Dude I said I wasn't talking about the TV transition to the films(just the films) so we are talking about different things.
I wonder if the filmmakers considered it a reboot. Maybe they weren't aware that there was a TV series before the film, and that they were killing off characters with exactly the same name.
And no, you didn't answer why three films with different tones and different storylines that don't synch up wouldn't be considered reboots. You just keep saying you don't count those things.
If you can just ignore crap like that, I don't understand how you can get upset about a reboot from a movie series that started in the early sixties.
Can you really reconcile the fact that you're watching a 30-some year-old man in 2006 battling a high-tech terrorist network as the same guy who was shooting at a tin tank painted like a dragon and getting radiation scrubbed off him with a carwash brush in 1961? Daniel Craig wasn't even BORN then! How Bond was fighting SMERSH in 1963 at age 35, then fighting Janus in the post Soviet Republic at the same age in 1995? That he was fat with a toupee in 1967 and young and fit in 1969 with a full head of hair? Thay he was a dishwater blonde with a comb-over and in his sixties in 1984 and then dark, thin and 40 in 1986?
On a smaller level, did you picture while watching Bond in FYEO that the year before he'd been floating around outer space battling a 7-foot guy with metal teeth that bullets, sharks and 100,000 foot freefalls into circus tents couldn't kill?
They're ALL reboots.
Well ok i'll just go over it one more time if you like--i've said the TV show was rebooted by MI1 and I personally didn't like what they did to Jim Phelps. But like it or not I was ONLY talking about the MI films as a continuous series and not the jump from the TV show to the films. A reboot or restart of the TV premise to the film created the film series which was a different animal altogether--the MI film series then goes MI 1, 2, 3 chronologically and didn't restart again each time. And why I don't consider different tones and storylines a reboot? A restart of the series is truly restarting it with time by going back to the beginning or redoing the concept. None of the MI films do that(leaving aside the TV to MI1 switch which is a true reboot) despite having somehat different tones and storylines--it's just changing up the series with new wrinkles but not restarting it. They are certainly not going back to the beginning and the concept is still a spy played by the same actor with the same basic personality either working or quitting the same agency and leading a team(while doing the heavy load of the work himself) doing spy stuff. Different versions and takes of the same character and series.
CR is a reboot because it starts the timeline over again--going back to very early years before the other films. The other Bonds you mention yes indeed change in tone and many other things and yes Bond doesn't age. But this is common for a long time film franchise there is very little aging of the character--it's a suspension of disbelief and they just go on with differnt takes and storylines of the same character. The Bonds are all over the place yes--you expect that over 40 years--but they never restarted or rebooted to the beginning until CR. The rest is suspension of belief of the same character with different takes on the character. They don't restart and go back to the beginning--it's not a reboot like Batman Begins, Superman Returns(which intentionally ignores the later Supermen films as never existing) and the upcoming new young Kirk/Spock Star Trek film.
This may suprise you but I did say earlier if the reboot is only going back to the beginning then it may not be that bad or risky box office wise--only if they mess with the fundamental character of Bond will this be overly risky. Some who saw the script say they change Bond fundamentally(and yes I submit that Bond from Connery to Brosnan was of the same basic type even though there are differences too--tall, very good looking, suave, witty, charming, tough, cool, confident, etc...) but others say not--if they really don't then this will be a lot less risky. Then I would largely agree with you in not worrying. I also said I might very well enjoy CR greatly with a reboot--I was more seeing a risk with a general audience who may be expecting a Bond that looks and acts a certain way and doesn't.
So if it's just strictly a timeline reboot and they keep Bond...Bond without turning him into a pained angst filled character(a little of that is OK) then it's a lot less of a risk. I'm still looking forward to CR greatly regardless--can't wait to see how this turns out in November.
And also I said if they really changed things up a lot it could still work very well and payoff greatly--in essence i'm saying if they go the risky route(new timeline, unconventional looking Bond--yes the other Bonds aren't duplicates but more of a type than the talented Craig--,big change in the character) it's a risk that wasn't needed BUT THE RISK CAN OF COURSE PAYOFF. I'm not discounting that at all.
But if the changes aren't as much as said then a mild timeline reboot wouldn't be the riskiest thing I grant you given the series history. Then it will come down to how the general audience accepts this new unconventional looking Bond. It will all be in the hands of Daniel Craig then. He will either click with the general audience or not.
