Daniel Craig Promises 'Skyfall' Won't Be An Emo Bond Flick

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1682952/daniel-craig-skyfall-emotional.jhtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MTVNewsLatest+%28MTV+News+Latest+Headlines%29

Quote :

James Bond fans fear not, there will be plenty of action in the much-anticipated upcoming Bond flick, "Skyfall."

For months, the rumor mill had Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes stripping away the action for the 23rd Bond movie in order to make a more dramatic movie that reflected the emotional depth of the characters.

But when MTV News recently visited the London set of "Skyfall", James Bond himself, Daniel Craig, was quick to dispel those rumors, assuring fans that he and Mendes have struck a balance between drama and the action that Bond flicks are known for.

"I sat down with Sam Mendes two years ago, three years ago — now it's getting on four — and we discussed what we wanted to do and how we wanted to do it, and he's one of the biggest Bond fans around," said Craig, who's taking on the 007 role for the third time.

"He's not out to do an angst-ridden movie, some chamber piece about people's emotions," Craig continued. "It's a Bond movie. But we both agreed that if he cast the film, which he did really well, and we brought in older characters and new characters, that we'd have something really rich and sort of exciting to watch."

The cast includes Judi Dench (playing "M" for the seventh time), Ralph Fiennes in a mysterious role and Oscar winner Javier Bardem.

"I think it's a James Bond movie and this movie is going to have everything that any James Bond fan would expect and even more," Bardem told us. "Also the emotional aspect of it and the action aspect of the movie as well, it's going to contain a lot of surprises for the audience."

And Bardem should know what fans want as a longtime fan of the franchise. "I've seen many, many James Bond movies," he said. "It's fun to be part of one of them. It's really fun, but again, it's also about the people ... around this movie that is really exciting to work with — amazing cast, a great director and great character to play. It's a very serious movie, it's very solid."

Bond fans can catch all the "Skyfall" action when it hits theaters November 9.

[i]

We saw a lot of this sort of thing coming out around the time of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, so it's easy to be cynical about Craig sticking to the party line.

However, I think that what we have seen from production of SKYFALL to date substantiates this. I've seen people become genuinely excited for the details of shooting - particularly with the latest round of stills - and the way EON have gone to great lengths to keep things under wraps (it's helped that there has been a lot of attention given to THE AVENGERS, THE HUNGER GAMES, PROMETHEUS and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES) speak to the way they've approached the film this time.

Well, that's good news.

That's what I want to hear from DC. But talk is cheap.

Of course, every new Bond is "going to be the next FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE".

We shall see what we shall see.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Of course, every new Bond is "going to be the next FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE".

But it's not every Bond film where the actor playing Bond suggests that the director won't settle for anything but the next GOLDFINGER.

Of course, I don't like GOLDFINGER, but I am willing to admit that it is highly-regarded within the Bond community, so my point here is not diluted.

I forgot about the GOLDFINGER comment. Hopefully that lives up.

I like GOLDFINGER. :)

Hopefully like it was for Connery and Moore this third film of Craig's should be the defining film of his tenure, unlike what TWINE was for Brosnan's.

In many ways, TWINE was the defining film of Brosnan's tenure.

Appropriately, it wasn't very good. :)

Wasn't Moore's third outing a retread of YOLT?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Wasn't Moore's third outing a retread of YOLT?

Yes, but it's the film people associate with Moore's tenure the most, same with GOLDFINGER for Connery.

Well, when I think of Moore, I think of FYEO. Just as I think of FRWL when I think of Connery.

But that's just me.

I don't recall any other Bond actor ever having to make a public statement to dissuade fears that Bond had gone too emo. When will we reach rock bottom?

Salomé wrote:

I don't recall any other Bond actor ever having to make a public statement to dissuade fears that Bond had gone too emo. When will we reach rock bottom?

Indeed and sadly it starts to feel a case of 'milady doth protest too much'. Equally while he's keen to assure us what the film isn't the repeated suggestion of its emotional context still slips under the radar to confuse the issue.

I think the Goldfinger reference is more related to it being Craig's third film than any genuine inspiration, while the plots connections to motherly 'M' and Bond's family pretty much garantee's more emo-babble than I would personally ever feel approapriate or desireable, in the end its all down to the mix of good and bad, how much the latter effects the former etc.

re: Goldfinger. late in 2011, Michael G. Wilson gave an interview where he said Skyfall had "a magical Goldfinger feel." So in this case, MGW made the comparison directly.

re: the promised lighter mood. We don't really have that substantiated yet. We have a series of stills, many of which have Daniel Craig holding a gun or firing a gun. Fair enough, those are traditional Bond poses. We've had some shots of Judi Dench, but again not really enough to tell you about the mood of the film. And we've seen a still with Ralph Fiennes holding a gun.

We've had a couple of short clips, but they're so short you really can't tell the mood.

To be fair, stills may not be the best medium to demonstrate the mood of the film. The teaser trailer may be a better opportunity. We'll see.

Meanwhile, I don't think it's cynical to cite comments the actor, producers, etc. said four years ago. Those were comments intended for public consumption. Finally Craig has said some unusual things during his tenure as Bond, including how the original Ian Fleming titles don't mean anything:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3096758/Daniel-Craig-Bond-film-name-Quantum-of-Solace-was-my-idea.html

The titles were generally explained in the original stories. Maybe he got a little excited or annoyed after having been asked for the umpteenth time what Quamum of Solace meant. Who knows? But the star and the producers are selling a product. It's not cynical to approach it that way. We'll see.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Wasn't Moore's third outing a retread of YOLT?

Wasn't Moore's fourth outing a retread of his third and of YOLT, right down to the director, production designer, and death of most life on surface of the earth?

Salomé wrote:

I don't recall any other Bond actor ever having to make a public statement to dissuade fears that Bond had gone too emo. When will we reach rock bottom?

If Dalton had gotten to his trifecta, he might have had to say something to that effect, that Bond would lighten up (even if they had to light bamboo beneath his nails to get it out of him.)

trevanian wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I don't recall any other Bond actor ever having to make a public statement to dissuade fears that Bond had gone too emo. When will we reach rock bottom?

If Dalton had gotten to his trifecta, he might have had to say something to that effect, that Bond would lighten up (even if they had to light bamboo beneath his nails to get it out of him.)

Craig is having to essentially apologize for the path taken with QOS and the fears that his series is taking too much of an emotional story arc at the expense of fun and adventure; or maybe simply taking itself much too seriously. I don't think Dalton's films could ever have been accused of doing the same, even though they were certainly more grounded and at times darker than Moore's. Craig may not be coming right out and begging for forgiveness for QOS, but they are clearly aware of the sentiment of a lot of fans that the producers appear to be making an attempt at some sort of high-brow, politically-nuanced commentary and drama, as well as launching a campaign to get an Oscar (or at least some other high-profile awards). Dalton's films had their problems, but they certainly didn't suffer from an overabundance of established, A-list talent.

Some fans (such as myself) are a bit concerned that there are no characters with Fleming-esque names like Sugartits or Easy, no larger than life villains, no femme fatales that kill men by smothering them with their breasts, etc...Some of us are wishing for a time when the titles were evocative and intriguing, not sounding like they were ripped off the cover of a Harlequin romance novel.

Most of the criticism I remember of the Dalton films AT THE TIME revolved around LTK not seeming like a Bond movie at all, that it was totally leveraging off the Joel Silver action films, using talent from in front (Grand L Bush & Robert Davi were the two FBI guys in DIE HARD, Davi was in ACTION JACKSON) and behind camera (Kamen.)

Then there were folks saying it was too smart for its own good (Bond doing the play the bad guys off against one another being too 'highbrow' ??? for a Bondflick. Or too violent for its own good (again, see the Silver pics.)

I just remember loving both movies, and haven't ever found cause to change my views, despite many viewings. My major rethink revolves around Glen as director - I think he really messed things up, not looking to LTK's cinematography and doing a total toss-up in not getting Dalton's hair fixed. And he certainly didn't let Dalton's previously adequate sexuality come through in the films (I could easily conclude Bond was played by a gay actor at times), and that aspect is the only significant flaw I find with Dalton as Bond.

I see Craig as going the Dalton route in terms of trying to ground it and bring crediblity, but like Brosnan, being allowed to do the things Dalton was not allowed to do, like keep his hands in his pockets. But Craig is a dead end for me just on looks alone; I'd never buy him as Bond anymore than I would Michael Dunn.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I don't recall any other Bond actor ever having to make a public statement to dissuade fears that Bond had gone too emo. When will we reach rock bottom?

If Dalton had gotten to his trifecta, he might have had to say something to that effect, that Bond would lighten up (even if they had to light bamboo beneath his nails to get it out of him.)

Craig is having to essentially apologize for the path taken with QOS and the fears that his series is taking too much of an emotional story arc at the expense of fun and adventure; or maybe simply taking itself much too seriously. I don't think Dalton's films could ever have been accused of doing the same, even though they were certainly more grounded and at times darker than Moore's.

But weren't they actually accused of that? The general complaint that Dalton was too dark and serious in the role, his unpopularity especially evident in the US.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I don't recall any other Bond actor ever having to make a public statement to dissuade fears that Bond had gone too emo. When will we reach rock bottom?

If Dalton had gotten to his trifecta, he might have had to say something to that effect, that Bond would lighten up (even if they had to light bamboo beneath his nails to get it out of him.)

Craig is having to essentially apologize for the path taken with QOS and the fears that his series is taking too much of an emotional story arc at the expense of fun and adventure; or maybe simply taking itself much too seriously. I don't think Dalton's films could ever have been accused of doing the same, even though they were certainly more grounded and at times darker than Moore's.

But weren't they actually accused of that? The general complaint that Dalton was too dark and serious in the role, his unpopularity especially evident in the US.

I'm responding to both you and Trevanian with this: Yes, in some respects both Dalton and Craig have had to apologize for their second films being a bit darker, but the differences are that QOS was still a huge box office hit, in part, due to Craig's popularity from CASINO ROYALE. I don't think Dalton and LICENSE REVOKED ever got the same surge from THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS as Craig got from ROYALE. So while QUANTURD OF SOLACE might be looked at as an aberration (time will tell), it seems as if people sampled Dalton's goods in TLD and decided they didn't want to see anymore when LICENSE REVOKED came out, but conversely, audiences were willing to take a chance on Craig in QOS based upon what they saw in CR.

My fair-and-balanced hatred of LICENSE REVOKED in no way prejudices my admittedly spotty recollection of events that happened nearly 23 years ago, but the criticism that LR seemed to me to be getting consistently at the time (though, I have to admit, it did get some decent critical reviews) was that it felt like the series had simply run out of steam by the end of the 80's, that the film looked cheap, that the film looked like a knock-off of MIAMI VICE, that the film was too topical, that the film lacked a big plot. To some degree, those same complaints could easily be repackaged and used against Craig's films: the movies look too stylized (especially with Roger Deakins on-board), there's too much A-list talent (as opposed to all the B-list talent EON managed to dredge up for LR), the films are a knock-off of THE BOURNE TRILOGY, the last couple of villains have been unmemorable with no particularly compelling plot.

I guess the risks are just bigger now with Craig. We didn't have Vesper back in 1989. We didn't have a Bond Girl that killed herself for 007, or a Bond Girl that refused to sleep with Bond because he was 'damaged goods'. EON didn't seem to care about M and his relationship with Bond outside of the office back then. There were no string of dead girls in Dalton's back-to-back Bond films, and I think the fans are legitimately a bit weary of having a Bond that is too emotionally suffocating. We would like to get back to some espionage, some intrigue, some old-fashioned entertainment, without having a CIA character get political on us, or Bond having a debate with M about what constitutes revenge. I don't think these are elaborate requests. I just am cautious and concerned that SONY and EON don't paint themselves into a corner that they then find hard to get out of without necessitating yet another reboot (SUPERMAN RETURNS/THE MAN OF STEEL comes to mind for example).

I'm probably enough of an aberrationist (must get Webster's to accept that as a new word) just on my utter hatred of CR and my appreciation for LTK and admiration for QoS' attempts that anything I'd say about any of these films would be rejected out of hand.

I think the risks with Bond's character in 89 were at least as great as they are now, given that he was being allowed to act as a man instead of an agent (the snapback on the rubberband there happens in GE, when Bond only acts as an agent, never as a man, the fault Alec -- and I -- find most grievous in Bond. Brosnan only got to really play Bond as a right bastard in TAILOR OF PANAMA, so it probably wasn't his fault, but it DID give the villain some awfully good lines in GE, in the statue cemetary and later about the screams of those women, etc.)