So what exactly do they mean by "restart"?

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I've heard the term "restart" tossed out there for Casino Royale...

Now, I am a pretty big James Bond fan. I have every Bond movie except for the unofficial Bond movie, Never Say Never Again... And I dunno much about Craig, but I must admit I'm kinda skeptical because Brosnan was awesome.

But, this whole "restart" business... they aren't doing a Batman Begins and trying to make this a new Bond franchise, are they? I've already heard there won't be any Q, or gadgets or anything (which sucks, because the Q character, whether played by Desmond or Cleese was awesome, and the cars that flip over onto their sides, drive on their own, fly, and shoot rockets out of their headlights are awesome!)

I'm hoping that by "restart", they just mean, the beginning of a new era, with a new Bond (Craig), and they don't try to make a new franchise, and change the stuff that made Bond, Bond.

 

[Threshold]

They've decided to restart the franchise and make it more character-centric instead of concept-centric. Meaning these new films won't be centered around the next big baddie that Bond has to go up against, but about exploring a different side of Bond and seeing the character on his journey through life as a 00 agent. It's basically taking the series back to the way that Flemming had originally intended.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

So they are basically saying that it is a "new" franchise? The way Batman Begins is a new franchise, not related to the Burton or Schumacher films?

Or just, "restart" as in, they are just taking it in a different direction than before?

 

[Threshold]

Considering the film begins with Bond getting his license to kill for the first time, I'm thinking it's a full-on restart.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well ****, sorry for making this thread, I just noticed (and finished reading through) the other "re-start" thread.

I musta missed it, because I scanned the forums before I made this thread to try to avoid a re-post, seeing as how I haven't checked out these forums and didn't want to re-post something that's already been talked about (apparently for 3 pages already). So yea, sorry about that.

And as for this being a re-start...

Well, no Pierce Brosnan, and now this movie being a restart, it's hard for me to anticipate this installment the way I did with all the others since I've been a fan. I'm just not liking the ideas in place behind this movie.

 

[spidey-dude]

^really i havn't enjoyed a jb film since goldeneye so i welcome this, maybe my £5 ticket will get me more than a film advertising cars i cant afford and women i wont have the oppertunity to sleep with

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

^really i havn't enjoyed a jb film since goldeneye so i welcome this, maybe my £5 ticket will get me more than a film advertising cars i cant afford and women i wont have the oppertunity to sleep with

I highly enjoyed all of the Brosnan Bond movies. They are all among my favorites.

 

[SpyderDan]

What really kills me about their attempt to "Batman Begins-ize" the 007 series is the fact that there's no continuity in this series anyway. Both M and Moneypenny changes actresses without much acknowlegdment. The only noticeable changes were Desmond to Cleese and Judi Dench as M. Speaking of which, Dench's M is distinct characteristic of Brosnan's era. So if this is back to basics and ignores everything that's happened in the series for the last 10 years or so, why is Dench back as M? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Octoberist]

My issue is this: This can't be a total restart; it's like a 'half assed restart'. Sure, the last couple of Bond movies didn't fare well with some, but its not to the point of saying "Hey, let's start all over again."

In other words, if they mean "a total restart" ala NO GUN BARREL SEQUENCE or NO JAMES BOND THEME, then yeah, nobody will accept it. Nobody.

They can touch Batman, but NO ONE can touch James Bond. Actually, it would be insulting to the past Bonds if they did an absoulte restart.

Change is good. TOO MUCH change can dig a deeper hole....

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

My issue is this: This can't be a total restart; it's like a 'half assed restart'. Sure, the last couple of Bond movies didn't fare well with some, but its not to the point of saying "Hey, let's start all over again."

In other words, if they mean "a total restart" ala NO GUN BARREL SEQUENCE or NO JAMES BOND THEME, then yeah, nobody will accept it. Nobody.

They can touch Batman, but NO ONE can touch James Bond. Actually, it would be insulting to the past Bonds if they did an absoulte restart.

Change is good. TOO MUCH change can dig a deeper hole....

And change for the sake of change doesn't help matters either.

And that's what this "re-start" sounds like to me; change for the sake of change.

 

[Two-Face]

My issue is this: This can't be a total restart; it's like a 'half assed restart'. Sure, the last couple of Bond movies didn't fare well with some, but its not to the point of saying "Hey, let's start all over again."

In other words, if they mean "a total restart" ala NO GUN BARREL SEQUENCE or NO JAMES BOND THEME, then yeah, nobody will accept it. Nobody.

They can touch Batman, but NO ONE can touch James Bond. Actually, it would be insulting to the past Bonds if they did an absoulte restart.

Change is good. TOO MUCH change can dig a deeper hole....

I agree, No Q or Moneypenny then Dench is back as M so this is a restart? my ass is restart and this is sounds like "prequel" more then a restart.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I seriously doubt it will be very different to previous Bond movies. As Lee Tamohori says, no matter what is done to try and change the series, 'the Bond machine kicks in', which means action, babes and cool vehicles, the usual mayhem. Casino Royale will be the same.

 

[Everyman]

I seriously doubt it will be very different to previous Bond movies. As Lee Tamohori says, no matter what is done to try and change the series, 'the Bond machine kicks in', which means action, babes and cool vehicles, the usual mayhem. Casino Royale will be the same.

Well, I sure hope it will be closer to a normal Bond flick than Tamahori's videogame demo.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Well, I sure hope it will be closer to a normal Bond flick than Tamahori's videogame demo.

I think it will be more akin to From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, that sort of vibe. As well as, of course, The Borne Identity.

 

[SpyderDan]

I agree, No Q or Moneypenny then Dench is back as M so this is a restart? my ass is restart and this is sounds like "prequel" more then a restart.

And yet it doesn't work as a prequel either, because obviously Dench's M became acquainted with Bond in Goldeneye.

 

[Seen]

According to EW, it's a complete and utter restart. However the casting of Judi Dench as M, as stated before, is quite puzzling.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I still want to know -why- there is a restart...

Bond has been going for 20 movies strong now. Sure, not all have been as good as the others, but it's not like this series is suffering from being alaughing stock or anything.

Oh, I know why they are doing it... cuz Batman did it, and it's the Hollywood fad right now...

I am really disappointed by this.

My anticipation for this Bond movie:

|
\/

|
\/

|
\/

|
\/

 

[SpyderDan]

Oh, I know why they are doing it... cuz Batman did it, and it's the Hollywood fad right now...

I don't know why you're so surprised that they're going with the hottest trend. The Bond producers have always done that.

 

[D'Artagnan]

I see it this way.

Over the last five movies, the producers have been trying to add more to the character of Bond. Licence to Kill gave him a personal vendetta, GoldenEye did the same, Tomorrow Never Dies saw an old lover coem back to him and then die, TWINE had him fall in love and then betrayed, and Die Another Day had Bond actually captured by the bad guys and disgarded by M.

How can you go further than that? How else can you establish Bond's character? By going back to his origins and seeing how he became the man he is today. You could either do a film set in the 60's or late 50's as a prequel to Dr No (which in itself would create questions such as, "If Bond was 30/40 around 1960, how come he's around 40 in Die Another Day in 2002?"), or you can ignore previous movies, which is what Casino Royale is doing.

 

[SpyderDan]

As long as the film feels fresh and different, I'll be happy. In a series of 20-something films, you gotta leave room for experimentation. That's how the smaller Bond films like License to Kill and Casino Royale fit into the series.

 

[James"007"Bond]

This whole restart business is definately puzzling. All thy had to do was stick to the same scrip they have minus, Bond getting his license to kill and have casino royale just be another Bond adventure.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I like to think of it as Refreshing the series..not restarting.

 

[Octoberist]

As much as I love Batman Begins, it was a double edge sword: Idiotic producers might use Batman (and maybe Casino Royale) as a 'basis' for their reason in 'restarting' a franchise.

For example, some idiot might go "Since Godfather Part III sucked, let's restart the series!" Their reasoning: "Well, it worked for Batman and James Bond".

Then you'll see studios starting to use the term 'restarting' instead of 'remaking', which are the same damn thing.

So I just hope that Hollywood won't fall into that...

 

[seishin87]

I don't think that Batman Begins was the sole reason for this whole restart idea. The fact that BB was a hit did play a role. Wilson and Babs wanted to do a origin story "restart" for Bond showing his first mission and how he gets his "00" in a gritty/realistic spy thriller after Moore left the role but Cubby didn't think it was the right move at the time. Now with Cubby gone, the rights to Casino Royale(the original Bond tale) finally with EON, Brosnan's departure and that these restarts, remakes, prequels seem to be the in thing and you have the chance to take the franchise in a direction you've wanted for almost 20 years, why not?

 

[James"007"Bond]

So I just hope that Hollywood won't fall into that...

Hollywood aren't that smart.