48 replies to this topic

[BONDFINESSE 007]

oh i agree... pierce is not the only reason for the 3 year wait, he just gets blamed for it all though

[DLibrasnow]

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.

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?

Of course. Because in the mindset of MGM and EON right now Pierce Brosnan is not replaceable.
He is after all the "Billion Dollar Bond."

Hugh Jackman may be a front runner for the Bond position right now among the fans but as the Clive Cussler/Dirk Pitt fans found out recently he is a very busy and in demand actor. He was signed for "Sahara" but then had to turn the role down due to scheduling conflicts.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
oh i agree... pierce is not the only reason for the 3 year wait, he just gets blamed for it all though

Did you sleep through the promotion for TWINE 'finesse.

IT WAS BROSNAN"S IDEA!!! He said during the promotional tour for that movie that "FROM NOW ON" he wanted a three year break between the 007 Bond movies.

Nobody had even mentioned the idea of three years breaks until Brosnan demanded it.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Of course. Because in the mindset of MGM and EON right now Pierce Brosnan is not replaceable.  

Really?

Connery and Moore both got replaced. AND BOTH Connery and Moore sold MORE tickets than Brosnan. You did'nt know that?

Everyone's replaceable, especially for an extra US $800-odd million. Do not kid yourself.

Btw, who are these Dirk and Cussler people? Never heard of them.

[DLibrasnow]

You have never heard of Dirk Pitt?? You need to get out more LOL!!

Okay, let's look it a different way. IF Brosnan is not the reason --- then what is the reason????

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow IF Brosnan is not the reason --- then what is the reason???? [/B]

This thread is full of reasons if you want to take the time to read it. I feel you are entrenched in your views. Period.

[DLibrasnow]

I was asking why YOU think the three year break is the standard now!

[Sensualist]

Well, one reason is original material.

Whereas in the 60s thru 80s there was interesting Fleming material that could be drawn upon, that source material has been well mined.

It takes time to come up with plots and storylines that have not been done before (especially given that the initiating take-off point HAS to have a BRITISH angle to it.)

Another reason revolves around marketing deals.

The advertising budgets are become a bigger part of the hollywood equation. Bond is a global brand with approximately 65 percent of box office receipts coming from "US Non-Domestic"/International.

If you don't have good advertising, then the box office usually takes a hit (LTK, as an example).

For Bond 20, Eon had 20 corporations who helped cover marketing costs, and in some cases (Ford) production costs.

Time is needed to cultivate and cut such deals as well as to maintain past relationships.

You see, there's more to it than Pierce. Read some of my other posts and you'll get more answers.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Did you sleep through the promotion for TWINE 'finesse.

IT WAS BROSNAN"S IDEA!!! He said during the promotional tour for that movie that "FROM NOW ON" he wanted a three year break between the 007 Bond movies.  

Nobody had even mentioned the idea of three years breaks until Brosnan demanded it.

snowie i just dont think its as simple as pierce wanting 3 years gaps, these are big time production films they are making now and even if pierce said he would do them every two years from now on i dont think eon or mgm would do it because to much work goes in to them now, these are not the dr. NO days where you could crank out an easy film like that, now you work way to hard to make a big time bond film and you need the extra time to get it all together.

people dont realize what it takes to make these grueling movies and i did not either for a time but after watching DAD a few times you see just how much effort and money and thought goes into each film

[Kingdom Come]

Sen, I don't think u can compare the profits that Eon would/are making with '007 gaming' etc hardly matches what a new film every two years would net them. There is only one real reason why its gonna be 3 years and my thinking is it has little to do with Brosnan - once this series hits 20 it is almost expected that the pace would slow down. 20 films is 20 films and to maintain standards would be impossible now or in the future and the series could be damaged in the eyes of the public. The screenplays should be much better with 3 years than 2 years - stands to reason.

[Triton]

In the end, does the reason, or reasons, for the three year gap really matter? We know that Bond XXI is planned for 2005 but besides that we really don't know what expectations Eon Productions has set with MGM/UA concerning the future of the James Bond series or the delivery date of future films. Things can change after 2005. I don't think anyone forsaw the legal battles that caused the six year hiatus between Licence to Kill and GoldenEye.

Let's just chill and not get worked up about the fact that we have to wait until 2005 for Bond XXI. There isn't any way that fans can force MGM/UA or Eon Productions to speed up their delivery schedule anyway.
In the meantime, let's enjoy our James Bond DVDs, novels, CDs, fan fiction, and video games and the other things that life has to offer.

[DLibrasnow]

Well we will know for sure after Pierce retires from the role....If a new actor comes in and we return to two year breaks then I will have been proven right. If they remain at three years then Sensualist will have been proven right.

[Kingdom Come]

Not only Sen who thinks it will be 3 years for the forseable future.

[DLibrasnow]

Well whenever the new actor takes over then we'll see....

[Tarl_Cabot]

It's all about Pierce! Duh! Do you think MGM wants to make 2 films in 6 years or make 3 in 6 years and make an extra $400M ww? They can start writing the next one as soon as the B21 is filming...There is no reason for the extra wait except to please a star who has read too many complimentary articles on himself. He is very replaceable.Jackman will out gross him...

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
Sen, I don't think u can compare the profits  that Eon would/are making with '007 gaming' etc hardly matches what a new film every two years would net them. There is only one real reason why its gonna be 3 years and my thinking is it has little to do with Brosnan - once this series hits 20 it is almost expected that the pace would slow down. 20 films is 20 films and to maintain standards would be impossible now or in the future and the series could be damaged in the eyes of the public. The screenplays should be much better with 3 years than 2 years - stands to reason.

I agree with the point you make about 20 films is 20 films and that it takes a bit more time and thought to maintain standards.

(Notice how most series fizzle out after the 2nd or 3rd or 4th picture (Star Wars the exception...yet still a 15 year gap there, though))

What you need to notice is it's not JUST one game every two or three years. It's three games in three years (Agent Under Fire, NightFire, Everything or Nothing). It ALL adds up to a nice big chunk of change.

[iceberg]

EON would be foolish to pass up releasing an 007 film in 2007. Imagine the marketing campaign! I think that after Bond 21 in 2005, they will move heaven and earth to get Bond 22 out in 2007.

Pierce should understand the significance of that year and agree to forego that normal three-year gap. Come on, dude, it's for a good cause.

[Kingdom Come]

I have just read in one of those new LARGE glossy Bond books, that Michael Wilson strongly hinted that Bond may be winding down after Brosnan.

[Triton]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
I have just read in one of those new LARGE glossy Bond books, that Michael Wilson strongly hinted that Bond may be winding down after Brosnan.

Considering that Michael G. Wilson will be 62 when Bond XXI is released this hint doesn't surprise me or the fact that the series will have lasted 43 years in 2005. This is of course presuming that Pierce's last film will be Bond XXI.