27 replies to this topic

[Bring Back Valentin]

Finding continuity in the Bond movies is like playing a slot machine. Sometimes you get something, sometimes you don't. What the %%$# am I talking about you ask? Consider this...

Dr No introduces us to a 32-year old secret agent named James Bond. It is followed by FRWL, where we re-join Bond with Sylvia Trench and SPECTRE is looking for revenge for Bond killing Dr No. That's continuity. Next is GF, with no mention or reference whatsoever of the previous two films. TB brings back SPECTRE, but once again, there is no mention or reference to the previous 3 films. YOLT is next, where we find out that Bond had a degree in Oriental Languages from Oxford. SPECTRE once again is the villain, and Bond even gets to meet Blofeld face-to-face (this is IMPORTANT!!!) but somehow fails to kill him, even with 1000 ninjas on his side.

Up to this point, I'll concede, there is a fair degree of continuity. But here's where it starts to get interesting...

In OHMSS, Bond loses his Scottish accent in favour of a semi-British/Australian one, and appears to have "de-aged" 9 years. Right off the bat, he spits in the face of continuity by uttering "This never happened to the other fella..." in the pre-credit sequence. Then, he pulls Honey's knife (most likely confiscated when she in-processed Dr No's decontamination facility), Grant's watch (left with the dead Grant on the Orient Express) and the re-breather from TB (didn't he ditch that in the shark pool?), none of which he was in posession of after each respective film. Then, he meets Blofeld again, face-to-face, and the old f@rt doesn't even recognize Bond?!? Bond gets married at the end and she dies, which brings us to DAF.

The continuity is "on again" for this one, except "the other fella" is back again (9 years older again) and Bond has a Scottish accent again. Okay, I can live with that, in spite of the ridiculous pink necktie he wears. Then, he runs into Blofeld for a third time, and now he looks suspiciously like the good guy who died in YOLT. I know that Blofeld did the whole plastic surgery thing, but still. Coincidence? I think not! A dead good guy became a living bad guy! (Remember this; it comes back in 25 years). The funny thing here is that they can't even retain continuity within the film itself without a last minute trick with a Mustang going thru an alley in Las Vegas.

Fast-forward two years and Bond has again traded his Scottish accent, this time for a more realistic proper English one. Bond seems to be 3 years older now. Also, it looks like we're finally done with SPECTRE, which was starting to get old anyway. We go through LALD and TMWTGG with no references to past (filmed) missions or experiences. In TSWLM, there is a brief glimpse into Bond's "past" when Anya mentions the dead missus, but that's it. Then, he easily diffuses a Soviet nuclear warhead. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Then, nothing in Moonraker (a.k.a. EON's attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze). Next up is a minor re-boot in FYEO. Light on the gadgets, more on the actual espionage. The movie opens up with pure continuity at Tracy's grave, followed by Bond dropping some poor UNNAMED bald guy in a wheelchair with a white cat. Now I know who this is supposed to represent, and I know that he is not named due to legal issues with Kevin McClory, but did the guy get plastic surgery again? He had a full head of hair (and NO WHEELCHAIR) in DAF only 10 years earlier...

Octupussy is next and Bond AGAIN easily diffuses a Soviet nuclear warhead. In AVTAK (wasn't that the name of the decoder in FYEO...?) Bond invents snowboarding and bangs Grace Jones and Tanya Roberts. Not really related to the topic at hand, I know, but not bad for a 58-year old man! Gee, Bond is getting old now that I think about it. That's okay though, because...

...Two years later Bond is back with a new (again!) accent, this time Welsh-English hybrid, and on top of all that, he's suddenly 17 years younger! Bond gives the world a hand by aiding and abetting future Al Quaida members take over Afghanistan (don't feel too bad; Rambo did it too.) and killing a bad guy American arms dealer. In LTK, Felix Leiter (man, he's changed over the years!) mentions that Bond was married a long time ago. Okay, so the wife gives the Bond series a little continuity.

We then get a break for 6 years and Bond comes back 9 years younger than he was in 1989. He has since traded his Welsh-English hybrid accent for an Irish-English hybrid accent (can't this guy learn to talk consistantly???) The opening sequence shows Bond on a mission when he was younger/older(?!?!?) then fast-forwards to present day where he is older/younger(?!?!?!?!?) than he was in the late 80's. Confused? Me too. Moving on... Bond has to kill a guy who turns out to be a former 00 friend. He gets help from an American good guy who looks suspiciously like the American bad guy he killed back in 1987. Coincidence?!? I think not! A dead bad guy became a living good guy! He also gets help from an ex-KGB guy who looks suspiciously like Hagrid from the Harry Potter movies. Evidently, Bond shot at him and gave him a limp back in his younger/older/younger welsh-accented days.

Tomorrow Never Dies has Bond working with a Chinese agent, but looks at a Chinese keyboard like a monkey doing a math problem. Didn't he have a degree in this stuff from Oxford? Doesn't say much about that fine educational institution does it? After that, he goes to eastern Europe and needs the help of a 28-year old bimbo to disarm a soviet nuclear warhead.

W...T...F...?!?!?

Hasn't he done this twice before??? Then gets screwed (literally and figuratively) by some hot french chick to whom he mentions that "The World Is Not Enough" was a family motto, despite the fact that he was only 16 years old when this fact was made known to him before the OHMSS affair. I thought he was 30 when that happened...

Then in DAD, Bond gets his 20th watch and checks out gadgets he used (and was attacked by) when he was between 9 and 15 years old. Hmmmm...

What's my point after all that? Continuity is hit and miss in the world of 007. Just accept it. By the end of Casino Royale, there will have been 3 M's, 3 Q's, 3 Moneypennys, 4 Blofelds, 7 Felix Leiters and 6 James Bonds covering over 40 years of time. You can't expect writers to keep up with all that and still maintain a sense of continuity. Things change and things stay the same.

Bond re-boots with every new lead actor, otherwise Sean Connery would still be in the role as a 76-year old man, M (Bernard Lee) would have been dead for 25 years, Q (Desmond Llewellan) for 7, Felix (Jack Lord) for 8, and Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell)wouldn't quite be as hot as she used to be back before Dr No.

Daniel Craig has quite a challenge ahead of him, but I think he'll pull through in the end, even if this re-boot is more extreme than those of the past. In any case, I'm glad Dame Judi Dench is back. She provides a nice bridge between the "old" Bond(s) and the new.

Edited by Bring Back Valentin, 15 February 2006 - 03:52 AM.

[Judo chop]

Good grief that's a long post, man.

[dunmall]

i agree in fact I said pretty much the same thing in a thread in the general film area Still I have to admit yours is an easy read with a nice line of wit

just to point out though in Goldfinger Bond does refer to working with Felix in Jamaca and Mei Lee says that the black attache case was damaged when examined.

sorry for nit picking.

[Bring Back Valentin]

Judo chop - Hey man, I was on a roll!

dunmall - I kinda figured I might've left a few things out. What's your thread called? I'd like to take a look at it.

[Pussfeller]

I completely agree. There is no genuine continuity in the Bond franchise, save a few extraneous details here and there. There really can't be continuity, when you have the same character being played by six different actors over nearly half a century. Why not simply accept the internal logic of each film? Why demand that the facts fit together when it's obvious that Bond resets every few years? It's restrictive and silly. The Bond films don't "build". Bond isn't a dynamic character--he's the total opposite. We should come to terms with the fact that Bond films are episodic.

[Judo chop]

Judo chop - Hey man, I was on a roll!

You certainly were. I was looking for a quick post before bedtime and came across a dissertation and could only afford a quick comment.
However, now that I've had time to actually READ your column, I will congratulate you on a very nice start to CBN membership. A very nice start, in no small part due to the fact that I agree with you. Below I'm pasting a post (slightly edited) that I added on earlier thread regarding 'continuity' and 'rebooting' that may sum up our opinions on the matter.

What I would call "loose continuity", which does matter to me, 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 aspect isn't vital, but I wouldn't feel it was the REAL james bond without it. NSNA proves that point for me.) But that about wraps it up. If you change or remove any of those aspects, you have 'rebooted' for real. You've changed Bond.

What I would call "strong continuity" (which I think is what many are upset about losing in CR) 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 many others), and the examples (Roger at Tracey's grave, just for one) of this type which exist in the series are added only 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 strong chronological continuity in the series were blown away beyond repair long ago, as detailed by BBV's seminar above.

Edited by Judo chop, 14 February 2006 - 03:36 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I would like to say that we can look at the continuity in the Bond films like this: Not so much a linking from one film to the next, but just different actors take on the literary character. For example, Roger's Bond at Tracy's grave is not so much a nod ot OHMSS the film, but a not do the literary Bond and how he was married at one time, the same can be said of the reference in LTK.

[Harmsway]

I would like to say that we can look at the continuity in the Bond films like this: Not so much a linking from one film to the next, but just different actors take on the literary character. For example, Roger's Bond at Tracy's grave is not so much a nod ot OHMSS the film, but a not do the literary Bond and how he was married at one time, the same can be said of the reference in LTK.

Oooh... that's a cool way of looking at it!

[Judo chop]

I would like to say that we can look at the continuity in the Bond films like this: Not so much a linking from one film to the next, but just different actors take on the literary character. For example, Roger's Bond at Tracy's grave is not so much a nod ot OHMSS the film, but a not do the literary Bond and how he was married at one time, the same can be said of the reference in LTK.

Sure. In my post I suggested that the nods were to the previous films, but I can certainly see your point that they are sometimes nods to Fleming as well. Makes sense to me.

For example, something like the Bond/Q scene in DAD surely can't be considered a nod to Fleming. All the old gadgets are clearly nods to the cinematic Bond. Q's line, "As I learned from my predecessor, 007, I never joke about my work" is clearly a nod to Desmond and/or Goldfinger. I can see your point with the scene at Tracey's grave though.

The bottom line remains the same; those who are upset about losing "continuity" in a chronological sense must be dealing that anger since the late 60's. That can't be healthy.

[Gabriel]

I think the lack of consistent continuity between all of the films has been one of those things that 'dare not speak its name.'

Casino Royale's been explicit about being a restart production, which is sensible, IMHO!

[Mr_Wint]

What's my point after all that?

Good question! No offence, but I think you just decided to 'prove' that there's no continuity in Bond's world, and you did that without any sense of going through the films in an objective manner.

Of course, his accent is changing... they can't keep the same guy for 40 years! And it's really amazing that you can see the 3-years different between DAF/LALD without actually knowing their real age...

Also, just because Dr No was released 40 years ago doesn't mean that the character James Bond is 40 years older in DAD. You cant compared the fictive time in Bond's world with our real time. The mission in TND was 48 hours long.... now, you didn't spend that much time in the cinema, did you? We have no idea how frequently Bond is going on his mission. Was there 2 long years between the mission in TSWLM and MR...? No one knows. All this is just my own personal view of course.

To sum it up, there is little references between the films to prove that it is the same character. But on the other hand, there are very few references to prove that it isn't. However, the style is changing all the time but that is something completely different compared to actually rebooting the character.

[doublenoughtspy]

I would like to say that we can look at the continuity in the Bond films like this: Not so much a linking from one film to the next, but just different actors take on the literary character. For example, Roger's Bond at Tracy's grave is not so much a nod ot OHMSS the film, but a not do the literary Bond and how he was married at one time, the same can be said of the reference in LTK.

Huh?

Why does the gravestone say 1969 then? If it was a reference to the book it would have said 1963 (when the book came out) or 1962 (when the event took place within the book).

John Glen, the director and the one who instigated the scene being written, stated it was a reference to the film, because they thought they might be getting a new actor as Bond.

[doublenoughtspy]

It's easy to point out continuity errors in the Bond series.

Sure, there are plenty.

But why then, do they do things they don't need to - in order to remind us it's the same guy?

Peter Hunt for example - starts off the first scene in OHMSS with M & Q - thus establishing a link back to the Connery films.

In Goldeneye - the producers have him use a 30 year old car in Silver Birch with a somewhat familiar license plate - something we haven't seen since 1966.

Why show the painting of Bernard Lee in TWINE? It doesn't advance the story.

I know that continuity is challenging, and probably often not worth the effort to the fan boys like us that care.

If they want to throw continuity out - I don't have a problem with it. It happens in comics all the time.

What I do object to though is this cherry picking continuity that they are doing - a reboot but with Brosnan's M.

[JimmyBond]

What I do object to though is this cherry picking continuity that they are doing - a reboot but with Brosnan's M.

Why? Dench is a great actress, obviously Wilson and Broccoli feel she is a great asset to the series. That's why they're keeping her around.

[Judo chop]

It's easy to point out continuity errors in the Bond series.

Sure, there are plenty.

But why then, do they do things they don't need to - in order to remind us it's the same guy?

Peter Hunt for example - starts off the first scene in OHMSS with M & Q - thus establishing a link back to the Connery films.

In Goldeneye - the producers have him use a 30 year old car in Silver Birch with a somewhat familiar license plate - something we haven't seen since 1966.

Why show the painting of Bernard Lee in TWINE? It doesn't advance the story.

I know that continuity is challenging, and probably often not worth the effort to the fan boys like us that care.

If they want to throw continuity out - I don't have a problem with it. It happens in comics all the time.

What I do object to though is this cherry picking continuity that they are doing - a reboot but with Brosnan's M.

I call those examples "nods". "Winks". "Fun with the series". Whatever. Some fanboys like me think they are fun even though they add nothing to the film. Some, like you DNSpy, find them irritating BECAUSE they add nothing. Let's agree to disagree. My argument has always been though, that they should not be read as supporting evidence of continuity. They don't "mean" anything in terms of chronology. Don't ask "why?" Don't try to make them mean anything and you may learn to enjoy them.

[doublenoughtspy]

I didn't say I found them irritating. Quite the opposite. I like being "rewarded" if you will, for being a long time Bond fan.

I was using them as examples of how the producers have gone out of their way to "prove", "show", "nod to", or "acknowledge" continuity.

[Streetworker]

Finding continuity in the Bond movies is like playing a slot machine. Sometimes you get something, sometimes you don't. What the %%$# am I talking about you ask? Consider this...

Dr No introduces us to a 32-year old secret agent named James Bond. It is followed by FRWL, where we re-join Bond with Sylvia Trench and SPECTRE is looking for revenge for Bond killing Dr No. That's continuity. Next is GF, with no mention or reference whatsoever of the previous two films. TB brings back SPECTRE, but once again, there is no mention or reference to the previous 3 films. YOLT is next, where we find out that Bond had a degree in Oriental Languages from Oxford. SPECTRE once again is the villain, and Bond even gets to meet Blofeld face-to-face (this is IMPORTANT!!!) but somehow fails to kill him, even with 1000 ninjas on his side.

Up to this point, I'll concede, there is a fair degree of continuity. But here's where it starts to get interesting...

In OHMSS, Bond loses his Scottish accent in favour of a semi-British/Australian one, and appears to have "de-aged" 9 years. Right off the bat, he spits in the face of continuity by uttering "This never happened to the other fella..." in the pre-credit sequence. Then, he pulls Honey's knife (most likely confiscated when she in-processed Dr No's decontamination facility), Grant's watch (left with the dead Grant on the Orient Express) and the re-breather from TB (didn't he ditch that in the shark pool?), none of which he was in posession of after each respective film. Then, he meets Blofeld again, face-to-face, and the old f@rt doesn't even recognize Bond?!? Bond gets married at the end and she dies, which brings us to DAF.

The continuity is "on again" for this one, except "the other fella" is back again (9 years older again) and Bond has a Scottish accent again. Okay, I can live with that, in spite of the ridiculous pink necktie he wears. Then, he runs into Blofeld for a third time, and now he looks suspiciously like the good guy who died in YOLT. I know that Blofeld did the whole plastic surgery thing, but still. Coincidence? I think not! A dead good guy became a living bad guy! (Remember this; it comes back in 25 years). The funny thing here is that they can't even retain continuity within the film itself without a last minute trick with a Mustang going thru an alley in Las Vegas.

Fast-forward two years and Bond has again traded his Scottish accent, this time for a more realistic proper English one. Bond seems to be 3 years older now. Also, it looks like we're finally done with SPECTRE, which was starting to get old anyway. We go through LALD and TMWTGG with no references to past (filmed) missions or experiences. In TSWLM, there is a brief glimpse into Bond's "past" when Anya mentions the dead missus, but that's it. Then, he easily diffuses a Soviet nuclear warhead. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Then, nothing in Moonraker (a.k.a. EON's attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze). Next up is a minor re-boot in FYEO. Light on the gadgets, more on the actual espionage. The movie opens up with pure continuity at Tracy's grave, followed by Bond dropping some poor UNNAMED bald guy in a wheelchair with a white cat. Now I know who this is supposed to represent, and I know that he is not named due to legal issues with Kevin McClory, but did the guy get plastic surgery again? He had a full head of hair (and NO WHEELCHAIR) in DAF only 10 years earlier...

Octupussy is next and Bond AGAIN easily diffuses a Soviet nuclear warhead. In AVTAK (wasn't that the name of the decoder in FYEO...?) Bond invents snowboarding and bangs Grace Jones and Tanya Roberts. Not really related to the topic at hand, I know, but not bad for a 58-year old man! Gee, Bond is getting old now that I think about it. That's okay though, because...

...Two years later Bond is back with a new (again!) accent, this time Welsh-English hybrid, and on top of all that, he's suddenly 17 years younger! Bond gives the world a hand by aiding and abetting future Al Quaida members take over Afghanistan (don't feel too bad; Rambo did it too.) and killing a bad guy American arms dealer. In LTK, Felix Leiter (man, he's changed over the years!) mentions that Bond was married a long time ago. Okay, so the wife gives the Bond series a little continuity.

We then get a break for 6 years and Bond comes back 9 years younger than he was in 1989. He has since traded his Welsh-English hybrid accent for an Irish-English hybrid accent (can't this guy learn to talk consistantly???) The opening sequence shows Bond on a mission when he was younger/older(?!?!?) then fast-forwards to present day where he is older/younger(?!?!?!?!?) than he was in the late 80's. Confused? Me too. Moving on... Bond has to kill a guy who turns out to be a former 00 friend. He gets help from an American good guy who looks suspiciously like the American bad guy he killed back in 1987. Coincidence?!? I think not! A dead bad guy became a living good guy! He also gets help from an ex-KGB guy who looks suspiciously like Hagrid from the Harry Potter movies. Evidently, Bond shot at him and gave him a limp back in his younger/older/younger welsh-accented days.

Tomorrow Never Dies has Bond working with a Chinese agent, but looks at a Chinese keyboard like a monkey doing a math problem. Didn't he have a degree in this stuff from Oxford? Doesn't say much about that fine educational institution does it? After that, he goes to eastern Europe and needs the help of a 28-year old bimbo to disarm a soviet nuclear warhead.

W...T...F...?!?!?

Hasn't he done this twice before??? Then gets screwed (literally and figuratively) by some hot french chick to whom he mentions that "The World Is Not Enough" was a family motto, despite the fact that he was only 16 years old when this fact was made known to him before the OHMSS affair. I thought he was 30 when that happened...

Then in DAD, Bond gets his 20th watch and checks out gadgets he used (and was attacked by) when he was between 9 and 15 years old. Hmmmm...

What's my point after all that? Continuity is hit and miss in the world of 007. Just accept it. By the end of Casino Royale, there will have been 3 M's, 3 Q's, 3 Moneypennys, 4 Blofelds, 6 Felix Leiters and 6 James Bonds covering over 40 years of time. You can't expect writers to keep up with all that and still maintain a sense of continuity. Things change and things stay the same.

Bond re-boots with every new lead actor, otherwise Sean Connery would still be in the role as a 76-year old man, M (Bernard Lee) would have been dead for 25 years, Q (Desmond Llewellan) for 7, Felix (Jack Lord) for 8, and Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell)wouldn't quite be as hot as she used to be back before Dr No.

Daniel Craig has quite a challenge ahead of him, but I think he'll pull through in the end, even if this re-boot is more extreme than those of the past. In any case, I'm glad Dame Judi Dench is back. She provides a nice bridge between the "old" Bond(s) and the new.

That's an excellent post. But no matter how loose the continuity, I have always believed that Bond's adventures follow the chronological order. Thus, in my interpretation of Bond's world, the events in From Russia With Love follow the events of Dr. No and are then followed by those in Goldfinger, after which Thunderball takes place and so on. Anything which mucks up that loose timeline risks, for me, throwing the baby out with the bath water and p*ssing quite a few people off (me included).

But I do take your point.

Edited by Streetworker, 14 February 2006 - 08:06 PM.

[Judo chop]

I didn't say I found them irritating. Quite the opposite. I like being "rewarded" if you will, for being a long time Bond fan.

I was using them as examples of how the producers have gone out of their way to "prove", "show", "nod to", or "acknowledge" continuity.

My misread then. In my head you sounded annoyed by the inserts. (Ah, the inevitable pitfalls of written communication.)

Still, how do you know the producers aren't adding these elements just for fun? How do you know they are trying to "prove" continuity instead of just rewarding folks like us for sticking with the series? There seem to be some genuine Bond fans involved in the creation of all of these films. If I were involved in production, I would continue to "nod" for fandom's sake.

[Bring Back Valentin]

...Also, just because Dr No was released 40 years ago doesn't mean that the character James Bond is 40 years older in DAD. You cant compared the fictive time in Bond's world with our real time...

Yes I can.

Indirectly:
Clothing styles, hairstyles, background scenery (automobiles especially), household appliances, technology, etc. All these things indirectly show a passage of "fictive time" that correspond to the passage of our own "real time."

Directly:
Both Tracy Bond and MI6 agent Fairbanks are shown/quoted to have died in 1969. Max Zorin was born during WWII, making him the "right age" in 1985. Intermittently from Dr No through TLD, the Cold War/communism/Soviet Union is a central theme, whereas by the time GoldenEye comes around it no longer is a threat. FYEO distinctly show Margaret Thatcher as PM of England. TLD gives us Bond intefering with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1988) In TND, there is a direct reference to the end of the millenium coming up shortly (and originally had a plotline centered around the UK reliquishing control of Hong Kong). TWINE also mentions past Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, as well as poking fun at U.S. President Bill Clinton, and even questions the integrity of Swiss banks; a hot issue in the last few years. DAD also presses the hot issue of African conflict diamonds, and clearly mentions the recent return of control of Hong Kong to China.

Bond time and real-world time run a parallel path. Bond is like The Simpsons. We get old. They don't.

Edited by Bring Back Valentin, 15 February 2006 - 12:35 AM.

[Gabriel]

My big question for all those people who hate the reboot concept is: Where the hell could the series have gone after Die Another Day?

I mean, to me, the film comes over as a final episode in a series. The storyline includes kisses to all the previous actors' eras and there's even a scene with Q featuring gadgets going back to the early films.

For all its OTT qualities (most of which I can forgive) and awful CGI (ok, you've got me there!!) it's a huge, overblown celebration and summation of all the Bonds ever made.

At the same time, none of the stars from the early days is left and the presence of the new actors in an old, abandoned underground station only emphasises that. Bond finally kisses Moneypenny (even if it was a VR training hologram) and in real life gets together with another woman who's his equal (no matter how annoying she may be!)

After Die Another Day, there simply is nowhere left to go for the character played by Connery through to Brosnan. His story's at an end. A restart is the only way left to go! Rather than complain about Casino Royale doing the only thing possible to keep the series going, blame Die Another Day, if you must. In the end, though, the old Bond simply had its time and something new was needed!

Edited by Gabriel, 15 February 2006 - 12:30 AM.

[Carver]

That's an excellent post. But no matter how loose the continuity, I have always believed that Bond's adventures follow the chronological order. Thus, in my interpretation of Bond's world, the events in From Russia With Love follow the events of Dr. No and are then followed by those in Goldfinger, after which Thunderball takes place and so on. Anything which mucks up that loose timeline risks, for me, throwing the baby out with the bath water and p*ssing quite a few people off (me included).

But I do take your point.

Agreed. I've always taken the films in chronological order, and I've always thought that there is very slight continuity in the series. I mean, we all know that Brosnan's Bond bungee jumping off the dam in GE isn't the same as Connery's Bond fighting in the ocean in TB, and that Dalton's Bond getting revenge on Sanchez in LTK isn't the same as Moore's Bond disguised as a clown in OP. Obviously this isn't the same guy, but I do like to have a sort of continuity in the films, with all the nods to past films we have. Maybe it's just me clinging on to the hope that EON don't introduce that God-awful codename theory.

[Double-Oh Agent]

My big question for all those people who hate the reboot concept is: Where the hell could the series have gone after Die Another Day?

I mean, to me, the film comes over as a final episode in a series. The storyline includes kisses to all the previous actors' eras and there's even a scene with Q featuring gadgets going back to the early films.

For all its OTT qualities (most of which I can forgive) and awful CGI (ok, you've got me there!!) it's a huge, overblown celebration and summation of all the Bonds ever made.

At the same time, none of the stars from the early days is left and the presence of the new actors in an old, abandoned underground station only emphasises that. Bond finally kisses Moneypenny (even if it was a VR training hologram) and in real life gets together with another woman who's his equal (no matter how annoying she may be!)

After Die Another Day, there simply is nowhere left to go for the character played by Connery through to Brosnan. His story's at an end. A restart is the only way left to go! Rather than complain about Casino Royale doing the only thing possible to keep the series going, blame Die Another Day, if you must. In the end, though, the old Bond simply had its time and something new was needed!

Where could Bond have gone after Die Another Day? Along the same lines of On Her Majesty's Secret Service after You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only after Moonraker, and Licence To Kill after The Living Daylights. Just scale the new film back with a more serious tone--and do that without going through a stupid and unnecessary reboot. A continuation film or even a prequel is perfectly acceptable, but a reboot is an insult to those of us who believe in the series' continuity (however loose it may be). DAD was financially successful, no doubt about it, and as a result Bond had no need for rebooting. Consequently, I see no reason or need for DAD to be the last film of the "original" series as some suggest.

I see the Bond series as a continuous run of 20 films with five (soon to be six) actors playing the role of 007. The differences are their interpretations and the influences of the times the films were made. And the 40 years between the first and 20th films are not our timeline. Bond is fictional and that results in a different aging timeframe. For example Sue Grafton writes the Alphabet mysteries with Kinsey Millhone as her heroine. She writes a book every 18 months or so starting in the mid-80s and is currently up to S. She sets her series between 1987-1990. So even though Z will be finished in 10 years, it will still be set 25 years before. As for Bond, while his films are set in the present day (or five minutes into the future), I look at his missions as those that happened in the past (such as Fleming's novels) and are simply updated to the present day's time period. That would also explain how the film Live And Let Die in 1973 is quite a bit different than the literary one in 1954.

One other thing about continuity. Why should EON include all those "nods" to the fans such as the occasional Tray di Vicenzo reference and the picture of Miles Messervy as a former "M" throughout the series? EON, as we all know, don't do much--if anything--for the fans outside of a producing a movie so why include those "nods" in a film? The answer is simple: to keep a semblance of continuity in the series.

(Unfortunately, now they're throwing that all away with the Casino Royale reboot and ticking off a number of fans like me in the process. )

[Carver]

My big question for all those people who hate the reboot concept is: Where the hell could the series have gone after Die Another Day?

I mean, to me, the film comes over as a final episode in a series. The storyline includes kisses to all the previous actors' eras and there's even a scene with Q featuring gadgets going back to the early films.

For all its OTT qualities (most of which I can forgive) and awful CGI (ok, you've got me there!!) it's a huge, overblown celebration and summation of all the Bonds ever made.

At the same time, none of the stars from the early days is left and the presence of the new actors in an old, abandoned underground station only emphasises that. Bond finally kisses Moneypenny (even if it was a VR training hologram) and in real life gets together with another woman who's his equal (no matter how annoying she may be!)

After Die Another Day, there simply is nowhere left to go for the character played by Connery through to Brosnan. His story's at an end. A restart is the only way left to go! Rather than complain about Casino Royale doing the only thing possible to keep the series going, blame Die Another Day, if you must. In the end, though, the old Bond simply had its time and something new was needed!

My man, you talk a lot of sense on these here forums. I totally agree with what you're saying there. Sure, this whole "reboot/Bond begins" stuff is confusing, and we don't know if this film will fit in with any continuation the series have, but we really did need a reboot after DAD. I mean, I know a lot of people are annoyed over the whole reboot issue, saying it'll ruin the series and stuff, but time and again I've said I trust EON (let's hope my trust isn't misguided) over this film, and I reckon they'll produce a cracker. Say we didn't have a reboot, wouldn't the films carry on like they were? Like DAD? Would we really want the series to go down that path? I for one wouldn't, and I'm pleased that EOn took the option of doing a reboot. Gabriel put it down perfectly in his post, that there really was a need for a reboot after DAD, and I agree with him. Let's just wait until the film comes out before we slam it all.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

I would like to say that we can look at the continuity in the Bond films like this: Not so much a linking from one film to the next, but just different actors take on the literary character. For example, Roger's Bond at Tracy's grave is not so much a nod ot OHMSS the film, but a not do the literary Bond and how he was married at one time, the same can be said of the reference in LTK.

Oooh... that's a cool way of looking at it!

Yes. It's an important part of the Bond mythos. Its like everyone knows that Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered and that caused him to become Batman. Just like how Batman Begins has nothing to do with the last four bat films it still retains the fact that Bruce's parents were killed in an alley because its part of the characters history. Same with OHMSS and FYEO. They could be set in a whole diffrent countinuity or universe but it doesn't change the fact that the character of Bond was once married and his wife met a tragic end.

[Red Renard]

It all fits... sort of.

[JimmyBond]

Well, as I've been saying all along. I don't care what kind of plot Casino Royale has, to me it's still the 21st James Bond film in the long running series of James Bond films. None of this version 2.0 or anything, at least that's how I'm looking at it

[killkenny kid]

Well, as I've been saying all along. I don't care what kind of plot Casino Royale has, to me it's still the 21st James Bond film in the long running series of James Bond films. None of this version 2.0 or anything, at least that's how I'm looking at it

The same here. I know the "reboot" thing is the new fad. But, Casino Royale is just the next Bond movie for me.

[Gabriel]

Of course Casino Royale is the next film in the series. It's also a fresh start for the series. I'm hoping for some more adaptations of Fleming stories: no matter what people are saying about Casino Royale being the last Fleming to adapt, there are stories such as You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me that have never been adapted.

Edited by Gabriel, 18 February 2006 - 06:21 PM.