40 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

And does that mean they also want continuity in Bond 23 aswell? What if we also had obvious links in Bond 24, 25 and 26? Suddenly we have a series with undeniable continuity (the very thing those fans hated in the past!!!)

I still don't understand this one.

In the past, when I said I liked continuity in my Bond movies, many people would say "There is none, get over it, we don't want continuity in our Bond movies!!!"

Now they are desperate for continuity. What has changed?

[Publius]

And does that mean they also want continuity in Bond 23 aswell? What if we also had obvious links in Bond 24, 25 and 26? Suddenly we have a series with undeniable continuity (the very thing those fans hated in the past!!!)

I still don't understand this one.

In the past, when I said I liked continuity in my Bond movies, many people would say "There is none, get over it, we don't want continuity in our Bond movies!!!"

Now they are desperate for continuity. What has changed?

There's a difference between recognizing the absence of continuity so far and wanting there to actually be (and have been) some. I would have loved if there had been some link between the Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan films (and for it to have been stronger in the Connery ones), but we just didn't get that. Hopefully, that will change with the Craig era.

[00Twelve]

I'm a person that like things to have a certain type of order, so I'm in huge favor of continuity. And I'd like to think (and I'm entitled to this opinion, no matter how many folks think it's "stupid" or "degrading" or whatever) that Casino Royale formatted the hard drive. We've got a new Bond, and I'd like to see continuity pick up from THIS point. That doesn't mean I don't watch the older movies, it just means Bond is a different guy born at a different time, and he hasn't gone up against the legendary vilains or even come close to being married. I also can't find a way to trick myself into imagining that this CR came before Connery's Dr. No, so that's not an option for me. That's why I'm so keen on realizing the novels (most of them) like never before. But if they don't go down that path, it's not the end of the world. It's just movies.

[DaveBond21]

So, will you be disappointed if they reboot the series again in the future?


Because you will get a whole host of Bond fans saying "Craig's Bond is dead, time to move on!!!"

[00Twelve]

So, will you be disappointed if they reboot the series again in the future?


Because you will get a whole host of Bond fans saying "Craig's Bond is dead, time to move on!!!"

No, I wouldn't, but I expect it would be another 40 or fifty years before that happened, and I think there would be even less of a point, because the only reason we got a reboot now is because the original novel had never been done by EON. We'll see what happens.

[sorking]

I don't think it's any coincidence that many of the most financially successful franchise filmes of the last decade have been better-constructed 'sagas' than we're used to. X-Men, Spidey, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Pirates, Bourne...ever Star Wars. Mass audiences have changing tastes, and the taste now is for strongly interconnected sequels.

(The success of home video - and especially DVD, in tandem with the internet - has a lot to do with it. Small plot points and minor characters are much easier to pick up again when the chances are your audience has seen the last film more than once.)

Kudos to Eon for spotting this, frankly. Standalone franchise films may well come back into vogue - trends spiral endlessly - but for now it's a pleasure to get a real 'saga'.

Oh, and for the record, I don't carry any resentment for CR 'thowing out' the old movies. Any more than I resent those movies for throwing out the continuity of the books. In fact it's quite nice to have a 20-film 'block' - where one can cut-off and start again. If nothing else, maybe it'll stop people moaning about matching video sleeves and space in their box set cases for future films! :-)

Maybe the post-Craig Bond's will throw the new continuity out. Maybe not. Maybe they'll hedge their bets, much like the post OHMSS flicks. As the first movie of that ilk won't be out until 2012 at the very earliest, I choose not to worry for a few years and enjoy this great new ride!

[JLaidlaw]

In defence of the so called 'anticontinuity' brigade, I think what they meant was:

'There has never been any continuity in Bond films, much as we'd like to have seen it, so we don't have a problem with a reboot as such. If there had been true continuity we'd have been much more upset with this replacement.'

And then when it struck them that the new Bond could be a way to actually see some real continuity, some of the same people said:

'We would love to see real continuity in the successive Bond Films now'

I don't see anything wrong with this, they're not incompatible ideas. Come to think of it, I can't think of many people who actually would say 'Continuity in movies is a stupid idea'.

I'm now going to move to my second point, which is about the 'reboot', 'reformatting'. I've posted very similarly already today, so if you've read this before, just skip it.

Personally I think the Bond Reboot leaves an ambiguity. Yes, this is the same Bond character who's been in 20+ films, but he's also a different man. He has gone through those twenty adventures and yet he hasn't yet. He will come up against those enemies in the future, but at the same time he's never going to. If you are like me, you will embrace this ambiguity, and know that the character can be both the same, and different from the one in Dr No. But if you wish you also have the freedom to choose whether the new Bond is the same person or not, the beauty of what Eon have done is to give the individual audience member the freedom to choose for themselves how to percieve him. They haven't gone with Tamahori and his Codename idea, nor have they completely wiped the last forty years. You have the choice if this is Bond 2.1 or Bond 21, or both.

So if you are wondering when Sir Miles Messervy will become Bond's M, that's easy, he already has been years ago, or rather he will be at some point soon...

I wish someone would join in my passion for ambiguity rather than just saying *Brain Explodes*...

[Publius]

So, will you be disappointed if they reboot the series again in the future?


Because you will get a whole host of Bond fans saying "Craig's Bond is dead, time to move on!!!"

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I hope all future Bond movies have continuity, but only within each actor's tenure. That is, each time someone new is cast, "reboot" the series, implicitly (TLD or GE) or explicitly (CR), and have the rest of that person's films follow some story arc, although that could mean something as loose as SPECTRE in DN, FRWL, and TB.

[bill007]

For me, Casino Royale is like having your second child. The first one is loved, cherrished, and adored equally as well as the new one. But with all the joy of the arrival of the second child, there are also a new set of hopes, dreams, and possibilities applied to it..uhm...him...uhm..her.

Not that the first child is defective, it is just a case of any mistakes that were made raising it to that point in time provide the experience to make changes in raising the second child.

Both are equally loved, but are, in fact, separate children, not twins, nor clones. One may be dark-haired, the other fair-haired. However, both children will display character traits as a result of genes from their parents.

Applying this analogy to this thread, I have so much joy for the re-birth of James Bond. He is going to do many fantastic things in the future, some like his older brother, some different. Whatever his world brings him, I will enjoy and love him just as much as I did for the older brother.

It is the excitement of a whole new beginning though, that my dreams for the younger brother are to display a series of continuous episodes with his same friends, i.e. his boss, his other brother from Langely, etc., etc.

After all, his life has already been written, hasn't it.

[LadySylvia]

I think it is really up to the individual fans.

To me, they are all the same man, in the same universe. Time/date references, references to specific events or people are irrelevant.

If Casino Royale took place in 2006 (which it obviously did), then Dr No takes place the same year or 2007. It's as simple as that, and will be, at least until 2008 when Bond 22 comes out.

Or you might want to consider that all stories between DR. NO and DIE ANOTHER DAY are "not part" of the continuity line established with CASINO ROYALE.

Edited by LadySylvia, 03 April 2007 - 04:25 AM.

[DaveBond21]

I think it will be interesting to watch Dr No now. I think it will fit in nicely after CR, or Bond 22.