Jump to content

This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/


2 year gaps between films, not 3 years(too long) agree?

16 replies to this topic

#1 SeanValen



  • Crew
  • 39 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 01:30 AM

I really dispise the 3 year gap between this Bond 20 and 19, it's too long to wait, we still got alot of this year to live before Bond 20 comes out. Bronsnan in his prime at Bond now, I think EON should push for him and everyone to do Bond 21 in 2 years not 3, its not liky Bronsnan is exceptionally going to be younger, if he wants to do 3 films to make his total 7, thats 9 years ! If it was a 2 year gap, its 6 years. Think of it, 2 Bond films within 6 years, if he stays a 3 year gap, or 2 bond within 4 years if goes back to a 2 year gap.

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:)

#2 Blofeld's Cat

Blofeld's Cat

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17542 posts
  • Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East)

Posted 14 March 2002 - 12:32 AM

We, as in the Bond fans, survived the three year wait for The Spy Who Loved Me and six years for GoldenEye so in the whole scheme of things a Bond fan is prepared to wait any length of time to see a new film.

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.

#3 ray t

ray t

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1394 posts

Posted 14 March 2002 - 12:15 AM

if they pound out one-a-year or every year and a half, im afraid they are going to DILUTE a fantastic product.

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.

#4 Simplor



  • Crew
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 March 2002 - 09:01 PM

Robo Bond.

Starring a robotic clone of Sean Connery from the 60's.

Directed by Unknown.

Based on Robotic Clone of Ian Fleming's book series

#5 gala_brand



  • Crew
  • 23 posts

Posted 11 March 2002 - 07:02 AM

Three years is all wrong but considering they had been working non-stop and racking their brain in the past 6 years to great success, it is forgivable. They are human, not machine afterall.

#6 mccartney007


    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3406 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 10 March 2002 - 10:42 PM

I don't want to comment just yet on it since I don't know what the finished product will be. If the three year gap helps the producers come up with a spectacular film, then I would be more than happy to wait the extra year between films.

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!

#7 Mourning Becomes Electra

Mourning Becomes Electra

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts

Posted 10 March 2002 - 12:26 AM

Did the early Connery films take 6 months to film? I don't think so. They began to take longer and longer as more stunts and large action sequences developed That's twice as long as most other films. Then's there's months of pre and post production to make it a polished film. Look at all the nightmares they had with TND when they began shooting so late. None of that even takes into considertation the time it takes to write the film, even adapting it from a novel.

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.


#8 Turn



  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 10 March 2002 - 12:11 AM

I think there were a couple of reasons for the recent three-year wait between TWINE and Bond 20. First, the tie-in with the 40th anniversary, as already mentioned; second, Brosnan mentioned after TWINE that he wanted a three-year gap between it and the next film. He was originally only contracted for three pictures with an option for the fourth, and I think the producers wanted to keep him happy, so they granted him that extra year.

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.

#9 RossMan


    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPip
  • 822 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 09:59 PM

I think 2 years is just right, but I'd love them to do one a year like the Connery movies, then they could save time coming up with a story by doing the Benson or Gardner books :)

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.

#10 Dalton



  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 09 March 2002 - 07:27 PM

A 2 year gap is needed between films, but three years is very hard going. Just think how quickly the Bond actors will seem to age if there is constantly a 3 year gap between films.

#11 moon



  • Crew
  • 40 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 06:20 AM

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 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.
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.

#12 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 09 March 2002 - 06:04 AM

I'd push for two-and-a-half year gap with Bond 21 in the summer of 2005 and Bond 22 in November 2007.

And sorry but Live and Let Die is my favourite Moore Bond film followed by The Man with the Golden Gun.

#13 General Koskov

General Koskov

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1862 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 05:36 AM

I will watch it this weekend! ;D

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! ^_^

#14 bondizback



  • Crew
  • 13 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 05:05 AM

Sorry buddy, LALD is not s---. In fact, it's one of my absolute favorites. No offense, but your taste is in your mouth. Maybe you should watch it again this weekend...

#15 General Koskov

General Koskov

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1862 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 04:42 AM

My two cents are: it doesn't really depend on the gap between films, look at Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, and Thunderball--all made in consecutive years, some of the the best Bond movies made (well aside from OHMSS, of course gl2 ).

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-)

#16 Simplor



  • Crew
  • 27 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 02:05 AM

2 years between the next 5 years equals

2012: Bond 25

Bond 25: The 50th Anniversary (or so i believe)

25 films, 50 years


#17 bondizback



  • Crew
  • 13 posts

Posted 09 March 2002 - 01:55 AM

I completely agree. That was Brosnan's doing and you're right he's not getting any younger. But if they want to release a film in 2007 (and how can they not?) I'm afraid we'll see Bond 21 in 2004, and then have to wait three years for Bond 22. They should do 21 and 22 back to back like the "Lord Of The Rings" films and then Brosnan can move on with his life.