A thought on Casino Royale in Relation to the Rest of the Series
Red Grant
Posts: 147MI6 Agent
After watching Die Another Day I thought about something...
When the film finished, it seemed like if there were ever to be a "last" Bond film, Die Another Day would have the most expected elements: homages to previous Bond films/Fleming, moneypenny finally getting her man, pushing the enevelope in every possible manner, and a tone that is intended to be celebratory.
I realize the series has weathered many re-boots, however, given what I said about DAD and that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, taking place in the present, though, for the sake of continuity, ahead of the previous 20 films, I can't help but wonder whether or not Casino Royale will end up being the first of a new kind of Bond film. Surely this is pre-mature (who watching Dr. No expected Bond would have lasted 40 years, let alone long enough to have an invisible car?) but it may be likely.
What do you think?
When the film finished, it seemed like if there were ever to be a "last" Bond film, Die Another Day would have the most expected elements: homages to previous Bond films/Fleming, moneypenny finally getting her man, pushing the enevelope in every possible manner, and a tone that is intended to be celebratory.
I realize the series has weathered many re-boots, however, given what I said about DAD and that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, taking place in the present, though, for the sake of continuity, ahead of the previous 20 films, I can't help but wonder whether or not Casino Royale will end up being the first of a new kind of Bond film. Surely this is pre-mature (who watching Dr. No expected Bond would have lasted 40 years, let alone long enough to have an invisible car?) but it may be likely.
What do you think?
Comments
In all honesty, I didn't see DAD as a finale to the series--it was indeed very much an anniversary movie. But, as we've been discussing elsewhere, CR may indeed be a completely new start to the series. I guess if people like Craig and the tone and look of the film, Bond 22 will be much like it.
In terms of DAD being a "finale" so to speak... Well, in retrospect I guess in some terms it can be viewed as such, though I don't think it was meant. CR has had a convoluted birth, an intense search for a new Bond (which seems to have panned all age ranges, suggesting an identity crisis) and has been tarred with what Brosnan called "paralysis". I think the producers were at a crossroads wondering where to go - DAD was an MR like escapist adventure and they wanted to bring Bond back down to earth, but it was how to do that effectively that held up the bus.
Regardless of the CGI bullet in the gunbarrel, all the references and hints to last films, I still think the series would be taking the path that it is taking. I think it's only a coincidence that DAD seemed so "final", in that sense, because it was an anniversary movie.
I think you've made some excellent points.Die Another Day could very easily have served as a finale to the series--and for all of the reasons you've listed.It was the 20th James Bond film in Eon's 40 year history and it's release was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the literary James Bond's first appearance in print.
That said,I saw Die Another Day as a celebration of the entire series and as more of a birthday party than a farewell bash.A triple anniversary.
However,if Eon had ever wanted to make radical alterations to the series then surely the 21st film would be the place to start.
As we've often said,this series always tends to reinvent itself every time a new actor becomes James Bond.Usually these reboots are relatively subtle:a new face for 007,and that's about it.Aside from that,it's generally been business as usual.
From what we've learned,the Casino Royale movie is designed to be the origin story of James Bond--with a 007 who is updated and revised somewhat but is nevertheless essentially the same character we're all familiar with.It's a more radical change than what most people are used to but it might just work--although the formula has undergone a few modifications,it's been retained.
If anything,I suspect Casino Royale will signal a return by Eon to smaller scaled character-driven stories as opposed to movies featuring villains with elaborate attempts to take over the world.Those kinds of stories will eventually return of course, but I suspect that for a brief period at least, Eon will be using a "less is more" approach.
We'll see...;)
I just don't see it... The way I think it is, is this man has been promoted to James Bond 007, and all previous life has been erased. In other words, the name's become a code like the 007 one.
Anywho, what complicates matters is M... Judi Dench, a terrific actress and a great M, has no business in a story where SUPPOSEDLY Bond is becoming the man he ends up in the end of the story/novel. She, actually, is the main reason I believe the above for Bond.
Is really another man. A seperate man from the other ones... But the more perqurious thing is, the others were the same character. I think everyone agrees on that...
Codename Theory... must... kill...
I am a Bond fan, though not probably as invested in the films as some other members. But a fan, nonetheless. Stil, I liked the loose continuity with Bond.
Casino Royale goes to change this. Aside from the Codename Theory, as you call it, I don't any other way for this film to sit next to the others... As a restart, it fails to promote that aspect because of M.
I'd be happy with a loosely-referenced prequel, with a male M. That way, Craig's Bond could be a Bond before DR. NO, yet still complimating the current times.
In other words, I, and others, I presume, would have been a lot happier if M was a male actor in the new film and the continuity was a wee bit more mindful of what comes next (20-21 films!). Of course, that is not to say anything against Judi Dench as M. I really liked as M and she is really, a great actress.
But a male M would've been best for CR. If anything, M is male on the book.
Same actress...'cause she's good...but not necessarily the same M...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Something I found very interesting in a way that would only be apparent in the movies and certainly would not be of note in the books is that Judi Dench has continued her 'M' role.
I suggest this because Brosnan's Bond has dialogue where, during a drink with M, he refers to M's predecessor. This, I think is a nod to the late Bernard Lee.
My apologies if this has been discussed before and I failed to find it when searching but I love the paradox whereby Judi dench has now become her own predecessor thanks to the miracle of movies.
A small point I know but I rather enjoyed this when watching CR, which I happen to think is an utterly superb Bond movie - one of the best in a long time.
Kryten.
Welllllllllllllll, here goes. :v I loved Bernard Lee as M....he was a good balance for Bond...and he always gave his best to the role. I was absolutely delighted when Dench took the role. She is hard-nosed and doesn't take any sh_t off of anyone, yet she also has that soft side (just like Bernard Lee did). There are few roles for women in which they can be in a high place of authority, show some brains and braun, but still have a little vulnerability show through. It is a coveted position for a female and I can guarantee you that the women in the audience wish they could wield the sword as such. The only other role that struck me in this manner was Sigourney Weaver in Alien. I hope Judi stays in the role and the male faction can remain open-minded to the genre of the character and not feel slighted due to a skirt. Please don't shoot me.....
In case I sounded negative, I should add that I think that Judi Dench makes a superb M - she combines hard objective detachment with genuine concern for 007 and the world in general very well indeed. Of course, I also like Bernard Lee's M. They are different interpretations and both, I think, equally good.
I also hope that Judi Dench remains in the role for many years to come. {[]
I told you all! It's Goldeneye-DAD M's evil twin, N! N! WE WILL ALL CALL HER N!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Some of the Bond films refer to their predecessors, some don't. If the films were produced in the same chronological order as the books and followed them to the letter, then they would make more of a serial, but they weren't so they don't.
It's better, I feel, to see CR as just a film based on a book, not based on twenty (or twenty-one?) previous films.
Chill out and enjoy each film for what it is.
like Dikko Henderson/Blofeld
or Scaramangas lady/Octopussy
it just happens both characters Dench has played are called "M"
lets see if this current "M" starts talking about her past as an admiral in the british navy...
Hi Kryten,
Are u coming from a Red Dwarf angle? Not only is Judi Dench her own predecessor, she's also four years older instead of being 44 years younger. Work that out.
Reminds me kind of the episode 'Tikka to Ride' whereby JFK was the man on the grassy knowle, who assasinated JFK
What drives me crazy about the continuity thing is that people keep looking for continuity. This is not a prequel to Dr. No, and the M of CR is not necessarily the same M of DAD, even though they rehired the same actress because she is so damn good. Think of CR like this: this is the first Bond movie ever, and the rest of them haven't been filmed yet. Meet James Bond, and his boss M. You've never seen them before.
I'm not dissing the previous 20 films, I love them dearly, but thinking of them as having a timeline relationship with CR is missing the whole point of the REBOOT idea.
As for M, I do hope they will bring back a male M when Dame Judy retires. Didn't the M in Fleming's novels mention that his predecessor had been assassinated?
Speaking of assassinating M, I wonder if they'll ever use the brainwashed Bond's attempt to kill M in the novel TMWTGG in the films? That was way too dark for the previous Bond series, but I could see it happening in Mach II.
they even had M seperated from Bond by a glass shield
but they shied away from having Brosnan brainwashed as well as tortured
as if making Brosnan look like a filthy hippy was pushing things far enough, they didnt want to get too crazy
but that would be good, esp with this new attitude Bond
but how would that fit into the trilogy?
presuming they did do Shatterhands suicide garden like we all want them to, the Shatterhand content would have to be in Episode 2 and the brainwashed Bond sequence would begin Episode 3
so Brosnanbond would be the one who says "smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"
and Craigbond would say "the only thing you need to know about Vesper Lynn is I gave'er one!"
Yes, this continuity thing it nuts, lol
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't bond meet felix leiter for the first time in dr no? (havent watched dr no in a while i admit, so i may be wrong) If I am right though, how can he meet felix for the first time in dr no AND casino royale? Unless felix leiter is just a code name? ?:)
Also, M refers to september 11th... and there's modern devices, like mobile phones etc.... but this was supposed to happen before dr no? ?:)
I really enjoyed the film anyway, and daniel craig is excellent... but it just doesn't seem to make sense in relation to the other bond films
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Continuity, as we know it, doesn't apply to Casino Royale. It's fresh out of the box and set in the present day (July 2006, to be precise).
(BTW - welcome back!)
It is inevitable, regardless of whether or not it is correct, that viewers will ponder these questions. They're just movies, I know, but I think the reboot concept 'cheapens' the series by saying the other films aren't worth revisiting.
Oh what a load of wibble. The next Batman film will have him meet the Joker for the first time. The 89 Batman film had him meet the Joker for the first time. Will the new one be telling you never to watch the Burton films again? Of course not. With that sort of mindset it means you're damning the producers to never doing anything original ever again because they are somehow slandering the old ones by doing so- it's ridiculous.
Why not look at it as a way of ensuring the new series, if it falls on its arse horribly, is protecting the old series from any harm as this one can't be placed next to it entirely?
Hi A7ce - yes looks like I've been rumbled, definitely a Red Dwarf angle here. I like your age comment too - adds to the fun!