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
What does reboot even mean in the world of James Bond?
Look at the continuity between films - it's non-existent. It's just the main actors appear repeatedly. Blofeld didn't recognise Bond in OHMSS. Judi Dench is somehow still M in Casino Royale. Why? Because who cares.
If you're obsessed with the Bond films having a continuity, then Bond is active in 1962 and still active in 2002, which would make him seventy at the very least. How do you explain that?
You still have spots.
The reboot was just pointless. They was literally no reason for it. They could've just made CR another Bond film, keep it basically the same but add Moneypenny and Q (he can just give Bond his gun or something), and make the free running in Madagascar the PTS.
It was not pointless. Both Bond & Batman were at a low point. Every once in a while, the Bondmovies go back "to their roots". Even Moore made two serious Bonds, even though they still had more camp than say CR or LTK.
And why would they have needed to add Moneypenny & Q? We have them now and both actors are already signed on for the next one, so... I didn't even miss them in CR & QOS.
There's a chance they'll reboot Bond again after Bond 25.
CR should've just been a down to earth film like FYEO. Why is it an origin story? DAD made money and wasn't panned so unlike Batman and Robin, it didn't seem like the end of the series.
You could say why have Moneypenny and Q in any film then. They're supporting characters that have been there for ages, why remove them, especially if you're just going to retinroduce them? It's pointless imo.
I honestly doubt they'll ever reboot Bond again. And I'm not bashing CR, I it's in my top 10, I just think the reboot is pointless. Sorry for going off topic.
I'm fine with the reboot.
But you can't really compare the two.
Batman and Robin was a complete failure. Even though some fans now hate it, DAD at the time was a success, it made money and got decent enough reviews.
And Bond has had unrealistic films before, they always just bring things back to earth, like FYEO or OHMSS. Batman had never had that.
I don't think Die Another Day is a great film (but it's not as bad as Batman and Robin), I'm just saying the series was fine. It got decent enough reviews and made money, and they could've bought it back down to earth in the next film.
I don't think Batman and Robin made as much money as past films in the series and it dropped during the 2nd week. Critics slammed it, somebody said it had killed the series. Everyone thought it was terrible, they needed to start from scratch.
Alas... if only George Clooney and Chris O'Donnel had been cubed instead of Robinson...
He will never return, atleast not with Colin Salmon playing him. Even though the caracther is good.
Anothy Mackie would make a good Robinson. (IMO)
There's plenty of continuity in the Bond films, and it is my belief that Brosnan's M and Craig's M are two different characters.
Pretty much sums it up. I don't hear people bemoaning the lack of Smithers or Frederick Gray.
Although for the record I massively prefer Colin Salmon to the pudgy charisma free zone that is Rory Kinnear as Tanner. His character might as well be called 'Mr Dull Exposition Man' and he bears absolutely no relation to the bloke Fleming wrote about. I don't buy that he saw any action or is 'Bonds best friend in the service'. I reckon I would buy it though if it was Colin selling.
(Just realised how that looks. For the record thats a metaphor about portraying Bill Tanner. In case his lawyers are reading I'm not insinuating that Colin Salmon sells anything but his acting talent or, for that matter, that I would interested in buying!)
Why isn't that everyone's belief? Why, when the characters' very dialogue suggests it, do people not realize that the Brosnan M and Craig M are different characters that just happen to be played by the same actor?
Brosnan M - Somewhat new to the intelligence world in '95, has children and a relatively good relationship with Bond (after their first scene in GE, they seem to actually have a mutual respect).
Craig M - Mentions working in the intelligence field since the Cold War ("Christ I miss the Cold War"), so far only a husband is suggested, and her and Bond clearly don't really like one another. They respect one another on the inside, but on the outside it's obviously a love/hate relationship (their dialogue in CR and SF is a good indication of this).
I'm not getting the confusion behind whether or not they're the same person.
Anyway, going back to the question at hand, I quite liked Robinson. Not exactly as a deep character, but as a reliable and familiar face.