171 replies to this topic

[killkenny kid]

I'm not going to throw my hat into the ring of speculation as to whether or not there WILL be a Bond 22 in 2007.

All I'm going to say is that I'd REALLY like to see another Bond movie in 2007.

I'm with you.

[Flash1087]

Let's hear it for neutrality!

[DLibrasnow]

This Stoppard news seems to add further evidence to the fact that Bond 22 will be a 2007 release.

It's certainly getting harder and harder for those doubters (of a Bond movie in 2007) to remain doubtful.

[The Richmond Spy]

They could release it in Dec. 2007 and say "The only proper way to end '07 is with 007"! (or something more creative.)

[shady ginzo]

I don't think there's any fan who'd decline the opportunity of another Bond in 07, and it would appear to be a marketting god-send that could tempt the producers. but for arguments sake I do feel that 2 bond films within 12 months of each other could leave cinema goers a little burnt out. having said that it did little to damage the matrix, which many even say had a disappointing second installment and still went on to have a successful third. but with an on-going franchise like modern bond I think 2/3 of years between movies adds a degree of excitement, adding an feel of somthing really special approaching, a feel which i fear would be nulled by this "mass production" method.

Edited by shady ginzo, 27 May 2006 - 12:23 AM.

[tdalton]

I don't think there's any fan who'd decline the opportunity of another Bond in 07, and it would appear to be a marketting god-send that could tempt the producers. but for arguments sake I do feel that 2 bond films within 12 months of each other could leave cinema goers a little burnt out. having said that it did little to damage the matrix, which many even say had a disappointing second installment and still went on to have a successful third. but with an on-going franchise like modern bond I think 2/3 of years between movies adds a degree of excitement, adding an feel of somthing really special approaching, a feel which i fear would be nulled by this "mass production" method.

Agreed. I don't think that, after all that's been going on with the franchise with the 2+ year search for a new Bond, the couple of months of casting, and the making of this film, that I would really want to turn around and see most of that process done before we even see Casino Royale.

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but having a Bond film in 2007 doesn't seem like a must to me. I just find it to be a marketing ploy that, honestly, seems kind of silly. "It's 007 in 2007". I really don't want to have to listen to that catchphrase for half a year leading up to a new movie.

[The Richmond Spy]

Why would they have started work on the Bond 2.2 script in 2005 if they were planning on releasing the movie in 2008! I mean really people, think about it!

Because scripts can take a long while, especially with all the rewrites needed on something like a Bond flick?

If getting a movie out in 2007 was so important, I'd have thought delaying the release of CASINO ROYALE by a couple of months or even moving it to early May '07 would be far more doable than cranking out BOND 22.

True, if they did have to delay it they might as well wait until early January and have the slogan "Make 007 the 1st film you see in 2007!"

[DLibrasnow]

having said that it did little to damage the matrix,

Or the Lord of the Rings 1, 2 and 3,
Or Harry Potter 1 and 2.

Time will tell if Pirates of the Carribbean 2 and 3 will do anything to lessen the excitement, but judging by the tremendous excitement being built up for the second one I think that it will prove to have been a good move.

[DLibrasnow]

And now the Mail is reporting that Bond 22 has a director. Would they have a director and be polishing a script in mid-2006 if the movie was not planned to go before the camera's until 2008? I find that doubtful.

[shady ginzo]

DLibrasnow has a good point, the recent back to back production craze has been very successful, I suppose I just believe that in bond's case it would be setting a poor precident, the everyday audience will quite happily wait until 2008 or 2009 for Bond 22 but to produce it sooner would beg the question "where's bond 23" by the time 2008 came round. to me it feels unecessary, but don't get me wrong I'd love to have one every year, but for the sake of the franchise I think it would be unhealthy

[EyesOnly]

Why wouldn't they bring Campbell back for Bond 22, that loses me!

Edited by EyesOnly, 27 May 2006 - 02:25 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Why wouldn't they bring Campbell back for Bond 22, that loses me!

Perhaps the post-production work would overlap with pre-production? Or maybe Campbell was asked and declined (as he did with TND). There are many reasons why he may not be coming back.

[Publius]

You know, one would think longer gaps would give us better scripts, but a three year one gave us DAD, whereas one year ones gave us FRWL, GF, and TB. I guess the case could be made that the low-tech nature of the earlier ones made their rapid releases more feasible, but if shortening the space would preclude the hi-tech laziness we've seen in recent past, I'm all for it.

They should at least go back to the odd-numbered-year convention after '07 so we can avoid in 3007 this fiasco that the DAD-Brosnan scenario saddled us with.

Edited by Publius, 27 May 2006 - 05:07 AM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I still don't see why so many are nervous over having a Bond film in back-to-back years. Yes, there can be the danger of a slipshod production if the filming is rushed. However, I don't believe that is--or will be--the case in this instance. EON got a big jump on the screenplay well over a year in advance of the starting date for Bond 22. And by the sound of things, they are also getting a script polisher (Tom Stoppard?) ahead of Casino Royale's schedule. Also, as been pointed out, other films--even bigger films (i.e. The Lord Of The Rings)--have successfully done back-to-back movies in consecutive years.

In addition, I don't think that having back-to-back Bond films right now is all that bad of a proposition. It's been four years since the last 007 film, Die Another Day, came out so there will be an audience hunger for James Bond--a hunger that will likely last through 2007 as well. After all, it will only be two Bond films in five years. Now, I don't advocate releasing a Bond movie every year, but this is a special case of having 007 in 2007 and I think audiences will get the reasoning of having a Bond film in back-to-back years and support EON for doing it. And I doubt that those same audiences will expect a new Bond film every year--other film series certainly don't (at least after the first two or three movies). The significance of the numbers will be self-explanatory.

By all appearances 2007 should be a banner year for 007 and his fans.

[DLibrasnow]

DLibrasnow has a good point, the recent back to back production craze has been very successful, I suppose I just believe that in bond's case it would be setting a poor precident, the everyday audience will quite happily wait until 2008 or 2009 for Bond 22 but to produce it sooner would beg the question "where's bond 23" by the time 2008 came round. to me it feels unecessary, but don't get me wrong I'd love to have one every year, but for the sake of the franchise I think it would be unhealthy

I'm certain that they feel it would be beneficial as a means to get Craig cemented in the publics mind as 007. The last time they had a comsecutive year production was Roger Moore's second movie and he was the an actor following an incredibly popular (and to that point the only one in the publics eyes) Bond actor.

[DLibrasnow]

I still don't see why so many are nervous over having a Bond film in back-to-back years. Yes, there can be the danger of a slipshod production if the filming is rushed. However, I don't believe that is--or will be--the case in this instance. EON got a big jump on the screenplay well over a year in advance of the starting date for Bond 22. And by the sound of things, they are also getting a script polisher (Tom Stoppard?) ahead of Casino Royale's schedule. Also, as been pointed out, other films--even bigger films (i.e. The Lord Of The Rings)--have successfully done back-to-back movies in consecutive years.

I agree with you. It would be one thing if they started work on Bond 22 when they were finished with CASINO ROYALE, but that's not the case. They were working on the Bond 22 script over seven months ago and have already brought in a script polisher. That means that they are well ahead of CASINO ROYALE, which brought in its script polisher last Fall.
Plus, if the Daily Mail report is accurate, they also have a director lined up.
Also, let's not forget that the video game to be based on Bond 22 is to come out in 2007.

[Pussfeller]

Well, this certainly ought to establish Craig as Bond. It will be very strange having so much Bond (and Bond buzz) in two years, having just passed four years with no Bond at all. If CR is a major hit, we could be in for a year of mini-Bondmania.

A very smart move on the producer's part, in my opinion.

[Aussie21]

I still think with another Bond in 2007, it could begin to dilute the power of the films. Because they've been spaced so far apart in the past, they're huge events. But with them being back to back, I think the franchise could lose its luster.

Even if EON produced a classic, I still think by having them so close together could be detrimental to the series.

Perhaps I'm wrong though, which I'd much rather be. I think it'd be quite cool to have a Bond movie in 2007 with the connection of the year and 007.

Edited by Aussie21, 28 May 2006 - 03:04 AM.

[JimmyBond]

With a early script in place I'm sure the producers already have ideas on what type of actors they want in which roles.

[tdalton]

I still think with another Bond in 2007, it could begin to dilute the power of the films. Because they've been spaced so far apart in the past, they're huge events. But with them being back to back, I think the franchise could lose its luster.

Even if EON produced a classic, I still think by having them so close together could be detrimental to the series.

I think you're right. I'm not a fan of having them in back to back years at this point in time. And, I'm not sure that hammering it home that Craig is Bond in this way is going to turn the public on to him. If anything, it will make them grow tired of him since he'll be in the spotlight all the time for well over a year, non-stop. A Bond film in the Summer of 2008, however, might be enough of a gap, but there really shouldn't be one next year, especially since it just seems like they're trying to cash in on a silly ad gimmick.

[DLibrasnow]

I still think with another Bond in 2007, it could begin to dilute the power of the films. Because they've been spaced so far apart in the past, they're huge events. But with them being back to back, I think the franchise could lose its luster.

Even if EON produced a classic, I still think by having them so close together could be detrimental to the series.

On the contrary I think it would be great for the series.

You are looking at it as a Bond fan, but the general public don't follow Bond as closely as we, as fans, do. Certainly the fact that we had three Lord of the Rings movies in THREE successive years didn't hurt that series, or FOUR Hary Potter movies over a period of FOUR years.

[Aussie21]

I still think with another Bond in 2007, it could begin to dilute the power of the films. Because they've been spaced so far apart in the past, they're huge events. But with them being back to back, I think the franchise could lose its luster.

Even if EON produced a classic, I still think by having them so close together could be detrimental to the series.

On the contrary I think it would be great for the series.

You are looking at it as a Bond fan, but the general public don't follow Bond as closely as we, as fans, do. Certainly the fact that we had three Lord of the Rings movies in THREE successive years didn't hurt that series, or FOUR Hary Potter movies over a period of FOUR years.

I suppose you're right about that. We have had Harry Potter films release quite close together and they've been juggernauts at the box office, but I can't shake the idea that Bond films are in a completely different league when it comes to these things.

Edited by Aussie21, 28 May 2006 - 06:13 PM.

[JimmyBond]

And, I'm not sure that hammering it home that Craig is Bond in this way is going to turn the public on to him.

Why not? We all know Casino Royale is'nt going to be the typical Bond film. Say CR is a moderate success, then the following year the public get to see Craig in a regular Bond film, and they'll go: "Hey, he really is good."

If only Lazenby could have gotten his "regular" Bond film as well.

[tdalton]

And, I'm not sure that hammering it home that Craig is Bond in this way is going to turn the public on to him.

Why not? We all know Casino Royale is'nt going to be the typical Bond film. Say CR is a moderate success, then the following year the public get to see Craig in a regular Bond film, and they'll go: "Hey, he really is good."

If only Lazenby could have gotten his "regular" Bond film as well.

I'm not saying that hammering it home that Craig is Bond isn't what they should be doing, but I don't think that doing it with films in back to back years is the way to go. Of course, they need to sell the public on Craig as Bond, but they need to do it by making quality movies and by getting the best performance out of Craig as possible. This, however, wouldn't be as likely if they were to turn around and start on Bond 2.2 even when Casino Royale was just in its first couple of weeks in theaters. Suppose CR fails at the box office? I can't imagine that they would want to continue in that same direction if it were a total failure (which I'm not saying that it will be, but this is the film that if it turned out to be a failure, would surprise me the least), then I don't think that they would want to go with the same type of film for 2.2, and if they already had the film in the works, are they supposed to shut it down and restart?

Even with that scenario aside, I think that EON needs take their time with 2.2. The thing about some of the other franchises that have been mentioned in this thread is that, one, they are finite series, so there's only going to be a a few films at most for those franchises. Also, they depend on having the same cast in all of them, so they have to be shot in consecutive years. And, secondly, they all are working off of books. The Bond franchise is completely different in both regards. First, the franchise has proven that it can (and must) withstand casting changes, whereas recasting Harry Potter or any of the Lord of the Rings roles would be detrimental to the films. Secondly, after Casino Royale, EON is out of Fleming novels to adapt for the screen, which means that they have to make up totally original storylines from here on out (unless they do a complete 180 and decide to adapt Gardner and Benson's novels for the screen). A screenplay that is original, I would imagine, would be more difficult and time consuming to write than one based off of a novel, since in the book it is all written out for the screenwriter. I would rather that EON take the time, craft a very good original story, get it re-written by Haggis or the guy mentioned in the other thread, and then take their time and make a good movie. I don't want to see them rush this thing out just to have "007 in 2007".

But, back to the main point here. I don't think that just having Craig in Bond films in consecutive years is what they need to establish him as Bond. If he does well as Bond in CR, then the people will accept him. If he doesn't, then they won't, and simply putting out another film the following year won't do anything to affect the public regardless of which direction they ultimately end up leaning regarding Craig.

[MarcAngeDraco]

You are looking at it as a Bond fan, but the general public don't follow Bond as closely as we, as fans, do. Certainly the fact that we had three Lord of the Rings movies in THREE successive years didn't hurt that series, or FOUR Hary Potter movies over a period of FOUR years.

Point taken, but if Harry Potter ever got to films 21 and 22 do you think there'd would still be enough market to do a film every year?...

[DLibrasnow]

I would rather that EON take the time, craft a very good original story, get it re-written by Haggis or the guy mentioned in the other thread, and then take their time and make a good movie. I don't want to see them rush this thing out just to have "007 in 2007".

tdalton - why are you believing that Bond 2.2 will be rushed? In fact they are going to have more preproduction time than they had for CASINO ROYALE. Where were they this time last year? They maybe had an unpolished script, they did not have an actor for James Bond.
Here we are at this same stage and we have a script that is being polished, a director and a Bond actor with cast. We already know that Bond 2.2 follows on directly from CASINO ROYALE (will there be a cliffhanger ending - who knows?) so what's more natural than to release the movie the next year when the ending to CASINO ROYALE is still fresh in the publics mind rather than a couple of years down the road when the public has moved on.
I really think the suggestion that they are merely doing this for a cheap marketing gimmick is pretty inane. I suggest there are other factors at work here.

But, back to the main point here. I don't think that just having Craig in Bond films in consecutive years is what they need to establish him as Bond. If he does well as Bond in CR, then the people will accept him. If he doesn't, then they won't, and simply putting out another film the following year won't do anything to affect the public regardless of which direction they ultimately end up leaning regarding Craig.

Well we have to look to history here. Pierce Brosnan took over from an unsuccessful Bond (let's face it, Dalton was never as popular as Moore or Connery at their height) so Brosnan aside, Roger Moore took over as Bond immediately following Sean Connery, who WAS Bond for most of the movie-going world. They shot out two movies in consecutive years and ended up having Moore as 007 for the next 12 years.

[tdalton]

Well we have to look to history here. Pierce Brosnan took over from an unsuccessful Bond (let's face it, Dalton was never as popular as Moore or Connery at their height) so Brosnan aside, Roger Moore took over as Bond immediately following Sean Connery, who WAS Bond for most of the movie-going world. They shot out two movies in consecutive years and ended up having Moore as 007 for the next 12 years.

I don't think that the having films in consecutive years was what established Connery and Moore as Bond for the general public. I think they just had a certain star quality about them that the public connected to, in a way that they didn't connect to Dalton or Lazenby. I won't argue your point about Dalton not being a popular Bond because you are right on that, he wasn't, and it was because he lacked the charisma that made Moore and Connery so likeable. But, it comes down to the actors as to how well they do in the role. I honestly don't believe that it has anything to do with them doing 2 films in consecutive years.

But, the real reason that they shouldn't be putting Bond 2.2 into production right now is because of the possibility of Casino Royale being a failure. If this film performs poorly at the box office, they will probably already have 2.2 cast, and in preproduction and then face the possibility of either having to cancel the film, have significant re-writes to the script, or going ahead with a picture that will be doomed from the beginning, which will then officially signal the end of the Bond franchise. EON, IMO, would be wise to wait, see how CR does, and if it's even just a moderate success, go forward with 2.2 as they have planned.

[jaguar007]

The average movie going public probably doesn't keep track when Bond movies come out. They probably could not tell you when the last one came out and come November 2007, most people probably could not tell you when Casino Royale came out. I doubt most casual film goers won't think twice about a Bond movie a year apart.

[Peter Guillam 006]

CR will not tank. That is not possible, good Bond or not people will all go to a 007 movie because they have certain guarantees. I think we might actually have some more sophisticated people going to see this movie since it appears to be much more stylish with a better script and actor then the last.
I'm wondering if anyone knows if they might be able to shoot some stuff for a trailer to be shown right after CR for bond 22?

[JimmyBond]

This, however, wouldn't be as likely if they were to turn around and start on Bond 2.2 even when Casino Royale was just in its first couple of weeks in theaters.

Casino Royale will be in theaters for a few months

If they follow the production schedule for Bond 22 that they used on Casino Royale, they wont actually start filming until January. When's Craig done filming? Next month perhaps. That gives Craig a good couple of months off to do another film and relax from Bond.