12 replies to this topic

[neversaynever]

I didn't quite know whether to put this in this forum, or the Bond 22 one, but I put it here because we don't yet know that Pierce is going to do Bond 21.

When I was reading a different thread about who should come after Pierce as Bond #6, someone pointed out that whoever it is is going to be a big gamble. Pierce is Bond now. He's the $1 billion man.

So what happens when he does give up the job? My question is, do you think MGM will have another long break in between movies? Is that one of the reasons Pierce was accepted so readily - because people were just desperate for a Bond movie after 6 years? Hopefully, we won't have to wait another six years, but what do you think: could a fairly long break be a good thing in the long run, if it means people accept the new Bond? Or is it totally unnecessary?

For what it's worth, I'm one of the Clive Owen as Bond #6 supporters. And while I tend to think PB is starting to look a bit old, he's got a way to go yet before he gets to the Roger stage. But maybe he should give it up while he's at his peak, and before he gets too embedded, so the next Bond has an easier job at persuading the public... anyway, I'm repeating myself. I look forward to hearing people's views!!

Cheers!

[ChandlerBing]

If they cannot find anyone good to replace Pierce, they should wait. There is still an audience for Bond, but Dalton proved you cannot put just anyone in the part.

[freemo]

My question is, do you think MGM will have another long break in between movies? Is that one of the reasons Pierce was accepted so readily - because people were just desperate for a Bond movie after 6 years? Hopefully, we won't have to wait another six years, but what do you think: could a fairly long break be a good thing in the long run, if it means people accept the new Bond? Or is it totally unnecessary?

You make it sound like the the 6 year break was by choice, which it wasn't, it's not something one would deliberatly do.

[neversaynever]

Originally posted by freemo


You make it sound like the the 6 year break was by choice, which it wasn't, it's not something one would deliberatly do.

You're right, of course, it wasn't deliberate. But I didn't meant to imply that - I just meant that perhaps a consequence of the break was that it was easier to accept a new Bond.

Admittedly we've had a three year break before DAD, maybe that'd be enough, but my point was just that proceeding straight to a new Bond with only a years gap might mean the new Bond has "big shoes to fill".

Just a thought, anyway.

[Xenobia]

For the record, Pierce Brosnan has pretty much said that he will do Bond 21.

Now, as for what happens after that...I think a break of some kind will be necessary after PB just to let folks adjust to the idea that he will not be Bond anymore. We may need to wait also for someone to get old enough to play that role. (Hello, Hugh Jackman.)

I don't think they will need to wait the eight years that happened between LTK and GE, but I don't think they will snap right back after Brosnan's last Bond and eighteen months to two years later, come out with another flick.

I think the next Bond should make his debut three to four years after Brosnan is gone, to give Brosnan's shadow a chance to fade, Brosnan a chance to really distance himself from the role (if that is what he wants) and the new guy to give himself time to really prove that he can do it.

-- Xenobia

[rafterman]

I'm more interested in who will take over producing after Babs and Mickey G.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Since they're both relatively young people, I'd say that was a question to be answered in at least 30-40 more years. Producers have a much longer shelf life than leading men

[brendan007]

i think bond 21 should come out in 2004 with Brosnan, and that should be his last so he can retire on top.
then in the summer of 2007 Hugh Jackman should make his debut. this gives a longer break, but not too long as i dont think i could take this three year thing again

[Roebuck]

It really depends on when Brosnan decides to relinquish the part.
Most pundits thought that when Moore retired, Pierce would be the obvious replacement.There weren't that many 'known' actors who fitted the Bond mould.

On the other hand we now have wide field of actors who would be ideal for the role, but most of them are just a little too young. If Pierce is able to keep going till Bond 22 then there shouldn't be a problem.

[Jim]

Originally posted by brendan007
i think bond 21 should come out in 2004 with Brosnan, and that should be his last so he can retire on top.
then in the summer of 2007 Hugh Jackman should make his debut. this gives a longer break, but not too long as i dont think i could take this three year thing again

Regardless of whether I agree with your choice about who takes over after the current incumbent, I tend to agree with the timeframe; it's been mentioned many a time, but the opportunity for a film coming out in "007" is one for the taking, non?

[JimmyBond]

I'd really like to see Brosnan do his fifth film in 2004, then finish his reign as Bond with a sixth film in 2007.

I dont think a long break is necessary to "get rid of the shadow" Roger came into the role right after Sean left, so I think Jackman (if he is the new Bond) should debut in 2009.

[Xenobia]

A Bond film in 2007 is a must, I agree, and it would be fitting for Brosnan to leave then.

But what I think would be really fun is for Bond to appear in a new medium in that year...can anyone say TV miniseries?

-- Xenobia

[Carver]

I agree, Pierce should bow out in 2007. He is one of the greatest, but he can't go on forever, and I support Clive Owen as Bond #6 too. But, after Bond #6, will we have a Bond 7? I dunno, it would be great merchandising, but some horrible voice in the back of my mind says there won't be a Bond 7:(. Hopefully, there will be a Bond 7, and somewhere along the line, I'll take up the role:D