Not a reboot in my mind...

[Everyman]

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.

The codename theory is rubbish and it contradicts the facts. It ameks no sense whatsoever. Is Moneypenny a codename too? Is Felix Leiter? Why does James Bond ebhave the same way with these characters?

 

[CConn]

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

You call those "obvious" contradictions?

Personally, I see nearly every single Bond movie as its own movie. As you can pretty much what any of the movies without having seen any other, and it'd still make sense. And in that sense, CR is no different than Dr. No, or Goldeneye, or any other Bond movie.

Personally, I think (a lot of) people have become way too obsessed with continuity. They want every little detail to fit into the puzzle of time perfectly. They want every little thing explained to them and shown, and treated as if it's reality itself. And if that doesn't happen, they're confused and angered, and come on here seeking answers they really don't need.

I don't mean to insult or undermine anyone's opinions on here, but I just don't see the big deal in James Bond's continuity being a vague kind of thing. That's what it's always been. And while CR may be slightly more contradictory than other films, (to me, at least) it hardly means it's separate and different from them.

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

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.

what is the point of passing on the name, what happens when he meets one of the old bonds villians? then its blown.

"If your a continuity junkie and need that connection."

no you don't, its just the same guy only his timeline is moved up, thats what they did with the books. it like captain america, he has always been found about 10 years ago, and so they just move up the timeline for him.

 

[Everyman]

I always considered it more a retcon than a reboot, personnally.