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 mean, sure, I don't think you should insult anyone, or at least should try not to (and to be fair I haven't seen anyone do that in this instance).
Worth saying we're at a point where we've had CR and the Craig era, and audiences seemed to get that that was its own self contained version of the character. Who's to say going forward Bond won't be viewed more like that with each new iteration? It kinda is to some extent. I don't know how much audiences think about continuity in Bond regardless.
I think people cite Batman because it's a good example of a character who's gone through multiple different versions and is still recognisable as that same character. To be honest there are differences between Batman and Bond in this area (ie. Bond films have very specific movie elements that always come back - the theme, the gunbarrel etc - and it's mostly due to EON being the sole makers of these films until recently. Even Amazon I suspect will carry over these things. Batman has its tropes too, but each new reboots gives us a new theme, different variations on the Bat Cave etc).
Ultimately though, as I said, I think it mostly comes down to having more creative opportunities, and at the end of the day we'll have had two outright, hard reboots by the time Bond 26 comes about (in all likelihood anyway). At any rate I don't think having different interpretations of characters in this way is unusual and it's been done throughout film and literature. It's actually not even the same as 'parallel universes' seen in Marvel (if anything those storylines are about preserving a sense of continuity! Bond just reinvents itself and goes with the flow. There's not really much to understand in that sense).
Similarities too though; I think I'm right in saying that pretty much all the versions of Batman on the screen have had a couple of the same producers. Much like 007's own Amy Pascal has been behind all versions of Spider Man recently, including both the live action and animated films, which involve different versions of the character.
And if it's iconography, we've also got another new version of Superman coming up who will use the theme tune from the Christopher Reeve films, much like Bond keeps his theme. Or if we don't like superheroes: Steve Martin's rebooted Pink Panther films kept that famous theme :D
I liked it when Brossa sniffed the shoe. What else can I say?
Yes, I agree, and points taken.
As for the 'what if' of this thread, I don't think Bond surviving would have made a lot of difference to a new film. I think the Craig films had such specific story threads that they naturally would have just started fresh anyway without any references to the Craig era, with things like a new MI6 team etc.
I remember a few years ago on a French forum, I had to explain that Batman Begins was NOT a prequel to Batman 89...
So, in 1995, Bond was fifty-eight having been in his twenties during Dr No! Had to add on the nine years from Goldeneye, because it was 'later' and not 'ago'.
It was a relief when Craig took over and rebooted!
Brosnan's Bond did not have Leiter and didn't have any mention of Tracy so those 4 films could stand on their own. In fact they had a new M and Moneypenny. There was mention of "your predecessor" during the briefing scene which might have alluded to Brown as M. However there was no clear tie to the previous films other than the DB-V showing up in GE and TND.
Craig's Bond was clearly a reboot as it was vogue to say.
There is permanence to death but not in film or TV shows. Dead character often return with no real logical reason. Now of course we have multi-universes which we can use to explain way things.
Back to the question at hand, how would a re-boot look if the character hadn't died. I actually think it makes it a tad more messy as in previous actor changes it was always viewed as the same character. Maybe this is why Craig wanted Bond dead, so his had an arc and no one else can play with his five film timeline or backstory.
Maybe another question, is Brosnan's four films tied in anyway to the 62-89 Film character canon? Or is Brosnan our first "re-boot" Bond? Playing the character without the previous adventures under their belt?
Based on the age of the actors, and the general acceptance that Bond takes place in the present day, I actually think there have been 3 incarnations of Bond.
The first was Connery, Lazenby and Moore; they are all the same man. The Bond we saw in Dr. No was the same as the one who appeared in AVTAK.
The next incarnation was Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in TLD was the same we saw in DAD.
Finally there was Craig.
Now sometimes , because of the use of the same actors in different incarnations , things can be fuzzy; but just Judi Dench can play two completely versions of M, the same can be true for other actors. This is why I favor a clean slate for the next era.
Bonds of different, unconnected, incarnations could absolutely share storylines and interact with familiar characters, but that doesn’t make them the same; Craig’s M is not the same person as Brosnan’s M.
As I see it, Moore’s Félix is not Dalton’s Félix, even though both were played by David Hedison.
All I know is that Pierce Brosnan was 9 years old when Dr.No was released; his Bond cannot be Connery’s Bond
TLD is a reboot, a very muddy one, but it absolutely introduced a Bond of a younger generation.