Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Should the "Reboot" be tied into the old continuity?


84 replies to this topic

#1 JSDude1

JSDude1

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 54 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:33 AM

Yes or no.

 

I am fine with the Producers having done the reboot..and..having it tied to the old continuity.  Come on James Bond doesn't have to be 100% accurate.

 

If we can accept both Moonraker, DAD films along with those such as OHMSS and FYEO in the same continuity, then we can also accept that the "reboot" can be both a reboot and tied to the old continuity through references to old 007 movies stuck into Daniel Craig movies.

 

They've already gone half way through the Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall and referencing the exploding pen in Goldeneye (among others). 

 

So I say: YES, but I want to know what the rest of you JB fans think??

 

Y/ or N?



#2 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 12:50 PM

Should we care?

 

Continuity has always been a bit of moving line in the film series, and in EON's defense, trying to impose continuity on a series that's 50 years old but chooses to always "live in the present" is nigh-impossible.

 

So long as everything in the series seems to "belong" I'm fine with continuity not hanging together.

 

My vote! No!



#3 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:19 PM

No.



#4 JohnnyWalker

JohnnyWalker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 272 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:37 PM

I don't want them to forcefully tie it in, but I also don't want any remakes proving it's separate. No one should want that.



#5 hoagy

hoagy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:25 PM

It's a mash.  Don't get hung up on it.  Some things just go in because it was cool and it worked and that's it.  It all MOSTLY stays continuous until you get to Goldeneye, but you could say, until you get to The Living Daylights.  Clearly, Roger Moore and Sean Connery were the same Bond in the same line of chronological events that married in OHMSS.

 

But, would you say that for Dalton's films or Brosnan's ?  Certainly not for the three most recent films; there's no question of that.  Did Brosnan's Bond refer to earlier films (recall the gadgets and weapons) ?  Yes.  But it was just sort of a vague reference.  More for the audience than the characters, really.

 

For example of a reference that just works and it's fun and it's OK -- the side of the steering wheel on the Aston in CR vs in SF.  Same car ?  Sure.  Bond had it changed to drive it back home more comfortably.  But even THAT means I just put more thought into it than did the writers, director, actors, producers.  Just let it go, and enjoy the ride.



#6 kaiserthegreat

kaiserthegreat

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 32 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 15 January 2014 - 05:00 PM

I've never really cared how one actor's Bond works with another's.  To me it's like reading superheroes, so long as the basic elements are there, it doesn't matter if Batman at one time sold WWII bonds or sported sideburns and said "groovy" too often.  That said, what doesn't work for me as far as the reboot goes is that they seem to want Craig to be a brand new 00 but a long time veteran at the same time.  We see Craig get indoctrinated, but then he's always moping around hard and edgy like he's seen too much bad stuff.  SKYFALL especially, they have him playing dead, sporting gray whiskers, having Money Penny call him "Old Dog..." etc. but mixed in with the promise of "new" with the introduction of Moneypenny and a new M and "Well, are you ready for a new mission for the first time?" vibe.  I'm not a Craig hater and I do love these new movies, but if the 00 are elite super spies, and Bond is newly signed on, shouldn't he be in his 30s?  20s?  His edge seems a bit too rough for someone wet behind the ears.  But then maybe by the time anyone reaches 00 status, they're beaten and broken down, who knows?  


Edited by kaiserthegreat, 15 January 2014 - 05:01 PM.


#7 mrevans

mrevans

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 132 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:12 PM

I've never really cared how one actor's Bond works with another's.  To me it's like reading superheroes, so long as the basic elements are there, it doesn't matter if Batman at one time sold WWII bonds or sported sideburns and said "groovy" too often.  That said, what doesn't work for me as far as the reboot goes is that they seem to want Craig to be a brand new 00 but a long time veteran at the same time.  We see Craig get indoctrinated, but then he's always moping around hard and edgy like he's seen too much bad stuff.  SKYFALL especially, they have him playing dead, sporting gray whiskers, having Money Penny call him "Old Dog..." etc. but mixed in with the promise of "new" with the introduction of Moneypenny and a new M and "Well, are you ready for a new mission for the first time?" vibe.  I'm not a Craig hater and I do love these new movies, but if the 00 are elite super spies, and Bond is newly signed on, shouldn't he be in his 30s?  20s?  His edge seems a bit too rough for someone wet behind the ears.  But then maybe by the time anyone reaches 00 status, they're beaten and broken down, who knows?  

I agree.  As much as I liked SF (its probably one of my favorites) I can't deny that it kind of felt like a swansong at times.  Are they going to just drop the age angle in the next two films?  I can't help but hope they do.  I get it in terms of proving Bond (formula and all) is still relevant in the internet age much the same way GE did in the 90s.  .  But as far as the film itself... it kind of feels like we missed a lot and are catching up to Bond right as he's about to retire.  



#8 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:21 PM

Yes. Far as I'm concerned CR'06 picks up from DAD. It's the same Bond.



#9 mrevans

mrevans

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 132 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:22 PM

No.  

It doesn't hurt to have a wink to the fans here and there.  But to me, a blank slate seems like nothing but a good thing.  Perfect time to start from scratch and attack with new energy.  



#10 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:04 AM

I can't deny that it kind of felt like a swansong at times.  Are they going to just drop the age angle in the next two films?  I can't help but hope they do.  I get it in terms of proving Bond (formula and all) is still relevant in the internet age much the same way GE did in the 90s.  .  But as far as the film itself... it kind of feels like we missed a lot and are catching up to Bond right as he's about to retire.


I agree on the "swansong" bit - it easily could've worked as the last Bond film ever. Not so sure about the "Bond right as he's about to retire" bit. I agree that there was a lot of talk about age etc, but lit-Bond experts correct me if I'm wrong, there were many times that Bond was burnt out, suffering from ennui etc, ready to pack it in, but not necessarily because he was old.

I agree that there does feel like a "gap" in his career, but I put that down a lot to this continuity thing. We expect things to follow on in an orderly manner, but the gap between QoS in SF could easily be a reflection of the real-life gap between the films (4 years) which as any of us in indeterminable middle-age will know, can be both quick and feel like an eternity!! :)

#11 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:45 AM

I really don't see the need for them to tie things in with the first 20 films.  It would essentially make the reboot (as weak a reboot as it is) pretty much a pointless exercise.  What they need to do from here is to just craft some good, solid original stories, taking their cues from Fleming when necessary and/or possible.  The only previously used element I think they need to revisit at some point is Tracy, but I don't think that necessarily has to be done within the confines of a remake of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  It could easily be done within the confines of a completely different story and still have the same effect.  That's the only already used element from the first 20 films that I think needs to be revisited, albeit not any time soon.  Other than, it should be completely original from here on out.



#12 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:17 AM

I really don't see the need for them to tie things in with the first 20 films.  It would essentially make the reboot (as weak a reboot as it is) pretty much a pointless exercise.  What they need to do from here is to just craft some good, solid original stories, taking their cues from Fleming when necessary and/or possible.  The only previously used element I think they need to revisit at some point is Tracy, but I don't think that necessarily has to be done within the confines of a remake of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  It could easily be done within the confines of a completely different story and still have the same effect.  That's the only already used element from the first 20 films that I think needs to be revisited, albeit not any time soon.  Other than, it should be completely original from here on out.


Great points. I think a lot of us (myself included) drift between thinking of 2006-on as a reboot or a prequel. And I'm not even sure EON have a long-term plan other than "CR shows Bond at the start of his career." But to be fair to EON, I've only ever seen Babs & Mike, and Campbell et al, refer to this era as a "reboot" so maybe it's just us fans who project the idea of it being a prequel, and so therefore having to make sense in even the loosest of continuity.

As great as walking through the padded door (or should that be cell, the more we all think about it!!!) undoubtedly was, it doesn't necessarily mean we're at the start. Figuratively we've reached EON-Bond as conceived in '62, but literally and chronologically maybe not.

Only the next couple of films will signify if the end of SF is everything coming together, or truly a new start.

#13 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 16 January 2014 - 07:53 AM

There have been a few nods and winks in the direction of the pre-reboot era - the Aston Martin, Judi Dench as M for example. But I regard the films from CR onwards as part of a new Bond series. And one advantage of the re-boot is it allows the re-introduction of familiar characters, but with a different take on them. Q, for example - from ex-military type to young IT genius. Or Moneypenny - a field agent turned PA to M. Who knows? We may yet see Bond's most infamous adversary, Blofeld, re-created, but probably not in Mao style suit carrying a white Persian cat!



#14 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:16 AM

There have been a few nods and winks in the direction of the pre-reboot era - the Aston Martin, Judi Dench as M for example. But I regard the films from CR onwards as part of a new Bond series. And one advantage of the re-boot is it allows the re-introduction of familiar characters, but with a different take on them. Q, for example - from ex-military type to young IT genius. Or Moneypenny - a field agent turned PA to M. Who knows? We may yet see Bond's most infamous adversary, Blofeld, re-created, but probably not in Mao style suit carrying a white Persian cat!

 

It will take a few films before we get the Blofeld we all know and love.



#15 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 16 January 2014 - 04:04 PM

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"



#16 JSDude1

JSDude1

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 54 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 04:47 PM

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"

 

I don't think it's so much that Judi Dench or the new M are the same person (and had sent JB to all the missions) I think it's more like just that James Bond is the same person throughout (in otherwords they aren't just throwing out the past 20 movies in the "reboot") that they consider CR a "reboot" but also that now that we have had that for a few years, in retrospect (I hope) they also tie Craig's movies to the old movies, maybe mentioning that he was married to Tracy Bond, etc..

 

I am OK with CR being both a reboot, and yet Daniel Craig Bond (starting with Skyfall) and future movies 24 & 25 etc..also tying the continuity to the old movies as well.  They can be BOTH reboot and old formal style SEQUELS.



#17 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 07:08 PM

 

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"

 

I don't think it's so much that Judi Dench or the new M are the same person (and had sent JB to all the missions) I think it's more like just that James Bond is the same person throughout (in otherwords they aren't just throwing out the past 20 movies in the "reboot") that they consider CR a "reboot" but also that now that we have had that for a few years, in retrospect (I hope) they also tie Craig's movies to the old movies, maybe mentioning that he was married to Tracy Bond, etc..

 

I am OK with CR being both a reboot, and yet Daniel Craig Bond (starting with Skyfall) and future movies 24 & 25 etc..also tying the continuity to the old movies as well.  They can be BOTH reboot and old formal style SEQUELS.

 

 

If Casino Royale is a reboot (which it is, albeit a fairly weak one) that is meant to start everything back over at essentially be a "Bond Begins" type of film, then I don't see how it can be that subsequent movies featuring Craig Bond can be then tied back into the first 20 films.  None of those events have happened in this timeline.  Bond hasn't met and married Tracy, nor has he gone up against the likes of Goldfinger, Blofeld, etc.  Those are things that should be left in the past for the previous Bonds to have dealt with, and the future should be Craig and his successor(s) moving forward against new and original characters and being involved in capers and situations that are either Fleming-esque, actually derived from Fleming's unfilmed work (if/when appropriate or possible), or something completely original that suits the creative direction that the series happens to be in at the given time.  



#18 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 January 2014 - 05:52 AM

 

 

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"

 

I don't think it's so much that Judi Dench or the new M are the same person (and had sent JB to all the missions) I think it's more like just that James Bond is the same person throughout (in otherwords they aren't just throwing out the past 20 movies in the "reboot") that they consider CR a "reboot" but also that now that we have had that for a few years, in retrospect (I hope) they also tie Craig's movies to the old movies, maybe mentioning that he was married to Tracy Bond, etc..

 

I am OK with CR being both a reboot, and yet Daniel Craig Bond (starting with Skyfall) and future movies 24 & 25 etc..also tying the continuity to the old movies as well.  They can be BOTH reboot and old formal style SEQUELS.

 

 

If Casino Royale is a reboot (which it is, albeit a fairly weak one) that is meant to start everything back over at essentially be a "Bond Begins" type of film, then I don't see how it can be that subsequent movies featuring Craig Bond can be then tied back into the first 20 films.  None of those events have happened in this timeline.  Bond hasn't met and married Tracy, nor has he gone up against the likes of Goldfinger, Blofeld, etc.  Those are things that should be left in the past for the previous Bonds to have dealt with, and the future should be Craig and his successor(s) moving forward against new and original characters and being involved in capers and situations that are either Fleming-esque, actually derived from Fleming's unfilmed work (if/when appropriate or possible), or something completely original that suits the creative direction that the series happens to be in at the given time.  

 

 

Perfectly stated and agreed.



#19 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:46 PM

"This is a mystery." 

 

"It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

 

Anyone's guess really. It's deliberately left open to interpretation IMO. If it is a reboot what is Judi Dench doing there? If it is part of the Bond saga how could it be his first mission? 

 

But YES Craig's films are apart of the continuous continuity that is the Bond series.

Every actor's Bond is just his physical form in that present time but there are no alternate timelines like Star Trek or parallel dimensions.

 

When they introduced Craig they just capitalized on the reboot/prequel fad, taxes hold'em craze and by using a Fleming original.

 

Without a doubt the producers were trying seriously to find a way to squeeze an octagon fight in CR. Sellouts. 

 

Everything in CR regarding his first mission and new 00 status is only in regards to Bond's new physical form and this is not to be confused with the 'code name theory.'

 

BOND 24 not BOND 4!



#20 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:08 PM

I honestly never care (not anymore, at least) if a certain Bond film is a reboot. They're all part of the same saga, you always have the James Bond Theme, the same Q, M or Moneypenny (at least one of these) from the previous Bond actor, even when Bond actor changes.



#21 Gothamite

Gothamite

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 409 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:52 PM

Should we care?

 

Continuity has always been a bit of moving line in the film series, and in EON's defense, trying to impose continuity on a series that's 50 years old but chooses to always "live in the present" is nigh-impossible.

 

So long as everything in the series seems to "belong" I'm fine with continuity not hanging together.

 

My vote! No!

 

Absolutely agree. The Bond franchise isn't Star Trek.

 

It's the same reason I abhor the Codename Theory that keeps popping up on know-it-all pop culture sites. There's no point trying to draw lines between what happened in this film or that film. The only continuity I care about is the continuity that exists while a certain actor is playing the role. Everything beyond that is too troublesome to try and connect together, with opposing styles and levels of realism, not to mention the vastly different political climate that defines a number of the films (how could 'From Russia with Love' possibly exist in the same continuity as 'GoldenEye', etc).

 

For example, do you really want to 'believe' that Moonraker happened in the same fictional world as Casino Royale or Licence to Kill? Bond's an archetype, not a scientific equation.


Edited by Gothamite, 17 January 2014 - 07:53 PM.


#22 JSDude1

JSDude1

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 54 posts

Posted 18 January 2014 - 03:17 AM

 

 

 

 

 

For example, do you really want to 'believe' that Moonraker happened in the same fictional world as Casino Royale or Licence to Kill? Bond's an archetype, not a scientific equation.

 

 

Yes I can accept that possibility that the more realistic Bonds such as Casino Royale or License to Kill, For Your Eyes Only, From Russia With Love exist in the same fictional world as You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker and Die Another Day.  Afterall it's fiction...   

 

And though Star Trek did "reboot" their series as well (you can't very well have 70-80 year olds + plus half have now passed away) realistically make new ST movies, but they did connect it as a parallel world through Mr. Spock.  Not saying that the new reboot of Bond and the old continuity are parallel worlds, however they can be in the same "reality", it doesn't take away from the Bond movies, IMO.



#23 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 18 January 2014 - 05:51 AM

Adding on to what kaiserthegreat stated re: Batman
"Use continuity as a tool not a guide"

Denny O'Neil


If you want to believe Batman fought pink fuzzy aliens go ahead because those stories were written and published in the 1950's where all comic books were Popular as Sci-Fi.

Casino Royale/D. Craig stated a new era. References to past movies should be considered homages.
As I've said before if you bring back Blofeld you might as well bring back Tracy. But then the series becomes remakes not anything new.
Enjoy any movie as entertainment first, don't overthink it.

#24 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:32 AM

but there's various thing's that clash with it tying into the old films For instance meeting Felix for the first time in Both CR and Dr. No.

so it's like they want to wink at the audience and acknowledge those older films that we've seen, while at the same time Craig's-Bond Universe is clearly separate.

Michael G. Wilson even made a comment once that he views it as a 'series of series', that each actor basically has his own timeline. I don't particularly like that, and that's why I didn't like the reboot.



#25 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 20 January 2014 - 05:27 AM

Pre-Daniel Craig was all one series on a sliding time line.(Example; 5 years real-time equals 1 year "Bond-time") Similar to comics.

Sir Sean, George,Sir Roger,Tim,and Pierce were all the same 007 during different parts of his career.

George married Tracy,Sir Sean seeked revenge on Blofeld for her murder,Sir Roger visited her grave,Felix told Della "He was married once,a long time ago"Pierce can't answer Electra when she asks"Have you ever lost some one?"

Pierce tells Dame Judi " Your predecessor kept Brandy in the lower cabinet"



#26 Zen Razor

Zen Razor

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 87 posts
  • Location:Miami, FL

Posted 21 January 2014 - 01:54 AM

The Bond timeline is quite messed up at this point. As far as I am concerned it's the same character. At this moment all we can hope for is Sam Mendes to help clarify some more things in the few next Bond films.



#27 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 21 January 2014 - 11:24 PM

I don't think that there's really anything that Mendes needs to clarify in Bond 24, at least in terms of the overall timeline.  There really isn't anything convoluted about the current timeline that the franchise is operating within, as it's been a pretty logical progression from Casino Royale to Skyfall, even if there was quite a bit of time (unnecessarily) skipped between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall.  



#28 Zen Razor

Zen Razor

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 87 posts
  • Location:Miami, FL

Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:50 AM

That is right but I believe Mr.White is still alive. Also some people believe there are plotholes in Skyfall not any that I am aware of at the moment. This will surely lead to SPECTRE soon. It only makes sense for some backstory to touch upon the future of the films they can also be used as a stepping stone.



#29 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:15 AM

Silva mentions to Bond something about the 50 year old scotch being his favorite. Anyway that was a tip of the hat to those fans who know, the Craig films are a part of the continuity.



#30 JSDude1

JSDude1

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 54 posts

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:10 AM

I just finished watching (from the Bond 50 Collection) all the extras (yes ALL movies).

 

And I've got to say after watching I can understand the Producers' wish to reboot the franchise, however after having completed the extras on all the disks, especially the interviews with the producers/directors/writers, etc..  It became apparent to me that CR, QOS and SF aren't really "reboots" but prequels to the original movies..perhaps this is the new direction??