40 replies to this topic

[AndrewBond]

I was thinking about this after reading about Roger Moore being older than Sean Connery. At the time that Moore retired, Bond had practically always moved in a linear timeline, and thus, age. True, Lazenby was younger than Connery, but not noticeably. It's not like anyone looked at him and said "Well, Bond's been de-aged". And they definitely didn't do so with Roger. But after years of Bond progressing like every other human, The Living Daylights came along, and along with a new attitude came a Bond that was physically much younger. There was also a new Moneypenny, and she was much younger. However, everything else was constant; M & Q, General Gogol, references to Bond's past (in Licence to Kill), so it would seem like it was business as usual. Which brings to mind the age-old (no pun intended) question that's been asked a million times before: is Bond supposed to be "ageless", is he supposed to be the age of his actor, or is he supposed to be the age since the birthdate Fleming gave him (which before the recent reboot was about 72)? And more specifically, what was the attitude towards this when TLD was released? Does anyone remember?

[iBond]

I heard that Michael G. Wilson wanted to make a reboot in 1987, but Cubby felt that Bond should only be depicted as already being an agent. So, what better choice for them to make a reboot two films after he passed...

Edited by iBond, 18 March 2011 - 11:17 PM.

[jaguar007]

I always kind of felt that the series had a bit of a reboot every time it switched actors. Some people complain about the drastic change of the Bond character from Brosnan to Craig or from Moore to Dalton, but really the most drastic change was from Connery to Moore

[mttvolcano]

Ageless of course! Though with Moore I am sure they let that slide and stuff, idk I find it rather interesting that, that old of an actor would play it. It brought something new to the table and I wouldn't mind to see an older actor like that play Bond again.

[Mr. Blofeld]

So, what better choice for them to make a reboot two films after he passed...

Huh? DAD wasn't a reboot...

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I heard that Michael G. Wilson wanted to make a reboot in 1987, but Cubby felt that Bond should only be depicted as already being an agent. So, what better choice for them to make a reboot two films after he passed...

Cubby felt that way in 1987, but who's to say what his thoughts would be in 2006. You would prefer they held Bond back based on what Cubby felt in a specific time and place? Times have changed, and the current producers should be worried about making the best films possible, rather than making films with restrictions based on what has come in the past.

As for the topic at hand, I've always thought of the Bond films as separate adventures rather than try to put them in any context or timeline. Sure the character has evolved throughout the years and films, but there wasn't - and nor should there be - a prolonged effort to tie all these implausible films together. It doesn't bother me much either way, but it would have made more sense if Casino Royale was not promoted as a reboot, because that implies the previous films had special sequence or continuity to them, which isn't the case. I suppose The Living Daylights is every bit the reboot Casino Royale is - which isn't much.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 19 March 2011 - 02:07 AM.

[Royal Dalton]

The way I look at it, the first five Bonds shared the same history. Even if the events happened in different years, or whatever.

[iBond]

Ageless of course! Though with Moore I am sure they let that slide and stuff, idk I find it rather interesting that, that old of an actor would play it. It brought something new to the table and I wouldn't mind to see an older actor like that play Bond again.

Yeah, but by the time Octopussy came around...his age was really showing. And heck, if you want to get further into it, he looked old in Moonraker as well.

[Dustin]

I think the series has seen quite a number of reboots, even during the tenure of one actor. I'm not sure the Bond of DAF is the same that has battled Doctor No and Red Grant. And the Bond of FYEO doesn't seem to have been in a space station in MR. Dalton's Bond seems to pick up right where Lazenby left off (ignoring for the sake of convenince the references to Tracy in TSWLM and FYEO's pts). GE's model depicted by Brosnan came from an entirely different parallel universe where Bond has a close friend in 006, with whome he supposedly faught in several missions, sharing literally everything (down to the personal entertainment, it is implied by 006).

[David Schofield]

Nah.

The first reboot was from Lazenby to Connery with DAF and its launch of the unfit, overweight middle age comedic buffoon James Bond. A character Roger seemlessly stepped into in LALD and milked for the next 12 years.

The post 1971 James Bond is totally unrecognisable as the lean, hard machine of, say, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS. And I think Cubs and Harry knew precisely then they were rebooting Bond, even if the word never crossed their lips.

[Dustin]

Nah.

The first reboot was from Lazenby to Connery with DAF and its launch of the unfit, overweight middle age comedic buffoon James Bond. A character Roger seemlessly stepped into in LALD and milked for the next 12 years.

The post 1971 James Bond is totally unrecognisable as the lean, hard machine of, say, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS. And I think Cubs and Harry knew precisely then they were rebooting Bond, even if the word never crossed their lips.

Don't you think the Bond of DN and FRWL would have got paroxysms of laughter when seeing the Aston with the ejector seat? And went back to Scrublands for detoxication when peeking into the hollowed volcano? I have my doubts if these two examples are happening in the same filmic universe as the first two films. And at least TMWTGG and FYEO to me suggest they are closer to the character of the early days than say to MR and TSWLM. DAF on the other hand is doubtlessly existing in its own context, perhaps even mildly inspired by TV shows of the era.

[David Schofield]

Nah.

The first reboot was from Lazenby to Connery with DAF and its launch of the unfit, overweight middle age comedic buffoon James Bond. A character Roger seemlessly stepped into in LALD and milked for the next 12 years.

The post 1971 James Bond is totally unrecognisable as the lean, hard machine of, say, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS. And I think Cubs and Harry knew precisely then they were rebooting Bond, even if the word never crossed their lips.

Don't you think the Bond of DN and FRWL would have got paroxysms of laughter when seeing the Aston with the ejector seat? And went back to Scrublands for detoxication when peeking into the hollowed volcano? I have my doubts if these two examples are happening in the same filmic universe as the first two films. And at least TMWTGG and FYEO to me suggest they are closer to the character of the early days than say to MR and TSWLM. DAF on the other hand is doubtlessly existing in its own context, perhaps even mildly inspired by TV shows of the era.

None of those "differences" really matter in the context in which the Lazenby to Connery transition and beyond to Moore exist.

Regardless of how advanced the gadgets became or destinations flamboyant, Bond remained a tough, lean operator (okay, a tad out of condition in YOLT, but not too much).

From DAF onward, he becomes a middle age over-charming comedian, middle aged. A playboy gone to seed.

Connery has a gut in DAF (sucked in in the bedroom scenes with Tiff); Rog waddles, huffs, puffs and weezes after Hip's car as early in his reign as TMWTGG...

[Dell Deaton]

It's always seemed to me that the word "reboot" has been both over-used and misunderstood. Never more so than when it comes to the James Bond films.

The point I see as pronounced, and more unique, is the (equally cliched) reference to "going back to the original Fleming." As if we were talking religion? As if that were possible?

So, the series started out with the first two films which were ostensibly very in keeping with both the Ian Fleming story lines and the Bond characterization. In the conversations I've had with Fleming's stepdaughter, she's consistently said that she saw no resistance on his part to the casting of Sean Connery, and in the meeting between the two of which she was a part, saw then get along quite well. Fleming was alive through the evolution to the "Goldfinger Bond," which I'm not alone in believing really established the franchise. Nothing against the first two. But I simply don't think the Eon franchise would have perpetuated for long by exclusively following that model.

A different production team followed, due to litigation, for Thunderball. And with You Only Live Twice, all sorts of momentum had been lost. Lead-actor changed and, wait for it: "A return to the original Fleming" came as part of the reaction when On Her Majesty's Secret Service was made. Then an attempt to recapture Goldfinger magic with Diamonds Are Forever (the lead originally envisioned as Goldfinger's brother); older Connery, 1970s-bent toward what film plots should include.

Followed by yet another lead-actor change, and another "return to the original Fleming" in Live and Let Die. Direction continued through The Man with the Golden Gun, which I've consistently said is one of the most under-rated of all the Bond films. But I know I'm in the minority on that, and the franchise returned to its original Goldfinger direction with very successful The Spy Who Loved Me. Then too-much-so with Moonraker, and then too-much-so the other way with For Your Eyes Only. By the time of A View to a Kill, things were back to concerns about a too-old Bond and a Diamonds Are Forever feel.

In reviewing contemporaneous materials for the "Bond Watches" exhibit, I pulled an old Starlog magazine that featured an interview with Michael G Wilson, re The Living Daylights. Extended conversation there, with the introduction of Timothy Dalton, on the idea of an "origins" story. He, Wilson, himself, was against that. Said that there was an expected element of Bond being an "expert" that couldn't be sacrificed. Recall that Pierce Brosnan was all-but assured for the role at that time, that it was a Moore-Brosnan script, with Dalton as a last-minute insert. So it wasn't until the next film, Licence to Kill, that we heard (again), that there was gonna be "a return to the original Fleming."

No one can say how what would have played out through a third Dalton installment, because litigation kept Bond off the movie screen for the next 6 years. When he returned, "GoldenEye" was - you guessed it - an arguable "return to the original Fleming." Again, placing myself in the minority here, I think that this one certainly failed in the Fleming regard, the script was inferior (too defensive in terms of trying to justify "need" for a post-Cold War 007), poorly directed, and clearly not something that played to Brosnan's strengths. Two excellent films followed, leveraging everything they should have in terms of character, "the Eon vision of Bond," and film-making as it was in the late 1990s. Then came Die Another Day, which suffered from expectation-itis, tried to do too much, and evidenced loss of energy, across-the-board.

Another hiatus, followed by "a return to the original Fleming," which - I think mostly because the term had become its own brand through efforts such as those with the Batman franchise - a formal "reboot."

Was it any more so than any example I've given above? Not really. Yeah, there were some origin elements. But fundamentally it wasn't that much different from Tomorrow Never Dies, which, along with The World Is Not Enough, was a very good espionage thriller. Brosnan's Bond clearly hadn't served in World War II. References to any past which might have directly tied his age in any way to a quasi-continuation of Connery or Moore was gone (yes, I'm including here the relics room that he passes through with Q in Die Another Day, and reference to the number of watches he'd worn, which hardly equates to years of service). Obviously the re-boot here is at least implied.

I suspect within the next film or two, we'll see the Daniel Craig portrayal ultimately follow this pattern as well.

[jaguar007]

I pulled an old Starlog magazine that featured an interview with Michael G Wilson, re The Living Daylights. Extended conversation there, with the introduction of Timothy Dalton, on the idea of an "origins" story. He, Wilson, himself, was against that.

I have that Starlog himself, if I recall, Wilson actually penned an "origin"story but it was Cubby who was against it, not Wilson. If I recall he was sad not to see it happen because he felt there was some really good stuff in the story. He then said that he understood and agreed where Cubby was coming from.

When he returned, "GoldenEye" was - you guessed it - an arguable "return to the original Fleming." Again, placing myself in the minority here, I think that this one certainly failed in the Fleming regard,

I don't think there was much desire to return to "Fleming" with GE but rather recapture the spirit of the earlier movies.

[TheREAL008]

Casino Royale should be viewed as: James Bond volume 2, issue 1. It's basically a new franchise from 2006 onward.

As for TLD, I always saw Timothy's performances as not really a return to Connery's cinematic Bond, but for the first time people might actually see Fleming's Bond onscreen.

I believe that if Wilson had stood his ground and compromised with Cubby, the origin idea would have gone through and had been something keen to see.. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the time it seemed that Cubby held the reigns alittle bit too tightly.

Edited by TheREAL008, 19 March 2011 - 04:46 PM.

[Pushkin]

As for TLD, I always saw Timothy's performances as not really a return to Connery's cinematic Bond, but for the first time people might actually see Fleming's Bond onscreen.

I completely agree. I did not read any of the Bond novels until after Dalton was Bond and he was always the one I picture in my mind as I read the books. Since then, I have read the entire Fleming and Gardner canon and all but one of the Benson novels. I finally got around to reading Col. Sun about a week ago and it was still Dalton that I pictured in my minds eye. While I love Daniel Craig as Bond and the direction they have taken with the last 2 movies, he is not the guy in the books IMO. Certainly informed by Fleming's Bond, but for me, Fleming's Bond will always be Timothy Dalton.

Cheers

[Matt_13]

I wouldn't say Dalton rebooted the series, but he did reign it in from the hammy heights it had reached. And Craig's Bond is still a veteran, just new to the double-0 branch and a bit...excitable. Rebooting or whatever you'd like to call it with Craig was the best thing to happen to the franchise since Dalton's hire date, for sure.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Followed by yet another lead-actor change, and another "return to the original Fleming" in Live and Let Die. Direction continued through The Man with the Golden Gun, which I've consistently said is one of the most under-rated of all the Bond films.

I have to disagree; how is a flying car, a redneck Southern sheriff in Thailand, and a solar-powered death ray a "return to Fleming"? That's tosh and rubbish; TSWLM probably has more in common with the original Fleming than TMWTGG does...

No one can say how what would have played out through a third Dalton installment, because litigation kept Bond off the movie screen for the next 6 years. When he returned, "GoldenEye" was - you guessed it - an arguable "return to the original Fleming."

Dell, we do know how that would have played out in a Dalton GoldenEye; the original screenplay, written by Michael France for Dalton's Bond, brought back a whole slew of the Fleming novel characters, as well as Pushkin (now a member of the post-KGB apparatchik), and a brief mention of Tracy. There was no justification for a post-Cold War Bond (mainly because there was no new M in charge), but there was also no mention of what might have happened after LTK... probably enforced on France by the producers, but I still think there should have been more emphasis on that aspect.

Other than that, it was a rather good, classic Bond screenplay; so good, in fact, that several jettisoned action sequences (due to budget, of course) were subsequently reused for the later Bond films... including Quantum of Solace.

Two excellent films followed, leveraging everything they should have in terms of character, "the Eon vision of Bond," and film-making as it was in the late 1990s.

One excellent film, Dell (although I would say GE was excellent, as well, if not as good as TND); TWINE tried to do too much at once, and Brosnan wasn't really up to dramatic acting, so the film suffers from something of a split-personality -- it tries to be a modern drama directed by Michael Apted, while, at the same time, being a pun-filled "Bond" actioner directed by Vic Armstrong. The resulting mish-mash of styles kills it, for me.

[jaguar007]

Casino Royale should be viewed as: James Bond volume 2, issue 1. It's basically a new franchise from 2006 onward.

I disagree with this. Perhaps Craig could be James Bond volume 2 issue 2. I see many people refer to the Craig films as "Modern Bond" and those before as "classic Bond". However I see the "classic Bond" series ending with LTK and GE the real reboot. LTK was the last Bond film to have the production team that dated back to Dr. No. It was really Cubby's last Bond film (actively), the last to feature the likes of Richard Maibaum, Maurice Binder and the previous film the last to feature the music of John Barry.

[Virgosy]

I don't think so. A kind of reboot, yes, but the first reboot, no. I think each actor was a kind of reboot of the saga. OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TSWLM, TLD, GE, CR... they are all reboots IMO...

[TheREAL008]

Casino Royale should be viewed as: James Bond volume 2, issue 1. It's basically a new franchise from 2006 onward.

I disagree with this. Perhaps Craig could be James Bond volume 2 issue 2. I see many people refer to the Craig films as "Modern Bond" and those before as "classic Bond". However I see the "classic Bond" series ending with LTK and GE the real reboot. LTK was the last Bond film to have the production team that dated back to Dr. No. It was really Cubby's last Bond film (actively), the last to feature the likes of Richard Maibaum, Maurice Binder and the previous film the last to feature the music of John Barry.

I can see where you're coming from, and you do have an excellent point. But don't forget that DAD was possibly the closing chapter (of sorts) because it basically references everything that precedes it. And with Bronsan's movies becoming blockbusters but lacking in plot and character development, there wasn't much to go from there and what a better way to clean the slate with having Casino Royale as a new entry into a new series?

[iBond]

Casino Royale should be viewed as: James Bond volume 2, issue 1. It's basically a new franchise from 2006 onward.

I disagree with this. Perhaps Craig could be James Bond volume 2 issue 2. I see many people refer to the Craig films as "Modern Bond" and those before as "classic Bond". However I see the "classic Bond" series ending with LTK and GE the real reboot. LTK was the last Bond film to have the production team that dated back to Dr. No. It was really Cubby's last Bond film (actively), the last to feature the likes of Richard Maibaum, Maurice Binder and the previous film the last to feature the music of John Barry.

I completely agree...so true! Sucks that all the years of hard work and movies ended on a low note (Licence to Kill), but I still loved it!

Edited by iBond, 20 March 2011 - 11:02 AM.

[Mr_Wint]

I see TLD as the last film in the classic series. LTK is totally different from the previous films and GE-DAD feels like a new film series, somewhat based on the original films.

[iBond]

I see TLD as the last film in the classic series. LTK is totally different from the previous films and GE-DAD feels like a new film series, somewhat based on the original films.

I can certainly see your point. Licence to Kill did seem to stand out all on its own. I would have to say the only connection with the previous films was the brief scene back in England with Moneypenny and M. To be honest, looking at Westminster made me yarn for the adventures that have gone before. It almost felt like a commercial break going back to M's office and a way of telling the audience, "See we haven't forgotten about you guys!"

Edited by iBond, 20 March 2011 - 07:35 PM.

[jaguar007]

I see TLD as the last film in the classic series. LTK is totally different from the previous films and GE-DAD feels like a new film series, somewhat based on the original films.

Yes but remember in 1971, DAF was totally different from the previous films as well.

[iBond]

I heard that Michael G. Wilson wanted to make a reboot in 1987, but Cubby felt that Bond should only be depicted as already being an agent. So, what better choice for them to make a reboot two films after he passed...

Cubby felt that way in 1987, but who's to say what his thoughts would be in 2006. You would prefer they held Bond back based on what Cubby felt in a specific time and place? Times have changed, and the current producers should be worried about making the best films possible, rather than making films with restrictions based on what has come in the past.

You make it seem as if I am boycotting the new films. I'm not, I'm just saying he didn't want to make a remake and felt that Bond should be someone who is already an agent. And, to be honest, Quantum of Solace wasn't that good in my opinion. So, restrictions or not, there are things in a Bond film that you have to have. And as to what he would have thought in 2006...there would be no way of knowing since the guy died in 1996.

Edited by iBond, 21 March 2011 - 08:59 PM.

[jamie00007]

Bond is not "already an agent" for all of about two minutes in CR. If that. And its basically presented as a flashback. As for your opinion on QoS, not sure how thats relevant to CR being a reboot. Its not as if every movie prior to CR was perfect...

[iBond]

No, it wasn't but this one is up there.

[00 Brosnan]

I've always kept in mind that there is a small amount of continuity in the original timeline, but I always considered the films separate adventures with each Bond actor having a slightly tweaked back story. I consider Casino Royale the only reboot.

[plankattack]

I do agree that the series "resets" itself with a new actor. Whether it's what eventually occurs or not is part of the conversation, but I do think EON take the opportunity to go on record as to how they envision the tone of the series. That this should come with a new lead makes perfect sense, in that the debut is always tailored somewhat to the new actor (though GE, with it's compendium of "nostalgic" moments is the exception - I could seen any of the men who've played Bond at home in that film).

Reboot, on the other hand, is a different thing and to as we know only a recent trend in Hollywood. And to be honest, it means all things to all people, and I do suspect that it's as much a marketing buzzword as anything that propels the creative process. For example, Batman Begins - is it a reboot, or a remake? And is there a difference?

With that in mind, I do prefer to think of CR as an "origins" story rather than a reboot. I may be splitting hairs here, but I do think it's the only time that the series has made a conscious decision to alter it's history (not sure if I said that right, so please don't jump on me!!!). While I've always found the talk of Wilson and Cubby discussing the idea of "starting over" with TLD (and damn, I only have my LTK Starlog!) fascinating and would love to hear more, the reality is TLD is pretty much business as usual. A new actor, yes; lots of talk about "going back to Fleming" (which itself seems, as others, I think Dell and Mr Blofeld have said, to be not much more than publicity tour catchphrase); a more neutral balance of the humour, yes. But ultimately it fits unobtrusively into the canon. Not to say it's not a good film - I enjoy it a great deal, but it is very much in line with an EON production.

If anything, it's LTK (which I enjoy)which stands out as not quite being par for the EON course, and IHMO, opinion, there is something about Brozza's TND (which I don't) which don't quite fit in as prototypical EON. But as for TLD, I'm not sure I could make any kind of argument for it being a "reboot." Film number 15, and the fourth different actor, but not a reboot.