With Sony buying MGM I hope that Brosnan can make Bond 21in 2005 ( a more fun-mission film- this time its not pers?onal) and Bond 22 in the begining of 2007 Casino Royale. And new Bond in end of 2007 with Bond 23.
I still hope
Started by
YOLT
, Sep 19 2004 11:01 AM
26 replies to this topic
#2
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 03:01 PM
Whoa whoa. Two Bond films in 2007? I doubt that will happen, based on the past schedules of these films.
#3
Blythy
-
- Crew
- 55 posts
Midshipman
- Location:Centre of the Universe - i.e. Sunderland, England
Posted 19 September 2004 - 04:37 PM
aye, but casino royale is pretty much action free apart from the car chase, it's more suspense.
#4
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 04:48 PM
I doubt we would get a 100% accurate transfer from the novel.aye, but casino royale is pretty much action free apart from the car chase, it's more suspense.
#5
Spoon
-
- Crew
-
- 406 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
- Location:New York, NY, USA
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:16 PM
Certainly they wouldn't risk oversaturating the franchise like that.
I don't see what the big rush is.
I don't see what the big rush is.
#6
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:22 PM
I think it's the idea of a new Bond in 2007.
#7
Spoon
-
- Crew
-
- 406 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
- Location:New York, NY, USA
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:28 PM
Sure... one would be nice that year... not two!
#8
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:32 PM
Yeah, I would just see rushing.
#9
007Travis
-
- Crew
-
- 817 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Clearwater, Florida
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:42 PM
Yeah I'd say that's rushing it a bit. I don't think that will happen. They would make some people sick of it if they did that. Not everyone is like us. 
#10
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:45 PM
Even so, rushed Bond films can turn out good occasionally (Tomorrow Never Dies for example IMO)...but it's then the case of moving right into a new Bond.Yeah I'd say that's rushing it a bit. I don't think that will happen. They would make some people sick of it if they did that. Not everyone is like us.
#11
007Travis
-
- Crew
-
- 817 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Clearwater, Florida
Posted 19 September 2004 - 06:15 PM
Oh I agree with you Qwerty, I just think the public might get a bit tired of it so quick too. I don't think it would be a good thing to do if we all want it to continue... Just my opinion.Even so, rushed Bond films can turn out good occasionally (Tomorrow Never Dies for example IMO)...but it's then the case of moving right into a new Bond.Yeah I'd say that's rushing it a bit. I don't think that will happen. They would make some people sick of it if they did that. Not everyone is like us.
#12
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 06:22 PM
Oh no, I completely understand ya.
#13
YOLT
-
- Veterans
-
- 1533 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 19 September 2004 - 08:43 PM
Why not? Casino Royale will be a -in the middle film- with costing about 40million$ as Tarantino said. It wont be like DAD. With Tarantino and Brosnan the film will do more then 200$ revenue I quess. Also the script is ready so why not?
#14
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 19 September 2004 - 08:44 PM
There has been nothing to prove what sort of exact budget amount it would have.Why not? Casino Royale will be a -in the middle film- with costing about 40million$ as Tarantino said. It wont be like DAD. With Tarantino and Brosnan the film will do more then 200$ revenue I quess. Also the script is ready so why not?
#15
YOLT
-
- Veterans
-
- 1533 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:32 AM
Tarantino said that it would be around 40 million $.There has been nothing to prove what sort of exact budget amount it would have.Why not? Casino Royale will be a -in the middle film- with costing about 40million$ as Tarantino said. It wont be like DAD. With Tarantino and Brosnan the film will do more then 200$ revenue I quess. Also the script is ready so why not?
#16
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 20 September 2004 - 11:11 AM
But we've no confirmation at all that Tarantino would be working on Casino Royale.Tarantino said that it would be around 40 million $.
There has been nothing to prove what sort of exact budget amount it would have.Why not? Casino Royale will be a -in the middle film- with costing about 40million$ as Tarantino said. It wont be like DAD. With Tarantino and Brosnan the film will do more then 200$ revenue I quess. Also the script is ready so why not?
#17
YOLT
-
- Veterans
-
- 1533 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:05 PM
but its a possibility isnt it.But we've no confirmation at all that Tarantino would be working on Casino Royale.
Tarantino said that it would be around 40 million $.
There has been nothing to prove what sort of exact budget amount it would have.Why not? Casino Royale will be a -in the middle film- with costing about 40million$ as Tarantino said. It wont be like DAD. With Tarantino and Brosnan the film will do more then 200$ revenue I quess. Also the script is ready so why not?
#18
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:10 PM
Yes, we'll just see where it goes.
#19
Jack Bauer
-
- Crew
-
- 561 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Illinois
Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:16 PM
Bond 21: New Years 2006
Bond 22: Christmas 2007
One could hope.
Bond 22: Christmas 2007
One could hope.
#20
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:18 PM
Hope, but in reality it wouldn't seem likely unless they were really determined to do so. The last time there was a one year wait I believe was for The Man With The Golden Gun.Bond 21: New Years 2006
Bond 22: Christmas 2007
Be great fun though if they did both films well.
#21
Jack Bauer
-
- Crew
-
- 561 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Illinois
Posted 21 September 2004 - 03:09 AM
It's 23 months, Devin. That'd be rounded to 2 years, pretty much.Hope, but in reality it wouldn't seem likely unless they were really determined to do so. The last time there was a one year wait I believe was for The Man With The Golden Gun.Bond 21: New Years 2006
Bond 22: Christmas 2007
Be great fun though if they did both films well.
#22
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 21 September 2004 - 03:11 AM
Oh yes, I looked at that differently.It's 23 months, Devin. That'd be rounded to 2 years, pretty much.
Hope, but in reality it wouldn't seem likely unless they were really determined to do so. The last time there was a one year wait I believe was for The Man With The Golden Gun.Bond 21: New Years 2006
Bond 22: Christmas 2007
Be great fun though if they did both films well.
You are correct, my mistake.
#23
Bondian
-
- Veterans
-
- 8019 posts
Commander
- Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK.
Posted 28 September 2004 - 05:17 AM
I still hope too that we get Bond in 2005, and as the Sony/MGM deal is just about rapped-up, we could actually see it.
All I ask is, whether it's 2005 or 2006 that we get a real deal Bond flick unlike "Try Another Day" with less CGI and more IGC [IGC=Intelligent and Genuine Characters
] as opposed to dready and uninteresting henchmen who could bore the world to death without having to buy a damn high ladder to get that Satellite into space!.
We've had the "Fortieth Anniversary" now let's get back to business.
Cheers,
Ian
All I ask is, whether it's 2005 or 2006 that we get a real deal Bond flick unlike "Try Another Day" with less CGI and more IGC [IGC=Intelligent and Genuine Characters
] as opposed to dready and uninteresting henchmen who could bore the world to death without having to buy a damn high ladder to get that Satellite into space!.We've had the "Fortieth Anniversary" now let's get back to business.
Cheers,
Ian
#25
JCH
-
- Crew
- 88 posts
Midshipman
- Location:Charlotte, NC
Posted 01 October 2004 - 08:02 PM
I seriously doubt there will be a Bond in 2007. First, I expect Bond 21 to be released in the summer of 2006. 2007 would be way too soon for another Bond. Second, Spider-Man 3 is already slated to be released by Sony in summer 2007. That will be the big, money release in that summer.
It looks like Sony will be the summer blockbuster studio for the next few years at least.
It looks like Sony will be the summer blockbuster studio for the next few years at least.
#26
YOLT
-
- Veterans
-
- 1533 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 01 October 2004 - 08:16 PM
I dont hope for anything now. 
#27
SeanValen00V
-
- Veterans
-
- 1518 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 October 2004 - 12:08 AM
NEW BOND IN 2007, YEAH BIG CHANCE.
Why, because even though it looks like THERE WILL BE NO NEW FILM IN 2007, THEY CAN STILL ANNOUNCE A NEW JAMES BOND IN 2007, LIKE A BIG MEDIA PRESS CONFERENCE, LIKE BROSNAN IN GOLDENEYE BACK IN 1994.
YENCE THEY CAN PROMOTE THEIR NEW BOND IN 2007, THE BIRTH OF A NEW BOND, WHERE THE ACTUAL FILM COMES OUT IN 2008.
YES IT'S ASHAME THEY CAN'T GET A FILM OUT IN THAT YEAR, BUT MARKETING THE NEW BOND, ANNOUNCING THE NEW BOND, SAY AT MIDNIGHT, NEW YEARS EVE INTO NEW YEARS DAY, AND THE NEW BOND IS,..................HUGH JACKMAN, FIREWORKS GO UP IN THE SKY, AND HUGH SIPPING CHAMPAIGN AND FAKE WALTER PPK IN HIS HAND.
THAT'S MY IDEA.
Why, because even though it looks like THERE WILL BE NO NEW FILM IN 2007, THEY CAN STILL ANNOUNCE A NEW JAMES BOND IN 2007, LIKE A BIG MEDIA PRESS CONFERENCE, LIKE BROSNAN IN GOLDENEYE BACK IN 1994.
YENCE THEY CAN PROMOTE THEIR NEW BOND IN 2007, THE BIRTH OF A NEW BOND, WHERE THE ACTUAL FILM COMES OUT IN 2008.
YES IT'S ASHAME THEY CAN'T GET A FILM OUT IN THAT YEAR, BUT MARKETING THE NEW BOND, ANNOUNCING THE NEW BOND, SAY AT MIDNIGHT, NEW YEARS EVE INTO NEW YEARS DAY, AND THE NEW BOND IS,..................HUGH JACKMAN, FIREWORKS GO UP IN THE SKY, AND HUGH SIPPING CHAMPAIGN AND FAKE WALTER PPK IN HIS HAND.
THAT'S MY IDEA.
Edited by SeanValen00V, 03 October 2004 - 12:11 AM.