37 replies to this topic

[SeanValen00V]

Whats the major enjoyment of 2007 apart from being the marketing year for 007, at the end of the day, watching a Bond film, a new one is special anyway, while I respect the interest, and marketing tie in, after 2007, no one is going to remember 2007, they'll remember how good the film is, I suggest 2007 will be the year to announce a new James Bond, hell announce a new James Bond, in 2007, in the 7th month July, and at 7:00 clock pm. I find people so keen to believe a Bond film in 2007, how about getting a Bond film earlier in 2006, and having a new James Bond in 2007.

This way you get Pierce looking younger for Bond 21 if its done in 2004 fall, and younger playing Bond in 2006 rather then 2007, if people believe Pierce will do a 6th, which is already pushing it according to Pierce.

Thus I suggest 2007 be a year to annouce a new James Bond, it's like the birthdate of a new James Bond, being born, and they could use the year to market the man, then make the film in 2008.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

thats what i think as well, and its the smart thing to do, but some are gung-ho over this 007 thing, its like they are saying "i dont care if its good or not, lets just have it in 2007" if its not in 2007 it will be the end of the world

[Killmaster]

I AGREE that Bond 21 in 2004 and Bond 22 in 2006 would be terrific, but what I was saying was that IF PB and MGM hold to the previously announced three years until #21, and IF #21 would be PB's final film as Bond , THEN we are looking at #21 in 2005 and #22 in 2007 which, if handled correctly, could be a promotional bonanza for whoever succeeds PB.

But you are right... two Bond films in 4 years and BOTH with PB would be great!

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

If they had stuck to the usual two year gaps between the films then we wouldn't be having this arguement as there would automatically be one! Let's get back to the two year gap and screw this 007 idea!

But, by rights, I can see that, if Pierce stays on (which, as much as it hurts me to say, I hope he doesn't) will automatically be the year the new 007 is announced. Who knows... the new 007 may be so gun ho about the part he'll want to make two in three years? Then you'd get your 2007 - if you think it's that important. Personally I don't but I can see the potential of using it as a marketing tool. I'm not stupid... the next few posts are open for the debate of that very last point!

[Blue Eyes]

and they could use the year to market the man

Yes they could. It would last one month in the papers, like it always does.

However, you can also use the whole year of 2007 to market a whole film.

Which one makes money? And which do the people involved care about? I wonder.

Pierce will be lucky if he makes Bond 22. The odds aren't in favour of it. And when you're bringing in a new Bond you need everything on your side, including 2007 as the year.

And if they do miss it (as the minority [so far] seem to see it as insignificant) one can only imagine the amount of future posts declaring just how stupid MGM/Eon et. al. are for missing 2007.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

well let me say again that brosnan is more important to me then the year 2007 and all the dumb hoopla that goes with it, if we can get brosnan for two more we ought to get on our knees and give thanks, because i have a bad feeling that whoever steps in after brosnan will really **** it up big time, and we will all be sorry

[Blue Eyes]

And if Brosnan does Bond 22 and it turns into AVTAK II then people will really be sorry.

And your "bad feeling" really doesn't count.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
And if Brosnan does Bond 22 and it turns into AVTAK II then people will really be sorry.

And your "bad feeling" really doesn't count.

just like yours doesn't count:D and if you think brosnan doing 22 is avtak 2, then you need to go check yourself cause you aint right.

[Blue Eyes]

I'm not right? I've just been insulted by the person who thinks Denise Richards can act.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


Yes they could. It would last one month in the papers, like it always does.
However, you can also use the whole year of 2007 to market a whole film.
Which one makes money? And which do the people involved care about? I wonder.

Hmm, the year 2007 would be a Nice-to-have, if it just happened to coincide. I would have to voice concern if the only reason for fudging the dates to get a film in 2007 was for the marketing.

Let us look at history, in fact only recent history. Can anyone say that the powers that were, really maximised the marketing potential out of the 20th film and 40th cinematic anniversary? I fear not.

Certainly the film makers went to some length to celebrate within the film and very subtley they did it too. What did MGM and Fox do? You might ask, what did they have to do?

The above anniversaries were far more impacting than 007 in 2007, so I would be prepared to bet a pound to a pinch of ---- that if they did attempt it, damp squibs would be the result and everyone would go, "So what."

Get back to two year cycles and leave it at that.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
I'm not right? I've just been insulted by the person who thinks Denise Richards can act.

you damn right she can act, she acts, she doesn't just say i am a actor...she really does it. some say "i am a actor" and some actuality get out there and proves it;)

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by SeanValen00V

Thus I suggest 2007 be a year to annouce a new James Bond, it's like the birthdate of a new James Bond, being born, and they could use the year to market the man, then make the film in 2008.

I agree a litle about that but on an other way,like i say in my Bond 23 & Bond 24 in 2010 Thread.
I Repeat it here with the Brosnan era to.

There are 2 options,i begin with my prefer.

Bond 21 November or December 2005 With Brosnan as 007
Bond 22 November or December 2007 With Brosnan as 007

Bond 23&24 in 2010 with an New Bond:
Make one story that you can yust for 2 bond movie's.
You start's in February 2008 writing that story.
At the end of Augustus 2008 Must start's the production of the 2 movie's.
One crue filmd the shots of Bond 23 and Some shots of Bond 24 an other crue. (With an litle bit more for Bond 23)

At the end of February 2010 must play part one (Bond 23) play in the Cinema.
One weak for christmis 2010 must play part two (Bond 24) play in the cinema.

Second option:

Bond 21 December 2004 With Brosnan as 007
Bond 22 December 2006 With Brosnan as 007

Bond 23&24 in 2009 with an New Bond:
Make one story that you can yust for 2 bond movie's.
You start's in February 2007 writing that story.
At the end of Augustus 2007 Must start's the production of the 2 movie's.
One crue filmd the shots of Bond 23 and Some shots of Bond 24 an other crue. (With an litle bit more for Bond 23)

At the end of February 2009 must play part one (Bond 23) play in the Cinema.
One weak for christmis 2009 must play part two (Bond 24) play in the cinema.

For the third movie of the new 007 (Bond 25) there must it show 3 years after Bond 24.

[Blue Eyes]

you damn right she can act, she acts, she doesn't just say i am a actor...she really does it. some say "i am a actor" and some actuality get out there and proves it

Yes. She's out there acting a whole lot. Let me see, Undercover Brother. Now that was a role.

Of course, she made it in the business because she can act, not because she has breasts and sexuality

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


Yes. She's out there acting a whole lot. Let me see, Undercover Brother. Now that was a role.

Of course, she made it in the business because she can act, not because she has breasts and sexuality

u are eat up with the green eyed monster i see lol >oh well as i said whatever she did to get her foot in the door more power to her, she does not sit around and tell the world i am an actor, she gets up on the big screen and proves it:D

[Blue Eyes]

Yes I am hugely "eat up" with the green eyed monster. I go to sleep every night and cry because my career isn't going down the tube like Denise's.

As for getting on the big screen and proving she can act. I'm not really sure that getting on the big screen really proves that much.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

u are right there, you would have to have a career as an actor first to have it go down the tubes, at least she has a career to go down the tubes as you say, u need to get an acting career first before you are worthy to speak her name

[Wade]

Let's go through this logically, for those who think some of us are "obsessing" over having a Bond film in 2007.

First of all, all major blockbuster films these days are predicated on a strong opening two or three weekends. If MGM has a spectacular way to get MORE people in the theaters for that first opening weekend, it is NOT going to blow it introducing a new Bond actor, as Bondfinesse suggests. You don't take a marketing masterstroke that comes along once ever 1,000 years and waste it. You scrap and claw for EVERY advantage you can.

Second, no other movie in HISTORY has had this opportunity, to have an entire YEAR -- on EVERY CALENDAR in the English-speaking world -- publicizing it. As a movie studio, you do NOT ignore something like that. And you ESPECIALLY do not ignore it if you're MGM and are hanging on financially for dear life.

There WILL be a Bond film in 2007. And there SHOULD be a Bond film in 2007. In the film industry, you NEVER, EVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Wade

There WILL be a Bond film in 2007. And there SHOULD be a Bond film in 2007. In the film industry, you NEVER, EVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

Ah, the business man hath spoketh.

Well that's fine if you're into profits but think about this, logically of course.

Scenario 1, Bonds come out in 2004, 2006 and 2008

Scenario 2, Bonds come out in 2004 and 2007

Let's say that each film makes MGM a profit of $200m - they are afterall pretty reliable fixtures - that would mean that between now and 2008, in Scenario 1, MGM clean up $600m and in Scenario 2, MGM cleans up $400m.

Logically, I would say there is more reason to go with Scenario 1 - Iraq, Bin Laden, Holocausts and world peace permitting.

[Blue Eyes]

Not necessarily accurate in the figures there Simon. MGM actually makes more money from the three year gap when all said and done. A new Bond picture sooner, I'm told, actually encroaches on the earnings of the previous film. For instance, if they release Bond 21 in 2004 DAD will earn less for MGM/Eon then if Bond 21 were released in 2005. We (as in the public) will never notice the loss because it doesn't come in the form of box office figures but in other figures such as licensing.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

Pierce will be lucky if he makes Bond 22. The odds aren't in favour of it.

And if Brosnan does Bond 22 and it turns into AVTAK II then people will really be sorry.

Wouldn't the fact that Brosnan isn't getting any younger support the theory that we may see BOND 21 made for release in 2004, rather than 2005?

As a side note, if Brosnan does make AVTAK II, it'll hopefully have more of a good old-fashioned sense of tongue-in-cheek fun about it than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

you can also use the whole year of 2007 to market a whole film.

And when you're bringing in a new Bond you need everything on your side, including 2007 as the year.

Wouldn't a three-year wait between BOND 21 and BOND 22 (the latter to be released in 2007) help to create an appetite for a new Bond film with a new actor as 007, and give The Powers That Be ample time to "groom" Brosnan's successor in the public eye and ensure that his first outing was a truly special affair? Another good argument for scheduling a 2004 release for BOND 21.

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

MGM actually makes more money from the three year gap when all said and done. A new Bond picture sooner, I'm told, actually encroaches on the earnings of the previous film. For instance, if they release Bond 21 in 2004 DAD will earn less for MGM/Eon then if Bond 21 were released in 2005. We (as in the public) will never notice the loss because it doesn't come in the form of box office figures but in other figures such as licensing.

Fair enough, Blue Eyes, but that didn't exactly stop them from releasing GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and TWINE, and most of the other films, with gaps of only two years in between. Anyhow, if BOND 21 comes out in 2004, there'll be an opportunity for a three-year gap before BOND 22 hits screens in 2007.

[Blue Eyes]

Well yes, I do agree that Bond 21 will come out and should come out in 2004. I'm not sure if that's part of your arguement or what, so I'll just clear that up.

And you're right, it didn't stop them from releasing any of those films with two year gaps. But it's a slightly different market now. For a start it's entirely MGM (no longer UA involvement), and MGM are suffering financially. If you consider that with the three year gap they were able to practically spend nothing on making the film (thanks to licensing) you can see why they'd want a three year gap to increase that licensing once again.

Which leads into something interesting. Have MGM pulled Bond 21 forward to 2004 with the intent of bringing a new Bond actor for Bond 22 in 2007? A three year gap, increased licensing again, the year 2007 would make for a pretty sturdy platform to introduce a new Bond.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
And you're right, it didn't stop them from releasing any of those films with two year gaps. But it's a slightly different market now. For a start it's entirely MGM (no longer UA involvement), and MGM are suffering financially. If you consider that with the three year gap they were able to practically spend nothing on making the film (thanks to licensing) you can see why they'd want a three year gap to increase that licensing once again.

Good point. But isn't Fox now doing what UA used to do? Even with MGM operating alone, though, and a break of two years rather than three, surely the licensing deals would still come in for BOND 21? After all, this is Bond we're talking about!

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

Which leads into something interesting. Have MGM pulled Bond 21 forward to 2004 with the intent of bringing a new Bond actor for Bond 22 in 2007? A three year gap, increased licensing again, the year 2007 would make for a pretty sturdy platform to introduce a new Bond.  

I have a feeling that that's precisely what MGM is doing.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

well i still contend that there will be a bond in 2004 and 2006, because mgm/eon knows that brosnan can bring in the big bucks, and they also know they better get all thet can with brozzy, before he sits down and when they get their new man they wont be as confident that he will be able to bring in the money so they will have money to keep them afloat untill the new guy builds a rapport with the people.........if he ever does

[brendan007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


Yes. She's out there acting a whole lot. Let me see, Undercover Brother. Now that was a role.

Of course, she made it in the business because she can act, not because she has breasts and sexuality

you say it like its a bad thing . thats what made her perfect for a bond girl role, a nice balance to the ultra serious performance from elektra.
bond 22 should definetly happen in 2007, im even willing to go through the awful three year wait for it. it could be suggested that they release it in the middle of 2007 so the wait isnt as large, but i (and probably mgm) like bond being released at the end of the year when the competiton isnt as fierce.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by brendan007


you say it like its a bad thing . thats what made her perfect for a bond girl role, a nice balance to the ultra serious performance from elektra.
bond 22 should definetly happen in 2007, im even willing to go through the awful three year wait for it. it could be suggested that they release it in the middle of 2007 so the wait isnt as large, but i (and probably mgm) like bond being released at the end of the year when the competiton isnt as fierce.

its nice to see folks speak up for denise, cause she is bashed way to much, thank you brendan for those kind words >as for bond in 2007 i think people are going overboard with that, just cause the year 2007 and bond is 007 is no reason to put a movie on the screen for that reason, i see why they would want it, but if you have a bond in 2004, 2006 2008 whats wrong with that, u get more bonds in the decade, in the 60's we had 6 bond films, in the 70's we had 5 and in the 80's we had 5 90's 3.......3 thats not enough, it seems better to forget 2007 and just do it 2004, 2006, 2008

[M_Balje]

We talk about here For an Bond 22 release in 2006 or 2007,but what do you think about my solution ?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

And you're right, it didn't stop them from releasing any of those films with two year gaps. But it's a slightly different market now. For a start it's entirely MGM (no longer UA involvement), and MGM are suffering financially. If you consider that with the three year gap they were able to practically spend nothing on making the film (thanks to licensing) you can see why they'd want a three year gap to increase that licensing once again.

OK, this is something I hadn't considered and to be honest, didn't even know about. I don't see how it would work but let's say that is now the norm, why did MGM say they wanted the three year break to MAKE THEM LESS RELIANT ON BOND.

That statement to my mind would infer that they were trying to shape themselves up into a better and less "one horse" studio. It didn't come across as, "the way to make more money out of Bond is to have longer breaks".

Afterall, licensing is not exactly new to Bond, it has been going for decades now, so why should it make that much of a difference in terms of breaks? (This isn't to say it doesn't, just curious)

[Blue Eyes]

Well as it was explained to me, you can pull in more licensing for a new film after a longer break, but you can also make more money by starving an audience for Bond because you can sell TV, Satellite, re-run rights for a higher price. There are little factors like that which we (the public) seldom get wind of.

[Simon]

Ok, cheers.

Interesting.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
And if Brosnan does Bond 22 and it turns into AVTAK II then people will really be sorry.

Well put ! I feel the same way . This need to match or beat Connery /Moore's record of the number of Bond films is stupid . When you look at the films of both (Connery/ Moore) between the two . There are at least 3maybe 4 film for each at are great Bond's . Dr>No , FRWL , GF , TB for Connery ( you can rank them yourself) . For Moore LALD , TSWLM , FYEO , and TMWTGG / OP are personal choices . Brosnan been great as Bond . But what separates great actors is when they know to leave a role. Look at Harrison Ford in the "Jack Ryan" series. I hope that Brosnan does not do Bond 22 . Especially if we discount the rumor mill and Bond 21 starts in 2004 for a 2005 release . I left out DAF for Connery and Moonraker for Moore for reason that are already well known.