Re-start?

[Masut]

It will be interesting to see where they go from Casino Royale. I know there's talks of an original story, but I wonder if they'll touch the previously made one's and re-do them.

 

[Mr.E.Nygma]

From my understanding, CR is a prequel of sorts

Damn they begin to lack of inspiration... Sad but hey, it's normal after twenty years! No hero/character/film franchise longed like the Bond ones!!! Except perhaps the land before time which has 10 movies or I dunno... kinda weird...

 

[celldog]

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.

PC police to th rescue.........M should be a man again, if this is a re-boot or prequel,,,,,,,,, this is stupid.

 

[celldog]

It will be interesting to see where they go from Casino Royale. I know there's talks of an original story, but I wonder if they'll touch the previously made one's and re-do them.

yeah....will they bring back S.P.E.C.T.R.E. ?? I hope so......

 

[Brian Braddock]

I miss S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The weird thing is that Judi Dench is playing an alternate version of her M character in the previous films.

 

[PunisherPoster]

The weird thing is that Judi Dench is playing an alternate version of her M character in the previous films.

I doubt she (or audiences) will really approach it as such.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I doubt she (or audiences) will really approach it as such.

I disagree. I think the smart viewers will realise what's going on. And Dench will obviously change her performance to not only suit Craig's Bond, but to show she 's only recently met him.

 

[Catman]

Remember in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" when Blofeld didn't recognize Bond even though he had already met him in You Only Live Twice? That's what's gonna happen with Casino Royale.

Honestly, rebooting the franchise is nonsense because what are they rebooting? I already pointed this out. There was a lot of talk about a younger Bond and what-not. Just like during OHMSS there was talk of Bond getting plastic surgery. If GoldenEye is an indication of what director Martin Campbell has up his sleeves, then he is only going to re-fresh the franchise and not reboot it.

Watch GoldenEye again and you'll see that Campbell only re-freshed the franchise and adapted James Bond for a post-cold war era. Maybe all he is doing is adapting 007 for a post-9/11 world. Maybe the teaser sequence in which Bond gets his double O is just a flashback. Just like the teaser of GoldenEye took place 9 years before the rest of the movie.

 

[Everyman]

Remember in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" when Blofeld didn't recognize Bond even though he had already met him in You Only Live Twice? That's what's gonna happen with Casino Royale.

And if you want to be nitpicking, you could say that the whole SPECTRE organisation should know how James Bond looks like from earlier on, since they used a perfect replica of Bond's face as a mask in From Russia with Love. Anyway, I kind of agree with you that it is not the reboot as Batman Begins was.

 

[Catman]

And if you want to be nitpicking, you could say that the whole SPECTRE organisation should know how James Bond looks like from earlier on, since they used a perfect replica of Bond's face as a mask in From Russia with Love. Anyway, I kind of agree with you that it is not the reboot as Batman Begins was.

I was not nitpicking. Just adding more evidence to my claim that these films are stand-alone and "re-booting" is nonsense. Why can't the producers and Campbell simply say they're going to freshen up the franchise. That's pretty much what they did with GoldenEye.

 

[PunisherPoster]

I disagree. I think the smart viewers will realise what's going on.

I think most moviegoers will just recognize Dench as M and not give it much further thought.

As for Campbell just "freshening up" the franchise, I agree that's what they should have done. Instead, they are using the fact that Casino Royale was the first book as an excuse to try and rip off Batman Begins.

 

[johnsonuk]

I think most moviegoers will just recognize Dench as M and not give it much further thought.

As for Campbell just "freshening up" the franchise, I agree that's what they should have done. Instead, they are using the fact that Casino Royale was the first book as an excuse to try and rip off Batman Begins.

and cubby always was against this according to wilson.

 

[Everyman]

I was not nitpicking. Just adding more evidence to my claim that these films are stand-alone and "re-booting" is nonsense. Why can't the producers and Campbell simply say they're going to freshen up the franchise. That's pretty much what they did with GoldenEye.

I know you weren't nitpicking, I was just stating that inconsistencies were there from earlier on, and the franchise has rewritten its continuity very often.

 

[Catman]

I know you weren't nitpicking, I was just stating that inconsistencies were there from earlier on, and the franchise has rewritten its continuity very often.

What continuity? The only continuity is in From Russia With Love which takes place 6 months after Dr. No.

 

[Everyman]

There are some bits of continuity in the franchise beyond that. In YOLT, Bond fakes his death because of his numerous clashes with SPECTRE in the past. Tracy's death changed the character, somehow, and is mentionned in various movies after OHMSS.

 

[FelixLeiter]

I think the producers feel they need to "shake up" the series. I think just geeting a new Bond is enough really.

 

[Catman]

There are some bits of continuity in the franchise beyond that. In YOLT, Bond fakes his death because of his numerous clashes with SPECTRE in the past. Tracy's death changed the character, somehow, and is mentionned in various movies after OHMSS.

That is not continuity, sir. Those are just quick references for the benefit of the audience. Like in Die Another Day when we see a bunch of gadgets from the past films.

From Russia With Love is the only true continuity because it CLEARLY takes place 6 months after Dr. No. To begin with, Bond's London girlfriend (who was dropped from Goldfinger for obvious reasons) mentioned how he disappeared 6 months ago to Jamaica. Then, we have the scene with Blofeld in which he is talking about Dr. No and how they want to get revenge on James Bond. That, sir, is continuity. We NEVER AGAIN in the Bond series get continuity like that.

Sure there is reference to Tracy but they do not clearly state that she died at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. They just say she died. Just like they mention a million times in the series that he is a Navy Commander. Or that he attended a certain school. Or that he has been a double O for 10 years, etc etc etc.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Ya know, it just seems like you could practically watch ANY of the Bond films in ANY order, and you wouldn't really miss a beat.

So, I mean......just because this film doesn't reference any of the rest, it wouldn't be a big deal since most Bond films barely do so too.

Btw, great points Catman. Your 007 knowledge is impressive.

 

[johnsonuk]

Ya know, it just seems like you could practically watch ANY of the Bond films in ANY order, and you wouldn't really miss a beat.

So, I mean......just because this film doesn't reference any of the rest, it wouldn't be a big deal since most Bond films barely do so too.

Btw, great points Catman. Your 007 knowledge is impressive.

well if you were to watch LTK, FYEO and TSWLM before OHMSS then it would be confusing.he is at tracy's grave in FYEO and it is mentioned in TSWLM and LTK

 

[Catman]

Tracy also died in the books, so if you've read the books you'll know what's going on.

 

[Jack Napier]

A lot of people go to Bond movies just to hear, "Vodka martini, shaken not stirred", or "Bond, James Bond". They go to see the new car, the new girl, and the new villain. The plot can be whatever, as long as it's the same as the last movie.

What people have forgotten is the potential that a Bond movie can have, and that they deserve much, much more than a BMW produce placement. I think here with this movie they're going to get it.

 

[Hunter Rose]

i know this is a restart but is it a restart for the whole bond character? in it they say he is a former sas soldier, but in the books and the past movies wasn't he just a naval commander or something? just pondering, but i do like the fact that he was ex special ops which means he doesn't have to judo chop dudes anymore. and i was pretty pissed when craig got the nod for casino royale but after seeing the pics and how badass everything is looking, so hyped am i to seeing this movie.

 

[Masut]

i know this is a restart but is it a restart for the whole bond character? in it they say he is a former sas soldier, but in the books and the past movies wasn't he just a naval commander or something? just pondering, but i do like the fact that he was ex special ops which means he doesn't have to judo chop dudes anymore. and i was pretty pissed when craig got the nod for casino royale but after seeing the pics and how badass everything is looking, so hyped am i to seeing this movie.

Hey, nothing's wrong with a good ol' Judo Chop! It's a solution to any problem.


JUDO CHOP!

 

[droogiedroogie2]

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 disagree. While they certainly can be viewed as standalones, and present a challenge in terms of Bond staying basically the same age for four decades or whatever, they never actually contradict each other. If that's wrong, shoot me down because I'm not a super-Bond fan, I just dig the franchise.

Anyway, point being that it may not be continuity per se, but I'd say there's a self-contained Bondiverse that can easily be made into continuity with a little imagination. Let's just say that, like in comic books, time just goes slower than it does for us. In comics, I think the equation is four real-time years to one comic-year. Can't we just use something similar for Bond, simply ignoring all specific yeardate references?

If we do so, this "reboot" becomes infinitely more offensive to the Bond fan, in my veiw. It becomes reminiscent of Marvel's Ultimates and DC's All-Star, both of which piss me off. Ultimates made me glad I hated Marvel to begin with, and All-Star made me eat those words right back up because DC did the same freaking thing.