The Old Mixer wrote:
All it means is that they'll draw upon elements of the recent popular movie version to inform this version's backstory rather than reinvent the wheel. I wouldn't take what is or isn't "CANON" too seriously.
Yes, I think that sounds right.
An example I often like to use is the (pre-Daniel Craig) James Bond movies. You would get in a Moore, Brosnan or Dalton film a reference to an older film - most often Tracy (from OHMSS), who was referred to in For Your Eyes Only and Licence to Kill. Or the myriad of references to older films in Die Another Day.
Nobody could really believe that Brosnan's 007 was running around in the 1960s, making jokes about the Beatles (as Connery did in Goldfinger) or that flinty, grim Dalton was the same man as smirky old lech Moore, but we were expected to accept that Bond was a man with a history, who'd been at this job for some time ('a cold war relic', I think he was called in Goldeneye). So you were free to imagine that Brosnan's 007 tackled Goldfinger, but that he made jokes about New Kids on the Block or Take That as he did so.
I think this is kind of the problem with a character like Bond.
a product of the cold war, and fits best into that context. But while he can
be successfully updated to a modern time, and "Goldeneye" was the first movie to do that, I think it was counter-productive for Brosnan's Bond to be a very "90s" Bond while still allegedly sharing history with his predecessors. It wasn't an easy fit at times. They'd have been much better of rebooting him like they did Craig. Except that the movie audiences in the mid-1990s probably wouldn't have been nearly as open to the idea of a reboot as they are today...
Of course with real world events going the way they are, chances are that James Bond as Cold War agent is going to become very relevant again, very soon...