Bond cancelled
- Thread starter Captain Shaw
- Start date
That's kinda how I look at it. James Bond is a franchise where linear time has no meaning. Each movie exists in a perpetual present with whatever year it happens to be at the time. Therefore, Casino Royale can be a prequel to Dr. No because, from James Bond's perspective, 1962 & 2006 are the same year. Also, the reason why Judi Dench can be M both at the "end" in Die Another Day and the "beginning" in Casino Royale is because the supporting people that surround James Bond do exist in linear time while James Bond exists outside it.
All that being said, I think I would have preferred it if Casino Royale had been a 1950s period piece. James Bond just works so much better in a Cold War setting. And now that the Cold War is over, they don't have to so lightly tiptoe over the prospect of making Soviets the bad guys.
As Battlestar Galactica has proved, it's very easy for a black man to turn into an Asian woman.
I agree Borgified. I don't see anything wrong with making Bond perpetually in the 50s and 60s again. If we can't keep up with the gadgets of the future without getting silly, put him in a period piece and force some ingenuity.
Speaking of linear time with Bond supporting characters, I pointed out Q in License to Kill for my husband today. He said, 'He's still old then! Was the guy ever young?'
Speaking of linear time with Bond supporting characters, I pointed out Q in License to Kill for my husband today. He said, 'He's still old then! Was the guy ever young?'
He was 49 when he first took the part in 'From Russia with Love' in 1963, and he played the character in every bond film, except Live and Let Die, until his "retirement" from the role in 'The World is Not Enough'.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that Blood Stone is looking pretty good. I love what Activision is doing for the game.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that Blood Stone is looking pretty good. I love what Activision is doing for the game.
Considering the next Bond novel is being described as a reboot I don't think they'll make him perpetually in the 50s or 60s. From what's been said the new novels take place in the 2010s.
That's kinda how I look at it. James Bond is a franchise where linear time has no meaning. Each movie exists in a perpetual present with whatever year it happens to be at the time. Therefore, Casino Royale can be a prequel to Dr. No because, from James Bond's perspective, 1962 & 2006 are the same year. Also, the reason why Judi Dench can be M both at the "end" in Die Another Day and the "beginning" in Casino Royale is because the supporting people that surround James Bond do exist in linear time while James Bond exists outside it.
I like your way of thinking, man!
This makes a lot of sense (well, in a wibbly wobbly, timey wimey way).
Also, Bond is a Time Lord who keeps regenerating every couple of films, and like that other famous British icon, he seems to get younger with each incarnation. This also explains Felix Leiter's magical change of race as well.
^ Actually, Roger Moore was older than Connery or Lazenby.
Are we back to an adult Bond? Those tween novels I passed on, Bond in finishing school or some such crap.
I loved all the Raymond Benson novels.
Who is writing and when is/was this series released?
That's kinda how I look at it. James Bond is a franchise where linear time has no meaning. Each movie exists in a perpetual present with whatever year it happens to be at the time. Therefore, Casino Royale can be a prequel to Dr. No because, from James Bond's perspective, 1962 & 2006 are the same year. Also, the reason why Judi Dench can be M both at the "end" in Die Another Day and the "beginning" in Casino Royale is because the supporting people that surround James Bond do exist in linear time while James Bond exists outside it.
That's what I choose to believe.
Craigs bond will experience all 22 movies in updated missions
Goldfinger but a more modern version for Craig etc etc
Octopussy but a more modern version for Craig etc etc
Even though I know there are several facts and storylines throughout the series which make it impossible (such as Tracy and her death), I just like to pretend that James Bond is a code name and a persona taken up by an SIS agent selected by MI6 after the death/retirement of the previous 007. It's simpler that way. 
I wonder when we'll see the next film. Quantum of Solace came out in November 2008, and even if they jump-started production this year, by the time they filmed it and got it in the can, we likely wouldn't see the film until 2012 anyway.
That's four years since the last film. Quantum of Solace came out two years after Casino Royale. Since I highly doubt MGM's woes will be solved anytime soon -- or at least that's what appears to be the case as it keeps on dragging -- it could be even later than 2012 until we see another installment, like 2013 or 2014 or beyond. I wonder by then if Daniel Craig and/or Sam Mendes would still be willing to do the flick, or if they both or individually would have moved on by then.
I'm just speculating. Craig mentioned at Comic-Con that he hopes to do the film soon, but I don't see that happening. Was that a veiled implication that if the film doesn't move ahead soon, he wouldn't be willing to do the film? I know he's contracted for a few more films, but I guess it's just kind of frustrating that we have to wait so long for another James Bond film. I'm patient, but with no end in sight with MGM's financial woes, the outcome doesn't look hopeful.
That's four years since the last film. Quantum of Solace came out two years after Casino Royale. Since I highly doubt MGM's woes will be solved anytime soon -- or at least that's what appears to be the case as it keeps on dragging -- it could be even later than 2012 until we see another installment, like 2013 or 2014 or beyond. I wonder by then if Daniel Craig and/or Sam Mendes would still be willing to do the flick, or if they both or individually would have moved on by then.
I'm just speculating. Craig mentioned at Comic-Con that he hopes to do the film soon, but I don't see that happening. Was that a veiled implication that if the film doesn't move ahead soon, he wouldn't be willing to do the film? I know he's contracted for a few more films, but I guess it's just kind of frustrating that we have to wait so long for another James Bond film. I'm patient, but with no end in sight with MGM's financial woes, the outcome doesn't look hopeful.
That's kinda how I look at it. James Bond is a franchise where linear time has no meaning. Each movie exists in a perpetual present with whatever year it happens to be at the time. Therefore, Casino Royale can be a prequel to Dr. No because, from James Bond's perspective, 1962 & 2006 are the same year. Also, the reason why Judi Dench can be M both at the "end" in Die Another Day and the "beginning" in Casino Royale is because the supporting people that surround James Bond do exist in linear time while James Bond exists outside it.
That's what I choose to believe.
Craigs bond will experience all 22 movies in updated missions
Goldfinger but a more modern version for Craig etc etc
Octopussy but a more modern version for Craig etc etc
Just not Thunderball or McClory will start all over again.
That's kinda how I look at it. James Bond is a franchise where linear time has no meaning. Each movie exists in a perpetual present with whatever year it happens to be at the time. Therefore, Casino Royale can be a prequel to Dr. No because, from James Bond's perspective, 1962 & 2006 are the same year. Also, the reason why Judi Dench can be M both at the "end" in Die Another Day and the "beginning" in Casino Royale is because the supporting people that surround James Bond do exist in linear time while James Bond exists outside it.
That's what I choose to believe.
Craigs bond will experience all 22 movies in updated missions
Goldfinger but a more modern version for Craig etc etc
Octopussy but a more modern version for Craig etc etc
After CR was announced, someone on the BBS (I think it might have been 23Skiddoo) said that they ought to film all the novels in the order in which they had been written, updating them for the Craig series. As remakes go, this would have been a ballsy move.
^ Not remakes as such, but new adaptations of the books. It wouldn't be my preferred choice and I imagine that your reaction would probably be the dominant one, but done well, it could lead to some great movies and allow for character growth for Craig's Bond in keeping with the books.
The trouble is most of the books would still need major adaptations to be turned into films so personally I'd rather they just came up with something new.
Moonraker for example, who wants to see Daniel Craig sneaking round a rocket base for 2 hours. That said there are still a few elements from the books they haven't used that I'd like to see. Blofeld's garden of death for example.
Moonraker for example, who wants to see Daniel Craig sneaking round a rocket base for 2 hours. That said there are still a few elements from the books they haven't used that I'd like to see. Blofeld's garden of death for example.
^ Unfortunately, isn't Blofeld still off-limits, due to the McClory business? But some variation on that might be interesting all right.
