46 replies to this topic

[Gabriel]

I meant it in terms of an overhaul of established continuity rather than in terms of the character's portrayal.

That said, I'd have loved so see a Pierce Brosnan 'Dark Knight Returns' version of Bond. Have a silver-haired Brosnan go out for one final mission and keep his survival at the end ambiguous.

They could have done Casino Royale after that as Batman: Year One.

[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.

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

thanks sj. I must be having an on day.

[Loomis]

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

[JimmyBond]

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

Really? That would be a bit dumb of them don't you think? They're already taking a huge risk by having this (already by the fans) controversial storyline. Why not try to play up the connections to the series rather than try to disconnect it from the series?

[Ace Roberts]

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

Really? That would be a bit dumb of them don't you think? They're already taking a huge risk by having this (already by the fans) controversial storyline. Why not try to play up the connections to the series rather than try to disconnect it from the series?

I fully expect the line to be something more on the level of "recognizing the general public's conception that the series had become a dinosaur /relic of a bygone/another era - the production team has done their best to modernize, and present Bond in a 21st Century fashion, making the character more "edgy" and in step with today's times". Emphasis on "modernize" and "edgy" and less on reboot and franchise changing.

Edited by Ace Roberts, 14 February 2006 - 07:42 PM.

[Jim]

I fully expect the line to be something more on the level of "recognizing the general public's conception that the series had become a dinosaur /relic of a bygone/another era - the production team has done their best to modernize, and present Bond in a 21st Century fashion, making the character more "edgy" and in step with today's times". Emphasis on "modernize" and "edgy" and less on reboot and franchise changing.

Yeah, that sounds pretty much it. Die Another Day was as far as we could go with the norms of the series as it stood; now we're trying some new "norms". Don't hate us for it.

[Loomis]

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

Really? That would be a bit dumb of them don't you think? They're already taking a huge risk by having this (already by the fans) controversial storyline. Why not try to play up the connections to the series rather than try to disconnect it from the series?

I don't think Joe Public knows or cares whether CASINO ROYALE is the 21st in a series, the first in a series, the 11th in a series, or whatever. Or for that matter whether or not NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN should be considered part of the same series. As far as Joe Public's concerned, CR is just "the new Bond film", and if Eon wants to jazz it up as the start of all-new franchise it'll make very little difference to JP.

Personally, I'd rather consider CR to be BOND 21 than BOND 1, but then I'm a hardcore Bond geek who likes the idea of the films DR. NO - CR constituting a remarkably long-running franchise. But if - if - Eon is going to start telling us that CR is wiping the slate clean and launching a separate series, I guess we'll have to fall in with that.

[Stratus]

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'

Maybe DKR, but All-Star... I refuse to "believe" Frank Miller wrote that book. I suspect Frank Miller died shortly after Batman Year One. This is his twin brother Bizaaro Miller writing.

I can't believe he wrote this line of dialogue. FOR BATS!@!!!

[marktmurphy]

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

I doubt it- I'm sure there will be a lot of 'this is the same man we've seen before' talk, but 'showing his beginnings through the frame of todays world'. To bring a bit of freshness, I'm sure they'll say. I doubt they'll cut it off from the old series.

[Loomis]

I doubt they'll cut it off from the old series.

Hmmm.... thinking about it, perhaps not. Hopefully not.

I guess it'd look a bit daft if they tried to do that (in the way that I believe the BATMAN BEGINS team distanced their film from the other Batman flicks), what with the continued employment of Purvis and Wade, Campbell, Meheux, Arnold, Dench, etc.

[Captain Grimes]

My impression is that Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell, et al. are being quite careful to show the proper respect to the series. They seem at pains to point out that they're not tossing out all that's come before.

My guess is that they're too smart to distance themselves from the longest-running franchise in Hollywood.

(And the idea that after DAD there's nowhere left to go seems a little silly to me. We could have said the same thing after YOLT or MR, and look what followed those.)

[Harmsway]

(And the idea that after DAD there's nowhere left to go seems a little silly to me. We could have said the same thing after YOLT or MR, and look what followed those.)

During YOLT and MR, the series hadn't been running as long. There was still a lot of life left in it. I believe that after DIE ANOTHER DAY, just another Bond adventure wouldn't quite cut it.

Many may disagree, but I thought Bond needed a pretty big shot in the arm after DIE ANOTHER DAY with some serious shaking things up. It maybe didn't need to be a reboot, necessarily, though I do love the idea of a new Bond that has his roots in contemporary society.

[Stratus]

You know they could have just done Bond 22 for Bond 21. Basically a comtemporary Bond with no reference at all to the past yet at the same time no origin film. They will have to do this in the film after Casino Royale anyways. The only catch is the no origin part - they compensate by making a "good film".

[Gabriel]

Actually, the reboot direction does allow them to adapt other Fleming novels that hadn't been properly adapted before. You Only Live Twice might be an interesting novel to adapt after the events of Casino Royale, given Bond's experiences in that novel/film . . .

[Bring Back Valentin]

I fully expect the line to be something more on the level of "recognizing the general public's conception that the series had become a dinosaur /relic of a bygone/another era - the production team has done their best to modernize, and present Bond in a 21st Century fashion, making the character more "edgy" and in step with today's times". Emphasis on "modernize" and "edgy" and less on reboot and franchise changing.

Ace, you should be a spin doctor, that's brilliant!

They pretty much said the same thing when Timothy Dalton was cast.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

Really? That would be a bit dumb of them don't you think? They're already taking a huge risk by having this (already by the fans) controversial storyline. Why not try to play up the connections to the series rather than try to disconnect it from the series?

I fully expect the line to be something more on the level of "recognizing the general public's conception that the series had become a dinosaur /relic of a bygone/another era - the production team has done their best to modernize, and present Bond in a 21st Century fashion, making the character more "edgy" and in step with today's times". Emphasis on "modernize" and "edgy" and less on reboot and franchise changing.

I'm curious as to whether Broccoli, Wilson, Campbell and co., in their promotional interviews this November, will "officially" designate CASINO ROYALE as the start of an all-new series. I'm more than half-expecting a lot of "This is actually the first in our new franchise" talk from them.

I doubt it- I'm sure there will be a lot of 'this is the same man we've seen before' talk, but 'showing his beginnings through the frame of todays world'. To bring a bit of freshness, I'm sure they'll say. I doubt they'll cut it off from the old series.

However creatively you want to word it, the end result is still the same--Casino Royale is a reboot and as such throws out everything that went before it in the previous 20 films. Consequently, there is no Tracy, no wedding, no Felix being dismembered, no Miles Messervy, no Geoffrey Boothroyd (at least not yet), and no SPECTRE/Blofeld. And that is NOT a change for the better.

Actually, the reboot direction does allow them to adapt other Fleming novels that hadn't been properly adapted before. You Only Live Twice might be an interesting novel to adapt after the events of Casino Royale, given Bond's experiences in that novel/film . . .

Adapting those novels that haven't been properly adapted before such as You Only Live Twice does not require a reboot to do. EON can easily do them as continuation films. Besides, there's only a little bit you can use in YOLT or The Man With The Golden Gun before having to pad it out with original material and again that can be done without rebooting the series. After all, they made For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, Licence To Kill, and Die Another Day by taking unused portions of other novels and short stories and they did it without rebooting.

[JimmyBond]

As others have pointed out, the only way to properly adapt Casino Royale is to have it be about James Bond's first mission. And the only way to do that was to make it a "prequel" film, if you will. But for whatever reason EON chose not to make it a period piece, so it's an origin story of sorts, set in conetemporary times, I think it sounds fascinating.

As I've said before, this is the first time when I'm not quite sure what to expect from a Bond film, and that makes me excited.