It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I agree. They tried to create an overarching story about his character and have failed miserably. CR was supposed to be an origin story with Bond being Bond at the end. QoS screwed that up by continuing an origin story, and SF tried to do a whole new "Bond becoming Bond" story. SP was the first time Craig was actually Bond, and they even screwed that up to a degree.
People criticize SP for following the formula too closely, but I noticed the biggest flaws in SP happened every time they tried to subvert the formula. The lame love story, the step-brother thing, and the ending where we see Bond willfully choosing not to kill the villain, are the only times the film goes against the formula, and are its biggest mistakes.
Film-Bond needs to do Film-Bond.
@BMW_with_missiles thanks for doing the nuanced and detailed part for me :D
That's why I, like others, am hoping they strip it back to basics for B25.
An angry Bond (Craig does that best), a minimal M and Moneypenny, and maybe Q in the field. Loose remake of LTK, anyone?
In that case, I think its better to just recast.
I think the next Bond film could end up reflecting this new trend, in the film itself (I mean we're already halfway there with Spectre, the foster brother angle was really downplayed) and with the choice of director (John Wick and Fury Road were action films directed by people with experience in action films, not "auteurs" having a go at revitalizing and/or deconstructing a popular character).
I wouldn't go that far but I do understand your frustration. One of the main issue's I have with Craig's first three is that they all essentially have the same ending. Him "becoming" Bond. It was frustrating that we kept getting endings signifying the end of the origin story and then found him back to square one with some new trust/personal issue to overcome by the beginning of the next film.
Personally though I liked how he developed over the course of the films. It was clear that they were making it up as they were going along but I really like how they showed him developing from a real, vulnerable, Flemingesque Bond into the cinematic superman Connery/Moore/Brosnan Bond, while at the same time examining the effect that'd have on a persons psyche (I thought this was particularly well done in SP, with it exploring how desensitized to killing he is, and the callbacks to CR highlighted this even more).
In SF it was a bit jarring how he was suddenly a whole new character but in SP (which really deserves more credit for its writing imo), they essentially turned this into a plot point.
I agree that SP is a bit confused but I still feel this is even more the case with SF.
With SF, I think it was an all out Craig style character drama. A bit light on the action, but heavy on the feelings and personalities. I don't think they straddled with SF.
I just hope, whatever direction they choose to take with B25, that they are consistent in theme and conception. Go all in.
That's sounds so refreshing at the moment.
There has been only one reboot.
Two in my head canon.
Sean, George and Roger are one long continuity. Tim and Pierce are a second continuity. And Daniel is a new one. Two reboots.
Yep!
Dalton's link to Tracy is pretty clear.
However, at the end of the day, I recognize what the films themselves recognize as the only two existing timelines: DN-DAD and CR-?
(I will say, however, that Skyfall throws a small wrench into things with its very blatant nod to the Goldfinger Aston Martin, but I'm willing to recognize that as simply a very small and very misguided bit of "fan" service—fan being singular and referring to Mendes himself.)
So does Pierce, They had Tracy in their continuity's too we just didn't see it.
Or, all the actors are playing the same character, James Bond. See also Felix Leiter, Blofeld, etc.
Recasting does not mean reboot. Plus, the concept of reboot was fairly uncommon until the 2000s (Batman, Bond, Spiderman).
Reboots happened a lot before the term became popular. It doesn't matter anyway because it's just what "I" think. It's my headcanon. I say there were two reboots, you don't. It's all just opinion's anyway.
Dalton or Pierce certainly didn't start a reboot.
While CR kind of did it was taken ad absurdum the moment Dench appeared. And no, I don't take the claim she played two different Ms seriously, Furthermore the DB5 etc.
CR was kind of Bond Begins and only because of the story. It is still the same James Bond.
People are reading way too much into it.
24 films, all linked together all with continuity problems, some of them on purpose.
That doesn't mean it's the same Tracy, in the same timeline as Lazenby. Two, or more, different timelines can contain the same characters.
Brosnan's M is not Craig's M even though she is played by the same actress. Theoretically, if they were to do a one off with Pierce, Judy Dench could return as M because THAT M was not killed in that timeline.
I'm with Murdock; there are timelines and I tend to group them by the ages of the actors.
Sorry, I can't agree with this perspective, Jason. Casino Royale undeniably begins a new timeline. We see Bond receive his 00 status and set out on his first mission and no Tracy exists in this timeline—nor Blofeld until he reveals himself to Bond in SPECTRE. Craig is not the same Bond whom we saw in Dr. No, OHMSS, Live & Let Die, and Die Another Day. As for Judi Dench playing two different M's, this interpretation is more a matter of necessecity because they are so clearly two different timelines, but is actually backed by the fact that the M she plays in Brosnan's films and the M she plays in Craig's films have two very different demeanors.