Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Has the Bond series actually 'rebooted' itself 3 times?
I know that series has evolved immensely over the years, but I was thinking the other day but how there are actually 3 clear points where EON consciously ‘rebooted’ the Bond films.
Firstly, I feel it is important to define the term ‘reboot’. In our modern lexicon it typically refers to a film series doing away with any previous continuity in a deliberate attempt to start anew. The whole concept of a ‘reboot’ is really new device which has been perpetuated by Hollywood so they can revive dormant IP by giving old properties a new lick of paint.
For our purposes, I feel it’s important that we only loosely use the term and define it at each interval.
The Original Series: I feel this runs throughout the Connery/Lazenby/Moore films. Here you can essentially see a man age in real-time. In a sense the first 14 films consist of an individual series within itself. There were evolutions in terms of tone and execution, but despite these fluctuations you can see all the key tenants of a serialised narrative.
The First ‘Reboot’: The Dalton films felt like a very deliberate attempt to try and redefine Bond for a new era. It’s a very loose reboot in the modern use of the term as many of the original actors from earlier in the series were retained. However, there is a deliberate attempt to try and make the character and series a little darker and grittier. This was more of a reboot to tone than to actual story or environment.
However, what distinguishes it from the evolutions that occurred in The Original Series was the introduction of a younger actor in the lead. By introducing a new actor but retaining the time period it was clear that this was a new conscious departure from what had gone before.
The ‘Second’ Reboot: This came with the introduction of Pierce Brosnan in GE. Unlike the first reboot, which focussed more on tone, this one clearly wanted to redefine some of the more established elements of the series. Maybe ‘reboot might be a little too grandiose a term as it could be argued that Brosnan’s films were more of a progressive evolution of what the Dalton films had attempted to do. Nonetheless, the overhaul that takes place in GE suggested a clear demarcation from what had come before it.
There was a clear attempt to try and rearticulate Bond for the 90s. Changes to environment, setting, actors, tone would suggest this.
The ‘Third’ Reboot: This one is the most obvious. CR was a very deliberate example of EON drawing a firm line under the old continuity and the new. Here we are very clearly told that the 007 in Craig’s film is not the same interpretation of the character that had come previously. Therefore, we can be introduced to new twists on classic elements of the series’ iconography that don’t upset the previous continuity (eg; Blofeld is now Bond’s brother).
There are still some messy continuity problems; eg, Judi’s M and the Aston Martin in SF. But there are explainable, albeit slightly awkward, answers to these problems.
So…………….does my logic hold up? Do you agree? Or do you view the series in a different way?
Firstly, I feel it is important to define the term ‘reboot’. In our modern lexicon it typically refers to a film series doing away with any previous continuity in a deliberate attempt to start anew. The whole concept of a ‘reboot’ is really new device which has been perpetuated by Hollywood so they can revive dormant IP by giving old properties a new lick of paint.
For our purposes, I feel it’s important that we only loosely use the term and define it at each interval.
The Original Series: I feel this runs throughout the Connery/Lazenby/Moore films. Here you can essentially see a man age in real-time. In a sense the first 14 films consist of an individual series within itself. There were evolutions in terms of tone and execution, but despite these fluctuations you can see all the key tenants of a serialised narrative.
The First ‘Reboot’: The Dalton films felt like a very deliberate attempt to try and redefine Bond for a new era. It’s a very loose reboot in the modern use of the term as many of the original actors from earlier in the series were retained. However, there is a deliberate attempt to try and make the character and series a little darker and grittier. This was more of a reboot to tone than to actual story or environment.
However, what distinguishes it from the evolutions that occurred in The Original Series was the introduction of a younger actor in the lead. By introducing a new actor but retaining the time period it was clear that this was a new conscious departure from what had gone before.
The ‘Second’ Reboot: This came with the introduction of Pierce Brosnan in GE. Unlike the first reboot, which focussed more on tone, this one clearly wanted to redefine some of the more established elements of the series. Maybe ‘reboot might be a little too grandiose a term as it could be argued that Brosnan’s films were more of a progressive evolution of what the Dalton films had attempted to do. Nonetheless, the overhaul that takes place in GE suggested a clear demarcation from what had come before it.
There was a clear attempt to try and rearticulate Bond for the 90s. Changes to environment, setting, actors, tone would suggest this.
The ‘Third’ Reboot: This one is the most obvious. CR was a very deliberate example of EON drawing a firm line under the old continuity and the new. Here we are very clearly told that the 007 in Craig’s film is not the same interpretation of the character that had come previously. Therefore, we can be introduced to new twists on classic elements of the series’ iconography that don’t upset the previous continuity (eg; Blofeld is now Bond’s brother).
There are still some messy continuity problems; eg, Judi’s M and the Aston Martin in SF. But there are explainable, albeit slightly awkward, answers to these problems.
So…………….does my logic hold up? Do you agree? Or do you view the series in a different way?
^ 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
You could say Bond rebooted itself after OHMSS, too.
But I don’t think OHMSS or LALD fit with that description.
Yes, they had new actors in the lead role but the stories, tone and execution were very similar to what had come before. OHMSS was always going to be the same film regardless of whether Connery was involved or not. The change in tone came courtesy of Peter Hunt; had Hunt directed Sean in the film the general approach would have remained.
The same goes for LALD, it’s clearly a successor to DAF (which is by far more daft and camp) which starred Connery. For me that is why there is a clear continuity between these films with no ‘soft reboot’ evident. However, there is certainly a modification and evolution in tone.
Also, during the first 14 films you actually see Bond age in real-time. In 1962 from a man in his early 30’s to someone in his late 50’s.
It’s only with the introduction of Dalton that there is a clear break with what had come before. This is the first noticeable ‘soft reboot’. It was really the first time the series had attempted to rebrand itself. So we were given a tougher Bond, more focus on 80’s technology and fashion, more politically-involved plots, more focus on the leading ladies, etc.
was even done inconsistent, stupid and is a total failure (not talking about the quality of CR).
It was laughable at best to see a 38 year old rookie agent doing his second kill in the PTS and only then becoming an 00 agent.
Furthermore the same actress for the same role (M) as in the Brosnan era.
The so called reboot disqualified itself as soon as M entered the screen.
And the sorry excuses that she played a "different" character are ludicrous.
There's an element of truth in this.
Even Lazenby by breaking the fourth wall could define OHMSS as a bit of reboot.
Is DAF a reboot as well?
Dalton era refers to his having been married, so it's clearly part of the original timeline.
CR is arguably the first 'hard reboot' but then you have the same M as in DAD, so what's going on there...?
I'd say there have arguably been at least five reboots:
OHMSS
DAF
TLD
GE
CR
Frankly though I don't give a damn. Continuity between films has never been a strong point with Bond and it never really bothered me in the slightest.
I like the fact it's all a bit messy and that Bond has always had some continuity with key actors, even when a new lead is cast.
You could also say that Masnfield was there for a long time since she mentioned the Cold War in CR, while Mawsdley was newly appointed from being an accountant in '95.
OHMSS for me is in-canon with Sean's movies. I also think that it's plausible that Timothy and Pierce are the "same" Bond, since GoldenEye's PTS takes place in 1987 (assuming GE and TLD are set in the year they're released) - so it can be assumed that TLD takes place around the same time.
Oh (forgot about that, silly me). Either way, it doesn't seriously compromise my observation.
You mean despite the clear differences between the personalities of Brosnan's M and Craig's M?
They are completely different characters - quite in agreement.
Maxwell didn't return for obvious reasons. However, Glen, Brown's M, Frederick Gray and Gogol are all links to the Moore era. Barry and Desmond go back all the way to FRWL!
Plus, in LTK we have Hedison and the mention of Bond's marriage. Nah, there's just too much familiarity there. It's really the same team just trying to put a different spin on things.
And don't forget the different nail polish both Ms used, another clear indication it's two different characters.
Goldeneye is definitely a 'soft' reboot, though. Casual observers could be forgiven for thinking that Brosnan's just the latest to play the same character, but there are just enough clues to show this is a whole new ball game.
I feel it’s counter intuitive to discuss ‘reboots’ in the Bond series as there is scarcely any continuity in the first place.
But I feel that it’s really the only comfortable term that applies to TLD. Maybe ‘loose reboot’ is more fitting. It has little to do with actual continuity but the film marked a profound change from what had come before.
Here are the definitions I would use:
Evolution: These are natural developments and changes that occur throughout the series, some are often more drastic than others. For instance, the series has always been a slightly camp and ridiculous feel but this idea was truly embraced during the Moore era. However, there were other times where the franchise embraced the slighter tougher approach from the Fleming novels and earlier films.
Reboots: These are representative of clearer breaks in the series where an obvious new direction is taken. Due to the history of the franchise and ‘family’ environment that EON work within, these rarely involve completely ditching the cast and starting anew. They are maybe better billed as rebranding of the series.
What’s interesting to bear in mind is that EON were very aware of this exercise back in 1986…….
When TLD was in pre-production, MGW wrote a story treatment about a younger Bond in the 1950s earning his licence to kill. His logic was that they couldn’t continue the series in 1987 as Bond would be in his 60’s.
It was Cubby who said that Bond’s age was irrelevant and that a younger actor and a change in tone could still work within the current climate.
You’re trivializing a very important thing. The two Ms are played very differently, even though by the same actress. Brosnan's M is cold at the start and warms to him over the course of four movies while Craig's M is prone to outbursts in public places. Their different histories are also, no doubt, trivial bits of information to you. Apparently so long as they're the same actress, they're the same character, when that's anything but the case.
Yeah there was a 'new' feel to Brosnan's Bonds than the earlier ones - filming the real MI6 building rather than Universal Exports in Whitehall, the poster campaigns moving away from artist drawn to Photoshop concoctions, the move away from the PPK to the P99, the new office for M, use of CGI in the title sequences.
Pretty much sums it up. The other suggested reboots are more likely renewals instead.
Exactly. Continuity has always been all over the place with Bond. People who worry about this kind of stuff are wasting their time.
Same here, mine does end after the pump station scene. I watched it last night and thats exactly when I fell asleep.