46 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Everywhere I look on this site great pains are taking for people to say how Casion Royale is the start of a brand new series of films, or saying that it's Volume 2 or something.

My question is why?

In my mind this is still the 21st film of the James Bond series, even if they are going the reboot route (and the script review makes that pretty damn apparent) I will still see this film as the next Bond film after DAD. Continuity be damned, Harmsway made a very interesting quote the other day that I have quoted in my signature, and it seems it should be the new motto of Casino Royale. Aside from the radical plot (by radical I mean the need to reintroduce Bond to the service etc.) I'm sure we're still going to have the regular Bond staples: the gunbarrel is still going to open the film with the James Bond theme, we'll still have a PTS, and we'll still have a main title sequence (the script review all but confirms two of the three things I just mentioned).

So in my mind this is still the 21st Bond film of an ongoing series, not the first film in some new imaginary series.

[Skudor]

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. You can look at it as a break from the past (although I think this depends more on future movies than Casino Royale on its own). Or just another Bond film, like OHMSS, FYEO, LTK or GE - which all started something a bit different.

If Casino Royale turns out to be as big a break from the past as the hype suggests, and the one after follows rather than goes back, then I think we could easily look at this as a pretty big break in the series. Whether you want to call it Bond 2.1 or 21, is really up to you.

[stamper]

It's volume 2 number 1, it's obvious !

[Gabriel]

Agreed. To me, Casino Royale is similar in approach to Frank Miller's Batman Year One or John Byrne's revamp of Superman.

Few, if any, official film series have run on this long, so we're in uncharted territory. It's amazing that the Bonds held out this long without a complete overhaul. The last Batman movie series and the last Superman movie series only made it to four films before crashing and burning!

[Scottlee]

Well I'm certainly not looking at it as being a new series.

CR is Bond 21 for me, and no reboot storyline will alter that opinion. When I eventually buy the DVD sometime in 2007, it will be inserted onto the shelf just to the right of Die Another Day and that will be that.

[JimmyBond]

Well I'm certainly not looking at it as being a new series.

CR is Bond 21 for me, and no reboot storyline will alter that opinion. When I eventually buy the DVD sometime in 2007, it will be inserted onto the shelf just to the right of Die Another Day and that will be that.

Bingo! I don't care what the storyline is. Bond is Bond, if it's prdouced by EON/Sony than it's still part of the Bond series to me. The only way I'd consider it a new series is if someone other than EON were producing the film.

[ChickenStu]

If it's a new series, why the hell is Judi Dench back playing "M"?

[JimmyBond]

If it's a new series, why the hell is Judi Dench back playing "M"?

Good point. On that regard I imagine John Cleese will be back when (and come on, we know Q will be back in the next film) Q is back in the next film.

[Judo chop]

[CR is] just another Bond film, like OHMSS, FYEO, LTK or GE - which all started something a bit different.

Perhaps I may quote Skudor for my signature? (I hope he/she doesn't mind that I corrected a spelling error )
I wasn't wasting my boss' time screwing around on forums when the films above were released, but was the issue with 'restarting' such a big deal to fans then? I think it would have been/was exactly the same, and I think most people still count all of those films as part of the ongoing series, #1-20.

There's no doubt they're doing something different with CR, but I'm not afraid that it's so much a departure to warrant a new series; it's just a new chapter.

Casino Royale. Bond #21.

[Gabriel]

Good point. On that regard I imagine John Cleese will be back when (and come on, we know Q will be back in the next film) Q is back in the next film.

I doubt it. The sequel to Casino Royale won't be out until 2008/9 in all probability. I suspect that that will be Dame Judi's last Bond and, by then, Cleese won't have been Q for about 7 years. He'll be too old for a revamped series, so they'll probably introduce a new Q and, possibly, a new Moneypenny along with M's replacement.

And, anyway, Cleese's Q was crap!

Edited by Gabriel, 13 February 2006 - 05:04 PM.

[Judo chop]

(I thought Cleese's Q was perfectly appropriate for Brosnan's Bond.)

[JimmyBond]

I could see Cleese coming back, I'd love to see how his Q plays off a new (hopefully darker) Bond. If Dench is still around I don't see why Cleese can't be?

I think it's obvious they'll cast a new Moneypenny though, Samanth Bond made it apparent that if Brosnan left, so will she.

[Gabriel]

I thought Cleese's Q was perfectly appropriate for Brosnan's Bond.

Yeah, a comedian who isn't funny anymore!

[JimmyBond]

I thought Cleese's Q was perfectly appropriate for Brosnan's Bond.

Yeah, a comedian who isn't funny anymore!

I thought he worked better in DAD than he did in TWINE. In DAD he seemed more (I dont know how to put this) mature and less like hew as trying to be so over the top. It worked (imo).

[DLibrasnow]

It depends on the elements. If they replace the gunbarrel opening with something else and replace other elements then it will be a new series. if that stuff remains then its just another Bond movie!

[Judo chop]

I thought Cleese's Q was perfectly appropriate for Brosnan's Bond.

Yeah, a comedian who isn't funny anymore!

I thought he worked better in DAD than he did in TWINE. In DAD he seemed more (I dont know how to put this) mature and less like hew as trying to be so over the top. It worked (imo).

I liked them as a team in DAD, too. Cleese in TWINE wasn't so, so bad, but that ridiculous inflated vest always left me with a bad taste in my mouth. (Even more so, once I started to associate the vest with the scene in which Bond uses it. BARF!!!)

In general, I've always loved the Bond-Q scenes. From GF to the very bitter end. As JimmyBond stated, if Cleese comes back, he'll have to adjust. His Q with Brosnan will not be appropriate with Craig and the direction of CR.

[Gabriel]

I'd like to see Tony Head play Q. He'd have a mean streak that would play well off a darker characterisation of Bond.

[JimmyBond]

I'd like to see Tony Head play Q. He'd have a mean streak that would play well off a darker characterisation of Bond.

A bit out of left field that choice is I think. But damn, that is a great choice, I've loved Tony Head in Buffy and I've also seen him in some BBC productions, he'd make a great Q.

[Bill]

Why the great pains to call it a new series?

The answer should be fairly obvious. Despite Harmsway's contention, the fact is that the EON films all feature one character played by five different actors. Continuity, while loose, does exist. There are far more examples in the series to justify this then not. I have argued this point in other threads and do not want to reiterate all that I have said before. But, remember, the James Bond film series is not one long story arc like the six Star Wars films but rather twenty indivdual missions featuring the adventures of the same man working for an organization staffed by the same people, who occasionally get replaced, but when they do, that is clearly acknowledged. No ambiguity, no doubt. Pierce Brosnan's Bond is the same man who took on Dr. No, etc.

Thus, the reboot is a radical concept. While a small part of me has an interest in how all this plays out, for the most part, I am still dreading seeing Bond undergo such a radical change. The script review has Bond doing things that I could never see any of the other Bonds doing. And while this may seem minor, Fleming's Bond was never in the SAS.

Even with the gunbarrel and David Arnold utilizing the James Bond theme, I do not think that this will work as Bond 21--unless the time period is so non specific as to allow this to still somehow serve as a prequel to Dr. No. With Judi Dench as M throughout the film giving Bond his assignment, I do not see how the hell that could be the case. Unless, bizarrely, Bond worked for a female M who was replaced by Bernard Lee/Robert Brown's Sir Miles Messervy only to be replaced by another woman who looks remarkably like the first M. That will take some explaining.

If they want to avoid that, allowing the Connery through Brosnan films to exist in one fictional universe is a solution and then the Craig film to be the launch of another series set in another fictional universe is the way to go. That way M could be played by anyone and Q and Moneypenny need never appear in the films.

Not that I am thrilled with this. Truthfully, I hate the idea the more I think about it. The simple reason is that even they choose to use the Bond theme in the film, I see no reason why this need even to be called a James Bond film if the central character is not one that we truly recognize as James Bond.

We'll have to wait and see.

Bill

[Harmsway]

I'm not going to deny that some continuity exists in the films (and even DIE ANOTHER DAY seems to suggest that Brosnan was in fact the Bond that existed in THUNDERBALL and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE). But the point is that there is no continuity in the character presented or even the world he lives in - each film is drastically different.

That's why I more or less view each film as its own individual film, a distinctive artistic vision of the character that may borrow some things and not some others. It's kind of like seeing Batman reinvented so many times - same character, different interpretations, sometimes some overlap, in other places no overlap. I find it easiest that way. The continuity links are few and insignificant and have very little impact on the series and its character.

And besides, didn't DIE ANOTHER DAY successfully provide an end-cap to the previous Bond era? A celebration of all the things that Bond brought to that point? It's chock full of references to previous films and the novels just as a statement of saying "This is what Bond is about." For crying out loud, they even finally have Moneypenny and Bond hook-up, albeit in a fake reality, as a kind of celebration of their relationship in all the past films. Even the crappy, obvious, somewhat self-aware one liners thrown in the script can be a way of winking at the innuendo that Bond has made so famous.

After DIE ANOTHER DAY, I thought it would be natural for Bond to essentially start over.

The script review has Bond doing things that I could never see any of the other Bonds doing. And while this may seem minor, Fleming's Bond was never in the SAS.

Each actor's take on the character has reinterpreted the character of Bond in a new way and done something that none of the previous Bonds would have done. That's accepted, and is actually a healthy thing for the series. Gives it some freshness instead of just doing the same old thing over and over again.

I also want to add that CASINO ROYALE's Bond is not the finished product. He's rough and as the movie progresses he becomes the Bond we know - he's not when it starts out. So with BOND 22 (or 2.2) expect the Bond we know to be there the whole time.

And about the SAS, whether you like it or not, the concept of CASINO ROYALE is to give Bond a sort of contemporary origin rather than having his roots in WWII. It makes sense to sort of rewrite his past a bit to keep up with that.

[Judo chop]

Why the great pains to call it a new series?

Continuity, while loose, does exist. There are far more examples in the series to justify this than not.

The loose continuity, which does matter, is built on the general concept of who (the cinematic) Bond is. He's British and works for MI6. He's a 00 licensed to kill. He likes fine cars, clothes, drinks, food and women. He's got his own theme song. That about wraps it up. If you change any of this, you have 'rebooted' for real. You've changed Bond.

The stronger sense of continuity (which I think is what many are upset about losing) is built on the chronological experiences of the various actors who have played Bond. This type of continuity does not matter to people like me (and Harmsway I believe), and the examples (Roger at Tracey's grave, just for one) of this type which exist in the series were added as winks to the size and success of the franchise more than to establish any real solid timeline continuity between the characters.

The hopes of arguing for any chronological continuity in the series were blown away beyond repair long ago.

[JimmyBond]

(Roger at Tracey's grave, just for one) of this type which exist in the series were added as winks to the size and success of the franchise more than to establish any real solid timeline continuity between the characters.

It could also be looked as as a nice nod to the literary Bond, not the cinematic Bond.


DLibrasnow

It depends on the elements. If they replace the gunbarrel opening with something else and replace other elements then it will be a new series. if that stuff remains then its just another Bond movie!

I'm thinking a lot of the same elements you speak of are going to be there. I can't see them tossing the gunbarrel out, and based on the script review we know the film has a (rather short) pretitle sequence and a main title sequence as well. So the elements are still there...it's a Bond film!

[K1Bond007]

I doubt it. The sequel to Casino Royale won't be out until 2008/9 in all probability. I suspect that that will be Dame Judi's last Bond and, by then, Cleese won't have been Q for about 7 years. He'll be too old for a revamped series, so they'll probably introduce a new Q and, possibly, a new Moneypenny along with M's replacement.

And, anyway, Cleese's Q was crap!

I can see Dench finishing out Craig's term. At a minimum he's only doing 3 films. Maybe they'll blow everyones mind and kill her off in CR or Bond22.

Cleese too old? Give me a break. Llewelyn played the role until he was 85. Not saying Cleese will play it that long, but come on. So long as he isn't hated (and I don't think he is - by the general mass anyway) he'll probably stick around for another decade. I'd rather he stick it out anyway. I don't want to see Q fall into the Felix Leiter type of role where he's portrayed by a different guy every film or whatever.

(Roger at Tracey's grave, just for one) of this type which exist in the series were added as winks to the size and success of the franchise more than to establish any real solid timeline continuity between the characters.

It could also be looked as as a nice nod to the literary Bond, not the cinematic Bond.

The scene was actually only written to introduce a new actor as Bond. That's the story anyway. I think they only kept it for an understandable lead into the Blofeld bit.

[Santa]

Why the great pains to call it a new series?

Continuity, while loose, does exist. There are far more examples in the series to justify this than not.

The loose continuity, which does matter, is built on the general concept of who (the cinematic) Bond is. He's British and works for MI6. He's a 00 licensed to kill. He likes fine cars, clothes, drinks, food and women. He's got his own theme song. That about wraps it up. If you change any of this, you have 'rebooted' for real. You've changed Bond.

The stronger sense of continuity (which I think is what many are upset about losing) is built on the chronological experiences of the various actors who have played Bond. This type of continuity does not matter to people like me (and Harmsway I believe), and the examples (Roger at Tracey's grave, just for one) of this type which exist in the series were added as winks to the size and success of the franchise more than to establish any real solid timeline continuity between the characters.

The hopes of arguing for any chronological continuity in the series were blown away beyond repair long ago.

My thoughts exactly, Judo Chop, but expressed far more coherently than I can manage.

[JimmyBond]

The scene was actually only written to introduce a new actor as Bond. That's the story anyway. I think they only kept it for an understandable lead into the Blofeld bit.

Basically they kept it in to show that it's the same guy we've been watching for the past 20 or so years.

[Captain Grimes]

There is no reason why CR can't take a step back in the timeline to show events that happened before the events of the other films. Just because Star Trek 7 took the series eighty-some years into the future, and Star Wars 4 (Episode 1) took the series twenty-odd years into the past, doesn't mean that those films created a new Star Trek or Star Wars series.

Now that I've proven my geek credentials , let me turn to the question of Cleese:

EON would be silly to let him go. Cleese is a major international talent, a living legend, just like Dench, and I think EON realize that getting both of them was quite a coup.

And that's why, incidentally, they've decided to ignore continuity in favor of keeping Dench. It's a smart move, in my opinion.

[Stratus]

I prefer the Volume 2 Bond 1 way of dubbing this movie. It doesn't disregard the last set of films. In whole it is still part of a series, but volume 2 denotes a new subset within the series. If they re-reboot, it would be volume 3.

[Judo chop]

The scene was actually only written to introduce a new actor as Bond. That's the story anyway. I think they only kept it for an understandable lead into the Blofeld bit.

Basically they kept it in to show that it's the same guy we've been watching for the past 20 or so years.

If that's true, then it didn't work as far as I can tell, because nearly all of my friends (who are in their early-mid 30's) see Roger as being THE Bond. And NONE of them know OHMSS, who Lazenby is, or anything about Fleming. I'm sure that when they come to the grave scene, their eyebrows crumple a bit in the mystery of what's going on, and 10 seconds later they shrug off the mystery and go back to enjoying a fun Roger-style Bond romp.

Maybe continuity was the producer's intention for that scene, but it failed. It does succeed, however, as a nice nod to the few fans who care about what happened in 1969, or between the covers of an Ian Fleming novel.

[Gabriel]

Cleese too old? Give me a break. Llewelyn played the role until he was 85. Not saying Cleese will play it that long, but come on. So long as he isn't hated (and I don't think he is - by the general mass anyway) he'll probably stick around for another decade. I'd rather he stick it out anyway. I don't want to see Q fall into the Felix Leiter type of role where he's portrayed by a different guy every film or whatever.

IMO, Desmond Llewellyn was too old by GoldenEye. It was, frankly, a bit emabarrassing to see him so old in the films: a shadow of his former character. Licence to Kill was a good send-off for him. I want Q to be a strong, vital character like he was in the early days, not someone who's kept around for old times' sake.

[Emma]

Agreed. To me, Casino Royale is similar in approach to Frank Miller's Batman Year One or John Byrne's revamp of Superman.

Actually I think I have to disagree with you on that, Craig in Casino Royal will be more like Miller's Batman in the Dark Knight returns. Completely different from what had come before. I also suspect that Craig as Bond will be more of a 'roughneck', much like Miller's version of Batman in DKR and even in the current 'All Star Batman and Robin'