An Interesting Take on continuity and Casino Royale

Thomas Crown

After reading the article "Prequel, Reboot, or Retcon" on www.mi6.co.uk, I'm motivated to share my thoughts on the topic and I'd be curious to hear your reactions.

Given what we know about Casino Royale, it seems to me the best way to describe the film without de-validating the previous 20 adventures is as the start of a "new" 007 series. I don't deny this could just be me reading way too much into the situation, and I doubt more casual fans will even take the time to think of the films place in such a way, though I firmly believe this logic makes the most sense.

Dr. No to Die Another Day represent 20 films with a loose lineage that ties them together as a series where the order of certain cinematic events is respected and occasionally recognized. The best examples of this are the references to Tracy in For Your Eyes Only (where Tracy is seen dying in 1969) and Licence To Kill. Sylvia Trench returning in From Russia With Love, saying she hasn't seen Bond for six months because "he went off to Jamaica" is another example of how these films are loose sequels of each other. And the homage’s to previous films in both On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Die Another Day recognize this series' history.

Further, and perhaps on a less obvious note, all of the Bond actors cast since 1967 have been in the mold of Sean Connery. Peter Hunt says it best when, during the casting questions of 1969, "everyone agreed what we really wanted was another Sean Connery." Roger Moore, apparently trying to separate himself from Connery in his first two films by smoking cigars instead of cigarette's, and seldom saying "Bond James Bond," only became popular when embracing a more traditional conception of the character in The Spy Who Loved Me. And both Dalton and Brosnan cite Connery as a model they are meant to follow and live up to. It would be safe to say then, the past 20 films used Sean Connery, rather than Ian Fleming as the primary model for the 007 character.

Taking this into account, it's easy to see Casino Royale as completely separate from the first 20 films. This James Bond was born in 1968, which, if we are to use the previous 20 films lineage, he would have been one year old the year Tracy died. This James Bond wins his Aston Martin, never having the Bentley Bond asks for in Goldfinger and is given the Aston by Q instead. James Bond in Casino Royale also went through the cover ranks of the secret service, rather than service in the Royal Navy. Further, there is no indication of a previous M before the female version we have now, therefore making the character of Sir Miles Messervey non-existent in this new 007n reality.

Also, and perhaps it’s too bold to say this without having seeing the film, Daniel Craig is the first 007 not to be cast in the mold of Sean Connery. I know some have compared his physical competence to Connery's, but it takes more than muscles to make a comparison in my mind. He does not have any similarity in looks to Connery, and judging by from what we hear about pieces of dialogue and characterization, this is hardly the smooth operator Connery perfected. Rather, we're given a Bond who is apparently more ruthless, short-tempered, and emotional than Connery's benchmark portrayal. Again, I could be jumping the gun here, but there is no denying when Craig talks of the role he doesn't nearly reference Connery as much as other actors do. Rather he talks about getting it "better than right." I think that speaks to something.

All of this is surrounded by comments from the producers who have said "we have gone as far as we could" with the previous formula, or David Arnold, who also said the typical use of Bond music has been exhausted. I suppose we won't know until we all see the film, and what direction the proceeding films take. However, it seems like Casino Royale at least wants to be the start of a new generation of Bond films where the sequels play off each other, where Fleming, not Connery is the benchmark for the Bond actor in the role, and more attention is played to darker and unique, rather than formulaic stories.

I personally am ready to accept Casino Royale as such and appreciate both the first generation of Bond films, and this “next generation.”

Any thoughts?

Napoleon Plural

On an imdb thread, it said there were three Bond universes, the first Connery and Moore, the second Dalton and Brosnan, the third is Craig. This feels true, as DAF leans towards a Moore-style adventure, and the new incumbent Brosnan is talked to like he's a Cold Warrior by M, and thematically seems similiar to Dalton.

However, Craig is obviously a different time line. The other films hardly ever contradicted previous efforts, except perhaps by accident (ie OHMSS is meant to follow YOLT but Bond and Blofeld don't recognise each other.)

I see what you mean about Craig not referencing Connery at all.

mrwoodpigeon

It would be great to have a new film of LALD methinks :v

mrwoodpigeon

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be great to have all of Fleming's books remade in order!

I know I may be asking for trouble by saying this, but I would love to see new takes on some of the classics. Imagine DC in the first three films - CR, LALD and MR! Filmed as close to the fantastic books as possible!! That would be grand.

Now I'm looking for somewhere to hide

Virgil

mrwoodpigeon wrote:

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be great to have all of Fleming's books remade in order!

I know I may be asking for trouble by saying this, but I would love to see new takes on some of the classics. Imagine DC in the first three films - CR, LALD and MR! Filmed as close to the fantastic books as possible!! That would be grand.

Now I'm looking for somewhere to hide

Don´t hide! It would be great. Take the character and start from scratch as they are doing now, then develop it following Fleming. Update all novels to present day.
How would the great classics be nowadays? Dr.No? Goldfinger? The possibilities are endless, really.
It won´t happen, though.

mrwoodpigeon

Glad to see someone else likes this idea {[]

darenhat

The idea of an utter and complete reboot of the Bond series is interesting...but I think it's not really possible. There are too many thematic elements that remain to tie it to the Connery-to-Brosnan films: the gunbarrel, the Bond theme, Dench's M, as well as (even in an inconsistently portrayed form) Felix Leiter. Bond's pistol and Aston, albeit a different model, are also facets the character. With that, it's simply not possible to completely separate Craig from his predecesors. And then there's the matter of 'the canon'. There are some (and the number grows continually) who have not been introduced to Bond in the order the fims were released. I think my first Bond film was Moonraker. Is that the film that set the tone, for me, as to how the series would evolve? Not really. I watched the films in an irregular progression, going with the suspension of disbelief that the man, though in a different year, with a different face, is the same person that I watched before. After audiences watch CR, they have no place else to go (until Bond 22 is released) to see Bond but the previous films...and obvious connections are going to be made. To endeavor to create some sort of 'parallel' Bond would be a concept that simply wouldn't work IMO.

Napoleon Plural

And, more obviously, some of the films are very close to the novels anyway... FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS.

On that basis, the first three novels would be interesting and would fit in with Craig's persona, yet no doubt MR5 would disagree cos they're not the novels that really catch fire with some readers. Still, LALD has the Fleming sweep and I'd like to see Craig's cynical Bond up against the dark elements ie voodoo.

Johnny Danger

I've been thinking of CR more as a complete re-boot than a prequel all along. Sure, they are keeping some of the elements that made the "original series" popular, but they are breaking away from the vague chronological lineage that the previous films sometimes alluded to, usually when they were trying to tie a new Bond actor to the previous Bond films to remind us "this is still Bond, despite the new face." I never felt that the filmmakers were putting much effort into continuity other than that. Let's see, if Bond was around 35 when Tracy died in 1969, how old would he be now... almost 75??

As for the "new series" starting with a female M, well, perhaps the male M (Sir Miles) hasn't been given the job yet. You just need to forget the fact that she appears to be the same M who sent Broz out on the last Bond mission in the "original series". There is a complete break in continuity, and anyone who watches CR with previous notions of continuity are only going to get themselves confused. It is already rumored that Moneypenny and Q will be "introduced" in the next Bond film. Perhaps the male M will be introduced as well.

IMHO, Craig will be more like Connery than all the other Bonds in between. He has the same sort of strong physical presence, ruthless looks and animal magnetism as Connery, as apposed to the "pretty boy" suaveness & charm of Moore and Brosnan. (I'm not knocking Brosnan here, I thought he was a great Bond. Moore was OK, but way too debonaire.) In fact, I've seen at least a few photos of Craig in which certain facial expressions remind me very much of Connery.

As for Craig portraying a "more ruthless, short-tempered, and emotional Bond than Connery's benchmark portrayal", it's like Craig said in his Today show interview. They wanted to show Bond in the beginning when he was raw, fallable and inexperienced, and show how he became the more sophisticated Bond we are all more familiar with. I'm sure Craig's Bond will continue to be more ruthless and violent than the previous Bonds, but experience will smooth away some of his rougher edges and make him more suave and confident, which
may make Craig the most Conneryesque Bond since Connery. Let's not forget that scene in Dr. No where Bond casually kills Prof. Dent in cold blood. Now that was ruthless... and gritty!;) Definitely Fleming's Bond!

Nightshooter

I like to think of CR as strictly a prequel, just because I don't want to think that there are two Bond universes.

Gassy Man

It feels more like a reboot to me. The previous Bond films had continuity, so long as you accepted Bond's age (and appearance) going back and forth even as the timeline seemed to march forward, with only a few glitches; if I read another thread correctly, according to the official "Casino Royale" Web site, Bond's birthdate is now listed as 1968 (not long after mine, woohoo!). If that works its way into the film, then I'm not sure how we reconcile it with his marriage to Tracy in 1969. Regardless, I'm all for a reboot, especially if it means the other Fleming novels will be remade, perhaps closer to their written origins. I can enjoy the classic Bond films just as easily as new imaginings of them. It's funny, but having had so many different actors play Bond in the past actually makes it easier for me to accept a whole new series of Bond films. I'm not sure I would feel comfortable if, say, they recast Indiana Jones or Captain Kirk.

Nightshooter

But Brosnan's Bond could have married Tracy in 1969? Give me a break, here, guys! The timing is ALWAYS weird, whether Bond is Craig, Brosnan or Dalton.

caractacus potts

theres a way to make it all make sense:
Craig plays a cardsharp named Evelyn Tremble, recruited to play the role of James Bond in a cardgame and save the world
Sean Connery plays the role of the real James Bond, grumbling about some unseen new womaniser who's usurped his name
and at the end everybody gets blown up and Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig are all playing harps in heaven

Thomas Crown

Another article posted here: http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4350

adds some fuel to this fire. Essientially, the new approach to the Bond films seems to include a new plot line with more connected stories. And given that the producers have written off the ideas of remaking older Bond films, this does add validity to the point that these Bond films are simply a separate and distinct entity compared to the other 20 films.

Then again, this could be something only lasting for while Craig is Bond, and could conclude with his third film. If that's the case, we could have a "Craig triology," very interesting...

Gassy Man

Nightshooter wrote:

But Brosnan's Bond could have married Tracy in 1969? Give me a break, here, guys! The timing is ALWAYS weird, whether Bond is Craig, Brosnan or Dalton.

Oh, I agree in principle. But there's been almost anything onscreen -- other than the aforementioned habit of Bond being reincarnated in different bodies and at younger ages from time to time -- that contradicts the established timeline and history. However, were we to be told in "Casino Royale" that Bond was born in 1968, clearly that contradicts any notion that this is, in fact, the same guy that battled "Dr. No" in 1962, married Tracy in 1969, went into orbit in 1979, etc. I've always found it an absurd proposition that it was supposed to be the same guy, but I had to admit that the films more or less pretended he was, once the conceit about different actors was entertained.

Dan Same

Two quick comments from me;

1)Although I don't like the idea of a reboot, I do consider CR to be one (and IMO the first Bond reboot of all time.) Although continuity was pretty loose, I could easily imagine that Brosnan had gone up against Doctor No, Connery had gotten married to Tracey, Moore had fought Grant, Dalton had killed Scaramanga and Lazenby had slept with Pussy etc... Similarly, many of the films referred to previous events. CR is completely different. Not only does it contradict previous films, but while Craig's Bond is yet to marry Tracey, for example, I can not imagine his Bond ever will as the film features too many continuity mistakes, a couple of which (such as the bringing back of Dench as M) are too major to ignore. Therefore, it is easier for me to imagine that this is the start of a new series (perhaps EON will go back to the old series when Craig leaves) than a film that is connected to the other films in any way (such as a prequel.)

2)Thomas, I agree. Craig does not remind me of Connery at all. I think his performance will be very unConnery-like.

mrwoodpigeon

Thomas Crown wrote:

Then again, this could be something only lasting for while Craig is Bond, and could conclude with his third film. If that's the case, we could have a "Craig triology," very interesting...

Very interesting indeed, I'd like to see that.

mrwoodpigeon

Napoleon Plural wrote:

On that basis, the first three novels would be interesting and would fit in with Craig's persona, yet no doubt MR5 would disagree cos they're not the novels that really catch fire with some readers. Still, LALD has the Fleming sweep and I'd like to see Craig's cynical Bond up against the dark elements ie voodoo.

I would too. That would be a great trilogy. I am reading MR for the first time (new to the books, old to the films) and would love to see DR's Bond in these novels.

Though I must admit, I get a kick from RM's MR everytime!

darenhat

Gassy Man wrote:

Nightshooter wrote:

But Brosnan's Bond could have married Tracy in 1969? Give me a break, here, guys! The timing is ALWAYS weird, whether Bond is Craig, Brosnan or Dalton.

Oh, I agree in principle. But there's been almost anything onscreen -- other than the aforementioned habit of Bond being reincarnated in different bodies and at younger ages from time to time -- that contradicts the established timeline and history. However, were we to be told in "Casino Royale" that Bond was born in 1968, clearly that contradicts any notion that this is, in fact, the same guy that battled "Dr. No" in 1962, married Tracy in 1969, went into orbit in 1979, etc. I've always found it an absurd proposition that it was supposed to be the same guy, but I had to admit that the films more or less pretended he was, once the conceit about different actors was entertained.

In my mind, the 'dates' of the films were always ambiguous. The closest the films ever came to referencing the year a previous mission took place was when Roger Moore visits Tracy's grave in FYEO. Her date of death appears on the marker, I believe. Other than that, I always felt the films could really take place at any given time. However, with the reboot concept, I think it would be difficult to portray Craig as both a pre-Tracy Bond and a post-Tracy Bond (ie. CR can take place before DN, but Bond 22 or 23 can't occur after OHMSS). Will there ever be another reference to Bond's tragic marriage as there was in TSWLM and LTK? If so, I don't think I could buy it unless it it involves whoever plays Bond after Craig.

Gassy Man

There is at least one other date -- the 00 agent in "The Man with the Golden Gun" that both Bond and Moneypenny knew who was killed in the 1960s (obviously prior to Moore's tenure).. Felix Leiter portrayed by David Hedison might be an attempt at continuity, too, though with so many actors taking on that role, who knows. Of course, Lazenby's tour of Bond gadgets past connects his film to the previous ones, at least visually and aurally.

darenhat

Gassy Man wrote:

Felix Leiter portrayed by David Hedison might be an attempt at continuity, too, though with so many actors taking on that role, who knows. Of course, Lazenby's tour of Bond gadgets past connects his film to the previous ones, at least visually and aurally.

For me, these types of homages are harmless. Since Bond is a character who continually exists in the present, it is easy for me to imagine that LTL could take place right after LALD (I suppose Leiter's mutilation prevents it going the other way). Originally, I didn't care for the PTS in GE taking place so many years before the rest of the story, since it disrupts that 'flow' for me. I don't like to think of Bond so much as having a past (or even a future, for that matter) but rather as a man that is in the moment...kind of a Bond d'jour.

Dan Same

I think people place too much emphasis on this whole issue of dates. Yes, the dates have been munipulated and altered but IMO that's only because we live in a world in which it is impossible to have one actor play Bond. If that was possible, and there was an actor who agreed to do so, then I don't think we would be having this discussion. However because we age, including the great Sean Connery , I think that one should ignore the different dates and should ask oneself the following question; Can one picture each of the Bonds having the same experiences as the others?

I certainly can. The way I see it, Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan each have the exact same experiences and histories. Craig clearly does not. This, along with all of the continuity errors, leads me to the conclusion that CR should be viewed only as a reboot (at least by me) and not connected to the other 20 films in any way.

blueman

Agree Dan, but it works in reverse as well: can you imagine that Craig will have all those adventures already filmed? I can. Instant continuity!

Dan Same

blueman wrote:

Agree Dan, but it works in reverse as well: can you imagine that Craig will have all those adventures already filmed? I can. Instant continuity!

Well, it would require a great deal of imagination. Afterall, he only becomes a 00 in this film. They could perhaps refer to 'his' previous adventures in Bond 22 or (ideally) Bond 23, but I think that would be very confusing. Plus, his 00 status aside, there are continuity errors (sush as the casting of Dench and the way he gets the Aston Martin) which contradict previous Bond films and which IMO make it quite difficult to believe that Craig's tenure will be connected to the other Bond films in any way.

blueman

Aw c'mon, it makes as much sense as all the rest having the same continuity, jumping back to the beginning of Bond's career doesn't have to mean jumping back in time, Craig-Bond could meet up with Dr. No sometime in his fictitious near-future, battle Grant, flip Pussy in the woodshed, etc.

I guess the continuity is what you make of it, and a bit of a headache no matter how you choose to view it.

emtiem

Dan Same wrote:

there are continuity errors (sush as the casting of Dench and the way he gets the Aston Martin) which contradict previous Bond films and which IMO make it quite difficult to believe that Craig's tenure will be connected to the other Bond films in any way.

So, were you imagining a continuity where Brosnan's Bond recieves a brand new DB5 from Q in Goldfinger?

emtiem

Gassy Man wrote:

Nightshooter wrote:

But Brosnan's Bond could have married Tracy in 1969? Give me a break, here, guys! The timing is ALWAYS weird, whether Bond is Craig, Brosnan or Dalton.

Oh, I agree in principle. But there's been almost anything onscreen -- other than the aforementioned habit of Bond being reincarnated in different bodies and at younger ages from time to time -- that contradicts the established timeline and history. However, were we to be told in "Casino Royale" that Bond was born in 1968, clearly that contradicts any notion that this is, in fact, the same guy that battled "Dr. No" in 1962, married Tracy in 1969, went into orbit in 1979, etc. I've always found it an absurd proposition that it was supposed to be the same guy, but I had to admit that the films more or less pretended he was, once the conceit about different actors was entertained.

Well no- Dalton's Bond was born on the 10th of November 1948 and Brosnan's on the 6th of May 1961 (as given on their passport, MI6 records etc as seen on screen, although not in enough detail to see), so they would contradict all that just the same. And I'm not sure that the new Bond's birthday appears in CR.

Moonraker 5

Dan Same wrote:

and the way he gets the Aston Martin which contradict previous Bond films

It's not the same Aston Martin. For a start, the steering wheel is on the wrong side...

emtiem

Moonraker 5 wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

and the way he gets the Aston Martin which contradict previous Bond films

It's not the same Aston Martin. For a start, the steering wheel is on the wrong side...

And as I say, even if it were, how would Brosnan's Bond (born in 1961, don't forget) be given a brand new 1964-model car for use in his undercover duties as a top spy?
None of the continuity fits together so you already have to be choosing to what to ignore in some way to fit it together; why is what this film is asking you to ignore any worse?

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

So, were you imagining a continuity where Brosnan's Bond recieves a brand new DB5 from Q in Goldfinger?

Yes. IMO, Brosnan's Bond did receive a brand new DB5 from Q in GF. Anyway, my point is that due to my not being able to fit CR into the continuity, I consider it to be a reboot rather a prequel. Not particularly new or controversial, but there you go.

Dan Same

Moonraker 5 wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

and the way he gets the Aston Martin which contradict previous Bond films

It's not the same Aston Martin. For a start, the steering wheel is on the wrong side...

Maybe, but he still got an Aston Martin which replaced a Bentley in GF. I would assume then that Craig's Bond replaces this Aston Martin with a Bentley. My point is that there are several continuity errors (IMO his having his heart broken by Vesper is a big one, as is a black Felix) which lead me to classify this as a reboot rather than a prequel. My point is that IMO there are now two Bond series; 1962-2002 and 2006-?.