I never liked the idea of a reboot in the first place.
The main reason I have not visited this site in about a year, and barely since late 2005, is because I did not feel I could participate in the discussion of Casino Royale in a positive way. I not only grew tired of the new Bond hype and hysteria (well all get on "new movie highs" sometimes), but I also did not want to be viewed as a Brosnan-loving Craig-basher who could not accept change.
To me, James Bond is timeless. He is ageless. If we were going to start making excuses for 007's age, we would have done that in the 1980s when he was in his 60s. After going that long, wasn't it just assumed that he was ageless? M changed actors as did Moneypenny (Q hopefully soon will, too). He fits in all generations. Sure his original background was WWII, but do not just come out and say he is now a Gulf War vet. Why must we mention his background by now? It does not matter. He is obviously qualified. Do not crap on the continuity of the films where they mentioned his WWII background by mentioning modern wars. WWII was a famous one with a much better legacy than all these middle east conflicts recently. I'd rather have them never mention it again then to make up a new one.
I heard a rumor that Michael G. Wilson asked Cubby if they could do a prequel of the character in the 1980s and Cubby said it was a bad idea. Cubby knew what he was talking about. I personally think that Wilson and Barbara waited not until Cubby died but until Dana Broccoli died to do the reboot thing. I think they knew she would protest. Going against your parents wishes is not good in my opinion. This furthers my theory that these producers are in it for the money.
I can't help but feel that this reboot thing is crapping on the legacy of the first twenty films. They are classic that are hopefully never forgotten or remade. Did the producers feel that DAD (or maybe even the Brosnan era in general) was SO bad that they needed to reboot the franchise? My goodness! That is insulting! Cubby did not reboot the franchise with FYEO after Bond saved the world from OOT plots in TSWLM and MR. He refused to distance himself from films that were considered bad by some people's opinions. Why do it now?
While I like Garvin's idea of the original M, Sir Miles Messervey, returning after Dench leaves, I feel it is too late. If they wanted to keep calling M Miles Messervey, they ought not to have called Robert Brown's M Admiral Havgreaves. Nor should they have cast a woman as M. I like how M changed. It was not too often and always varied (female M). If they bring back Messervey, what's next? Will they remake the old films, reuse old Bond girls? That is ludicrous. Those films with Auric Goldfinger, Honey Rider, Red Grant, Miles Messervey, and even Major Boothroyd (Desmond's Q character) are over. Those characters are dead and the girls have moved on. Do not try to "start over" with those characters and stuff like that when they have already been done before. Only Bond (and I guess Moneypenny) will always be the same.
James Bond has tradition. The gun barrel, the James Bond theme, the martini preference, Q, Moneypenny and more are all ESSENTIAL in a 007 film. Casino Royale had none of that. The idea of a reboot is not enough to break tradition we have all been used to. That is why I did not enjoy that one. It did not feel like a 007 film even though the writing was much improved.
I will be honest. I did not like Craig at first and I still do not enjoy his portrayal of James Bond. He is also a bit short and too rugged-looking. I have moved past all of that. I will not judge him until he does at least two more films. I do not judge Lazenby the same as I do the others. Dalton was so awesome in just two so he is an exception. I think that is fair. I mainly objected to his casting because I feel Brosnan DESERVED another chance.
After going through all of the films again this December, upon further reflection and a much more informed mind of the cinema in general (I am a film buff) I have changed a lot of my opinions about the franchise. I still rank Sir Roger #1, I still love GE and LALD the most, I have moved Connery higher and Brosnan lower, and much more. Just look at my revised favorite films list. I believe you will see it is much different if you remember the older ones. I am glad I did this and I realize I still love Bond and I am looking forward to posting here on a regular basis again.
I hope more than anything that Q is brought back in Bond 23 with an actor who brings his own style to the role and can stick around for a few generations like Desmond did. Desmond is irreplaceable I know, but we still need a Q. Shame Cleese will likely not return. I think the scene with the invisible car in DAD was a great way to let us know that this Q is a different man with the title of Q. Cleese and Brosnan had great banter and a new, bumbling, goofy Q was introduced. I hope we get another good one soon.
In conclusion. I think that after this "sequel to the prequel" as I call it, is done, the next film should pick up where DAD left off. I do not mean reference it like saying "Man, that ice palace was a bitch, eh?", but by letting us know that it IS still the same Bond who stopped Dr. No, killed Blofeld, married Tracy (keep up the occasional reference, also to Vesper if they must) and used to hang out with 006 until he was betrayed. None of those things have to be said, it should just be assumed that we are past the "first days of Bond" with the first two Craig films and Bond is still fighting on. That is the Bond we have enjoyed since 1962, so why start him over like he is some old dog? Recast M as a man again, do not call him Miles Messervey. Cast a funny actor as the new Q who has his own style, recast Moneypenny, use the 007 theme and the gun barrel, and we will be set. That does not sound too hard, does it? I just do not wish to watch all future Bond films while always knowing people and even the producers consider them to be "unassociated" with the first 20 films that we were blessed with. Thanks for reading! 
Last edited by yodboy007 (10th Jan 2008 00:57)
