Theories as to why the series rebooted?

RC7

Perdogg wrote: »

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.

Is it more PC, or, as with every era, is it just holding a mirror up to the world around it? I don't see any attempt to make CR - SF politically correct, in fact I'd say Bond's actions in the shower scene with Severine debunk any idea that this Bond is PC. I'd be interested to know where the you feel it's pandering.

Matt007

IMO the reboot occured for several reasons

1.Marketing angle - how to increase a potential audience bums on seats. New Bond in a new story arc.

2. The general popularity of reboots. - many franchises have rebooted, largely becuase they have lost sight of their origins or have just become irrelevant

3. To distance itself from the mess that was DAD. - this film is hands down the low point of the series. A ridiculous, insecure mess from start to finish. Its almost an apology that this film exists, rightly so.

4. 9/11 - Brocolli says this herself in Everything of Nothing

5. The series had 20 entries at the time - an overdue reimagining of the series

6 they happened to be making Casino Royale - the first book whcih provides an opportunity to take Bond back to the beginning. Non of his other adventures had yet happened in the book, same with the film

I do think talk of reboot is overplayed though. Skyfall didnt feel like rebooted Bond to me

MajorDSmythe

I never thought Bond needed such a radical reboot (not so much as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but throwing out the entire house), even back in 2005, when I was optimistic for what was to come. In each film it's claimed that he will be 'the Bond we know and love' (yeah, that's a good one) by the end, yet in the next film, we have to sit through the learning curve all over again. Add to this, Craig just can't pull of the inexperienced, younger Bond. If EON wanted their younger, 20 something Bond, fine. That's would have worked for this Bond. But when they settled on the near 40 Craig, CR/Bond should have had an overhaul before shooting.

NicNac

I sort of agree with the Major here. Although we have differing opinions on Craig himself the actual idea of the rookie 00 seemed unnecessary especially considering Craig's age.
And I don't think that neutral non-Bond fans ever particularly bothered whether Bond was a rookie or experienced. That point was never properly explored. M made comments about his inexperience but it never really felt like Bond was a rookie. In the free running scenes it looks like Bond is in charge of the operation and the other bumbling agent who touches his ear, is the rookie.
Getting Solange killed was not inexperience - Bond gets at least one girl killed in every film.
He blows up an embassy? Brosnan's Bond blew up half the world.

No, I agree with Craig's casting but see no real gain in a re-boot.

RC7

NicNac wrote: »

M made comments about his inexperience but it never really felt like Bond was a rookie. In the free running scenes it looks like Bond is in charge of the operation and the other bumbling agent who touches his ear, is the rookie.

The whole free-running scene is to set up the idea that Bond is essentially a bit of a wrecking ball, from here they explore the idea of refining the character and smoothing the edges. By the final scene he's cool as a cucumber when visiting White. I think this was more the trajectory they were going for, rather than him being explicitly a 'rookie' who becomes a 'pro'. It's more about him becoming 'Bond'.

bondjames

I agree as well. From the opening scene in Prague sitting in the chair, rookie Craig Bond seems far more assured and experienced to me (despite only 1 kill prior to Dryden) than Brosnan's Bond did despite all his blazing machine guns. He never comes across as a rookie/uncertain, except when naked in the chair while being tortured by LeChiffre - and I think anyone would at this point. Craig is just too confident an actor on screen.

Certainly the hard reboot was technically not necessary. They could just as easily have done an FYEO/GE or even TLD type soft reboot when going to a new Bond after DAD. I was always personally concerned about the whole hard reboot thing for Bond given such a long history in cinema.

Having said that, the reboot (and the chance to make CR) is probably what brought Craig along for the ride (since he probably saw an opportunity to mold the character, provide some depth and show maturation over time). Certainly Craig in CR is one of the most sublime performances I've ever seen in the spy genre.

Hopefully with SP we see the full realization of mature James Bond on screen as may have been intended by DC & BB at the start.

Shardlake

If Bond had carried down the path it was taking with the PB era it would have died not long after, we as fans can say it wasn't necessary but we are looking at these films far with too much in detail, the general public couldn't give a stuff for a good majority of what some of you are criticising.

Let face it the series is more successful than it has been in decades, SPECTRE is at last playing in the same sand box as big budget billion dollar grossing series. Yes you might not like it's tone and despise SF but it was a huge resounding success so their reasons for doing it aren't foolish.

I didn't like the PB era and Brosnan's casting but I can't say they made a mistake because he was a very successful Bond for his tenure it's just that trajectory continued would shown Bond up to be so dated and not relevant anymore. The reboot was very necessary, the results your personal opinions aside speak for themselves.