loyalfromlondon wrote:
bABA wrote:
loyal, you just dont understand bond.
clearly
(goes back to staring at 007 tattoo.)
You mean the lame 007 on your arm?
| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| James Bond sequel planned for 2-007 http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19173 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | The Dark Shape [ Thu May 04, 2006 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | James Bond sequel planned for 2-007 |
Originally posted at femalefirst.co.uk (!), but linked from CommanderBond.net: Quote: ames Bond bosses want to release the sequel to new movie 'Casino Royale' next year - because the date ends in 007. Producers are keen to take advantage of the numerical significance with the suave spy's special agent number and want to start work on the project as soon as shooting has finished on the current film. A source told Britain's Daily Express newspaper: "The next one will be in 2007 - Bond's year. It will mean back-to-back shooting but then the next film will pick up where 'Casino Royale' leaves off anyway." However, the decision will mean new Bond Daniel Craig will not have a break between movies and will have to juggle promotional commitments for 'Casino Royale' with filming. Since Craig was announced as the latest actor to don the secret agent's famous tuxedo he has faced a barrage of criticism. Some angry fans of the franchise even started an online petition, found on website http://www.craignotbond.com, urging movie goers to boycott the new film. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa I think everyone involved understood how significant 2007 was, it's probably been on the forefront of their marketing strat since 1995 or earlier. But back to back films with an unproven Bond. Not to mention an apparent series story arc? god no. NO NO NO. |
|
| Author: | Jonathan [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Look what terror The Omen has wrought! Damn you, 6-6-06, DAMN YOU. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmmmm, it is very risky, but it could pay off. |
|
| Author: | Thegun [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Since the new one is coming out in late 2006, they might as well just push the release dat a couple of months to 2007. I know the Bond films used to be released a year apart, but that was grueling for Connery even when the productions were shorter. I think Craig will do good, but I think they should just push back the new one than rushing a 2nd on into production, especially if this one is suppose to be very good anyhow |
|
| Author: | zingy [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I feel confident in Casino Royale after that teaser, but it's really a risk to take on a second Bond within one year with an actor that hasn't proven that he can be a good Bond. Despite the '2007' release date, if people don't accept Craig in Casino Royale, this might not do well. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not to mention, SMERSH, SPECTRE, and key characters aside, 007 films are stand alone. As interesting as it would be for Pierce's Bond to talk about how hot Bambi and Thumper were, there just isnt any spill over story wise. |
|
| Author: | bABA [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
loyal, you just dont understand bond. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bABA wrote: loyal, you just dont understand bond. clearly (goes back to staring at 007 tattoo.) |
|
| Author: | Chippy [ Thu May 04, 2006 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
loyalfromlondon wrote: bABA wrote: loyal, you just dont understand bond. clearly (goes back to staring at 007 tattoo.) You mean the lame 007 on your arm?
|
|
| Author: | Johnny Dollar [ Thu May 04, 2006 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
loyalfromlondon wrote: Not to mention, SMERSH, SPECTRE, and key characters aside, 007 films are stand alone. This is true, but the series needs a blood transfusion. Deviating from the age-old formula is a good start. If the news is true, I think a story arc is a good thing. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Thu May 04, 2006 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
oh no you didn't Munky 
oh my god, I just realized you can see my nuts |
|
| Author: | Christian [ Thu May 04, 2006 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OMG loyal  
|
|
| Author: | zennier [ Thu May 04, 2006 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hehehe nuts.... 
So its true what they say about brown people.... 
|
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Thu May 04, 2006 5:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
seriously, they're huge. |
|
| Author: | zennier [ Thu May 04, 2006 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
loyalfromlondon wrote: seriously, they're huge. Indeed 
or not. ill give you the benefit of the doubt: it was cold out |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Thu May 04, 2006 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lennier wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: seriously, they're huge. Indeed or not. ill give you the benefit of the doubt: it was cold out I changed my avatar to that of the crying baby wearing a wig. |
|
| Author: | zennier [ Thu May 04, 2006 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aww, hehe, sorry to offend "little" Loyal...... 
|
|
| Author: | DP07 [ Thu May 04, 2006 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It might be a bit risky, but I'm now getting the feeling that people are underestimating Casino Royale. I'm not worried. |
|
| Author: | trixster [ Thu May 04, 2006 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If this was on their radar, why didn't they just push Casino Royale to 2007? It would have made more sense then trying to do back-to-back Bonds. If they had delayed Casino Royale a year, they would have got the double whammy of having both Fleming's first book back in movie form and 2-007. Plus the new Bond. Hell, if they had pushed it back a year, maybe they could have found a better Bond.  It just doesn't make sense to have another Bond movie next year. It'll do really poorly.
|
|
| Author: | Excel [ Thu May 04, 2006 11:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
why dont they just push casino royale back...its being rusched anyways.-till like, febuary 2007...it would amek the same...140-150 million dolar gross and would hit at a rather unsuspecting time. |
|
| Author: | STEVE ROGERS [ Thu May 04, 2006 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: James Bond sequel planned for 2-007 |
The Dark Shape wrote: Originally posted at femalefirst.co.uk (!), but linked from CommanderBond.net: Quote: ames Bond bosses want to release the sequel to new movie 'Casino Royale' next year - because the date ends in 007. Producers are keen to take advantage of the numerical significance with the suave spy's special agent number and want to start work on the project as soon as shooting has finished on the current film. A source told Britain's Daily Express newspaper: "The next one will be in 2007 - Bond's year. It will mean back-to-back shooting but then the next film will pick up where 'Casino Royale' leaves off anyway." However, the decision will mean new Bond Daniel Craig will not have a break between movies and will have to juggle promotional commitments for 'Casino Royale' with filming. Since Craig was announced as the latest actor to don the secret agent's famous tuxedo he has faced a barrage of criticism. Some angry fans of the franchise even started an online petition, found on website http://www.craignotbond.com, urging movie goers to boycott the new film. How about this: How about we wait to see if this new movie even goes over along with Daniel Craig as 007 FIRST AND FOREMOST Before we even consider wasting the studio's $$$ on another movie no one may want in the end if CASINO ROYALE sucks??? 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|