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.
Posted 09 May 2006 - 03:37 AM
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.
Posted 13 May 2006 - 04:54 AM
Posted 26 May 2006 - 11:58 PM
Posted 27 May 2006 - 12:10 AM
Posted 27 May 2006 - 12:22 AM
Edited by shady ginzo, 27 May 2006 - 12:23 AM.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 12:29 AM
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.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 02:09 AM
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.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 02:10 AM
having said that it did little to damage the matrix,
Posted 27 May 2006 - 02:22 AM
Posted 27 May 2006 - 02:23 AM
Posted 27 May 2006 - 02:23 AM
Edited by EyesOnly, 27 May 2006 - 02:25 AM.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 03:35 AM
Why wouldn't they bring Campbell back for Bond 22, that loses me!
Posted 27 May 2006 - 05:06 AM
Edited by Publius, 27 May 2006 - 05:07 AM.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 06:38 AM
Posted 27 May 2006 - 12:09 PM
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
Posted 27 May 2006 - 09:19 PM
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.
Posted 28 May 2006 - 02:46 AM
Posted 28 May 2006 - 03:02 AM
Edited by Aussie21, 28 May 2006 - 03:04 AM.
Posted 28 May 2006 - 03:03 AM
Posted 28 May 2006 - 05:38 AM
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.
Posted 28 May 2006 - 05:20 PM
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.
Posted 28 May 2006 - 06:12 PM
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.
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.
Edited by Aussie21, 28 May 2006 - 06:13 PM.
Posted 28 May 2006 - 11:15 PM
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.
Posted 29 May 2006 - 12:02 AM
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.
Posted 29 May 2006 - 01:58 AM
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.
Posted 29 May 2006 - 02:40 AM
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.
Posted 29 May 2006 - 04:36 AM
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.
Posted 29 May 2006 - 04:51 AM
Posted 29 May 2006 - 04:54 AM
Posted 29 May 2006 - 05:33 AM
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.