So what exactly do they mean by "restart"?

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.

 

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

 

^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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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...

 

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?

 

Hollywood aren't that smart.