Has exploring Bond's backstory completely messed up the future films?

MilleniumForce · November 2015

Yes. Think about it, we know about Bond's past now. The thing with the pre Craig films is that we didn't know his past. The films had loose continuity, they were all separate films. Now, however, a continuity and story has been created, that is going to make it hard when Bond is re cast. We know he is a certain age, we know his D.O.B, so if Bond is re cast with a younger actor in a couple of years time this past will have to be re written in order to fit. So, what are they going to do? The only thing I could suggest is either a complete re boot without the back story, or a soft reboot where the Craig films are disregarded and the series goes back to every film standing alone.

broadshoulder · November 2015

Nope. Its enhanced it. Its called growth

Or you could have him being a cartoon again??

Thunderpussy · November 2015

Fleming himself had to "move" Bond's birth date as the
novels progressed. So it's been done before.

Agent Purple · November 2015

Nah, when the new Bond comes in, they can ignore some of the Craig Era stuff.

It's up to Barbara and Michael to determine that sort of stuff.

perdogg · November 2015

Yes, it is time to move on.

zaphod99 · November 2015

MilleniumForce wrote:

Yes. Think about it, we know about Bond's past now. The thing with the pre Craig films is that we didn't know his past. The films had loose continuity, they were all separate films. Now, however, a continuity and story has been created, that is going to make it hard when Bond is re cast. We know he is a certain age, we know his D.O.B, so if Bond is re cast with a younger actor in a couple of years time this past will have to be re written in order to fit. So, what are they going to do? The only thing I could suggest is either a complete re boot without the back story, or a soft reboot where the Craig films are disregarded and the series goes back to every film standing alone.

.

I don't think it's a big problem at all. Other Franchises 'retcon' all the time. The Craig era thus far has a more defined timeline than the sketchy/bumpy continuity of old but I think the field is still Pretty open, particularly for a new actor. It may be a tad more tricky if Craig does come back ( which I think he will) but not insurmountable.

Grazmeister · November 2015

I hope if we do start again with a new Bond the series gets back to Bond being sent on a mission to save the world from a truly global threat. All the backstory stuff has been very interesting and I love the Craig movies but they are all tied together and seem to be heavily based on personal motivations and going 'rogue' which is starting to get a bit samey.

I think the only way to go with a new actor is to treat Bond as an employee again with his motivation being the job he has been given to do by M.

am747 · November 2015

Exploring backstory was OK initially as it helped to differentiate Craig's films but now it appears to be producing diminishing returns .... The Bond-Blofeld personal ties sound stupid (and totally unnecessary). One of the most iconic villains in the history of such genre deserves a better story

Ornithologist · November 2015

Grazmeister wrote:

I hope if we do start again with a new Bond the series gets back to Bond being sent on a mission to save the world from a truly global threat.

I know you weren't trying to discredit the Craig films, but

CR: International terrorism financed by stock market "gambling" (short selling) - global
QoS: Monopolozing vital resources (water) in order to blackmail governments - global
Skyfall: Killing one's former boss out of revenge and trauma - not really global
Spectre: Setting up a criminal network which can access the intelligence data of all major agencies - global

So 3/4 Craig movies had a global threat at the very least - IF you don't see Silva as a Spectre agent on a "mission" to de-stabilize Mi6 (which the movie Spectre leads us to believe he was).

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

Nope.

eric7064 · November 2015

I think it's brought Bond into the modern era. I think it has kept the Bond franchise pumping and being the huge box office draw it has been. And as a fan, I have found it very interesting.

BUT, when they do get a new actor they will be in a very tough spot on the direction they want to take. Stay gritty, dark and realistic. Go back somewhat to a camp Bond with no continuity between films. Or Anything they choose. What will they do. With there choice to go the route they have it will make the future very interesting.

Gassy Man · November 2015

It's not so much that it's messed things up as it's been fairly minimal. Almost everything we've been told has been in exposition. We've seen little actual onscreen exploration. In this sense, there's more the illusion that the films have explored Bond's past. At least in the Batman films, which Craig's Bonds have taken their inspiration from, we actually see his childhood and the murder of his parents. But the Bond films have either left that entirely to the imagination or just mentioned it as an expository attempt to explain motivation. So, I don't feel I really know anything substantively more about Bond than in the original films.

chrisisall · November 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

So, I don't feel I really know anything substantively more about Bond than in the original films.

Good. -{

Bondage007 · November 2015

I agree with Gassy Man, we never learnt much about Bond in the Craig movies, only that he is a womanising orphan with a chip on his shoulder and, after skyfall, his parents names. Bond fans already know that.

We don't know about his childhood and what drives him to be what he is, or why he hates Skyfall. The one time we could've had more exposition, Bond says "you know the whole story" to M.

If they're not going to explore his backstory further than that, then I'd rather they go back to the formula. Not necessarily cliche formula (martinis, bond "gets the girl") but a no frills Bond adventure.

TheWorldIsEnough · November 2015

Up until Skyfall and Spectre, you could make the case that the name James Bond is just a code name with each Bond having a secret and unique 'real name and back story'. But then they bring back the car from Goldfinger. So 2012 James Bond is driving 1964 James Bond's car. So Sean Connery's Bond just never happened. Neither did Pierce Brosnan's Bond or any others. So Craig's Bond is a forced reboot. A reboot that has physical elements of events that never happened. Unless you give previous Bond's different names. One of those paradoxical things that Doc Brown warned us about.

The 'James Bond is a code name' theory, whether you like it or not, was the only possible way to make the 24 movies work together. And that's blown up forever.

Matt S · November 2015

TheWorldIsEnough wrote:

Up until Skyfall and Spectre, you could make the case that the name James Bond is just a code name with each Bond having a secret and unique 'real name and back story'. But then they bring back the car from Goldfinger. So 2012 James Bond is driving 1964 James Bond's car. So Sean Connery's Bond just never happened. Neither did Pierce Brosnan's Bond. So Craig has to be a reboot. A reboot that has physical elements of events that never happened. Unless you give previous Bond's different names. One of those paradoxical things that Doc Brown warned us about.

The 'James Bond is a code name' theory, whether you like it or not, was the only possible way to make the 24 movies work together. And that's blown up forever.

So you haven't paid much attention to the films before Craig, have you? The codename theory doesn't hold up at all. Lazenby has items from Connery's missions in his desk. Moore visits the grave of Lazenby's wife. Brosnan has the same family motto that Lazenby has. That's because Bond is the same character.

TheWorldIsEnough · November 2015

Matt S wrote:

So you haven't paid much attention to the films before Craig, have you? The codename theory doesn't hold up at all. Lazenby has items from Connery's missions in his desk. Moore visits the grave of Lazenby's wife. Brosnan has the same family motto that Lazenby has. That's because Bond is the same character.

1. Some inconsistencies are forgivable. Two Blofelds are not.

2. I have no problem with Moore visiting the grave of Lazenby's wife. I could argue that Connery, Lazenby and Moore were different actors playing the same 'Bond', given that they are roughly the same age. At some point, whether it's Dalton or Brosnan, you'd have to concede, it's a different 'Bond' And the original 'Bond's life story, name etc... is forced onto the next 'Bond'.

Matt S · November 2015

TheWorldIsEnough wrote:

Matt S wrote:

So you haven't paid much attention to the films before Craig, have you? The codename theory doesn't hold up at all. Lazenby has items from Connery's missions in his desk. Moore visits the grave of Lazenby's wife. Brosnan has the same family motto that Lazenby has. That's because Bond is the same character.

1. Some inconsistencies are forgivable. Two Blofelds are not.

2. I have no problem with Moore visiting the grave of Lazenby's wife. I could argue that Connery, Lazenby and Moore were different actors playing the same 'Bond', given that they are roughly the same age. At some point, whether it's Dalton or Brosnan, you'd have to concede, it's a different 'Bond' And the original 'Bond's life story, name etc... is forced onto the next 'Bond'.

The family motto part means that Bond is not a codename. The name was always meant to be his real name. He already has another code name, and he often uses fake names.

Has exploring Bond's backstory completely messed up the future films?

Comments