251 replies to this topic

[Skudor]

I used to detest the idea of a reboot - partly because as an idea it seemed silly and partly because of all the prequels and Battie boy begins and all that. Just seemed unoriginal and unneccessary. But I've come round to it mainly because it allows for a fresh start in both style and content. Both of which were needed after Die Another Day.

I'm still very excited about this movie

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I guess people are very attached to their canon, but to me it seems very silly to worry about how it "fits together". The simple answer is that it doesn't, and that doesn't matter. Bond has had six different faces. He's been in his forties for fifty years. How is a reboot a violation when Lazenby's casting was not? How does the canon account for Bond's mysterious de-aging every few years?

I see no need for the producers to "respect the history". All I ask is that the films are true to the characters and themes, and that each obeys an internal continuity.

Hell, it's not as though the Bond series has built up to anything! Bond is as static a character as they come. You could watch the films in any order and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Amidst all of the complaining that CR is going to be a bit poo-poo because it's a "reboot" and the continuity will be buggered up, that's about the smartest thing I've read, 'Puss.

Any way you shake it, the Bond films aren't quite the novels; they need to be accessible to anyone in order to put bums in seats. Incidentally, it doesn't make a hell of a difference to anyone but Bond fans if "Bond's Boss" is played by a whiskey-soaked old lady or a pipe-smoking old man. Given that many people do not know how to spell Fleming, let alone read his novels, I don't expect anyone but, again, Bond fans to be up in arms about the next Felix being black and M being the same one from the last four, even though it's Bond's first mission. Does Bond knob some birds? Does he shoot some guys and blow something up? Well, then. It's a new Bond fillum, isn't it? Most folks will check it out. And that's all that really matters in the long run.

Ahem...oh, very happy with the casting news. Especially Gianni. Bit of genius there. Kudos to Jim and Loomer for giving them that idea.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Forget that the movies from 1962 to 2002 ever existed because this is a reboot.

What a sad and terrible thing to read!

It's not like the producers are going to go into your home and steal the first 20 films and say they don't exist. They will still be there, nothing about this reboot is saying the films don't exist. Despite what DLibrasnow said

Of course the producers aren't going to do that, but rebooting the franchise implies that the previous films either A) didn't exist or aren't the REAL James Bond, and that is something, I as a longtime Bond fan, abhor. A lot of you out there, if not most of you out there, don't mind the reboot or are in favor of it, but I'm afraid I cannot fall in step with that line of thinking since I do believe in the series' continuity. As a result, I dislike a lot of the things I've read about the direction this film is going in from rebooting to casting (and I know this puts me in the distinct minority but that's how I feel). The only things I like about Casino Royale right now are Daniel Craig as 007 and the inclusion of the torture scene. So pardon me for my less than positive enthusiasm for the upcoming film.

[Harmsway]

I don't think the reboot implies that the previous films didn't exist or aren't the "real" Bonds. I just think it's offering an equally valid, but different, interpretation of the character. And that's fine.

[WC]

Forget that the movies from 1962 to 2002 ever existed because this is a reboot.

What a sad and terrible thing to read!

It's not like the producers are going to go into your home and steal the first 20 films and say they don't exist.

No? So why did Michael G Wilson and Barbara Brocolli show up banging at the door? And by that I mean asking to be let in, not having sex outside!

[Bill]

Double-Oh-Agent

I could not have said it better myself. Although I am not sold yet on Craig, and would have much preferred Brosnan to come back. However, there is no sense complaining about that and I will judge Craig as Bond after I have seen the film.

I do not know if you are in the minority as to the feelings on the subject. Have all CBNers been polled on this?

Aside from the people here, I have asked a few family members and friends about the reboot idea. Mind you, not die hard fans like we are but people who have a casual familiarity with the subject. They all hate it.

And, Double Oh Zero, I daresay there is a lot more to a Bond film then "knobbing some birds, shooting some guys and blowing something up." Your description can apply to just about every action hero out there. This brings to mind an interview with Michael Wilson that I read in Bondage Magazine back in 1989, or rather a transcript of Michael Wilson's appearance at Raymond Benson's Bond class at the New School for Social Research. Basically, he said that Bond was not just another action hero. He had certain qualities which put him above the types of roles played by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, which were unique to the series. (At least I think the Wilson paraphrase comes from the Bondage interview--if not it was in the IFF publication Goldeneye around the time of GE's release.)

I realize that it is the very same man who made those comments who is now trying to reconfigure the entire series. I do not dispute his right to do so. After all, ultimately EON owns Bond. They have every legal right to put out a version of James Bond which may undermine the Bond that we know and have followed all of these years.

I hope that during all of the promotion for this film, an official statement will be issued which clearly states that this is meant to be a new take on the character and that the 20 films which we all know still exist in their own way. In other words, that this is kind of the Ultimate version of the James Bond films, like Marvel Comics has two lines, and that perhaps we may see another Bond film or even television project set in the same universe, if you will, as the films from Dr. No to DAD. If not, just allowing CR to come out with no explanation--even a title card which can say something like: "You all know James Bond. Somewhere, his adventures continue. Now we present a new James Bond."--I know this is a stretch, but it will allow us diehard fans to accept this new film with its different approach, or ignore it entirely.

As for how the general film going public will take to this, I have no idea. One of the elements that people always liked about the Bond films were their familiarity. They liked Q and Moneypenny, who will be conspicuous by their absence. The very reason that Felix Leiter was in Licence To Kill was that they needed a character with whom people were already familiar to motivate Bond. The M and Felix in this film will not be the ones that people know. As I said in other posts, this is a $100,000,000 gamble.

Bill

[DLibrasnow]

Forget that the movies from 1962 to 2002 ever existed because this is a reboot.

What a sad and terrible thing to read!

It's not like the producers are going to go into your home and steal the first 20 films and say they don't exist. They will still be there, nothing about this reboot is saying the films don't exist. Despite what DLibrasnow said

What are you talking about? Where does the produceers coming into ones home and taking your movies come into play? What a stupid argument.

By definition a reboot means that the first 20 movies do not exist in the CASINO ROYALE universe. This is a reboot, which means we are starting over. Get it, got it - good!

[The Dove]

If I may interject in this facinating debate, I for one could care less if Casino Royale is a reboot or not! The most important thing for me is that it is a brand new, official James Bond film!! After 4 years, its about damn time!!

[tdalton]

By definition a reboot means that the first 20 movies do not exist in the CASINO ROYALE universe. This is a reboot, which means we are starting over. Get it, got it - good!

Which leads to the question, if they decide to revist the Tracy/OHMSS storyline, how do they go about doing that with McClory still owning (or at least claiming to own) partial rights to the Blofeld character and SPECTRE? The way that I see it, if they're rebooting the character of Bond, then they would have to, at some point in the near future, revisit the Tracy/OHMSS storyline.

[Mister Asterix]

Of course the producers aren't going to do that, but rebooting the franchise implies that the previous films either A) didn't exist or B) aren't the REAL James Bond, and that is something, I as a longtime Bond fan, abhor. A lot of you out there, if not most of you out there, don't mind the reboot or are in favor of it, but I'm afraid I cannot fall in step with that line of thinking since I do believe in the series' continuity. As a result, I dislike a lot of the things I've read about the direction this film is going in from rebooting to casting (and I know this puts me in the distinct minority but that's how I feel). The only things I like about Casino Royale right now are Daniel Craig as 007 and the inclusion of the torture scene. So pardon me for my less than positive enthusiasm for the upcoming film. :( :)

But wouldn’t that mean that the film Dr. No starting the franchise meant that the books either A) did not exist or B) aren’t the REAL James Bond?

I mean I seem to be able to enjoy the books still now even though the original film series exists.

[Hawkeye]

Ya know, i think a word or two from the bods at EON would be much appreciated in clearing this ongoing topic up. I have decided to view this Bond as the same Bond since 1962 and gloss over the continuity issues. Others have their own way of looking at it. Would be nice to hear how Wilson et al view it, and subsequently where/how Bond 22 will fit chronologically speaking.

Edited by Hawkeye, 21 February 2006 - 10:26 PM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='521586' date='21 February 2006 - 12:33']
[quote name='Double-Oh Agent' post='521376' date='21 February 2006 - 04:02']
Of course the producers aren't going to do that, but rebooting the franchise implies that the previous films either A) didn't exist or aren't the REAL James Bond, and that is something, I as a longtime Bond fan, abhor. A lot of you out there, if not most of you out there, don't mind the reboot or are in favor of it, but I'm afraid I cannot fall in step with that line of thinking since I do believe in the series' continuity. As a result, I dislike a lot of the things I've read about the direction this film is going in from rebooting to casting (and I know this puts me in the distinct minority but that's how I feel). The only things I like about Casino Royale right now are Daniel Craig as 007 and the inclusion of the torture scene. So pardon me for my less than positive enthusiasm for the upcoming film.
[/quote]


[mra]But wouldn

[Niwram]

Have someone checked out the Eva Green fansite?
It has some new pictures from the CR set including the

Spoiler

construction site used for the free running scene

mentioned in the Latino Review.

EDIT:Not anymore.

Edited by Niwram, 26 February 2006 - 10:10 AM.

[Myrddin]

Our italian actor Giancarlo Giannini is a very good actor. Do you remeber him in Darkness???

[krypt]

A reboot is an AU (alternate universe). Just as the previous EON Bond films are an AU to Fleming's novels, the upcoming CR is an AU to the previous EON Bond films. It doesn't mean that the previous films aren't "real." It's merely a different version.

The comparison of Marvel's "Ultimates" is apt. As is comparing "Batman Begins" and "Smallville" to the previous Batman/Superman films/television series.

Certain fans may prefer some AUs over others, but all are "real" and are offered up to the fans to be enjoyed ... or not.

AUs don't destroy other "universes" ... they exist alongside them.

[DanMan]

Easily one of the best casts for a Bond movie, let alone an action movie ever.

[AnGer 007]

Easily one of the best casts for a Bond movie, let alone an action movie ever.

You're being sarcastic right?

Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Tobias Menzies, Ivana Milicevic, Clemens Schik, Ludger Pistor and Claudio Santamaria one of the best casts ever?

I've never even heard of them!

[DanMan]

Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, and the names you mentioned above are all very talented character actors. Just because someone's not famous doesn't mean their not good actors.

[AnGer 007]

Just because someone's not famous doesn't mean their not good actors.

I agree. But if I haven't seen them act I can't tell if they are good actors or not, can I?

[JimmyBond]

Well, you could research them, read reviews and so on. Sure it's not your opinion, but if enough people believe a certain thing it can't be wrong can it?

[Qwerty]

Just because someone's not famous doesn't mean their not good actors.

I agree. But if I haven't seen them act I can't tell if they are good actors or not, can I?

Why not try renting a few movies they star in?

[AnGer 007]

Why not try renting a few movies they star in?

I don't rent pørn.

[JimmyBond]

Why not try renting a few movies they star in?

I don't rent pørn.

That's dandy, because none of the castmembers in Casino Royale has ever done pørn.

[AnGer 007]

Why not try renting a few movies they star in?

I don't rent pørn.

That's dandy, because none of the castmembers in Casino Royale has ever done pørn.

That's probably because Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Tobias Menzies, Ivana Milicevic, Clemens Schik, Ludger Pistor and Claudio Santamaria have never done ANYTHING. (I mean anything besides Beautiful Girl, Guy In Bar, Cop #3 etc.)

[DanMan]

Check out ROME, when they re-air it on HBO. Tobias Menzies is a GREAT actor.

[Qwerty]

Why not try renting a few movies they star in?

I don't rent pørn.

That's dandy, because none of the castmembers in Casino Royale has ever done pørn.

Quite, JimmyBond.

And if you're referring to Eva Green in Dreamers, AnGer007, there are are surely other movies you could try.

[killkenny kid]

Well. I like the fact that there are, only three known actors in this cast

[Santa]

Why not try renting a few movies they star in?

I don't rent pørn.

But perhaps you should...

[tdalton]

Well. I like the fact that there are, only three known actors in this cast

I like it too. It harkens back to the good old days of Bond films like Dr. No and From Russia With Love.

[Orion]

none of Dr No's cast had a name outside of Bond and for From Russia With Love you could only count Robert Shaw as having a name in Britain and the US