No, Daniel Craig is not set for a $150 million James Bond payday, and here’s why

Nonsense. That’s not how it works. When Radar writes, “The studio is desperate to secure the actor’s services while they phase in a younger long-term successor,” it suggests that Sony has some ongoing stake in the future of the character. They don’t even have the rights to release one film. Why would they care what happens three or four films down the road? Say they do secure the rights, as Radar predicts. “They will shoot two more films, which will be made virtually back-to-back, preferably featuring Daniel as 007 before he passes the figurative baton to someone else for a third movie that will mark the start of the new era.” No. Absolutely not. They don’t make Bond films back-to-back, and as a whole, the industry seems to be backing off of the two-at-once sequel strategy. It was appealing on an economic level, but it was a huge struggle for the creative teams involved. Whether you’re talking about the Pirates of the Caribbean films or the Matrix sequels, that has been a difficult model to make work, and the makers of the Bond films have never been known for developing more than one film at a time. That’s all they can do. They focus on getting each Bond movie as right as they can get it, and then they take a break and they regroup. That is how it works.
And the Bond films have also never leaned on one Bond passing the torch to the next. That doesn’t even make sense. Forget the fan theory about “James Bond” being a code name and not a character name; that’s simply not the series that EON has been making for over 50 years. When they recast James Bond, they do a hard break and they recast James Bond.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that no matter how logical or matter of fact you are about things, there are people that will automatically take an opposite position, just to argue. Could Sony have the rights all locked up? Maybe. Could they decide to do two films back to back? Maybe. Could they pay Daniel Craig $150 million for two films? Not likely at all, but maybe. Any of those things are possible, but none of them are probable. Radar’s reporting would be problematic if they just got one big part of the story wrong, but there are so many things about what their unnamed source supposedly told them that run directly counter to the way EON actually works that I think anyone who ran that story as news, even with a useless “take this with a grain of salt!” warning, should be embarrassed. It’s terrible reporting in the first place, and no one did even the slightest follow-up to see if there was some reason to run this story that runs counter to everything that we know about the people and the companies involved.
Ask yourself if the money makes sense. Ask yourself why Sony would be the ones making these calls. Ask yourself if you think EON is going to make back-to-back Bond films. Ask yourself why you should believe a story that Radar Online couldn’t even assign a byline to, instead crediting their story to “Radar Staff.” No one put their name on that reporting, and it doesn’t surprise me. I wouldn’t either. It’s a disgrace, and the way the story went viral is just as disgraceful.
We have to do better, across the board, or we have to accept that readers have no reason to trust anything they read anywhere. My own sources indicate that there is no story right now, and that when there is a story, it will be announced quickly and loudly.
Until that point, you deserve more than this “EXLCUSIVE” clickbait trash and the echo chamber that amplifies it.
Meanwhile, if EON is really stuck for a new Bond, I have a great suggestion, and I know he’s interested in the job…

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