20 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

I want to see P.B's 5 in 2005, 6 in 2006 and 7 in 2007, can it happen what do you think about it?

[BondChick4ever8]

I don't think Pierce will be up to that many more. Probably just 1 more.

[JimmyBond]

I think Pierce might do six, but I dont think they'd ever do one a year. Thats just too little time for the mammoth productions the Bond films are now.

[Tedley King]

Besides, if they made a movie a year, would they not have to begin post production now ready for production to being in early January? Also they would run out of ideas pretty soon with a movie a year!

[Carver]

I reckon that the producers should just go back to the old regime of one film every 2 years, it would be better that way. BTW, my thoughs on Pierce? 1 more, thats all.

[scaramanga]

Pierce probably reckons he could do another two, but I personally believe he's only got one more left in him. But I agree, bring back the 2 year gap, at least for Bond 21.

[Doctor Martin]

Pierce is bloody old and looking old as well, so he won't make it until 2005.

[Blue Eyes]

I think Pierce could make 2007, that being his 6th and final film. I'd like to see him do 2007 if he's not aging too much. But if he's not suitable for the role I'd be more than happy if the new Bond stepped in, 2007 would be a great year to launch a Bond career.

[Mister Asterix]

They could do that schedule if they started to script now and started pre-production soon and had three related stories that might share some major sets. It could be done but the biggest stumbling block would be getting Brozzy to sign on the dotted line. I don't think he'd want to spend that much time on only Bond. Maybe the next guy would be okay with that schedule.

[Loomis]

I'm pessimistic: I see Bond 21 coming out at Xmas 2005 at the earliest, and I imagine it will be Brosnan's last appearance as 007.

Obviously, I don't know the actor, and I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but frankly I don't get the impression he wants to do more than one more Bond film, if that.

I could be wrong, and even if I'm not, that could of course change, but I reckon he'll want to quit while he's ahead and before he's seen as past it (hello Roger Moore in A VIEW TO A KILL), and the Bond filmmakers for their part will be looking to revitalize the franchise and interest in it by bringing in someone new as Bond.

[brendan007]

if pierce gives out the impression that he doesnt want to continue being bond, its more likely just a ploy to get a bigger paycheck for the next few films. if he plays hard to get, the producers will throw money at him. i want two more films from pierce, then bring in the new guy.

[Double-0 Six]

I'm no psychic, but my prediction is that Brosnan will film Bond 21 in late 2004. The producers will want Bond 22 out for 2007 and that film will either be promoted as Brosnan's last or the first Bond film for the new guy.

Personally, I'd like to see Brosnan do six (he's said himself that 6 is a good number) and then for a new Bond to take over for Bond 23 in 2009 or 2010.

[00Evan]

I agree with 006 that Brosnan will do Bond 21 in 2004 but that it will be his last and final appearance. 2007 will be used as a marketing tool for the next Bond film and a new Bond. Can't you see the slogans: Its 2007 and the year belongs to (insert new actor playing 007 to say) "Bond...James Bond." The the music kicks in and a trailer of sorts. Hopefully that actor will be Hugh Jackman, but whoever it is, i think they will get very good publicity since the year ends in 007.

[Xenobia]

As far as I know...he has said he will tie Connery's record at six...and that, if they time it right...that sixth and final one can come out in 2007.

That being said, I think since

Spoiler

DAD will have a story line that continues into Bond 21 that the two films should have been filmed back to back like the Matrix II and III

.

-- Xenobia

[freemo]

Jeez, I wouldn't even worry about "2007", I'd resume the two years between films ahve have the next three in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Is there really a need to have three years between Bonds ? I question weather or not it improves the product since they don't seem to do much with the extra year, and all it really does is keep Bond out of the public eye for an extra year, and have everyone concerned get a year older.

[brendan007]

i agree with freemo. as good as it would be to have a bond film in 2007, i do not want to have another three year break just for the sake of that. three years is way to long to wait for a new bond film.

[freemo]

Yeah, I just don't see the point.

Ofcourse, I was assuming that they'd always release the film in Novemeber. Thinking about it more, they could go the two and a half year break between 21 and 22 and release 22 on 7/7/2007. I guess I could bare that.

[rubixcub]

When does MGM usually announce the year for the next Bond film? In other words when do you think they'll announce Bond 21's release year?

That said, I would like to see a new Bond introduced in 2007 and have Pierce wrap it up after 5 before he starts to look too old for the part a la Moore. Remember also what happened to Connery and Moore in their respective sixth outings as 007- DAF and Octopussy were silly, tacky, convoluted and poorly edited. That's not to say that it wouldn't have been that way with a different actor, but at the same time perhaps the bringing in of a new actor would've bred a new approach to the character and to the script- look at the change in script and character from Moore to Dalton, for example, or from Dalton to Brosnan.

My point is, precedent has shown us that five is a good way to go out gracefully, and I'd rather that Brosnan got out gracefully than risked making another DAF.

Dave

[YOLT]

I think 2007 is a great year to have a last P.B film or a new 007. Think of it 2005 2006 and 2007 full of Bond and in 2009 a new Bond, I think it will be great.

[ChandlerBing]

Oh, good, that way Matthew Perry can jump in there in 2007. Can't wait.

[SeanValen00V]

It was interesting about Roger and A view to a kill, the producers never hassled him say, ok, your old, its ok if you leave, it was purely Roger's decision. And for Pierce, it will be his decision.