Daniel Craig Talks ‘James Bond 24′; Hopes to ‘Reclaim Some of the Old Irony’

Published 1 year ago by

skyfall trailer Daniel Craig Talks James Bond 24; Hopes to Reclaim Some of the Old Irony

Skyfall managed to do more than commemorate the James Bond franchise’s 50th anniversary in $TYLE, between it grossing $1 billion worldwide and securing two Oscars for its efforts. The film also introduced the 21st century versions of 007′s famous helping hands – MI6 head secretary Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and techno-invention wizard ‘Q’ (Ben Whishaw) – in addition to (SPOILER?) introducing Ralph Fiennes as the new ‘M’, who will serve as the boss for Daniel Craig’s Bond on future missions.

Craig will be returning to star in the upcoming 24th James Bond movie installment (his Skyfall costars are expected to join him), as will Skyfall director Sam Mendes – who, after much deliberation while he took a break from moviemaking to work in the world of theater stage production, decided to accept the Bond series producers’ offers for him to call the shots on the 24th Bond flick.

It’s a bit early to to expect any concrete details on the story and new characters that will be featured in Bond 24, as Skyfall co-screenwriter John Logan is still plugging away at the film’s script right now. However, Craig did offer the following tease to Vulture, with regard to what he’s planning (or, rather, hoping) for in the movie, tone-wise:

“Hopefully we’ll reclaim some of the old irony, and make sure it doesn’t become pastiche. I can’t do shtick, I’m not very good at it. Unless it kind of suddenly makes sense. Does that make sense? I sometimes wish I hammed it up more, but I just can’t do it very well, so I don’t do it.”

Filming on Bond 24 will be underway by the beginning of next year, after Craig and his significant other – Academy Award-winning actress Rachel Weisz – finish a fourteen-week run of performing in a fresh Broadway revival of Harold Pinter’s play Betrayal (with Mike Nichols directing). At that point, we’ll know for certain whether or not there’s any truth to those rumors about Penelope Cruz portraying 007′s latest female partner in the film; not to mention, who’s playing the dastardly villain, this time around.

Daniel Craig in Skyfall Atop Train Daniel Craig Talks James Bond 24; Hopes to Reclaim Some of the Old Irony

By the sound of it, Craig is hoping that Bond 24 strikes a tone that’s more similar to Casino Royale than his prior two outings as the Bond character. Quantum of Solace, for example, shows us a vengeful 007 seeking personal payback in a story with darker (read: post-9/11) political overtones, whereas Skyfall is more about establishing Bond’s enduring relevancy – both literally (in the context of the film’s setting) and metaphorically, as a pop cultural icon.

By comparison, Casino Royale is the sole Craig-starring Bond flick so far to have incorporated just enough of the old-school Bond playfulness (read: “irony”) without going overboard; while, at the same time, successfully updating the character for the new century (unlike the final Pierce Brosnan/007 installment, Die Another Day). Following that train of logic, Craig’s suggestion doesn’t sound like a bad idea, in part because that approach would help to give Bond 24 a more unique identity – and distinguish the movie from Mendes’ Dark Knight-inspired take on the Bond franchise with Skyfall.

What sort of Bond flick are you hoping for Mendes to deliver with the 24th James Bond movie – closer to Casino Royale or Skyfall?

_____

James Bond 24 (obviously, not the official title) will be opening in U.K. theaters on October 23rd, 2015, followed by its U.S. premiere on November 6th, 2015.

Source: Vulture

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: james bond

133 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I will love to see something completely New.

  2. Skyfall was full of holes.

    Just wanted to get that out of the way.

    Unfortunately I don’t find Daniel Craig a very funny or charming, tongue-in-cheek kind of Bond. He’s pretty serious, even when he’s being sarcastic. The last three movies were quite serious in tone, a little too serious, especially for Bond movies.

    I hope that, apart from a decent script, they come up with a more light-hearted approach, en lose all that ‘tech’. I want my Bond to pull up his sleeves, not do all sorts of technological wizzardry.

    • Skyfall barely had him use tech. He just had a gun and a radio.

      • That’s all he needed: a gun and a radio.

        Do you not understand that James Bond was a Commander for the British Navy? The man doesn’t need more than what’s necessary.

      • That’s due to the writers not unwittingly writing themselves into a corner. Earlier Bond films would have him in literally inescapable situations, so the writers would add a scene at Q Branch where Bond would get given a random gadget that would clean up the mess that the writers had left behind.

    • As time goes on the theme for bond slightly changes as in sky fall y’all saw how up to date technology can be used and I actually would prefer to see Daniel come back as bond.

  3. Loved the comical moments and one liners in the older films with Connery & Moore. Please bring some in for the future!

  4. I enjoyed Skyfall a lot more than the rest of the Bond films, but Royale just had that Bond feeling that wasn’t necessarily in Skyfall, which I sort of missed. I don’t mind which direction they go, whether it’s a mish mash of both tones or a complete new one, as long as it’s awesome.

    I don’t think Craig should worry about all those Bond shticks, it would be cool if he sort of experimented with them but in the end, he should just do what he thinks is right for his performance. He hasn’t let us down for 3 movies so I trust him.

    • So agree. Daniel Craig has truly given Bond a new dimension to the character and keeping an edginess that coincides w/ the James Bond books. I would like to see the combination of Casino Royale and Skyfall along with some new innovative ideas that brings Bond into the next century. I don’t want Bond 007 to become a franchise that becomes a cookie cutter like other franchise films. Very happy with Mendes at the helm. Can’t wait for Bond 24.

  5. Casino Royale is my personal favorite. While Skyfall is great, I think that Royale was such a better movie.

  6. Would love to see somemore back and forth with felix, if they wanted to bring in a lighter side without killing craig as a serious 007. And the gadgets….we need some good ones for this day and age. Be interesting to see a plot point where Q feels like bond is a hinderance to his tech

  7. loved skyfall – definitely looking forward to 24.

  8. Casino Royale has been the best Bond ever made. I also believe that Daniel Craig is the best bond. He is a cut-throat, do whatever it takes Bond which is exactly how I see an operative with a license to kill. Not only that, he is the most athletic and special forces-like which again lines up with the character profile.

    I also enjoy the personal and emotional war that is visible in Craig’s Bond. Considering everything that the character endures, along with being essentially a nomad with no family, friends, or particular love interest, emotions need to be reflected in which Craig succeeds.

    I also think that the realistic nature of the last 3 scripts do not stretch reality, and the plots are simply better. The advanced fight choreography, production capabilities, etc. undoubtedly help.

    Looking forward to 24.

    • Have to agree with you there, which is why I feel Craig is the best Bond and more closely in line to what Fleming wrote all those years ago.

      • +1

        Watching “Casino Royale”, my introduction to Bond 3 years ago, got me to go and buy Flrming’s novel.

        I think that film is the perfect execution of modernization. It adds new elements, but the plot still feels like it’s stripped right from the book.

        In the novel, there is a moment where a French assassin is pressing his gun hard into Bond’s spine during the 2nd poker match. This is in front of everyone in the casino, but the assassin shrouds his hand so that no one suspects anything. He threatens to end Bond’s life if he doesn’t withdraw from the match when the assassin counts to 10. Within like 3 seconds, Bond topples his chair backwards, crushing the silencer and the man’s hand. This gets the attention of everyone for concerns, but Bond says he was just a little dizzy.

        There’s a moment in the movie that reminds me a LOT of those events. It’s not in the same setting as the book, but I saw a great creative placement. Bond is looking for a man named Dimitrios in a museum, which is packed full of people. He walks and scans carefully. Then you hear the flick of a pocket knife. Dimitrios is behind Bond, holding a knife millimeters away from being driven into his body. Right in his lower back. Everyone is too busy to notice. Bond slowly begins to guide Dimitrios out of the public, making it seem as though he’s surrendered. Then, in a flash, Bond does a 180 pivot and interlocks his hand with his opponent, twisting the knife upwards. These 2 are just staring into each other’s eyes, using all of their strength to point the knife in their favor without giving anything away. Dimitrios even grips Bond’s shoulder with his free hand, making Bond become slightly more vulnerable. Out of nowhere, Bond gives a false head nod signal, distracts Dimitrios, instantly grabs the knife, and plunges it DEEP into his opponent and kills him without anyone seeing a dramatic turn of events.

        No one could’ve done that moment better than Daniel Craig. He IS Ian Fleming’s James Bond

        • I SO agree with you. Casino Royale was my favorite bond movie ever. Can’t wait for 24.

        • Loved CR too, but I wish they held off just a couple more months and released it in 2007 instead of pre-Christmas 2006. Imagine the built-in marketing of 2-007 they could’ve used.

        • I couldn’t of said it any better. How would James Bond fans feel if there was a contest placed on-line in interviewing James Bond– Daniel Craig the best questions wins a walk on role in the set of Bond 24. Just a suggestion. Due to the fact, I’m not entirely happy with some of the interviews conducted recently with CRaig as James Bond.

  9. IMO Skyfall had more of the “old-school Bond playfulness” than Casino Royale did. No doubt, it was still a very serious film, but the more lighthearted and fun moments (a lot of which inveigling Q, and the old DB5) stood out a lot more than those of Casino Royale.

    One of the reasons I liked Skyfal also much was that it felt like it was reclaiming the spirit of the Connery/Moore era. I’d love to see that kind-of, old-fashioned-wit back in the franchise… a bit more lighthearted.

    I love it when franchise movies manage to distinguish themselves (i.e. new and fresh) from the older entries, but still feels like it’s honoring the originals and incorporates classic moments that takes one back….. a very tall order ;) but Skyfall did just that.

    • *involving
      (When are we getting that edit button! ;))

    • I miss Roger Moore. I grew up watching his Bond on tv. So much fun! That’s what Bond is to me. I never read any of Flemming’s books.

    • I agree! One of my favorite bits was during the train scene, where Bond runs over the top of the steam shovel, jumps into the new hole he tore into the back of the train car, then takes a second to adjust his sleeves before taking off after the villain. That was a classic (movie) Bond move. If I hadn’t already been sold on Craig after the first two movies, that instant in the preview would have won me over for good.

  10. As someone who’s seen every Bond movie, I actually think Skyfall was probably my favorite. I just felt it did everything right that it needed to. Casino Royale isn’t far behind, but it more just felt like a modern take on the series, and I felt it lacked with the absence of Q and Moneypenny, for example. Skyfall I thought did the perfect blend of mixing the classic Bond elements with a modern take on the series.

    However, I don’t want Bond 24 to be like Skyfall, if that makes sense. Skyfall had a very serious tone, and I felt it worked great for that movie and that it should have been like that. But now I don’t want to see more of the same. Since we were just given a darker Bond movie, now I want another one that goes back to being lighter, or dare I say it…fun. I feel like if they go for the same thing that made Skyfall work again it’ll just be worse in comparison. I think Craig’s head is in the right place here.

  11. All those stories about this being the raw Bond and he eventually metamorphosing into the suave agent I grew up watching (Connery, Lazenby, Moore) just didn’t hold water (c’mon, after 3 movies?). And realistically, if you don’t got it you don’t got it. Period. Not something you learn in old age. If you do, it looks affected.

    Sadly, I think Craig has been branded by Bond writers as the rough-around-the-edges, uncut Bond because he looks the part. Hence the frequent drunk, unshaven, badly bruised scenes he gets to act- scenes of Bond at his lowest. When they get a Brosnan or Moore look, they try something else. So I fear my suave Bond may not re-surface under Craig- and the witty quips will also be on a low.

    • Craig not suave? I respectfully disagree. He is one of the sharpest Bonds there is. His custom tailored suits mixed with his fit physique are perfect, more so than any other Bond.

    • The source material describes Bond as a cold-hearted, ruthless assassin and spy who does what he does for the good of his country and the world. He finds women to be a nuisance, and becomes EXTREMELY serious when he gets too emotional about someone.

      The gentleman act is like James Bond’s Bruce Wayne. It’s an act that he plays in order to get by and it seems like he loves it, but it never distracts him from the job that needs to be done. Wanna know why he never sticks around with 99% of the women he sleeps with? Because to Bond, it’s something to relax himself with while on the job. Once the mission is done, he doesn’t care for them at all.

      It’s shown a lot in the Craig films, quite well actually. The mind of Bond, while simple in some aspects, is quite interesting. He didn’t join MI6 because his parents died. Bond joined MI6 because he joined the Navy, later becoming a Commander. And that was to simply get away from his younger life. In “Skyfall”, it references the not so great childhood Bond had growing up in his own home. He hated that place.

  12. Not physically. Suavete has more to do with mannerism.

  13. With Craig’s rugged facial features as against Brosnan/Moore’s pretty boy looks, a more rugged representation sounds more credible to trying suavete. Stereotyping is easier to pull off. Same approach goes to RDJ’s maverick portrayal of Sherlock Holmes (in tune with his personality which also flows with his Stark) to, say the ‘gentleman Holmes version’ by Christopher Plummer. IMO.

  14. I like the style of Skyfall, but in retrospect, Casino Royale is the better movie. Perhaps it’s because it’s based on an Ian Fleming novel and not a new story, but it’s just more interesting.

  15. Though it would be nice to see Craig show a little more easygoing playboy kind of Bond acting, I would much rather see a return to gadgetry. They made a point in the last movie to say “We don’t use gadgets anymore.” What good is having a “Q” that is only a computer whiz? What always made Bond movies unique was the gadgets, without those it’s just another man on a mission kind of movie. If nothing else, the car needs to have mini-rockets and his watch has to do something. Anything like that.

    • If anything, gadgets were the reason we needed Casino Royale.

      It’s one thing to have a gadget that is actually useful and would be used by all MI6 agents, like a gun that reads your prints so that only you can fire it (that could be a great idea for the future). It’s another thing to basically turn Bond into Inspector Gadget and have him pull out ridiculous gadgets that make him look like a tool. Seriously, you could give a lot of them to Mr. Magoo and he could get the job done.

      The point of a 00 status is that one has been legally given permission to take a life because he’s proven to be a very valuable and trustworthy agent. A Q Branch should only supply an agent with what he really needs. James Bond is a brilliant strategist, he doesn’t need a gadget for EVERYTHING.

      • But gadgets are tradition. Of course, there have been a lot of ridiculous gadgets over fifty years, along with some over-reliance on them. But that shouldn’t stop them from trying to come up with something reasonable, yet just far out enough to be Bond-like.

      • “…basically turn Bond into Inspector Gadget and have him pull out ridiculous gadgets that make him look like a tool.”

        Haha! I see what you did there! *smiley face like your avatar*

        I’m not even sure you meant it that way but it definitely came out right.

  16. I agree ACW 007. I understand the Bond character well. My point is: there is no gentleman act in the Craig version IMO. If there is, it is unconvincing or virtually non-existent. Women are more likely to fall for his physique than his charm. His flirting is tasteless as Bond. If you watch a Connery or Moore Bond movie, you’ll see what I mean. There are so many killing machines out there: Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt, Jack Ryan, Jack Bauer, Bryan Mills. So many. But only one smooth operator (well, save for Shaft lol) and we seem to have lost him.

    • Dude, Jack Ryan doesn’t even know how to kill anything

  17. one word…..GADGETS !

  18. I am not looking forward to the return of old Bond and the cheesy one-liners. Much prefer Casino Royale Bournw Bond~

  19. I tend to cringe a little bit when I hear people say things like the next Bond film should be more lighthearted/camp/funny/etc. because I think of movies like Moonraker or Die Another Day. However I do think that Casino Royale was the best of Craig’s 3 films because it allowed the character to breathe a little bit. It wasn’t revenge (QoS) or a non-stop cat/mouse type game (SF). Even though it was more of an origin story it was the most straightforward Bond film Craig has done, and did have a fair bit of humor in it (even though it wasn’t the tongue in cheek – wink/wink humor from Brosnan’s last 3 films. I want something more in the vain of Casino Royale while still picking up the Quantum organization storyline from Quantum of Solace.

  20. I was cold to Daniel Craig as Bond at first. It took awhile for Casino Royale to grow on me but when it did I absolutely loved it. It’s become my favorite Bond film of all-time and that’s saying a lot. Skyfall is a close 2nd. I have no problem watching those two movies back-to-back for pure entertainment. Mendes hit all the right notes with this film and Daniel Craig did an exceptional job as Bond recovering and trying to get back to where he was. He’s not exactly at the top of his game which makes it a great film to root for him as the underdog. Quantum of Solace never grew on me. Too rushed. I like the action in Royale and Skyfall where it’s fast but you can follow it. Solace is too fast and doesn’t have much meat to the story which hurts it and it’s a bit too reliant on Royale instead of being it’s own film.

    While Craig’s Bond is much more serious than any other Bond I like it. I do think he brought some good humor to scenes in both Royale and Skyfall which wasn’t out of place and a little more of that wouldn’t hurt but I wouldn’t go overboard with it as well. Craig’s Bond has a nice balance of sarcastic humor when it comes out of nowhere. Believe it or not but I felt as serious as Skyfall was it probably had the most humor of Craig’s Bond films but none of it was out of place or forced. It was all sarcastic humor but Craig seems best doing that instead of “hamming it up” as he said.

    I can see where Craig is coming from though and I don’t think he’s referring to the over-the-top humor of the Roger Moore days. I just think his Bond films have been dark and moody as far as tone (not so much lighting though Skyfall did have it’s share of night/dark scenes I loved them). I don’t think people need to backlash against him for saying this as a little more humor shouldn’t hurt as long as it’s not forced or out of place. It worked for Skyfall – Javier Bardem while creepy was also funny as hell. “Oh Mr. Bond, the physical stuff, so dull, so dull.” lol The interaction between Q and Bond is priceless as well looking at the painting when they first meet – Q: Well, I’ll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.

    James Bond: Oh, so why do you need me?

    Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.

    James Bond: Or not pulled. It’s hard to know which in your pajamas. Q.

    Q: 007.

    James Bond: The latest thing from Q branch; called a radio.

    Raoul Silva: Do you see what comes of all this running around, Mr. Bond? All this jumping and fighting, it’s exhausting! Relax. You need to relax… Ah well, mother’s calling. I will give her a good-bye kiss for you.

    [Bond runs and jumps on the end of the train, hanging on the door as the female conductor looks at him in confusion]

    James Bond: Open the door, please!

    [Conductor still stares at him]

    James Bond: Open the door!

    [Conductor finally opens the door before Bond walks in]

    James Bond: Health and Safety. Carry on.

  21. What I want to see in BOND 24 is Bond fighting 25 ft tall Robots while using his wrist watch to call help from a floating battle ship filled with guys that fight using glowing swords!All that and I wanna Bond wearing a silly clown hat and a clown nose!

  22. Althought he’s the best at what he does, Craig is limited for the role lets face it. He has the face of butcher and bulking up that much on a small frame removed any sense of grace from his body language. He’s stiff as a plank. And frankly althought to the tasteless modern audiences he’s a well dressed man, anyone with a real education in men style can spot the numerous mistakes he makes both in and out of the role. This is the man who matched a washed jeans with a chalk stripe suit jacket, wears a lot of monocrome charcoal grey outfit both boring and pretentious and that doesn’t go well with a blond fair guy, the list goes on. There is a huge gap between his style on movie set and in real life. He’s not Sean Connery who was trained by Terrence Young in every way.
    Bond should be a bastard, a cold killer but with a devil smile and charm in spades. It’s like he’s this beautiful model who looks dashing at the first glance but upon a closer examination displays unmistakable hints of cruelty and coldness. Craig looks a hard man from the start and can’t pull off the gentlemen act. Henry Cavill conveniently trained would have been perfect. He had both the physicality and the good feature. He also made sense age wise for a young bond. Just for the casino royale lover, Campbell the director of cr and goldeneye, wanted cavill not Craig.
    I think Craig as an extreme choice (stocky blond hard feature) pulled off a make over of the franchise so kudos to him but he simply doesn’t have what it takes to be the definitive bond.

  23. Haha. Daniel Craig should have been Batman

  24. Casino Royale was a very good film. The last two, s***

  25. He’s not a full of quips type of bond…

    He’s the take your keys to your landrover and crash is kind of bond.

    That’s the humour they need to create.

    Every female with this bond should be treated with an inherent air of conquest, not romance.

    He’s a brute and an a-hole. A womanizer with a mission to accomplish.

    This tender crap with the macau sex trade girl on and before the boat and the awful moneypenny relationship reimagining is so completely out of character for this bond.

    They need to stop forcing his character into an unnatural suave demeanor and just capitize on the perfection of his actions-speak-louder-than-words demeanor.

    He’s a closed off narcissist that does what it takes to get the job done. Stop trying to give him feelings…

    To paraphrase lady-M: he’s a blunt instrument.

  26. Skyfall was one of the best Bond movies made – because it addressed all of the issues that the recent bond movies had. Daniel Craig’s Bond is more faithful to the book character than any other bond on film. The ‘witty’ factor is part of character development, and Bond is meant to be a fairly serious character who gains a cruel edge as he develops over time, so any witty remarks are generally cynical, based on his learning curve as a spy, and the traumas he goes through during this process.
    These Daniel Craig movies are all origin based build ups – read the books and tell me I’m wrong.
    Don’t get me wrong, some of the old Bonds were good (I’m still a Connery fan), but I really like the kind of Bond Craig is playing, he’s a slowly developing character at the moment, as it should be – otherwise, his character development would make no sense at all.

  27. What I love is the dry humor-slash-sarcasm that he does. Most notably, one quote that stands out to me over time is the exchange in Casino Royale:

    “You’ve changed your shirt, Mr. Bond. I hope our little game isn’t causing you to perspire.”

    “A little. But I won’t consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.” (as he stares directly into Le Chiffre’s eyes)

    It’s always best when he uses his humor as a shield to ward off psychological manipulations by his enemies, or to bump off a particularly emotional moment, especially from the women, including the ‘little finger’ comment to Vesper at the recovery center. The humor’s useful and shows how Bond stays emotionally at arm’s length.

    And it’s a little curt, but that “character development” arc smooths it over. We saw a lot more of this in Skyfall – the train scene “just changing carriages”, the casino scene “What do you know about fear?” “All there is.” and the hostage scene “You think this is my first time?” – and hopefully, like Craig just mentioned in this article, by the fourth one it will be even more so, culminating in sharp, pointed and useful humor that can make the audience chuckle and be impressed as Bond keeps his cool and a straight face.

    Most of the complaints I’m seeing are coming from taking Craig’s words a little out of context and pointing to the most egregious case points (i.e. Moore) as a legitimate scenario. But Craig’s Bonds have shown otherwise so I’m still looking forward to whatever he has to bring next. Can’t wait!

    Casino Royale was perfect (slightly long ending) and Skyfall was its potentially-but-not-quite-perfect spirit sequel. Quantum of Solace was a 106 minute cut-scene.

  28. I’ve loved all of the Craig Bonds, first off. He just brings a different dimension to bond that seems a bit more realistic and masculine. I really enjoy the kind of dark and subtle humor he brings to the part, like the conversation when he and Vesper first meet on the train in CR.
    That being said, I would love to see it be a bit of a mesh, kind of like they did with Skyfall. Make the movie a bit more “old-school” fun in the office and all with Q, M, Moneypenny and the bond girl, then bring it to being down to business action with that bond swagger like when he enters the back of the train in the beginning of Skyfall.
    Now, with Craig getting older, do you all think this may be the last Bond film for him? If so, what do they do with the next?

    • And, I hope to God they don’t go back to a Brosnan Bond. He had the looks and the sound, but he just moved and acted like a woosie Bond. Horrid.

    • We get 2 more Craig Bonds.

  29. While we dealt with M’s demons in Skyfall and touched upon Bond’s darker side in Skyfall, I would like to see something more from Bond’s past and his role in the Navy, as a SF operative as hinted in the first film he must of been in the SBS, so let’s see something of his actions come back to haunt him in the style of Sean Bean’s 006 even. Just a thought.

Be Social, Follow Us!!