He never ages, yet time keeps moving forward. I know Casino Royale is a reboot, but Die Another Day isn't, and it's clearly not set in the 60s.
No, James Bond is not a code name. Tracy's death contradicted that theory. The other Bonds are still grieving.
In case you're wondering, I was joking about him being a vampire. It's just one of those things that doesn't make sense.
I don't think Casino Royale is classified as a reboot, as the 'original' is not an official adaptation. I think they go as far as calling it a Bond-spoof.
Your point still stands, though.
A reboot of the film series. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were all the same Bond in a loose series with little-to-no continuity. Craig is not.
The producers consider CR a reboot.
Maybe Bond is a warlock or witch or a shape shifter.
shareIt's just weird that Eon Productions keep setting new Bond movies in the present, I believe when Pierce Brosnan took over that would have been the perfect time to set Bond back in the Cold War, right now movie Bond is a man out of time, he'll get rebooted to the past sometime I'm sure.
share[deleted]
The story says that after WW2, several escaped Nazi scientists tested a serum on Bond which made him practically immortal. This is why he has adventures set continuously in the 60s thru the early 2000s before they rebooted the series with Casino Royale. That James Bond did not have the secret serum that the previous Bond character had
shareHe's a Time Lord, like Doctor Who!
He doesn't die when he's killed or gets old, he regenerates his body and looks like a different person... but he's still the same badass.
"This never happened to the other fella..."
Connery = Bond No. 1.
Lazenby / Moore / Dalton / Brosnan = Bond No. 2.
Craig = Something else.
Same thing that happens in the comics. Time keeps marching forward so set them in the present to keep them relevant.
Although in the case of the movies I'm sure one important factor is that period pieces are expensive as hell, especially in films like Bond where they are in multiple venues.
It's really just a (fictional) superspy character who is always set in Today's time and zeitgeist. Now I know you'll say: "But...watch Dr. No and From Russia w/ Love....those are set in the 60's". Yes, that's right...because they were MADE in the 60's. It wasn't supposed to be a retro, period piece. When those movies were first created and first viewed...those were modern times, as current as the headlines of the day. They only look retro to us because they are now many decades old.
The Spy Who Loved Me has a retro 70's feel, and is set in the 70's...because it was MADE in the 70's. Bond stories are always happening in the here and now, no matter which actor plays the role.
Please. If you're thinking: "Well gee, we first see him at a gaming table in the 60's in Dr. No. If the character aged naturally and in a linear fashion from that time up till now, should he be like....110 years old?" if that is your line of thinking, then you're not thinking very critically. The character is always right around the same age range: early 40's.......and he's always set in the here and now. That was the case when Dr. No was made in the 60's. That was the case when Casino Royale was made in the 00's. And it will be the same 20 years from now.
Does this make sense?
Flemming, Wilson and Broccoli wanted Bond set in today's times. And when Dr. No came out....that WAS "today's times". They didn't view Bond as a retro character set in any one specific era. He was always a modern, current-era character.
And for those of you who have ever had the very odd idea of rebooting...and setting everything in the 60's.....why? Not only would it become 5x more difficult to produce and film.....it would limit the kinds of stories that could be told. And, those stories would be stale (been there, done that). There's only so many things that could threaten the world back then....and countless movies (including old Bond films) have already explored those. And meanwhile, we'd be living in modern-era times, but watching a retro-era Bond film thinking: "There are a ton of current threats and some amazing new technology that could be depicted in the new Bond film....but instead, we get some black & white Bond...facing off against Fidel Castro??? And with no computers or technology. Just a fancy briefcase that can shoot bullets??
People, please.
SMH