2 year gaps between films, not 3 years(too long) agree?
Posted 09 March 2002 - 01:30 AM
I don't like waiting years for a film, because everyone's getting old, including us, rather sooner then later.
Hope you all agree:) I know Bond fans won't want to wait another 3 years after Bond 20, but 2 would be nice:)
Bond 20 would of been out last year if they kept the 2 year gap, and Bond 21 next year:) Much better, and feels better:)
Posted 14 March 2002 - 12:32 AM
As long as there is a next one.
PS: The Man with the Golden Gun had it's good points, but one year between Bonds doesn't work. It's impossible nowadays as the technology used in post-production takes time.
Posted 14 March 2002 - 12:15 AM
none of us want an inferior bond production.
they waited 3 and 6 years for legal/business reasons in the past and we ended up having two terrific films which revived the franchise, ie TSWLM and Goldeneye.
this 3 yr gap is totally different but i hope we get a well crafted, thoroughly thought out epic worth the wait.
i agree, 3 yrs is too long but i could live with B21 in MAY '05 and 22 in NOV '07...a two-and-a-half year gap.
what i WONT be able to stand is an OLD, OUT OF SHAPE bond which ruins credability as in Diamonds Are Forever and AVTAK.
Posted 11 March 2002 - 09:01 PM
Starring a robotic clone of Sean Connery from the 60's.
Directed by Unknown.
Based on Robotic Clone of Ian Fleming's book series
Posted 11 March 2002 - 07:02 AM
Posted 10 March 2002 - 10:42 PM
To be honest, it doesn't seem like it has been three years since TWINE so I haven't really been too upset about it. As long as I get a Bond book every year and a Bond film every few years I'm more than happy!
Posted 10 March 2002 - 12:26 AM
More importanly, there's the actor involved. Isn't one a year one of the reasons Connery was burnt out on Bond so quickly? It's a physicaly demanding role that PB says he has to train for like an athelete. And no matter what some say about the new Bonds having too many support characters, they're still just that support, it's still at heart a one man film.
Just think, Halle Bery didn't come to set until the 2nd month of shooting, Rosamund Pike had 3 weeks off at the start. And these are actors with significant parts. Others are in just for a few weeks or days at most. But Brosnan got injured for 2 weeks and the entire shooting schedule had to be rearranged and the insurance company now has a Dr. tailing him to make sure no more injuries or delays happen. He doesn't get much scheduled time off during a Bond, he's on the set almost every day for 6 months. And his is the most physically demanding role.
Then when the film is finished it's a couple days off but then when it comes out he and other cast, but mostly Brosnan fly around promoting it from country to country for weeks, or months. A lot of this would have to be done while the new film would have to be shot. It's not feasible time wise.
And as far as the actor, he'd quit if he was a sane person and could get more money to act in other films, and Brosnan can get more elsewhere for a lot less work.
He turned down $15 mil to do Basic Instinct 2 (a film that would take 2-3 months to shoot and would not land him in the hospital), more than he made on TWINE.
Now would I love to see a Bond a year, heck yes, but I'd also like it to be a good Bond and with an actor who finishes the film and has some interest left in his role after the ordeal. People claim Connery looked burnt out by YOLT, I wonder why. And that was after the first 2 year break.
I'd prefer if the shooting went back to 2 years, or at most 2 1/2 between films. But one year intervals is really undoable unless they make different kinds of Bond films. I'd also like to see the product that comes from this hiatus and see if the 3 year break was worth it. And as someone said, since it seems Bond 21 has character elements and storylines already in place maybe it will be quicker to develop than Bond 20.
Posted 10 March 2002 - 12:11 AM
A three-year gap has been a tough wait. Every two years was a great schedule. But logistics in filmmaking these days sometimes doesn't allow things to get on track the way fans would like. I can't forsee there ever being back-to-back film anytime soon. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a major exception. The producers can't even give us a title, much less get a quality script pounded out every year.
Posted 09 March 2002 - 09:59 PM
I agree with General Koskov about Live and Let Die
My favorite Moore movie is FYEO (much more faithful to Fleming material than Moore's earlier movies) and Octopussy.
Posted 09 March 2002 - 07:27 PM
Posted 09 March 2002 - 06:20 AM
I agree three years is too long, it's driving me insane.But I think they just want to make this one so long to commemorate the 40th anniversity.
Mister Asterix (09 Mar, 2002 06:04 a.m.):
I'd push for two-and-a-half year gap with Bond 21 in the summer of 2005 and Bond 22 in November 2007.
I think Bond 21 will be returning in two years (or even
1 1/2 year) with Bond 20 ending with a cliffhanger and Brosnan returning. They already had the script in mind now and P&W have 3 years this time so they can possibly work out b21 script by now.
Posted 09 March 2002 - 05:36 AM
And when I say it's ****, I mean compared to the good Bond movies, not compared to Never Say Never Again, or some other non-Bond movie.
In fact, the only things that make me not like a Bond movie, is it's amount of unfaithfulness to the Fleming book plus the amount of silliness. LALD is just too unfaithful. :-(
But I like the Kananga's croc farm bit, and the New York out of control cab bit! ^_^
Posted 09 March 2002 - 05:05 AM
Posted 09 March 2002 - 04:42 AM
But then look at LALD and TMWTGG, made in consecutive years, both ****. So there's eally no telling what's good and what's not. Though I suppose Ian Fleming made the earlier years easier for the screenwriters: they already had good material to work with; today they've got to come up with their own plots that rival Fleming's--and that's hard. 8-)
Posted 09 March 2002 - 02:05 AM
2012: Bond 25
Bond 25: The 50th Anniversary (or so i believe)
25 films, 50 years
Posted 09 March 2002 - 01:55 AM