An Interesting Take on continuity and Casino Royale
Thomas Crown
Posts: 119MI6 Agent
After reading the article "Prequel, Reboot, or Retcon" on www.mi6.co.uk, I'm motivated to share my thoughts on the topic and I'd be curious to hear your reactions.
Given what we know about Casino Royale, it seems to me the best way to describe the film without de-validating the previous 20 adventures is as the start of a "new" 007 series. I don't deny this could just be me reading way too much into the situation, and I doubt more casual fans will even take the time to think of the films place in such a way, though I firmly believe this logic makes the most sense.
Dr. No to Die Another Day represent 20 films with a loose lineage that ties them together as a series where the order of certain cinematic events is respected and occasionally recognized. The best examples of this are the references to Tracy in For Your Eyes Only (where Tracy is seen dying in 1969) and Licence To Kill. Sylvia Trench returning in From Russia With Love, saying she hasn't seen Bond for six months because "he went off to Jamaica" is another example of how these films are loose sequels of each other. And the homage’s to previous films in both On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Die Another Day recognize this series' history.
Further, and perhaps on a less obvious note, all of the Bond actors cast since 1967 have been in the mold of Sean Connery. Peter Hunt says it best when, during the casting questions of 1969, "everyone agreed what we really wanted was another Sean Connery." Roger Moore, apparently trying to separate himself from Connery in his first two films by smoking cigars instead of cigarette's, and seldom saying "Bond James Bond," only became popular when embracing a more traditional conception of the character in The Spy Who Loved Me. And both Dalton and Brosnan cite Connery as a model they are meant to follow and live up to. It would be safe to say then, the past 20 films used Sean Connery, rather than Ian Fleming as the primary model for the 007 character.
Taking this into account, it's easy to see Casino Royale as completely separate from the first 20 films. This James Bond was born in 1968, which, if we are to use the previous 20 films lineage, he would have been one year old the year Tracy died. This James Bond wins his Aston Martin, never having the Bentley Bond asks for in Goldfinger and is given the Aston by Q instead. James Bond in Casino Royale also went through the cover ranks of the secret service, rather than service in the Royal Navy. Further, there is no indication of a previous M before the female version we have now, therefore making the character of Sir Miles Messervey non-existent in this new 007n reality.
Also, and perhaps it’s too bold to say this without having seeing the film, Daniel Craig is the first 007 not to be cast in the mold of Sean Connery. I know some have compared his physical competence to Connery's, but it takes more than muscles to make a comparison in my mind. He does not have any similarity in looks to Connery, and judging by from what we hear about pieces of dialogue and characterization, this is hardly the smooth operator Connery perfected. Rather, we're given a Bond who is apparently more ruthless, short-tempered, and emotional than Connery's benchmark portrayal. Again, I could be jumping the gun here, but there is no denying when Craig talks of the role he doesn't nearly reference Connery as much as other actors do. Rather he talks about getting it "better than right." I think that speaks to something.
All of this is surrounded by comments from the producers who have said "we have gone as far as we could" with the previous formula, or David Arnold, who also said the typical use of Bond music has been exhausted. I suppose we won't know until we all see the film, and what direction the proceeding films take. However, it seems like Casino Royale at least wants to be the start of a new generation of Bond films where the sequels play off each other, where Fleming, not Connery is the benchmark for the Bond actor in the role, and more attention is played to darker and unique, rather than formulaic stories.
I personally am ready to accept Casino Royale as such and appreciate both the first generation of Bond films, and this “next generation.”
Any thoughts?
Given what we know about Casino Royale, it seems to me the best way to describe the film without de-validating the previous 20 adventures is as the start of a "new" 007 series. I don't deny this could just be me reading way too much into the situation, and I doubt more casual fans will even take the time to think of the films place in such a way, though I firmly believe this logic makes the most sense.
Dr. No to Die Another Day represent 20 films with a loose lineage that ties them together as a series where the order of certain cinematic events is respected and occasionally recognized. The best examples of this are the references to Tracy in For Your Eyes Only (where Tracy is seen dying in 1969) and Licence To Kill. Sylvia Trench returning in From Russia With Love, saying she hasn't seen Bond for six months because "he went off to Jamaica" is another example of how these films are loose sequels of each other. And the homage’s to previous films in both On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Die Another Day recognize this series' history.
Further, and perhaps on a less obvious note, all of the Bond actors cast since 1967 have been in the mold of Sean Connery. Peter Hunt says it best when, during the casting questions of 1969, "everyone agreed what we really wanted was another Sean Connery." Roger Moore, apparently trying to separate himself from Connery in his first two films by smoking cigars instead of cigarette's, and seldom saying "Bond James Bond," only became popular when embracing a more traditional conception of the character in The Spy Who Loved Me. And both Dalton and Brosnan cite Connery as a model they are meant to follow and live up to. It would be safe to say then, the past 20 films used Sean Connery, rather than Ian Fleming as the primary model for the 007 character.
Taking this into account, it's easy to see Casino Royale as completely separate from the first 20 films. This James Bond was born in 1968, which, if we are to use the previous 20 films lineage, he would have been one year old the year Tracy died. This James Bond wins his Aston Martin, never having the Bentley Bond asks for in Goldfinger and is given the Aston by Q instead. James Bond in Casino Royale also went through the cover ranks of the secret service, rather than service in the Royal Navy. Further, there is no indication of a previous M before the female version we have now, therefore making the character of Sir Miles Messervey non-existent in this new 007n reality.
Also, and perhaps it’s too bold to say this without having seeing the film, Daniel Craig is the first 007 not to be cast in the mold of Sean Connery. I know some have compared his physical competence to Connery's, but it takes more than muscles to make a comparison in my mind. He does not have any similarity in looks to Connery, and judging by from what we hear about pieces of dialogue and characterization, this is hardly the smooth operator Connery perfected. Rather, we're given a Bond who is apparently more ruthless, short-tempered, and emotional than Connery's benchmark portrayal. Again, I could be jumping the gun here, but there is no denying when Craig talks of the role he doesn't nearly reference Connery as much as other actors do. Rather he talks about getting it "better than right." I think that speaks to something.
All of this is surrounded by comments from the producers who have said "we have gone as far as we could" with the previous formula, or David Arnold, who also said the typical use of Bond music has been exhausted. I suppose we won't know until we all see the film, and what direction the proceeding films take. However, it seems like Casino Royale at least wants to be the start of a new generation of Bond films where the sequels play off each other, where Fleming, not Connery is the benchmark for the Bond actor in the role, and more attention is played to darker and unique, rather than formulaic stories.
I personally am ready to accept Casino Royale as such and appreciate both the first generation of Bond films, and this “next generation.”
Any thoughts?
Comments
However, Craig is obviously a different time line. The other films hardly ever contradicted previous efforts, except perhaps by accident (ie OHMSS is meant to follow YOLT but Bond and Blofeld don't recognise each other.)
I see what you mean about Craig not referencing Connery at all.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I know I may be asking for trouble by saying this, but I would love to see new takes on some of the classics. Imagine DC in the first three films - CR, LALD and MR! Filmed as close to the fantastic books as possible!! That would be grand.
Now I'm looking for somewhere to hide
Don´t hide! It would be great. Take the character and start from scratch as they are doing now, then develop it following Fleming. Update all novels to present day.
How would the great classics be nowadays? Dr.No? Goldfinger? The possibilities are endless, really.
It won´t happen, though.
On that basis, the first three novels would be interesting and would fit in with Craig's persona, yet no doubt MR5 would disagree cos they're not the novels that really catch fire with some readers. Still, LALD has the Fleming sweep and I'd like to see Craig's cynical Bond up against the dark elements ie voodoo.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As for the "new series" starting with a female M, well, perhaps the male M (Sir Miles) hasn't been given the job yet. You just need to forget the fact that she appears to be the same M who sent Broz out on the last Bond mission in the "original series". There is a complete break in continuity, and anyone who watches CR with previous notions of continuity are only going to get themselves confused. It is already rumored that Moneypenny and Q will be "introduced" in the next Bond film. Perhaps the male M will be introduced as well.
IMHO, Craig will be more like Connery than all the other Bonds in between. He has the same sort of strong physical presence, ruthless looks and animal magnetism as Connery, as apposed to the "pretty boy" suaveness & charm of Moore and Brosnan. (I'm not knocking Brosnan here, I thought he was a great Bond. Moore was OK, but way too debonaire.) In fact, I've seen at least a few photos of Craig in which certain facial expressions remind me very much of Connery.
As for Craig portraying a "more ruthless, short-tempered, and emotional Bond than Connery's benchmark portrayal", it's like Craig said in his Today show interview. They wanted to show Bond in the beginning when he was raw, fallable and inexperienced, and show how he became the more sophisticated Bond we are all more familiar with. I'm sure Craig's Bond will continue to be more ruthless and violent than the previous Bonds, but experience will smooth away some of his rougher edges and make him more suave and confident, which
may make Craig the most Conneryesque Bond since Connery. Let's not forget that scene in Dr. No where Bond casually kills Prof. Dent in cold blood. Now that was ruthless... and gritty!;) Definitely Fleming's Bond!
Craig plays a cardsharp named Evelyn Tremble, recruited to play the role of James Bond in a cardgame and save the world
Sean Connery plays the role of the real James Bond, grumbling about some unseen new womaniser who's usurped his name
and at the end everybody gets blown up and Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig are all playing harps in heaven
adds some fuel to this fire. Essientially, the new approach to the Bond films seems to include a new plot line with more connected stories. And given that the producers have written off the ideas of remaking older Bond films, this does add validity to the point that these Bond films are simply a separate and distinct entity compared to the other 20 films.
Then again, this could be something only lasting for while Craig is Bond, and could conclude with his third film. If that's the case, we could have a "Craig triology," very interesting...
1)Although I don't like the idea of a reboot, I do consider CR to be one (and IMO the first Bond reboot of all time.) Although continuity was pretty loose, I could easily imagine that Brosnan had gone up against Doctor No, Connery had gotten married to Tracey, Moore had fought Grant, Dalton had killed Scaramanga and Lazenby had slept with Pussy etc... Similarly, many of the films referred to previous events. CR is completely different. Not only does it contradict previous films, but while Craig's Bond is yet to marry Tracey, for example, I can not imagine his Bond ever will as the film features too many continuity mistakes, a couple of which (such as the bringing back of Dench as M) are too major to ignore. Therefore, it is easier for me to imagine that this is the start of a new series (perhaps EON will go back to the old series when Craig leaves) than a film that is connected to the other films in any way (such as a prequel.)
2)Thomas, I agree. Craig does not remind me of Connery at all. I think his performance will be very unConnery-like.
Very interesting indeed, I'd like to see that.
I would too. That would be a great trilogy. I am reading MR for the first time (new to the books, old to the films) and would love to see DR's Bond in these novels.
Though I must admit, I get a kick from RM's MR everytime!
In my mind, the 'dates' of the films were always ambiguous. The closest the films ever came to referencing the year a previous mission took place was when Roger Moore visits Tracy's grave in FYEO. Her date of death appears on the marker, I believe. Other than that, I always felt the films could really take place at any given time. However, with the reboot concept, I think it would be difficult to portray Craig as both a pre-Tracy Bond and a post-Tracy Bond (ie. CR can take place before DN, but Bond 22 or 23 can't occur after OHMSS). Will there ever be another reference to Bond's tragic marriage as there was in TSWLM and LTK? If so, I don't think I could buy it unless it it involves whoever plays Bond after Craig.
For me, these types of homages are harmless. Since Bond is a character who continually exists in the present, it is easy for me to imagine that LTL could take place right after LALD (I suppose Leiter's mutilation prevents it going the other way). Originally, I didn't care for the PTS in GE taking place so many years before the rest of the story, since it disrupts that 'flow' for me. I don't like to think of Bond so much as having a past (or even a future, for that matter) but rather as a man that is in the moment...kind of a Bond d'jour.
I certainly can. The way I see it, Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan each have the exact same experiences and histories. Craig clearly does not. This, along with all of the continuity errors, leads me to the conclusion that CR should be viewed only as a reboot (at least by me) and not connected to the other 20 films in any way.
I guess the continuity is what you make of it, and a bit of a headache no matter how you choose to view it.
So, were you imagining a continuity where Brosnan's Bond recieves a brand new DB5 from Q in Goldfinger?
Well no- Dalton's Bond was born on the 10th of November 1948 and Brosnan's on the 6th of May 1961 (as given on their passport, MI6 records etc as seen on screen, although not in enough detail to see), so they would contradict all that just the same. And I'm not sure that the new Bond's birthday appears in CR.
And as I say, even if it were, how would Brosnan's Bond (born in 1961, don't forget) be given a brand new 1964-model car for use in his undercover duties as a top spy?
None of the continuity fits together so you already have to be choosing to what to ignore in some way to fit it together; why is what this film is asking you to ignore any worse?