63 replies to this topic

[zencat]

MKKBB has an article about the DVD promotion, and Wilson make some very interesting comments about Fleming, Bond 21, and the Jinx movie at the end. Read for yourself here:

http://www.ianflemin...ent/000067.html

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

So basically there's nothing so far on Bond 21 and it will be released most likely in late 2005 (3 years from DAD).... not unexpected since MGM stated this around the release of DAD but still...*sigh*

... and there's no Jinx script yet as was reported, they're just still in the process of kicking around ideas to see if it works. Hopefully it will go the way of Wai Lin....pffft... so they can fully concentrate on Bond 21.

[[dark]]

Disappointing, but it seems almost certain that we'll see this film in 2005.

[Righty007]

Thanks for the article, zencat. I haven't read it yet but I'm sure it will be somewhat informative.

[Aces High]

3 years is way too long,Sean Connery & the boys knocked a movie out every year.Mr Wilson says each Bond gets bigger & bigger..why??.Why not do a down to earth gritty spy story.Running the risk of being criticised for this a Bond adventure does not always have to have a fab car & mega rich villian.Just look at Live & Let Die,Dr k was not a billionaire & there were very few gadgets.but a bloody good Bond movie.So Mr Wilson don't reach to high just give us a Brosnan Bond that will make Bond rely on his wits instead of his BMW/Aston.

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

Very dissapointed. I can't help but wonder why they can't make a Bond every two years... they can churn out every other sequel in two years. And look what happened last time we waited three years... DAD. And from the DVD it looked like the script was nowhere near close throughout the film... how long does it take to close a Bond script! Three years? What?!

Well it won't be long before Pierce looks his age and we're waiting four years!!! Is it down to Pierce making too many other films or truely down to having to take more time? Am I the only person really looking forward to the next James Bond actor (a bit controversial there)?

Lets get back to every two years and stop giving us excuses EON... three year wait means that audiences have time to grow up... and grow out of Bond. I don't know about you but between TWINE and DAD I lost a little bit of my adoration for Bond and I feel like it'll happen ten times over between DAD and Bond 21.

Not good enough for me EON... unless you deliver a knock out classic in 2005... or even a summer release.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Really, I'd love to have Bond 21 next year too (the more Bond the better!) but I don't want them to do the films if they feel they're "churning them out". I think the current 3 year window has more to do with all of them wanting to re-charge their batteries than it does with Pierce. It's not as if they have a script waiitng for him, they haven't even started it yet! His filling his schedule has more to do with his knowing Bond 21 won't begin in Jan than the other way around. (It's not as if he didn't make 2 flms just before TWINE)

The producers time involved with each Bond is even longer than the main actor's, between pre production, the film, post production and selling the film it's time to start on the next even before you're done with current one. If they were going to have Bond 21 for Nov 2004 they'd have to have started on the script and the film back in January, pre-production and hiring the director would begin this summer. The films just take longer than they used to; longer to film and longer to produce. The idea that EON or Brosnan are giving excuses or are lazy or being selfish is just not grounded in the facts of production. And no I don't think they're going to start making Bond films smaller in scale because they don't believe it's what most of their audience wants or expects from the Bond, and I'm not referring to just the hardcore audience but the larger ($$) audience.

Scripts will always still be worked on when making a film, no matter how long you work on it or how set it is. But there's a world of difference betwen the tinkering on DAD and the wholesale re-writes of TND while on location. As for audiences loosing interest in 3 years well they didn't between TWINE and DAD just looking at the B.O. And many high budget action/adventure films now have longer than 2 years in between. Mission Impossible, Matrix, X-Men, Star Wars.... are all not on a 2 year schedule.

[Turn]

I realize the logistics of putting a modern Bond film together are tremendous. On the other hand, that's all the producers do. It's not like the early days when Broccoli and Saltzman did side projects like Call Me Bwana or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

It just seems like they would want to get things recharged after the success of DAD. After years of two-year waits between films, the three years seems excessive. The X-Men, Star Wars and Matrix films are a lot more dependent on special effects than the Bonds are, so it seems like they should want to keep to the two-year. I don't want to sound harsh, but it seems as if they are basking in the glow of DAD's grosses.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Yeah it's all Bond producers do, 24 hours a day for 2 years, maybe they need a time out to recharge their batteries and develop new ideas and new perspectives. Bond films just took much less time to make in the 60's, 70's even the 80's, the production time just isn't comparable and they're not using original source material anymore either. Bond may not have huge amounts of SFX (until recently) but they do have huge sets, huge stunts, huge logistical concerns, they spend at least a 1/2 yr in active pre-production and another 1/2 year in post. They also have more and more back Bond films to compete with and compare to and differing and growing audience expectations to deal with. From other interviews it was evident that after TWINE making 3 films back to back to back they were all suffering from a little Bond burn out and they all seem to have had a more enjoyable time making DAD because of the extra year.

I know we're all starved for more Bond but this idea that they should all devote their entire lives to Bond every waking moment and grind them out like sausages for our consumption is a bit unrealistic. And frankly, although I know many will disagree, I think the one Bond every 2 years became very tired by the 80's and the product and the publics want for the product suffered because of it. Maybe they have concerns about that happenning again and want to guard against it. It's hard to argue with the fact that there was more hype (and Box Office) for DAD than there had been since any Bond film since Goldeneye and I bet alot of that came from the 3 year wait and not just because it was the 40th anniversary.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

Yeah it's all Bond producers do, 24 hours a day for 2 years, maybe they need a time out to recharge their batteries and develop new ideas and new perspectives.  

Poor things. They only make several million dollars per picture, so who are we to begrudge them time to recharge their batteries after working flat out 24 hours a day for two years? Beats working flat out in a coal mine until hitting retirement age and collecting a cheap gold watch, I should imagine.

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

Bond films just took much less time to make in the 60's, 70's even the 80's, the production time just isn't comparable and they're not using original source material anymore either.  Bond may not have huge amounts of SFX (until recently) but they do have huge sets, huge stunts, huge logistical concerns, they spend at least a 1/2 yr in active pre-production and another 1/2 year in post.  

The Bond films were always big productions. They didn't suddenly become epics with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY. And surely films like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME must have been considerably larger endeavours back in the day, thanks to the total lack of communications and labour-saving tools filmmakers now take for granted, from e-mail to the ability to edit on computers instead of having to cut and paste reels of film?

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

They also have more and more back Bond films to compete with and compare to and differing and growing audience expectations to deal with.   From other interviews it was evident that after TWINE making 3 films back to back to back they were all suffering from a little Bond burn out and they all seem to have had a more enjoyable time making DAD because of the extra year.

I know we're all starved for more Bond but this idea that they should all devote their entire lives to Bond every waking moment and grind them out like sausages for our consumption is a bit unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? I mean, these people earn simply staggering amounts of money, so why should we NOT expect them to keep plugging away at their jobs to a regular schedule aimed at producing a new film every two years, when we expect, say, the cab driver and the schoolteacher to devote their lives to their jobs for peanuts? I mean, to an extent I'm just playing devil's advocate here, MBE, but I do find myself agreeing with Turn's point that: "[Making Bond films is] all the producers do. It's not like the early days when Broccoli and Saltzman did side projects like Call Me Bwana or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang." I also agree with Turn's observation that "it seems as if they are basking in the glow of DAD's grosses."

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

And frankly, although I know many will disagree, I think the one Bond every 2 years became very tired by the 80's and the product and the publics want for the product suffered because of it.  Maybe they have concerns about that happenning again and want to guard against it.  It's hard to argue with the fact that there was more hype (and Box Office) for DAD than there had been since any Bond film since Goldeneye and I bet alot of that came from the 3 year wait and not just because it was the 40th anniversary.  

Then again, TOMORROW NEVER DIES was released two years after GOLDENEYE and outgrossed its predecessor. Two years after that, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH outgrossed TOMORROW NEVER DIES. All of the Bond movies from 1977 to 1989 were smashes, with the possible exception of LICENCE TO KILL, and they all hit cinemas at a rate of one every two years. I take your point about increased anticipation resulting in more impressive grosses, but I'd counter it by suggesting that a Bond film every two years represents a regular and reliable source of income for MGM (and, of course, for EON, but then I gather that MGM may need EON a lot more than EON needs MGM). The Bond series did indeed become very tired by the 80s, and I have six words that go a long way towards explaining why: "Moore was getting very, very old.";)

[Blox]

...on the bright side a 3 yr wait cycle is better than the 5-6 yr hiatus after LTK.

[Stuart]

Originally posted by Evil Doctor Cheese
Am I the only person really looking forward to the next James Bond actor (a bit controversial there)?

Nope. I like Brosnan, but he's always been a little too 'Remington Steele' for me to take him absolutely, stone-cold serious as Bond.

And if he straightens his d a m n tie one more time, I'll puke.

[Righty007]

Originally posted by Stuart
And if he straightens his d a m n tie one more time, I'll puke.

I like how he straightens his tie. It's cool! Sometimes when I wear a tie, I find myself straightening mine just like Brosnan.

[kevrichardson]

The three year wait is just a part of life that we have to accept . No point in gripping about it . As MBE stated Bond scripts are a work of art that is in a constant state of motion . So no matter how long they have , they are all ways working on the script . Brosnan can take as long as he wants . It helps his performance as Bond . Plus the ever increasing amount of new films helps the box-office . Three years and a good film is better than another AVTAK .

[Righty007]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Three years and a good film is better than another AVTAK .

'A View To A Kill' is one of the best Bond films!

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Righty007
'A View To A Kill' is one of the best Bond films!

Okay have it you way ! How about another XXX !

[Righty007]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
How about another XXX !

NO!

[kevrichardson]

Then i guess it's three years and counting .

[Righty007]

I guess so.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Originally posted by Loomis


Poor things. They only make several million dollars per picture, so who are we to begrudge them time to recharge their batteries after working flat out 24 hours a day for two years? Beats working flat out in a coal mine until hitting retirement age and collecting a cheap gold watch, I should imagine.

And if coal miners had the choice not to work flat out in a coal mine and take months off I bet they would. I'm not asking for any violins for EON as hard workers but this conceit that they MUST work all the time and they OWE us around the clock vigiliance and constant flow of Bond is IMO silly.

The Bond films were always big productions. They didn't suddenly become epics with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY. And surely films like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME must have been considerably larger endeavours back in the day, thanks to the total lack of communications and labour-saving tools filmmakers now take for granted, from e-mail to the ability to edit on computers instead of having to cut and paste reels of film?

TSWLM may have been big but it didn't take as long as the new films. Not as long to film not as long to pre and post produce. Evidently all these new time saving utilties haven't helped.

Why is it unrealistic? I mean, these people earn simply staggering amounts of money, so why should we NOT expect them to keep plugging away at their jobs to a regular schedule aimed at producing a new film every two years, when we expect, say, the cab driver and the schoolteacher to devote their lives to their jobs for peanuts? I mean, to an extent I'm just playing devil's advocate here, MBE, but I do find myself agreeing with Turn's point that: "[Making Bond films is] all the producers do. It's not like the early days when Broccoli and Saltzman did side projects like Call Me Bwana or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang." I also agree with Turn's observation that "it seems as if they are basking in the glow of DAD's grosses."

I never expect anyone to devote their lives to a job for peanuts. I say if they can take a few months or a year off or completely retire more power to them! I hope to do the same. As for other projects well they might have "Jinx" in the works. Ugh.

Then again, TOMORROW NEVER DIES was released two years after GOLDENEYE and outgrossed its predecessor. Two years after that, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH outgrossed TOMORROW NEVER DIES. All of the Bond movies from 1977 to 1989 were smashes, with the possible exception of LICENCE TO KILL, and they all hit cinemas at a rate of one every two years. I take your point about increased anticipation resulting in more impressive grosses, but I'd counter it by suggesting that a Bond film every two years represents a regular and reliable source of income for MGM (and, of course, for EON, but then I gather that MGM may need EON a lot more than EON needs MGM). The Bond series did indeed become very tired by the 80s, and I have six words that go a long way towards explaining why: "Moore was getting very, very old.";)

Adjusted for inflation TND and TWINE didn't make more than GE they made less. They made a damn lot but they still made less than GE. And maybe just maybe this might be a shocking concept... EON cares more about the film's quality and enjoying making them than the $$$. Althoughas you say I doubt MGM shares their concerns. As for it just being Moore that got tired I'd give you two words Timothy Dalton..... Bond getting younger didn't make the films make more or become less tired. I'd even say a film every two years got tired in the early 70's and a 3 year break to TSWLM did them a world of good.

MBE

[kevrichardson]

Look Righty007 there is a bright side to this . At least they (EON , Wilson , Broccoli , Tamahori ) . Will take there time , with the next one . Die Another Day did benfit from the 3 year wait . Yes some thing did not work out , example the CGI . Other things did the inclusion of the Aston Martin Vanquish , not another every man's BMW . Remember EON signed a 3 picture deal with Aston Martin . And the next Bond is to include the baby Aston ( AM305 or now call DB8 ) . Also in the mkkbb article Wilson stated that they have not used Ian Fleming for some time . Some there is hope against hope that EON might use some parts of "Casino Royale" . I thought that the three year wait worked out find . Plus Brosnan looks find , perhaps better than ever . 2005 is the 40th of Thunderball , let just wait and see .

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

. EON cares more about the film's quality and enjoying making them than the $$$.  Although as you say I doubt MGM shares their concerns.  As for it just being Moore that got tired I'd give you two words Timothy Dalton..... Bond getting younger didn't make the films make more or become less tired.    I'd even say a film every two years got tired in the early 70's and a 3 year break to TSWLM did them a world of good.  
MBE

IN so far as a Jinx spinoff is concerned . It might be mutual , both MGM and EON has something to gain from it's success . MGM more than EON , still it's MGM take holds the finances to the next Bond . Moore cranked out a lot of films as Bond . One almost every 18 months . SO he got tired and plus he understood that he was not longer effective in the role . As regarding TSWLM and the lenght of time to make it . Thank Harry Saltzman , he held up production with his legal /and financial problems . Production was set to start in 1976 !

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Three years and a good film is better than another AVTAK .

How can you say that.....AVTAK is a classic Bond movie beloved by many a CBNer. Just take a casual look at some of the threads in the Roger Moore forum and you'll see that many of us - myself included - think "A View to a Kill" is a kick a** Bond movie.

[Righty007]

I love AVTAK so much that I became the Vice President of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to A View To A Kill!

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
As regarding TSWLM and the lenght of time to make it . Thank Harry Saltzman , he held up production with his legal /and financial problems .  Production was set to start in 1976 !

Well that's a sweeping generalization. Yes, the Saltzman bankruptcy did cause a hold up but there were other issues that held up production on TSWLM ("The Names McClory, Kevin McClory"). For a full rundown on why TSWLM took so long consult the excellent "Inside The Spy Who Loved Me" doc on the DVD.

[Blox]

Regarding AVTAK, as long as there different people with different tastes, there will never be a right or wrong answer to whether a picture is good or bad....

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Blox
Kev:  Die Another Day did benfit from the 3 year wait . Yes some thing did not work out , example the CGI .

...and the second half of the movie.  You'd think they'd come up with a good script after 3 yr pre-prod.


Kev:  Plus Brosnan looks find , perhaps better than ever .

...Perhaps not. He is really starting to show his age on-screen and has acknowleged as much in some quotes about bowing out gracefully after one more picture, etc.

WELL BLOX WHAT WILL U SAY IF HE DOES TWO MORE? that wont be bowing out will it?

[Tim007]

Yahoo!_Germany reports that Pierce Brosnan has just signed the contract for Bond 21, with an option for Bond 22. Pierce is quoted as having said "I think playing James Bond six times and turn down the role then, this would be pretty cool".

In another sentence it is mentioned that the next James Bond is currently being worked on. This would be contrary to Michael G._Wilson's statement about Bond 21 in the recent edition of British magazine "Film Review", where he is quoted to have said "As for Bond 21, it's not even a glimmer in it's mother's eye. It's a matter of logistics, it takes time to make these films and they get bigger and bigger, and they take more and more planning... I reckon it would be at least three years from the last film".

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by Tim007
Yahoo!_Germany reports that Pierce Brosnan has just signed the contract for Bond 21, with an option for Bond 22. Pierce is quoted as having said "I think playing James Bond six times and turn down the role then, this would be pretty cool".

In another sentence it is mentioned that the next James Bond is currently being worked on. This would be contrary to Michael G._Wilson's statement about Bond 21 in the recent edition of British magazine "Film Review", where he is quoted to have said "As for Bond 21, it's not even a glimmer in it's mother's eye. It's a matter of logistics, it takes time to make these films and they get bigger and bigger, and they take more and more planning... I reckon it would be at least three years from the last film".

I think that option say enough.
I think we can say that Pierce Brosnan play in Bond 22 too. :cool:

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Tim007


In another sentence it is mentioned that the next James Bond is currently being worked on. This would be contrary to Michael G._Wilson's statement about Bond 21 in the recent edition of British magazine "Film Review", where he is quoted to have said "As for Bond 21, it's not even a glimmer in it's mother's eye. It's a matter of logistics, it takes time to make these films and they get bigger and bigger, and they take more and more planning... I reckon it would be at least three years from the last film".

I would believe Michael G. Wilson over some rumor on Yahoo.