Misfits923 said:
I dunno where everyone gets off thinking it's a prequel.
It's the longtime Bond fans who think, "Surely, while the producers have made some incredibly stupid mistakes with the franchise in the past few years (Die Another Day), how can they just toss away the rest of the years for this new project that's supposed to make up for atrocities they committed (Die Another Day)?"
I think it's a bit too much to "restart" the entire franchise after 40+ years. Even if Bond never had much continuity -- they're mostly a new story set in whatever time frame the movie's made -- there still feels like there's a connection to the rest, if you're willing to suspend disbelief. As I said, I think they could still have done the Casino Royale "prequel" in a modern setting and you could still suspend disbelief enough and just take it that it's the same Bond that goes on to be the Connery Bond, the same one that goes on to marry Tracy and, yes, even the same shameful Bond that went to space! The way they went about seems too drastic, a screaming to non-Bond fan moviegoers that "No, look, we're all serious and legit now! We're aping the style of "24" or Jason Bourne, series that wouldn't even exist without Bond, anyway!"
The reboot nonsense is what has made me uneasy about the movie. Not Craig, not the clear attempt to appeal to the people who go on and on about the overrated Bourne movies, but that lack of care for the rest of the series. It's a George Lucas level of pissing on what once was sacred. Unless, by the time Bond 22 rolls around, they just give up on the idea of it being "separate" from the previous era, because I really think that's a mistake. And it would certainly be a mistake for them to even think of remaking any of the others, which is what this "reboot" talk will probably lead to.
