59 replies to this topic

[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.

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.

Well, I can't speak for every continuity believer, but I believe that in the films, James Bond is played by five actors. Yes, they age and are replaced, but they are playing the same character of 007 who is effectively timeless. To put it simply, the character is the same, it is the actors who are different. Continuity goes out the window, however, when the same woman who played Bond's second boss suddenly becomes his first and when his best friend who is white, suddenly becomes black. Yes, some actors have played multiple roles (most notably Charles Gray, Maud Adams, and Joe Don Baker) but I can (somewhat) excuse that as saying they are actors playing the roles and are not the actual characters. In other words, I guess I'm saying that I believe that the novels are the the real Bond stories and the films are the retellings of those adventures.

One thing I don't understand is why are so many non-continuity people on these threads get so irritated and offended by those of us who believe in continuity? You may not agree with us--and us with you--but we don't seem to get as offended from hearing your theory as you guys seem to with ours. I, myself, don't like the alternate universe theory that some here propose--I find that so comicbook-land type of stuff and Bond is NOT a comic book. As for the code-name theory? Don't get me started. Each theory regarding continuity or lack of it has its positives and negatives. And some holes are bigger than others. Personally, I find the continuity theory to be the most believable and the strongest in holdimg together. That belief of the entire series' continuity is strained, if not eliminated, with the rebooting of the series with Casino Royale. Anyway, I guess we should all do the proverbial agree to disagree.

[spynovelfan]

One thing I don't understand is why are so many non-continuity people on these threads get so irritated and offended by those of us who believe in continuity?Y ou may not agree with us--and us with you--but we don't seem to get as offended from hearing your theory as you guys seem to with ours.

Really? People hate the major non-continuity argument - codename theory. Read this very thread. Just mentioning the word 'codename' is enough for personal attacks! And look at your post:

'As for the code-name theory? Don't get me started'

So... I don't see that at all.

Personally, I find the continuity theory to be the most believable and the strongest in holdimg together. That belief of the entire series' continuity is strained, if not eliminated, with the rebooting of the series with Casino Royale.

Why is this so much more of a break with continuity than, for example, Bond telling Vesper in CR that he got his 00 by killing in cold blood, and Ian Fleming telling us in FRWL that Bond had never killed in cold blood. And someone explain to me where all the rage and grief and emotional scarring of the first novel goes to - because there's none of it in LIVE AND LET DIE. In fact, he falls for a woman who looks almost exactly like the one who betrayed him on the previous mission. She's even working for the bad guy! But one phone call, saying 'trust me' and he says sure, come on over, read my fortune.

The continuity in Fleming's novels is weaker than a toddler's bladder.

[Santa]

Exactly, continuity in Bond novels or films has always been wobbly at best, so why such a kerfuffle now?

[David Schofield]

Look, its a bloody movie about a fictional charcter starring different actors.

My take, for what its worth is there are Bond films I like -Sean's first four, OHMSS, Spy, Tim's and Pierce's - and the rest I don't. MY reasoning fornot liking the rest is that due to story, slant of performance, etc, Fleming's Bond is not the character played by the leading man. Consequently, chronology, timelines, actors mean nothing to me. If you want an uncontradictory Bond, read the Fleming novels and the Fleming novels alone: however, don't even try make much sense of where those fit and what constitutes the truth about Bond. The continuations? Well, Bond is about 80-82 the last Benson, isn't he?

That is my criterea.

CR fits my criterea as an Ian Fleming James Bond movie. It is a movie interpretation of Fleming's novel AND Fleming's character, from what I've seen thus far.

[Publius]

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.")

YOLT - Bond meets Blofeld for the first time
OHMSS - Bond meets Blofeld for the first time

Continuity? Yeah right.

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.

So the new M is a lady. Maybe a much older M was also a lady. If continuity can exist for a mortal man who doesn't age in forty years, this is certainly a plausible explanation. Brosnan-Bond had to have been in his twenties or thirties in the 80s, yet Connery-Bond was in his thirties in the 60s. Can't play the "a female M was impossible in 1962" card with such glaring continuity problems.

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?

Exactly, so why can't the same actress play two different Ms? Or a black actor play the same ageless Leiter played by six vastly different looking whit actors? After all, race is only skin deep.

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.

They've effectively thrown continuity "out the window" before, though, same as they're effectively doing so now. They've also had implicit reboots before, and in all honesty they're not that different from a barely explicit one.

James Bond was 30-something in 1962, 29 in 1969, 40-something in 1971, nearly 60 in 1985, and back to his mid-40s in 1987. OHMSS contradicts YOLT. DAF ignores OHMSS. The only other shred of "continuity" is the mentioning of Tracy in TSWLM, FYEO, and LTK. The first is brief and unessential, the second is a throwaway PTS, and the third, though magnifying the importance of the "mission" to Bond, can also be easily overlooked. And that's it.

And if Tracy is what makes continuity so crucial, then she can be dispensed no problem. She is just not that fundamental to Bond's psyche in the films, and his romance with Vesper will make more sense anyway with respect to his relationship with women. Even in the novels, Tracy doesn't come in until after ten books out of fourteen, and is only critical to OHMSS and YOLT, and arguably only YOLT. Vesper features throughout them all.

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

Serious question here, but have the producers actually ever said that, and if so, how often? I thought it was Campbell who may have used the word once or twice, if at all.

In either case, the rest of my post addresses the irrelevancy of that.

Edited by Publius, 23 May 2006 - 08:27 PM.

[Publius]

Well, I can't speak for every continuity believer, but I believe that in the films, James Bond is played by five actors. Yes, they age and are replaced, but they are playing the same character of 007 who is effectively timeless. To put it simply, the character is the same, it is the actors who are different. Continuity goes out the window, however, when the same woman who played Bond's second boss suddenly becomes his first and when his best friend who is white, suddenly becomes black. Yes, some actors have played multiple roles (most notably Charles Gray, Maud Adams, and Joe Don Baker) but I can (somewhat) excuse that as saying they are actors playing the roles and are not the actual characters. In other words, I guess I'm saying that I believe that the novels are the the real Bond stories and the films are the retellings of those adventures.

Not quite. See my previous post for why. Basically, if she's playing a different M, it doesn't matter by your own definition if she's the same actress. And again, if Felix was played by six very different looking white guys for over thirty years, I don't see the big deal in suddenly giving him dark skin. Race runs far less deep than, say, gender, especially for a character who has already been reduced to a very minor role. This is by no means as radical as having a non-Caucasian, non-male Bond.

One thing I don't understand is why are so many non-continuity people on these threads get so irritated and offended by those of us who believe in continuity? You may not agree with us--and us with you--but we don't seem to get as offended from hearing your theory as you guys seem to with ours. I, myself, don't like the alternate universe theory that some here propose--I find that so comicbook-land type of stuff and Bond is NOT a comic book. As for the code-name theory? Don't get me started. Each theory regarding continuity or lack of it has its positives and negatives. And some holes are bigger than others. Personally, I find the continuity theory to be the most believable and the strongest in holdimg together. That belief of the entire series' continuity is strained, if not eliminated, with the rebooting of the series with Casino Royale. Anyway, I guess we should all do the proverbial agree to disagree.

I'm not irritated or offended. Just confused by your reasoning.

The AU theory is not a comic book one. It is a very simple and believable one, and in effect is the status quo anyway, whether you like it or not. Connery's Bond could be believed to be a secret agent of the early Cold War, but Brosnan's Bond could barely be believed to be a secret agent of the end of the Cold War. And even if CR wasn't a reboot, or Craig cast as Bond, Bond #6, and certainly those after him, can no longer even be believable as Cold War era agents at all. The AU theory is a must in Bond's universe. There are no holes with a strict AU theory, and few with a looser, actor-specific one. Many abound in the continuity and even codename ones.

As for the codename theory, I don't foam at the mouth when I hear it mentioned (not saying you suggested that, I just bet some actually do), but it is a bizarre, illogical one. It's a poor and hole-ridden attempt at slapping a strict continuity onto a series with a weak to non-existent one. It's so strange because to argue it means accepting the already hole-ridden continuity theory, only to add an additional layer of unnecessary plotholes on top. Some version of the AU theory is much simpler and far more logical, so why bother with anything else?

And why just agree to disagree? That's no fun, especially when I know I can prove continuity wrong.

[Cody]

I had trouble with the anti-continuity choices of Casino Royale at first, but reading posts on here and looking over the series again has really made me realize how little continuity matters and how rarely it's come up in the series. With that, along the fact that I've always just accepted that Bond is a timeless, ageless character and quotes like "It sets up Bond and who he is and it sets up the man we discover in the later movies ...", I'm taking CR as a prequel-of-sorts despite the presence of Judi Dench, the modern setting and whatever other continuity issues there may be. It just doesn't matter.

[Live&LetDie007]

As long as CASINO ROYALE is a good movie, which I'm anticipating it to be, continuity doesn't really matter.

[JimmyBond]

I'm taking CR as a prequel-of-sorts despite the presence of Judi Dench, the modern setting and whatever other continuity issues there may be. It just doesn't matter.

Works for me

[Vilain]

As amusing as this may sound, I believe you have to think of the James Bond films more as the old time comedies such as featured Laurel and Hardy. If you have ever watched one of these, or even looked at their titles, their continuity is pretty much nil. They happen all over the world, at impossibly different time periods, while always sustaining the same characters, much like Bond's exploits. Each one of the James Bond films is an adventure unto themselves and in my opinion must be treated as such.

[DaveBond21]

I quite liked the fact that Bond had been married before. We grew up knowing that Bond's wife had died and that was part of him.

It will be interesting to watch a new Bond, where it takes place before he was married, or maybe a new timeline where he will not get married.

Also - do you think they will reboot the series every time they get a new actor? Or will they carry on from Craig's Bond?

[Harmsway]

I quite liked the fact that Bond had been married before. We grew up knowing that Bond's wife had died and that was part of him.

It will be interesting to watch a new Bond, where it takes place before he was married, or maybe a new timeline where he will not get married.

The people who grew up with Sean Connery never knew about the wife. Even Fleming only brought Tracy in at the *end* of the Bond novel run. I don't think most people aside from us die-hard fans will miss that element.

[DaveBond21]

Yes, good point.


And with any James Bond film, it is up to the viewer what they make of it, and whether or not they put the series in some kind of order.

I know some people who assumed that Die Another Day was taking place in 2002, meaning that one of Bond's previous adventures (say Dr No) took place in 1988.

[Indy007]

Fine if the producers want to do a reboot then do it but the problem is that BOND DOES NOT NEED A REBOOT. Films like Batman needed a reboot because the movies sucked but the Bond movies with Brosnan have been good and successful unlike some Batman sequels for example. Reboots are only truly needed if the series is not making money and people are not liking the series. This has not happened with Bond but Bond has been more successful lately and Bond gained a whole new generation of fans. Here is a more important problem with this film. Casino Royale is suppose to be an adaption of the book. For whoever has read the book like I, will realize that the setting during the cold war is essential for the book because of things such as SMERSH. I have a feeling the film Casino Royale could be good and Craig will give at least a decent performance as Bond. However I think hardcore Bond fans will be upset with the film because it is too different than the book, and I don't think Craig will be as liked as Connery as Brosnan. I just can't see Craig being more successful as than Connery or Brosnan. Also I find it really dumb if people believe it when Martin Campbell says "Craig is the best Bond". Well he kind of has to say that since he is the director of the film and most promote. Also Campbell does not want Bond to fail like his other franchise, Zorro, has failed with the Zorro sequel. Sorry to be off topic but I had to vent.

[Andrew]

Fine if the producers want to do a reboot then do it but the problem is that BOND DOES NOT NEED A REBOOT. Films like Batman needed a reboot because the movies sucked but the Bond movies with Brosnan have been good and successful unlike some Batman sequels for example. Reboots are only truly needed if the series is not making money and people are not liking the series. This has not happened with Bond but Bond has been more successful lately and Bond gained a whole new generation of fans. Here is a more important problem with this film. Casino Royale is suppose to be an adaption of the book. For whoever has read the book like I, will realize that the setting during the cold war is essential for the book because of things such as SMERSH. I have a feeling the film Casino Royale could be good and Craig will give at least a decent performance as Bond. However I think hardcore Bond fans will be upset with the film because it is too different than the book, and I don't think Craig will be as liked as Connery as Brosnan. I just can't see Craig being more successful as than Connery or Brosnan. Also I find it really dumb if people believe it when Martin Campbell says "Craig is the best Bond". Well he kind of has to say that since he is the director of the film and most promote. Also Campbell does not want Bond to fail like his other franchise, Zorro, has failed with the Zorro sequel. Sorry to be off topic but I had to vent.

1. I beg to differ that Brosnan's films were "good" but that's a different topic.
2. Fans won't like it because it's not close to the book? It's more faithful than You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker ect.
3. Campbell didn't say that Craig was the best Bond, he said that he's the best actor to play Bond.

[JCRendle]

do you think they will reboot the series every time they get a new actor? Or will they carry on from Craig's Bond?

To me Brosnan's Bond films seemed to be a reboot - there was the smallest continuity out of any of the Bonds - not counting DAD's Q-Branch sequence, no refrence to Tracy's death, the comment in TWINE could easily be about Paris Carver's death in TND, and no mention of Felix or of Bond loosing his Licence to kill one film before GoldenEye.

[Harmsway]

However I think hardcore Bond fans will be upset with the film because it is too different than the book, and I don't think Craig will be as liked as Connery as Brosnan.

Well, I want to say that fans will probably *not* be upset with the degree of faithfulness in CASINO ROYALE. It's *very* faithful. There's a lot of new material in the first third, but after that, it really sticks quite close to the book. I think Fleming fans will eat up CASINO ROYALE.

[JCRendle]

However I think hardcore Bond fans will be upset with the film because it is too different than the book, and I don't think Craig will be as liked as Connery as Brosnan.

Well, I want to say that fans will probably *not* be upset with the degree of faithfulness in CASINO ROYALE. It's *very* faithful. There's a lot of new material in the first third, but after that, it really sticks quite close to the book. I think Fleming fans will eat up CASINO ROYALE.

The Casino scenes in the film have parts taken directly out of the book - including dialogue, many parts after the added extras of the opening half of the film are very recognisable from the book.

[Harmsway]

However I think hardcore Bond fans will be upset with the film because it is too different than the book, and I don't think Craig will be as liked as Connery as Brosnan.

Well, I want to say that fans will probably *not* be upset with the degree of faithfulness in CASINO ROYALE. It's *very* faithful. There's a lot of new material in the first third, but after that, it really sticks quite close to the book. I think Fleming fans will eat up CASINO ROYALE.

The Casino scenes in the film have parts taken directly out of the book - including dialogue, many parts after the added extras of the opening half of the film are very recognisable from the book.

Yup. After the film is released, I can't wait to do an article comparing the book and film in similarities and differences. CASINO ROYALE, when all is said and done, will stand with the more faithful adaptations in the EON canon.

[freemo]

It's a reboot.

It's film one of a new canon.

It's exactly what the franchise needs.

The idea seems to be to keep what's working, get rid of what's not, and bring in new things to make it better. Sounds good to me. A common argument seems to be "but there series doesn't need a reboot, it's doing okay", as if "okay" is good enough, as if "two and a half stars" will do as long as it stays tried and true, as if they should let things sink slowly until they reach crisis point before acting.

As for continuity, nods and references to previous films give us a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, but personally, I care more about seeing consistency in the way the character is written and portrayed, rather that whether or not has a dead wife or who the actor playing M is or whether or not we can cram 44 years of this fluff into some sort of coherent timeline (hint: we can't).

The Bond franchise needs to move out of the shadows of Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me and quit living off past glories. While the attitude during the Brosnan years was one of "continuing the legacy (sic)", the vibe of Casino Royale is one of "starting something special", which is a hell of alot more interesting creatively.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Perhaps it is a prequel with a continuity adjustment. Okay you may say that

[DaveBond21]

Some people seem to think that Bond lost popularity during the Brosnan years or that his popularity remained the same. Not in the UK & Europe, however.

I am now living in Australia, but when Die Another Day came out, in November 2002, I was in the UK. Die Another Day was huge there, and all things Bond were in the press, TV, newspapers etc.

The whole country went Bond-crazy, there was a tribute to Bond night, on British TV, prime time, with Michael Parkinson and all the old actors, and the fantastic "The Best of Bond" documentary presented by Roger Moore. All the films were shown on TV again, it as Bond Madness for the whole of the end of 2002 and start of 2003.

Whatever your thoughts on the actual movie, DAD, Bond has NEVER been this big before. People can't get enough of 007, whoever is playing him.

[Skudor]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='561489' date='31 May 2006 - 15:54']
[mra]Perhaps it is a prequel with a continuity adjustment. Okay you may say that

[Fro]

Whatever your thoughts on the actual movie, DAD, Bond has NEVER been this big before. People can't get enough of 007, whoever is playing him.

The Bond franchise was absolutely massive during Goldfinger/Thunderball. Inflation-adjusted, Goldfinger did around $420 million dollars in the US alone and Thunderball was around $480 million. When you add in Worldwide, you can at least double that amount.

The Brosnan era did contribute to a return in popularity for the franchise, but it's still a long way from the "spy mania" peak in the mid-60s.

[Tiin007]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='561489' date='31 May 2006 - 10:54']
[mra]Perhaps it is a prequel with a continuity adjustment. Okay you may say that

[Pussfeller]

No, it won't happen, but it would be cool, because it would show that they don't care about the nerdish canon-madness. It would be a bit surreal.

[Mister Asterix]

Not that your idea is a bad one, but I think it VERY unlikely to ever end up happening. The producers had 3 options: reboot, prequel, or continue in normal continuity. They chose reboot. Having chosen that, all the "contradictions" with the original canon make sense, because this is a totally separate continuity. They wouldn't confuse us by then making it a "mix" of all 3 choices.

[mra]Just like they wouldn

[Daddy Bond]

It's both a reboot AND a prequal - its a "PREBOOT" or a "REQUAL" or a "PROOTAL".

[Publius]

[quote name='Indy007' post='561367' date='30 May 2006 - 20:51']
1) Reboots are only truly needed if the series is not making money and people are not liking the series.

2) Casino Royale is suppose to be an adaption of the book. For whoever has read the book like I, will realize that the setting during the cold war is essential for the book because of things such as SMERSH.

3) ...and I don't think Craig will be as liked as Connery as Brosnan. I just can't see Craig being more successful as than Connery or Brosnan.
[/quote]
1) First, quality is subjective. Recent commercial success can't be a sole indicator of quality, because a lot of people will eat up unfiltered escapist fluff. No reason to believe they won't appreciate quality escapist action-adventure spy films even more, or that it won't draw in an even larger audience, leading to greater commercial success.

Second, what's a better time to mix up the formula: when you're doing well, or when you're diving? TPTB are banking on a thirst for Bond plus a bigger potential market that craves better quality stuff to make this not only a one-time success, but a long-lasting foundation for the next generation of the series.

2) It's not essential, though it does work extremely well in the original context. I happen to think the transnational terrorist angle is the best update they could have gone with since the novel was written, and may turn out to be superior to the source material. Time will tell, but given that the bulk of the story is reported by all inside and connected sources to be mostly faithful, I doubt there's much reason to believe the hardcore fans will do anything but flock to this movie like they haven't in some time.

3) Don't see why not. Judging by box office admissions, no one will likely beat earlier Connery for a long while (hell, later Connery couldn't), but that's obvious because movie-going was different in the early 1960s, and we have yet to have a legitimate "spy mania" on par with that of that era. Popularity on par with Brosnan is very much a reasonable possibility. Daniel Craig is no doubt in my mind a better film actor than Brosnan (or most other Bonds, maybe even Connery), and he will almost certainly have more of a physical presence, cool confidence, and dangerous intensity than Pierce. That much I'm more than happy to predict. If that can't translate into popularity for a Bond actor (dark blonde hair or not), I don't know what could.

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='561489' date='31 May 2006 - 10:54']
[mra]Perhaps it is a prequel with a continuity adjustment. Okay you may say that

[DaveBond21]

Yes, I think it is up to each individual Bond fan whether or not there is continuity in the Bond films.

I get the feeling that it will be easy to watch Casino Royale on DVD, and then go straight to Dr No. They will go together quite well, I think.

Anyway, if it is a reboot, do you think there is a chance Bond will get married again?? Say, in Bond 24? Will they create a whole new life for him?