20 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Lets look at it from a business standpoint at first, MGM is a bad company, the only thing keeping them afloat right now is Bond. They were against the 3 year wait from the very beginning, its a wonder they ever allowed it, but they did. I really dont think that they will want to wait another 3 years for a Bond film, I'm sure they will get the producers back down to the 2 year gap after DAD.

Another reason, Brosnan aint getting any younger, he should have at least 2 more left after DAD, and if he keeps the 3 year gap, that might not be viable. I think Brosnan might know this too, plus, he got his 3 year gap, he made a few films, had his fun, plus I think he enjoys doing the films regardless of his gripes.

[Xenobia]

I think Brosnan will probably do another one in 2004 only because he is making two (at least) films through his own production company Irish Dreamtime, and will probably need to replenish the coffers with Bond money by the end of 2003.

-- Xenobia

[M_Balje]

Alone 23 december 2004 why reet this:

http://forums.comman...=&threadid=4205

[Sir James]

Well I would like to say the two year wait back, this three year gap thing is unbareable!

[Tanger]

I'd guess there would be a better chance now of a two year wait. Partly due to casting. If there is indeed more than one recurring character in DAD then these will already be onboard and there will need to be less time spent on casting. Also, some same loactions could be used which would save time on scouting. It would also make the script easier to write as there's already a back story.

[walther]

Originally posted by Sir James
Well I would like to say the two year wait back, this three year gap thing is unbareable!

You said it! This whole thing makes me feel like I pissed a whole year of my life away waiting for the next Bond film.

Wait a sec... I did piss a year away waiting for this!

[Xenobia]

I think though it is only fair to the actor playing Bond to have a three year gap...because when he is filming that is one year of his life taken from him...so if he wants to do other things, he really needs the other two years (one year filming the Bond, two years free) to do other things.

-- Xenobia

[Sir James]

well Xen really has a point, while there may be a three year break for the fans, for the porducers and cast and crew there really us not a break. As soon as TWINE came out, I am sure Purvis and Wade started wrting DAD, then tyring to find locals to match what they were talking about. Its a not stop job working behind the scenes and not just for Brosnan.

[brendan007]

this may sound harsh but i couldnt care less if brosnan and the crew have to continually work to get Bond films out every two years, i hate this three year wait thing.
they are getting paid for it, and it must be enough for them to want to continue so they should get back to work and give us what we want.
lets face it, they have the best jobs in the world, if they dont like it they can come and do boring old 9-5 jobs like the rest of us; which ill be forced to do next year when i finish school

[zencat]

Whatever, just long as they time it so we get a Bond film in 2007. I can see the teaser poster already. All it says on it is "2007" -- but the "007" part of it is the logo. Sweet.

[BondNumber7]

I don't like the three year gap thing either, but I am reminded of something freemo once said on Bondian Mayhem. They may do a two year gap, than a three, than a two, and a three and so forth. So there might be a chance that Bond 21 will be released in 2004. I just don't think the producers should force us all the time to wait three years like Lucas does with his fans. Oh, we can all remember Lucas commiting the ultimate sin by making everyone wait 16 years for Episode 1. This is a Bond forum so forget Lucas and sorry that I brought him up. They just need to do a two year gap between DAD and Bond 21 and even in the future. If they waited 3 years every time, Brosnan's age would be affected in a negetive way.

[Tedley King]

What would you say if they were to go back to the 1 year thing? I know it would be tough and so on, but could you cope watching a Bond film 1 year then straigh away reading about production of the next Bond underway?

[BondNumber7]

I once heard that Bond 22 was to be released in 2006 with Bond 23 in 2007. This was never confirmed, but I do think they should try to do a one year gap. It would be difficult with one film being shot and another being written at the same time. I wonder how they did it back in the sixties. We should not forget however, that TMWTGG suffered as a result of being too close to LALD.

[JimmyBond]

They did it because the films were a much smaller scale. Back then they the films didnt have huge elaborate action sequences like they do now. Now on the other hand, if Bond 22 was a small scale Bond film (Casino Royale perhaps?), then presumably they could get it out in a years time, then get going on the next film.

[WarBird]

I think Brosnan's good for anther two.

[scaramanga]

Surely Bond 21 will be released in 2004 for the 40th anniversary of Goldfinger? It's ideal if it's Brosnan's last Bond, leaving a 3 year gap for the next actor to step in for 2007.

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by BondNumber7
I once heard that Bond 22 was to be released in 2006 with Bond 23 in 2007. This was never confirmed, but I do think they should try to do a one year gap. It would be difficult with one film being shot and another being written at the same time. I wonder how they did it back in the sixties. We should not forget however, that TMWTGG suffered as a result of being too close to LALD.

As you will know the story about LALD and TMWTGG,must you see the Feature's: Inside LALD and TMWTGG on the two Special edition dvd's.

[Doubleshot]

Lucas commited the ultimate sin by making TPM as horrible as it was.

I don't mind the three year wait as long as it's worth it. If Bond 21 is indeed Brosnan's last, I agree that a further three year wait for Bond 22 should take place in order to give the public a breather and recharge their batteries for another Bond cast (as I have a feeling that everyone except John Cleese and possibly Judi Dench will be leaving) and a whole new direction for the series. So I'd be completely for having Bond 21 in 2004 and Bond 22 in 2007.

[JimmyBond]

Personally, I'd like to see Pierce do six, matching Connery (thats not counting NSNA). I think after six that would be enough, then a new Bond could be introduced, but I want Pierce to do six, even though it seems the general opinion is that he'll quit after five.

[Zero Zero]

Originally posted by JimmyBond
....., but I want Pierce to do six, even though it seems the general opinion is that he'll quit after five.

I think the odds of Pierce doing 6 flicks are good, i've read 2 interviews recently, in both Pierce has said that "6 is a good number, then never come back". Make of that what you will.

He also went on to say that if he was to go for 7 in total (i.e. another 3 movies), then "that would be another 7 years". I think that this indicates that he makes this assumption based on the 2 year cycle (2004,2007,2009).

[Zero Zero]

Having said that. I predict that 2007 will be Pierce's last outing as Bond.