Mazer Rackham wrote:[Previous post ]That is the response to last weeks gaff and here is the why;
[list
Code: Select all
]BB: Yes. There was that and then we sat down and had some lengthy meetings with him about how involved he would be in the process and the ongoing series.
I think he understood the commitment it would be. But after a lot of thought he decided that it was something he was willing to take on.
TF: There was quite a vocal anti-Craig brigade by the time filming started.
Did that create any difficulties for you? Were you shocked by it?
MW: Yeah, there were a lot of bloggers… and some of the press were pretty negative as well.
They didn’t really give him a chance, or themselves a chance to see him in the role.
But of course, we were seeing the dailies so we knew he was doing an excellent job!
TF: So the chatter didn’t shake your confidence at all in the direction you were taking?
MW: Didn’t bother us, didn’t bother the director.
I think from Daniel’s point of view he battened down the hatches and focused on the role.
He did his best to ignore it, but it has to affect someone at some level. It certainly didn’t affect his performance.
TF It turned out to be one the best-received Bonds in terms of critical reaction. That must have felt good.
BB It was great, particularly because of the Daniel stuff.
We’d gotten so much of that at the very beginning, the critics’ response was very rewarding.
It felt like all of the hard work that he had put into it, and the crew had put into it, had really paid off.
[/list]
From the interview last year that confused the poor dears at Variety. Short story is Babs wanted and wants Daniel so much she went to war with her fathers fanbase. To avoid the stench of failure she will try to keep him on for at least three movies avoid the Dalton stigma and the stink of ending on Quark (AKA QOS). However it is still along ways off. My guess is the middle of this year will be the soonest MGM might be in position to sign a deal for a partner to fund the movie, unless they have already reached an agreement that is when they will hammer out the details, inevitably coming to the conclusion Bond costs too much and Babs graft is too high.
When thinking of how EON is appraising Bond remember this; Babs-"
particularly because of the Daniel stuff."
This site and others criticizing her and her boy toy hit home. She is vindictive and spiteful not a businesses woman. Mikey knows this bubble isn't going to last and I believe that he -however clueless is Bond's only hope.
When thinking of how Daniel was promised the role remember this; "
There was that and then we sat down and had some lengthy meetings with him about how involved he would be in the process and the ongoing series." Quark was Danny's vision and Mendes is his choice as well as the direction, it all about his ego not what is good for Bond.
Once financing is settled then Bond 23 will be on track announcing plans is moving the finger to show they aren't completely in a comma.
I totally get what you're saying, and it makes sense. I knew MGM and Babs weren't exactly on good terms and I have heard various things about the future of Bond especially in terms of future partners: they won't stand for Craig. At least not the ones who are thought of as possible partners right now. Luckily most people aren't as blind as Babs when it comes to long-term planning of a franchise like Bond, and they do know they will need someone entirely different if they want to prosper in the future. Younger, looking like Bond, we've been through this many times.
I, again, am glad about the announcement because that at least allows us to see the end of the tunnel. Granted, unless there's financing there's no movie, but I don't think they would be so idiotic as to announce a release date if they don't have a certain degree of confidence in having a partner sign soon. They're muppets, but not up to that point?
This type of remark from Babs certainly makes it sound like Craig has his own responsibilities in the direction. However, I'm not entirely sure what he suggests and what ends up on screen is what he wants. For him to say that they need to go a more traditional Bond movie with the next one, it means he clearly wasn't ok with the horror that was QoS. So, on the one hand, he may have indicated his director friend that has got NOTHING to do with how Bond should be, on the other he says he wants more traditional Bond. Either Babs is lying, or Craig is. The two stories together don't stand.
In short: either Babs promptly made it sound like Craig was one of the parts to be blamed in case of wrongdoing (which I think can definitely be the case) or Craig lied when he said they needed to go back to a more traditional Bond. Given the second option doesn't seem very likely to me, I guess the explanation could be in the middle: he tried to make people understand he saw the faults of QoS, despite having championed a movie like that?
LOL FBF there is no way I'm seeing Bond 23 at the movies either. I didn't go for QoS, I certainly don't plan to go for this one. And for CR I got a private screening, so really, they got NO money from me on either. That won't change this time around.
So when we talked about the EON-MGM shenanigans, we were spot-on about the clash of personalities and the attempts to force things etc.