Why DCinB: The Answers you're looking for

[Kristatos]

Maybe a good old fashioned rant or dust up is required?

Yo mama.

[The Sweeney]

Bond was a cold, ruthless, killing machine

So does all of the other incarnation.

Bond could suddenly get the urge to be reckless

So does in the other films.

I am not saying the Bond's in the other films weren't.

And as for your Vesper/Bond quote `I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did,' doesn't necessarily mean that Bond is admitting it doesn't bother him. This line is very much like something from the novels, where Bond makes a quick, evasive remark when talking about killing people, often covering up his emotions. I thought that was very keeping in line with Fleming.

As for references to Tracey regarding continuity, well she didn't exist in the CR novel. How could she?

As I said before, continuity in Bond films is non-existant IMO. With the very minor references ocassionally mentioned throughout the series, to you it obviously is very existant, and very important

[Kristatos]

As I said before, continuity in Bond films is non-existant IMO. With the very minor references ocassionally mentioned throughout the series, to you it obviously is very existant, and very important

I know that comment wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to throw in my tuppen'orth anyway. I agree that continuity in the Bond 1.0 series was minimal, but to me, that actually makes the reboot more annoying, because it's completely unnecessary. They could have made substantially the same film without giving the two-fingered salute to the previous 20 films.

[Jedi007]

As I said before, continuity in Bond films is non-existant IMO. With the very minor references ocassionally mentioned throughout the series, to you it obviously is very existant, and very important

I know and understand that there's no solid continuity in the previous films. I can't explain why Bond doesn't know Blofeld in OHMSS when he has already met him in the previous film, YOLT. But like what I am trying to point out here is important characters, events, and facts has been carried over to every new incarnation.

I'm giving you an example: There's a reference to Tracy in LTK. Someone who doesn't know of Tracy will ask you what is that reference all about. What will you do? You either tell the one who's asking of Tracy or show him/her OHMSS, even though the two fims weren't connected. Another example: Somebody knows that Bond has a male M, but saw in TWINE that he has now a lady superior. What will you do? Show that somebody GE and he'll understand that the "new M is a lady." You can't do that with CR.

And I also agree with Kris.

[Captain Nash]

As I said before, continuity in Bond films is non-existant IMO. With the very minor references ocassionally mentioned throughout the series, to you it obviously is very existant, and very important

I'm giving you an example: There's a reference to Tracy in LTK. Someone who doesn't know of Tracy will ask you what is that reference all about. What will you do? You either tell the one who's asking of Tracy or show him/her OHMSS, even though the two fims weren't connected. Another example: Somebody knows that Bond has a male M, but saw in TWINE that he has now a lady superior. What will you do? Show that somebody GE and he'll understand that the "new M is a lady." You can't do that with CR.

Yes you can.

[Jermaine76]

I'm giving you an example: There's a reference to Tracy in LTK. Someone who doesn't know of Tracy will ask you what is that reference all about. What will you do? You either tell the one who's asking of Tracy or show him/her OHMSS, even though the two fims weren't connected. Another example: Somebody knows that Bond has a male M, but saw in TWINE that he has now a lady superior. What will you do? Show that somebody GE and he'll understand that the "new M is a lady." You can't do that with CR.

That senerio happened to me back in the day when I was in high school and was starting to watch the other Bond films. At that time, I'd only seen Goldfinger, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. My football coach knew that I was a Bond fan and he asked me about why in Licence to Kill, Bond responded oddly when Leiter's wife made a reference to him being next to get married. I didn't know myself until I saw On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Like I said before in this thread about Brosnan Bond in the video game Everything or Nothing. Bond made a reference about him battling Max Zorin on the Golden Gate bridge; however, we all know that it was Moore Bond that fought Zorin in AVTAK and not Brosnan. To me, it shows you that the character is the same guy, but played by different actors. I wish they would make more references like that in the movies, but I guess thats too late now. I remember having a dream about a villian who had Bond captive and the villian was talking smack to 007...making references about the other villians that Bond defeated were nothing compared to him.

[The Sweeney]

As I said before, continuity in Bond films is non-existant IMO. With the very minor references ocassionally mentioned throughout the series, to you it obviously is very existant, and very important

I know and understand that there's no solid continuity in the previous films. I can't explain why Bond doesn't know Blofeld in OHMSS when he has already met him in the previous film, YOLT. But like what I am trying to point out here is important characters, events, and facts has been carried over to every new incarnation.

I'm giving you an example: There's a reference to Tracy in LTK. Someone who doesn't know of Tracy will ask you what is that reference all about. What will you do? You either tell the one who's asking of Tracy or show him/her OHMSS, even though the two fims weren't connected. Another example: Somebody knows that Bond has a male M, but saw in TWINE that he has now a lady superior. What will you do? Show that somebody GE and he'll understand that the "new M is a lady." You can't do that with CR.

And I also agree with Kris.

Like I said earlier, this `continuity' issue doesn't bother me at all. With you, Kris and Jermaine, it obviously does.

[Jermaine76]

Like I said earlier, this `continuity' issue doesn't bother me at all. With you, Kris and Jermaine, it obviously does.

Well, I've never looked the the Bond films as sequels...only as each individual mission with re-occuring characters like Felix Leiter, J.W. Pepper and Valentine Zurkovsky. I think that it wouldn't bother me as much if the reboot was done properly. Not to get off topic, but I just think that showing us a five minute(if that long)scene of Bond earning his 00 rank was just wrong and a pimpsmack to all Bond fans.

[The Sweeney]

Like I said earlier, this `continuity' issue doesn't bother me at all. With you, Kris and Jermaine, it obviously does.

Well, I've never looked the the Bond films as sequels...only as each individual mission with re-occuring characters like Felix Leiter, J.W. Pepper and Valentine Zurkovsky. I think that it wouldn't bother me as much if the reboot was done properly. Not to get off topic, but I just think that showing us a five minute(if that long)scene of Bond earning his 00 rank was just wrong and a pimpsmack to all Bond fans.

Fair enough. You are another Bond fan that didn't like the way the reboot was done.

[Oddjob]

My attitude to Bond is that I'm not bothered by a reboot or a reset of the series. It may well have been time to overhaul the franchise.

However, what I do not agree with is the casting of the charmless and odd looking Daniel Craig as James Bond. I was agaisnt that when his name appeared in tabloids early in 2005 and nothing since, including the film, has changed my mind.

Welcome to the forum Oddjob. I look forward to seeing your views on all Bond related issues.

Thank you very much. I'm glad this forum has appeared.

[Jedi007]

Yes you can.

How? Tell whoever's asking why there's a reboot that the Superboy of Earth-Prime punched the walls of his pocket universe? Or that James Bond undergoes the face-changing gene therapy in DAD?

[The Sweeney]

Yes you can.

How? Tell whoever's asking why there's a reboot that the Superboy of Earth-Prime punched the walls of his pocket universe? Or that James Bond undergoes the face-changing gene therapy in DAD?

You've lost me now, Jedi.....

[stockslivevan]

Even though how James Bond should look is important, I could try getting past that and just see how the character is portrayed. However, in the new Bond film Casino Royale, there are just so many issues besides the looks that were not properly dealt with. This is the compilation of issues I have against the new film. These issues have been discussed and debated for many times but go on if you feel like answering and posting in this thread. It would be nice if this thread gets sticky for the benefit of anti-anti-CRaigers who thinks we don’t like the new Bond just because he’s blonde.

The Obvious: The Looks
I will not say more than that Ian Fleming wants Bond to look like a fifties-movie star, and as paco chaos had once said, it’s a doubt that a Steve McQueen look-alike is what Ian Fleming has in mind.

Setting and Background
Each Bond incarnation is always modern, up-to-date, and contemporary. The setting and time of each incarnation depends on the current condition of the world they are in. However, unlike the new Bond, the previous five incarnations manages to keep what Ian Fleming intended his character to be: an agent from the Cold War Era. Even Brosnan, the modern Bond of the past five, is made a Cold War agent as he was present in the last year of the Cold War Era before moving on his present time, nine years later. There’s really no big deal if the new Bond is not made a Cold War agent at all since he’s set in the modern times. However, his incarnation and the new film is presented to us the beginning of it all, a lame excuse of the people behind this film to save themselves from trying hard to explain why a sophisticated refined man suddenly turned into a half-Terminator, half-Rambo, Jackie Chan wannabe. As a “Bond Begins” film, they could have made at least a subtle reference to Bond belonging to Cold War, maybe not a Cold War with the dates but maybe a fictional Cold War as the condition of his fictional world (state of tension between countries short of armed conflict).

The new Bond doesn’t also feel like he belongs with the previous incarnations and set of films. The other twenty films may not be made to belong in the same continuity (as each one of them appears to be stand-alones), however, each incarnation are made to be one and the same. How? It’s like one same game being played by different players and in different time. Connery’s James Bond is already a veteran agent in Dr, No, so does all incarnation that follows after his. Lazenby’s Bond marries Tracy, so does the other Bonds. They even got the same M and Q (in Brosnan’s case, his lady M is new to MI5). And all of them are Cold War agents, as what was intended by Fleming. The new Bond film erases these very important events in the cinematic Bond’s life.

Characters
I do not have a problem with a lady M, and Dame Dench made a good job for being Bond’s superior of a different gender. However, the problem once more lies with the film being presented as “Bond Begins”. Bond doesn’t have a lady M in the beginning. Brosnan’s lady M is never the first, and that’s why there’s no problem with his version. I do not have also a problem with Wright as Leiter, but that’s not how Fleming wrote that character.

The Most Important: Characterization
James Bond is sophisticated, refined, and polished, despite the violence and ruthlessness of his job. And that’s what separates him from other cold-blooded assassins, street thugs and mad murderers. All throughout these new film, the new Bond never showed this side.

The Film and the Critics
Flemingesque? Real? As long as Bond is in the films, he would never stay real and he would keep doing impossible things an ordinary man can’t do. Bond running tirelessly is not real; so does able to breathe underwater for more than five minutes. Stupidly blowing up an embassy like a terrorist Flemingesque? The issues I’ve mentioned above also shows how far the new Bond is from the real Flemingesque Bond.

Two letters:

BS

You lose.

[carl stromberg]

Stocksilvian: can you at least try to attach some sort of post to your insults?

[Jedi007]

You've lost me now, Jedi.....

That's just a reference to the Infinite Crisis from the DC Comics Universe, where Superboy-Prime punches the wall of his pocket universe and causes alternation of reality. This explains why some of the superheroes has multiple origins and why there are reboots in DCU. Clearly there's nothing like that in James Bond world that could explain the reboot crap.

And I think saying "continuity is non-existent IMO" is not enough to support the idea of reboot. First, you're just one person saying that. Second: others say that the continuity in the James Bond is of a "rough continuity", yet still, it is continuity. How do you explain the references in the films? Do you mean the wife reference in TSWLM, LTK and TWINE doesn't refer to OHMSS? The thing is some of the films from the first group of Bond films tries to remind us that each different incarnation is one and the same. Or else there wouldn't be references, and the rocket and crocodile thing in DAD wouldn't be present.

Two letters:

BS

You lose.

Nice. That's what you get when you're trying to explain your side. What else would you expect from a pro-Craiger?

[stockslivevan]

Two letters:

BS

You lose.

Nice. That's what you get when you're trying to explain your side. What else would you expect from a pro-Craiger?

I expect something that makes sense from you. Since you don't, why should I bother taking you seriously? Its as simple as ABCs and shapes. I could post a lot of things right now in this thread but I don't feel like wasting my time with you.

[The Sweeney]

You've lost me now, Jedi.....

That's just a reference to the Infinite Crisis from the DC Comics Universe, where Superboy-Prime punches the wall of his pocket universe and causes alternation of reality. This explains why some of the superheroes has multiple origins and why there are reboots in DCU. Clearly there's nothing like that in James Bond world that could explain the reboot crap.

Ahhh! That makes sense....

And I think saying "continuity is non-existent IMO" is not enough to support the idea of reboot. First, you're just one person saying that. Second: others say that the continuity in the James Bond is of a "rough continuity", yet still, it is continuity. How do you explain the references in the films? Do you mean the wife reference in TSWLM, LTK and TWINE doesn't refer to OHMSS? The thing is some of the films from the first group of Bond films tries to remind us that each different incarnation is one and the same. Or else there wouldn't be references, and the rocket and crocodile thing in DAD wouldn't be present.

How many times do I have to keep explaining myself to you! Yes, there is a very loose `continuity' in the Bond films, which I couldn't care less about. I am just one person saying this? Check out all the other Bond forums and the majority of film magazine reviews. You may find yourself in the minority then. And who the hell are you to judge me on if I can support the reboot or not. It's an opinion....hear me, an

O P I N I O N!

The same way your opinion is the reboot sucks. Do I knock you about that? No! The previous Bond films all continue from one another, CR suddenly takes us back to the beginning to change all that.....and? It didn't bother me. It does bother you. End of story. Nothing more to be said.

Two letters:

BS

You lose.

Nice. That's what you get when you're trying to explain your side. What else would you expect from a pro-Craiger?

I have to say Jedi, I am agreeing with Stocks here. I am starting to lose patience with you too. You keep on needling me, asking for detailed explanations as to why Craig is like Fleming's Bond, and then when I respond in detail, if it is something you do not have an answer for, you choose to ignore it, and start to pick on something else.

I've tried to remain civil with you on each debate we have had, and tried to put things down to a matter of opinion only on both sides, but this is something you are clearly failing to grasp. I could easily say I put this down to you being an anti-Craiger, but I wouldn't stoop so low, as there are many anti-Craigers on here who I like, respect, and understand their point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

[Jedi007]

Yes, there is a very loose `continuity' in the Bond films, which I couldn't care less about.

You should have told me that since the beginning, that you don't care about the contnuity in the past 20 films rather than saying it does not exist.

I am just one person saying this?

You're just one person in this site that believes that continuity from the past 20 films is non-existent.

Check out all the other Bond forums and the majority of film magazine reviews. You may find yourself in the minority then.

What magazines? American magazines? Sites which has 97% Westerners? How about people from all over the world? People who do not post on forums? We have already talked about this minority issue on 'Don't be judgmental' thread.

I have to say Jedi, I am agreeing with Stocks here. I am starting to lose patience with you too. You keep on needling me, asking for detailed explanations as to why Craig is like Fleming's Bond, and then when I respond in detail, if it is something you do not have an answer for, you choose to ignore it, and start to pick on something else.

I've tried to remain civil with you on each debate we have had, and tried to put things down to a matter of opinion only on both sides, but this is something you are clearly failing to grasp. I could easily say I put this down to you being an anti-Craiger, but I wouldn't stoop so low, as there are many anti-Craigers on here who I like, respect, and understand their point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

Who would not get upset when you receive answers like that ? And I do not answer most of your posts because I accept it as true and correct. Why do I have to make an argument out of things I accept and understand? So you see, Sweeney, you're slowly winning me into your side. But I have to remind you, you cannot make me accept DC as Bond unless Bond 22 is okay with me . So, are we alright now, Mr. Sweeney?

[The Sweeney]

[And I do not answer most of your posts because I accept it as true and correct. Why do I have to make an argument out of things I accept and understand? So you see, Sweeney, you're slowly winning me into your side. But I have to remind you, you cannot make me accept DC as Bond unless Bond 22 is okay with me . So, are we alright now, Mr. Sweeney?

Ok, fair enough. And it looks like I am finally turning you over to the dark side!

There's hope for you yet, young Jedi.....

[Captain Nash]

[And I do not answer most of your posts because I accept it as true and correct. Why do I have to make an argument out of things I accept and understand? So you see, Sweeney, you're slowly winning me into your side. But I have to remind you, you cannot make me accept DC as Bond unless Bond 22 is okay with me . So, are we alright now, Mr. Sweeney?

Ok, fair enough. And it looks like I am finally turning you over to the dark side!

There's hope for you yet, young Jedi.....

We're the Jedi, these are the Sith Sweeney.
They're the dark side. Only the Sith use hatred and anger. Jedi007 could be a Sith lord trying to corrupt you to his ways.
Focus. Or this thread could just be up the crapper, and we've all gone on a Star Wars trip. Who knows?