59 replies to this topic

[Indy007]

I was wondering if CR is an offical reboot of the series like Batman Begins or just a prequel? The only way it can be a reboot is if this film acknowledges nothing from the 20 previous films like Batman Begins. I don't mind CR being a reboot since it worked so well for Batman Begins. The only way I can see this working is if it is a reboot or this film may as well make the same mistake as the Jack Ryan prequel "The Sum Of All Fears", which was good but had to many mistakes, which took at least me out of the film a small amount. However another Jack Ryan movie has not been made. The film makers kinda screwed up Jack Ryan by making a prequel that is not a reboot. Hopefully Bond avoids this by saying CR is a reboot. I won't believe CR is a reboot until I read a quote from a producer or the director because anyone can say if it is a reboot or prequel and be full of it.

[Johnboy007]

Based on the website's content, I feel more of a prequel vibe than I do a reboot. Essentially it is restarting the character, but it's still the same guy just set to modern times. He can't remain a World War II veteran forever.

[EyesOnly]

I too don't believe this to be a reboot anymore! I also get a prequel vibe from the site which I believe works best for the continuity people with concern.

[DrDoOdMoNdAnG]

Didn't the producers say it was a reboot of the franchise though?

[Andrew]

It's definitely a reboot.

Edited by Andrew, 20 May 2006 - 05:01 PM.

[JCRendle]

It's like a prequel set in the modern day - it is a reboot, since M is Dench and Bond is meeting Felix (legs and all).

[Andrew]

It's like a prequel set in the modern day - it is a reboot, since M is Dench and Bond is meeting Felix (legs and all).

There's nothing to imply that there is a connection to past films though.

[Fro]

It's explicitly a new timelime as Bond is now confirmed to be born in 1968 (after the first five films took place) and is meeting Felix Leiter for the first time. Unless Bond gets a time machine in a future film and gets his memory wiped after going back (and grows, gets younger, and becomes Scottish), this can't be a prequel.

However, the new backstory parallels the existing character from the movies and novels, just with cleaned up continuity like explaining when Bond got his first in Oriental languages, etc.

Different timeline, essentially the same character.

One can imagine the stories in the past novels/movies happen to this Bond in an updated, modern fashion in the future, although it's unlikely we'll see any adaptions of it.

Edited by Fro, 20 May 2006 - 05:06 PM.

[K1Bond007]

It's a reboot. The producers have used the word as have Martin Campbell and the writers.

Just because the old Bond is like the new Bond doesn't make it a prequel. Bond is still Bond because they're both based on the original interpretation (Fleming's character). Superman/Batman have been rebooted a bunch of times and one still is a 'man of steel' from an alien planet who has a thing for a female named Lois Lane and the other is still a millionaire orphan raised by his butler. If Casino Royale is a prequel then so is Batman Begins. But that doesn't make any sense.

Most people are having problems with this because Bond (like Superman, Batman, and just about any comic book hero) is an ageless character (although some interpretations of the character conflict: Young Bond, Super boy, Smallville, whatever..)

[zencat]

I don't think it can ever be considered a "prequel" because, by definition, that implies a timeline. If CR were set in 1960 it would be a prequel. CR set in 2006 is an alternate universe reboot. Same man, different universe, new timeline. But I guess you can think of it however you like. With Dench in there, I think most members of the general public might actually see it as "the codename theory."

[I Like Sharks]

I think re-invention is the best word to describe it. I wouldn't have said it was a prequel although seeing the new pictures on the website give me the impression that in stylistic sense this film could be seen as the predecesssor to the Connery films, so it sort of shows some characteristics of a prequel even though it's set in the present day.

[kneelbeforezod]

Nooooooooo! Please don't mention the codename theory, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone of sound mind.

I am now imposing a

[JameswpBond]

They seem to have stuck very close with Fleming's character so I don't care what timeline it's part of.

[Johnboy007]

I would think that based on the background given, the codename theory would be impossible.

[kneelbeforezod]

I would think that based on the background given, the codename theory would be impossible.

Since you are dismissing the theory, I'm going to let you off the fine this one time.

[Double-0-Seven]

It's considered a reboot by the most of the crew involved, but I personally don't consider it a reboot or a prequel. I have always looked at each movie seperately. To me it doesn't matter if it's set in the past, present, or the future. It's still a Bond film.

[Judo chop]

It's yet another reboot, and no more a threat to the continuity of the series than any of the previous reboots.

[BondReader 007]

It's yet another reboot, and no more a threat to the continuity of the series than any of the previous reboots.

I totally agree. Continuity is a Bond film, LOL, that went out in the early 1970's. It's just another movie very loosely based on James Bond. Than whirring sound we hear it the back of our ears is just poor Ian spinning like a deranged top!

They seem to have stuck very close with Fleming's character so I don't care what timeline it's part of.

They did? I guess you must be reading a different Fleming than the rest of us!

Edited by BondReader 007, 20 May 2006 - 08:09 PM.

[Andrew]

They seem to have stuck very close with Fleming's character so I don't care what timeline it's part of.

They did? I guess you must be reading a different Fleming than the rest of us!

Have you read the biography on the main site?

[JimmyBond]

They did? I guess you must be reading a different Fleming than the rest of us!

The Bond of Casino Royale is very much Fleming's Bond. In fact I think this is the closest a script has ever been to capturing the true essence of Fleming's Bond.

[Publius]

Reboot.

Prequel if you actually believe the other 20 movies fit into the same continuity.

EDIT - As for Jack Ryan, keep in mind Clear & Present Danger came out in 1994 and was wildly successful, and that was eight years before the next installment Sum Of All Fears. Although I didn't like the latter entry (but loved the first three), I think the "delay" in making another might also have to do with limited source material (Clancy's remaining Ryan novels get increasingly political, from what I hear) and possible interest in other Clancy characters, such as John Clark.

Edited by Publius, 21 May 2006 - 04:08 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Harrison Ford was also in talks to reprise the Jack Ryan character for his third time. At the last minute he stopped negotiations and the producers had ro recast. Once they recast that's when they decided to change the timeline of the series and make SOAF Jack Ryan's first mission.

[mrweasley]

I think it depends of how successful the movie is. If it`s a flop they will call it reboot, so it does not interfere with the rest of the series.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Unfortunately it's a reboot--the first of the series. I would love to call it a prequel or a prequel set in the present day, but the inclusion of Judi Dench as "M" and Jeffrey Wright as a black Felix Leiter make the prequel scenario not applicable. This is an entirely new James Bond (with blonde hair apparently) and all us continuity lovers just have to accept that disheartening fact.

Nevertheless, hopefully Daniel Craig and Casino Royale are great and fun to watch.

[Publius]

Unfortunately it's a reboot--the first of the series. I would love to call it a prequel or a prequel set in the present day, but the inclusion of Judi Dench as "M" and Jeffrey Wright as a black Felix Leiter make the prequel scenario not applicable. This is an entirely new James Bond (with blonde hair apparently)and all us continuity lovers just have to accept that disheartening fact.

I don't get this. If there can be a single continuity with five Bond actors in the role (some leaving and coming back, some old and some young, all with very different physical appearances) over the course of 40 years, why does Judi Dench and a black Felix suddenly screw everything up?

Unless of course you believe in multiple continuities, in which case this new one shouldn't be a problem.

[stamper]

These reboots are made for walking

[Tiin007]

Unfortunately it's a reboot--the first of the series. I would love to call it a prequel or a prequel set in the present day, but the inclusion of Judi Dench as "M" and Jeffrey Wright as a black Felix Leiter make the prequel scenario not applicable. This is an entirely new James Bond (with blonde hair apparently)and all us continuity lovers just have to accept that disheartening fact.

I don't get this. If there can be a single continuity with five Bond actors in the role (some leaving and coming back, some old and some young, all with very different physical appearances) over the course of 40 years, why does Judi Dench and a black Felix suddenly screw everything up?

It's not just that Felix is black, but that Bond din't meet Felix until Dr. No ("I've heard of him, but never met him.") And with Judi Dench, we know (or assume) that there was no female M until GoldenEye ("I hear the new M's a lady"), so wouldn't make sense if it was a prequel. And about the different actors playing Bond, this has happened in many movie series. Do you think Obi-Wan in Episode III is the same character as Obi-Wan in Episode IV? I certainly do. So why can't James Bond have more than one actor play him? Even though there were very few of them, there were continuity references throughout the series. Yes, I know it's hard to understand how Bond could be the same guy in 2002 as he was in 1962, but you have to suspend your belief a little. Come on, guys. There has always been continuity, and those who deny it just can't face the truth. For those of you that do deny it and claim that each movie is completely independent of all the others, then why didn't the producers completely throw continuity out the window years ago? Why didn't they contradict themselves as often as possible? I'll tell you why. Because they had in mind that it all fit into one continuity. They purposely made it so everything happened to this same James Bond.

Now, with CR, they have said multiple times that it is a reboot. Face it.

[Santa]

Now, with CR, they have said multiple times that it is a reboot. Face it.

Have they?

[JimmyBond]

Do you think Obi-Wan in Episode III is the same character as Obi-Wan in Episode IV? I certainly do. So why can't James Bond have more than one actor play him?

Obi-Wan Kenobi is not ageless though, Ewan McGregor is simply playing a younger version of him.

Now, with CR, they have said multiple times that it is a reboot. Face it.

So?

[Skudor]

I don't think it can ever be considered a "prequel" because, by definition, that implies a timeline. If CR were set in 1960 it would be a prequel. CR set in 2006 is an alternate universe reboot. Same man, different universe, new timeline. But I guess you can think of it however you like. With Dench in there, I think most members of the general public might actually see it as "the codename theory."

Some certainly do - my sister in law asked me that very question: whether Craig was a 'new agent'. The name James Bond isn't actually mentioned in the trailer, so with the references to 00s and the 007 at the end it seems some people are actually thinking he's a new 007 working for Dench's M. It's perfectly logical, if you don't have any information other than the trailer.

Whatever name you want to give it (reboot or prequel or bootquel or prerebootequel) - Casino Royale is what it is: James Bond's "first" mission, but set in modern times, with Judi Dench as M. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever whatever you want to call it.