Daniel Craig reportedly ‘turned down £68 million offer’ to play James Bond again


Last year, I hoped that the rumors were not true about Daniel Craig leaving the James Bond franchise. I always liked Craig’s James Bond, and I thought Craig would continue to make the movies for several more years. But then I saw Spectre, which was… how shall I say? NOT GOOD. Like, Quantum of Solace was a bad movie but you can sort of blame that on the writers’ strike. Spectre had no excuse for being so awful. So, if that was Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond, so be it. Bring in some fresh blood. And apparently Daniel feels the same way. He reportedly turned down an extremely lucrative deal to play Bond again. Ugh.

Daniel Craig has told studio bosses he is ‘done’ playing 007, sources claim. The news comes just days after bookmakers called off bets on Cambridge-educated Tom Hiddleston becoming the next James Bond. Craig is the highest-paid actor to play the role, netting a reported total of £38million for the four films he has appeared in.

He has played Bond since 2005 and helped bank well over £2billion in box office revenue, helping ease MGM’s bankruptcy issues. Insiders said Craig turned down a £68 million offer from MGM studio to return as Bond for two more films following last year’s hit Spectre. The sum included endorsements, profit shares, and a role for him working as a co-producer.

One LA film source said: ‘Daniel is done – pure and simple – he told top brass at MGM after Spectre. They threw huge amounts of money at him, but it just wasn’t what he wanted. He had told people after shooting that this would be his final outing, but the film company still felt he could come around after Spectre if he was offered a money deal.’

One source said that executives had finally agreed to let the actor go after growing tired of his criticism of the franchise. Craig, 48, told interviewers last year that he would rather ‘slash my wrists’ than agree to another Bond film.

The source said: ‘With knee problems and general exhaustion, he felt it was a journey with an ending.’ The studio delayed the next Bond film after Craig committed to a 20-episode US TV adaptation of Jonathan Franzen’s novel Purity.

[From The Daily Mail]

Good. Get a new Bond. Get some new writers too. And get a director other than Sam Mendes, someone who will stop filming scenes in utter darkness. Anyway, considering that Craig seemed totally over it late last year, I do think this is the end. I’m surprised that MGM was so hellbent on getting him to stay on, actually, because Craig was behaving like a man who couldn’t have given two sh-ts about the franchise.

As for Tom Hiddleston, it’s true that one UK bookmaker suspended bets on Hiddles becoming the next Bond. I still don’t understand why people are so “HE SHOULD PLAY BOND” about Hiddles following The Night Manager. And just the fact that so many people are associating Tom with Bond is probably reason enough for Tom to NOT be considered. It’s too “obvious.” Although I did enjoy this bitchy headline from The Sun: “Tom Hiddleston is bookies favourite to be next Bond… but his latest movie is a flop.” Damn, Daniel Craig has had some flops too!


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

48 Responses to “Daniel Craig reportedly ‘turned down £68 million offer’ to play James Bond again”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Naya says:

    Hiddles is not my Bond.

  2. InvaderTak says:

    Uhg. Get something done with this already. I don’t even like the bond films that much and this story is exhausting.

    No to Hiddles. He doesn’t sound all that interested anyway. He and his people have done all they can to S of the rumors. If he was interested I would think he’d break out his coyness.

    And I thought Craig was under contract for one more, period? And their going to lose their villain if they lose Craig. But ultimately, this is the daily fail so who knows if this is for real or not. Everyone got in a lather over the “meeting” that didn’t actually take place. That story was full of factual errors as well.

    • Cynthia says:

      It is so funny, that they pay top executives so much money and still they cannot fix a problem that the solution is staring them right in the face. We the fans know the solution and we’ve been screaming at the top of our lungs

      -Get a fresh face ( At this point it will so dumb if they don’t get idris Elba)
      – Get new writers ( shocking, a story line with a movie)
      – Get a new director

      People might not like the fast furious franchise, but it is extremely successful because of its
      – diverse cast, ( somewhat better story line, than Bond movies)

  3. HH says:

    Ummmm… OK. Am I supposed to be impressed? Because that actually just sounds incredibly stupid. So sorry that making a movie about the quintessential spy complete with a bevy of beautiful women is so awful for you.

    ETA: Sorry to sound bitter, but I just got done paying some bills. Your girl ain’t trying to hear these rich folk complain about more money.

  4. mom2two says:

    I just hope it’s not Hiddleston. I think he makes a better Bond villain anyway.

    And if the next Bond is not going to be Idris Elba, I say go with another Scottish Bond and pick Richard Madden.

    • browniecakes says:

      Idris is 44, Craig is 48. I like the idea of Idris, but he’s a little old to make a number of these. Craig was not high on anyone’s list when he was announced.
      How about a Bond origin story, casting a early 20’s actor as the new recruit into the 007 program? Hmm?

  5. Jenns says:

    I liked Daniel Craig as Bond. But Spectre was terrible. His run should’ve ended with Skyfall.

  6. Kate says:

    Skyfall made over a billion dollars and Spectre made 900 million despite sucking, so I can see why they wanted him back. The reboot with Craig is the most financially successful Bond ever. The franchise could use another shake-up, but it’s a risk. I totally get why the studio would want to put it off as long as possible while they’ve got a formula that brings in major money.

    • InvaderTak says:

      Also funny, the producers were pretty confident that DC would be back once more last fall. They admitted they didn’t have a contract though. So if this one rumor is real then I bet that was the killer; the second film. Read somewhere that they were going to film two back to back and he called them crazy. Another article said the next film won’t be here until late 2018. They need to just announce something and get it over with.

  7. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    Regarding Craig: Thank god.
    Regarding Hiddleston : God, no.

  8. Sunsetsnow says:

    Loved Craig’s portrayal of Bond, but he has been phoning it in since QoS so it is time for him to go. Spectre was awful. Mendes needs to be replaced. I loved Casino Royale, so we need a new Bond movie that is in the same vein.

  9. Phoebe says:

    I love the Hiddles, LOVE, but I don’t want him to be Bond because those movie SUCK. I’ve never liked Daniel Craig either- I don’t find him attractive, he shows zero emotion and always has the same, squinty fish face.

    BUT, I am tired of people saying Tom couldn’t do it because he’s too skinny- please see The Night Manager and naked stills of him in High Rise and see that’s not true- he’s not hulk-y like Hemsworth but he’s nowhere near “skinny”. Plus everyone knows that Connery was the best Bond and he wasn’t short and muscly like Craig or Tom Hardy (the other name I hear thrown in the ring a lot). He was tall and elegant and classy- that’s the Bond I like, and that’s what Hiddles could bring to the role…but I hope he doesn’t.

    • Dara says:

      Phoebe – I’m with you and all of the skinny comments. Everyone is forgetting about Pierce Brosnan. He was athletic, but hardly buff. He was my least favorite Bond, but that’s more do with the storylines of the films rather than his performance.

      IMO the next 007 needs to back away from the tough guy profile – I enjoyed Craig (most of the time) but he veered too much into thug territory with his portrayal.

    • pixie-stix says:

      I agree re: Tom being too thin…seeing him in Coriolanus would change that opinion.😉 Returning to a refined Bond would be refreshing – I wasn’t a fan of Daniel Craig’s version. Not really hoping for Tom to go there though, getting locked into another long contract…

    • Annetommy says:

      Squinty fish face! 😄

  10. Mia4s says:

    Wow if he turned that down he must already have some crazy money! Good for him, I’m jealous. 😉

    I still think he may do one more (I think he’s contracted?). This sounds like them trying to get another one on the contract by giving him an overall raise. He’s in a sweet spot, either way.

    Oh Hiddleston, no dear. Just…no.

  11. Ninette says:

    I am a big fan of Hiddleston. But I dont want him to play Bond. Those films are sooo dull, and I want Tom to be free to do other projects.

    Besides I think they will be gonna for a less known name. TH isnt a a-lister just yet, but with Loki and the night manager he has become a well known actor.

  12. Lilacflowers says:

    Helen McCrory. Bond. Accept no substitutes.

  13. Ayra. says:

    I’ll happily play the black female version of James Bond for 68 million… Let me just work on my accent, I’M COMING.

  14. Apples says:

    That’s a lot of money for two films that wouldn’t take up all of his time so that he would’ve been unable to film something artsy in between.

  15. TreadStyle says:

    I truly think he made a great bond, but his grumpy hateful attitude has got to go. He can be replaced and people just need to stop hiring his a$$ bc he can also be replaced in the acting world in general. He’s been so disappointing the more he talks and he made me question my love for Rachel Weisz bc how could someone be w a person like this and find the way they act acceptable?!

  16. Bluesky says:

    I agree Spectre was awful. I like Craig as Bond because I feet he was more rugged than the previous ones (with the exception of my all time favorite Bond, Sean Connery).

  17. jammypants says:

    Raise your hand if you are pretty much done with the Bond talk. ✋

    • lilacflowers says:

      Two hands way up!

    • Dara says:

      *Raises hand* – If only because I think everything that is in the press is not to be trusted, no matter who their “sources” might be. I’m not going to pay too much attention until there is something official – from Craig or the producers.

      • KTE says:

        Oh yeah, everything printed on this subject needs to be taken with barrels of salt.

        If I recall correctly, before Dan Craig was cast the press were convinced Clive Owen was getting the part.

    • KTE says:

      I wish I had more hands to raise over here.

    • InvaderTak says:

      Raises hands! High. They’re overcooking this big time.

  18. seesittellsit says:

    I disagree about SPECTRE – I enjoyed it far more than QOS, bought the DVD, and enjoyed it thoroughly a second time.

    Craig is 48 and looks it. I’ll bet he has other things he wants to do before he gets too old to do them, the Bond films take huge amounts of time, and he has all the money he could ever want or need.

    I was hoping for someone dark and intense for the next Bond, such as (she sighed), Aidan Turner, who is not only so hot, but also the right age to do 5 films before he starts to look paunchy and middle-aged – Craig was already 38 when the got the job.

    But Hiddles would probably make a perfectly respectable Bond. God knows he can do suave, wear the clothes, and fight – he did quit well slugging it out as Loki.

    Still, Turner is such a missed opportunity . . . sigh again.

  19. Starkiller says:

    Why does Hiddleston always stand with his legs three feet apart? What is he advertising?

    In any case, NO to him as Bond…unless they’re looking to put this long overblown and overrated franchise out of its misery, in which case, this seems as good a solution as any.

  20. Ally8 says:

    My vote goes to Aidan Turner. He has that dark, slightly dangerous handsomeness that Bond needs.

    Sorry, but Hiddleston is too much of a pinheaded dork in looks. I found The Night Manager laughably unconvincing; both he and Laurie seem to have wondered from a tea party onto the set of a spy movie (and I say this as a fan of spy movies, Brits and fiction featuring tea parties). The tone/characters are all over the place. I just don’t find him credible as someone sly or tough.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Ah, I see you found your way over from imdb. You and Starkiller can have tea-parties out in the lawn–I think there’s a vending machine for that.
      We’ll be on the verandah with a delicious selection of adult beverages.

    • Cranberry says:

      “I just don’t find him credible as someone sly or tough.”

      Umm, Loki isn’t sly? Seriously? And in Coriolanus he was tough, although I would agree that tough is not his natural set point. Then again “tough” is so over done and over the top, which is probably why I like Hiddles. He may not be the typical tough guy, but he is athletic and has a nice range of marginal tough to sensitive and refined.

      And “pinhead dork in looks” is not even close. Try thoughtfully refined expressions and features and sometimes even steely and sexy. He can do/be the pinhead dork easily if he needs to or maybe when he wears glasses. Although I prefer to call it intelligent sexy.

    • LannisterForever says:

      I’d love Aidan as Bond! And Then There Were None really sold me, he could do it in a heartbeat.