Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No. There is simply no way, shape, or form that Casino Royale exists in the same continuity as Dr. No. It's a hard reboot.

All new Bonds are reboots. They may carry over some elements, such as Bond's marriage to Tracy, from one actor to the next. But it seems clear (to me, at least) that every new Bond actor is a reboot. If not, Bond would be a hundred years old by now...

@LexxShrapnel: Reboots may lose SOME fans, but they'll gain new ones. Worked for BSG, didn't it? Same story here.

If a future Trek film was a full-out reboot from the get-go, any fans lost in the process will be more than made up for, by the new fans who will be brought in. And some times, you have to take chances.

 

[JWPlatt]

Besides Star Trek, I'm also a Babylon 5 fan. There is a Babylon 5 reboot movie in Development Hell. I hope it works out. And I hope it's in the same reality as the original. No bloody A, B, C, or D. I won't take it personally if my favorite characters have new faces, are replaced, or if events transpire in different ways. Much as I despise the actual word, just make the honest "reboot" I wish Trek got.

 

[CorporalClegg]

A nod and wink to longtime fans--nothing more.

Brosnan's was also the same. It's a matter of consistency.

All new Bonds are reboots. They may carry over some elements, such as Bond's marriage to Tracy, from one actor to the next. But it seems clear (to me, at least) that every new Bond actor is a reboot. If not, Bond would be a hundred years old by now...

Yes.

All the actors are playing different (their own) versions of the same character. They may take place during different periods of his life, but they're all different people who share a similar backstory.

Just because some of that backstory previously appeared on screen doesn't remove it from the mythos, nor is it proof they're all the same guy.

People easily accept that each Bond served in the Navy or his parents were killed in a skiing accident. But those things happened off screen. I don't know why it should work any different for stuff that worked on screen. They all were in the Navy, they all married a woman named Teresa Draco at some point in their lives, and they all own a DB5 that has the same license plate. But they're all different people.

Transversely, that's why it was important for the Nero time travel story. Because it was important for BR to specifically change Kirk and Spock's bios for the story--and it's thematic purpose--they wanted to tell.

 

[Vektor]

For now. In 300 years, it might be necessary.

I'll worry about that 300 years from now.

 

[Vektor]

But it is the exact same car that was used in Goldfinger and Thunderball. It has the same registration plate - BMT 216A.

Meaning... what? That it's supposed to be some hand-me-down from the previous 007s who were all named James Bond?

That's actually not such an outrageous theory. One could rationalize that every agent who assumes the 007 "slot" also assumes the "James Bond" code name that goes with it and they are all actually different people in the same continuity. The idea has a certain appeal but it's certainly not self-evident and I doubt what the producers had in mind with Casino Royale.

 

[BillJ]

For now. In 300 years, it might be necessary.

I'll worry about that 300 years from now.

I think we'll all be very grumpy if we're still here debating this stuff three hundred years from now.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No. There is simply no way, shape, or form that Casino Royale exists in the same continuity as Dr. No. It's a hard reboot.

All new Bonds are reboots. They may carry over some elements, such as Bond's marriage to Tracy, from one actor to the next. But it seems clear (to me, at least) that every new Bond actor is a reboot.

This is how I've always taken it. It's never been a problem, either for me or to the performance of the films.

But it is the exact same car that was used in Goldfinger and Thunderball. It has the same registration plate - BMT 216A.

Meaning... what? That it's supposed to be some hand-me-down from the previous 007s who were all named James Bond?

That's actually not such an outrageous theory. One could rationalize that every agent who assumes the 007 "slot" also assumes the "James Bond" code name that goes with it and they are all actually different people in the same continuity. The idea has a certain appeal but it's certainly not self-evident and I doubt what the producers had in mind with Casino Royale.

This idea has occurred to me. However, I've never seen anything in the films that would actually support the notion, and the most straightforward, reasonable, and obvious explanation(s) for a lot of characters' behavior contradicts it, including such prior to Skyfall and whether it leans on the fourth wall or not (cf. "This never happened to the other fellow"). I find it an amusing idea to consider in jest, but personally I think it would be fun-sucking and tedious were it actually stated in one of the films that James Bond was just a code name that the various agents had shared.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The code name theory is silly. It fulfills a need to explain something that doesn't demand explanation.

 

[doubleohfive]

This idea has occurred to me. However, I've never seen anything in the films that would actually support the notion, and the most straightforward, reasonable, and obvious explanation(s) for a lot of characters' behavior contradicts it, including such prior to Skyfall and whether it leans on the fourth wall or not (cf. "This never happened to the other fellow"). I find it an amusing idea to consider in jest, but personally I think it would be fun-sucking and tedious were it actually stated in one of the films that James Bond was just a code name that the various agents had shared.

Agreed. Besides, I'd be much more interested in finding out if Bernard Lee's M and Robert Brown's M are the same character, or if Robert Brown was playing a completely different character who became M after Lee's passing, or (and this is my favorite) he's still playing Admiral Hargreaves from The Spy Who Loved Me and he's just been promoted to become the new M in Octopussy. That said, while I'm interested in that little tidbit, I'm also just fine with it never being resolved, either.

The code name theory is silly. It fulfills a need to explain something that doesn't demand explanation.

This.

But it is the exact same car that was used in Goldfinger and Thunderball. It has the same registration plate - BMT 216A.

Meaning... what? That it's supposed to be some hand-me-down from the previous 007s who were all named James Bond?

That's actually not such an outrageous theory. One could rationalize that every agent who assumes the 007 "slot" also assumes the "James Bond" code name that goes with it and they are all actually different people in the same continuity. The idea has a certain appeal but it's certainly not self-evident and I doubt what the producers had in mind with Casino Royale.

I don't have time to look it up at the moment, but I seem to recall an interview with Sam Mendes clarifying that the DB5 in Skyfall was supposed to be, clearly, the car from Goldfinger, but that it was just a gag that was too good to resist putting in, even if the events of Goldfinger hadn't happened to Bond in this continuity, the same way Judi Dench's M in Casino Royale is still M, but not necessarily the same M from the Brosnan films. It may be a little messy continuity-wise, but I'm just fine with that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The code name theory is silly. It fulfills a need to explain something that doesn't demand explanation.

It lives in my head in the same place as the idea that Jessica Fletcher is a serial killer.

 

[Vektor]

The code name theory is silly. It fulfills a need to explain something that doesn't demand explanation.

I don't think it's silly, I think it's actually fairly intriguing from a purely speculative point of view. I do agree, though, that such an explanation is absolutely unnecessary to the Bond franchise.

 

[Greg Cox]

The code name theory is silly. It fulfills a need to explain something that doesn't demand explanation.

Amen.

Not everything requires a complicated, in-universe explanation.

It's like worrying about why Archie is still in high school, or why the Hardy Boys have never grown up, even though the stories are always set in the present day.

"Hmm. Maybe there's a long chain of red-headed, freckled kids named Archie who, just by coincidence, always have crushes on girls named Betty and Veronica. Or maybe 'Archie Andrews' is an honorary position bestowed on a new teenager every three years . . . ."

 

[CorporalClegg]

Says the guy who wrote the book explaining why we've never heard about any eugenics war.

 

[Mudd]

Explain the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 in the movie for me.

It was cool.

 

[Set Harth]

The idea has a certain appeal but it's certainly not self-evident and I doubt what the producers had in mind with Casino Royale.

In fact, I would argue that Casino Royale's script implies otherwise.

 

[Greg Cox]

Says the guy who wrote the book explaining why we've never heard about any eugenics war.

Okay, you've got me there!

 

[Vektor]

In fact, I would argue that Casino Royale's script implies otherwise.

How so?

 

[Smellmet]

Explain the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 in the movie for me.

It was cool.

It was, I'm not saying it bothers me or anything, but there's so much overlapping of characters (M, Q) and the car in question, that it puts into question wether or not Casino Royale is a reboot at all. After all the character of 'M' had just finished her run of adventures with Brosnan prior to an 'origin' story with Craig?

Like I said it doesn't bother me, and I enjoy the movies for what they are, but it's very untidy continuity wise.

 

[doubleohfive]

Explain the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 in the movie for me.

It was cool.

It was, I'm not saying it bothers me or anything, but there's so much overlapping of characters (M, Q) and the car in question, that it puts into question wether or not Casino Royale is a reboot at all.

No, it doesn't.

After all the character of 'M' had just finished her run of adventures with Brosnan prior to an 'origin' story with Craig?

No, she didn't. The Brosnan films exist outside the continuity of the Craig films. Judi Dench is an Academy-award winning actress who had delivered for the Bond producers in four films. No producer in the world would let that kind of cache go, so they included her with the reboot. She's still M, she's still the "same" M (Mrs. Barbara Mawdsley?) but in the new continuity.

Like I said it doesn't bother me, and I enjoy the movies for what they are, but it's very untidy continuity wise.

It's absolutely a messy kind of thing, but if you look at Casino Royale as a true restart of the franchise and ignore what came before, it's not so difficult a thing to wrap your head around.

 

[RandyS]

Casino Royale was a James Bond origin story. Despite being set in the present day, it treated the franchise as though none of the previous films existed and effectively started over. That's a pretty hard reboot in my book.

And the only reason for the time shifts was to keep up with the present day, something that is totally unnecessary for Star Trek.

For now. In 300 years, it might be necessary.

Since none of us will be alive, I doubt any of us will care.

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever.