Bond 24 Will Arrive Within The Next Three Years

JEFF62JEFF62 Posts: 5,093
Forum Member
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a466957/james-bond-24-will-arrive-in-three-years.html

I thought we were now going to get a new Bond film every two years like we did in the past especially after the success of Skyfall. I assumed the next film would be ready for release in October 2014 and the next in October 2016 but now the article above has appeared and it looks like we could wait up to three years for the next one. Surely it will not end up being four years between Skyfall and the next one? They need to get a move on. Look at what happened with Dalton. He quit in the end but there was the legal wrangle back then so what's stopping them now. I know its a lot of work making these films but they used to make one every two years so why delay it now?

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    3 years seems too long although quite normal for Bond movies isn't it? Daniel Craig has signed on for 2 more Bond films but with a 6 or 7 year time scale for Bond 25 there must be a worry that he will be getting too old for the role.
  • BlurayBluray Posts: 661
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The article says "within" the next three years that doesn't mean we won't see it for three years.
    They're probably covering their backs a little.
    I imagine if they're close to announcing a director then things definitely seem to be moving along.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When you've got a franchise, especially one that's just been re-invigorated, such as Bond, I think the gap between films is very tricky to get right. Too long and you risk (but not limited to, of course) the actor(s) being too long in the tooth to be able to pull it off, falling out of fashion, getting bored of waiting or whatever. The audience can also move on; I remember plenty of people predicting the demise of Bond when Bourne came along (but then The Bourne Legacy v Skyfall pretty much killed that debate). Too short and the audience can get bored with the same old same old in quick succession. Additionally, in Bond's case the global political situation doesn't change that quickly, so if they're not careful, the writers either end up re-using the same type of villian/ plots to come up with a credible story, or having to invent new threats. That's how you end up with relative dross like QoS and TWINE.

    I'd say two years between releases is probably the sweetspot. Long enough to build hype, not so long that everyone's forgotten who you are or stopped caring.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    This is why they killed off M. Dench will be in an old folks home before Bond25 comes along :p
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    gashead wrote: »
    I'd say two years between releases is probably the sweetspot. Long enough to build hype, not so long that everyone's forgotten who you are or stopped caring.
    Boxofficemojo made the observation that the hype/publicity surrounding The Hobbit was so focused on reminding you of its connection to LOTR that it told you little of the Hobbit itself. Fair point.

    Anyway, three years for Bond sounds fine to me. You can understand other franchises wanting a quicker turnaround, especially the more episodic or progressive (or faddish, perhaps).

    However, it's now a billion dollar property, and they'll want to keep it that way. Luckily Bond seems to be one of cinemas true eternals, so they can probably afford the luxury of time to get it just right. Sounds like they're waiting to 'get their man' director-wise as well. Hmm...

    Now then, shall we start a countdown for the Craig-haters to arrive? 5...4...3...2...
  • adamo8adamo8 Posts: 348
    Forum Member
    I Hope M and Moneypenny return i think returning characters always make the sequel better.
  • Alvar HansoAlvar Hanso Posts: 2,542
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    When you've got a franchise, especially one that's just been re-invigorated, such as Bond, I think the gap between films is very tricky to get right. Too long and you risk (but not limited to, of course) the actor(s) being too long in the tooth to be able to pull it off, falling out of fashion, getting bored of waiting or whatever. The audience can also move on; I remember plenty of people predicting the demise of Bond when Bourne came along (but then The Bourne Legacy v Skyfall pretty much killed that debate). Too short and the audience can get bored with the same old same old in quick succession. Additionally, in Bond's case the global political situation doesn't change that quickly, so if they're not careful, the writers either end up re-using the same type of villian/ plots to come up with a credible story, or having to invent new threats. That's how you end up with relative dross like QoS and TWINE.

    I'd say two years between releases is probably the sweetspot. Long enough to build hype, not so long that everyone's forgotten who you are or stopped caring.


    the is the way it has been for most of bonds history
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    I'd rather them wait at least three years between movies tbh, gives them more time to get it right rather than rushing them out (like Quantum of Solace) and it also doesn't mean that we're "spammed" with Bond films every other year which would definitely result in franchise fatigue. I like Bond films to be an "event" of sorts, something to look forward to after a few years, not just something that comes along every other year because MGM/Sony want to make an easy billion dollars.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,290
    Forum Member
    The next Bond movie should have a disco soundtrack, like Moonraker's end theme.
  • MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,467
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bluray wrote: »
    I imagine if they're close to announcing a director then things definitely seem to be moving along.

    I wonder who the director could be? Sounds like someone has said yes but have they signed on the dotted line?
  • Alvar HansoAlvar Hanso Posts: 2,542
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    I'd rather them wait at least three years between movies tbh, gives them more time to get it right rather than rushing them out (like Quantum of Solace) and it also doesn't mean that we're "spammed" with Bond films every other year which would definitely result in franchise fatigue. I like Bond films to be an "event" of sorts, something to look forward to after a few years, not just something that comes along every other year because MGM/Sony want to make an easy billion dollars.

    interesting comments given this

    Dr. No (1962)

    From Russia with Love (1963)

    Goldfinger (1964)

    Thunderball (1965)

    You Only Live Twice (1967)

    On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

    Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

    Live and Let Die (1973)

    The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

    The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

    Moonraker (1979)

    For Your Eyes Only (1981)

    Octopussy (1983)

    A View to a Kill (1985)

    The Living Daylights (1987)

    Licence to Kill (1989)

    GoldenEye (1995)

    Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

    The World Is Not Enough (1999)

    Die Another Day (2002)

    Casino Royale (2006)

    Quantum of Solace (2008)

    Skyfall (2012)


    the longer breaks are the anomalies, over the production history
Sign In or Register to comment.