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.
Better to just do a hard reboot. Recast everyone. Just start a new adventure without any connections to the past.
Always thought the soundtrack alludes to this. It's a John Barry (therefore brilliant) but it's also a modern, computerised version. Mind, AVTAK did try going a bit rock n' roll (ridic with Rog) so maybe it's continuity.
Absolutely…
I think Brosnan era erased all Bonds but Connery's.
That's why he drives the DB-V. I would say it's a semi-reboot like Superman Returns.
Elektra King: Tell me have you ever lost a loved one?
PB 007: Looks at her and deflects the question signaling he's in that situation before. M sent me cause we think your life might be in danger.
That doesn’t mean that he was the same M who interacted with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
That’s not to say that the 80s films are somehow canon with NTTD, it’s just a fun Easter egg you’re not supposed to think too much of. Just like Rosa Klebb’s shoe.
I think the Lee painting was there but possibly didn't appear in vision in the film, I can't quite remember now.
They certainly dug it out for that pop-up in Burlington Arcade at the time, although I know that's even further from canon!
Firstly there would be no need for a "reboot" in the sense starting with an "origin story". It would be like Moore / Dalton / Brosnan. Bond would just carry on, as per usual, in his next pre-credits mission. He would be aware of both Tracy and Vesper... or not, depending on the particular preference of the producers.
I think multiverses are completely un-necessary, anal retentive nonsense. As a child I couldn't understand why Dr Who changed from William Hartnell to Patrick Traughton and was very upset (I kept watching, but never really forgave Patrick for not being William.)
However, as an adult, I understand that Sherlock Holmes changes with each new production and I don't need any additional fantasy explanation linking all the different iterations and incarnations together. (Just imagine if someone did try to do that for SH, the mind would boggle!)
However, if it was felt that some explanation was needed, the film would need to begin with a pre credit sequence explaining his miraculous survival.
Otherwise it's BAU
That’s not a multiverse situation. He literally changes face within the same continuity.
True dat, and, although I can see that it appeared that way, it was not my intention to suggest that it was. There was no multiverse when I was growing up, so I used the Dr Who to represent an equivalent situation. I intended it as another example of where the creators felt the need to explain the change in actor in order to maintain continuity.
And, as such, it works better than most, but may not have been considered necessary if Dr Who were not a childrens program (albeit one that many enjoy into adulthood).
As compared to say, the 1964-68 version of Sherlock Holmes, where Douglas Wilmer changed into Peter Cushing without any explanation being required, while Nigel Stock continued as Dr Watson for the entire run. The adult audience could accept the change without any additional explanation or justification being needed.
Thus I don't need any explanation of why there is a new James Bond, or to have him linked up to any of the previous incarnations.
If he does share some memories of past loves, I don't wonder why he looks different now, or why he gets older and younger, or how he can look different in 2 movies in 1983, or wonder how James Bond can still be a field agent after 50 years of movies.
I can compartmentalize and enjoy each new James Bond on his own merits
No further explanation needed.
It's kind of different as it allowed the new actor to almost create an entirely different version of the character, something which doesn't really happen with Bond or Holmes.
So no Moneypenny (and possibly no Q), and female M?
Okay rethinking that. Can still mess with the timestrram.