Aren't all movies that have a new Bond a "reboot"?

jamesbondagent007

I was recently asked this on Facebook. What you you think? This is the theory that I came up with:

Yes and no. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is considered a direct sequel to You Only Live Twice, but the terrible Diamonds are Forever, which returned to Connery, rewrites the wonderful OHMSS as if it never happened. (Appalling, I know.) Live and Let Die, one of my favorite in the series because of it's bold new direction, technically reboots the series with Roger Moore, but then he mentions the death of his wife on a few occasions, including The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only. Paradoxically, the pre-title sequence of For Your Eyes Only where Bond kills Blofeld in an anti-climactic helicopter-vs-wheelchair battle seems to directly follow the OHMSS timeline, and mentions his wife's death, as well. The actors for M, Q, and Moneypenny all remain too. Go figure.

After the ridiculousness of A View to a Kill, they rebooted the series (somewhat) with Dalton, but again, M, Q, and Felix Leiter in Licence to Kill are played by the same cast. Only Moneypenny is different. The biggest change is when Brosnan takes over. The entire cast except for Q is replaced. Then when they actually rebooted it with Casino Royale, the entire cast except for M is replaced. So there is really no true reboot anywhere in the series. One theory is that James Bond is simply a cover name given to whatever elite agent holds the number 007 at the time. Nice theory, but it doesn't work when they start to mention his wife, or when Lazenby in OHMSS opens the office drawer containing trinkets from previous films, or when John Cleese's underground lab in Die Another Day has all the gadgets from all the previous films.

The only logical answer is that each iteration of Bond is a different quantum (of solace) timeline, each representing a rip in the space-time continuum, where the same person is doomed to be reincarnated in different eras throughout history to eventually piece together all the missing components of his life, with Casino Royale being the actual beginning. Kind of like Doctor Who, which lends some credence to your human-body time machine theory... It also explains why Sean Connery comes back once as an old dude to relive the storyline of Thunderball in Never Say Never Again.

Each time Bond travels through time, because of the nature of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, his body is deformed slightly so that he appears as a different person, but remains roughly the age of 40.

Thunderpussy

In a way I agree with you In that with each change of actor they can change the direction
of the series. Ajusting to the strengths of the actor playing Bond.
Although I don't go along with the time travelling theory.

jamesbondagent007

Of course, it's quite silly. But if there had to be one way to tie together the entire series.....

Jamesbondjr

I don't think the older actors first films are reboots as such, they just take the series in differing directions with the different actors. Throughout the series there are clues that show we are seeing the same character and I think to be classed as a reboot, you have to be starting from fresh with the character a la Casino Royale.

Agent007jamest

CR is the only true reboot of the series. Until that point it was always taken with a wink and a nod that this new guy is still the same man then we move on. Also it should be noted that they were originally going to say Bond had plastic surgery at the beginning of OHMSS but thankfully they thought better.

GoldenEye85

I like to look at the different actors that have played Bond are playing his life in segments. For example:

Daniel Craig, Bond is just getting started and is very trigger happy and easily rattled.

Lazenby, a little more confident but still overly new to the whole spy life and still longs for women as friends and is more easily affected at things, notably the death of his new wife (understandably so)

Dalton takes the role a few steps beyond that, still getting to emotional about friends being targeted (I know LtK mentions his wife, which in a way throws this out) and will act out before completely thinking things through.

Brosnan, Bond is well rehearsed, still gets emotionally caught up in some cases, but able to keep things of this nature in check. Still a loose cannon but well trained.

Connery, Bond has been on the job for a while, knows what he is doing and does it well. Less likely to give in to emotion having been through everything he has.

Moore, Late in Bond's well established career, nothing really rattles him and has done well enough and lasted long enough that Bond could probably go into retirement, or become a mentor to who ever follows in his foot steps.

So if this were to be taken seriously, which it's not, (I want to make that clear, this is just my observation as a fan) I would say the next actors would probably just start working out these areas. Will they? Who knows?

chrisisall

I like that.

Napoleon Plural

Well, CR is a reboot simply because it implies none of the other films ever happened, unlike everything up to DAD. That said, some were surprised to find that many fans never thought Bond had any continuity, and that the actors in the main occupied different universes. For my part, so long as the actors were working their way through the Fleming titles, they seemed to have continuity and it was the same bloke, but it was a shock a bit when Dalton took over, as he was a fair bit younger, so couldn't be the same guy.

So having grown up in the Moore era, you could sort of buy, in a sentimental way, that this was the same guy finessing throughout the two decades.

chrisisall

Basically, The Dalton films were a reboot, the Brosnan films were also, and the Craig films most definitely, regardless of secondary actor continuation.

Thunderpussy

Didn't Dalton Himself say in TLD "He got the Boot " Leting us all know it was a reboot.

GordoLeiter

Well OHMSS was supposed to be the last James Bond movie, but the studios kept begging them to continue on and bring Connery back.

Hardyboy

GordoLeiter wrote:

Well OHMSS was supposed to be the last James Bond movie, but the studios kept begging them to continue on and bring Connery back.

This is the first I've ever heard of this. I've read several sources on the films, and all indications are that OHMSS was NEVER supposed to be the last film. George Lazenby was cast with the intention of making him the next Connery and having him appear in several Bond films; but midway through the production he announced that he wouldn't make any more, and, further, some friends had told him that Bond had had his day and that the series would end anyway. Is that what you're talking about? OHMSS ends with the promise that Bond will return in Diamonds Are Forever; and as soon as OHMSS was finished, the producers went into production on DAF. Several men were tested to play Bond and American actor John Gavin was actually signed to play him; but United Artists did indeed keep pressing to get Connery back and they managed to offer a deal so sweet he did return--for just that one film.

Agent007jamest

Thunderpussy wrote:

Didn't Dalton Himself say in TLD "He got the Boot " Leting us all know it was a reboot.

nice

DTReinsma

I watch them as new guys almost each time. Connery, Lazenby/Moore (similar style; references to his wife), Dalton/Brosnan, Craig.

This makes sense to me because Blofeld doesn't recognize him in OHMSS when supposedly they were face to face in YOLT. Then, there is no mourning in DAF. it's like a different guy got revenge for the Lazenby/Moore character.

Next, the pre-credit sequence in GE takes place before TLD. Plus Dalton/Brosnan look similar. So that period would be one guy.

Now that Craig is Bond, it is as if there is a new 007 as the previous M (Dench) is still there.

When I watch them all in order, I watch with this mindset. Otherwise it would be impossible to believe it's the same guy through the 60's , the cold war era, post-cold war, present.

GordoLeiter

I bet when Lazenby had his outing as Bond the audience was like "Who the hell is this dufus?"

BIG TAM

I've never thought of the films as having any real continuity. Perhaps at the beginning when they were properly adapting the books but after OHMSS each film seems to operate in its own time bubble. The odd reference to Tracy, etc seems just a nod & a wink at fans.

They do however seem to be pursuing a form of continuity with Craig's films. I hope they don't keep reintroducing Bond with every subsequent actor, though. The reboot trend is starting to pale as much as the in-yer-face shaky-cam stuff.

DTReinsma

I hate that shaky cam trend. I keep hearing complaints so we are not alone. Hopefully this trend comes to an end soon.

Mr Beech

I just watched the film Hanna, and it has some of the best action and fight scenes I've ever watched. Largely, because there were almost no cuts. Just great, full on fight scenes choreographed all the way through. It was a fantastic, stylish take on the whole Bourne concept.

Really made me dislike the quick cuts and shaky cam more than ever. Where's our stairwell fight from CR when you need it?

James Suzuki

I've always thought that the start of Goldeneye based in 1986 happened just before TLD, with Dalton's 2 films then GE