Not a reboot in my mind...

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Maybe it's just that the idea of a reboot is so absolutley horrendous that I won't allow myself to accept this as a reboot, but with all the Bond movies having such a loose timeline anyways (and Bond remaining the same age for 40+ years...), I don't even consider this a reboot.

It's just a loose prequel of Bond's origins.

A reboot actually changes the formula for the movies; I.E. Batman Begins in comparrison to Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and even the previous 2. Except for a bit more grit, no Q (which any Q wouldn't be the same anyways, with Desmond what's-his-name no longer with us), and no Moneypenny, it's essentially the same formula.

They never should have even brought up the term "reboot". It's a lame ploy that's only being done because with Batman Begins and Superman Returns, it's the current Hollywood trend... Bond is such a loose continuity to begin with and have gone through so many different stages that a reboot was unneccesary anyways.

And that's why I don't consider this a reboot.

It's just a more gritty take on Bond, and a loose prequel of his origins. Their desire to want to make it a reboot hurt it a bit, because they tried too hard to prove this was a new Bond, but Bond is Bond. This movie would have been better without their "reboot" attempts. Luckily, it was a pretty damned good movie anyways, so their pathetic attempt to follow Hollywood trends didn't ruin anything.

 

[Garzo]

Without trying to argue semantics, this film definitely is a reboot or a revamp -- it's basically starting with a clean slate and their take on Bond is very different than previous incarnations.

There's no way that Craig's Bond inhabits the same world in which Brosnan's Bond drives an invisible car and fights North Koreans who undergo genetic-change operations in order to become English, or Moore's Bond, who fights metal-toothed giants in outer space.

Aside from the question of time period, Casion Royale is obviously trying to bring Bond down to Earth and to a reality that closer mirrors our own.

It's fair to compare Moonraker or Die Another Day to the stylized Batman movies of Burton and Schumacher and Casino to the more realistic and gritty Batman Begins.

 

[tylerdurden99]

Maybe it's just that the idea of a reboot is so absolutley horrendous that I won't allow myself to accept this as a reboot, but with all the Bond movies having such a loose timeline anyways (and Bond remaining the same age for 40+ years...), I don't even consider this a reboot.

It's just a loose prequel of Bond's origins.

A reboot actually changes the formula for the movies; I.E. Batman Begins in comparrison to Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and even the previous 2. Except for a bit more grit, no Q (which any Q wouldn't be the same anyways, with Desmond what's-his-name no longer with us), and no Moneypenny, it's essentially the same formula.

They never should have even brought up the term "reboot". It's a lame ploy that's only being done because with Batman Begins and Superman Returns, it's the current Hollywood trend... Bond is such a loose continuity to begin with and have gone through so many different stages that a reboot was unneccesary anyways.

And that's why I don't consider this a reboot.

It's just a more gritty take on Bond, and a loose prequel of his origins. Their desire to want to make it a reboot hurt it a bit, because they tried too hard to prove this was a new Bond, but Bond is Bond. This movie would have been better without their "reboot" attempts. Luckily, it was a pretty damned good movie anyways, so their pathetic attempt to follow Hollywood trends didn't ruin anything.

You've made roughly the same point with roughly the same examples three paragraphs in a row.

No more linked with james bond has actually said it is a reboot, people on the internet have banded about that idea.

Why did a reboot hurt you?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno.....Judi Dench as MI6 kinda tosses the film more into the reboot category.

Other than that though......it could be a prequel.....even though it's in modern times.....lol.

 

[odiin]

They really only call it a reboot because some people's brains are too small to accept the idea that Judi Dench is still M* and that it takes place in the place in the present**.

If you consider it a reboot, then one could say the same thing about Timothy Dalton taking over for Roger Moore, or any other time in the series where the tone of the movie has significantly changed from one film to the next.

Casino Royale is undoubtedly from the same Bond series we have all grown up on, for it to be considered a "reboot," it would have to be a wholly new and separate interpretation of the Fleming novels, which means it wouldn't have the gun barrel sequence or at all follow the formula established by the earlier films.

* The Judi Dench thing isn't so bad, and can be looked at in several different ways:

1.) Judi Dench plays the first M in CR, Lee's/Brown's M(s) is her successor and then she plays a totally separate M in the Brosnan movies. If one can accept that multiple actors can play the same character, then why not one actor playing multiple characters?

2.) Dench is the first M and gets her job back after many years in GE

or, and this is my favourite:

3.) Simply accept that the Bond films have a loose continuity and that M is still M regardless of the actor in the role, that is that M is still Bond's boss and the head of MI6, and that's all that is important.

**This one is totally a non-issue, the bond movies are ALWAYS set in the present. If you really want to think of them chronologically, then focus on the plots and not the time in which they take place.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

They really only call it a reboot because some people's brains are too small to accept the idea that Judi Dench is still M* and that it takes place in the place in the present**.

If you consider it a reboot, then one could say the same thing about Timothy Dalton taking over for Roger Moore, or any other time in the series where the tone of the movie has significantly changed from one film to the next.

Casino Royale is undoubtedly from the same Bond series we have all grown up on, for it to be considered a "reboot," it would have to be a wholly new and separate interpretation of the Fleming novels, which means it wouldn't have the gun barrel sequence or at all follow the formula established by the earlier films.

* The Judi Dench thing isn't so bad, and can be looked at in several different ways:

1.) Judi Dench plays the first M in CR, Lee's/Brown's M(s) is her successor and then she plays a totally separate M in the Brosnan movies. If one can accept that multiple actors can play the same character, then why not one actor playing multiple characters?

2.) Dench is the first M and gets her job back after many years in GE

or, and this is my favourite:

3.) Simply accept that the Bond films have a loose continuity and that M is still M regardless of the actor in the role, that is that M is still Bond's boss and the head of MI6, and that's all that is important.

**This one is totally a non-issue, the bond movies are ALWAYS set in the present. If you really want to think of them chronologically, then focus on the plots and not the time in which they take place.

That's exactly how I feel about it.

The reason why I think a "reboot" is stupid is because Bond has been going for 20 movies and 40 something years. Not all of them were top of the line calibur, no, but Bond is an icon... a "reboot" was nothing more than trying to go with some Hollywood trend, which right now with Batman, Superman, and the upcoming Hulk, reboots are the "trend"... just as filming movies together were thanks to Lord of the Rings.

Casino Royale did not break the Bond formula; Bond is still suave with the ladies, still has his sly remarks, still has the "Bond, James Bond", and "shaken, not stirred" catch phrases (although the latter was done differently this time around).

Instead of just going with the whole "this is a new Bond", like it was with Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan, they tried too hard to make this a "reboot" with the remarks about 9/11 and how M misses the Cold War... it's NOT. It's a new Bond. Daniel Craig. Who I thought did a rather impressive job. Brosnan is still my favorite, but yea, I think that Craig was pretty damned good in the role.

The whole reboot thing is just trying to capitolize off of the current Hollywood trend. And it was lame. If Bond had some bad movies (which I disagree with, as I thought Die Another Day was one of the better ones in the series...), then you just simply make a better one. The Bond movies are of such a loose continuity, and there's so many of them, that you simply can just make another one.

But I totally agree with odiin. This isn't a reboot. It's simply put, a new Bond.

If I can take 6 different actors playing James Bond, if I can take him remaining roughly the same age for 40 years and 20 movies, then I can take a prequel set in modern times 40 years after the first film, and the "original" M being played by Judi Dench who was the newer M in the Brosnan films. Anyways, Dench is rather good in the role... why change something that's not broken?

The only thing I really missed was the lack of Q. But with the actor deceased now (R.I.P.; and again, I can't remember his name, unfortunatley), it just wouldn't be the same. Q wasn't the same in Die Another Day with Cleese in the role... Q just isn't the same without the original actor.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think eventually, they'll either have to get a new Q or get a new character to do Q's job. R or something.

But, really....I think Casino Royale was fine without Q........and, maybe the next few film might not go with a Q too. I dunno, that's a tough call. I mean, who would think so too? The main character has had so many different actors, but it's tough to see Q get changed.

 

[The Englishman]

I dunno.....Judi Dench as MI6 kinda tosses the film more into the reboot category.

Other than that though......it could be a prequel.....even though it's in modern times.....lol.

Plus to me he does not seem to have the same background as the old bond. Old Bond was a Comander in the Royal Navy while Craigs Bond looks like he was in the SAS before MI6, I just cant see Craigs Bond being the same character as Roger Moores Bond... so it's a Reboot for me.

 

[odiin]

Plus to me he does not seem to have the same background as the old bond. Old Bond was a Comander in the Royal Navy while Craigs Bond looks like he was in the SAS before MI6,

They never said he WASN'T in the Navy. It may have been a prequal but it didn't go THAT far back

I just cant see Craigs Bond being the same character as Roger Moores Bond... so it's a Reboot for me.

I can't see Moore's bond as Connery's bond, but that doesn't make LALD a reboot, Nor can I see Dalton's bond the same as Moore's, but The Living Daylights isn't a reboot either.

Every Bond actor is different, and has brought something different to the role. People should be used to this by now. It's stupid to say it's a reboot just because the actor handles the role differently then his predecessor.

If it weren't for the fact that Casino Royale takes place at the beginning of bond's career, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If you were to have the exact same movie just edit out any conversation about Bond recently getting his licence to kill, then the word "reboot" would never leave anyone's mouths.

I don't see how anyone can focus on that one detail and because of it call the movie a reboot and disregard everything it has in common with the rest of the film series

 

[Mr. Socko]

The whole time I was like where's Q. But then again if he was there, what would he have done. Because Bond didn't use alot of fancy gadgets? He could have just been a paper pusher?

Anyway, I don't see how this movie is a prequel. I think thats crazy. To me it's just another continum in the chronicles of Bond. Batman Begins is an origin story, Casino is NOT.

 

[swifty]

are they going to remake all the bond movies from now on or what?

so what's next for Daniel Craig....'Dr. No' ?

 

[Warhammer]

are they going to remake all the bond movies from now on or what?

so what's next for Daniel Craig....'Dr. No' ?

No, no prequels.
I am sure that EON doesn't want to do that, and it doesn't need to happen.

Some of the Bond movies are half-assed anyway.
EON will probably either do movies based on other books or original pieces.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Paper pusher? I think CR let it be known that Bond is anything but that....if anything, really...he needs to learn a bit on being cool headed, lol.

In some ways, CR is an origin story b/c it explains why Bond is the way he is. But, really......it's just Bond. If the first half of the movie were cut out, if the film took place from when he met Vesper....we probably wouldn't be calling it an orign or prequel or restart.

I think the first half of CR was all original, while the second half was from the book. I guess they could try that again, blending both again.

 

[The Englishman]

They never said he WASN'T in the Navy. It may have been a prequal but it didn't go THAT far back



I can't see Moore's bond as Connery's bond, but that doesn't make LALD a reboot, Nor can I see Dalton's bond the same as Moore's, but The Living Daylights isn't a reboot either.

Every Bond actor is different, and has brought something different to the role. People should be used to this by now. It's stupid to say it's a reboot just because the actor handles the role differently then his predecessor.

If it weren't for the fact that Casino Royale takes place at the beginning of bond's career, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If you were to have the exact same movie just edit out any conversation about Bond recently getting his licence to kill, then the word "reboot" would never leave anyone's mouths.

I don't see how anyone can focus on that one detail and because of it call the movie a reboot and disregard everything it has in common with the rest of the film series

I never said he was not in the Royal Navy, just that it seems more likely that he was recruited from the SAS instead, plus Vesper mentions MI6 Double 0's being from the SAS.

 

[johnsonuk]

the way i see it is connery and craig at the start line.

we have had connery's bond start, passing to lazenby/moore/dalton/brosnan

now we are seeing craig at the start to see the direction his bond goes in.

 

[jrd550]

Without trying to argue semantics, this film definitely is a reboot or a revamp -- it's basically starting with a clean slate and their take on Bond is very different than previous incarnations.

There's no way that Craig's Bond inhabits the same world in which Brosnan's Bond drives an invisible car and fights North Koreans who undergo genetic-change operations in order to become English, or Moore's Bond, who fights metal-toothed giants in outer space.

Aside from the question of time period, Casion Royale is obviously trying to bring Bond down to Earth and to a reality that closer mirrors our own.

It's fair to compare Moonraker or Die Another Day to the stylized Batman movies of Burton and Schumacher and Casino to the more realistic and gritty Batman Begins.

Well said my friend in Berlin.

 

[pyromaniac]

I see it as the origin of Bond, but it's a loose prequel.

 

[James Bond 007]

casino royale is a reboot, it's a reboot because it contradicts the continuity of the earlier bond movies, having judi dench as m at the beginning of bond's career, meeting felix leiter when he first met him in dr no, winning the aston martin in a poker game when he first got it from q in goldfinger, face it, if it throws out the continuity it's a reboot, and i know you might say all the others have only a loose continuity but there's never been any direct and so obvious contradictions before

 

[Roaring_Hulk!]

It's easy:

Believe what you want to believe.

 

[SKSpawn]

How about the old theory that's often used to explain away continuity and support decisions such as those evidant in Casino Royale:

"James Bond" is as much a code name as 007 is and this guy, Daniel Craig, has just become the next agent to assume the identity of "James Bond" and the status of 007.

Frankly, while this has been sometimes passed around before, to me, it's never made more sense than when watching Casino Royale. If only M had been recast and they'd not mentioned it being Bond's first mission then there would be no problem.

 

[j1123s]

I never said he was not in the Royal Navy, just that it seems more likely that he was recruited from the SAS instead, plus Vesper mentions MI6 Double 0's being from the SAS.

From Casino Royal Official web sight:

SEA SERVICE
Cdr. Bond conducted his year of Sea Service with high recommendations from his Chief Petty Officers and Warrant Officers. He applied for and was uniformly recommended for work in Naval Intelligence.

EARLY SERVICE
Bond served as an intelligence officer on HMS Exeter both before and during Operation Granby, and later was able to transfer to submarine service, touring on the HMS Turbulent. His natural abilities, mental quickness and confidence impressed his commanding officers. Within the year of being assigned to HMS Turbulent, it became apparent that Bond was not being sufficiently challenged with his duties. Cdr. Bond volunteered for Special Boat Service.

 

[Riven]

It's easy:

Believe what you want to believe.

Exactly.


...


except when it comes to this theory. This is just crap.

"James Bond" is as much a code name as 007 is and this guy, Daniel Craig, has just become the next agent to assume the identity of "James Bond" and the status of 007.

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

How about the old theory that's often used to explain away continuity and support decisions such as those evidant in Casino Royale:

"James Bond" is as much a code name as 007 is and this guy, Daniel Craig, has just become the next agent to assume the identity of "James Bond" and the status of 007.

when the bad guys see that the same guy hasn't aged in over 70 years but just looks diffrent then he did the last time they met the codename fails.

THE NUMBER IS PAST ON THE NAME IS NOT!

 

[Nivek]

Passed on....

Personally, I like to fall into the idea of the name and number getting passed on. If your a continuity junkie and need that connection, that is.

I like the idea that the only continuity in the series is tied to the actor playing the part. Everything else is simply dressing.

Personally though, I would've liked to have seen someone else play Denchs role as M. A complete fresh start would've avoided alot of this continuity debate crap.

 

[LexCorp]

Reboot,
A term that comes from computer usage. To reboot a computer is to start it up again after a computer crash. Hence, “reboot” has the connotation of starting a process over again.

Reboot is the wrong term as said above a reboot suggestes continuing a process not reinventing it.