EON Productions has been revamping or rebooting the Bond franchise for years. That's why it has lasted 50 years.
I think they've kept fiddling with it and developing certain aspects, like Q's character, having Bond marry and then made reference to it later on, developing and changing Bond's relationship with M etc, but I don't think we've ever seen anything like the 2006 reboot, with Bond's character shown earning his 00 status and the slate being wiped clean.
When it comes down to the terminology, I think 'revamping', 'developing' and especially 'rebooting' are very different things.
IMO, the bond franchise has lasted so long due to the plots, Bond's character and the world Bond lives all move with our real world, and there's always a hint of reality there, sometimes more than others, but I believe that ability for the audience to relate Bond's world to ours is what makes it so popular.
All I can say is that I haven’t head one valid reason from any of you why a reboot as opposed to a simple makeover was needed. Seriously. I’ve even tried to distinguish the difference between a reboot and a makeover (on the locked thread) for you all but no one commented. Repeating instead like parrots: “Oh, but a reboot was needed because it all became a bit stale, and people laughed at DAD”. Granted this is correct but again I ask, in all seriousness, why a reboot rather than a makeover—a makeover being defined as merely tweaking the franchise to make it less over-the-top like was done with FYEO after MR and with LTK after LD.
All I can say is that I haven’t head one valid reason from any of you why a reboot as opposed to a simple makeover was needed. Seriously. I’ve even tried to distinguish the difference between a reboot and a makeover (on the locked thread) for you all but no one commented. Repeating instead like parrots: “Oh, but a reboot was needed because it all became a bit stale, and people laughed at DAD”. Granted this is correct but again I ask, in all seriousness, why a reboot rather than a makeover—a makeover being defined as merely tweaking the franchise to make it less over-the-top like was done with FYEO after MR and with LTK after LD.
We are all waiting for your brilliant insight as to why the reboot was not needed...but all we hear are the whines of an 8 year old boy whom isn't aloud to play with the bigger boys....
The reboot was not needed simply because as minigeff said earlier the series had always tweaked itself, purging itself of any over-the-top excesses, such as in the case of OHMSS after YOLT, and FYEO after MR etc. YOLT and MR being over-the-top, and OHMSS and FYEO being more down to earth. So there was already a method for dealing with OTT Bond films, why this wasn’t used after DAD and a reboot (i.e. a scrapping of Bond filmic history, chronology and continuity) used instead is beyond me.
1) New Bond
2) Casino Royale is the first Flemming Novel
There have always been new Bonds without a reboot coming with them. And the film series has never let itself worry about the actual chronology of the Fleming's novels: Dr No wasn’t the first Bond novel but it was the first film etc.
Hmm, BUT how do you tell an untold Bond story, which in this case happened to be the first Bond novel that Fleming wrote.
When producers wanted to tell a story how Bond got his double-o-status, how he became an MI6 operative with licence to kill etc. How that would have been possible to tell without a reboot? Can you explain that?
Knowing who to trust is Everything in this business.
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Simple, just make a film of CR leaving out that Bond hadn’t already got his double-0-staus. The films have never used all of any one novel anyway, so this wouldn’t have been a problem.
Skyfall ends with everything in place to start Bond 24 as a more traditional Bond.
All the major characters are there. So hopefully if they can come up with a decent
story and villain, we should all be happy.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
That’s why I like SF. It seems to be recognising that the reboot might have been unnecessary and that a return to at least some of the traditional Bond elements is now needed. You could also say it was a sort of apology of QOS.
Simple, just make a film of CR leaving out that Bond hadn’t already got his double-0-staus. The films have never used all of any one novel anyway, so this wouldn’t have been a problem.
pah! You didn't read what i wrote, i said producers (EON, Mike and Babs) wanted to tell a story of an early Bond and how he became double-o. That's simple i.e. that's WHY the reboot ...
Anything else you want to gripe about ?
Knowing who to trust is Everything in this business.
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
The reboot was not needed simply because as minigeff said earlier the series had always tweaked itself, purging itself of any over-the-top excesses, such as in the case of OHMSS after YOLT, and FYEO after MR etc. YOLT and MR being over-the-top, and OHMSS and FYEO being more down to earth. So there was already a method for dealing with OTT Bond films, why this wasn’t used after DAD and a reboot (i.e. a scrapping of Bond filmic history, chronology and continuity) used instead is beyond me.
Chronology and continuity were scrapped long before CR.
Simple, just make a film of CR leaving out that Bond hadn’t already got his double-0-staus. The films have never used all of any one novel anyway, so this wouldn’t have been a problem.
pah! You didn't read what i wrote, i said producers (EON, Mike and Babs) wanted to tell a story of an early Bond and how he became double-o. That's simple i.e. that's WHY the reboot ...
Anything else you want to gripe about ?
I thought I answered your question regarding the novel and a filmic making of it that would solve the problem of the double-0-status.
What Babs and Mike wanted is another matter, and down to them.
The reboot was not needed simply because as minigeff said earlier the series had always tweaked itself, purging itself of any over-the-top excesses, such as in the case of OHMSS after YOLT, and FYEO after MR etc. YOLT and MR being over-the-top, and OHMSS and FYEO being more down to earth. So there was already a method for dealing with OTT Bond films, why this wasn’t used after DAD and a reboot (i.e. a scrapping of Bond filmic history, chronology and continuity) used instead is beyond me.
Chronology and continuity were scrapped long before CR.
True, but it was always taken that each film followed on from the other, despite internal continuity problems. With the reboot, none of the films from DN to CR exist in this new rebooted universe.
Skyfall ends with everything in place to start Bond 24 as a more traditional Bond.
All the major characters are there. So hopefully if they can come up with a decent
story and villain, we should all be happy.
There ya go, all summed up in one post.
CR was the reboot, a fresh start, a way to give the franchise new life, new actor and new direction resulting in more longevity for the future.
QoS tied up the loose ends of CR, with vesper etc etc.
SF was the final step of the reboot process, with, as TP previously states, the stage set for a more traditional bond, so all you Fleming purists are happy, but also a brand new unwritten future ahead, no constrains and a lot more space for the future plots and characters to manoeuvre in.
It really is that simple Osris, and a fresh start and clean stale coukd not have been done with PB playing bond in CR and 'just missing out' Bond's promotion to 00.
Not only does CR show us Bond getting made 00, but also shows us his younger self, getting to grips with being a 00, and learning the hard way, ie killing molaka, getting a bollocking, then in QoS learning that he shouldn't be so quick to judge (the whole vesper plot).
Does this help you understand the reboot and why it happened?
It is certainly a more convincing argument than you have offered me so far, and if the reboot pans out in the way you expect I will be very pleased.
My main criticism of the reboot wasn’t Craig being Bond, as some people here seem to think. I have nothing against the man, and was acquainted with him when we were in our teens back in Liverpool before he left to find fame and fortune in London. My criticism was that the reboot made null and void all the Bond films from DN to CR.
It is certainly a more convincing argument than you have offered me so far, and if the reboot pans out in the way you expect I will be very pleased.
My main criticism of the reboot wasn’t Craig being Bond, as some people here seem to think. I have nothing against the man, and was acquainted with him when we were in our teens back in Liverpool before he left to find fame and fortune in London. My criticism was that the reboot made null and void all the Bond films from DN to CR.
So how would you "tweak" the movie to follow DAD then OSRIS in order to make it better?? Bear in mind within your answer that a new actor was lined up to play Bond & there was also a growing feeling amongst pundits & punters that the series had become stale.
Your continuity point is redundant, as highlighted by many of the other posters here.
I have come to agree with minigeff about the reboot, now that he has for the first time explained it to me in a persuasive manner unaccompanied by personal insults. So I won’t answer your question.
By the way, only one other poster here has responded to my continuity point, and not “many” as you said.
Null and void, in the sense that all of Bond’s missions from DR to CR haven’t (presumably) existed seeing as the reboot makes CR the beginning point of Bond’s career path.
Bear in mind, and I'm doing my best to refrain from actually insulting you here, that I, among many others have taken the time to point things out and explain things you've overlooked.
You come across as someone who sets a decision firmly in your mind, and regardless of what anyone else thinks or points out, you'll stick to your opinions like **** to a blanket. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you start to invent things like the imaginative accountancy, your reputation starts (with me at least) to dwindle.
Null and void, in the sense that all of Bond’s missions from DR to CR haven’t (presumably) existed seeing as the reboot makes CR the beginning point of Bond’s career path.
I know what bloody null and void means and the context you used it in 8-)
See that reputation of yours get a little more tarnished?
So someone asks you a simple & polite question, but you won't answer it. Many people put valid points across to explain your own thread question & you won't entertain them. You also invent figures & post a link from a clearly anti-DC / reboot site as your basis for disregarding other view points.
Null and void, in the sense that all of Bond’s missions from DR to CR haven’t (presumably) existed seeing as the reboot makes CR the beginning point of Bond’s career path.
I know what bloody null and void means and the context you used it in 8-)
See that reputation of yours get a little more tarnished?
Then why did you put a question mark after it, as if you wanted to know what I meant?
So someone asks you a simple & polite question, but you won't answer it. Many people put valid points across to explain your own thread question & you won't entertain them. You also invent figures & post a link from a clearly anti-DC / reboot site as your basis for disregarding other view points.
Seems like the basis for a great thread!!
I’ve already told you that seeing as I now agree with the reboot, there’s no point in me telling you how I would have replaced it. Most people would accept that as a valid and courteous response. You don’t however.
So someone asks you a simple & polite question, but you won't answer it. Many people put valid points across to explain your own thread question & you won't entertain them. You also invent figures & post a link from a clearly anti-DC / reboot site as your basis for disregarding other view points.
Seems like the basis for a great thread!!
I’ve already told you that seeing as I now agree with the reboot, there’s no point in me telling you how I would have replaced it. Most people would accept that as a valid and courteous response. You don’t however.
No need to cry. You will notice that I actually posted my initial question to you moments before you responded to MG. My latter post was more of a final rant tbh - I would have thought the last tongue in cheek line made that clear.
Anyway, I'm glad that a resolution / impasse has seemingly been achieved. Happy days indeed.
Comments
Alas no...but then I have a 'taste filter' activated so I missed that gem 8-)
I can't read most of the posts, I have a spassy filter built into my iPhone ya see, trouble is I can't read anything I've put for some reason...
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I think they've kept fiddling with it and developing certain aspects, like Q's character, having Bond marry and then made reference to it later on, developing and changing Bond's relationship with M etc, but I don't think we've ever seen anything like the 2006 reboot, with Bond's character shown earning his 00 status and the slate being wiped clean.
When it comes down to the terminology, I think 'revamping', 'developing' and especially 'rebooting' are very different things.
IMO, the bond franchise has lasted so long due to the plots, Bond's character and the world Bond lives all move with our real world, and there's always a hint of reality there, sometimes more than others, but I believe that ability for the audience to relate Bond's world to ours is what makes it so popular.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
1) New Bond
2) Casino Royale is the first Flemming Novel
We are all waiting for your brilliant insight as to why the reboot was not needed...but all we hear are the whines of an 8 year old boy whom isn't aloud to play with the bigger boys....
Now...answer the question...or move on...
There have always been new Bonds without a reboot coming with them. And the film series has never let itself worry about the actual chronology of the Fleming's novels: Dr No wasn’t the first Bond novel but it was the first film etc.
When producers wanted to tell a story how Bond got his double-o-status, how he became an MI6 operative with licence to kill etc. How that would have been possible to tell without a reboot? Can you explain that?
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Formerly known as Teppo
All the major characters are there. So hopefully if they can come up with a decent
story and villain, we should all be happy.
pah! You didn't read what i wrote, i said producers (EON, Mike and Babs) wanted to tell a story of an early Bond and how he became double-o. That's simple i.e. that's WHY the reboot ...
Anything else you want to gripe about ?
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Formerly known as Teppo
Chronology and continuity were scrapped long before CR.
I thought I answered your question regarding the novel and a filmic making of it that would solve the problem of the double-0-status.
What Babs and Mike wanted is another matter, and down to them.
True, but it was always taken that each film followed on from the other, despite internal continuity problems. With the reboot, none of the films from DN to CR exist in this new rebooted universe.
There ya go, all summed up in one post.
CR was the reboot, a fresh start, a way to give the franchise new life, new actor and new direction resulting in more longevity for the future.
QoS tied up the loose ends of CR, with vesper etc etc.
SF was the final step of the reboot process, with, as TP previously states, the stage set for a more traditional bond, so all you Fleming purists are happy, but also a brand new unwritten future ahead, no constrains and a lot more space for the future plots and characters to manoeuvre in.
It really is that simple Osris, and a fresh start and clean stale coukd not have been done with PB playing bond in CR and 'just missing out' Bond's promotion to 00.
Not only does CR show us Bond getting made 00, but also shows us his younger self, getting to grips with being a 00, and learning the hard way, ie killing molaka, getting a bollocking, then in QoS learning that he shouldn't be so quick to judge (the whole vesper plot).
Does this help you understand the reboot and why it happened?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
My main criticism of the reboot wasn’t Craig being Bond, as some people here seem to think. I have nothing against the man, and was acquainted with him when we were in our teens back in Liverpool before he left to find fame and fortune in London. My criticism was that the reboot made null and void all the Bond films from DN to CR.
Null and void?
That's your opinion, not a fact. 8-)
And I'm so glad you're finally getting it.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Your continuity point is redundant, as highlighted by many of the other posters here.
By the way, only one other poster here has responded to my continuity point, and not “many” as you said.
Null and void, in the sense that all of Bond’s missions from DR to CR haven’t (presumably) existed seeing as the reboot makes CR the beginning point of Bond’s career path.
Bear in mind, and I'm doing my best to refrain from actually insulting you here, that I, among many others have taken the time to point things out and explain things you've overlooked.
You come across as someone who sets a decision firmly in your mind, and regardless of what anyone else thinks or points out, you'll stick to your opinions like **** to a blanket. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you start to invent things like the imaginative accountancy, your reputation starts (with me at least) to dwindle.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I know what bloody null and void means and the context you used it in 8-)
See that reputation of yours get a little more tarnished?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Seems like the basis for a great thread!!
Here’s some I found so far:
“What's next then Mr Troll”
“Stop being such a WUM”
“You some kinda robot”
“Go back and read the previous posts, take your time, get a grown up to help with the big words”
“FFS are you f@cking retarded”
“What and you your ill-wired up chum” (to Colonel Shatner ... but referring to me)
“think your mate's worm needs burping” (to colonel Shatner ... but referring to me)
“I don't suffer fools gladly”
Then why did you put a question mark after it, as if you wanted to know what I meant?
I’ve already told you that seeing as I now agree with the reboot, there’s no point in me telling you how I would have replaced it. Most people would accept that as a valid and courteous response. You don’t however.
No need to cry. You will notice that I actually posted my initial question to you moments before you responded to MG. My latter post was more of a final rant tbh - I would have thought the last tongue in cheek line made that clear.
Anyway, I'm glad that a resolution / impasse has seemingly been achieved. Happy days indeed.