B5Erik

You're overthinking it. WAY overthinking it.

It really is a lot like comic books. Yeah, there was a VERY soft reboot with Brosnan, and a harder reboot with Craig, but in both cases it's supposed to be the same guy, just in a different timeline/time period. It really is that simple. Don't try to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

The MAN is still the same, but the time in which his missions take place changes.

DaveyJoe

You remember a detail that links Dalton and Lazenby to support your perspective, but I'm over thinking it. I can enjoy each if the films for their merits. I just don't think the same character could possibly experience both From Russia with Love and Quantum of Solace, and that's fine. There's evidence to support both of the 'same character' vs 'code name's sides of the discussion.

And I hate comic books. I'd rather this series be a little more fun and a little less serious because the continuity is just a mess.

B5Erik

You're applying real world logic to something that can't possibly happen in the real world. The fact that the Bond movies have continued on far longer than anyone initially expected just means that you can't apply the kind of logic you want to apply (the events in Dr. No happening to the same guy from Skyfall, etc).

Look, Cubby Broccoli himself made sure there was continuity in the Bond movies during his lifetime. He was the boss. As far as he was concerned, it was the same guy. Case closed.

There was an absolute continuity from Connery through Dalton. Same guy, same timeline. Then a soft reboot with Brosnan (same guy, slightly different timeline), and a hard reboot with Craig (same guy, VERY different timeline, and a different point in his career as a 00).

DaveyJoe

So when you're watching Casino Royale, OHMSS is non-cannon, no? Those events couldn't have happened to the same character. And for the record, I enjoy talking about the series with someone who enjoys it as much as I do, I just have a more cynical perception of the way these films were made. It's one of the most egregious examples of filmmaking by committee, researching popular trends and changing Bond as a character/property to make as much money as possible during that time.

The continuity is a mess so I don't try to view each actor's Bond as the same character, I don't care what Broccoli's intentions were, I've probably viewed the films more times than he has. They were unfaithful to Fleming's material from the outset. They were made one film at a time to maximize profit and even today they are much closer to the DCEU approach than the MCU.

Each film has to be taken on its own merits or everything falls apart logically. Which is totally fine with me. I enjoy the X-Men and Halloween films even though I understand they're both highly flawed continuity wise. You can scold me for using real world logic but that's how verisimilitude works in fiction. I'll accept that Wolverine can regenerate if the rest of the world feels real and consistent. Roger Moore and Daniel Craig's Bond's feel entirely different to me, even the Craig Bond films flip flop between gritty drama and passenger ejector seats.

I have come to terms with that, and it's exactly why I don't give a fuck if they bring in a Muslim transgender 007 because you really can't ruin the sanctity of a character that has been whored out for its entire existence. The series has always changed itself to reflect the times in an effort to maximize profits. In the 60s that could be distilled to Communist Russia = bad, Western Democracy = good. Now that might mean diversity = good, static representation = bad. I don't care as long as the films are entertaining, which I haven't found them to be for several years. A movie has to be good first and foremost over appealing to my need for representation as a straight, white male.

Artman

I like that! haha

Maybe it'll just be for a small part of the film, to cover for each other during a mission...heck maybe I'll even like it. But as for now, this gets a big eye roll from me...

brayzie

I doubt that the CEOs and the shareholders care. If anything it's the opposite. They probably see the success of movies like Black Panther and see it as a trend they can capitalize on.

It's still Daniel Craig as James Bond. The producers probably saw this as opportunity to get some buzz for yet another Daniel Craig Bond movie, and of course the press is going to go along with it to stir up some shit for James Bond fans.
"A Black Woman Is Taking Over as 007" -Daily Beast
"007 Will be played by a black woman in 'Bond 25." -Yahoo
Technically those headlines are true, but it give the impression that they're gender swapping the character like the Ghostbusters reboot, when that's not the case. The first article is even linked as "a-black-woman-is-taking-over-as-James-Bond."

Good for the producers because I wasn't even remotely interested about another Bond movie, and good for those two sites because normally I never visit either one.

I think James Bond is played out as a concept. Apparently the Sean Connery ones were the best and were all the campy spy stuff originated from, and it was probably awesome in the context of era. It was all new for its time. I saw a little bit of the Pierce Brosnan era and it looked way too campy for my tastes. Casino Royale was very good. Skyfall was a solid film. By the time I saw Spectre the series felt cheesy. I lost interest 3/4 of the way into the movie. James Bond has to have the obligatory one night stand even if it requires Monica Belucci's character to get #MeToo'd by the him.

Shannon Nutt

This is the correct answer.

Dan

The only weird thing about this fake-out 007 business is... that would have been a badass scene in the film if they, y'know... left it for the film/trailer. But explaining it, in writing, like nine months before the film's release date is strange. I guess it comes down to some insider giving a scoop to some blog/news outlet (edit: The Daily Mail, guys.), and of course they're going to run with it and publish it. It just seems like a reveal that's best left in the context in which it belongs.

Like if it was revealed in a trailer, it would be one of this 5-second "oh shit!" moments that gets satisfied a few seconds later.
Or if they were smart enough to leave it out of the trailer, it'd be a great moment in the film itself.

But a reveal of this nature takes the gas out of the fun of it a bit.

edit: as to the news itself, it brings up interesting questions about the lore behind codename/numbers for agents. Is an agent always tied to a specific number, even if they're retired/dead, or is the number like a chain of command? I genuinely don't know enough about the Bond universe to know about this aspect, so I'm just wondering. I always thought of it as Bond = 007, which makes sense, but the chain of command thing is arguably more apt.

edit2: from wikipedia "In Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and the derived films, the 00 Section of MI6 is considered the secret service's elite. A 00 (typically read "Double O" and denoted in Fleming's novels by the letters "OO" rather than the digits "00") is a field agent that holds a licence to kill in the field, at his or her discretion, to complete any mission. The novel Moonraker establishes that the section routinely has three agents concurrently; the film series, beginning with Thunderball, establishes the number of 00 agents at a minimum of 9, with the likelihood of more. "
Okay. That makes sense. So not sure how they 'transfer' these numbers around but if Craig-Bond is retired, I could see someone else* taking that number.


Not sure what you were going for there but... oof. That's a hot take.

*a straight white British man, of course! /major-sarcasm

Dash

I'm with DaveyJoe on this when you look at Casino Royal and the whole Vesper Lynd storyline, this makes no sense as the SMAE GUY just in a different timeline. I've always understood it to be each new actors take on Bond is a different bond and a different era. Sure there are winks and nods to previous Bonds but the whole continuity is so messed up there is no way its the same guy.

Also as long as the story is compelling I'm ok with them changing the look of Bond.

Shannon Nutt

Nope...there was a definite thread between Lazenby (wife dies), Moore (gets revenge for death of wife - with the same name and date on tombstone), and Dalton ("He was married once, but it was a long time ago.")

Craig, on the other hand, is a complete reboot. And I suspect the next Bond will be a complete reboot.

Spiderbite

I always thought the producers said that they were all the same James Bond but that Craig's version was Bond at the very beginning of his 007 career. So not a reboot as much as a long way around prequel.

At least that was what I remembered reading when they were promoting Craig and Casino Royale when it was originally released.

But fuck Craig. He's been a horrible Bond (in my opinion) and I will be glad to see him go.

But this business about making Bond a woman is just fucking stupid. There....I said it. And I don't give a shit what people think about my opinion of it.

They want a woman spy franchise...create a new spy character and make a movie about her. Even make it about a different spy in the secret service as someone else above mentioned. Hell, they had their chance with Halle Berry after Die Another Day 17 years ago and then slept on it.

whaaat

Nothing screams "continuity" more than having your lead spike the camera and say: "This never happened to the other fellow."

Giantrobo

Sonic

Looking forward to a Asian Bond. I could picture it now:

Lady: What is your name sir?

Tong: Tong...James Tong.

brayzie

But they're not making Bond a woman. Lashana Lynch's character is just another Bond girl, sorry, Bond woman who starts the film off being given Bond's 007 code name. This is just another twist for the plot, just like when James Bond had his license to kill revoked, or when he was "killed" in the line of duty and he retired to some tropical island.

devilshalo

Spiderbite

Okay. Gotcha. Guess I should read past all the click-bait headlines that I have seen.

Giantrobo

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "007" is just a designation! ANYONE CAN BE GIVEN THE "007" code!

But to be honest, it's way more fun seeing people not understand this and watching them lose their mutherfuckin' shit over the news.
"It's an attack on WHITE CIS HET MEN!!!!!" "Who will we look up too?!?!"

DJariya

Thank you. This is such a non-story and everyone is losing their shit for no reason. Take a minute to actually read the story and not over-react to some fucking click bait headline and make an assumption.

windom

The way the general entertainment media (ET/Access/E!) is reporting this makes it sound like Lynch's 007 is going to be the main character in future movies going forward. Unless they kill her character off in this, there will probably be a lot of confused people.

B5Erik

I understood the concept, but I get the confusion that some people have (she's 007, which isn't the same as James Bond).

But given all the stories that have come out over the last decade (black Bond, gay Bond, Jane Bond, etc), it's no surprise that some people are getting caught up in the clickbaity story titles.

d2cheer

Doesn't matter if it was a clickbate story. Damage done.

RichC2

It got people talking about Bond again, I'd say it was a pretty successful stunt.

stvn1974

Plot:
Bond will stay retired with Swann on an island sipping martinis and then pull a Luke Skywalker and wait until everyone is dead and then have Q send a hologram of him to distract the villain while Moneypenny and the new female 007 escape for the next film.

GoldenJCJ