Daniel Craig, 2008 and 2011 versions

quantum-of-solace-international-poster

A little over three years ago, Quantum of Solace was coming out. Star Daniel Craig did a number of interviews. During filming of the 2008 James Bond film, Craig TOLD USA TODAY that the story *had* be a direct sequel to Casino Royale.

More changes to the traditional formula are in store for Quantum of Solace, among them the notion of a true sequel. Bond has always been ageless, and the previous 21 movies stand largely independently of each other, but Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale ended, with Bond working his way up the chain of command of the terrorists who blackmailed his lover, Vesper Lynd.

“We set something up in motion in the last one that we need to keep in touch with in this one,” Craig says. (emphasis added)

What’s more, Craig said using the title Quantum of Solace was HIS IDEA.

Asked if he agreed with fans who have laughed at the new name, Craig told GQ: “No, because I was involved in making the decision…”We had it written down on boards and we’d literally go and sit in rooms and stare at this title….As soon as it came out, people were saying, ‘Ooh, it sounds like Harry Potter.’ No, it’s Quantum of Solace. I was saying, ‘It’s a Bond title! The name of a Bond film is not about anything. Live And Let Die? Octopussy? What does it mean? It means very little. We’ve got nothing to worry about.”

Flash forward to 2011 and Craig has given an interview to Time Out. Among the disclosures IN THAT INTERVIEW? Let’s start with how Daniel Craig and Quantum Marc Forester were the real writers of the movie, not the credited Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.

It seems that the script is sometimes an after-thought on huge productions.

‘Yes and you swear that you’ll never get involved with shit like that, and it happens. On “Quantum”, we were fucked. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, “Never again”, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.’

You had to rewrite scenes yourself?

‘Me and the director [Marc Forster] were the ones allowed to do it. The rules were that you couldn’t employ anyone as a writer, but the actor and director could work on scenes together. We were stuffed. We got away with it, but only just. It was never meant to be as much of a sequel as it was, but it ended up being a sequel, starting where the last one finished.’ (emphasis added)

Now, Craig is not the only 007 actor to revise his version of history (HERE’S AN EXAMPLE of Pierce Brosnan making two very contradictory statements about Tomorrow Never Dies). But it is interesting that Craig continues to call Quantum a disappointment, something that began this summer.

If Craig and Forster really did write Quantum, that may explain continuity problems with the 2008 film. Craig, by his own admission wasn’t a writer and Forster didn’t work on Casino Royale, so neither had neither the incentive or circumstances to worry about those problems. (Of course, it still doesn’t explain how Quantum was edited to make it appear M was shot when she wasn’t, shortly after the main titles).

Quantum fans are still going to like the film no matter what. So if you’re a Quantum fan, good for you. Still, when it comes to statements made by actors promoting a movie, it’s caveat emptor. That’s regardless of who’s playing James Bond. For that matter, it’s likely true of many other films.

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. I’m disappointed to hear Daniel Craig spout such idiotic ideas as he dis when he said, “‘It’s a Bond title! The name of a Bond film is not about anything. Live And Let Die? Octopussy? What does it mean? It means very little.”

    I’m tired of the egos of people who assume that just because something(s) mean nothing to them that they therefore have no meaning.

    Yes, Bond movie titles ARE about something, Daniel.

    I saw this same thing first, years ago from movie critics Siskel & Ebert when they announced that the title “View to a Kill” meant nothing. Such hubris. The title refers to two parts of defined stages of a fox hunt. The “view” of the fox, and the “kill.”

    Both they, and now Daniel Craig, can be added to the list of people who apparently cannot conceive that there might be a bigger world out there beyond what they themselves know.

    They need some humility, and some curiosity. The should check first to see if what they belive is true, before they go spouting off to the public, who just may know better.

    James

  2. I’m amazed, I have to admit. Rarely do I encounter a blog that’s both equally educative and engaging, and without a doubt, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The issue is an issue that too few folks are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy I stumbled across this during my search for something relating to this.

  3. Aw, this was an extremely nice post. Spending some time and actual effort to generate a very good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a lot and don’t manage to get nearly anything done.

  4. […] Hmmm. Substitute the title Quantum of Solace for World War Z, substitute the figure $230 million for $200 million and substitute multiple writers including Paul Haggis and it sounds like you could be talking about Quantum of Solace, the 2008 James Bond film. Star Daniel Craig, as Skyfall prepared to start filming, made it sound as if making Quantum wasn’t a very pleasant experience. […]

  5. […] isn’t the first instance or revisionist history with the 2008 James Bond film. Daniel Craig also drastically changed his tune in 2011 compared with what he said in […]

  6. I don’t give a s*** about Daniel Craig’s revised opinion of “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”. I don’t give a s*** about those Bond fanboys who disliked the film.

    I liked it a lot. I still do. I like it a lot more than that overrated and sexist piece of crap known as “SKYFALL”.

  7. […] it should be noted that Craig said in 2011 he and director Marc Forster did uncredited rewrites for 2008’s Quantum of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: