Re-start?

[Catman]

I still don't understand why Casino Royale is a restart. With the exception of From Russia With Love each Bond film is its own film. They are not direct-sequels which is why its lasted 44 years with five actors (excluding Craig) playing 007.

[ProjectPat2280]

I agree. I think itll be cool to show him from the start, but as u kinda stated, its not James Bond. I personally dont think he fits the part, but ill hold final judgement til i see the film. I also dont like what they are doing to the film itself, as in saying no 'Q' gadgets. I mean, the gadgets really made Bond, well Bond. Thats like taking Sam Fishers NVG's away, u just dont do that. Who knows, maybe seeing this part of Bond will work, we will find out in Nov.

[Catman]

Well, Martin Campbell isn't a fan of the gadgets. In GoldenEye Bond only had like one or two gadgets.

[The Game]

From my understanding, CR is a prequel of sorts, as during this movie he gets his 00 status and we see him start to develop his skills

^^^

I think this will be flash back.. the shorts sort of tell me that..

[ProjectPat2280]

Originally Posted by The Game

From my understanding, CR is a prequel of sorts, as during this movie he gets his 00 status and we see him start to develop his skills

Yea i think ur right, this is more of a developing Bond. I felt they shouldnt of done that, being that those Bond gadgets are classic Bond. Who knows tho, this could work and end up being the best film in the series, even better than my fav: Goldeneye, featuring the best Bond to date.

[Cartoonics]

Originally Posted by Catman

Well, Martin Campbell isn't a fan of the gadgets. In GoldenEye Bond only had like one or two gadgets.

And GoldenEye was, hands down, the best of the Brosnan Bond flicks. Food for thought.

[Kurosawa]

It's a Batman Begins style reboot. Previous continuity such as it was, is being thrown out and we're starting over with a completely new Bond who is beginning in the present day.

Kinda like Marvel's Ultimates or DC's Multiverse.

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

It's a Batman Begins style reboot. Previous continuity such as it was, is being thrown out and we're starting over with a completely new Bond who is beginning in the present day.

Kinda like Marvel's Ultimates or DC's Multiverse.

Exactly. It's a restart because Bond isn't 007 at the start of the movie - yet it's set in the present day - and he uses a P99, which he was originally given in Tomorrow Never Dies. Judi Dench is also playing M, despite the fact she started in GoldenEye in 1995.

Ties your head in knots.

[Kurosawa]

Yeah, as much as I like her as M I wish they'd cast a new M so as not to confuse things.

I but it was a contractual/money thing.

[PunisherPoster]

The problem with this reboot (aside from Dench) is that Craig looks much older than any of the previous actors did in their debut films. As a result, it's hard to take him seriously as being a "prequel" to the other Bonds.

When Craig was first announced, I thought, "Hmm...okay." But as more and more details have come forward, I really don't think he was the best choice for this role. Both Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell revealed that this part is written for a twentysomething Bond, which Craig clearly is not.

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally Posted by PunisherPoster

The problem with this reboot (aside from Dench) is that Craig looks much older than any of the previous actors did in their debut films. As a result, it's hard to take him seriously as being a "prequel" to the other Bonds.

When Craig was first announced, I thought, "Hmm...okay." But as more and more details have come forward, I really don't think he was the best choice for this role. Both Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell revealed that this part is written for a twentysomething Bond, which Craig clearly is not.

True, but they also said the neccesary changes were made to compensate for Craig's age, and really, which is more convincing; a 20-something as a top British secret agent or a guy in his late 30's?

Plus, we all know it was written as a 20-something because EON wanted Orlando Bloom.

[droogiedroogie2]

See, THIS is a good reason to be pissed about the new Bond movie. Why does everybody feel like they have to restart something to make it good? It's ****ing stupid. We've lived with the real Bond continuity for so many years, always accepting that Bond was played by different people, that he was alive and active for decades longer than he should have been, and all this other unbelievable crap. And now we're suddenly being "realistic"? Bull****.

[sarcasm]Plus, you know, he's blonde, so that means it's gonna suck.[/sarcasm]

[Two-Face]

Originally Posted by PunisherPoster

When Craig was first announced, I thought, "Hmm...okay." But as more and more details have come forward, I really don't think he was the best choice for this role. Both Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell revealed that this part is written for a twentysomething Bond, which Craig clearly is not.

Exactly, when I read that "we are looking for young Bond" in these words I thought ok but then they hit us with Craig as Bond I was like "I thought they wanted young actor why Craig?" when the news hit.


I hope he wil bel good come November 17th.

[PunisherPoster]

Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele

True, but they also said the neccesary changes were made to compensate for Craig's age, and really, which is more convincing; a 20-something as a top British secret agent or a guy in his late 30's?

But the whole point is that he isn't a top agent for most of the film. He's a hothead who is making foolish mistakes. I can buy that far more easily than the idea of Craig as a rookie Bond. (Not to mention, both Connery and Lazenby were in their late 20's/early 30's when they did the role.)

If the story is written for a 28-year-old, then you don't get someone who looks much older than his 37 years. Once you do that, you're no longer being true to your entire concept.

They've made the same mistake by casting Dench, which immediately shows they are not fully committed to the reboot idea.

Imagine if Nolan had recast Pat Hingle and Michael Gough, while casting an actor who looked older than Keaton did in 89.

[CrimsonMist]

Originally Posted by droogiedroogie2

See, THIS is a good reason to be pissed about the new Bond movie. Why does everybody feel like they have to restart something to make it good? It's ****ing stupid. We've lived with the real Bond continuity for so many years, always accepting that Bond was played by different people, that he was alive and active for decades longer than he should have been, and all this other unbelievable crap. And now we're suddenly being "realistic"? Bull****.

[sarcasm]Plus, you know, he's blonde, so that means it's gonna suck.[/sarcasm]

i dont know. I just want a Casino Royale movie. It's the only one missing. It's a book, so it counts. Now, if this were an original idea, and Bond's origins were never told in both book and film, i'd be pissed. You dont need to explain anything. Alot of movies made now, are sequels or prequels to explain everything about the characters in the first movie. I dont care about that stuff.

But like Batman Begins and this movie, the origin of the hero HAS been told before, but not on film, so im not complaining.

Im still confused as to what this film is: restart or prequel. It

i think realistic is meant in terms like From Russia With Love as opposed to something like Moonraker with all the crazy gadgets. A More down to earth film. Aslong as they dont take this "realism" thing too far, i wont have a problem with it.

not to mention, i've no problem with Daniel Craig as Bond either.

[Mentok]

Goldeneye was a semi restart for the series was it not?

[Joseph_Freefall]

Originally Posted by Mentok

Goldeneye was a semi restart for the series was it not?

How so, Mentok?

[Mentok]

I dont know, I just remember reading that it was designed as a fresh start for the series... I dont really see why since it had all the usual Bond elements in it.

[Everyman]

Originally Posted by Catman

I still don't understand why Casino Royale is a restart. With the exception of From Russia With Love each Bond film is its own film. They are not direct-sequels which is why its lasted 44 years with five actors (excluding Craig) playing 007.

Well, most of the Connery-Bond could be seen as movies with a loose continuity. He fights SPECTRE in all but Goldfinger!

[Everyman]

Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele

True, but they also said the neccesary changes were made to compensate for Craig's age, and really, which is more convincing; a 20-something as a top British secret agent or a guy in his late 30's?

Plus, we all know it was written as a 20-something because EON wanted Orlando Bloom.

I am glad they didn't go with a 20something Bond. I already think the Bond girls are too young now, if they cast a teenage-looking Bond, that would have been the end of the franchise!

And are we sure EON wanted Orlando Bloom?

[PunisherPoster]

Originally Posted by Everyman

Well, most of the Connery-Bond could be seen as movies with a loose continuity. He fights SPECTRE in all but Goldfinger!

They more or less did up until You Only Live Twice, when, instead of waiting to film OHMSS, they decided to go ahead with their own storyline. This essentially created the blueprint for the rest of the series.

But all of the films have still had a loose continuity. For example, every actor has acknowledged the death of Bond's wife.

However, this restart contradicts the previous films. (ie. Bond receiving his PPK in Dr. No and the Aston Martin in Goldfinger)

[Everyman]

Originally Posted by PunisherPoster

However, this restart contradicts the previous films. (ie. Bond receiving his PPK in Dr. No and the Aston Martin in Goldfinger)

Yes, and it's one of the problems I have with it. Some things are promessing though: the possible return of a recurrent nemesis, less gadgets, return to unknown actresses as Bond girls.

[Catman]

I think Batman Begins has confused many of you. Batman Begins rebooted the Batman franchise because, believe it or not, the previous four films were connected.

Bond on the other hand cannot be rebooted because what are they rebooting? From Russia With Love is the only Bond film that you can truly call a sequel. The other films are actually just stand-alone films. Yes, there is reference to the previous installments but thats so the audience can feel comfortable and can smile when they see or hear something that reminds them of the previous films.

For instance, in Goldfinger when Bond meets Felix he makes a reference to Jamacia, which was when they were last seen together in Dr. No. Aside from that there is no other reference to the previous two films. In The Spy Who Loved Me, Triple X talks about the death of Tracy Bond. That is the only reference in the film to the previous nine films.

So, these films are pretty much stand-alone films.

i dont know. I just want a Casino Royale movie. It's the only one missing. It's a book, so it counts.

Not really because there is a bunch of short stories, The Spy Who Loved Me was only adapted in title, and there have been other Bond novels not written by Ian Fleming.

[CrimsonMist]

Originally Posted by Catman

Not really because there is a bunch of short stories, The Spy Who Loved Me was only adapted in title, and there have been other Bond novels not written by Ian Fleming.

that's not what i meant. I meant that Casino Royale was the only book not made into a proper film for the Bond series, although i wouldn't mind seeing a proper version of The Spy Who Loved Me.

and i never really got into any other Bond books. I always preferred Flemming's books. The other ones don't really do it for me.