6 replies to this topic

[Blofeld's Cat]

Is this just wishful thinking or is it an educated guess, or is it confirmed.

[General Koskov]

Well, if MGM releases any Bond films a year apart, I hope they get it right and not give us The Man with the Golden Gun -type material.

[Dalton]

JReber007 (27 Apr, 2002 02:20 a.m.):
Die Another Day - 2002
Bond 21 - 2004
Bond 22 - 2006
Bond 23 - 2007

I too would like this to happen, the 3 year break is tedious. BUT, I can't see this happening.

I do not think that now the producers would only have a 1 year break between films. Reason being is that working the 2 year cycle barely gives them enough time. Bond 23 would have to be in pre-production during production of Bond 22, and I don't think the producers would have time to devote enough attention to both!

In theory B23 1 year after B22 sounds good, but I wouldn't sacrifice quality for the sake of 12 months.

[White Persian]

Blue Eyes (26 Apr, 2002 11:18 a.m.):
It's an educated guess BC. If MGM and Eon don't release Bond 22 in 2007 then they're the biggest idiots going as far as I'm concerned.

Well... this answers the question I just asked in the Bond 21 thread.

[Blue Eyes]

It's an educated guess BC. If MGM and Eon don't release Bond 22 in 2007 then they're the biggest idiots going as far as I'm concerned.

CommanderBond.Net is surging ahead, preparing not only for Die Another Day but subsequent Bond films as well. Stay tuned for more updates!

[Blofeld's Cat]

It maybe the incentive for PB to do Bond 22 and to forego the 3 year break to take advantage of getting involved in the whole 2007 hoopla that will no doubt be generated.

It will only happen once this millenium.

[JReber007]

Argh.

That's all I have to say, argh. 2007? Bloody hell. I'll be a senior in college if Bond 22 is released that year. Good news? I could care less, but I'd be hoping MGM would have 007 at BOnd 23.

After some quick thinking, I have deduced the following:

Die Another Day - 2002
Bond 21 - 2004
Bond 22 - 2006
Bond 23 - 2007

Why B22 and B23 only a year apart instead of two? Rather, why have a new one come out every other year except 2006 and 2007? I'll tell you why. By this time we'll be on the new Bond. Brosnan, in my opinion, will leave after Bond 21. We bring in a younger Bond. Then the next two films are related. A shock ending, leading to the next film. B22 is a cliffhanger (though no 007 can be called a cliffhanger, unless you count OHMSS - most people don't seem to), B23 picks up where B22 left off. Filming the films back to back would save money and production costs.

That's how I see it anyway. Warner Brothers is doing it with the Matrix - Reloaded and Revolutions, both come out in 2003. (May 3 2002 and the other in time for Christmas.)

It seems plausible to me. How about the rest of you?