43 replies to this topic

[Alex Zamudio]

Hello Bond fans, I don't know if you were already aware of this info, but I just read that the head of MGM Alex Yemenidjian has declared that since DAD could make 450M worldwide, then if the next Bond flick will be produced in the next 3 years! (2005)

A fragment from the article:

"In recent years, MGM has tried to release a Bond movie about once every two years. But Yemenidjian said that was too fast in this case due to the strong success of "Die Another Day."


"We are going to take three years to do the next one, because if this one does $500 million in worldwide box office, the next one should do more," he told the investors at a UBS Warburg investors' conference.


"I think there is a very big risk in rushing these things and screwing up the value of your franchise," he added.

in a way this is kind of disapointing to me, I was hoping for a return to the 2 year gap, and while Mr. Brosnan is the billion dollar Bond, he is not getting any younger!!

Here is a link to the article: (hope it works!)

http://story.news.ya...dia_mgm_bond_dc

Regards.

Alex Zamudio

M

[Jeff007]

I'll never be able to wait three years to the next one. Wait a second...I've already done that once. Here we go again.

[Rayliottaasbond]

OH NO!!!!

The quality of Die Another Day is not because of the time we had to wait for it. Hell, they only started filming in January and wrapped in June for Gawd's sake. Basically they spent two years being bone idle, and they're doing it again. THANKS A BUNCH EON!!!!!

[JackChase007]

Yeah, that really is a load of *******. It only took them less than a year. I don't mind waiting until 2004. But 2005? That's ing ridiculous.

[zencat]

Come on guys, are you kidding me? We're talking about script development and pre-production and location scouting. This can easily take more than a year on a movie this size. A two year turnaround means you only have only 6 months or so to create the story and prep, which means P&W better be working on Bond 21 now. Two years means you're stuck and MUST go with whatever you have at the end of one year, including maybe the only director who can fit into the schedule--not necessarily the one you want. Two years mean they'd have to have a workable script and locations for Bond 21 by THIS summer. It's way too tight. The extra year gives them room to conceive a great Bond and hire the right director. Shooting is the end of a long process, not the start. Trust me, the extra year is good, good.

[SeanValen00V]

So should we all hope Bond does not too that well worldwide, not 500 million anyway, lets forget about praising DADs boxoffice, and hope it does worser, because that it seems, weird enough the faster way to get Bond 21.

I don't get it, that would be 2 bond films in 6 years!!!
Pierce is definately making 2005 as his last year of Bond then.

Although I think its too early for official statement, lets pray DAD does less well world wide then what that MGM guy is hoping.
Were all aging.

I don't get it, I thought it doing well, would make them get Bond 21 out sooner, so next time a Bond film comes out, we should hope it does less well, for a 2 year gap very strange, quality I think suffered anyway, with some cgi shots, with the 3 year break, 2 year break is enough at least for Bond 21, Brosnan is in his prime now, but seems they think 3 years is like 3 months, but it ages away, and your top Bond actor is talking about age, get him to do 2 more! Make it sooner. But is a rumour so who knows.
Article also says, recent years we've had Bond film every 2 years, nothing too recent about the 3 year wait after TWINE, that was a long time ago.

I think after the dad DVD is released, I can't imagine spending rest of 2003, 2004, and all of 2005 until the fall talking about Bond 21, DAD was a good Bond film, but hey, it wasn't perfect for me-cgi shots are proof of that, 3 year wait is nonsense.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i guess its going to be a long 3 years, so all we can do is just sit back and play our old bond movies1-19 and #20 when it comes out and just be patient

[raoul]

This is not what I've heard from sources very close to the production team. Pre-production is due to start in November 2003.

[mkkbb]

Yeah and it seems to contradict with the rumours of the next director. WEhy would they be choosing the next director so soon if they were shooting in 3 years time?

I really hope they can make it for 2004. 3 years seems too far away. They used to make them every 2 years. Why change that?

[YOLT]

No No No, I want Bond 25 in 2012 by doing 21 in 2005 it will be impossible.

[Icephoenix]

Im with Zencat on this, making movies of this size takes time. It's not just write up a script and grab a camera, it's alot more complicated, which im sure you all should know. Maybe they can finish the movie in 2 years, and spend the third perfecting any CGI that may be in B21

[M_Balje]

There is in 2004 too much movie's behind Bond.

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

But there is one change and that's bad news for the Other movie's in The Summer that can you see in that thread.
The release of Hp 3 is in The summer i don't know when.
But i think there change it again in The netherlands to November 25 2004.

But i wil see Bond in The Netherland's alone on 1 or 8 December 2005.
In The summer is not possible,we have the release of Starwars 3 in may 2005.
Follow in Augustus with The Hulk 2

But we have mabey Problems with 4 part of Harry Potter at the end of 2005.
Mabey there change the release of Bond to 22 December 2005 or again to January (2006).

Talk about this in this thread

http://forums.comman...=&threadid=7240

[homerjbond]

Could it be a Summer 2005 release (so technically it's 2 1/2-year wait)?

[Hank Scorpio]

I was thinking that too Homer. The success of Die another Day might force a move to the Summer of 2005. I think the Box Office would be HUGE in a mid-july release. The only other big movie for that Summer right now annouced is Star Wars Episode 3. Harry Potter 3 will be in 2004. If they sew up a time slot now, they'll make all the other studios schedule around them. Start the HYPE.

[Adam]

Well with the **** they produced with Die Another Day, they should probably give Bond 21 4-5 years instead of 3

[JackChase007]

Says you.

[DLibrasnow]

Why are people surprised by this?????

Pierce Brosnan after the release of TWINE said publicly that he wanted three years between Bond movies, so as far as I am concerned this is a non story

[kevrichardson]

thank god some @MGM has good sense. what's the point rushing into productiion another Bond. let enjoy this,why for serveral reason. Bronsan needs a rest,yes he gtting on , let be thank that after a 3 year break. he came back to this with his jucie recharged. the 2 year break, did not let him have the chance to purpse other film role. remember this was connery's great beef, trapped in the role for over 6 month. 2 and maybe most important, Bronsan CLOUT in hollywood may increase due to the buzz about the film Evelyn. Whyyou ask, wll he should at the very least get a Golden Globe nod and maybe award. more important given the weak field for Academy Awards foe best Actor this year no real favorite outside of Michael Caine. He at the least may be nomonated for a Best Actor. Something That did happen to Connery ,during his Bond years. especially concerning his performance in the movie "THE HILL" for 1965, which then generated a good deal of Oscar buzz back then. Members of the Acamedy Award no longer look down now actors who als make action-adventure film(that why bond films are,,bye the way). How does this help Bond 21,you ask. He came demand a script in the vein of FRWL,or finla have the clout to help gt his Version of Casino Royale on the big screen. given his interview in serveral magizines the role is his for as long as he wants it. yet he more than any does not ant to over staay his welcome like poor old Roger Moore. this is in may way's the best thing that can happen to the series. Casino Royale will be over 50 year old next year what better ay to celebrate than with a first rate Bond film, that will also make Bronsan last Bond.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat
Come on guys, are you kidding me? We're talking about script development and pre-production and location scouting. This can easily take more than a year on a movie this size. A two year turnaround means you only have only 6 months or so to create the story and prep, which means P&W better be working on Bond 21 now. Two years means you're stuck and MUST go with whatever you have at the end of one year, including maybe the only director who can fit into the schedule--not necessarily the one you want. Two years mean they'd have to have a workable script and locations for Bond 21 by THIS summer. It's way too tight. The extra year gives them room to conceive a great Bond and hire the right director. Shooting is the end of a long process, not the start. Trust me, the extra year is good, good.

It's disappointing news (for obvious reasons), but you're quite right, zencat. Another extra year won't go amiss.

[Red Widow Dawn]

I'm rather happy about it. The last good Bond movie was GoldenEye, which had ample time to develop. The following movies were made too quickly; especially TND.

Why not just hold off until 2007 altogether? Then they won't have to rush Bond 22.

[Sal J]

If u stop and think for a min if bond does come out in 2005 then wont that make Brosnan 52 yrs old

[Station T]

This is a bit of non-story, but for one thing: if it signals MGM's intention to standardize a three-year interval, it means no Bond 22 in 2007!

That would be a huge opportunity for a GOOD marketing campaign lost.

Ian

[Red Widow Dawn]

It would be terrible if MGM went bankrupt and the 007 franchise was bought by a competent company.

[paulcszt]

dose this mean no bond in 2007 i agree with station T it would be a huge marketing campaign lost

[General Koskov]

Well, we can see how a three year gap produced the Bondish Bond we all wanted, while those one-and-two year gaps produced such abismal failures as FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS...

Anyway, I think that any 'standardised gap' is rediculous. Putting these arbitrary deadlines on art is silly and pointless; MGM seems to be feeding soley to fans who, for whatever reason, demand a film every two years.

Maybe when they had novels to work with it made sense to say 'in two years we will make this film', but now, until a project is started, MGM or Eon should not put pressure on the screenwriters to come up with a good story. Sure Fleming churned the novels out once a year, but he had pent up thriller-writing all through the war! He had to let off steam! (The idea for TWINE was 'ripped from the headlines' and they had just made a Bond film about the dishonest, manipulative media!)

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Station T
This is a bit of non-story, but for one thing: if it signals MGM's intention to standardize a three-year interval, it means no Bond 22 in 2007!

That would be a huge opportunity for a GOOD marketing campaign lost.

Ian

I think that MGM would love Bond 21 in two years rather than three, but they are not wanting to upset Brosnan by going with a different 007.

Brosnan made it known after TWINE that he wanted a three year break between Bond movies.

I agree on all the comments on Bond 22 in 2007, 007 in 2007 - it's a marketing campaigners wet dream. I am guessing that if Bond 21 is Brosnan's last then we will still be able to get a Bond movie in 2007. After all, the major stumbling block - Brosnan - would not be a factor!

[jokemaster]

i don't care. as long as there's a good movie

[rubixcub]

I don't mind so much having to wait until 2005 for the next one, if it turns out well and is worth the wait. I hope they don't try to outdo themselves on the sheer mass of the next one.

I am of the belief that Bond 21 will be Brosnan's last, as it will make more sense to retire the role in his early fifties rather than mid to late fifties. Remember how different Roger Moore looked in Octopussy compared to FYEO? In that case, 2007 can be the year of our next man to don the tuxedo. Just so long as they don't blow the opportunity to capitalize on 'the year of 007' with a new film in the franchise. A tip: start the next guy out a little younger; just under 40 instead of just over.

Dave

[MrDraco]

I'm not wait 2005 thats a bunch of Bobbydanglers!
Man its not the time everyone waits its the story!....come up with good ideas in stories that time you guys sit on your lilly pads and come up with some new creative apporaches like DAD!!!! i write spy stores and i have three of them done in a span of two years and they're some what creative...

[RayBros007]

Well... There's an insider (I think) who posts on our site at AJB and he says that they are starting work on Bond 21 in January of 2004... He says that we have nothing to worry about. AND... He was pretty accurate with all of the stuff he said about DAD so I believe him;)...

Here's a link to the thread... http://www.ajb007.co...&topic_id=11334