11 replies to this topic

[M_Balje]

Wil jamesbondreturn in 2004 or 2005 after bond 20 ?

[zencat]

Good theory. I think MGM would like them to go back to a 2-year cycle. Heck, I think MGM would like a Bond movie every year!

[scaramanga]

Surely though, the 3 year gap this time was just to cash in on the 40th anniversary? I reckon it will go back to a 2 year gap after Bond 20. If not, then the series will suffer considerably.

[Mister Asterix]

rafterman (17 Nov, 2001 02:28 a.m.):
...but if they skip 2007 then that's just plain stupid...

Maybe they could come to a compromise with Pierce and do the next two Bonds at a two and a half year pace. Bond 21 in the summer of 2005 and Bond 22 in the winter of '007.

[None]

I was reading an article the other day that stated Pierce recently got voted Sexiest man alive,or some such title.In it he announced that he wanted to go on playing Bond as long as he was still believable in the role.And watching TWINE the other night,i dawned on me that,in this age of"New Man",he really has no feasible peers at the moment.He s as much Bond as Connery was,maybe more so.I came away from the film with a new-found regard for him,and thus hopes that he will continue in the vein he suggested.And he s a smart,likeable guy-he wo nt go on past his sell by date.Lets hope that the powers that be serve up more suitable material than the dandy "fops" thus far suggested.

[rafterman]

i think three years, so 2005, but if they skip 2007 then that's just plain stupid....if i'm right, then those would be brosnan's last ones, it'll make him 53....and give him a tie with connery...

[Blue Eyes]

Well that's very hard to answer! We can only guess.

It all depends on Pierce Brosnan. Should he stay on as Bond you would say 2005 and then one in 2007, in anyone passes 2007 they're stupid!

If Brosnan retires after Bond 20 I'd say 2004!

[zencat]

It's a very good question. Are they now on a 3-year cycle, or will they retrun to a 2-year cycle?

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

I woulld like it to go back to the 2 year cycle...surely MGM knows that that may kill the franchise. Give the fans one every two years.

[RossMan]

zencat (31 Aug, 2001 12:14 a.m.):
Good theory. I think MGM would like them to go back to a 2-year cycle. Heck, I think MGM would like a Bond movie every year!

Wouldn't we all?

[Blofeld's Cat]

zencat (31 Aug, 2001 12:14 a.m.):
Heck, I think MGM would like a Bond movie every year!

What, and end up with a bunch of TMWTGG's. :-)
Every 2-3 years is just about right.

[Blue Eyes]

I have no idea! But I have a theory (God I'm full of them!)

Brosnan has asked for this 3 year cycle at the moment, MGM are just saying it's a part of their plan or whatever.

So once Brosnan steps aside we'll probably go back to the old two year cycle