing, in fact we've lost a story in it as well, but I don't think that Casino Royale (Filmstalker review) was the wrong direction for Bond.

I can see that there is room to reintroduce the original characters, but the franchise needs to keep going in the direction that Casino Royale pointed it in, not in the direction of the Bourne films and excluding the idea of plot and characters.

Quantum of Solace (Filmstalker review) was as far removed from Bond as you can get, and we need to step back to where Casino Royale left us. The trilogy isn't dead though, and far from abandoning it because the actor being paid to take the lead is grumpy, it should be seen through to completion.



For me, and speaking as a long time Bond obsessive, QOS was definitely the worst of the franchise and to have beaten that jazzed up episode of Miami Vice 'Licence to Kill' that's really saying something!

What actually happens in QOS...nothing. A few explosions at some dusty hotel in a desert and the pathetic squeeking villain is just totally laughable. And these much vaunted action pieces that blow by in an absolute (and literal) blur of shaky camera movements. Absolute tedious crap from start to finish.

As far as I'm concerned, Bond has always been about escapist entertainment and should continue that way. It's not Bourne and never will be.
Proposterous base inside a volcano...yes please!

Firstly (maybe it's just me but...) I didn't have a problem with QOS. Okay, it wasn't as thrilling as CR, but it was sure a gritty, joy-ride addition the series. I liked it. Anyway I hope they continue in a trilogy direction. I think Daniel Craig will be mad to push for something else. I think the producers really want to make sure that the story stays tight, unlike the old series. A trilogy is a must. What we don't need a buntch of unrelated films like before.

"What we don't need a bunch of unrelated films like before."

But why? That formula made Bond one of the worlds biggest franchises. Each one was an adventure in it's own right. The early films had the recurring SPECTRE theme before McClory got all eggy which was great. I agree that they descended into farce at times but were still (mostly) hugely enjoyable. You got what you expected which was escapist entertainment. Surely there are many other franchises that fulfill the more cerebral approach (and I also enjoy those) but I loved Bond for what he was and I'm sure as hell not liking where he's going.

Why? Because I think it is so much better and interesting to have films that are linked and carry on a story. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the Bond movies pre-Craig very much so, but if we are going to go back down the same route as then, then it will mean that the reboot was a scam.

I'm not entirely sure it wasn't. The Brosnan era was tailing off and Bourne had arrived making Bond look pretty damn silly. Sony, Wilson and co knee-jerked a reply in the form of the hugely over-long Casino Royale that certainly worked in places but just needed half and hour cutting. This seemed to be their reply. It just seems a shame the ongoing storyline ended us so dull. A plot about water for instance...hmmmmm.

I think Quantum of Solace's plot was about more than just water. I think the next film should explore Quantum in detail, with Bond trying his best to dismantle it and expose it's members, and I don't see how that can't be worked into another direct sequel. I certainly find that concept more intruging than say, a new film with no revelence to the previous two than perhaps the secret organization link. I'm sure Vesper's boyfriend, Yusef, revealed a lot of information that could be the basis of a next film.

Good action sequences you can see, and a villain with a plan for world domination of some sort, would do me.

I wouldn't mind the end of the trilogy, as long as something actually happens. Not much did happen in Quantum of Solace. Well if it did, I was maybe blinking at the time.

I think the key is that the world has moved on from the old Bond, it was already moving with Pierce Brosnan who was managing to cling onto the old Bond and move to slightly new territory.

That old Bond is in the past and needs to stay there to be enjoyed, taking him into modern day film just wouldn't work.

It needs some realism and edge provided by Casino Royale, but it does need to take it forward with a strong narrative and concentration on character, things missing from the second film.

I think the connected storyline works better than the individual films, but only when there's something to tell and progress.

"I think the connected storyline works better than the individual films, but only when there's something to tell and progress."

Agreed, there just wasn't really much to progress with I didn't think. Totally agreed r.e action sequences - could you work out a single thing that was happening? Very stylish I'm sure but too much of a sensory assault to actually enjoy. I like the idea of a harder edged Bond but with a decent well paced story and maybe it's time to say goodbye to Forster as well.
Ah well, there's always a fourth Bourne to look forward to!


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34