• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Lashana Lynch to be the new 007...

DigificWriter said:
I don't know why I forgot about Brosnan's final outing, but my broader point stands. The Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan films are all part of a single shared continuity that is abandonded with the advent of Casino Royale and the casting of Daniel Craig.

This is not a disputable or debatable point.
Click to expand...

Ok...how come Craig Bond has Connery Bonds car? ;p
Right down to the number plate.

And Brosnan’s M, right down to the work address?

Brosnan has Q...and a db5, but importantly, not Connery’s db5.

Hence it both is and isn’t a reboot. And if it is...the GoldenEye is more of a reboot.
So it’s not the first reboot, even if it is one (which it was intended to be. Till it wasn’t anymore.)

Doesn’t Craig also tend towards the Omega’s só beloved of his immediate predecessor also?

Bond continuity is absolutely, totally, impossible to make any sense of. It’s like the Schrodingers Cat of continuity...it’s in two states at once till you look at it, but it seems to depend rather a lot on who the observer is.
 
BillJ said:
We didn't call them reboots back then, because we weren't as obsessed with continuity. But I tend to think Bond rebooted several times along the way. Unless we believe Bond was in his 80's during his 2000's adventures. :eek:
Click to expand...

This.

The question of whether something is a "reboot" or a "soft reboot" or "alternate universe" or a "reimagining" is a very modern sort of nonsense.

The Bond franchise has relied on people not asking too many awkward questions for decades, not least because (and this can't be emphasised enough) he never ages.

It's a Bond film, with Bond in. The next one may or may not have Bond in, much as Bourne Legacy was notably short of Jason Bourne and George Smiley is often little more than a bit player in some installments of the Smiley novels. The world still turned and people enjoyed them.
 
jaime said:
It’s based on Live and Let Die. As is Live and Let Die. I am not sure if they got the title from a short story or not.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't. The only thing LtK took from the literary Bond canon was some inspiration from "The Hildebrand Rarity", which was hardly direct. The title is original, in fact it was supposed to be "Licence Revoked", which would habe worked better with the plot, but the market research suggested the US audience would have misunderstood that title.

You might be thinking of "For Your Eyes Only", which was mainly an adaptation of the short story by the sam title, but also used a scene from the "Live and Let Die" novel.

Goldeneye was very much a reboot after the contract problems and lawsuits etc. They even talked about casting a woman etc back then, allegedly. Only thing that carries over at all is Q. Looking at the following films, it could be strongly argued that the Brosnan era stands alone better than the Craig era...no DB5, and M is a bigger character than Q simply because of TWINE
Click to expand...
Brosnan did drive the DB5.
 
sttngfan1701d said:
You're entitled to your opinion. Some may agree with you. Millions more do not. Most people enjoy when legacies are respected. And who knows....the next actor might do like Timothy Dalton and try to re-ground the character in his literary roots.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Bond series has that much to do with the literary roots, even in the Dalton films.
 
Spot261 said:
This.

The question of whether something is a "reboot" or a "soft reboot" or "alternate universe" or a "reimagining" is a very modern sort of nonsense.

The Bond franchise has relied on people not asking too many awkward questions for decades, not least because (and this can't be emphasised enough) he never ages.

It's a Bond film, with Bond in. The next one may or may not have Bond in, much as Bourne Legacy was notably short of Jason Bourne and George Smiley is often little more than a bit player in some installments of the Smiley novels. The world still turned and people enjoyed them.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect the James Bond films won’t dump James Bond. The idea of bifurcation from the code name is intriguing, but I suspect won’t happen. Not least as I think it’s something they specifically copyrighted ‘James Bond 007’. I am not sure they can actually copyright the name at all.
 
Kai "the spy" said:
No, it wasn't. The only thing LtK took from the literary Bond canon was some inspiration from "The Hildebrand Rarity", which was hardly direct. The title is original, in fact it was supposed to be "Licence Revoked", which would habe worked better with the plot, but the market research suggested the US audience would have misunderstood that title.

You might be thinking of "For Your Eyes Only", which was mainly an adaptation of the short story by the sam title, but also used a scene from the "Live and Let Die" novel.


Brosnan did drive the DB5.
Click to expand...

The entire Felix Leiter getting nommed, and the drugs plot is from Live and Let Die. Word for word practically. (Source: it’s one of about three Fleming novels I have read, have a terribly dated looking ex-library paperback somewhere.) Milton Krest is from the Hildebrandt Rarity.
GoldenEye is the first to contain literally nothing. I have a feeling even Quantum of Solace got its title from a Fleming short.

Edit: to clarify, the wedding and nomming, obviously not the Mexican drugs stuff...just general drug dealing stuff.

Oh and...Brosnans DB5 wasn’t the same one as Connery...different license plate and gadgets. The skyfall one was the Connery model down to the number plate. For once I googled that earlier today to make sure I wasn’t misremembering.
 
jaime said:
The entire Felix Leiter getting nommed, and the drugs plot is from Live and Let Die. Word for word practically. (Source: it’s one of about three Fleming novels I have read, have a terribly dated looking ex-library paperback somewhere.) Milton Krest is from the Hildebrandt Rarity.
GoldenEye is the first to contain literally nothing. I have a feeling even Quantum of Solace got its title from a Fleming short.
Click to expand...

It did.

It was one where Bond is at a dinner party and expects to be bored by having to spend so much time around people he perceives as "banal" but finds himself rapt with the mundane life stories of his fellow guests, including a couple who met after the woman left an abusive husband.

In fact it was one of several Fleming works where Bond is either not the primary character, not on a mission, doesn't save the world, kill anyone or do any of the things we have got used to associating with him.

Worth bearing that in mind when people (I'm looking at you @sttngfan1701d) refer to the characters' "literary roots". The formula we know has a lot more to do with how the films evolved as popcorn munching money spinners than respecting any legacy.
 
DigificWriter said:
I don't know why I forgot about Brosnan's final outing, but my broader point stands. The Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan films are all part of a single shared continuity that is abandonded with the advent of Casino Royale and the casting of Daniel Craig.

This is not a disputable or debatable point.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Bond in Dr. No is the same character as Bond in Die Another Day? Forty years apart? I'd say that Connery's age in Dr. No (32) is probably fairly close to what Bond's would be. As one wouldn't become a top class secret agent right out of high school or college. Which means the Bond we are watching in Die Another Day (40 years later) would be 72 years old.

You really want to die on this hill? :guffaw:
 
Spot261 said:
Worth bearing that in mind when people (I'm looking at you @sttngfan1701d) refer to the characters' "literary roots". The formula we know has a lot more to do with how the films evolved as popcorn munching money spinners than respecting any legacy.
Click to expand...
Yet another chucklehead taking a pop at me? Lordy this thread.

I wasn't talking about the movie/plot formula. I was talking about the adjustment made from the Moore era to Dalton's harder, more cynical interpretation. Something Dalton himself admitted to doing, to get closer to Fleming.
 
jaime said:
GoldenEye is the first to contain literally nothing.
Click to expand...
Point of order: from the books, yes. The name does come from Fleming, as it shares the name of Fleming's summer home, I believe.

Spot261 said:
not least because (and this can't be emphasised enough) he never ages.
Click to expand...

well... I mean technically Live And Let Die to A View To A Kill is pretty evident that even this isn't true :D
 
I had to google that and I'm still confused. Bond fan film? Alternate suggested name for Fleming's estate?
 
BeatleJWOL said:
I had to google that and I'm still confused. Bond fan film? Alternate suggested name for Fleming's estate?
Click to expand...

It’s the name of abounds house in Jamaica I think. I think it’s in the Benson novels possibly.

Edit: Bonds house. And yes technically GoldenEye. It’s in Zero minus ten, which I enjoyed immensely a couple of years ago, even though some of it is like ticking a box of stereotypes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Minus_Ten

Edit on the edit: it’s the Japan one that is like a tourist list of stereotypes. Zero minus ten is fun with HK handover back drop.
 
Last edited:
sttngfan1701d said:
Yet another chucklehead taking a pop at me? Lordy this thread.

I wasn't talking about the movie/plot formula. I was talking about the adjustment made from the Moore era to Dalton's harder, more cynical interpretation. Something Dalton himself admitted to doing, to get closer to Fleming.
Click to expand...

Closer to Fleming would include stories where Bond was a secondary character. It would mean making Bond a whole lot less charismatic and interesting since he was explicitly designed to be largely a blank canvas onto whom (mostly) male readers could project themselves. Even the name was picked to be bland and uninteresting.

It would mean exploring his reliance on alcohol as a form of self medication or to bolster his courage and the times he is unable to perform missions because he is simply too scared. It would mean including the scenes where he vomits before or after violence or is paralysed by shock. It would mean including the scenes where he rapes people and inflicts pain for fun.

If you want to get closer to the source material then taking the spotlight off Bond and displacing him as central to the heroism is entirely in fitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top