So what exactly do they mean by "restart"?

[the gael]

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.

 

[D'Artagnan]

At the end of the day, it's another Bond movie, take it or leave it. The fact that this is Bond learning the ropes will be secondary to all the usual mayhem.

 

[seishin87]

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.

Well it's not supposed to be a prequel. The way I see it by calling it a restart and not in countinuity with the past films allows them(EON, mainly Mike and Babs) to do what they have always wanted. They wanted to show Bond's origins, his early years at MI6 and how he got the double 0 and they wanted to do Casino Royale which they have finally got the rights to. Not being bound to countinuity they can now do things like have Judi Dench return as M, not make it a period peice, have Bond meet Felix for the first time(which he did in the novel) etc.

From whats known it won't be a total reboot like Batman. We will still have the same theme music and iconic imagery (i.e gunbarrel, although it may not be it's usual place) and structure( PTS and titles). No need to worry about remakes of the past films. Babs has said that they are looking at continuing doing original films that will be direct sequels to CR and will have countinuity(something that the last 20 films fumbled with at times) meaning we will probably see returning characters and villains like Felix Lieter being played by the same actor and storylines that are either tied or directly reference each other which is another thing that almost never happened in the last 20 films.

Now as for throwing out what happened in the last 20 films this how I look at that. It's all about the same character of James Bond 007. This new series is an updated take on the character that starts from the very beginning of the story. Even though we won't see it, this updated Bond will eventually face off against the likes of villains Dr. No, Goldfinger, Blofeld. Stromberg, Zorin etc just as Connery's Bond probably battled Le Chiffre in one of his early missions although we never saw that.

 

[CTYLER85]

Bond and continuitiy are two things that do not go together!
Look at the style of clothing, weapons, cars, and Connery's age in Gold Finger.
Now, look at the style of clothing, weapons, cars, and Brosnan's age in TWINE.
It's not a match. It never was a match. Every Bond film has been worked over by the people put in charge of making them so many times that none of the movies really flow.

Personally I'm glad their restarting the Bond franchise because I was getting tired of the same old song and dance every time I would sit in the theater.
Keeping Judi Dench in CR has nothing to do with continuity, rather she was simply the best person for the part.
Look at who, not what, Bond really is and then you will have a glimpse of what
Flemmings had in mind when he made his super-spy character.
Because they are restarting the franchise for the better does not mean that we all have to through out our Bond films and start fresh. It simply means that we are going to finaly see Bonds story and who he really is.

 

[knifeedgedave]

I always saw each new actor playing Bond as a new character of Bond. i.e another agent assuming that name rank and number. So essentially there have been 5 men who carried the name of James Bond before this one, and Casino Royale follows the first mission of the sixth. This is just my interpretation, but it allows me to see a continuity and still accept that each movie is set in the time it was made. (Therefore, M may have just been established in Goldeneye, but has been around for a while by the time CR happens.) If the makers did this, they could even bring back older Bonds in new roles as though they have been promoted over the years e.g Sean Connery as M, altho i like Dench's performance.

 

[seishin87]

I always saw each new actor playing Bond as a new character of Bond. i.e another agent assuming that name rank and number. So essentially there have been 5 men who carried the name of James Bond before this one, and Casino Royale follows the first mission of the sixth. This is just my interpretation, but it allows me to see a continuity and still accept that each movie is set in the time it was made. (Therefore, M may have just been established in Goldeneye, but has been around for a while by the time CR happens.) If the makers did this, they could even bring back older Bonds in new roles as though they have been promoted over the years e.g Sean Connery as M, altho i like Dench's performance.

Ah the codename Theory! I used to hate but it does make sense.

 

[Everyman]

Ah the codename Theory! I used to hate but it does make sense.

It doesn't. Why would Connery-Bond go after Blofeld to avenge Lazenby's Bond? Why would Moore's Bond put flowers over Tracy,s grave? Why did they all studied in Cambridge? Why do they all flirt with Moneypenny? Why do they all love the exact same drink? Why is Brosnan-Bond doing a mission as James Bond/007 nine years before the events of Goldeneye, while logically Dalton-Bond would have been still active? Why do they all befriend Felix Leiter? And by the way, is Felix Leiter a codename too? Is Moneypenny?

The codename theory is just a stupid idea that turns the character into a gimmick instead of a real person, with real motivations and real psychology.m James Bond is not a fake.

 

[knifeedgedave]

It may be 'stupid' to you, but it makes more sense to me, and wipes out more continuity errors than it creates.

 

[Gold Samurai]

I always saw each new actor playing Bond as a new character of Bond. i.e another agent assuming that name rank and number. So essentially there have been 5 men who carried the name of James Bond before this one, and Casino Royale follows the first mission of the sixth. This is just my interpretation, but it allows me to see a continuity and still accept that each movie is set in the time it was made.

exactly!............bond is a time lord lol.

 

[Everyman]

It may be 'stupid' to you, but it makes more sense to me, and wipes out more continuity errors than it creates.

The codename theory creates major continuity problems, regarding Bond's wife and his relationship with recurring characters, and it turns him into a fake. And Fleming never intend to have James Bond as a codename.

 

[skruloos]

It may be 'stupid' to you, but it makes more sense to me, and wipes out more continuity errors than it creates.

Then don't think so linear. The continuity in the movies is loose at best.

 

[the gael]

The codename theory creates major continuity problems, regarding Bond's wife and his relationship with recurring characters, and it turns him into a fake. And Fleming never intend to have James Bond as a codename.

I agree.

 

[seishin87]

The codename theory creates major continuity problems, regarding Bond's wife and his relationship with recurring characters, and it turns him into a fake. And Fleming never intend to have James Bond as a codename.

Which is why I still don't buy it completly.

 

[SpyderDan]

I've never heard of that codename theory before but I think it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

 

[Warhammer]

For some strange reason, I dont like the restart of James Bond.
Sounds like a good idea, yes, but at the same time, I dont like restarts.

It feels like when a character already established in one movie is portrayed by another actor/actress in it's sequel (excluding the likes of James Bond because of it's long string of movies).

I hate it, but it may turn out for the best.

 

[GoldGoblin]

It always seemed like a restart when there was a new actor to play Bond anyway.

 

[CrimsonMist]

if this is a restart, come Dr. No, i want to see Bond wrestle a giant octopus and see Dr. No get squashed to death by large quanities of bird poop.

 

[CTYLER85]

It always seemed like a restart when there was a new actor to play Bond anyway.

That is the best way to put it.

 

[Blayton]

It always seemed like a restart when there was a new actor to play Bond anyway.

Perfect couldn't have been said any better. But the big mistake this movie is making is but showing get is 00 status. Fans don't need to see this. Just have him be Bond and move on.

 

[Furious Styles]

Restart = Knee jerk reaction by EON due to the fans negative opinion of DAD.

"Oh no, Die Another Day was absolutely horrendous, whatever shall we do. We must do something drastic because the James Bond franchise is sinking like the Titanic and we're all gon' die. I know how we can fix this! Let's all panic and recast Bond and call it a restart/prequel and change the entire formula and anyone who is somewhat apprehensive about it all, we can call them a fake fan!!!!@#$#@"

I don't know what it is, maybe in the era of Jack Bauer, Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne, there's this belief that James Bond now must portray the same character traits as some of these other characters. We know must know that Bond doesn't like killing, that Bond is human, that Bond doesn't like being Bond. Basically robbing James Bond of what makes him so unique.

I wonder if there is a scene where Daniel Craig is running while talking on a cell phone, now that would be funny, Oh how great it would be!

LOL and The Code Name theory nonsense is unbelievable, Everyman hit it right on the head. Dumbest Idea EVER!

 

[FunBobPants]

Craig is gonna destroy Bond

 

[Agentsands77]

Perfect couldn't have been said any better. But the big mistake this movie is making is but showing get is 00 status. Fans don't need to see this. Just have him be Bond and move on.

I want to see it - I think Bond getting his Double-O status is one of the cooler things Bond fans have yet to see.

 

[Agentsands77]

We know must know that Bond doesn't like killing, that Bond is human, that Bond doesn't like being Bond. Basically robbing James Bond of what makes him so unique.

That was Fleming's character.

But for what it's worth, the script preserves Bond's boyish charm, his swagger, his fine tastes, and his witty sense of humor. This isn't Bauer or Bourne - heck, it ain't even Dalton. This is a new kind of Bond trait that we haven't yet seen.

 

[Furious Styles]

And did Connery and Moore portray Fleming's character faithfully? What happened when Dalton decided to go back to the source material? Cinematic Bond and Fleming's Bond are two different entities. The general public as well as most Bond fans are accustomed to certain idiosyncracies of the character.

Bond IS larger than life, the character is greater than the sum of its parts. I believe we will see if Craig can translate what is on paper onto the big screen and whether the public will accept this "new kind of Bond."

 

[Agentsands77]

And did Connery and Moore portray Fleming's character faithfully? What happened when Dalton decided to go back to the source material? Cinematic Bond and Fleming's Bond are two different entities. The general public as well as most Bond fans are accustomed to certain idiosyncracies of the character.

Your point being? And actually, Connery got darn close to faithfully portraying Fleming's Bond in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Roger Moore furthermore wasn't particularly far off in his first two installments, LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, either.

Furthermore, Dalton is different than the Bond Craig will play - the Bond of CASINO ROYALE's screenplay is like Connery's Bond with a bit more soul to him - all the boyish charm, the wit, the deadliness, the class is all there. Just give him a bit more of a human center, which is fine. The Bond of CASINO ROYALE is a refreshing blend of cinematic and literary Bond so that it brings the best of both worlds.