38 replies to this topic

[blueman]

Doubt Cruise does anything memorable with UA. Except bailing after a couple of blah years getting nothing accomplished but photo ops.

[triviachamp]

Because Danjaq SA (as it then was), was a company owned by shares. The shares that had once belonged to Harry Saltzman were purchased by United Artists (as it then was). Danjaq SA - the Swiss holding company into which the rights were then vested - then became jointly owned by Cubby et al, and the studio. Shareholders of a single owning entity are rarely, if ever, individually credited.

Ultimately, the Bond rights are now jointly owned by Danjaq and the studio.

If I understand correctly Cubby bought back Saltzman's shares in Danjaq but not his rights to Bond.

There have been several corporate restructures (for various reasons - the holding companies of Bond rights are more numerous and complex then one can relate here) and the position was separated out. No doubt, there will be several more to come in the immediate future.

ACE, do you know when Danjaq became a Delaware corporation? And when did it go from Inc to LLC?

And when did Glidrose Productions become Glidrose Publications and then Ian Fleming Publications?

And what is the Fleming Trust and their involvement with Glidrose/IFP? And who owns IFP? I read of the Fleming Bank and some there was some company that Fleming sold to before his death that I forget.

[Double-0-Seven]

Am I the only one here who actually doesn't want to see Craig do six or seven films "just like Moore?"

Seems to me, things start getting stale with one actor after about four.

Seconded.

I want him to do five films.

Four seems like it's too few, and six and seven seem like too many. Five is the perfect number.

[Mr_Wint]

Am I the only one here who actually doesn't want to see Craig do six or seven films "just like Moore?"

Seems to me, things start getting stale with one actor after about four.

Seconded.

I want him to do five films.

Four seems like it's too few, and six and seven seem like too many. Five is the perfect number.

Yes, I agree. 5 films is perfect.

But it depends on so many things. For instance, the Moore era was re-booted with TSWLM, then re-booted again with FYEO... so 7 films worked fine with me.

[Shaun Forever]

Personally, I think he'll do three at the most, sadly for us, I have a feeling he will want to move on to other things, and I believe he's quite capable of that.


Would give my right arm for him to do five though, as mentioned about that would be perfect.

[Germanlady]

Personally, I think he'll do three at the most, sadly for us, I have a feeling he will want to move on to other things, and I believe he's quite capable of that.


Would give my right arm for him to do five though, as mentioned about that would be perfect.

I add my little finger - maybe that will be convincing enough

[tdalton]

Am I the only one here who actually doesn't want to see Craig do six or seven films "just like Moore?"

Seems to me, things start getting stale with one actor after about four.

Seconded.

I want him to do five films.

Four seems like it's too few, and six and seven seem like too many. Five is the perfect number.

Yes, I agree. 5 films is perfect.

But it depends on so many things. For instance, the Moore era was re-booted with TSWLM, then re-booted again with FYEO... so 7 films worked fine with me.

5 films from Craig would certainly be a great thing for the franchise, IMO. I'm not sure that 3 is enough at this point, especially as he's already, IMO, established himself as the best of the 6 official Bonds, he's going to be a very, very tough act to follow for whoever becomes Bond #7. 5 films would be great, although I would love to see him continue on even past that and do 6 or 7.

[scaramunga]

So where does MGM stand with Bond 23? It will be an MGM only product? Or will it also be with Sony's Columbia Pictures?

[Matt_13]

Noone knows. As soon as anything is confirmed, I'm sure Qwerty will have it posted on the main page. Until then we really just have to sit tight.