34 replies to this topic

[EL7]

Hello, please forgive the question if it seems like a stupid one, but it has been a debate I have been involved in.

And please forgive me if the topic has been brought up before. If so, can someone direct me to the proper thread then...

Yes, I am noob. Please go easy on the agent in training.

The question is; is this CR a prequel or a reboot?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the producers have stated this is a reboot and that the previous movies have nothing, and will have nothing to do with it.

I know what a prequel is, to me this can't be a prequel as this movie version of CR is set in 2006 and not before 1962, where Dr. No takes place.

Is this then a hybrid of a prequel or an untraditional prequel?

[Bucky]

it is a reboot not a prequel

[Loomis]

As ever, the Bond series plays by its own rules (and rightly so). It's a reboot, and it's also a prequel, and it's also a straight sequel. Makes sense in the context of Michael G. Wilson's description of Bond as "not a series, but a series of serieses".

It's a reboot because it starts over. Bond is beginning in 2006.

It's a prequel because Eon is giving us the origins of a character it's been making films about for decades.

It's a straight sequel because it continues with all (well, most) of the familiar elements: the gunbarrel, The James Bond Theme, Dench's M, the animated opening credits sequence, and so on (and there are also in-jokes referring to earlier films). If this were a true reboot, wouldn't all those things have been scrapped? And, after all, we've had changes of Bond actor and tone before without anyone wondering whether it was suddenly a new series. This is why I call it BOND 21, and not BOND 2.1. If the filmmakers had truly wanted us to forget that the previous 21 films had ever existed, then they went about it in a very curious way.

In true Bond style, CASINO ROYALE is something unique that cannot be pinned down by just a word like "reboot" or "prequel".

[shady ginzo]

agreeing with Loomis. personally I see it as a reboot due to initially not being able to reconsile the differences in the tone of CR with the rest of the series. and although this effect is gaing a little perspective and seems reasonable given the differences between earlier re-incarnations, I still feel that the character of Bond himself is not the same person as the 5 previous interpretations.

not to say I'm supporting the Code name theory, but the movies always seemed to be a different character than the novels, I know someone will point out all the similarities, but there's an x-factor which doesn't translate from novel to screen in my opinion, with the exception of Casino Royale. and while both interpretations are entertaining and valid, this is the reason why I can't say this is "bond 21"

[yolt13]

I don't care for the term reboot, but that's the closest to accurate. There are a few concrete reasons why it doesn't fit as a prequel to DR. NO:

1)This film is expressly set in 2006. DR. NO is clearly set in the 60s, based on the technology on display, etc. While much of this could be fudged by a determined fan, how does one explain the proliferation of cell phones in CR and the complete absence of them in DN? Whether you try to project CR into the past or DN into the future, you torpedo the realism which makes both films (and subsequent entries like FRWL and OHMSS) topnotch Bond entries.

2)Bond meets Felix Leiter for the "first" time in CR and DN. Leiter's ethnicity notwithstanding, it would not make sense that sometime between CR and DN, Bond lost all memory of Leiter.

3)M is a male in DN and a female in CR. While it is certainly possible that one M retired and another took over between films, it is far less likely that MI-6 would be run by a woman in the early 1960s.

Many fans would like to accept CR as part of the old continuity (and are certainly free to for their own purposes), but the reality is that CR is the beginning of a whole new Bond continuity, fully removed from the one of the previous 20 films but borrowing some of the trappings of them primarily for the sake of establishing the new actor and his debut as "James Bond".

[kneelbeforezod]

not to say I'm supporting the Code name theory

You better not be

I'm praying this doesn't turn into another endless thread about continuity.

[Loomis]

2)Bond meets Felix Leiter for the "first" time in CR and DN. Leiter's ethnicity notwithstanding, it would not make sense that sometime between CR and DN, Bond lost all memory of Leiter.

Quite easy to fanwank a solution to the meeting-Leiter-for-the-first-time-twice problem: in DR. NO, Bond knows perfectly well who Leiter is ('cause he's met him before, see) but doesn't give anything away until Leiter has introduced himself and thereby signalled that Pussfeller and Quarrel are friends and not foes.

[Dr. Noah]

I don't think there's ever been a consistent tone, either. Beyond the different styles of the actors and directors, does anybody, for instance, watch FYEO and think, "12 months before this, James Bond was in outter space on a space station built by a really rich guy who wanted to wipe out all human life with an orchid derivative, battling Jaws, who could freefall a mile into a circus tent and survive, and bite chains apart with his metal teeth..."?

The great thing about the series is EVERY film is a reboot. Who wants to imagine Daniel Craig driving an invisible car around an ice palace four years ago?

[shady ginzo]

not to say I'm supporting the Code name theory

You better not be

I'm praying this doesn't turn into another endless thread about continuity.

hah yes indeed, but such things shall be recurrant until the next film at least, when I imagine EON will hammer the last few nails into the old continuity by making Q an american woman or re-incarnate another character like tanaka or some such fleming character

Edited by shady ginzo, 24 November 2006 - 03:11 AM.

[TheREAL008]

Just think of it as:

James Bond, Volume two; movie 1.

Edited by TheREAL008, 24 November 2006 - 03:46 AM.

[yolt13]

2)Bond meets Felix Leiter for the "first" time in CR and DN. Leiter's ethnicity notwithstanding, it would not make sense that sometime between CR and DN, Bond lost all memory of Leiter.

Quite easy to fanwank a solution to the meeting-Leiter-for-the-first-time-twice problem: in DR. NO, Bond knows perfectly well who Leiter is ('cause he's met him before, see) but doesn't give anything away until Leiter has introduced himself and thereby signalled that Pussfeller and Quarrel are friends and not foes.

The operative word being "fanwank", as the script for DN presents their meeting as their first ever. The only way to connect them is to ignore what the filmmakers intended, and ignoring a fact does not make the contrary true.

I like the "Volume 2, Movie 1" designation. Or another way to look at this is "Ultimate James Bond", ala Marvel Comics' Ultimate lines. They present the same characters and many of the same situations as the original series (with many stylistic and thematic similarities), but they are not part of the same continuity. Or, if you'd prefer a cinematic equivalent, let's call it "James Bond Begins".

I guess the question is, why does this have to be a prequel in anyone's mind in the first place? Are the first 20 films wiped from the annals of cinematic history simply because the producers started over again with CR? Hardly.

Edited by yolt13, 24 November 2006 - 04:19 AM.

[EL7]

So CR is a prequel in terms of elements then and not story. Not even in an abstract sort of story telling.

[bill007]

The great thing about the series is EVERY film is a reboot. Who wants to imagine Daniel Craig driving an invisible car around an ice palace four years ago?

Ha-ha-ha-ha. LMAO!! That's good. That's very, very good.

[Stylo]

Or, if you'd prefer a cinematic equivalent, let's call it "James Bond Begins".

I love that idea. I am a huge fan of the first two Batman films, but I have no problem accepting the new Batman Begins. It's just a new piece of art, a new actor, terrific acting, many of the same elements, jettisoning of all campiness (!!!) and a great story. Same as Bond Begins. What more could a filmgoer want?

The thing is, this "Bond Begins" is being done by the same people who have been responsible for some of the worst (IMO) campiness, bad acting and terrible stories. Very talented people who obviously did much more than simply say to each other "Let's get a new actor and base it on the first Fleming novel."

Edited by Stylo, 30 November 2006 - 04:31 AM.

[Blisster Shoots]

I am going to answer this question "Straight Up" with no twist. (LOL, get it? My Goldeneye pun...)


(Spoiler Alert*************)






Casino Royale is a reboot. It's not a prequel. It's simply a retelling of the James Bond story. Look at how they have done so in the movie, already. Take for example the Aston Martin. The 20 movie canon had the Aston Martin first given to Bond, by Q Branch in Goldfinger. Here, in Casino Royale, we see Bond wins the Aston Martin at a card game.

I am pretty sure we are not gonna get another SPECTRE for a villainous organization, but I am sure we are gonna get something similar. Perhaps we might even get another "Tracy Bond" again.

I hope that the Powers that Be do not go back to the old Connery/Moore/Brosnan characterization of Bond. It's too played out and old. I am so glad they decided to go the "reboot" route....at least they can now play with the James Bond character and re-explore the fascinating character Ian Fleming initially had in mind and who Timothy Dalton tried to intentionally portray.



A prequel is a a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. (definition from dictionary.com)

[00Twelve]

I am going to answer this question "Straight Up" with no twist. (LOL, get it? My Goldeneye pun...)

(Spoiler Alert*************)

Casino Royale is a reboot. It's not a prequel. It's simply a retelling of the James Bond story. Look at how they have done so in the movie, already. Take for example the Aston Martin. The 20 movie canon had the Aston Martin first given to Bond, by Q Branch in Goldfinger. Here, in Casino Royale, we see Bond wins the Aston Martin at a card game.

I am pretty sure we are not gonna get another SPECTRE for a villainous organization, but I am sure we are gonna get something similar. Perhaps we might even get another "Tracy Bond" again.

I hope that the Powers that Be do not go back to the old Connery/Moore/Brosnan characterization of Bond. It's too played out and old. I am so glad they decided to go the "reboot" route....at least they can now play with the James Bond character and re-explore the fascinating character Ian Fleming initially had in mind and who Timothy Dalton tried to intentionally portray.

A prequel is a a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. (definition from dictionary.com)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Spot on.

[Blisster Shoots]

Or, if you'd prefer a cinematic equivalent, let's call it "James Bond Begins".

I love that idea. I am a huge fan of the first two Batman films, but I have no problem accepting the new Batman Begins. It's just a new piece of art, a new actor, terrific acting, many of the same elements, jettisoning of all campiness (!!!) and a great story. Same as Bond Begins. What more could a filmgoer want?

The thing is, this "Bond Begins" is being done by the same people who have been responsible for some of the worst (IMO) campiness, bad acting and terrible stories. Very talented people who obviously did much more than simply say to each other "Let's get a new actor and base it on the first Fleming novel."

I wouldn't worry about that. My boyfriend (who is a big Batman fan) said that Warner Brothers were calling the shots of Batman (1989)- Batman & Robin. They made a good move, by deciding to go the dark knight route and followed it up by hiring Chris Nolan & Co. to be in charge of it. The difference between WB and EON is that WB is a tremendously huge company where EON is smaller in comparison. Where Barbara Broccolli and Michael Wilson can concentrate in only making James Bond movies and nothing else.

[Craig21_007]

Broccoli has clearly stated that these films are showing how Bond developed to the Bond we know today, its a prequal.

[dinovelvet]

Broccoli has clearly stated that these films are showing how Bond developed to the Bond we know today, its a prequal.

It makes no sense to say it is a prequel, as CR would have to take place in, say, 1960. As Bond is seen using a cellphone, laptop, and a Blu-Ray disc, it is pretty obvious that this story is not taking place before Dr.No.

[Craig21_007]

She states in her interview that she did not decide to make it based in the 60's, the whole point of rebooting was to pull in younger fans as the franchise was "(DYING"), do you really think a film based in the 60's was going to gain more younger fans?

Anyway, All 20 bond films before must be set within a reasonable time scale of each other, otherwise Bond would have aged? So Brosan driving a invisable car beside an ice palace 4 months after connery driving little run down 60's car in Dr No hardly seems to suggest that CR is anything differant.

Remember films are made to sell and make profit, otherwise why would they waste 100mill making it? The fact that the film is set in 2006 is nothing to do with a REBOOT more about PROFITS.

[00Twelve]

It seems pretty logical to me.

Each Bond film has taken place at a later date than the ones before it. James Bond in Thunderball has already fought Dr. No and Goldfinger. James Bond in The Man With The Golden Gun has already lost Tracy and believes Blofeld to be dead. James Bond in GoldenEye has killed Blofeld, fought Zorin on the Golden Gate Bridge and taken revenge for Felix and Della.

Granted, these films have taken place at the time of their production, but none of them ever pretended to take place before the ones that already happened. GoldenEye doesn't pretend to take place before Thunderball, because the times have changed. M even refers to Bond as a relic of the defunct Cold War.

Besides, the actors are refreshed every several films to satisfy the moviegoing public, rather than the hardcore fans, because the credibility of an aging Bond would drop considerably. People had some problems with DAF, OP, AVTAK, and even some with DAD, as Bond was beginning to look older (which is actually realistic). Most folks just want to see the agent in his physical prime. And for a whole new generation, Bond has just arrived.

However, this does not in any way invalidate the actors' work from the past 20 films (Just as Heath Ledger's upcoming Joker will not invalidate Nicholson's Joker), even if the novels upon which the films are made were re-adapted (a prospect that excites me, for one).

[DaveBond21]

If all of Craig's films relate to each other, then they could all be seen as happening before Dr No.


And suddenly there will be continuity!! LOL. I wonder if Bond 24 will continue on from Craig's movies, or if they will reboot again!

[Craig21_007]

I think craigs films will all happen before Dr No, and then link to it to have a small consistancy.

Then the next actor will continue were DAD ended. These films are just showing us his past rather than starting fresh. Thats the way i picked up BroCColi interview anyway..lol

[00Twelve]

I better be preparing for that big nuclear catastrophe that's gonna throw all our current technology and style back to that of 1962.

I'm kidding, of course. In a way, I do agree with you, Craig, because I believe Bond will one day do battle with Dr. No and Scaramanga and the rest one day as well. I just really hope to not have to suspend my disbelief to the point that Thunderball, which took place in no time but 1965, somehow comes after Casino Royale, which took place in no time but 2006. I personally hope to see those adventures re-adapted one day, so as to make an actual sensible continuity, like the chronological progression of the novels, or movies 1-20. And that is my own private, meagre, inconsequential hope. I'm not saying in any way that anyone else has to hope for that. I'm really excited that Bond 22 will follow as a blatant sequel to Casino Royale. That one will have to take place before Bond meets Dr. No as well.

[Craig21_007]

i am also looking forward to the Bondd 22film. But i think we have read into the laptop and blu-ray in casino royale. It was made today because its more modern, i understand blu-ray can't come before DR NO, but those are small features its the story line that was before Dr No.

[DaveBond21]

I just really hope to not have to suspend my disbelief to the point that Thunderball, which took place in no time but 1965, somehow comes after Casino Royale, which took place in no time but 2006.

The dates mean absolutely nothing to me. The year the adventures took place in are completely irrelevant to me. The fact that they are all the same man's adventures is important to me.

[00Twelve]

Good deal.

[Vauxhall]

I just really hope to not have to suspend my disbelief to the point that Thunderball, which took place in no time but 1965, somehow comes after Casino Royale, which took place in no time but 2006.

The dates mean absolutely nothing to me. The year the adventures took place in are completely irrelevant to me. The fact that they are all the same man's adventures is important to me.

Definitely agreed. The way I see it: if the dates are confusing you and causing you to "suspend disbelief", then don't think about it!

[DaveBond21]

The dates mean absolutely nothing to me. The year the adventures took place in are completely irrelevant to me. The fact that they are all the same man's adventures is important to me.


Definitely agreed. The way I see it: if the dates are confusing you and causing you to "suspend disbelief", then don't think about it!

To me, all the movies are adventures that happen in Bond's life between the age of 30 and 50, arguably.

But the years are not relevant. So for example, if TND happened in 1997, then Dr No may have happened in 1987.

[the other fellow]

Remember films are made to sell and make profit, otherwise why would they waste 100mill making it? The fact that the film is set in 2006 is nothing to do with a REBOOT more about PROFITS.

Spot on!!!
The dates on the cell phones are on there because dates appear on cell phones. It really has no relevance to the plot.
The films are contempary so that the audience can easily relate to them.
In TWINE the year 1999 appears here and there, but what difference does that make in 2006 when you're watching it on DVD.