Cornell: "I Almost Turned Down Bond Theme"

Chris Cornell almost turned down the chance to record the new James Bond film's theme song, because he disliked Pierce Brosnan's recent 007 movies. The Audioslave frontman has been selected for the soundtrack of Casino Royale. But Cornell only agreed to compose the track once he had watched a rough edit of the upcoming Daniel Craig-starring movie. He tells VH1, "I wasn't really sure about doing a Bond theme, because I wasn't really a big fan of the last several movies. And then I heard that there was going to be a new guy - Daniel Craig - who was going to play Bond. And he's so different. I have seen him in several movies, and I was kind of intrigued. So I went to Prague (in Czech Republic), where they were shooting the movie, and they showed me a rough edit of it. I was just completely blown away by it, because it's unlike any Bond film ever, really. Craig is an actor's actor, and there's emotional content to the movie. He's not like the swaggering, winking sort of super-agent guy. He's like a human being in this movie, and it's going to completely readjust the way people think of the character."
---------------------------

Cornell doing the score is another piece of great news about this film, as well as his statement about the new Bond being more humane. I'm starting to get excited about this film.

Besides, Martin Campbell is directing, and he was behind what most people, like me, seem to believe was the last "good" Bond movie that outside of the franchise attachments, it was good on its own: GOLDENEYE from over a decade ago.

Funny, but I had a stroke when I read that PAUL HAGGIS was scripting the movie. I hate that TV writer-turned-hack director of CRASH, but then I felt comfortable when I leanred that save for 3 scenes, his script draft wasn't used at all.

But really, I remember seeing MUNICH back last year, and I was seeing Daniel Craig and I thought: "You know, he WOULD be a good Bond, but will they let him be, or try to make him into another Brosnan?"

Not sure about Craig; his best performance was anything but a Bond character, as Francis Bacon's lover, George Dyer, in Love Is the Devil.

Munich was appalling; every actor in that film was like a wooden puppet. Even Eric Bana, whose half-American, half-Palestinian, and fully contrived accent, grated throughout.

The trailer for Casino Royale looks like it'll be more of the same, and not the grittier approach I would have hoped for.

I enjoyed Craig in Layer Cake. He was good in Road to Perdition too. I agree with you on Munich though. I actually had hope going into that that I might come out respecting Spielberg. I was wrong.

Paul McCartney and Madonna do a Bond theme and Chris Cornell's not so sure?? :rolleyes: I wish they would have just chosen someone else.

Man, Madonna's Bond song was among the worst tunes I've heard so far in this decade. Really, she almost made me support abuse against women....ALMOST.

I must wholeheatedly disagree. Munich is perhaps Speilberg's most powerful film. It's message will be as relative today as it will be tomorow and it's more than just about Arab-Israli relations. It's about what makes these men serve their cotunry. The nature of the vollence is grotesque and yet true. this is no holds bared and the actors don't hold back either. And I truly think bana gives a great performance along with others like Rush and yes, Daniel Craig whose role was relatively expendable.
The acting is subtle so maybe there is where you just missed what I saw in these men.

Ha Ha. Whether or not you like the actual song, you have to admit that Madonna is a music legend. My point being that Chris Cornell (imo) is basically a nobody compared to some of the others who have written for Bond films. By the way, I do like her DAD song, it's catchy

I don't care much for messages.
It's probably no holds barred for Spielberg; he virtually screams at the audience for them to take him seriously with a shot of a dagger going into somebody's skull. But he's still unwilling to kill children just yet.
I don't think the acting was subtle; it was suitably wooden, complimenting what felt like a first-draft-script. Let's all kill a few people, and tick them off as we go. When we get to zero, it's the end of the film. Two things wrong then: their list is far too long, and the narrative is schematic. Like an ignorant parody of a Greenaway film.

Ha Ha. Whether or not you like the actual song, you have to admit that Madonna is a music legend. My point being that Chris Cornell (imo) is basically a nobody compared to some of the others who have written for Bond films. By the way, I do like her DAD song, it's catchy [/b][/quote]Man, like I give a fuck WHO does the tunes for BOND movies anyway. I'm for good tunes, but Madonna is only a music legend to the pathetic Gen-X generation, and the lousy 1980s in general. So what if Cornell is a nobody. If his music for ROYALE is good, then awesome. If it sucks, I'll put it in the same bonfire with Madonna's song and have a good BBQ.

To YOUR generation, maybe Madonna is a legend. To MY generation, she's an overrated pop hack who is more known for having one god-awful fake British accent(really, that has to piss the folks at the UK), being married to a director whom she helped to wreck his career, and being outrageous to get press for her new albums. In a way, she's the Ann Coulter of pop music. Her stunts don't matter anymore what they are, they are just business. Besides, we have enough lousy overrated music acts polluting the kiddie pool as it is.

Well considering he wants to work with quality and not just another shitty blockbuster, I applaud him.

This sounds somewhat elitist. Diva and legend are two words given away like candy today. I consider Soundgarden and Audioslave better artists.

So why are you posting in a thread about Bond theme songs? :rolleyes:

Not sure how old you think I am but anyone who denies Madonna's fame is clearly ignorant to anything other than their own tastes. I don't even own a Madonna CD but I know that.

This sounds somewhat elitist. Diva and legend are two words given away like candy today. I consider Soundgarden and Audioslave better artists. [/quote]Did you see the (imo) I posted?? You can consider Audioslave to be a better artist than Paul McCartney and Madonna but I'd guess the majority of the population had never heard of Chris Cornell, whereas the latter are household names.

Deny fame? God, that's an original posting. I give you credit on that one.

No, like DV I assume, I was sorta disoriented when you said that it was better to have big names than "nobodies" or whatever.

This sounds somewhat elitist. Diva and legend are two words given away like candy today. I consider Soundgarden and Audioslave better artists. [/quote]Did you see the (imo) I posted?? You can consider Audioslave to be a better artist than Paul McCartney and Madonna but I'd guess the majority of the population had never heard of Chris Cornell, whereas the latter are household names. [/b][/quote]I'm not talking about McCartney, but either way who cares about popularity? Britney Spears and N Synch used to be two one of the most popular groups in music. I'd rather listen to a talented underground band then an untalented hack who happens to be trendy.

And the Bond movies have been shit since after Goldeneye. Cornell simply wants to add his art to something that he respects. If say, Gus Van Sant wanted me to score one of his films while at the same time Michael Bay Tony Scott asked me to score one of their films, I'd choose the former.

Amen Vercetti.

As much as Brosnan was enjoyable as Bond, his movies are another story. GOLDENEYE I still vividly remembering seeing it in theaters at the tender pedophile-target age of 10, and in fact may have been the first 007 picture I might have watched. Just such a solid good spy/action movie on its own if one ignored the 007-attachments. Besides, in retrospect, a kick to the pants of the franchise after the malaze of the Oh-God-he's-fucking-old Roger Moore in the 1980s and the intense-as-hell Dalton with his lackluster pictures in the last years of the decade.

With such a franchise comeback after a layoff of 7 years, one would think that this new Bond in the New World Order after the Wall fell would continue on and on...well, the movies did, but the quality? Less and less.

TOMORROW NEVER DIES before it enters the 3rd act actually is good. The premise is pure Bond-esque(Rupert Murdoch-esque media mogul tries to instigate World War 3 for the ratings), and the movie works as a watchable, sixpack and pizza friday night-type movie, but the 3rd act....I'm still trying to figure out why the wheels fell off. Maybe its the fact that the director, who funny enough was also behind TURNER & HOOCH(you read that right!) then tried to be "John Woo", except he isn't even "John Who?". Maybe its that the villain in a BOND movie once again gives a monologue while standing at a very nice and probably expensive major set, almost to the point that I expected Bond to quip: "Wow, you're so original" as a total fourth-wall gag, but oh well.

Now THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is actually just bland. The fact that even after seeing it 3 times on TV, I still can't remember the fucking villain or even the premise itself. I mean, I can remember Yaphet Kotto being badass in LIVE AND LET DIE, or Goldfinger's atomic bomb-plot with Fort Knox, or even Sean Bean playing the villain-game in Hollywood as the "tratior" ex-patriate, but for the grace of God, I can't remember either baddie or scheme for WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

But DIE ANOTHER DAY is fustrating to me. Why?

Despite what I'll say about the movie, the opening sequence is brilliant. I mean, Bond becomes a POW and gets tortured for over a year, and by North Koreans no less. Good shit!

Yet the shark jumped with the Madonna song. Thanks alot Fonzie!

Really, the movie could have worked. I mean, the now disfigured son of a North Korean general changing his face to that of a western appearance is really a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE-plot device. That is, the enemy appearing as one of "us" to infiltrate society and by the time that the authorities figure it out, its too late as he's already on his way to invade and occupy South Korea and "unite" it with the police state of North Korea.

Instead, after Bond goes "rogue" for five minutes, which actually made for a good scene at Hong Kong. But once he was reinstated, I didn't give two farts about the movie. I mean, you see the producers throwing everything into the movie, kitchen sink included. But maybe among the biggest problems is Halle Berry, where they tried to make such a non-character into a highly-reported "major" character to which to spin-off for a seperate franchise. (Thankfully, MGM got wise and killed the idea). You had Bond girls in the past that were memorable, and most of all, had CHEMISTRY. Berry was neither.

After DAD, Brosnan apparently had enough of the silly bullshit and, depending on which story you interpret, either he quit or was fired after the BOND producers refuse to let him have more story-creative power. I believe the story more that he walked, since why fire your most successful BOND lead yet?(financially at least) Though if Brosnan did leave, I give him credit. He's the only BOND actor that had a decent star-career before, and probably will after, the franchise. Still, he left the table when he could have eaten the spoon-fed nonsense and pocketed an easy $25 million.

BTW, who heard the story that Brosnan tried and failed to get Tarantino involved for CASINO ROYALE?

After 4 years, BOND is set to return to theaters this fall, and win or lose, Daniel Craig's 2nd BOND picture is on the way as well. I think he has the chops, but will the producers try to force him to be too much like the predecessor?(much like the painful tries to mold Dalton into Roger Moore Jr.)

I hope CASINO ROYALE is good, I really do. It has a chance, considering the composer, director, and the fact that Paul Haggis' script contributions were minimum at best(3 scenes last I heard). Besides, for the first time I believe with the BOND film franchise, "Felix" is finally black(as people tell me he was in the books).

Popularity might say what's best in some people's definitions of greatness, but I'll still say Lazenby was a better Bond than all but Connery and Brosnan.