10 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Something occured to me while writing a post in another thread.

MGM are re-releasing the DVD's through till late 2004. Now if they start re-releasing them to coincie with the release of DAD (2002) then maybe the final batch will come out in 2004 to coincide with the release of Bond 21.

Just a bit of speculation. But it would take us back to the 2 year gap. And give a 3 year gap taking us to 2007 for Bond 22.

[IndyJones]

I agree with that. Bond 21 will be released in 2004 because of the two year gap. Also why make the Bond fans wait another three years for Bond 21 like they did for Die Another Day?

[Blue Eyes]

DAD I can understand as they were aiming for a release in the 40th Anniversary. I always wonder if Pierce actually wanted the 3 year break as the media speculated, afterall, I think he only did one film in that time.

[Dalton]

I agree that there is more likely going to be a 2 year gap between DAD and B21. I saw a BBC report the other day with Brozzer and he said candidly without provoking that he'd like to round things off at 5 films. If he is being honest and isn't using this as leverage like RM did, then it'll give the Broccoli's a three year break until B22 to fing a new Bond and hone a script.

[Surrender]

have mgm actually said there's gonna be a 3 year gap from now on or r we just speculating because of DAD? hopefully they just held this 1 back to release it in the 40th anniversary year and bond 21'll be out in 2004

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
Just a bit of speculation. But it would take us back to the 2 year gap. And give a 3 year gap taking us to 2007 for Bond 22.

This would seem the most logical scenario to utilise 2007 as a release date for Bond 22. A tie-in with final DVD set release also seems logical, which I assume would include Bond 21.

A five year gap for Bond 21 is just unthinkable right now.

[Mr Trump]

I would like to see Bond21 in 2004 but personally I don't see it happening until 2005.
I also don't believe pierce would want only a 2 year gap as I once heard an interview where he said if it was up to the makers of Bond they would be made every 18 months where he thinks after making a action movie like Bond you need a break from it.

[JimmyBond]

Call me old fashioned, but I want a 2 year break again, the producers obliged Pierce, they gave him his 3 years off, I think they should go back to 2 years for this one and 3 years for the next, which would lead us to 2007, for the ultimate Bond year.

[Turn]

I have several mixed thoughts on the two- and three-year gaps between films.

First, it does seem logical for 2004 to be the target for the next one as to give Brosnan his final role and to let him get on with his career.

And I also agree a three-year gap after would give the time to do a search for a new Bond and to get the script in order, etc. But where to go from there.

It seems a lot of the bigger film franchises are using 3 or more years to get their next chapters off the ground. Keeping in mind the Bonds aren't as intense on creating special effects as, say, The Matrix or Star Wars, it's not the same world anymore. They learned a lot of lessons on TND with rushing a film to meet a release deadline.

That said, I don't dig the three-year gaps. The six-year one between '89 and '95 was bad enough, and I've had the fever since November of '99 for DAD. But if DAD proves as big a success as we all hope for, who knows? I'd rather have a successful, interesting entry rather than a mediorcre Man With The Golden Gun just a year and a half after the previous film, like happened after Live and Let Die.

[Simon]

If, and it is a big IF, the producers and marketing boys are actually aiming for Bond in 2007, I don't see why they can't do a 2 and a half year wait, put Bond 21 in the summer of 2005 and 22 in the winter of 2007.

If the IF doesn't exist, then revert to the 2 year gap. 3 years is far too bloody long!!

[Turn]

I'm not sure if I would want to see a Bond movie released in the summer again, at least not in the current climate. Look at the current U.S. summer season -- it's a bloody battlefield. There seems to be a new box office champion every weekend. And when films like Attack of the Clones and Minority Report, which combines the talents of Spielberg and Cruise, are considered underachievers, I certainly wouldn't want to put Bond in there to get lost in the shuffle or become a one-weekend wonder.

Licence To Kill was a prime example of Bond being a casualty of the U.S. summer blockbuster season in 1989. The freshness of fairly new franchises Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 as well as Indian Jones and the Last Crusade, etc. combined to make the series look old hat in comparison. The marketing played in also, but that has been covered elsewhere.

On the other hand, DAD faces stiff competition from the upstart Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises in the November holiday season this year. I wouldn't mind seeing Bond released in a more obscure season, February or March or even at the end of the summer when the other heavy hitters have faded.

I'm not saying the series is losing steam, just the fresher ones always seem to keep the momentum against the established franchises, until they lose steam. Just remember "James Bond Will Return"