39 replies to this topic

[chad bradly]

I would like to raise a few questions about the three year gap MGM seems to be leaning towards for future Bond movies. MGM feels that the three year space between TWINE and DAD did wonders at the boxoffice. My question to the forum: Is this three year gap a good thing or a bad thing for the Bond franchise? What are the advantages and dis-advatages to a three year wait?

One would think that three years would add time to develop a story and create a stylish well developed movie. Also, time to develop partnerships and ad campaigns would be present. Surely the advantage to marketing is obvious, as three years would give greater time to create a winning formula.

One major disadvantage with a three year wait is the length of which an actor can play Bond. With three year gaps MGM can only put out three Bond movies a decade -- instead of five. This translates into switching actors more often to play Bond. Maybe this is a good thing, but I feel it isn't. Unless MGM starts geting younger actors to play Bond, say 32-34, they will be to old to play Bond after three movies. If an actor is in his fourties when he starts to play Bond after three movies, well you do the math. We have Roger Moore in AVTAK, and believe me he had a "baby face" in LALD.
Anyways members this is a question that I present to you, let's hear your ideas on this issue.

[kevrichardson]

Well in the case of DAD it did many things positive . 1 was a good story and more time for preparation . It also gave Brosnan a chance to branch out a little more as an actor. Meaning , he as able too "star" in other films like "The Tailor of Panama" , "Evelyn" . And i think i was good for the "juices" . The Eon people where not under pressure too start production with a "un finished " script. Bond film are legend for the numerous re-writes. I feel it allowwd Puris and Wade greater "creative time " to update the material they use for Moonraker (the first half of the book) . The infamous product placement , the most important one being the return of the Aston-Martin . Unlike the Z8 for TWINE , this was a finished car . the time was used also , to allow for judgement in casting . one of the problem with TND was the script was unfinished by thetime the production date can . Also that prevent the original choice for Elliot Carver , Sir Anthony Hopkins for assuming the role. It now just takes this long to put a Bond into production. We all remember the 2 year break and that seemed long enough . Well a lot is now riding on a Bond movie , not just the fans reaction .but the financial pay off also . let's face it , if the film failed it would have been the end of not just Bond . But also MGM /Eon , both had a great deal at stake here. So it was not just a longer wait coinside with the 40th , it was more complex. With the great financial gain for all involved ( Eon , MGM , Bronsan ) it can only hepl Bond 21 . It has been already established that MGM wants more of the DAD style film. It that good or bad , then that's what these forums are for. Overall i think that it was good for Bond since there is now more interest in Bond and every thing Bond. example the release of the expand Bond soundtracks for EMI .

[M_Balje]

The 3 years gap between Twine and Dad must neding for the 40 years Anneversery.

There are problem's in 2001 and 2002.

LORD OF THE RINGS 1&2,HARRY POTTER 1&2,SEPTEMBER 11 2001
As there plan a release of November/december 2001,there must it change after september 11 2001.
An there release it 2002 after all.

I am happy with the 3 years gap between Dad and Bond 21.
In The Summer and at the End of 2004 there are too much Movie's on the same time.
In The Summer 2005 is that the same.

For a better movie is it needed,i think.

[kevrichardson]

9 /11 had nothing too do with the 3 year wait it was announced after TWINE. It was just , added to the 40th . 9 /11 had something too do with the locations since a fear of travel abroad set in . the decision was made to limit location film and keep the first unit and the second in England at pinewood . This is way the hovercraft chase was shot in England , and just the car chase from the ice palace was shot in iceland .the final part of the chase was in Pinewood.

[DLibrasnow]

Pierce Brosnan is the person responsible for the three year gap.

Following the release of TWINE he made no secret of the fact that he wanted a three year break between movies.

As long as Brosnan is 007, fans can expect a three year wait between movies.

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
9 /11 had nothing too do with the 3 year wait it was announced after TWINE. It was just , added to the 40th . 9 /11 had something too do with the locations since a fear of travel abroad set in . the decision was made to limit location film and keep the first unit and the second in England at pinewood . This is way the hovercraft chase was shot in England , and just the car chase from the ice palace was shot in iceland .the final part of the chase was in Pinewood.

What i mean is that as it not the 40 years anneversery is.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

YEP, as long as bros. is bond the 3 year thing will stand

[Turn]

I also will confirm that Brosnan is the man responsible for there being a 3-year gap between TWINE and DAD. The fact it fell on the 40th anniversary was a good coincidence.

As far as the future, I look at it like this: with DAD as hot as it is as far as rekindling interest in Bond, a 3-year gap may be too long for people who want more Bond to wait, especially those who just discovered the series. Some may have went to DAD on a whim and liked it and would like to see more. But if it was just a casual interest, they may not be as receptive. DVD rereleases and cable runs can only do so much, although video games help.

By then, another new crop of younger people may have to be convinced to see Bond, starting the process all over again. And Brosnan's not getting any younger. If young girls are the untapped audience, it's unlikely a guy in his early 50s will tap that market. Let's hope they don't counter that by brining in some boy band guy as a contact or anything.

On the other side, they don't need to rush something that will be bad into production either. We don't want another TMWTGG (although I'm a fan of the film).

[DLibrasnow]

Right now Brosnan has so much clout as the reigning 007, MGM is probably unwilling to p*ss him off by cutting the time back down to two years between movies.
He made it quite plain after TWINE opened that he wanted three years between the movies.

[Turn]

True. He is the golden boy and deserving of the credit. But will our friends at MGM allow this, particularly when he's their cash cow?

He may have needed the break, but at the same time, wouldn't he rather just fulfill his contract and get the final one out of the way and then go on to any other project he chooses?

[DLibrasnow]

I don't think so Turn. He really has a pretty good deal going right now as MGM is fronting the money for any movie Irish Dreamtime wants to make.

[Turn]

I didn't know that, but it makes sense.

It's just really depressing for those of us who had to wait between LTK and GE, TWINE and DAD and now this. It's a different world, but it kind of makes one envy audiences 40 years ago who got a new Bond film every year.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Turn
I also will confirm that Brosnan is the man responsible for there being a 3-year gap between TWINE and DAD. The fact it fell on the 40th anniversary was a good coincidence.

As far as the future, I look at it like this: with DAD as hot as it is as far as rekindling interest in Bond, a 3-year gap may be too long for people who want more Bond to wait, especially those who just discovered the series. Some may have went to DAD on a whim and liked it and would like to see more. But if it was just a casual interest, they may not be as receptive. DVD rereleases and cable runs can only do so much, although video games help.

By then, another new crop of younger people may have to be convinced to see Bond, starting the process all over again. And Brosnan's not getting any younger. If young girls are the untapped audience, it's unlikely a guy in his early 50s will tap that market. Let's hope they don't counter that by brining in some boy band guy as a contact or anything.  

On the other side, they don't need to rush something that will be bad into production either. We don't want another TMWTGG (although I'm a fan of the film).

oh i can see it now, they bring leonardo dicaprio, give him a big part and the movie breaks all kind of records. if he could do for bond what he did for titanic then that might be a good thing......................oh let me wake up cause i am having a bad dream

[11 11]

Brosnan may want a 3 year gap but Broccoli and Wilson have said over and over there will be a Bond in 2007. So Brosnan may want to rethink that one if he wants to make 2 more which he says he does.

Honestly the 3 year gap is a joke. I think if it three years to come up with a title like Die Another Day, and a movie that was not very well thought out, then we should have a Bond every year.

Basically, the 3 year gap makes no sense when in the past films with a 2 or even 1 year gap were better films than DAD.

The only reason I see for a agp would
A film like TMWGG does not go over well so they have an extra year till TSWLM
or the 6 year gap after LTK for numerous reasons

Those gaps did make since, and the movie following the gap was a big improvement over the previous film. In fact the best of the Moore or Brosnan movies.

This 3 year gap to have a movie which is no better than TND or TWINE, actually problably worse than either of them, just does not add up.

I know Bond fans do not want to hear that, but in reality that is pretty much it.

And Brosnan is not playing his cards well with the gap, at 49 you would think he would realize that. I notice his other films, during the break did not do much either, although Tailor of Panama was good.

The 3 year gap seems like an excuse to have a year off to me. Brosnan in other words.

[kevrichardson]

The clout that he "might" have with MGM . It's well derseved . Now they all meaning Eon , MGM and Brosnan need to see what the results of this film will be over the long period . Remember the film still has too open in other places around the world. And with the release of the DVD /VHS sale worldwide still to come . No one will forget the film that quick. The problems of TND with production and script , then the "poor" result from TWINE makes the 3 year wait a good thing.

[Spectre001]

The main problem (or lost opportunity) this would creat over the next decade in only being able to make another four movies by the 50th anniversary, not that this is a big deal but would have been nice.

[PaulZ108]

This will probably piss some of the Brosnonites, but it REALLY annoys me how Pierce demands his little extra year. I can understand if everyone at Eon decided to spend an extra year to make things better but that just doesn't seem to be the case from what I've read. He's not getting any younger and it seems a little selfish for him to ask that the traditional 2 year gap be stretched so he can pursue his personal projects while having the fame of being the current Bond attached so that they'll make more.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by 11 11

The 3 year gap seems like an excuse to have a year off to me. Brosnan in other words.

The reason Brosnan gave for wanting to have a three year gap was so he could develop other non-007 projects. You have to realize that making a Bond movie, when it comes down to the pre-production, shooting, post production and publicity takes about 18 months a pop. Brosnan wanted more time off from Bond so he could work on other stuff.
I think those that are attacking the three year gap are too spoilt. Remember there was a four year wait between Star Trek 9 and Star Trek 10 and a 16 year wait between Star Wars Episode 6 abd Episode 1.

Playing the devils advocate here -- How about a wait like that for Bond???

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by PaulZ108
Thseems a little selfish for him to ask that the traditional 2 year gap be stretched so he can pursue his personal projects while having the fame of being the current Bond attached so that they'll make more.

Remember there used to be a Bond movie released every year in the 1960s..

Dr. No - 1962
FRWL - 1963
GF - 1964
TB - 1965

[Turn]

Perhaps if Connery had been afforded that luxury he may have stuck with the role a bit longer.

[Blue Eyes]

And then the Bond series may never have eventuated.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Turn
Perhaps if Connery had been afforded that luxury he may have stuck with the role a bit longer.

Oh I am almost sure of it.

[Xenobia]

Folks...folks...you are all forgetting a couple of key elements here:

1) Brosnan may want a three year gap, but Brosnan probably can be talked out of that. If he wants to do two more films, and Eon promises a 007 film, then one of them will break the three year rule. I would suspect that would B21 just to keep the momentum of DAD going, plus, it would give Eon three years between B21 and B22, to either find a new Bond or give Brosnan an appropriate send off.

2) Brosnan can want three years between films all he wants, but as we know, Pierce Brosnan almost never gets what he wants in Hollywood. Unless his new contract is signed before MGM is sold, or as part of the sale, the new owners of MGM get to renegotiate all standing contracts, the new MGM owners could demand that a Bond film come out sooner, and there is nothing Pierce could do about that, except walk away from the role, which I don't think he will do.

Why not wait and have this discussion after MGM is sold. I think that is best for all of us.

-- Xenobia

[DLibrasnow]

Yes...We could have a different actor in the role for B21

[11 11]

What is funny about this is how people seem to want to pamper to Brosnan for some reason on this issue. Roger Moore and Sean Connery made more movies other then Bond with a 2 year or 1 year gap than Brosnan makes with a 3 year gap.

18 months is also a big exageration, DAD had 60 days of shooting, and Brosnan is only in the location where his scenes are being shot.

Many top stars are able to shoot 2 to 3 movies at once.

The different locations for the Bond movies make that difficult, but for the truth Brosnan has maybe 2 months of shooting for his Bond and he needs 3 years off for that?

I doubt EON cared about Moore or Connery making other movies with no time off and less of a gap between films.

Basically I do not think there is any other way to say Brosnan just wants a year off. I am sure the next Bond when he is cast will problably have in his contract he makes a movie every two years because of this problem that arised.

The making more money issue that MGM says from the gap?

hahahahaha that is so ridiculous.

So let me see here....

you have 5 movies in 10 years or 3 movies in 10 years, oh of course those 3 will gross way more than those 5. what a joke

It never ceases to amaze me how when a company a large corporation like MGM will say anything to make themselves look good no matter how untruthful or ridiculous it is.

[DLibrasnow]

I don't think its a problem 11 11, 007 fans have been so spoilt that they seem to want to make it a problem, but I don't think the general public sees it as an issue..

[11 11]

DLibrasnow let me put it to you like this...

I am a Bond fan and I want a movie every 2 years not 3. Does that make me wrong?

DAD is no great Bond movie by any means so the arguments about that don't hold, and the box office issue obviously they make more if they have a film every 2 years.

So I will say honestly it pisses me off when people like EON MGM Pierce Brosnan who make millions and millions of dollars off of Bond and fans like us have the balls to say things that are not true and to talk about not making movies within a given period of time due to personal wants.

They all need to grow up with that immature behavior. I am only 19 but I can tell you I have enough sense to know that if I am Bond my money comes from EON and if Im EON that money comes from fans in seats.

Sounds to me like Brosnan has turned into another A-list spoiled Hollywood actor.

That is not the fans being spoiled that is the Bond being spoiled. Think about it .

[DLibrasnow]

I don't think the general public is even really registering that there is a 3 year wait.
Question -- how many years was there between Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek: Nemesis?

4, did the public care?

The general public are not Bond fans.

I don't think they care how often they come out, they have all these other movies coming out they want to see, and when a 007 movie comes out, fair enough they'll go and see it

But they don't care that there is a 3 year gap --- I seriously doubt they are even aware that there has been a 3 year gap

[DLibrasnow]

The question is, is it Brosnan who has become spoiled for wanting to take a break from 007 once in awhile, or the fans for wanting Brosnan to ignore the other parts just to pander to their own wishes.

And 18 months is not an exaggeration....Pierce likes to be involved in both the pre-production and the post-production as well as traveling the world to promote it on its release

[11 11]

But I am not talking about that. I am talking about the Bond fans.

I am saying is it not typical Hollywood A-list actor spoiled immature behavior by Brosnan to simply ignore Bond fans?

I believe it is. What I am saying is that the Bond should damn well have the decency to understand that fame and fortune he gets should put some obligations on him.

That is my point. If he feels obligated to spend 60 days a year every two years making a Bond movie after the fame and fortune Bond has brought him, even his Remington Steel days, that series would have not been made or him cast if not for Bond etc.

Brosnan's career was basically dead before GE.

It just is typical movie star bull behavior, but when you are Bond you have certain obligations in my opinion.

For him to essentialy say I am bigger than Bond and bigger than Roger Moore or Sean Connery, which if you think about it he is, that is a slap in the face to Bond.

So what if the casual viewer does not care, the point is, I would have at least figured Bond fans would realize Brosnan is acting like he is above Bond, which in reality he owes his whole career to Bond.

I never really thought of Pierce as a stuck up concieted Hollywood type, he always seemed like a normal guy, but the 3 year gap thing really opened my eyes on that one.

I guess the fame he got from his first 3 Bonds just totally went to his head.