The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[The Saint 007]

Here's an article from MI6 that says Craig will do a least another two more Bond films after Skyfall: http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles ... um=twitter

You might as well send in the freaks to take over as Bond.

First we'll have to suffer with Craig to the point where Q will need to give him a turbo-charged wheelchair, then you can send in the freaks.

[Mazer Rackham]

Here's an article from MI6 that says Craig will do a least another two more Bond films after Skyfall: http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles ... um=twitter

It has several points wrong off the bat -Craig has only one movie left in his contract. After Skyfall his contract his more open to his dismissal, trying to renegotiate for a fifth probably will never happen just from the cost.

Skyfall's performance will determine if Craig contract has been fulfilled or if MGM wants him to come back.

[bjmdds]

Here's an article from MI6 that says Craig will do a least another two more Bond films after Skyfall: http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles ... um=twitter

You might as well send in the freaks to take over as Bond.

FBF, release the Kraken http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/ ... arantz.jpg It's all over

[The Saint 007]

First I've heard that Craig was signed on to do Bond 24, and will have he option to continue if he wants. Then I've heard he could possibly be replaced depending on how well Skyfall does. Now there are sources saying Craig will do at least another two films after Skyfall. I even remember hearing a story on the radio about Craig being replaced after the Quantum Of Solace debacle.

There's been so many stories as to how long Craig will stay on as Bond, or that he's soon being replaced, that it's difficult to tell what the truth is.

[Kristatos]

I reckon this song could be a Bond theme, if it wasn't for the rather ill-fitting, uptempo midsection.

[video][/video]

[Omega]

First I've heard that Craig was signed on to do Bond 24, and will have he option to continue if he wants. Then I've heard he could possibly be replaced depending on how well Skyfall does. Now there are sources saying Craig will do at least another two films after Skyfall. I even remember hearing a story on the radio about Craig being replaced after the Quantum Of Solace debacle.

There's been so many stories as to how long Craig will stay on as Bond, or that he's soon being replaced, that it's difficult to tell what the truth is.

I've asked this question too what I think the deal is like a bad wiki entry where wrong information get input and nobody fixed it.

The story is back in 2006 he was signed for 3 movies total, Mazer has a interesting story about it but they renegotiated his contract for more money, the president of MGM came out after saying he singed Craig for 5 more movies something like 6 counting CR. Craig came out and said no it's 4 total counting CR.

There was a story that MGM wanted a new Bond for 2012 but couldn't afford the buy out on Craig's contract and after Skyfall they have clauses to dismiss Craig. And Craig can also quit if he wanted to. The 4th movie is optional but its there. Then MGW had something where he said something along the line once a actor gets their best Bond behind them Bond should be reinvented. Probably got quote MGW wrong cause some say he was only talking about Brosnan others have the story as a warning to Craig.

[Alessandra]

It has several points wrong off the bat -Craig has only one movie left in his contract. After Skyfall his contract his more open to his dismissal, trying to renegotiate for a fifth probably will never happen just from the cost.

Skyfall's performance will determine if Craig contract has been fulfilled or if MGM wants him to come back.

This is where things are at, and I'm talking about facts that Craig himself has CONFIRMED.

He was signed on to do three movies with an option for the fourth. The option for the fourth means that BOTH the studio AND the actor have the option to walk out of the deal. So the studio can fire him AND he can walk away if he wants to. Options are exercised because they are a two-way street: they can free the actor from a role should they think they've had enough of playing a character, and they allow the studio to decide whether or not to go on for another movie (ONE , not two, not three) with the same actor.

THIS is what his contract is. He absolutely NEVER had a contract for another two movies after Skyfall and neither does he have it now. NO OPTIONS are going to be exercised until AFTER Skyfall is released. The option in fact exists exactly because it depends on how the movie performs. It's very simple and very clear and Craig himself has confirmed this is where things are at when they did the presser for Skyfall. There's NO truth other than this one.

I hope this clarifies it for everyone.

[Alessandra]

This is Michael Shannon (who plays the villain, Zod, in Man of Steel) talking about Man of Steel and Henry Cavill. Now obviously nobody would badmouth another actor publicly and they all say nice things... but this is MAJOR praise for Cavill and his "work ethics". I seriously wish EON would be smart enough to sign him as the new James Bond NOW, no matter whether Craig does another movie... he's going to be too big to get later, because judging from what Shannon says, you can stay assured he's going to be VERY sought-after once Superman is released.

http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/832839 ... wing.jhtml

[katied]

I've got a blog post in me about the direction the Bond films have taken . Two more movies?Really? Even if Spyfail is the biggest dud that ever dudded?

[oscartheman]

Just got Person of Interest season on DVD one of the best shows on TV.Can't wait for Season2!

Well done! S2 is gonna be great, I've kept up with some of the spoilers and casting and it sure won't disappoint.

I'll say it again, many people here should check out Person of Interest. As Bond fans you're definitely going to enjoy the show. And it is superbly written and acted.

LOL about the name of that person Kristatos... I think it's just a further way to mislead those who may be on to this fanboy?

Savoring every show over again they are so good.Best has to be the boy who thought Reese was Ronin.The last show were Reese look the machine right in the eye and had the balls to demand help.It stuck me this is how Batman would work in our world from the billionaire funding it,mercenary fighting it,to the computer giving the targets.

[The Saint 007]

Well, according to Empire Cinemas, the running time for Skyfall is around 145 minutes: http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/index.ph ... ilmid=3077

I believe Casino Royale was about 144 minutes in length, and there were parts of that film that took up time with pointless talking scenes. Makes you wonder if that's going to be the case with Skyfall.

[Kristatos]

Well, according to Empire Cinemas, the running time for Skyfall is around 145 minutes: http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/index.ph ... ilmid=3077

I believe Casino Royale was about 144 minutes in length, and there were parts of that film that took up time with pointless talking scenes. Makes you wonder if that's going to be the case with Skyfall.

It does say "Certificate and runtime TBC", though. The best source for both is the BBFC website, which as well as the classification, also gives the UK running time to the second (I say UK running time, because running times can vary from country to country if any cuts are made).

[bjmdds]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS. At higher ticket prices than CR in 2006, and a much longer running time, the film must really be entertaining to have repeat viewings, which is where the studios make their gravy. This will LOWER the box office opening weekend which is good and then the vampires will drive the stake into it weekend 2.

[Gala Brand]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS. At higher ticket prices than CR in 2006, and a much longer running time, the film must really be entertaining to have repeat viewings, which is where the studios make their gravy. This will LOWER the box office opening weekend which is good and then the vampires will drive the stake into it weekend 2.

Good point! We witnessed the same phenomenon with the DKR. Look how the long run time hurt the box office grosses.

[Kristatos]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS.

Fewer showings per day </pedantry>

[FormerBondFan]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS. At higher ticket prices than CR in 2006, and a much longer running time, the film must really be entertaining to have repeat viewings, which is where the studios make their gravy. This will LOWER the box office opening weekend which is good and then the vampires will drive the stake into it weekend 2.

Good point! We witnessed the same phenomenon with the DKR. Look how the long run time hurt the box office grosses.

I think the supervillain in CO has done more damage than the running time. As for Bond 23, 145 minutes seems rather too long, and I hope this running time will make viewers feel bored.

[FormerBondFan]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS. At higher ticket prices than CR in 2006, and a much longer running time, the film must really be entertaining to have repeat viewings, which is where the studios make their gravy. This will LOWER the box office opening weekend which is good and then the vampires will drive the stake into it weekend 2.

We'll need more than just vampires and Middle Earth creatures to destroy Bond 23. We'll need other Rebels like Hugh's Les Miserables and Dreamworks' Rise of the Guardians.

[Omega]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS. At higher ticket prices than CR in 2006, and a much longer running time, the film must really be entertaining to have repeat viewings, which is where the studios make their gravy. This will LOWER the box office opening weekend which is good and then the vampires will drive the stake into it weekend 2.

Good point! We witnessed the same phenomenon with the DKR. Look how the long run time hurt the box office grosses.

That's a point. Except Dark Knight Rises had almost a month without real competition. 2hrs 25 min doesn't seem too long to me, but how many fewer showings does it mean and there maybe people gun shy of another runon Bond film like CR.

The spoiler review on IMBD said it was closer to 3 hrs if it is I think that time could be too long for a lot of folks.,

[Omega]

Strange how many have repeated the "news" Craig is signed for two more films which far as I can see was MI6 made up stuff with no sources for this aside from a old wiki page.

Got a question someplace are talking about how Craig wants a break from Bond, ok then there is MGM Sony who wants a new every 2. Where does that leave Craig? Even if there is some truth to the MI6 story which as far as I can see is made up how would the studios deal with a star or EON wanting to delay the movies to ever 3 or 4 years?

[shaken not stirred]

145 minutes means less viewings per day vs. QOS. At higher ticket prices than CR in 2006, and a much longer running time, the film must really be entertaining to have repeat viewings, which is where the studios make their gravy. This will LOWER the box office opening weekend which is good and then the vampires will drive the stake into it weekend 2.

Good point! We witnessed the same phenomenon with the DKR. Look how the long run time hurt the box office grosses.

I think the supervillain in CO has done more damage than the running time. As for Bond 23, 145 minutes seems rather too long, and I hope this running time will make viewers feel bored.

The typical time for a bond film is usually just under 2 hours, why make it longer then that?, it's not lord of the rings or harry potter where that amount of time is justified for that along with the avengers and tdkr.