NIMH Rat

This popped into my head this morning and now it's really bugging me. Why did the producers of the 007 franchise not release a 007 movie in 2007?

Think about it. The name of the main character of a 40-year-old franchise IS IN THE FRICKIN YEAR.

We had Casino Royale last year. New Bond coming next year. Fine. But neither of those years has the numbers "007" in sequential order.

Did they just not realize it? I mean, think about how easy it would be to market the thing. Just have billboards with the year "2007" on it, with "007 highlighted." Or have one of those lenticular ads that from one angle say "2007" and from another angle say "007."

I know this might seem like a dumb question, but my brain hurts just pondering the lost opportunities. They could have pushed Casino Royale into 2007 and made a much bigger profit, in my mind, by exploiting the 2007 numerical phenomenon.

I'm imaging these discussions in marketing departments back in the 80s, when they were trying to sell some crap Roger Moore 007 movie like "For Your Eyes Only" or "A View to A Kill."

"These movies suck," says one marketing person." "I know," says another, "but we gotta do the best we can."

"I can't wait until 2007," says yet another.

"Why?"

"It'll be the easiest thing in the world. 007 in 2007. Sells itself, doesn't it?"

"Yeah. Hope we're still in business by then."

One last thing: having 007 in a calendar date happens only 365 DAYS EVERY THOUSAND YEARS. Now they have to wait until 3007 for another chance. Boggles the mind.

JPRaup

Interesting, never thought about that.

NIMH Rat

I just saw another 007 thread where a couple of posters ask the same question. So I'm not alone, thank God.

Brack

Yeah they missed their chance. Think of all the morons who would've come to see Bond simply because the year. I guess they'll just have to deal with making tons of money from this franchise in non-marketable years.

mike2

That's a good point now that i think of it...

islandclaws

Good point, but I don't think Casino Royale could have possibly kicked any more ass, so I'd hardly call it much of a wasted opportunity. With over $500mil worldwide, and the highest gross of any Bond film here or overseas, I'd say it did pretty good without the numerical assistance.

Mittman

I'd rather them take the time to come up with a worthy sequel to Casino Royale, then develop the marketing plan -- instead of developing a marketing plan, then throwing together a half assed sequel to Casino Royale.

NIMH Rat

I think it's more the concept of not releasing a 007 movie in 2007 that's bugging me. Casino Royale made money just fine. But it seems almost perverse, deliberately side-stepping a no-brainer marketing opportunity, to skip 2007 as a release year.

Kinda like when 2001 came and nobody really got around to re-releasing 2001, even in a limited run.

I can understand things like Prince's "1999" not getting much airplay in 1999; the lyrics, after all, do say "let's party LIKE it's 1999," which wouldn't make sense in the actual year 1999. But surely someone named Broccoli or Wilson looked at a calendar sometime in the 80s or 90s and said, "Ah, yes, 2007. We can't lose." And then when it came around they just said, "ah, screw it. Let's spend $50 million on an ad campaign for a new Bond, a new actor playing Bond, etc. etc. in 2006 instead of 2007. Because we don't do things the easy way around here....."

Brack

Tell that to a local radio station of mine. They played "1999" for a whole day that New Year's Day.

DVDho78DTS

Thanks for bringing this up, now I'll never get to sleep tonight. I'm gonna be rustling in my sheets all freakin' night!

JTH182

The millennium was probably the second most popular that "1999" had ever been, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

I thought 2001 WAS re-released on a limited basis

But no 2007 is a little odd.

Rockmjd23

There were definitely a ton of re-releases in 2001. Imdb lists a bunch of them: http://imdb.com/title/tt0062622/releaseinfo

There's still time for a big 2010 rerelease .

Jason

2007's not over yet...

PopcornTreeCt

This reminds of the old teaser trailer for Shoot 'Em Up. Which made clever use of (2)007

NIMH Rat

I lived in Boston at the time and since it never came around to Boston or New York in 2001 I always assumed it never got a re-release. But with DC as the only East Coast venue, it still feels tokenish.

Oh yeah, we definitely need a 2010 re-release. Helen Mirren as a Russian....great stuff.

MartinBlank

Every check or date I've written all year has been dated 007. Yeah, I'm a dork, wanna fight about it?

DJariya

I don't think Sony even thought of this scenario considering Paul Haggis just finished the 1st draft of the script last month before the WGA strike deadline. This would have been an excellent marketing ploy.

I think this probably would have been dicey at best. Casino Royale was released in theatres in 2006 and I think it would have been logistically impossible to shoot Bond movies back to back like what the Pirates movies have done. Plus Bond movies usually come out every 3-4 years.

wm lopez

Doesn't mean that it would have sold one more ticket.
And here's why I believe this.
In 2006 we had THE OMEN remake and the release date was 6-6-06 and the movie bombed.

auto

Even more of a missed opportunity now that it's come out that the film may be called 007.

Seantn

Actually, this one had a nice opening day thanks to all the 6/6/06 marketing, and it wasn't a bomb. It made $120 million worldwide on a $25 million budget.