Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Potential Retcon for Royale?


23 replies to this topic

#1 Stratus

Stratus

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 245 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:37 AM

I just realized this reboot might have an "exit" strategy. Call this fanwankery if you want but it actually works. It just occurred to me why Dench was recast. It was not just her fame and recognition, also this....

a...Dench is the same M.

If Casino Royale does poorly and the public demands another one from the old continuity, they pretend that this James Bond is recent ex-SAS recruit who shares the SAME name. Alternatively he goes by that alias to protect his original civilian identity because Bond (Connery -> Brosnan - "one" person) had recently retired. This is similar to the old Bond as a codename theory, but not entirely so at the same time.

Thus, the old Bond goes back "into action" if it doesn't work out by having Dench/M call him up or something. Craig could be easily explained off within 5-10 minutes in the next movie.

NOW

b. If the film does well, Craig is accepted by the masses, than we can assume this is truely a reboot, a volume 2 Bond. That Dench's M is another parallel universe M.

Sounds crazy, but it might actually work as insane as it sounds. It's simplier than the code-name idea they thought about back in the "Die Another Day" days. Now of course we should hope for the later scenario, I detest the codename theory - this is a dumbed down "variation" of it.

Edited by Stratus, 12 February 2006 - 12:38 AM.


#2 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:14 AM

I doubt they would ever do this different man, same name thing. If the movie does badly, they could fix their mistakes by doing a different style for Bond 22. When LTK did badly, they didn't find some way to pretend it wasn't really Bond. They didn't chicken out. They fixed everything with GE. I think they'd do the same here.

#3 Andrew

Andrew

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1274 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:26 AM

They could just ignore it...as they did with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in Diamonds Are Forever.

#4 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:25 AM

[mra]It

#5 trumanlodge89

trumanlodge89

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:29 AM

i sitll maintain going the route of comic books: calling bond 1 through 20 "volume one." casino royale starts volume two.

i really dont see where this doesnt work.

#6 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:34 AM

[post deleted]

#7 Gabriel

Gabriel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 12 February 2006 - 03:46 PM

They can simply say that Casino Royale was an origin story which required a younger actor and bring Pierce back for the next one!

Hopefully they won't though!

#8 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 06:12 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516618' date='11 February 2006 - 21:25']
[mra]It

#9 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 12 February 2006 - 06:45 PM

[quote name='Harmsway' post='516806' date='12 February 2006 - 18:12']
[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516618' date='11 February 2006 - 21:25']
[mra]It

#10 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 12 February 2006 - 07:26 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516618' date='11 February 2006 - 21:25']
[mra]It

#11 EyesOnly

EyesOnly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 587 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 08:22 PM

I very much disagree Dlib. I think the movie is going to be a smash hit and will critically be successful!

#12 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 12 February 2006 - 08:39 PM

If Casino Royale does poorly and the public demands another one from the old continuity, they pretend that this James Bond is recent ex-SAS recruit who shares the SAME name. Alternatively he goes by that alias to protect his original civilian identity because Bond (Connery -> Brosnan - "one" person) had recently retired. This is similar to the old Bond as a codename theory, but not entirely so at the same time.


Sounds very 'Jason Bourne' indeed- he inherited his name too. But no- fanwank I'm afraid. This is James Bond v2.0; it's almost a shame it is the same producers doing because many (and I don't mean you, Stratus) seem to have a problem understanding how it can be a new series when Wilson is in charge- no-one has a problem with a new prodcuer's interpretation of Holmes or Batman when that comes along.

#13 triviachamp

triviachamp

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1400 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 12 February 2006 - 09:14 PM

If people can accept that Moore and Dalton are both Bond then what is the problem with a reboot?

#14 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:09 PM

I just realized this reboot might have an "exit" strategy. Call this fanwankery if you want but it actually works. It just occurred to me why Dench was recast. It was not just her fame and recognition, also this....

a...Dench is the same M.

If Casino Royale does poorly and the public demands another one from the old continuity, they pretend that this James Bond is recent ex-SAS recruit who shares the SAME name. Alternatively he goes by that alias to protect his original civilian identity because Bond (Connery -> Brosnan - "one" person) had recently retired. This is similar to the old Bond as a codename theory, but not entirely so at the same time.

Thus, the old Bond goes back "into action" if it doesn't work out by having Dench/M call him up or something. Craig could be easily explained off within 5-10 minutes in the next movie.



Hmmmm, sounds very much like a major plot point in a little 1967 movie also called Casino Royale!

#15 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:40 PM

I very much disagree Dlib. I think the movie is going to be a smash hit and will critically be successful!



I hope you are right!

#16 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 11:10 PM

I have this nagging suspicion that this Bond movie is going to flop


What are you basing this on? The Latino Review report on the script? I believe you've always been okay with the choice of Craig, so I can't see what else you'd be basing your suspicion on.

Tell us more.

#17 Bring Back Valentin

Bring Back Valentin

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Location:Wherever the assignments put me...

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:26 AM

They're just going to ignore continuity, much like they've always done. Bernard Lee was M for 3 Bonds, Robert Brown for 2, and now Judi Dench for 2. I don't see what the big deal is. Bond gets re-booted with every new lead actor. They've been talking about doing an origin story for decades, and I think it's about time they got round to it. I'm fairly certain Bond 22 and beyond will gradually revert to formula again, and that's okay.

#18 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 13 February 2006 - 04:04 AM


I have this nagging suspicion that this Bond movie is going to flop


What are you basing this on? The Latino Review report on the script? I believe you've always been okay with the choice of Craig, so I can't see what else you'd be basing your suspicion on.

Tell us more.


I am okay with the choice of Craig, but I don't get the impression that the regular movie-going public is. It's not even just non-Bond-fan friends of mine, but also Bond fans I talk to. They all seem to be very negative about the movie, in fact the only place I find that is optimistic about CASINO ROYALE's chances is CBn.

I HOPE that the movie is a success, I hope it breaks box office records and I hope they stick with this gritty approach for Bond 22, I just hear everyone around me saying they think the movie will tank.

But then, people said that about THE PINK PANTHER and here we are with it getting great reviews and fantastic word-of-mouth. But, is Craig as much of a crowd pleaser as Steve Martin? Time will tell I guess.

#19 triviachamp

triviachamp

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1400 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 13 February 2006 - 04:24 AM

But then, people said that about THE PINK PANTHER and here we are with it getting great reviews and fantastic word-of-mouth. But, is Craig as much of a crowd pleaser as Steve Martin? Time will tell I guess.


Ehh I wouldn't really say it has great reviews.
http://www.rottentom...m/pink_panther/
http://www.metacriti...les/pinkpanther

As for word of mouth that will have to wait until next week. It was not a cheap film so it needs legs to make a profit. Anyway it is a goofy Steve Martin comedy so it could make lots of dough.

Edited by triviachamp, 13 February 2006 - 04:39 AM.


#20 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:01 AM

But then, people said that about THE PINK PANTHER and here we are with it getting great reviews and fantastic word-of-mouth. But, is Craig as much of a crowd pleaser as Steve Martin? Time will tell I guess.

I've heard awful word-of-mouth and the reviews have not been good (22% on Rotten Tomatoes).

#21 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:22 AM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516618' date='12 February 2006 - 02:25']
[mra]It

#22 Gabriel

Gabriel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 13 February 2006 - 10:04 AM

Although many of us have been clamouring for more official info on the new Bond, we have to remember that it is still early days. There's bound to be a teaser, at the very least, in the cinemas by the summer and the buzz should be building nicely in time for the film's release.

It's too early to write off the film's chances. Personally, I think that if EON handles the publicity right, they'll be fine. If the film is good - I mean, we'll all be there the first day or so - we'll be telling people to see it.

Remember, also, that in the UK, we have a little something called Orange Wednesdays, so a lot of people will go to see the film just because it's on.

#23 Simon Beavis

Simon Beavis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 143 posts
  • Location:Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 17 February 2006 - 07:10 PM

[quote name='DLibrasnow' post='516823' date='12 February 2006 - 13:26']
[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516618' date='11 February 2006 - 21:25']
[mra]It

#24 JohnBryce

JohnBryce

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 21 posts
  • Location:West Mids,England

Posted 25 February 2006 - 06:40 PM

I really WANT this film to suceed.From everything I have read about the film I think this will make the Bond films respected again.No Invisible Cars and CG waves.The torture scene is in,I HOPE that last line is in.This film HAS to succeed lol.