31 replies to this topic

[Bill]

I saw Casino Royale yesterday, and I liked it. I was not totally blown away by it, but it was far better then expected. After I gather my thoughts, I'll post a review in the appropriate thread.

What I would like to get is a consensus from all of us as to what we now feel about the previous twenty films. I know that there are some who will not even look at another Bond film, but I think after the euphoria that those who make those statements are feeling at the moment, that feeling will dissipate. After all, many of us were fans of the twenty films long before CR was even announced, and, at least as far as I am concerned, a fan of all the various incarnations of Bond--books, comics and films.

What bothered me about CR, and which I know I posted about in the past, was the jettisoning of all continuity. Indeed, since Martin Campbell first announced that the film was going to the beginning but taking place in present day, I was concerned, and even had a hard time going back and watching an old Bond film or even reading a Bond book. I still have not opened SilverFin or Blood Fever depsite buying them. The whole reboot concept made me uneasy about Bond in geneal.

Now, after seeing it, it is clear that film continuity was indeed eliminated so that Bond could begin anew. I am still not crazy about the idea, but after seeing the film, I can live with it with it come Bond 22.

The fact remains that there are still 20 films which were made. Newly packaged DVDs of them with new material have now been released.

Very simply--where do these films stand? Are we meant to still accept them as existing in their own universe, or based on the theory put forth in the official EON book The Secret World of 007, are all the films, including CR and presumably its successors, all telling the story of a real man with different interpretations of his missions made into movies?

Either of those points of view is fine with me. If we are meant to adopt those, then I will still be able to enjoy CR and its successors for what they are, and go back to Dr. No through Die Another Day with as much enthusiasm as I had. Trust me, I want to do that. I just don't think I am ready.

Help me out, fellow fans!

Bill

[EyesOnly]

CR is suppose to be in a new universe I GUESS..a reboot of sort! Personally, I look at CR taking place before DR. No and that works for me!

[Emma]

As far as I am concerned CR stands in a class by itself. And I find it hard to lump it in with any of the others, because it is so drastically different.

I love Pierce. But after having seen CR yesterday I will say without reservations that CR is the BEST James Bond film I have ever seen. Sorry if that sounds like hyperbole. But it's true. I didn't just enjoy this film as a Bond fan. I enjoyed it as a film goer as well. It had a true and cutting effect on me. And it has been a long time since I've been able to say this. I could identify with Craig as Bond. He just came across as a man with demons and who was trying to prove something to himself and to the world. Whereas the five other men, (heh heh) often came across as entitled arristocrats.

Of course time will tell how CR sits with me. I originally like TLD when it came out, but I cringed while watching it on DVD a few months back. Right now I stand firm on my position for CR.

Edited by Emma, 18 November 2006 - 06:13 PM.

[stamper]

Snaps the continuity thing, there were, how many Leiters ? Who cares if Dr No happens in the future, the movie always tried to stand on their own, so that any casual moviegoers might not be bothered by thing they didn't understand.

It's a reboot, like Batman Begins is plain and simple. Who cares if they use the same woman to play M, it's a different character anyway (this one miss the cold war, the other one hated it and hated Bond as a relic of the cold war). I always thought Judi looked like some college head in the Brosnan ones, at least here, she makes a believable M.

[Roebuck]

My pet theory is that

Spoiler

the German who gives Bond the keys of his Land Rover at the country club is supposed to be Auric Goldfinger. Since Goldfinger(a)doesn't recognise Bond and(b)isn't dead,

that makes Casino Royale a prequel in my book.

However, this ignores to fact that Casino Royale is set in the present day and the

Spoiler

plot of Goldfinger wouldn't work anymore as we no longer operate the gold standard.

[RJJB]

For me, I don't try to reconcile the movies' continuity. It can't be done, so why bother? I can enjoy each movie on its own merit and not worry how it fits into some grand scheme of things. For a series that is over 40 years old, it presents too many contradictions. Those are basically minor sticking points when looking at the entire body of work. The movies are different interpreatations of the Bond character and the time in which he lives.

[HildebrandRarity]

What bothered me about CR, and which I know I posted about in the past, was the jettisoning of all continuity.


Are we meant to still accept them as existing in their own universe, or based on the theory put forth in the official EON book The Secret World of 007, are all the films, including CR and presumably its successors, all telling the story of a real man with different interpretations of his missions made into movies?

If we are meant to adopt those, then I will still be able to enjoy CR and its successors for what they are, and go back to Dr. No through Die Another Day with as much enthusiasm as I had. Trust me, I want to do that. I just don't think I am ready.

Help me out, fellow fans!

Bill

What continuity are you talking about, Bill?

The continuity in which Blofeld can't tell if Bond is Bond in the Swiss Alps in 1969 when in fact he met him in 1967 in a volcano?

or

The continuity which does not mention Bond's dead wife in 1971 when he goes after the man who supposedly killed her in 1969?

or

The continuity in which Bond can't read Chinese characters on a keyboard in 1997 in 'Nam after telling Moneypenny in 1967 that he majored in Oriental languages in Cambridge?

Which continuity are you refering to, Bill?

Help me out here, pal? Trust me, I want to believe for the sake of my enthusiasm for the movies that were made in 1967 and 69 and 71 and 97...blah blah blah... and for the sake of dusting-off of my copy of The Man With The Red Tattoo i've yet to read...



Please help me, Bill!!!

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 18 November 2006 - 07:00 PM.

[TheREAL008]

I think that with CR, there will be some sort of continuity from here onout.

DAD as bad as it was, was a closing of a chapter. The Bond that we knew faded into history and now a new Bond, along with a new series springs forth.

[RevolveR]

I think that with CR, there will be some sort of continuity from here onout.

DAD as bad as it was, was a closing of a chapter. The Bond that we knew faded into history and now a new Bond, along with a new series springs forth.

I think you said it best. The only way we can live with the first 20 and still enjoy them is to understand that they are all a part of a different group. Casino Royale has started things over, and from here on out everything will be connected. So like last night, I will continue to leave the theatre asking questions about the next film.

[Fro]

Yep, it's an entirely different universe. If you want, you can think that the other movies or books would have all happened, but slightly different and updated for modern times.

[TheREAL008]

As will I.

[Bill]

Thanks to all who posted, except for Hildebrand Rarity.

Once again, continuity did exist. If you want to debate that now, I am willing.

Taking your points:

I do acknowledge that there is a discrepancy with OHMSS and YOLT. That can be explained with perhaps temporary amnesia on Blofeld's part. Weak, I know, but honestly probably the only real glitch in the twenty films.

As for DAF, Tracy is not mentioned. However, we are all led to believe that Bond was seeking revenge on Blofeld for her death. Tracy need not be mentioned directly, either, for us to believe that Connery's Bond had just been married. Besides, she is referenced directly in TSWLM, FYEO and LTK.

As for the Chinese characters, Raymond Benson rather neatly explains that in his novelization of TND by stating that Bond had always told a white lie about his proficiency in Oriental languages.

The bottom line is that there is evidence of continuity in nearly every film, if not all of them, which far outweigh the points that you bring up.

Listen, I don't want to get into a major argument with you. No one else has responded with the sarcasm that you have, as they obviously understand my feelings on the matter. I have no idea who you are and have nothing personal against you. We are all fans here, and I want to do nothing more then to engage in a civilized discussion about 007.

[YOLT]

I dont think that a new series had begun. Yes its different from the other 20, but isnt DAD different from FRWL ? Also I am sure that they will make Bond 22 more formualic, having the gunbarell in the beginig, using the 007 theme, and less personal elements. EON will transform Bond into the Bond we know until Bond #7 takes the role.

[Publius]

I do acknowledge that there is a discrepancy with OHMSS and YOLT. That can be explained with perhaps temporary amnesia on Blofeld's part. Weak, I know, but honestly probably the only real glitch in the twenty films.

If you're going to "fanwank" (not an insult, it's apparently what the kids are calling it these days) that much, why not do the same for CR as a prequel? You already have to ignore technological differences and change in actors (including villains becoming allies, and vice versa, with some even coming back from the dead), so Dench and the modern angle should be easy enough to gloss over. Bond barely talked to Felix in CR, so maybe he forgot or got amnesia too, making their "first" meeting in Dr. No possible.

I still don't understand how you can not only insist on shoehorning forty years of missions into one middle-aged man's lifetime, but think you could still do so to this day and beyond, all when you could just as easily realize that continuity is loose at best and "floats" for each actor. Seriously Bill, no hard feelings, but the fanwankery required isn't worth it. It'll make all the kittens go blind.

[Waffles, James Waffles.]

The Bond continuity (Bondinuitiy) is REALLY messed up. But there is minor continuity in each film. CR, in my mind, is part of the original 007 series, but it takes place first. The films are odd like that.

[DLibrasnow]

Now, after seeing it, it is clear that film continuity was indeed eliminated so that Bond could begin anew. I am still not crazy about the idea, but after seeing the film, I can live with it with it come Bond 22.

The fact remains that there are still 20 films which were made. Newly packaged DVDs of them with new material have now been released.

Very simply--where do these films stand?

In my opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own:

The previous 20 are part of an entirely different series.

The same as Never Say Never Again is not part of the first EON series. So Casino Royale is the start of a new series -- Bond 2.1 as it were.

[00Twelve]

I think that with CR, there will be some sort of continuity from here onout.

DAD as bad as it was, was a closing of a chapter. The Bond that we knew faded into history and now a new Bond, along with a new series springs forth.

I echo your sentiments as well. Casino Royale might be at the top of my Bond list out of "neccessity" to group it with the others, but it's in a class all by itself. I hope the producers realized that they cannot go back from this. This is the new Bond.

[Loomis]

Now, after seeing it, it is clear that film continuity was indeed eliminated so that Bond could begin anew. I am still not crazy about the idea, but after seeing the film, I can live with it with it come Bond 22.

The fact remains that there are still 20 films which were made. Newly packaged DVDs of them with new material have now been released.

Very simply--where do these films stand?

In my opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own:

The previous 20 are part of an entirely different series.

The same as Never Say Never Again is not part of the first EON series. So Casino Royale is the start of a new series -- Bond 2.1 as it were.

I disagree. I still say it's part of the series, BOND 21 as opposed to BOND 2.1 (although there are certainly good grounds for calling it BOND 2.1 - I guess it's just a matter of preference).

Here's how I look at it: there was never any real continuity to begin with. As Michael G. Wilson once pointed out, it's not a series, it's a series of serieses. And CASINO ROYALE - while it is hugely different (then again, LICENCE TO KILL is hugely different to OCTOPUSSY, is it not? And DR. NO is hugely different to TOMORROW NEVER DIES) - still has all the old trappings: the PTS, the animated opening credits sequence, The James Bond Theme, in-jokes and nods to the past (e.g. Tsai Chin).... and, of course, it's made by pretty much the same creative team (Broccoli, Wilson, Purvis and Wade, Arnold, etc.), and has a returning director in the shape of Campbell. So I don't think it breaks from a former franchise in the same way as BATMAN BEGINS.

[Waffles, James Waffles.]

I tottaly agree with Mr. Loomis. It has it's place in the series. The whole Bond series, some of the movies are part of a series in itself-

Blofeld trilogy-YOLT, OHMSS, DAF
The jaws series-both have jaws-TSWLM, MR
Then the

Spoiler

Mr. White series-CR, Bond 22, and maybe Bond 23

Maybe some of the Felix movies as well. 0

[DLibrasnow]

In my opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own:

The previous 20 are part of an entirely different series.

The same as Never Say Never Again is not part of the first EON series. So Casino Royale is the start of a new series -- Bond 2.1 as it were.

I disagree. I still say it's part of the series, BOND 21 as opposed to BOND 2.1 (although there are certainly good grounds for calling it BOND 2.1 - I guess it's just a matter of preference).

Precisely. As I said everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I was just giving my opinion. I consider it a completely new series with no connection to the previous series.

[DaveBond21]

Personally, I look at CR taking place before DR. No and that works for me!

Me too. If Bond 22 follows on from CR then, I guess that too will come before Dr No.

The thing is, will Bond 24 be a reboot again? Or will it be a continuation of the Daniel Craig Bonds??? Will we want continuity then, or do we never want it?

[Damien Hunt]

CR is suppose to be in a new universe I GUESS..a reboot of sort! Personally, I look at CR taking place before DR. No and that works for me!

This is exactly how I look at it. They had to film it in the present though, because all Bond films, and books are set in the present.

[freemo]

Finally saw CR last night. Didn't think too much about the rest of the series and it's position in it, was too busy enjoying the film, but for me it's definitly "first film of a new series" (I can't see it as anything else, the whole "if you ignore everything that prevents it from working as a prequel, it works as a prequel" philosophy doesn't work for me), which is what I was hoping for.

But I've never really cared about "continuity" anyway.

[Loomis]

Finally saw CR last night. Didn't think too much about the rest of the series and it's position in it, was too busy enjoying the film, but for me it's definitly "first film of a new series" (I can't see it as anything else, the whole "if you ignore everything that prevents it from working as a prequel, it works as a prequel" philosophy doesn't work for me), which is what I was hoping for.

But I've never really cared about "continuity" anyway.

Same series, different "continuity", surely? Rather like, say, AVTAK and TLD are clearly not about the exact same character in the exact same timeline, but for some reason no one ever proposes that those two films should be viewed as belonging to different serieses.

There's nothing new about the "reboot" element of CASINO ROYALE, and I don't see why it has to be an either/or question as to whether it's BOND 21 or BOND 2.1 (or BOND 6.1, or whatever). It's both, IMO.

[Vodka Martino]

For me, I don't try to reconcile the movies' continuity. It can't be done, so why bother? I can enjoy each movie on its own merit and not worry how it fits into some grand scheme of things. For a series that is over 40 years old, it presents too many contradictions. Those are basically minor sticking points when looking at the entire body of work. The movies are different interpreatations of the Bond character and the time in which he lives.

Well said, RJJB. I have enough trouble trying to figure out how to pay the next phone bill, which train to catch so that I get to work on time for once, what tie will I wear, etc,etc. Trying to figure out the continuity of the films would just occupy more space in my head than I'd like it to. You're right. Each film is a representation of the character of 007 at that particular point in time.
Now, about the books...

Vodka Martino

Edited by Vodka Martino, 08 December 2006 - 12:06 PM.

[00golf]

I think Wilson and Broccoli said it best, there was no where else left to go with the current series. Enjoy the previous movies for what they were. There have been breaks and inconsistencies with the timeline before. There has to be. To truly fit a time line Bond would be nearly 80 years old now.

I think the character of Bond is essentially the same but as far as CR, DC and any movies he does, the previous movies missions simply do not exist or will exist in the future. It should be all new from here.

[00Twelve]

See Dlib's similar thread for my POV. You know, many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. (adjusting nerd glasses...)

[sorking]

Ooh - "Bond 2.1". I like that!

Of course it IS a reboot. But if that doesn't work for you - it's what it is, but any fannish continuity-fixing comes with a degree of self-delusion - go with whatever helps you enjoy them.

I actually really feel comfortable with the idea that Bonds 1 to 20 have 'concluded'. That's one finite series, and can be sold as such. Which is to say, I hope the new DVD cover comes double-sided. Because I like see CR as the first of another 20-film series...

Still, for continuity hounds who want to justify Dench's M in the same way they justify OHMSS by saying 'Blofeld has amnesia', I suggest the old 're-casting' gag.

Nobody ever said Robert Brown's M was the same guy as the one he played in TSWLM. Nobody's suggesting that Blofeld one day decided to change his face to look like Dicko Henderson. Is Bond's aide in Thunderball a former gypsy? Is Leiter a compusive cosmetic surgery freak? Not likely.

So, new M, meet old M. Two women, one from the start of Bond's career, one from the end. Same actress, different women...who just happent o get the same job. :-)

Though, obviously, I want to be clear that I DON'T hold to this. I mean it in fun. I like the reboot. The idea that Leiter can never die, say, because he'd have to be alive for Dr No would drive me crazy. If SPECTRE were to re-appear, I'd like to believe Craig's Bond could defeat them utterly and kill Blofeld - not leave them around to start up again just to suit 'No or From Russia.

I want a series that's going forward. Present, not past. And tense all the way. :-)

(As to the first 20 movies...well, I see pretty much EVERY film as a mini-re-boot, where SOME or even MOST of the previous films happened to the current incumbent, just not necessarily all of it. The basic facts are the same, the details change - dates, secondary characters, dialogue. Dalton's Bond lost Tracy...but not in 1969.)

[Moore Baby Moore]

CR is suppose to be in a new universe I GUESS..a reboot of sort! Personally, I look at CR taking place before DR. No and that works for me!

This is exactly how I look at it. They had to film it in the present though, because all Bond films, and books are set in the present.

Me, too, because Eva Green, in the Danish interviews for the film, acknowledges that Tracy is still in Bond's future. This means that the events of the films we've seen still happen, albeit in altered form. Coming from the world of comic books, I'm fine with this because timelines are always being toyed with.

Once this story arc is over, I'm going take the subsequent films as follow-ups from DAD, and assume that the Vesper story is well in the past. That just seems to be the best way take it.

[VisualStatic]

The comment from another thread calling the franchise a "series of series", is basically how I look at it.

Each actor is portraying Bond during a different era, seperate from one another, but with a common history and mission path . Each had their beginnings with a CR type mission, we just never got to see it, now we do.