Daniel Craig: Highest paid Bond actor.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/putting-extra-zeros-in-007-daniel-craig-is-highestpaid-bond-with-31-million-contract-8328542.html

Quote :

Daniel Craig, 44, is officially the highest-earning Bond actor in the franchise’s 50 year history, being paid more than £31 million to play the spy twice more.

His pay-rise comes after Skyfall’s critical and commercial success (the Sam Mendes film had the biggest UK opening this year taking £57 million in 12 days) and Craig is expected to appear in the next film as early as 2014.

For his first appearance as Bond in Casino Royale in 2006 Craig earned £1.9 million and in 2008 he was paid £4.4 million for follow-up Quantum of Solace.

His salary was doubled for Skyfall to £10.7 million, around £3 million more than predecessor Pierce Brosnan was paid for The World Is Not Enough in 1999.

Regardless of inflation Bond stars’ salaries have risen hugely over the years. When Sean Connery was cast in the role in 1962 he was paid £10,000 for Dr No. In the wake of the film’s success Connery’s pay rocketed to £157,000 for From Russia With Love and by 1971 he earned a cool £620,000 for Diamonds Are Forever.

In today’s prices Roger Moore was paid an average £6.3 million per film, Timothy Dalton a £5.4 million and Brosnan £8.7 million, meaning Craig is earning more than all his predecessors with an average of £9.6 million.

Craig has been lauded by critics as the best Bond since Connery for Skyfall in which he stars alongside Judi Dench, Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes.

He yesterday paid a surprise visit to 800 British servicemen and women at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan to introduce a special screening of Skyfall.

Eh, good luck to him ... with CR and QOS both making 600 million-plus and Skyfall on track to make somewhere between 800 mill and a billion, money well spent I'd say.

Money well spent? Could say exactly the same for Brosnan given costs and returns. And that's with him having to put up with scripts that were more ludicrous than Craig's, and some really pathetic direction on his repeat outings.

I don't think you can accurately adjust for inflation considering Connery's salary for DAF including UA having to finance two films of his own choice, a deal that, while only half-fulfilled, seems quite unique for an actor, especially back then.

trevanian wrote:

Money well spent? Could say exactly the same for Brosnan given costs and returns. And that's with him having to put up with scripts that were more ludicrous than Craig's, and some really pathetic direction on his repeat outings.

Brosnan put up with it? How come Craig gets involved in the whole creative process and even got Sam Mendes as Director, while Brozza just put up with whatever he was fed? Brozza never struck me as someone who was passionate about the role and just went along for the ride and its perks.

As for Connery, 40 years later, he's still grudging about money and wants nothing to do with the role that made him...doubt that will be Craig when he's in his 80s. I won't be surprised if Craig remains an 'ambassador' to Bond the way Moore has.

Nah, I don't see it happening with Craig in terms remaining an "ambassador". Like Connery, Lazenby and Brosnan, something tells me it won't end well )in regards to the relationship the actors have with the franchise/producers)...

All of them had/have had career 'boosts' from being Bond (with the possible exception of Lazenby, and that was his own fault).

Puzzled as to whether Connery's money is the only one not adjusted for inflation? Wasn't his DAF salary a record Hollywood payout in its day?