48 replies to this topic

[Mr. Kidd]

In recent years we've seen sequals of the Matrix,
Lord of the Rings and the Star Wars series released within
a year of the previous film. WHY does it now take a three
year span between Bond films? How do you all feel about it?
It was cool growing up, having a Bond film released every
other year. I think the Lord of the Rings series was shot at
once and released as episodes. But in an age where
"blockbuster" sequals are released annually, and hot on the
heels of Die Another Day doing so well, why wait so long?

[Dunph]

Essentially Brosnan wanted to have a three year gap between films, which would give him more free time between Bonds to pursue other projects and star in other films.

And so it was done. Now we have three year Bonds as opposed to two year Bonds. Whether this will continue after Brosnan's departure, who knows?

[Luds Incognito]

I sure hope not... 3 year wait and then have another movie as [doing tricks to post curse words will get you banned] as DAD would be terrible!

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Mr. Kidd
In recent years we've seen sequals of ...the Star Wars series released within
  a year of the previous film.

Really?

I thought they were one every THREE years.

By the way, if you go to the Bond 22 (And Beyond) section, there are threads that discuss this issue at length.

[Bryce (003)]

I would hope they'd have Bond 22 ready to go after Bond 21 with only a two year gap. As 21 is now repotedly due in Nov. '05, they'd need 22 ready in two years to make a 2-007 release - 45th anniversary film, new Bond and a year that can't be passed up.

Here's to hoping.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Originally posted by Luds Incognito
I sure hope not... 3 year wait and then have another movie as ****** as DAD would be terrible!

Amen! Pierce has no reason to take more time off. He has plenty of time between films to make movies and he is getting older. He aged a lot between TWINE and DAD. The extra time didn't exactly help the creative process because DAD was such a mess. The film was all over the map: super serious like LTK, campy,ridiculous and over the top like Moonraker but couldn't match the guilty pleasures of either end of the Bond cannon spectrum.

Brosnan clearly wants to stay on board for the money and has said so. Now if he did DAD in 2001, B21 in 2003 and B22 in 2005 he would maximize his financial gains and please us fans at the same time, no? :mad:

[BONDFINESSE 007]

and we still have two years to go before 21...two long years

[Sensualist]

Eon Productions have the LUXURY of making boat loads of money and laughing all the way to the bank WITHOUT making a film every two years.

Their diversified portfolio, including 007 Gaming, ensures a juicy stream of revenue and means that they can do as they please in the forseeable future.

Fans desirous of a Bond movie every two years are SOL.

Perhaps when the juice from their gaming titles run dry they may decide to return to 2-year gaps.

[Turn]

They need to keep the gaming thing going. It hits that younger demographic, which will hopefully lead more of that audience into the theater to discover Bond or continue their interest. After all, a number of younger people discovered Bond through the GE game a few years ago.

[Triton]

It's possible that we can blame Pierce Brosnan for the three year delay between films. But it takes a long time to develop screen plays, chose locations and get filming permits, develop set and costume designs, and the other pre-production tasks that are required for a large action/adventure production like a James Bond film. Perhaps a two year gap between films in the 21st century is too short.

The Matrix sequels and the Lord of the Rings films are the exceptions, rather than the rule. Script development and preproduction work occurred for several years on these films before the cameras rolled and these films were shot together and were made separate films in the editing room during post production.

In the case of the Lord of the Rings, preproduction began in January 1997 with the first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, being released on December 19, 2001. With the release of Return of the King on December 17, 2003 almost seven years have passed since work began on this project. So determining the time it takes to produce these movies solely by release date is misleading.

[Tarl_Cabot]

If Spiderman 2 can come out just two years after 2002 with all that post production CGI than Bond can continue in the two cycle we've all been raised to expect! :mad:

[Doubleshot]

Tough.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
If Spiderman 2 can come out just two years after 2002 with all that post production CGI than Bond can continue in the two cycle we've all been raised to expect! :mad:

Comparing Spidey's second movie to James Bond's 21st is like comparing apples to, o, chewing gum.

If you want to make a truly correct comparison, Spider-Man 2 OUGHT to have come out in '03, S-M 3 in '04, etc just as FRWL, Goldfinger, etc. followed DN at one year intervals.

As I said, the 007 gaming titles are lining Eon's pockets these days. They have the LUXURY of time on their side.

We have to just grin and bare it whilst the shareholders in Danjaq LLC have other ways to get filthy rich.

[Tarl_Cabot]

:mad:

Let's face it. They are bereft of imagination. That's why they are taking more time. It's like asking the professor for an extension on a term paper because you're a procrastinator; the result is usually the paper gets written the night before it's due,despite the extra time allotted, and the effort ends up being an inferior one, like DAD was.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
:mad:

Let's face it. They are bereft of imagination.

Either that or they're enjoying living in the lap of luxury. Sun bathing in St. Tropez. Baccarat at the Casino de Monaco. Skiing at Chamonix. You know, the stuff you do when you inherit a massive cash cow (or two (or three))...

[Tarl_Cabot]

I can't blame them! :cool:

How about turning over production duties to someone else so they can bask in the sun stress free and collect their royalties? M.G Wilson seems tired and bored with Bond. Let some die hard Bond geeks with legitimate credentials take over and go to town! Every Two years!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

M.G Wilson seems tired and bored with Bond. Let some die hard Bond geeks with legitimate credentials take over and go to town! Every Two years!  

Frankly, I'd like the series to end with Wilson's departure, and I'm being quite serious. As Albert R. Broccoli's final producing partner, he's the last real link with the past. Babs? Sorry, but the idea of her in sole charge at Eon is not a pleasant one. When Wilson goes, let's wrap all this up, hey?

And I agree with Sensualist: the days of a Bond flick every two years are over. However, when the next guy comes along, they might want to make his first two films in rapid succession, in order to cement him in people's minds as James Bond as quickly as possible. But as a rule of thumb, I think we should expect a new film every three years from now on.

[Tarl_Cabot]

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


And I agree with Sensualist: the days of a Bond flick every two years are over.

Was there ever any doubt? Pierce Brosnan made the announcement during the promotional tours for TWINE that he wanted a three year break between 007 movies. He didn't say I want a three year break between this one and the next one, he said a three year break between 007 movies period.

So we have pretty much known since 1999 that Bond 20 would be in 2002 and that Bond 21 would be in 2005 - there has never been any question about this release schedule!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Pierce Brosnan made the announcement during the promotional tours for TWINE that he wanted a three year break between 007 movies. He didn't say I want a three year break between this one and the next one, he said a three year break between 007 movies period.  

But Brosnan's wishes are only part of the picture, and probably a very small part at that.

Or would you say that we're getting a new Bond film every three years these days instead of every two ONLY because of Brosnan's wishes?

[Qwerty]

Well, I'm still hoping for a few, not all, but a few 2-year breaks, yeah, I know, some of you are saying 'give it up. ' However, I do not have to go through the demanding work and stress of making these monumental pictures, and it is in every right of Brosnan to request 3-year breaks. I guess you just don't know how much a toll it would take unless you really had the role. So yes, I wouldn't mind a 2-year break every once in a while, but as DLibrasnow said, the 3 year waits are pretty much a given now. Darn!

[Triton]

Originally posted by Loomis


But Brosnan's wishes are only part of the picture, and probably a very small part at that.

Or would you say that we're getting a new Bond film every three years these days instead of every two ONLY because of Brosnan's wishes?

Until Michael G. Wilson or Barbara Broccoli explain why there is a three year gap between The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day or between Die Another Day and Bond XXI, we can only speculate about the reasons.

Perhaps the real reason is that Pierce Brosnan wants a three-year gap between James Bond films so that he can pursue other projects like he has said in interviews.

What makes me skeptical of this reason is that MGM/UA seems perennially strapped for cash and seems desperate for yet another cash infusion that is generated by a James Bond film. I would presume that MGM/UA has pushed for a two-year gap between films and has brought enormous pressure on Eon Productions about the three-year gap. So I think that the reason is a lot more complex than just keeping Pierce Brosnan happy.

But whatever reason, we just have to accept the fact that Bond XXI will be released in 2005. Perhaps we will be luckly and see Bond XXII in 2007.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Triton

Perhaps the real reason is that Pierce Brosnan wants a three-year gap between James Bond films so that he can pursue other projects like he has said in interviews.

I do not believe this is the one and only reason. If (IF) it is, then fire him now and get Jackman on board ASAP. James Bond (Since the success of LALD) has been BIGGER than any actor.

It is all moot. In my opinion Pierce is only part of the puzzle.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Sensualist


I do not believe this is the one and only reason. If (IF) it is, then fire him now and get Jackman on board ASAP. James Bond (Since the success of LALD) has been BIGGER than any actor.

It is all moot. In my opinion Pierce is only part of the puzzle.

Of course Pierce Brosnan is the main reason.....No one was talking about three year gaps between the movies until Brosnan stated in 1999 that he wanted a three-year gap between 007 pictures.

I think EON (and MGM) are so desperate to keep Brosnan as 007 that they caved to his demand.
I think the fact that MGM is so cash strapped probably made it necessary for them to keep a proven Brosnan as 007 and probably was a major factor why they relented and gave him the three years he wanted.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis

Or would you say that we're getting a new Bond film every three years these days instead of every two ONLY because of Brosnan's wishes?

Yes....

For the reasons stated in the above post!

[BONDFINESSE 007]

but its not so bad, we can watch our bond movies while we wait and that will pass the time....bottom line...............if you are craving bond then just put in one of bonds 20 films and enjoy your bond fixx

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Of course Pierce Brosnan is the main reason.....No one was talking about three year gaps between the movies until Brosnan stated in 1999 that he wanted a three-year gap between 007 pictures.

And the fact that GoldenEye 007 the game made more in 1998/99 than the movie did in 1995/96 thus giving Eon a BIG NEW cash cow had nothing to do with it?

And do you REALLY believe Pierce wants to make LESS (a lot LESS) money by making fewer 007 movies? Do you really, truly think has has too too much money and can get by on the Evelyns and Grey Owls and the TOPs of this world?

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I think EON (and MGM) are so desperate to keep Brosnan as 007 that they caved to his demand.  

I think the fact that MGM is so cash strapped probably made it necessary for them to keep a proven Brosnan  as 007 and probably was a major factor why they relented and gave him the three years he wanted.

Desperate? You mean Jackman would be a step down for Bond 21?

Also the belief that MGM is so cash-strapped so as to give up an extra $850-900 million in revenue at the behest of a replaceble EMPLOYEE makes NO sense whatsoever. None.

I mean, do you, D'snow, REALLY believe MGM would for-go $850-900 million in box office and ancilliary revenue because one employee demanded it? Do you truly BELIEVE that?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Sensualist


Desperate?  You mean Jackman would be a step down for Bond 21?

Also the belief that MGM is so cash-strapped so as to give up an extra $850-900 million in revenue at the behest of a replaceble EMPLOYEE makes NO sense whatsoever. None.

in mho jackman would be a step down, a major step down...so why take the chance if your mgm

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
in mho jackman would be a step down, a major step down...so why take the chance if your mgm

In YOUR opinion.

I'm willing to bet that MGM would take Jackman PLUS the extra $800-odd million than have Pierce WITH $0 extra to show their shareholders.

They would NOT be taking a 'chance'. Jackman PLUS the extra money is a RISKLESS, no lose business decision.

My main point, if anyone has failed to see it, is that NO business passes up that kind of money at the behest of a singular employee. So, effectively, Pierce's one-off demand for DAD is not the only/main reason for doing Bonds at 3 year intervals going forward.