So what exactly do they mean by "restart"?

[MaskedManJRK]

I hate the " restart " thing.
Well, it worked for batman because ( and nolan knew that ), nobody filmed the youth of bruce wayne and how he became batman ( burton began batman 1989 by the first batman apparition ).
So it gave him an opportunity to bring some new ( and true to the comic ) things to the batman mythos. That's why it worked.

And I'm glad Bryan Singer don't restart the supes franchise, because with superman 1 and smallville, all the beginning of the man of steel has been done. There's nothing new to bring to that aspect.

Why restarting bond ? It's a complete stupidity, Bond has never needed a restart, even after the OHMSS crisis, so why now ?

I'm truelly scared because the movie will never work as a prequel ( M, felix leiter never met bond until dr no ( and craig looks older than sean connery in Dr No ) )

why a restart, to redo goldfinger ? from russia with love ? ohmss ?
You will never make them better than how they were made ( craig better than connery, are you on crack ? )
two version of thunderball isn't enough ?

i'm really really concerned.

Uh...no one has ever filmed James Bond's first book/adventure, "Casino Royale" either (with the exception of a parody film with the same name), so that anology falls short.

I like where Casino's going: We can start fresh, with a deeper, more realistic Bond mixed in with the cool cars, bad villians, and gorgeous women that make the movies so cool.

 

[FunBobPants]

i hate this idea. all the Bond films have been great, with the small exception of Die Another Day. which wasnt THAT bad. but of course, i probably wouldnt hate this so much if they hadnt casted Craig!

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Wow....I actually hadn't heard it was a restart. I heard it was a prequel.....but a restart. Wow.

They seemed to go the Batman Begins route.

 

[Warhammer]

I absolutely hated it when I heard it was a restart, but it made me think...
This series needed a restart.

After seeing Craig as Bond in that teaser, I lost my doubts.

 

[nbordj]

Well, so it is a restart ? It has become worst and worst. Well, first Bond movie since a view to a kill that I won't see in theater.
First Craig, then the restart, to many things suck in this movie

 

[the gael]

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?

Bond never need a restart. The franchise survived all the crisis ( especially the 1969 one ) without any restart.after Connery left in 1971, the movies were enlightened. After moore left, dalton made them more realistic.

In the Bond franchise, there never was restart. It's just the most stupid idea they could have had.

If they wanted to show Bond first mission, why didn't they try a prequel ?
And the next bond, they continue after DAD and keep the tone of the previous movie. When will Hollywood understand that restart = crap ?

All the Bond fanq wanted a more realistic and human bond. Thanks to the restart and Daniel Craig, Eon has created a war between the fans. Good Job Barbara... Your father would have really be proud of you if he was still alive.

 

[Agentsands77]

I don't get the big deal. It's not like any sort of real continuity actually existed to be thrown away or maintained.

And while a restart isn't exactly necessary, it is a cool idea. You get to do the origin story while maintaining the contemporary setting that Bond has always had (I'm firmly against the idea of a "period" Bond film).

 

[the gael]

restart is NEVER a cool idea. It's a false cool idea that you'd better avoid as much as possible. For one movie for which it works ( Batman begins, and not because it's a restart but because luckily Burton never went with a true Batman origin story )

restart = 1 ) redo what has allready been done ( that's why JJ Abrams script for superman was so much crap )
I know what the common producers think : well, let's do some cool remake ( traduction : do what has allready been done, so there is no problem to make as much $$$ as possible with the less creativity possible )
Remake are always a lame idea. They are never as good as the original and Craig is no match with Connery. If he try to make a dr no or a from russia with love, we will have a superb disaster

2 ) You erase any other film from continuity. For make the main character more human... you will erase the thing that haunt him : tracy bond.
the event was so important that haunt him even nowadays.

That's why restart are never a good thing. If I was a director and someone proposed me a movie franchise ( except if I made the first movie ), I would have fought as much as possible to not make a restart. never. It's a creative failure.

 

[Agentsands77]

2 ) You erase any other film from continuity. For make the main character more human... you will erase the thing that haunt him : tracy bond.
the event was so important that haunt him even nowadays.

The importance of Tracy is always overstated. It had almost no effect as far as continuity is concerned. It might as well never have happened. Great story, but as far as the fimls are concerned, in no way defining. Bond was the same before and after.

 

[DACrowe]

This is a half assed restart that is both a restart but keeps all the cliches (formulaic elemnts) of the original way of doing it. However, ignoring the past and trying to copy Bourne and Batman ain't too bright either though.

 

[Agentsands77]

This is a half assed restart that is both a restart but keeps all the cliches (formulaic elemnts) of the original way of doing it. However, ignoring the past and trying to copy Bourne and Batman ain't too bright either though.

No, it doesn't keep all the cliches. I've read the script. It doesn't. It has a lot of familiar elements that just happen to be part of the Bondian identity, but it adds a lot of new ones as well and gets rid of a lot. CASINO ROYALE is a film that's *very* different from anything we got in the Brosnan era.

But considering the two Bourne films and BATMAN BEGINS were far beyond anything Bond has given us over the past thirty years, it's not off the mark to take some cues from them (though CASINO ROYALE really doesn't take too much from either - just the concept of starting from the beginning Bond's career and telling the story of Bond's first Double-O mission, and then having a more down-to-earth, darker spy story).

But the thing is, CASINO ROYALE *is* another film in the Bond series. CASINO ROYALE will be included in the dvd box sets and considered just another entry. It's not a reboot in the sense that it's trying to divorce itself dramatically from what has come before. It's only a reboot in the sense of continuity, and since EON decided as far back as OHMSS that there wasn't really any continuity to begin with, it doesn't matter.

And to be honest, that perspective is fine. The public has no conception of a developing Bond. Most can't tell you which film came before which one, and most can't even tell you what happens within specific films. For all intents and purposes, continuity has no significance for James Bond.

 

[DACrowe]

Very true. I said cliches in meaning that it would have him in a tux and say "Bond, James Bond" and "Vodka Martini. Shaken, not stirred." You know all the stamps.

I was not saying that as a bad thing, but Bond will sleep with girls gratutously without apology (which Bond has never done, except in LTK) and kill the baddie and drive fast cars. Thisn't a bad thing, this is what Bond is. Bond is Bond.

However it is trying too hard to be more like Bourne (which I'll say is better than about half the Bond movies, but the other half I'll say tend to be better have much more rewatch value than the Bourne movies do) what with wearing more casual wear, no gadgets, Moneypenny, no Q and more of a darker figure. I feel this movie is trying to be more Bourne than Fleming, but as said, I haven't read the script so I'll put faith in what you say and your putting in context that M scene gave me a lot more faith alone in the movie. But I do think that the producers just watched how BB did it and made a lot of money and tried to copy that with Fleming's first book but is modeling Bond after Bourne.

This can be a good thing (I like very much Brosnan's Bond who was a '90s version). But it can be bad, look at when they tried to make Bond conform to the '80s revenge movies about going up against drug dealers (LTK).

But your faith in the screenplay, Eva Green and Martin Campbell have me supporting this movie but lets just say I am still very cautious and am not going to think this half/half restart has anything more to do than copying other franchises rright now.

 

[Agentsands77]

Very true. I said cliches in meaning that it would have him in a tux and say "Bond, James Bond" and "Vodka Martini. Shaken, not stirred." You know all the stamps.

Bond without a tux is like Batman without a cowl. Even in a reboot, certain elements have to be retained to make it the same character.

However it is trying too hard to be more like Bourne (which I'll say is better than about half the Bond movies, but the other half I'll say tend to be better have much more rewatch value than the Bourne movies do)

I'm certainly a bigger Bond fan than I am a Bourne fan, but I think both Bourne movies were certainly better than any Bond movie we've had since 1969.

what with wearing more casual wear,

Umm, he spends a ton of screentime in a suit and most of screentime in the tuxedo. There's a level of casual wear, but that's from Fleming and very evocative of Connery's Bond or Dalton's Bond (who both were fairly casual - CASINO ROYALE won't really be more casual than either of those). If you look at Fleming, Fleming's Bond is exceedingly casual as a character, far more than I would have the movies go.

I personally think it will give Bond a more varied wardrobe. I like that and have missed that - Connery used to really dress down, but in a cool fashion.

no gadgets,

There *are* gadgets. Just practical, believable ones.

But I do think that the producers just watched how BB did it and made a lot of money and tried to copy that with Fleming's first book but is modeling Bond after Bourne.

Honestly, there's very little that's Bourne-like about CASINO ROYALE, aside from the idea of taking things a little more down-to-earth.

But it can be bad, look at when they tried to make Bond conform to the '80s revenge movies about going up against drug dealers (LTK).

LICENCE TO KILL was a mediocre film, through and through, but CASINO ROYALE doesn't make the same mistakes.

 

[DACrowe]

Oh I did not mean those stamps were Bond. They are what make Bond Bond.

We'll see though.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Ya know....thinking about it.....it might not really be that big deal. I mean, most of the Bond films can be seen in and of themselves. Atleast the later ones. This might sound worse than it actually will be.