64 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

I like how everyone was up in arms cause each Bond was a personal issue and once they get to a more classic Bond everyone is screaming again.

 

To be fair 00 - this one was personal too. For the other fella.......

[stromberg]

Reboots every 20 movies.




It is written.

 

Nothing is written.

 

 

 

[Dustin]

I'm not a friend of another reboot anytime soon. What would be the use, other than just saying 'look, we did it again?' You can produce a great Bond film without setting all dials to zero; in turn just starting with a clean slate is no guarantee the product turns out any better the n-th iteration. I think a successful reboot also needs the right timing. And for now I personally don't see the necessity.

[glidrose]

Nothing is written.
 

Wow, that is one pristine 4k restoration job done on The Living Daylights. Funny, I don't remember that shot. Is it a deleted scene?

[tdalton]

I'm not a friend of another reboot anytime soon. What would be the use, other than just saying 'look, we did it again?' You can produce a great Bond film without setting all dials to zero; in turn just starting with a clean slate is no guarantee the product turns out any better the n-th iteration. I think a successful reboot also needs the right timing. And for now I personally don't see the necessity.

I think if they came up with a great idea for one and then had the foresight to actually plot out where they wanted to go with the actor's tenure, then I might be OK with a reboot, if only because they've botched this current reboot so badly. But, short of that, I don't want to see another reboot. The best option would be to simply pick up with the new guy in either Bond 25 or Bond 26 and basically pretend that the Craig films didn't happen, but not go back all the way to the start. Maybe introduce some new villainous organization for him to deal with and let everything unfold from there, but whatever it is it shouldn't have anything to do with Craig's tenure in any way, aside from perhaps a similar serious tone and aspirations of a higher quality film from what came in the first 20 films.

[Mike00spy]

I like how everyone was up in arms cause each Bond was a personal issue and once they get to a more classic Bond everyone is screaming again.

To be fair 00 - this one was personal too. For the other fella.......

Bond does get his mission from M after all...

[Tiin007]

 

I'm not a friend of another reboot anytime soon. What would be the use, other than just saying 'look, we did it again?' You can produce a great Bond film without setting all dials to zero; in turn just starting with a clean slate is no guarantee the product turns out any better the n-th iteration. I think a successful reboot also needs the right timing. And for now I personally don't see the necessity.

I think if they came up with a great idea for one and then had the foresight to actually plot out where they wanted to go with the actor's tenure, then I might be OK with a reboot, if only because they've botched this current reboot so badly. But, short of that, I don't want to see another reboot. The best option would be to simply pick up with the new guy in either Bond 25 or Bond 26 and basically pretend that the Craig films didn't happen, but not go back all the way to the start. Maybe introduce some new villainous organization for him to deal with and let everything unfold from there, but whatever it is it shouldn't have anything to do with Craig's tenure in any way, aside from perhaps a similar serious tone and aspirations of a higher quality film from what came in the first 20 films.

 

 

In your view, then, should Fiennes, Harris, and Whishaw continue without Craig?

[byline]

In your view, then, should Fiennes, Harris, and Whishaw continue without Craig?

I would have no problem with that. After all, Judi Dench's M continued on when Craig took over from Brosnan. Not saying it was a universally popular casting decision, but it worked for me.

[tdalton]

They can, and should, keep Fiennes on board. As for Q and Moneypenny, I'd rather see the characters phased out of the franchise.

[Tarl_Cabot]

We don't need a reboot for a long long time. What we need is a trilogy of sequels to Spectre. After all, Blofeld is back. Captured? So what? He's friggin Blofeld so he will escape and he will probably kill Madeline Swan-Bond. I want more Waltz Blofeld. His story has just began. Bond will go away for a while to play house but he'll be back-it's in his blood to "thrive on conflict". I don't get the hate for this movie. I thought it was fantastic.

They can, and should, keep Fiennes on board. As for Q and Moneypenny, I'd rather see the characters phased out of the franchise.

I've never liked these two more now than ever before. I didn't miss them in 06-08 but now they're part of Bond's work family forever. The new Q has really grown on me. Moneypenny has her own life and  a skill set that makes her an asset.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Back to the days of David Niven as Bond? SIGN ME UP!

(Sorry... I saw the title of the thread and it was the first 'Casino Royale' that came to mind at that moment)

 

http://instantrimsho.../?sound=rimshot

 

Enough with the reboots. That's all.

 

Agreed. Whenever the next Bond actor takes over, I want him to continue as if he's playing the same Bond character as Craig's Bond much like Lazenby and Moore were supposedly playing the same Bond character as Connery's Bond.

[Professor Pi]

 When Craig comes back (note, not if), I'd like his last film to end ala YOLT or FRWL novels, perhaps even killing this iteration of the character off.  Then just have a new actor, but same supporting cast (they've done a good job updating Moneypenny and Q) with one off missions.

 

I doubt Dawn of Justice is going to retell Batman's origins.  They'll just have him there because we already know the character.  I would like to see more of Bond's origins in the navy (that could be a flashback), but enough of the childhood psychodrama.

[casinoroyale75]

I don't think they'll ever kill Bond off in a movie. It would be horrible if they did. When a "new" Bond character showed up in a flim, people would say "isn't he dead?" I don't think it's plausible with a generational role (I would hate to see it any rate).

 

With reboot, I wasn't very clear: meaning that Craig keeps the demeanor/tone from Casino through all his flims. I don't think Connery was very different in any of his canon Bond flims, and really not much different in NSNA.

 

My point is: I think the wide variation from CR to SP (in Craig's demeanor) has gone from cold blooded "blunt instrument" to points of borderline parody in Skyfall and Spectre (way more so in the latter).

 

Also for example (if you're a Trek fan), James T. Kirk's character had the same tone in all the original Trek films.

[bill007]

Why did the Casino Royale re-boot occur in the 1st place?  Because EON obtained the rights to it.  The time was ripe to start over.

 

And now that EON has the right to use SPECTRE, the cycle is complete.

 

No more re-boots please.  For a while at least.

 

Carry on........

 

 

 

 

.....with Rupert Friend taking the reins after Craig.

[JSDude1]

I'd like to add that I DON'T EVER want them to definitively kill off James Bond in any of his movies.  Please no,  this is one person (Character) supposedly (though I know most likely in two continuities after CR- though I still hold somewhat to the "prequel theory" that places Craig's Bond before DN, etc..).

[B5Erik]

 

I'm all for a dynamic character, but the Bond of CR is a far cry from the Bond of SP. Agree with Coco1997, definitely sensing a feel of the latter Connery movies. If there is one movie Spectre seemed like, or reminded me of, I would go with "Never Say Never Again." There was a special here in the U.S. on Encore (I believe), and Craig said he felt the need to go more Moore style "gags," because they felt that's what people wanted. Turning Craig into Roger Moore 2.0, or older version Bond of Connery is a horrific idea. Daniel Craig needs to be his "own" Bond. Not an assimilation of Bond's past. I bet Martin Campbell (if he's honest) doesn't like the direction they're going. Maybe the critical response will cause a course change back toward CR waters?

 

The negative critical reaction towards SPECTRE has had very little to do with the 'tone,' though. Most of the criticism I've read has been directed at the pacing and basic premise of the film.

 

People have been clamoring for the films to "lighten up" ever since CASINO ROYALE. I don't think that necessarily means Joe Q Public wants the series to return to the slapstick-style comedy of some of the Moore and Brosnan films. There was always a sharp wit and cleverness about the humor employed in the Connery films (and even in some of the Moore films) and that's what the next Craig film (and future films in the franchise) should aim for.

 

Absolutely.  I've been saying for over a decade that they need to find a balance between the Craig era seriousness and the Moore era silliness.  The early Connery movies are a pretty good template to follow in that regard (up through Thunderball).  Maybe make them just a tad more serious, but not much.  Keep that sense of fun, but make sure everyone is taking the movie seriously.

 

No reboot required.

[AMC Hornet]

... I still hold somewhat to the "prequel theory" that places Craig's Bond before DN, etc..).

 

Then they can't 'wrap' back until after the next actor is issued a Beretta for a few films.

 

Remember in Dr. No Connery - at the ripe old age of 32 - said he'd been using a Beretta for ten years.

 

Which means CraigBond can't be much more than twenty now, which means he was eleven in CR.

 

Yes, the 'prequel' theory definitely holds water - I can't wait for the Sony Vaio to be superseded by the much more sophisticated Lektor.

[Dustin]

I suppose if you are willing to ignore a certain amount of illogical facts throughout the films you can still somehow fit it all into one - rather flexible, I admit - 007-World that just transforms a bit with time. It was already a stretch to believe Dalton's character was the same who, a couple of years earlier, went with a private space shuttle to a private space station and saved humanity from a planet-wide genocide. In turn you had to swallow a bit how Moore's character only a couple of years earlier was supposedly involved into a pretty low-key espionage plot that had, from an intelligence point-of-view, no point or gain whatsoever. For if the Russians knew someone has stolen their encryption machine they wouldn't waste even low-level players on getting it back. They'd simply switch to another system, end of story.*


*For the same reason the plot in the book is pretty ludicrous. The point is not whether a Russian cypher clerk is able to offer the Secret Service a Lektor cypher model in exchange for Bond's personal attention. The difficulty is to do it without the Russians noticing it. Nobody in the book gives this even a passing thought - because in Bond's world nobody is concerned with intelligence work. If things were different M certainly wouldn't send Bond to Istanbul, thus giving the Russians already a good hint who is going to take their property. Another explanation would be that M, in the distant past, went to Cambridge...

[FlemingBond]

the beretta comment i never took to mean much. who said he didn't have a beretta before he was a 00?

are the movies varied in their realism? sure , but they also overlap. Moore did some realistic and less realistic ones.So did Connery with DAF. 

So they reboot, yet just a couple films later they are wanting to reference Bond history again. Even in Spectre Q says he told CraigBond to bring the DB5 back in one piece, when we know this Q is relatively new and did not issue that car.

that's kind of thing why i never wanted to see them wipe the slate clean. it leads to stuff that makes no sense.

[AMC Hornet]

Like this thread, for instance.

[Professor Pi]

They will probably retool rather than reboot. 

 

I was thinking about this the other day...EON has sort of done baby reboots since 1987.  Dalton got a new Moneypenny.  Brosnan got a new M, new Bill Tanner, and a new Moneypenny.  Craig got a new M (but played by the same actress), and a new Felix Leiter, new Bill Tanner, then a new Q and a new Moneypenny, and finally another M.  The next actor should play the same Bond and hopefully they'll keep the same "team", and Bond 7 can follow Craig's Bond the way Moore played the same character as Connery.

 

Unless they cast Idris Elba!

[FlemingBond]

Dalton's Moneypenny was meant to be the same character thour. And a new M wasn't a reboot, just a new character. They showed BrosnanBond had been around for quite  a while with the PTS 9 years earlier.

[Professor Pi]

My point was EON was flirting with changes but didn't take the full plunge rebooting until 2006.  I take the "PTS 9 years earlier" as Martin Campbell's attempt to wipe out the Timothy Dalton era, though it was a fun in-joke to Brosnan's original casting.

[AMC Hornet]

Why do some people say that? I see nothing in GE's PTS to suggest Campbell was tryng to 'wipe out' Dalton's contributions.

 

Perhaps he should have brought Dalton back for the PTS, then introduced Brosnan after the titles? Never mind that Dalton would have looked six years older than he did in LTK. It was enough of a stretch that Brosnan didn't look a day older after nine years.

[Professor Pi]

It's also what M says to Bond about not going off on a mission of personal vengeance.  "Never."  Campbell was also highly critical of Licence to Kill and where Bond movies had gone in numerous press interviews.

[tdalton]

It doesn't require much of a leap to think that it might have been, even if just on some subconscious level, an attempt by Campbell to "erase" Dalton's films. I don't think the 9 years is a coincidence, as going back that length of time from 1995 takes you back to the time when the whole Dalton/Brosnan and Remington Steele thing went down. They could have picked any other length of time, but chose one that reached back to the time when Dalton took the role from Brosnan.

Couple that with the fact that Campbell was on record as not being a fan of Dalton's Bond, and it doesn't take much of a leap to come to that conclusion.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

... And then, some people insist on arguing things like Craig's Bond (of course, including Campbell's CR) was based on Dalton's.

[agentbug]

I'm sick of hearing the word 'reboot'.

[graric]

... And then, some people insist on arguing things like Craig's Bond (of course, including Campbell's CR) was based on Dalton's.

 

Well in the 10 years since Goldeneye the Dalton had improved considerably in public perception, and action cinema was moving more towards serious and realistic fair, so it'd make more sense to be more complimentary towards the Dalton era than it would have been at the time of Goldeneye (when the series looked like it was on its last legs, with the underperformance of the Dalton films being seen as one key reason for this.)

(Off hand I can't remember if Martin Campbell ever talked about the Dalton films in relation to CR, but I definetly remember comments from MGW talking about the tone of the Dalton films and how they and CR are closer to 'Fleming's works.' And they even have a clip of MGW on the CR dvd talking about how Living Daylight's was going to be a reboot at one point, when discussing the history of CR. So there was definetly a concious effort by some people in the production of CR to create a link between it and the Dalton films, even if Campbell adn Craig were not remotley inspired by th

[Double-Oh Agent]

Why do some people say that? I see nothing in GE's PTS to suggest Campbell was tryng to 'wipe out' Dalton's contributions.

 

Perhaps he should have brought Dalton back for the PTS, then introduced Brosnan after the titles? Never mind that Dalton would have looked six years older than he did in LTK. It was enough of a stretch that Brosnan didn't look a day older after nine years.

I agree. I see the PTS being set nine years previously in 1986 as an in-joke dating back to when Pierce Brosnan was originally hired for the 007 role. Additionally--and more likely--it solidly puts the mission where it would still be in the heart of the Cold War. Three years later and the Berlin Wall came down--effectively ending the Cold War and smoothing the relationship between Russia and the West--a time which would have dramatically lessened the impact of the PTS had it been set then.

 

So to reiterate, the European rejection of Communism was already happening by the time Timothy Dalton's last film, Licence To Kill, came out in 1989. And to have the PTS after that point wouldn't have worked because Russia was no longer the Big Bad it had previously been. Besides, Dalton was still the Bond on record until 1994 so technically putting the PTS from '89-'94 would have officially overlapped Dalton's tenure anyway.

 

I can understand why some Dalton fans get a little irked at the supposed idea of Brosnan's PTS wiping out their man's tenure, but I don't see any negative intentions behind it. EON never erased On Her Majesty's Secret Service from existence and they didn't do it to Dalton's tenure either. It's just a little something for conspiracy theorists to go to town on.