James Bond 24

[DarthSkywalker]

So I take it you haven't read Grant Morrisons Batman run?

Oh, I have. It is my favorite comic book run... ever. That it ends this month, saddens me to no end. And I understand how it can contradict plenty, but that is the way of all comics. Hell, he brought a specifically out of continuity story, into continuity. His plucking of obscure Silver Age content is what makes it so insanely fun.

That doesn't change that Superman was rebooted with the Man of Steel in the 80s. That his origin has changed at least 5 times in the last 30 years and we now have a completely different Superman then the one before Flashpoint.

Remember, when the new 52 launched, Superman's history was completely rebooted. Everything that happened with Batman involving Year One and on, bascially 24 years of comics, was kept in continuity and said to have happened over a 5 year period. How the Robins factors into that, no idea. The same with the Green Lanterns. The characters who they wanted to hold onto continuity wise, they did. Those they didn't, they didn't.

Hell, they just completely changed Wonder Woman's origin.

But using your logic, how did Infinite Crisis involve both Golden Age Superman and modern Superman? "Whatever Happen to the Man of Tomorrow" shows the end of Silver Age Superman.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I never said Superman now did I? I said Batman. If Grant Morrison can fit all of that wacky and out there elements into one tangible life than it's easy enough for someone to look at Dr.No-Die Another Day as all part of one long series.

I never said rebooting the series wasn't necessary, it very much was at the point Casino Royale came about because it moved Bond beyond anything Cold War related. I was simply saying that of those 20 previous movies it's entirely possible to view it as the same man. Hell some might even make the argument that it's because of the Connery/Lazenby stuff that Bond becomes the Moore type until the levity of his work sets in and he sinks into Dalton era before picking up some humor again by the time of Brosnan story.

 

[Dark Raven]

It isn't simply the actors changing roles. It is how vastly different the character is, along with the world he inhabits. Moore is not playing the same Bond as Connery or Dalton. The guy that fought Red Grant is not the same guy who battled Mr. Big.

Moore and Dalton are the same Bonds as Lazenby at least. They both make reference to Tracy's death and being married as if it is part of their past. Lazenby is the same Bond as Connery as he looks at all the various artefacts or gadgets from his previous missions, someyhing which Brosnan does too.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I never said Superman now did I? I said Batman. If Grant Morrison can fit all of that wacky and out there elements into one tangible life than it's easy enough for someone to look at Dr.No-Die Another Day as all part of one long series.

I never said rebooting the series wasn't necessary, it very much was at the point Casino Royale came about because it moved Bond beyond anything Cold War related. I was simply saying that of those 20 previous movies it's entirely possible to view it as the same man. Hell some might even make the argument that it's because of the Connery/Lazenby stuff that Bond becomes the Moore type until the levity of his work sets in and he sinks into Dalton era before picking up some humor again by the time of Brosnan story.

Batman's continuity changed with Year One. It did not erase the Batman of the previous 50 years. That Grant Morrison brought Son of the Demon into continuity doesn't change that. I believe Son of the Demon came after the first Crisis. His love of Silver Age stories and content doesn't change that.

In fact, I am trying to remember now if he has ever contradicted post Year One Batman.

Moore and Dalton are the same Bonds as Lazenby at least. They both make reference to Tracy's death and being married as if it is part of their past. Lazenby is the same Bond as Connery as he looks at all the various artefacts or gadgets from his previous missions, someyhing which Brosnan does too.

Those attempts at continuty are contradicted more often then they hold up. How in the world is Moore's Bond the same character as Dalton's Bond. He de-aged 15 years? He is hanging out in the 80s, Miami Vice style.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Batman's continuity changed with Year One. It did not erase the Batman of the previous 50 years. That Grant Morrison brought Son of the Demon into continuity doesn't change that. I believe Son of the Demon came after the first Crisis. His love of Silver Age stories and content doesn't change that.

In fact, I am trying to remember now if he has ever contradicted post Year One Batman.

You're...completely missing the point. Bob Kane Batman-1950s Alien fighting Batman-Adam West Batman-Frank Miller Batman....they're all the same guy in Morrison's story, he took the tonal changes to Batman's publication history and made them a part of Bruce Wayne's life, the same man going through different stages in his life after different events happen to him, you can even hear him explain it himself in his podcast with Kevin Smith. There is no reason why that is any different from Connery's run to Brosnan's run.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're...completely missing the point. Bob Kane Batman-1950s Alien fighting Batman-Adam West Batman-Frank Miller Batman....they're all the same guy in Morrison's story, he took the tonal changes to Batman's publication history and made them a part of Bruce Wayne's life, the same man going through different stages in his life after different events take happen to him, you can even hear him explain it himself in his podcast with Kevin Smith. There is no reason why that is any different from Connery's run to Brosnan's run.

Morrison's Batman is awesome, and his interpretation is incredible. That it is so all encompassing is the reason why it might be the finest run in main stream comics history. It doesn't mean it is the way it is read by DC. In fact, we know it isn't. Remember Morrison is the same guy who has his own Superman continuity.

To vaguely connect Connery's run and Brosnan's run and Moore's run, etc. doesn't mean it isn't a reboot every time a new actor plays the role. They love to sprinkle in reference and little things from the past films, but that doesn't mean it all suddenly makes sense.

Skyfall does that stuff right imo, and perhaps you can say it is the Grant Morrison way. It just avoids it. You have the original DB5, and it is just there. Why? Because Bond has it. He just does. No reason to explain it or connect it to a past adventures or films. His Bond is his own Bond. He might have had similar experiences as the past Bonds, but he is still his own, different Bond. Hell, the character who original gave him the car in the Connery films, he just met for the first time in the very same film. He is much older them him in this situation as well.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well, I don't see it exactly the same as you but I respect your view.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I enjoyed the the other action sequences though the others weren't as massive or long. If I had a to make a prediction, I'd expect the next movie be like Craig's Thunderball and expect them to go crazy with the next Bond movie.

It felt me like Singer with X2, he ran out of exciting ideas come the third act. I hope Mendes can improve in this area, it doesn't even need to be (Thunder)balls to the wall, just better than a very basic and uninspired, hard to make out run and gun sequence and a basic foot chase.

I love the action scenes in Skyfall. I do think there's a little bit of a disconnect as the film went on; maybe it's a confidence thing as the shoot went on because the opening shot and the Shanghai stuff are filled with such bravado.

As I said above, I don't think it was confidence, to me it was a guy not used to action films who'd ran out of steam after starting off promisingly.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well, I don't see it exactly the same as you but I respect your view.

Just a little something you probably missed before the edit. I like the idea of the all encompassing history. The it all happened. Skyfall James feels like he has experienced it all. From Dr. No to Quantum of Solace. It all happened to his Bond. But the films didn't happen in his continuity.

The story of Goldfinger happened to Craig's Bond, but the film didn't happen in Craig's Bond continuity. Craig's Bond didn't fight Blofield in the 60s, but he fought Blofield and he experienced You Only Live Twice and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Hence the questions of if Bond is past it in Skyfall.

Does that make sense?

 

[Gold Samurai]

Yeah it makes perfect sense.


We started out with a fresh 007 in Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace takes place immediately after.

So we don't get a Bond movie for 4 years


In Skyfall we get a Bond who feels he's out of touch/tired.


It feels inconsistant. They started fresh but dumped 50 years of baggage on to Craig's bond just to show off for the 50th anniversary.


His Bond was fresh but they jumped the shark.

Those attempts at continuty are contradicted more often then they hold up. How in the world is Moore's Bond the same character as Dalton's Bond. He de-aged 15 years? He is hanging out in the 80s, Miami Vice style.

Regeneration

I also stick with the idea that each bond expierences their own version of the 23 movies out.


Brosnan's Bond had his version of Goldfinger

Craig went on his own "diamonds are forever" mission etc


I'm surprised no one has made books based on each bond like Doctor Who.

Connery's books would be set in the 60's

Craig's in the late 2000's

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah it makes perfect sense.


We started out with a fresh 007 in Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace takes place immediately after.

So we don't get a Bond movie for 4 years


In Skyfall we get a Bond who feels he's out of touch/tired.


It feels inconsistant. They started fresh but dumped 50 years of baggage on to Craig's bond just to show off for the 50th anniversary.


His Bond was fresh but they jumped the shark.

That is a perfect way of putting it and that is why I specified Skyfall James. It is bad writing and yet I love the film. It is like an internal battle of reason and love.

 

[Airwings]

You make a point. But new characters are not going to make it any less Bond and any more generic spy fiction.

But the name itself makes it more "Bond esque"

No, it is a reboot every time. The passage of time, the time periods, the lack of continuity, the vastly different Bonds, and of course the fact that he started getting much, much younger.

How come Lazenby has all the stuff from Connery in his office? And how can you explain that Moore had the same wife as Lazenby (even a hint with Dalton about that marriage)?

Moore and Dalton are the same Bonds as Lazenby at least. They both make reference to Tracy's death and being married as if it is part of their past. Lazenby is the same Bond as Connery as he looks at all the various artefacts or gadgets from his previous missions, someyhing which Brosnan does too.

What I said!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But the name itself makes it more "Bond esque"


How come Lazenby has all the stuff from Connery in his office? And how can you explain that Moore had the same wife as Lazenby (even a hint with Dalton about that marriage)?

What I said!

How do you explain the drastic changes in age. Bond is much younger in the 90s then he was in the 70s or earley 80s? How about the changes in tech and such?

 

[Airwings]

How do you explain the drastic changes in age. Bond is much younger in the 90s then he was in the 70s or earley 80s? How about the changes in tech and such?

Answer my questions first

 

[regwec]

How do you explain the drastic changes in age. Bond is much younger in the 90s then he was in the 70s or earley 80s? How about the changes in tech and such?

I think the point is that it really doesn't need to be explained. The overwhelming advantage of a "loose continuity" is that you don't have to patronise your audience by explaining away the inevitable intrusions of reality into the fantasy world, for instance when an actor needs to be replaced.

I don't see any advantage to a rigid film-to-film narrative. It means that the series will have to constantly stutter and start as actors are replaced. The series has thrived for 50 years by, for the most part, remaining chronologically ambiguous. It was only after DAD went, tonally, down the rabbit hole that a clear break seemed to be necessary.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Answer my questions first

Because they playing the same character, but not in the exact same continuity. Just like Skyfall James. Casino Royale had the same M from the Brosnan films, and yet she is now the first M Bond has know. Same in Skyfall. Yet in Skyfall he has the original DB5 and Dench's M somehow has knowledge of it and its capabilities.

Hell, Lazenby even mentions Connery and his Bond in the OHMSS PTS.

Now answer my question.

 

[MrMaooz]

It wouldn't shock me at all if Antje Traue is the next Bond girl.

 

[regwec]

She needs to be Wonder Woman, too.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think the point is that it really doesn't need to be explained. The overwhelming advantage of a "loose continuity" is that you don't have to patronise your audience by explaining away the inevitable intrusions of reality into the fantasy world, for instance when an actor needs to be replaced.

I don't see any advantage to a rigid film-to-film narrative. It means that the series will have to constantly stutter and start as actors are replaced. The series has thrived for 50 years by, for the most part, remaining chronologically ambiguous. It was only after DAD went, tonally, down the rabbit hole that a clear break seemed to be necessary.

The Bonds for the most part share experiences. All may have been married to a woman named Tracy, fell in love with a girl named Vesper, battled a man named Red Grant. But it is vague and loose for a reason.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It wouldn't shock me at all if Antje Traue is the next Bond girl.

Yes, this must happen. Now. She would be perfect. Also, Bond working with a German would also be quite amusing.

 

[Crockett]

I'm glad that Logan will be the sole writer for 24, Wade & Purvis overall Bond works has its ups and down but after 5 Bond films, a break is definitely beneficial, anyway given Logan's solid track records I'm interested to see what he can come up himself.

 

[regwec]

The Bonds for the most part share experiences. All may have been married to a woman named Tracy, fell in love with a girl named Vesper, battled a man named Red Grant. But it is vague and loose for a reason.

Fine, but in that respect your definition of "reboot" is small beer to my whisky. I think you have devised a way to explain the "in-world" inconsistencies to yourself, which is fair enough, but I doubt many people really share your view.

 

[Airwings]

The Bonds for the most part share experiences. All may have been married to a woman named Tracy, fell in love with a girl named Vesper, battled a man named Red Grant. But it is vague and loose for a reason.

Regwec has already given you a reply better than I can.
I like your view on the matter. But don't you find it strange that Bond anno 1981, visited the grave of his wice Tracy that died in 1969 and he even had the same M as the other Bonds, from 1973 and up to that year (he's said to be on "vacation" during the time of the film).
Did Bernard Lee-M have two different 007 at the same during 1969, both of them married a woman called Tracy, and both wives were killed??

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Fine, but in that respect your definition of "reboot" is small beer to my whisky. I think you have devised a way to explain the "in-world" inconsistencies to yourself, which is fair enough, but I doubt many people really share your view.

I am confused. I thought I was the one pointing out the inconsistencies?

 

[regwec]

You are, but while you have invented a way of explaining them to yourself to render each of the actors' movies viable within their own mini-series, I don't think the inconsistencies need to explained, since they are inevitable in a series that has run so long.