Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Theories as to why the series rebooted?
While the franchise's reboot may have given us QOS, it also gave us, in my opinion, two excellent Bond films, in the form of CR and SF. Here, we'll discuss some theories regarding why the series decided to start fresh in 2006. I've added two theories below:
1. The series was going downhill
I haven't seen any of the Brosnan films (except GE) in ages, so I can't really give my opinion on them, but they did receive pretty mixed to negative reviews. That's three films in a row, and the absurdity and camp peaked with DAD. I don't think there's ever been a larger period in which multiple, consecutive Bond films have received mediocre reviews. Perhaps Eon decided that the franchise was beyond saving and needed reboot to save itself?
2. Bourne was the new Bond
I remember reading this in a magazine once. A movie critic was talking about one of the first two Bourne films, saying something along the lines of, '...even Bond was forced to reboot'. I've seen the original Bourne trilogy, and they are, in my opinion, great action thrillers, although they are quite serious films and portray more fast-paced and realistic thrills and action, whereas the Bond films have been more about entertainment and fun. I mean, Casino Royale was much more realistic and serious, but it is still a very entertaining film, thanks to great action and writing. I think I would label Casino Royale as more of an action-thriller, rather than simply an action film, but I digress.
What are your theories as to why the series rebooted? What do you think of the above two theories?
1. The series was going downhill
I haven't seen any of the Brosnan films (except GE) in ages, so I can't really give my opinion on them, but they did receive pretty mixed to negative reviews. That's three films in a row, and the absurdity and camp peaked with DAD. I don't think there's ever been a larger period in which multiple, consecutive Bond films have received mediocre reviews. Perhaps Eon decided that the franchise was beyond saving and needed reboot to save itself?
2. Bourne was the new Bond
I remember reading this in a magazine once. A movie critic was talking about one of the first two Bourne films, saying something along the lines of, '...even Bond was forced to reboot'. I've seen the original Bourne trilogy, and they are, in my opinion, great action thrillers, although they are quite serious films and portray more fast-paced and realistic thrills and action, whereas the Bond films have been more about entertainment and fun. I mean, Casino Royale was much more realistic and serious, but it is still a very entertaining film, thanks to great action and writing. I think I would label Casino Royale as more of an action-thriller, rather than simply an action film, but I digress.
What are your theories as to why the series rebooted? What do you think of the above two theories?
^ 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
All that talk about finally having the rights to the first Bond novel doesn´t justify an "origin" story, because there is no clear hint in the novel that it is Bond´s first job as a double-oh. And anyhow, it was only half of a re-boot, even considering my opinion that Dench plays another person in the Craig films than she did in the Brosnan films. Not to mention that Craig looks older in CR than Brosnan does in GE ;-).
With or without Brosnan, they would have made a more grounded film anyhow after DAD. That has always been the case with Bond films, that they built up over the course of several movies and got bigger and bigger and more unrealistic, and then they went into the opposite direction and were more grounded.
I don´t recall there being any hints that the series was going downhill, except maybe for some internet forums. And I think in the 80s the period of mixed reviews was at least as intensive as in the 90s, but financially the 90s turned out much more successful.
There was a certain indecision visible during the Brosnan era as to where Bond should go, both the character and the films. But that hasn´t really changed with Craig. For instance, Bond is new at his job in CR and QOS, and then one film later, there are all of a sudden hints that he might be at it for a long time and that he might be getting old.
When I think about it, GE was at least as much a re-boot as CR, because it changed a lot in the franchise. Bond´s character changed, M and MP changed, and even more so Bond´s relationship with them, the films on the whole got more about blowing things up, and the whole visual identity of Bond films changed considerably.
But in 1994, the term re-boot hadn´t been made fashionable for films yet. That started with the first rumours of the Batman and Superman franchises being re-structured, I think some five years later.
Similarly, the Bourne films weren´t necessarily better than the Bond films, but clever marketing made terms like "gritty" and "realistic" very fashionable, regardless of how realistic anything in the Bourne films really may or may not be. If you directly compare MR and FYEO, you could very well apply the terms gritty and realistic to the latter. But in 1980, those terms weren´t as fashionable as they were in 2006.
IMHO it would make sense to leave the quality of the films out of this, because otherwise this could quickly turn into a debate about the quality of the films (I for instance think of QOS as highly as of the other two films), which I´m sure isn´t your intention, @ELL1P515 ;-).
With stand alone entries, if there is a poorly received outing, you can simply change directions with little issue. The added continuity has certainly made the Craig run an interesting ride. I would hope once Craig hangs up his Walther, they abandon the continuity with the next actor. You can leave in references like Vesper dying, as they did with Tracy, but it shouldn't have enough connection to be considered a sequel IMO.
I also have the unpopular belief that Craig is not a reboot in the true sense of the word even if the producers have confirmed. I consider the Craig films as somewhat of a prequel and since the first 20 films had such little emphasis on continuity, you can fit them all in a timeline if you really wish.
Having said that, I also believe that there was a quiet majority (and I count myself among those) who felt the series had lost its way more so in the 90's compared to the 80's. While the 80's was not the most successful decade for Bond, we did get two of the most inventive and daring Bond movies (TLD/LTK) with Dalton, and one of the era's most entertaining (OP) with Moore. Those were real Bond films, although they veered towards either side of the spectrum (very serious to very campy/fun/escapism).
I personally felt that the essence was lost in the 90's - it became pastiche and cliche. I've pondered over it and I think it's on account of the loss of Cubby, and BB feeling her way around, as well as the American leaning MGW making a mess of it. I also feel that EON was more focused on just making money at this point because of studio troubles (i.e. MGM). I'm sure they knew they were putting out junk for the masses.
So I think a reboot was inevitable and well needed - but I agree that the success of Batman Begins and Bourne were the actual catalysts to get the notoriously conservative EON to move forward with a new vision under a more experienced, confident & mature BB with Sony backing.
Each new Bond actor is a reboot. The scripts will be tweaked to fit the actor. Hopefully we won't see someone in the style of Hugh Grant playing the next Bond.
Personally I think the reboot was a pointless idea and done terribly, but what's done is done.
CR could just as easily have been used as a vehicle to introduce a fresh young Bond actor.
Soft reboot much like GE or even TLD.
The contrived origins angle, also noticeably absent from the source novel, was a waste of time, and not interesting at all IMO.
I agree with the Austin Powers theory, connected with Bourne. It is no coincidence that Goldmember and Bourne Identity were both released in 2002, the same year that Brosnan last starred as Bond.
Back to the reason for the reboot, I stand by the view that BB privately knew things were falling apart creatively despite the commercial successes of the 90's. I just think she did not know how to make Bond more serious/realistic and still keep it financially successful or sell it to the studio (the commercial failure of LTK cast a long shadow). She needed a catalyst to nudge the studio goofs forward & that came with both the success of Bourne in particular, and the reboot craze, both alluded to by @Boldfinger above. They now had their template of how to do this in a contemporary way and yet be palatable to the money men. It worked thank goodness, and the rest is history.
I don't see how the Austin Powers films served to remind us of just the Roger Moore Bond films (and Brosnan films), since the a lot of the elements in the AP films are derived from the Connery era (Goldmember, Dr. Evil etc.). The AP films served to parody the whole series- let's not just single out the RM films.
Agree with this too. I will add a fourth player for the reboot: DAD itself. Never in the history of Bond did they go that far in scifi. Not even in MR, not even in YOLT. And DAD was even more of a spoof of itself than DAF. It was, in essence, Bond's Batman & Robin.
I know that DAD always gets a lot of bitching, but none of the movies in the franchise sunk as low as Batman & Robin or Superman IV, and throwing them in the same bin is kind of daft and childish.
DAD's ending was as daft as the bloody sinking house in CR or the lame ending of SF both were also contrived by poor writers.
And yes, of course the Batman / Bourne thing must have inspired them too - it must have encouraged them to go minimalistic. However, I'm not sure I can blame the producers for stealing other people's ideas. After all,
- OHMSS had dropped the gadgets for the most part and found a different dramatic angle;
- FYEO aged its target demographic by about 20 years compared to MR;
- GE shifted some things around, establishing a slightly new universe in which Bond would henceforth operate;
...
CR may be the most radical "reboot" to date, but I sense there had been a desire to do so quite a few times in the past. The main difference is they clung more tightly to their formula back then, clearly fearing the wrath of fans if they altered too many things. But with audiences more sophisticated and better trained in accepting the proverbial 'turning over a new leaf', now was the time to purge the series.
Since 2006, I have read people's comments about how 'bad' it is that Bond 'simply mimicked' the Nolan Batman or the Bourne series. That ain't a bad thing; that's a smart thing! They wanted to do this and now, finally, they saw an opportunity. So what if Bond jumped on a wagon that others had pulled into motion? Of all those "reboots" or "gritty films", CR might very well be the best! We should be proud. And for those who want Bond to do things first, well, he kinda did it, only in a time when audiences and especially critics were too ignorant to notice the brilliance.
DAD was comparatively Bond's B&R. The villains were not as much of a caricature than in B&R, but not by much. CR did not have a villain spouting bad one liners and wearing a RoboCop suit. And the last scenes of CR and SF may not have been to your taste, but again they didn't have a stupid catfight... or a villain in a RoboCop suit spouting bad one liners.
The ending of CR showed a lack of trust in the ability of Craigs & Greens acting skills and we got instead a repeat of DADs OTT stupid ending. Where in DAD more could have been done with the son killing the father, a dramatic key they could have done a lot more with than they did. So CR in the end was not such a big step away from the Brosnan era as everybody would like to.
SF's ending with the fight at the OK corral excuse me Skyfall when a parody of a strong villain from the first time we saw him attacks with a big helicopter including the big apocalypse now music and then a small army gets annihilated by 007, an old gamekeeper & M. And the villain really going batty and poorly written, the paranormal powers he developed during the movie must have gotten to him.
Accept it most 007 movies have got their impossibilities with SF going paranormal with Silva's powers and with a rather terminator 007 that cannot be killed or stopped.
I find Craigs era too full of itself while forgetting to make a half decent spy thriller which started well enough with CR. In QoB they just lacked a decent script, decent director and decent editor. And SF was great until Adele finished singing.
I give you the invisible car it was totaly daft, somebody thought it would be laugh and they did it. They should have had an ejector seat in that boardroom.
Just like somebody thought hey wouldn't it be cool to derail an underground train and the hell with any logic as why that should happen. It looks cool so lets do it.
I do not mind the reboot at the beginning of each new 007 performer, even if I must admit that Dalton is perhaps the only one who got no reboot but started as younger Roger Moore.
And ignore all the other stuff so you can blame the Brosnan era, so far the Craig era is proving that it is different but it has the same faults you keep complaining about in DAD. Only the pretentiousness has grown these last few movies.
As I said earlier, I think the LTK experience really burned them - they wanted to go in that direction (i.e. serious and more Fleming based) for some time, but they just couldn't sell it. So they went in the opposite direction to make a buck and the movies got sillier and sillier.
When they saw the industry tide was going towards "hard" reboots they decided to go for it. Coincidentally, the timing fit well with the purchase of the CR rights.
Actually no, it does not have the same faults as DAD. Call me pretentious all you want. I was a fan of Brosnan when he became Bond, I consider GE to be one of the best Bond movies. But if you put on the same level a common trope in an action movie with an invisible car or a virtual reality program that also does virtual sex... Well, what can I say? We have a different definition of daft.
DAD was the result of bad decisions, of an route that the franchise took before. I think they had struck a balance with GE that they tried to emulate, without success. Again, it is not the only reason of the reboot, but it did play a role.
I think Moore had his challenges, but I cannot imagine Craig telling Bibi Dahl to put her clothes on and to behave herself. I certainly do not want a Bond who dresses up as a woman on IWD. I cannot imagine Connery or Moore looking like Lady Gaga in a black ski outfit where the least expensive accessory is the HK VP9. This is not Craig's fault, I liked him in Dream House. Please, I am not challenging DC sexuality, it is the "Nuovo Bond" as decreed by EON.
I do not think EON has carried on the family business well. CR was supposed to get Bond back to his roots (like Dalton's TLD and LTK) but it seems they are wavering a bit. Nothing I have seen in Craig era is "back to the roots", in fact, it is more PC as ever.
I want to see Henry Cavill as Bond, I am wondering if the Man From U.N.C.L.E. is really a retro-Bond in disguised. The Urquhart plaid suits and cool 60s retro-haze, with a bevy of beautiful women and pro-male sexuality. I think with the popularity of Mad Men and many women who have voted with their pocket books for the “Fifty shades series”, if a 60s style Bond reboot would work despite what EON would say about it.
One important point needs to be understood: the general public does not care a whit about the continuity of the Bond series. They want one thing only: an enjoyable night at the movies. The more they enjoy themselves, the more they’ll urge their friends to go see the current Bond adventure, and the better chance we have for the Bond series to continue. Period. They don’t care a bit if SF follows hard on the heels of QoS or if it takes place a dozen years later in “Bond continuity.” The only people who care about this sort of thing, and whether CR represents a “hard” or a “soft” reboot are the fans, that is to say: us. But Eon DOES NOT MAKE THE BOND FILMS FOR US. They make them for the general public. If it makes the general public stand up & applaud to put the classic Aston Martin with ejector seat into the middle of SF then that’s what they’re going to do, despite the fact that it makes half the fan population apoplectic. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way these things are. Eon has always played fast and loose with continuity. We came to accept that fact long ago. I’d place that particular revelation at the beginning of DAF, when Connery’s Bond showed no particular animus for the man who’d killed his (or rather, Lazenby’s) wife in the previous film. You may place it sooner, or later, in the series, but let's be truthful here: we've known it for quite some time. Eon only cares about continuity when it suits their purpose, and when it doesn't, then continuity be damned.
Now then, that said: I suspect there were several reasons for the hard reboot of CR (and Craig’s entry to the series) at that particular moment, many of which have been touched upon already. One of them is the availability of CR for adaptation at that time and not an hour sooner. No, CR the novel did not give any indication at all that it was Bond’s first adventure, quite the contrary. But even the general public was vaguely aware that CR is the first Fleming Bond novel and at that point the only one that hadn’t been adapted into the legitimate Bond film series. Additionally, after 2001 and the terrorist action on 9/11 of that year, a light Bond in the style of MR simply wasn’t what the public wanted to see. They wanted to see the terrorists pay, and pay in spades. DAD had been all but completed at that point in time, the public understood that and made allowances…but I don’t think anybody was really happy with DAD, least of all Eon. So at that point the time was ripe, not just for an attitude adjustment (Bond had already done that several times over the course of the series) but a wholesale revamping of the series including a new leading man and a total absence of the character last played by John Cleese.
There are a few more points I’d like to bring up on the entire topic of reboots…but those can “live another day…”
Yes, I wonder if UNCLE might be retro-Bond in disguise.
I'd agree with this actually. Spy fiction but not action movies.