Yes according to Artificial Intelligence.Henry Cavill should play the next Bond
It was a complete reboot. Basically restarted from scratch.I've never understood the Daniel Craig Bond's anyway. Was it a reboot? Does it take place before the other films? If so, how can they blow him up with missiles? Each new adventure was meant to be stapled to the last, so the Craig Bonds confound me. I'm sure the next movie will say that there have been several James Bond's.
I was never super invested in James Bond anyway, so I'd be interested to hear what the real Bond fanatics have to say.
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose the Bond movies through the Pierce Brosnan era are part of a single story/timeline. The Daniel Craig universe is the one where he goes on only a handful of missions before he's exploded into Bond Bits(tm). With that, there's no reason to adhere to previous movies, so there's plenty of creative freedom.It was a complete reboot. Basically restarted from scratch.
Actually, if memory serves me well, almost all previous Bond films from Connery to Brosnan are part of a single floating timeline, which most of the time just relates to themselves loosely. The most related ones are the Connery-Lazenby which reference a lot of the previous movies, while all the others are technically the same Bond with some references to earlier films.Thanks for the clarification. I suppose the Bond movies through the Pierce Brosnan era are part of a single story/timeline. The Daniel Craig universe is the one where he goes on only a handful of missions before he's exploded into Bond Bits(tm). With that, there's no reason to adhere to previous movies, so there's plenty of creative freedom.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I can understand the creative decision to restart after so many films. The writers must have wanted to focus more on character points, like the origin story in Skyfall. The earlier Bond's were more action-focused, so overarching plot was unnecessary. Even the one vital detail, that Bond's a British spy, is always re-established with a visit to M and Q. That must have made the franchise so accessible for action fans.Actually, if memory serves me well, almost all previous Bond films from Connery to Brosnan are part of a single floating timeline, which most of the time just relates to themselves loosely. The most related ones are the Connery-Lazenby which reference a lot of the previous movies, while all the others are technically the same Bond with some references to earlier films.
That's probably the best interpretation of both series. The Connery->Brosnan Bonds were all the same character, the very same man who went on all those adventures before. The entire canon revolves around On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Early in that film, Bond is cleaning out his desk and pulling out objects from his previous missions and reminiscing about them. After that, Diamonds are Forever, several of the Moore entries, and License to Kill all reference Tracy's Death at the end of OHMSS at some point to cement this fact. A big complication is YOLT and OHMSS both have Bond meeting Blofeld in person for the first time, but I think YOLT is just sort of not really canon. Otherwise, yeah it's just a floating timeline. Just imagine the stories being the same, but the technology changing depending on the time period in which the story is told.Yeah, that sounds about right. I can understand the creative decision to restart after so many films. The writers must have wanted to focus more on character points, like the origin story in Skyfall. The earlier Bond's were more action-focused, so overarching plot was unnecessary. Even the one vital detail, that Bond's a British spy, is always re-established with a visit to M and Q. That must have made the franchise so accessible for action fans.
With that in mind, the Craig Bond series required the viewer to have seen the previous movies to get the full picture.
Love that OP AFAK was unbanned the day I first replied to this thread.Love the click-baitey thread title
*tips self* M'davey.NGL that explains a LOT