Daniel Craig Says Skyfall Will Be Better Than Casino Royale

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Craig-Says-Skyfall-Better-Than-Casino-Royale-28327.html

Quote :

Martin Campbell's Casino Royale is one of the best James Bond movies of all time. Going back to 007's origins and painting him as a much darker character, stakes were raised and we began to understand the British superspy better than we've ever understood him before. So to call star Daniel Craig's recent comments about the next entry in the franchise "bold" would be an understatement.

The actor recently sat down for an interview with Empire and said that the next Bond movie, Sam Mendes' Skyfall, will be better than Casino Royale. "Sam Mendes has lived with Bond all his life, and he grew up with Bond in the same way I did," Craig said, following his pronouncement. "We have exactly the same reference points, we both like the same Bond movies, and we both like the same bits in the same Bond movies we like." Going further, he said that their mutual love for Bond movies like Live and Let Die and From Russia With Love was instilled into the script. "He’s been working his arse off to tie all these things together so they make sense... in a Bond way!"

One obstacle to overcome is the last Bond film, however. After the impressive Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace left both audiences and critics feeling cold - and it's not something that Craig ignores. "On Quantum, we were fucked," Craig said. According to the actor, the script was hampered by the writers strike and it prevented them from getting a good script for the project. Because of the problems he even went as far as to write a few of the scenes with director Marc Foster and, as he said in the interview, "And a writer I am not."

The idea of a Bond movie better than Casino Royale is good enough to make any 007 fan's mouth water. Shame we have to wait until November 9, 2012 to see if Craig is telling the truth.

The next Bond film is always gonna be "the best".

Good to see him admit QOS was a freshly squeezed turd.

"Really? Worst film you ever saw. Well, my next one will be better! ...hello? Hello?"

While this these type of comments are typical, I can't say I'm happy that QOS is getting lambasted like that by Craig. Even if he's criticizing himself in part (since he did have a large influence on the film), it's not professional. QOS was a box office hit - it nearly matched the global earnings of CR! Sure, much of the production must've been a frustrating experience and the combination of Forster + a $230 million budget didn't help, but the film was decently received and is not something to be ashamed of. Craig can promise as much milk and honey in Skyfall as he wants, but why bring QOS into it?

GeneralGogol wrote:

QOS was a box office hit - it nearly matched the global earnings of CR!

Surely you're just playing devil's advocate there, General?

"On Quantum, we were fucked," Craig said. According to the actor, the script was hampered by the writers strike and it prevented them from getting a good script for the project. Because of the problems he even went as far as to write a few of the scenes with director Marc Foster and, as he said in the interview, "And a writer I am not."

That's not bad, Craig went three paragraphs without dropping an F-bomb :cherry: . He's getting better.

Yes nice to see, that he can acknowledge what a travesty of a Bond movie QoS really was. Things are looking up. There may be hope for this finger-slobbering, potty-mouthed,male-feminist, blonde Bond yet.:geek:

From the comments, I get more of the vibe that Craig isn't really criticizing QOS but rather acknowledging a problem he found frustrating which was not having a complete script, contrasting SF which had been given more time to develop and be completed on time without any writers strike issue.

Skyfall might be a real interesting film, but I'm not sure its going to be a great Bond film. I do like the casting of Berenice Marlohe though. Olga salvaged something from QoS for me.

It seems to be a given now by all concerned that CR was a huge success (both critically and financially) whereas QoS was not. I don't find many people sticking up for QoS when comparing it to Craig's first Bond outing.

I prefer Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, mainly because I find the former to be more in touch with Fleming's characterisation of Bond than the latter's modern thug, even with an original story. While I still like Craig's first Bond film, it could have been so much better. Bond and Vesper's characterisation were a bit off, and I think the atmosphere was lacking. The novel's opening line could have featured predominantly during the card game to add ambience, but it didn't. And Bond and Vesper's love could have been fleshed out better, and I think by adapting the final act of the novel - a la Vesper's decline in mental state - could have made more believability and drama (though I do very much like the concept (and execution) of the falling house, but I think the ending should have been faithfully adapted) It's ironic, given that Barbara wants to add drama to the films, and yet when there is come compellingly brilliant stuff to be adapted, they opt for the more "cinematic" approach.

So, I do hope that Skyfall is better than Casino Royale.

It had better be better than both QoS and CR because both were decidedly average in Bond terms for me. Like fields I have come to like QoS the better of the two but even so they both offer too many concessions to the generic actioner and too little of what Made Bond different and better imo. Casino Royale on subsequent viewing has real pacing issues, the Vesper Bond dynamic is inept and the last third of the film is a chore to get through. QoS has a much better performance by Craig, a much better Bond girl and is tight enough and swift enough to not completely outstay its welcome.

Makeshift Python wrote:

From the comments, I get more of the vibe that Craig isn't really criticizing QOS but rather acknowledging a problem he found frustrating which was not having a complete script, contrasting SF which had been given more time to develop and be completed on time without any writers strike issue.

Exactly.

Re: writer's strike, supposedly no writer available to help on the script.

Weren't there stories at the time that a writer named Joshua Zetumer was indeed working on the set, doing writing polishes?

Here's one:

http://commanderbond.net/5011/screenwriter-joshua-zetumer-puts-the-polish-on-quantum-of-solace.html

and here's another:

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=6080

lachesis wrote:

It had better be better than both QoS and CR because both were decidedly average in Bond terms for me. Like fields I have come to like QoS the better of the two but even so they both offer too many concessions to the generic actioner and too little of what Made Bond different and better imo. Casino Royale on subsequent viewing has real pacing issues, the Vesper Bond dynamic is inept and the last third of the film is a chore to get through. QoS has a much better performance by Craig, a much better Bond girl and is tight enough and swift enough to not completely outstay its welcome.

I don't enjoy either film as good Bond films. They both work as stand alone thrillers though, although the sophomoric Haggis-infused political overtones of QoS, are enough to sink the film IMO.

The CR pacing issues are a problem as well and the Bond Vesper relationship is indeed inept.

Hence the two films rank #21 and #22 on my Bond movie ladder. Yes I will put DAD or any of the other Brozzer films in the machine ahead of these two dreary Bond-like opuses.

I can understand putting DAD ahead of them. But TWINE? That's more dreary than either.

Makeshift Python wrote:

But TWINE? That's more dreary than either.

As well as more poorly paced and inept.

Had a fairly decent score though, minus most of the action cues.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I can understand putting DAD ahead of them. But TWINE? That's more dreary than either.

Its right down near the bottom as well, but its still got lots of fun stuff. The pts is good fun with the Thames boat chase. Morceau is uber exotic. I quite like Richards as well. Coltrane and Carlyle do good work. The weakest element is Brozzer whose in maximum pain-face mode, but otherwise its a big loud colourful Bond film. I'm happy.

TWINE is anything but colourful.

Sharky wrote:

TWINE is anything but colourful.

Yep its colourful. Its got lots of colourful colours in it.

Looks as drab as TND. I don't get why those two late 90s Bond entries looked so desaturated compared to the rest of the 20 films. GE looked nicely saturated and DAD looked great minus the digitally graded Korean scenes.

Most of its thanks to being shot third rate TV directors, so you get a lot of flat, full-frontal, high key lighting (common with television), compositions lit for multi-cam setups and wide-angle lenses for interior scenes.

I'm not plumping TWINE here. It just does seem colourful to me, but then all Bond films are colourful, some obviously moreso than others.

Even QoS is very nice to look at in parts.

Sharky wrote:

Most of its thanks to being shot third rate TV directors, so you get a lot of flat, full-frontal, high key lighting (common with television), compositions lit for multi-cam setups and wide-angle lenses for interior scenes.

TWINE yeah, but not TND.

FourDot wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Most of its thanks to being shot third rate TV directors, so you get a lot of flat, full-frontal, high key lighting (common with television), compositions lit for multi-cam setups and wide-angle lenses for interior scenes.

TWINE yeah, but not TND.

No, some of that applies to TND's dialogue scenes too. Don't know what Robert Elswit was thinking.