43 replies to this topic

[Xenobia]

There are lots of different factors at play here that we need to address:

1) The three year thing:
a) Three years between them would be good, and I know that is what Brosnan has said that is what he *wants* but it doesn't mean he can get it. I don't think IDT has anything solidly booked for 2003 and Brosnan has monetary issues that he must secure while he still can. It is entirely possible that they could film at the end of 2003 beginning of 2004. How is that possible????
Let's remember that DAD was supposed to be a cliffhanger originally which means there is a very good chance that Bond 21's script could be ready to go or will be ready to go as of the summer. And given the fact that DAD was so heavily re-written as filming began...my guess is, if they are going to speed up the timetable, the final script will be "Locked down" after filming has begun.
c) The guy from MGM can say whatever he wants....he may not be there much longer. Even if DAD saves MGM from their disasterious year, they will probably still be going on the selling block, and when it is sold, chances are the new owners are going to get rid of lots of people, Mr. Yemenidjian being one of them.

2) The Brosnan factor:
a) See "a" above and
Can we all just accept the fact that Brosnan is not Moore, and that he is aging a lot better than Moore did. Moreover, Brosnan only noticeably ages every five years. So 1997 was a year, 2002 was a year...and the next one will be 2007. He will look fine whenever Bond 21 is made, and if he decides to do one more....and it could be in 2007, HE WILL DO IT JUST FINE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

3) 007 in 2007
a) Yes it can happen...especially if this is Brosnan's last, I think he won't mind a lessening of the three year break. (What would he care, he would never do it again.)
If the movie is filmed in 2003-2004, that means it could come out in 2004 or early 2005. Fine. So the first film came very early, but that three year break comes in between this and 2007.

That's my two cents.

-- Xenobia

[PaulZ108]

Anyway, I don't know much about the process but if the two year gap is what made Die Another Day so much better then I won't mind another. But ONLY if it's to allow more time for production. I really dislike Brosnan's demand for an extra year in between films. It's as if he wants to have the star power and cash flow of Bond and still be able to work on other products at the same time.

[SeanValen00V]

I hope everyone rights about Bond 21 maybe being in 2004 now, websites say 2005 is official, but the MGM man didn't say it as if it was official.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by SeanValen00V
I hope everyone rights about Bond 21 maybe being in 2004 now, websites say 2005 is official, but the MGM man didn't say it as if it was official.

No people are wrong. It's simply an example of wishful thinking. And to the other poster - are you seriously suggesting that Brosnan should NOT work on other projects between James Bond movies???

Three years is quite a logical and acceptable time frame between movies. Look at the original Star Wars -- 1977, 1980, 1983. Or the first two Indiana Jones movies in 1981 and 1984. You could also note that there was a FOUR year delay between the last Star Trek movie and the new one...hmm... 4 years, now there's an idea (just kidding)

[PaulZ108]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
[B]

And to the other poster - are you seriously suggesting that Brosnan should NOT work on other projects between James Bond movies???

Not at all. But for him to insist that they be spaced out more than normal for him is a bit annoying.

Anyway, I'm sure it'll be better for the film in the long run. Now if they miss 2007 because of that...

[JimmyBond]

I'll make my point clear if people dont want to read through what will probably end up being a long post. To me, as long as the movie is great, I dont care when the heck it comes out.

Now, all this bitching, why? Because you have to wait longer to see the film? So what? Why should this even be an issue? Have we as a society gotten so impatient that we can no longer endure long periods of wait? I mean, we had to wait six years for GoldenEye, surely 3 cannot be that long.

Another thing I've been seeing, some people seem to be implying that MGM owe us something, they dont, niether does Eon. They bust their to churn out an entertaining film every few years, we have nothing to complain about...sure theres film quality, but thats another post entirely. Another thing, people are seemingly getting upset that a Bond film may not come out in 2007, ITS ONLY A NUMBER! Get over it, I wont be losing any sleep over the fact that a Bond film might not come out in 2007. If Brosnan wants to do two more, he'll do two more, I mean, its not like he's going to be 60 by 2007, so why should it be a problem at all? Like Xen said, the man is not ageing as badly as Moore was, he simply is not.

Sure it's not confirmed, 2004 is a nice prospect, but if it doesnt happen, it doesnt happen. In the end its up to Eon and MGM, and I trust theyll make the choice that they feel is right.

[mattbowyer]

Where to begin.

Does anyone remember that for the last forty years Bond movies have come out every two years (obviously not every time but its the overwhelming standard) and that this has worked fine.

Does anyone think DAD is so extraordinary, and that if you do because they had a year to do it.

Does anyone think that this is Brosnan's last movie and thus they'll only have a two year wait with a new actor for bond 22 in 2007.

And does anybody remember that this is the 20th film and 40th anniversary but there has been zero marketing to the general public about this. I doubt anymore will be done with 2007.

How anyone can want another year's wait is beyond me. I really don't think I can take it again. Questioning my religion here. I really am.

[brendan007]

Originally posted by mattbowyer

And does anybody remember that this is the 20th film and 40th anniversary but there has been zero marketing to the general public about this. I doubt anymore will be done with 2007.

what are u talkin about? everytime i hear the movie mentioned in the media they always mention the 20th film 40th anniversary thing. i thought they adverstised the anniversary to death in some ways.

[Blue Eyes]

If they wait till 2005 that's fine with me. There's a lot more riding on the year spacing. Bond is essentially a business. For the whole turn around on a film - start to finish - could take three years for Eon/MGM to make their full money. It's the same reason that recording artists release albums every two years and not one.

As long as they make Bond 22 in 2007 I'm happy.

[DLibrasnow]

Pierce Brosnan has long been on record as wanting a three year break between movies (he wanted a three year break between TND and TWINE), by the time TWINE rolled around he had enough clout (as an established 007) to make this (three years) the standard break between movies.
I am sure cash strapped MGM would LOVE to make 007 movies every two years.
I do agree with you on the 2007 thing, Blue Eyes...Maybe MGM will grow enough balls to tell Pierce they are going to release a Bond movie in 2007 with, or without him!

[kevrichardson]

who said that there willl boe a Bond movei in 2007. let just enjoy this. and pray that the futue one in 2005 in better than DAD. Bronsan will be 52 years old. For Aston Martin fan a new car will be out by then , and since Aston Martin ,accroding most post has a 3 picture deal. it will more than likely be in the film. i like many other are just hpoing that Casino Royale gets use, in plot and title. Let just enjoy the rcent film and watch it go to the $500.Million dollar mark . and be proud that there is still life let in the old boy yet(james that is)

[WC]

I think Bond 21 should come out in 2012. Here's why:

1) Brosnan will have had a nice long rest, especially after such vigourous activities as that para-sailing in DAD, and will be ready to get to work.

2) It will be the 50th anniversary of Bond - they can market it as Bond 21, 50th Anniversary despite there being no apparent symmetry about those numbers.

3) Lee Tamahori might have matured as a director.

4) The shadow of xXx might have long vanished, so that Bond will not have to be fitted in unnaturally into the extreme sports mould.

5) A 6 year wait between LTK and GE did wonders for the franchise - so instead of 6 years, let's add an extra four.

6) Any complainers of DAD will have had to put up with the film for so long it might actually grow on them.

7) Other Bond actors ready to take up the role after Bond 21 will have aged sufficiently.

So you see, it's not that we should be complaining about another 3 year wait, but we should be complaining that it isn't 10 years instead.

[Wade]

I cannot see how the company can't release a Bond film in 2007. Hell, remake "Casino Royale." No one's done it right yet, and it is the seminal work in Fleming's canon. But there must be a film in 2007.

[YOLT]

OK with Bond21 in 2005, and 22 in 2007. But if the year 2007 is important so is 2012, 50 years of Bond. So Bond 25 must be in 2012. I think 23 in summer 2008 and 24 in winter 2010. The new Bond wont be like PB I think he will accept 2 or even 1,5 years break.