20 replies to this topic

[Felix_Leiter]

We should start a petition for MGM/EON to start churning out Bond films just like they did in the old Connery days. Instead of having one mega budget film every 3 years, have 2 or 3 medium budget films. It is a bloody pain waiting for these films to come out, I mean I can't believe it's been 2 years since TWINE! Bond films make money, it's that simple. Come on, give the people what they want!

[Stuart007]

Time must fly for you - its three years since TWINE. And I'm sorry but if quality suffers for speed then no. Look at what we got when there was a quick turn round with TMWTGG. I suppose the other problem is when we wait three years and get a **** film. Thankly apart from a few moments, this is not the case with DAD. They will have to do something to speed up production as Bond 22 MUST come out in 2007.

Stuart

[Icephoenix]

It's all about patience. I'd rather see a great Bond film, then many low-budget cheesy ones. For me, I prefer Quality, not Quantity.

[YOLT]

In 2012 it must be Bond 25, no way, to do this Bond 21 in 2004 Bond 22 in 2006 and Brosnans last Bond 23 in 2007. In 2010 a new Bond and Bond 24, and in 2012 50 years and 25 films!!! 2 year gap is just perfect. 2007 is a special year so they can give first just a year gap then 3 years and a new Bond. Amazing:)

[SeanValen00V]

I don't think DAD benefited from the 3 year wait, special effects seemed rushed, with all that time, they still were rushing to a deadline, its always like that, 40th anniversay was the reason for a 3 year wait, buts its over, hope it returns to 2 years.

[SeanValen00V]

Originally posted by YOLT
In 2012 it must be Bond 25, no way, to do this Bond 21 in 2004 Bond 22 in 2006 and Brosnans last Bond 23 in 2007. In 2010 a new Bond and Bond 24, and in 2012 50 years and 25 films!!! 2 year gap is just perfect. 2007 is a special year so they can give first just a year gap then 3 years and a new Bond. Amazing:)

Bronsnan will do a 5th, 6 would be pushing it, his own words.

I say a new Bond in 2007. 2004 or 2005 Brosnan's last, then 2 year or 3 year gap to 2007, I think it would be better to celebrate 2007 with a new Bond, rather say goodbye to a existing Bond, all in all, if Pierce was to do a 6th, he'll be about 5 years older, and he's seems just right now.

The way some of us talk about years is amusing, its not months or days, human beings age, and look different, and Pierce wants do all the running and jumping, so a 5th would be his last, a 6th would surprise us, but I wouldn't hope for it. But you never know I guess.

[Sir James]

Well, DAD was worth the three year wait IMO, so if that means three years for a high quality Bond, I am fine with that.

[Turn]

The logistics of moviemaking have changed so much in the 40 years since the series started they would have a very tough time getting out a film a year. Every two years is fine with me.

[YOLT]

But in 2012 it must be Bond 25, how can they do it if they make Bond 22 in 2007?

[Icephoenix]

What must Bond 25 be in 2012?

21 - 2004

(3 year gap, for the best Bond ever!)

22 - 2007

23 - 2009

24 - 2011

etc, etc...

[YOLT]

It is 50 years in 2012 and it must be Bond 25, they waited 3 years to make 40 years and 20 films, they must find a way to make 50 years and 25 films. I want to see Bond 50 in 2062:)

[B5Erik2]

Ain't no way that Bond 25 will be out in 2012. And if the next Bond actor isn't successful, then we'll be lucky to see Bond 24 by 2012. Even if the next Bond actor wins over audiences, we'll still be lucky to see Bond 24 by 2012. With the money and logistics involved, they won't be able to do any better than that.

Besides, trying to rush out that many films will have a lot of negative consequences - rushed films = weaker output. Add that to what would again be oversaturation of the market like it was in the late 80's and it's a recipe for disaster.

[DMH]

Well think of it this way Pierce will be 52 or 53 when the next Bond Movie comes out but when Connery was 53 he made Never Say Never Again, and Moore was 52 when he made Moonraker so I would assume it was Pierce's last. In retrospect Moore at age 58 playing a super spy seems very laughable. The role demands alot, and thats why i think it wouldn't be terrible for Brosnan to fade out while he can still go, unlike Moore. On a side note, Hugh Jackman for James Bond number 6.

[PaulZ108]

I don't think they should rush, but I think the only reason we should have a 3 year gap any time soon is for a film in 2007 (that year just can't be passed up).

I seem to remember seeing that Brosnan wanted an extra year for other projects. I hope he doesn't expect this again if that's true. He's not getting any younger and I'd love to see him do a few more films before he starts to really show his age.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

No, don't churn out the Bond movies, please. 2 years at a time is enough.

2004 for Pierce's last, swansong. As much as I hate to see him go, he is visibly aging. Let's have him bow out at his peak, and not when he has aged to the point of lost credibility.

Just as opportunity knocked for Pierce to accept the role of James Bond in 1993, Pierce should know when to leave "with grace" when the time comes calling. Brosnan's public comments have only reinforced this notion (he knows this too), and we have only to watch AVTAK for reconfirmation that an old Bond, is well, no longer very much a credible Bond, on several levels.

And 2007 for Mr. X.

[SeanValen00V]

Actually on another note, 2007 for numbers sake sounds good, but forget the numbers for a moment, if the producers find a new Bond after Pierce's last maybe in 2004, then I'll like to see new Bond in 2006, because he'll be aging too, people have their Bond choices now like Hugh Jackman, who I think could play Bond now, but the more you wait, the more choices evaporate, because a new Bond actor now has to be looking the part for 6 years, 2 years per movie, for at least 3 films and then'll we look back, and say they should have gotten MR X's movies out a year earlier, we could of gotten another Bond from him, so I don't think 2007 is for sure, EON and MGM will decide, what if the studio needs money, and wants profit from a Bond film before then, you never know, nothing is for sure.

[JackChase007]

So many numbers....

[YOLT]

I will stop watching Bond films if they dont make Bond 25 in 2012, 50 and 25 are the numbers to make the most profitable film ever!!! If they waited 3 years to make Bond 20 and 40 years, they must do everything to make Bond 25 in 2012.

[White Tuxedo]

Who the hell cares if they come out in some stupid anniversary order? TLD celebrated 25 years. Was it Bond 12 1/2? No.

As long as there still IS a Bond by the time 2012 roles around I'll be happy. You can't take some meaningless multiples and come up with a good movie. I didn't watch DAD and keep thinking "40 divided 2 is 20." I just enjoyed the movie.

So, if you wanna make 2007 a Bond year, I'm all for it. The same for 2012, but I don't care about the math.

[White Tuxedo]

Also, if the Bond people had their way Bond 20 would have been in 1997. We jumped two Bond years (91 and 93) with the legal ****, so we wouldn't even having this discussion.

[YOLT]

Never mind 30 years, or even 40 ( EON THOUGT IT), but 50 is a special number, like 100 or 25, it can take peoples attention easily, and Bond 25 will be the most profitable film ever if it is done in 2012. Its not stupid its about money. I dont say that Bond 30 must be in 2022, never mind, but Bond 25 must be in 2012.