82 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

I think I am in the minority in liking this reboot idea....I don't see what Bond fans are upset about...it's not like there are other characters that have been reinvented. Take any literary creation and chances are they have been reinvented.

Hopefully this reboot is a good kick up the rear to a movie series that has been growing stale over the last 20 years.

[Harmsway]

Vesper Lynd's death had no effect on Bond at all. He just got pissed off that he lowered his guard for a few weeks to a spy. Big effect (sarcasm).

No, there was more to it than that. It hardened him. As much as it being "Bond's first mission" pisses a lot of fans off, I just re-read the book and there's a whole section in the book about how arrogant he is and about how he needs to be put in his place. And Vesper's death does it. He's never been in love before and it makes him taste the bitterness of loss for the first time. It hurts. And it also drives him in his crusade against SMERSH.

And that "character arc" you speak of? There is none in the film, aside from a little grave visit here or line of dialogue here. Otherwise, post-Tracy, the movie Bond remained exactly the same as he was before. No change. So I don't see the big deal.

Only the literary Bond had any sort of character arc.

[Harmsway]

I think I am in the minority in liking this reboot idea....I don't see what Bond fans are upset about...it's not like there are other characters that have been reinvented. Take any literary creation and chances are they have been reinvented.

Hopefully this reboot is a good kick up the rear to a movie series that has been growing stale over the last 20 years.

I'm with ya.

[spynovelfan]

I want him to explain why he cut down on cigarettes, refer to his old enemies and how they made him grow as a person

Why, when you don't even know what they were called?

You think Bond isn't at all affected by Vesper's betrayal in the novel CASINO ROYALE - and yet you think the series is dead because they're not showing us the rest of his character's 'arc' and how his enemies made him grow as a person?

What? Vesper was one of his old enemies - and she made him grow as a person.

And sorry, but I think you need to know what SPECTRE is called before you get to complain that they're not referring to them. Which they wouldn't anyway, because of the history with McClory and, um, because CASINO ROYALE is about SMERSH anyway.

I don't think your criticisms are convincing at all.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I think I am in the minority in liking this reboot idea....I don't see what Bond fans are upset about...

DLib,

I'm split on the whole reboot concept. I've always hoped for a serious film version of CR. I love the idea of exploring Bond's "early" career and what has shaped him. But on the other hand, I'm not sure how much this will muddle with continuity. It's going back to the beginning, but in current time, and yet is going to retain the same M? And what does all of this imply for Bond 22 & beyond? Will Bond now stay a relatively inexperienced "00" in the next films?

It's almost like starting an entirely new Bond film series, but by keeping M the same it makes it difficult to think of it that way (at least for me).

I'm not against the concept, but I'm not too sure how it's going to work out either.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about it, and definitely hoping for the best!

[DLibrasnow]

I think I am in the minority in liking this reboot idea....I don't see what Bond fans are upset about...it's not like there are other characters that have been reinvented. Take any literary creation and chances are they have been reinvented.

Hopefully this reboot is a good kick up the rear to a movie series that has been growing stale over the last 20 years.

I'm with ya.

Thanks Harmsway. I think this reboot is a very exciting development for Bond fans.

It's almost like starting an entirely new Bond film series, but by keeping M the same it makes it difficult to think of it that way (at least for me).

I don't see why Judi Dench as M should be a problem....actors have played different roles in Bond movies before, there's nothing to say she is playing the same character as she did in the previous series of Bond movies.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I don't  see why Judi Dench as M should be a problem....actors have played different roles in Bond movies before, there's nothing to say she is playing the same character as she did in the previous series of Bond movies.

So even though she's still M, she's a different M?...

I think that really adds to the confusion over the whole reboot concept.

[triviachamp]

Tracy, Blofeld and SPECTRE have been barely referenced in the past 30 years so how is eliminating them a problem?
What is this mysterious Bondian continuity? Or this strange character arc that Bond has?

[Peter Franks]

At 35 ish years old Vesper was not Bond's first love. In her he was looking for an excuse to quit being an agent who kills people. He was starting to hate his job. She was his way out but she turned out to be yet another disappointment for him. Fleming does write about Bond's view of his previous relationships

With most women his manner was a mixture of taciturnity and passion. The
lengthy approaches to a seduction bored him almost as much as the
subsequent mess of disentanglement. He found something grisly in the
inevitability of the pattern of each affair. The conventional parabola -
sentiment, the touch of the hand, the kiss, the passionate kiss, the feel
of the body, the climax in the bed, then more bed, then less bed, then the
boredom, the tears and the final bitterness - was to him shameful and
hypocritical. Even more he shunned the mise en sc

[Peter Franks]

Tracy, Blofeld and SPECTRE have been barely referenced in the past 30 years so how is eliminating them a problem?
What is this mysterious Bondian continuity? Or this strange character arc that Bond has?

You're agreeing with me without even knowing it. All the above should be explored and developed before rebooting it into computer game Bond. Instead they have slowly being moving to computer game Bond since Goldeneye and then got rid of the Bond who complained about it for a blonde guy who is happy with the money and saying whatever they ask him to. If their plan flops they'll just keep saying the same thing again and again. "We need to reinvent Bond" "We're going in a fresh direction". They said it every 5-7 years since Dr. No. Check the documentaries on the DVDs.

[DLibrasnow]

Do you think he'll ever go back to smoking, slapping women and call a woman a bitch? Nope. It's the Bond reboot with all the elements of Die Another Day

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the reports. Purvis and Wade have both confirmed that the final line of the novel is intact.

"The bitch is dead!"

[Harmsway]

At 35 ish years old Vesper was not Bond's first love. In her he was looking for an excuse to quit being an agent who kills people. He was starting to hate his job. She was his way out but she turned out to be yet another disappointment for him. Fleming does write about Bond's view of his previous relationships.

This passage from CASINO ROYALE points out the significance of Vesper as being a love interest early in his career:

"One day, and he accepted the fact, he would be brought to his knees by love or by luck. When that happened, he knew that he too would be branded with the deadly question-mark he recognized so often in others, the promise to pay before you have lost: the acceptance of fallibility."

CASINO ROYALE is about a cocky James Bond facing loss. He's very cocky the whole affair long, and at the end, he ends up horrifically beaten and losing the woman he loves. It's a wake-up call for him and hardens him.

"final angry farewell on some doorstep in the rain".

That would be great scenes to see. Casino Royale should have been Brosnan's last. In it we could have seen the character arc become complete and then we could have had a reboot going back to Bond version 2.0s early career. We're getting 2.0 without seeing Fleming's Bond develop entirely.

That WOULD be a great scene to see - at the beginning of CASINO ROYALE. I'd love to see Daniel Craig's Bond brutally dismiss a lover before going on his mission.

But I don't understand to what character arc you refer to. The character of Bond in the 20 films of EON seems honestly reinvented for each film, going back and forth in how he responds to women and the like. There's no constant development by any means.

The only things that hint at continuity are little "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" things for us Bond fans to pick out, like visiting Tracy's grave or the odd line of dialogue here and there. But for the most part, Bond has had absolutely no continuity. The character does not develop, the character has apparently been in his middle age for over forty years, the worlds each film inhabits have been radically different, and there have even been contradictions in continuity (OHMSS entirely ignores YOLT).

But I am amused so many of you apologisers think the computer game Bond era is going to be gritty stuff. Do you think he'll ever go back to smoking, slapping women and call a woman a bitch? Nope. It's the Bond reboot with all the elements of Die Another Day and everything that was bad about the last decade = insane budgets, villains called Solari and computer games.

Umm, first off, we have no idea that Solari is even actually part of the film. For crying out loud, a tabloid reported it. And the last line of CASINO ROYALE is there, as DLibrasnow points out.

And what was bad about the last decade was NOT insane budgets or computer games. What was bad about the last decade was poor scripts with awful dialogue and a Bond who tried to play dramatic but whose strong point was actually lightheartedness.

[trumanlodge89]

the most important thing about this article was craig talking about the character choices, how he needs to make the character his own, and if it doesnt work then so be it. that is the kind of thing i (as an actor) like to hear from other actors. one of the problems i had with brosnan was his cookie cutter characterization. he did it the way he thought people wanted. he wasnt true to his choices as an actor.

by staying true to his instincts as an actor, i think this bond will be far better than the last one.

as for the idea of a reboot... i dont really see how this matters, as long as CR is a good film, first and foremost. and vesper lynd as important, if not moreso than tracy bond. james bond IS different in this story , he is ignorant, naive and in many ways a romantic (which is something that remains in all the books, to a degree). he falls for vesper hard, which is something he does not do with tracy. tracy is much more of a way out for james bond. he is the hardened, world weary agent who did not catch blofeld in thunderball. he wants to retire anyway, and tracy is a perfect excuse to do it.

two different women, two different james bonds (and im not talking about the code name theory), two different relationships.

[spynovelfan]

We will never see Bond sitting in the dark playing solitaire and then kill a man (whose bullets have ran out) in cold blood while smoking a cigarette again.

Neither would we have had Brosnan played the part once more, though. You seem to be at least five years behind the times. They've said they'll go gritty for the last dozen films or so. Computer games about Bond have also existed for quite a while. The product placement computer game shoot-em-up no-smoking Bond has been with us for the entire Brosnan era, and some of it from before (Mr Dalton and his Lark cigarettes). But that side has also sat *to an extent* with the other side. I don't know why people go on about the smoking thing. So what if he has a cigarette or not? Making a film with him smoking 70 Morland's is a fine suggestion from one's armchair, but it'd be commercial suicide and anyone with a brain surely knows it. Ditto overt sexism.

Nevertheless, Bond continues to kill in cold blood. I'm amazed that people see Bond's murder of Dent as the last time he did this. First of all - Dent has just tried to kill him, by shooting into the bed where he thought Bond was lying. That would warm my blood. Dent is hardly an innocent bystander. Secondly, Bond's killing Dent is a spectactularly idiotic thing to do. He couldn't get anything out of the driver or the photographer, but when he has a British gentleman in front of him who he knows is in the employ of Dr No, and who he has totally cornered with his gun, he doesn't even attempt to blackmail him or get any information out of him. I don't see why people hold this up as brilliance on Bond's part - it's a bit of a mis-step. He only needs to tell Dent not to move or he'll shoot him, walk over and check there's no cyanide pill anywhere, and then blackmail him for info on No and his set-up. The secret agent people seem to want Bond to be would have done that - and then shot him.

Anyway, Dent is peanuts compared to the dozens of people Bond kills in cold blood towards the end of every single film, recently with the aid of a machine-gun. Why does the killing of countless guards by silently strangling them from behind not count as killing in cold blood - but shooting the man who's just tried to kill you and has run out of bullets in the process does?

I still don't buy what you're selling, sorry. Your argument makes no sense. You're complaining that they're going to try to tell the story as they can in today's market - but your countersuggestion is that they continue the last story, which did just that. I think we saw enough of Bond's psychological 'arc' with Brosnan. Incidentally, 'I never miss' was certainly a killing in cold blood, wasn't it?

I wonder if anyone could point me to somewhere Bond kills in cold blood in Fleming? Not mentions he has in the past - does it in one of the books. Not often, is it?

Thing is, Peter Franks, you kind of lost me on the whole 'They're criminals! This isn't Fleming! Bond must smoke!' line when you posted (twice) about the foolhardiness of wiping 'Sceptre' from the series' history.

[Blue07]

It's nice to hear Craig talking about the role and certainly sounding enthusiastic, as he should, no real news here though other than confirming the 'Bond Begins' thing. Not in favour myself but I certainly admire EON for taking the risk particuarly coupled with the risky casting of Craig. While not happy about it I have to applaud them for taking a gamble because in the long run thats a good thing for EON. I await the film result eagerly.

[Loomis]

"It's going to be very different from anything else," Craig said.

Only to apparently contradict himself with:

"It will have certain elements that will make it a Bond movie. ... It's a Bond film. We're making a Bond movie first and foremost."

Hmmm.... so what exactly are we talking about here, Dan? Something genuinely groundbreaking? Or, erm, not?

"[Screenwriter] Paul Haggis has done a rewrite of the script and has written great dialogue."

Now, this I find interesting, since I don't think Haggis' involvement has been talked about all that much outside Bond fandom. If Craig is dropping his name, I guess it means his contribution is pretty big, which seems encouraging (although I agree with Peter Franks that MILLION DOLLAR BABY is dire - not seen CRASH). More encouraging than yet another "Screenplay by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade" credit, anyway. Still, is Haggis guaranteed a credit? Not all rewriters and script doctors qualify for one, even big names (such as Tarantino on CRIMSON TIDE).

"The lead girl part is fantastic, the characters are all fantastic." Sure, terrific. *Snore*

Still, I'm greatly looking forward to CASINO ROYALE and the Craig era.

[Harmsway]

"[Screenwriter] Paul Haggis has done a rewrite of the script and has written great dialogue."

Now, this I find interesting, since I don't think Haggis' involvement has been talked about all that much outside Bond fandom. If Craig is dropping his name, I guess it means his contribution is pretty big, which seems encouraging (although I agree with Peter Franks that MILLION DOLLAR BABY is dire - not seen CRASH). More encouraging than yet another "Screenplay by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade" credit, anyway. Still, is Haggis guaranteed a credit? Not all rewriters and script doctors qualify for one, even big names (such as Tarantino on CRIMSON TIDE).

I agree with you on most things, Loomis, but I don't think MILLION DOLLAR BABY was worthy of being called "dire". It was certainly not deserving of Best Picture, but it wasn't utter trash either. It's certainly contrived and unoriginal, but there are worse crimes than those two factors, IMO. I prefer CRASH, at any rate.

But that said, he's certainly a better screenwriter than a lot of those who have touched the Bond franchise. I mean, the screenwriters they've hired in the Brosnan era were no great shakes. At least Paul Haggis is a step above them, and I trust him more with the dialogue (the area where the Bond screenwriter has the most control) than P&W or Feirstein.

[triviachamp]

It's certainly contrived and unoriginal

He's perfect for a Bond movie then!

[Stratus]

Crash? Save yourself some money and watch Magnolia.

Well on the bright side, if this film stinks, we won't be seeing anymore Bond films in the near future.

This film better impress like Batman Begins (Casino Royale) impressed me after the abhorrence, Batman and Robin (Die another Day).

Edited by Stratus, 24 December 2005 - 02:07 AM.

[Harmsway]

This film better impress like Batman Begins (Casino Royale) impressed me after the abhorrence, Batman and Robin (Die another Day).

Well, IMO, DIE ANOTHER DAY was the cream of the crop as far as Brosnan was concerned, and thus the best film of the past ten years. However, this is more a commentary on the state of James Bond over the past ten years rather than a commentary on how outstanding DIE ANOTHER DAY is... DIE ANOTHER DAY is just a fun, unpretentious ride with style that the Bond series hasn't seen in a long time.

That said, I would very much love it if CASINO ROYALE was far superior to DIE ANOTHER DAY, or any of the Brosnan flicks. Hopefully it will be. If not, I can definitely settle for less, but I want something that shames the Brosnan years a bit. A film that has inventive action, a solid script (there hasn't been one of these in all of Brosnan's years as Bond), good characters, and doesn't apologize for its central character. At the very least, I want a solid thriller that does something new with the frontman of James Bond (while we don't know about the solid thriller bit, we definitely know that it will be at least trying something new).

At the very least, I'll probably like Daniel Craig's portrayal more than Brosnan's forced attempt to please everyone.

[Pussfeller]

I like the idea of a reboot (NOT the same thing as a prequel). It strikes me as the obvious thing to do when a new actor takes over. Maybe it's because I've always been a literary fan first and foremost, but I really don't care about the "history" accumulated by the film series. It's really never had a bearing on any of the action. Consider how rarely the films refer to previous events, and how self-contained and episodic they tend to be. Brosnan's era made no references whatsoever to any previous films. They might as well have called GoldenEye a "reboot". It wouldn't make any difference.

I've always felt it was a little ridiculous to claim continuity when actors are continuously changing. All the films are just variations on a theme. As long as they're all internally consistent and (above all) entertaining, who cares how they relate to one another?

[Harmsway]

I like the idea of a reboot (NOT the same thing as a prequel). It strikes me as the obvious thing to do when a new actor takes over. Maybe it's because I've always been a literary fan first and foremost, but I really don't care about the "history" accumulated by the film series. It's really never had a bearing on any of the action. Consider how rarely the films refer to previous events, and how self-contained and episodic they tend to be. Brosnan's era made no references whatsoever to any previous films. They might as well have called GoldenEye a "reboot". It wouldn't make any difference.

I've always felt it was a little ridiculous to claim continuity when actors are continuously changing. All the films are just variations on a theme. As long as they're all internally consistent and (above all) entertaining, who cares how they relate to one another?

My feelings exactly.

[tdalton]

I like the idea of a reboot (NOT the same thing as a prequel). It strikes me as the obvious thing to do when a new actor takes over. Maybe it's because I've always been a literary fan first and foremost, but I really don't care about the "history" accumulated by the film series. It's really never had a bearing on any of the action. Consider how rarely the films refer to previous events, and how self-contained and episodic they tend to be. Brosnan's era made no references whatsoever to any previous films. They might as well have called GoldenEye a "reboot". It wouldn't make any difference.

I've always felt it was a little ridiculous to claim continuity when actors are continuously changing. All the films are just variations on a theme. As long as they're all internally consistent and (above all) entertaining, who cares how they relate to one another?

That was part of the problem with Brosnan's Bond. It wasn't obvious that he was the same James Bond that had been portrayed by the other 4 actors. It's fairly obvious that Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton all portrayed the same man, as all three had references to Bond's wife Tracy (Lazenby's obviously being OHMSS, Moore in the PTS of FYEO visiting her grave, and Dalton's in LTK when Felix Leiter says that he was married a long time ago). I know that that's not Brosnan's fault, but I think you're right that GE could technically be called a reboot.

I don't think that EON has to continually re-create the character every time they recast the role, either. Just a change in tone or maybe do something a bit different with the formula (like they did with LTK), but a full-on reboot every time they change the lead actor is going a bit far with it, IMO.

[Harmsway]

That was part of the problem with Brosnan's Bond.  It wasn't obvious that he was the same James Bond that had been portrayed by the other 4 actors.  It's fairly obvious that Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton all portrayed the same man, as all three had references to Bond's wife Tracy (Lazenby's obviously being OHMSS, Moore in the PTS of FYEO visiting her grave, and Dalton's in LTK when Felix Leiter says that he was married a long time ago).  I know that that's not Brosnan's fault, but I think you're right that GE could technically be called a reboot.

I think it ludicrous to consider Moore's Bond and Dalton's Bond the same man. Regardless of references to Tracy's death, both Bonds inhabited entirely different worlds and were different characters. I would hardly consider their eras part of the same timeline - I consider them different takes on a theme.

[K1Bond007]

I think I am in the minority in liking this reboot idea....I don't see what Bond fans are upset about...it's not like there are other characters that have been reinvented. Take any literary creation and chances are they have been reinvented.

Hopefully this reboot is a good kick up the rear to a movie series that has been growing stale over the last 20 years.

I'm with ya.

A reboot is totally different than a prequel though. I have no problems whatsoever with a reboot, but the prequel deal - "Bond Begins", does trouble me some. It depends on how they play it. If it's up in my face with a bunch of retarded jokes about this being his first time doing anything or just in general a lot of emphasis on this being his first mission then I'll probably dislike this aspect. If it's subtle, I won't mind, I don't think anyway. At the very least I'll probably grow to like it. I'm always up for a different interpretation of Bond, especially if it means going back to more of Fleming's Bond (maybe that's contradictory...?)

[tdalton]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='24 December 2005 - 00:40'][quote name='tdalton' date='23 December 2005 - 23:35']That was part of the problem with Brosnan's Bond.

[Harmsway]

I'm just curious then, does this mean that Lee Tamahori's code-name idea is how the series is structured?  Each new actor is actually a different agent given the code-name "James Bond" and the number 007?

No, that's a ridiculous idea. As you said, there are references to Tracy with many of the Bonds as well as similar basic characteristics, even if the overall portrayal is very different.

I'd say more like alternate universes, or just alternate artistic takes on a theme. It's like comparing Tim Burton's BATMAN and BATMAN BEGINS. Two very different takes on the same character, with similar ideas, but overall very different and separate interpretations.

[tdalton]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='24 December 2005 - 00:48'][quote name='tdalton' date='23 December 2005 - 23:43']I'm just curious then, does this mean that Lee Tamahori's code-name idea is how the series is structured?

[triviachamp]

If they want Bond to have continuity and an arc doesn't a reboot make sense? Suddenly having events from over thirty years ago affect Bond is silly as is suddenly implying that current events affect Bond while similar events from over thirty years ago don't.

[Peter Franks]

Can't compare Bond Begins to Batman Begins. The Batman series kicked off by Tim Burton wasn't faithful to Bob Kane's origin story. Batman Begins is Kane's Batman. Also since Batman exists in a fictional world they can get away with anything.

With Bond we have the problem of his wartime record, which can be updated to other wars, but then without Tracy and other characters from his past it's sad to the classic Bond history dropped in favour of a full reboot which will still have the high budgets, PG rating and computer games. A reboot should imply they will dump the kitsch and schizzle and go harder but instead of that they'll just dump Bond's history and keep the rest.

Campbell basically wants us to forget Goldfinger or OHMSS ever existed. He's saying Bond loves Aston Martins and never had a Bentley. You have to wonder how far they will change things. Say I was going to do a reboot, here is how the next movie would go. We would see:

Bond as a child.
Bond's family
Bond's parents dying.

So far just like Batman Begins because Bond and Wayne share many similarities.

Bond raised in an orphanage.
Bond in university.
Bond falls in love.
War breaks out. Bond joins the Navy.
Bond enters the secret service.
Bond is sent on a mission but first he dumps his girlfriend in the rain and hates himself for it.
Bond becomes a filanderer and gambler to get over his heartbreak and to take his mind of the two people he killed to become a double-O.
Bond is requested to go to the Casino Royale.
The Le Chiffre mission.
Meets Vesper.
Wants to her, sorry for the French, but she reminds him of the girlfriend he dumped.
Falls in love.
Gets his balls beaten.
Wakes up in hospital.
Thinks about quitting his job.
Thinks about marriage.
Finds Vesper cooling off.
Vesper kills herself.
Bond is pissed he was so stupid.
He goes back to MI6 for debriefing.
Meets Q and Moneypenny.
End.


The problem is where do they go from there? If they don't remake any of the old Bond movies then it's like asking us to forget any of Fleming's work and the classic Bond movies ever existed. The worst part of this deal is that some of us are in our 30s to 50s. We don't get to see Bond complete his arc and instead we are taken back to the beginning and will all be too old or dead by the time the new rebooted Bond has any character arc. So like I said, they kill off the classic Bond and the fans who made Bond a success in the first place.

Edited by Peter Franks, 24 December 2005 - 08:46 AM.