1

Topic: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

What if Casino Royale is not actually a reboot? Is it not possible that Bond left/got sacked after Die Another Day? Then, a few years later, he returns. Then, he needs to undergo all of the training again, and needs to get two new kills on his record. When he is about to kill the traitor at the beginning of Casino Royale, the man says
"don't worry, the second is always...(gets shot).
Perhaps this is a joke aimed at Bond because he has top retake all of the training. After all, he clearly likes to provoke Bond, because he states that if MI6 were so sure he was a traitor, they would have sent a 00 agent. This was an insult to Bond. Bond was possibly disappointed that he had to undergo all of that training again.
And the reason Felix Leiter is Black is possibly because "Felix Leiter" could be a codneme that certain CIA people use.

So, do you agree that Casino Royale is a sequel to Die Another Day and not a reboot?

2

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

That's not a bad idea for a Bond film, having him sacked at the end of one film and brought back into the fold for the next.  It doesn't work for CR though.  There is no mention of Bond having previously been a 00, or him being given a second chance.  CR is clearly a reboot.

3

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Imaginative, but too far-fetched.  If Bond was fired and brought back into the service, I doubt he'd need extensive re-training, and certainly his record would show that he has PLENTY of kills, negating Dryden's claim that Bond's file shows no kills.  And why would M talk about it being too soon to promote Bond to Double-0 status, his needing to learn certain lessons about his job, etc., etc.  As John Drake says, all the evidence is that CR is supposed to be Bond's first mission as a Double-0, so a reboot it is.

Vox clamantis in deserto

4

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

It may just be a surprise for Bond 22 that they don't mention Bond's previous missions. ajb007/biggrin

5

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Not to mention I believe that Babs has officially stated a few times that CR was a reboot and they were retooling the series and starting over fresh because after DAD they realized they couldn't go on as they were, it was just getting stale.

6

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

cbdouble07 wrote:

Not to mention I believe that Babs has officially stated a few times that CR was a reboot and they were retooling the series and starting over fresh because after DAD they realized they couldn't go on as they were, it was just getting stale.

It was not getting stale though. Because Casino Royale, in my opinion, is a continuation, not a reboot, of the Bond series. And people love Casino Royale, therefore the Bond series is not getting stale!{[]

7

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

it depends really what one means by 'reboot'.  i take it to mean a stylistic return to the earlier entries in the series (this is alluded to as a goal of the producers in making CR quite frequently - they often cite DN and FRWL as the style/story models for CR).

Another change that is cited is a 'back to basics' type of plot - less gadgets, less fantastical situations (granted, it is an action flick so there is going to be unrealistic situations...but chasing a terrorist through a construction site is a lot different than taversing mines in the DMZ in a hovercraft, for instance), more reality basically.

the above are mostly contextual backgrounds that resulted from interviews with film makers, etc and can be seen in the vibe of the movie itself.

if you take 'reboot' to mean whether the CR story happens before or after other movies in the series (which is implied by your post but i dont necessarily agree this is the way 'reboot' should be/is defined)....i think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that CR storyline is intended to happen before all the movies - the lines already quoted in this thread (e.g. 'file shows no kills'), the allusions to references that occur in the other movies but seem to be happening for the first time in CR (e.g. winning the aston martin and creating the vesper martini come to mind).

in addition, the film makers themselves (again) describe a main aspect of the storyline of CR being how bond earns his double 00 status and becomes the character we are familiar with in the other films - implying CR happens before the other films.

8

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Jordan16 wrote:

It was not getting stale though. Because Casino Royale, in my opinion, is a continuation, not a reboot, of the Bond series. And people love Casino Royale, therefore the Bond series is not getting stale!{[]

Fair enough.  But explain why if CR is a continuation of the series rather than a reboot, that-

There is no gun barrel sequence.

There is no use of the Bond theme music until the closing titles, just after Bond announces, "Bond.. James Bond," as if he was saying it for the very first time.

There is no Moneypenny.  Surely she would be the first person to welcome Bond back if this was a continuation of the series. 

Bond falls in love with Vesper, but makes no mention of his ex-wife.  People who have been married before, always talk about their ex's.  ajb007/biggrin It is implied in CR that nobody else has ever managed to get close to him.  The CR Bond prefers married women so he doesn't have to worry about commitment.  But in the other films, Bond got married in OHMSS.  References are made in other movies (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK) to Bond's dead wife Tracy, suggesting he is still haunted by her death.  If CR Bond was the same person, wouldn't he mention he was married before and it ended badly?

M tells Bond at the close of the film that he's learned his lesson.  Why would she need to do that to a veteran agent who's been on countless missions?

That the novel CR is about Bond's first mission and Mike and Babs have said in every interview they have given about the movie that this is the story they wanted to tell. 

It stars Daniel Craig, and not Pierce Brosnan.  If CR was about a damaged, burnt-out agent brought back from exile, why replace Brosnan with a younger actor?

9

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

John Drake wrote:

why replace Brosnan with a younger actor?

No smart-ar** comments along the lines of "why indeed?" from the Anti-Craigers please. ajb007/lol

10

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

ufboy73 wrote:

it depends really what one means by 'reboot'. i take it to mean a stylistic return to the earlier entries in the series

ufboy73 wrote:

if you take 'reboot' to mean whether the CR story happens before or after other movies in the series (which is implied by your post but i dont necessarily agree this is the way 'reboot' should be/is defined)....i think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that CR storyline is intended to happen before all the movies

A reboot simply means to start completely afresh. It doesn't continue from or lead into any other films in the series. That's the definition of a reboot. It makes Casino Royale a continuity completely of it's own, seperate from the previous films. Whichever way you might try to shoehorn it into being set either before or after the first 20 films, it won't work.

11

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

John Drake wrote:
John Drake wrote:

why replace Brosnan with a younger actor?

No smart-ar** comments along the lines of "why indeed?" from the Anti-Craigers please. ajb007/lol

Oh dang... ajb007/frown

12

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

John Drake wrote:

That the novel CR is about Bond's first mission and Mike and Babs have said in every interview they have given about the movie that this is the story they wanted to tell.

This is one of the great myths that the film CR has perpetuated. The novel CR is not Bond's first mission. Bond was already a veteran agent when he was wired the mission in the novel. His handling was carried out through Jamaica, and Bond was ' used to' the oblique handling. Time and time again, references show that Bond had been in the field for some time as a double-oh, even with references to his working with M before the war.

13

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

MikeyRichards wrote:
ufboy73 wrote:

it depends really what one means by 'reboot'. i take it to mean a stylistic return to the earlier entries in the series

ufboy73 wrote:

if you take 'reboot' to mean whether the CR story happens before or after other movies in the series (which is implied by your post but i dont necessarily agree this is the way 'reboot' should be/is defined)....i think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that CR storyline is intended to happen before all the movies

A reboot simply means to start completely afresh. It doesn't continue from or lead into any other films in the series. That's the definition of a reboot. It makes Casino Royale a continuity completely of it's own, seperate from the previous films. Whichever way you might try to shoehorn it into being set either before or after the first 20 films, it won't work.

that may very well be the formal definition of reboot, however, clearly not the film makers intention.  i think it is pretty clear they wanted to stylistically reboot the series but still have CR exist within a context and chronology of latter films (at least, as plausbile as that can be given the fact that 40+ years have elapsed since DN).

14

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

darenhat wrote:

This is one of the great myths that the film CR has perpetuated. The novel CR is not Bond's first mission. Bond was already a veteran agent when he was wired the mission in the novel. His handling was carried out through Jamaica, and Bond was ' used to' the oblique handling. Time and time again, references show that Bond had been in the field for some time as a double-oh, even with references to his working with M before the war.

Fair enough.  It's years since I've read the books.  I fell for the myth I'm afraid.

15

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Jordan16 wrote:

What if Casino Royale is not actually a reboot? Is it not possible that Bond left/got sacked after Die Another Day? Then, a few years later, he returns. Then, he needs to undergo all of the training again, and needs to get two new kills on his record. When he is about to kill the traitor at the beginning of Casino Royale, the man says
"don't worry, the second is always...(gets shot).
Perhaps this is a joke aimed at Bond because he has top retake all of the training. After all, he clearly likes to provoke Bond, because he states that if MI6 were so sure he was a traitor, they would have sent a 00 agent. This was an insult to Bond. Bond was possibly disappointed that he had to undergo all of that training again.
And the reason Felix Leiter is Black is possibly because "Felix Leiter" could be a codneme that certain CIA people use.

So, do you agree that Casino Royale is a sequel to Die Another Day and not a reboot?


In a word--no.Casino Royale is definitely a reboot of the James Bond series.

EON's Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson and their screenwriters all clearly said before the actor to play James Bond in Casino Royale had even been selected, that this particular film was going to be the first entry in an entirely new 007 series.Indeed,EON reiterated numorous times that Casino Royale would have absolutely no connection whatsover to any of the 20 motion pictures that came before it.In fact,EON even chose to rewrite some of the literary James Bond's history, in order to make the story in the Casino Royale movie Bond's first mission as a Double-O(this probably because Casino Royale was Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel).EON did say,however,that they were keeping Judi Dench to play "M"--but they also stressed that her "M" would now be a different character from the one she'd played opposite Brosnan.This decision has understandably  caused confusion for some filmgoers.

With all respect to Dame Judi Dench--who was retained to keep a familiar face in the CR cast--I think Eon really should've used this unique opportunity to bring back the original Ian Fleming creation Admiral Sir Miles Messervy as CR's "M"(he is,after all,007's first commanding officer-and the only one in Fleming's stories).With 007 reporting to Admiral Messervy again, audiences and critics alike would've immediately realized that this new James Bond motion picture was not going to be like the four Bond films that had immediately preceeded it.

Regardless,Casino Royale is the first film in a reboot of the James Bond series--being not only "Bond 21" but also "Bond #1:Volume II". ajb007/smile

Last edited by Willie Garvin (27th Dec 2007 18:17)

16

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

I have a very radical (and unofficial obviously) theory on how Casino Royale is not a reboot.  Basically, I use the original novels as a kind of guideline to make this work.

In Fleming's version of YOLT, Bond ends up getting Kissy Suzuki pregnant with a son.  Now, if we are to believe the movies loosely follow the novels, that would mean Bond and Kissy have a son nine months after the 1967 movie, which would have been 1968.  1968 just so happens to be the year Daniel Craig was born.  So assuming Bond is the same age as the actor portraying him, this could be James Bond Jr. assuming the role of a 00-agent four years after the original Bond retired in 2002.  ajb007/smile

17

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Now that's creative, Rennervision.  One problem, though: Craig looks like the only Japanese he has in him came off the sushi plate!

Vox clamantis in deserto

18

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

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! ajb007/smile

Last edited by yodboy007 (10th Jan 2008 00:57)

19

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Bravo yodboy, bravo! ajb007/cheers

I'm in full agreement with you.

Please do stick around. ajb007/biggrin

"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."

-Roger Moore

20

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Welcome back, yodboy! It's been a long time, but your post made it worth the wait.

21

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Thanks for your comments, gentlemen.

I plan to finally write a long review of Casino Royale on Saturday after I watch it for the first time since its theatrical release (I saw it three times believe it or not). One more viewing should help form my final opinion of it.

22

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Willie Garvin wrote:

With all respect to Dame Judi Dench--who was retained to keep a familiar face in the CR cast--I think Eon really should've used this unique opportunity to bring back the original Ian Fleming creation Admiral Sir Miles Messervy as CR's "M"(he is,after all,007's first commanding officer-and the only one in Fleming's stories).With 007 reporting to Admiral Messervy again, audiences and critics alike would've immediately realized that this new James Bond motion picture was not going to be like the four Bond films that had immediately preceeded it.

Regardless,Casino Royale is the first film in a reboot of the James Bond series--being not only "Bond 21" but also "Bond #1:Volume II". ajb007/smile

Amen to that!  My biggest problem with this whole reboot issue was the casting of Judi Dench as M.

I also agree its not Bond 21 or 22 but Bond #2: Volume I/II, etc

23

Re: Casino Royale: really a reboot?

Wow Yodboy!!!  You said it perfectly!!!