Is this considered a reboot?
Or is it part of the same continuity as the first 16 Bond films?
shareIt's a continuity of the first 16 Bond films. The pre title sequence takes place 9 years earlier in 1986: a year before the Bond film The Living Daylights. So basically Bond's mission with 006 happened before The Living Daylights and License to Kill.
shareCasino Royale was the reboot.
shareThe real Casino Royale, not the Woody Allen travesty.
shareI kinda like the '60s Casino Royale. But, then I was "warned" going into it that it would be a bit of a hodge-podge due to off-camera chaos. Going into it expecting chaos, I found it delightful, and the plotline about the agents being too horny and easily killed by honey trap assassins is a hilarious send-up of 007, as is the solution (call in the original, very gentlemanly, Bond to train them how to be better behaved young men!)
shareI don't see it that way. Nine years ago from Goldeneye would be the year the before TLD, but that's if you're counting the years from OUR perspective. Bond's timeline isn't moving at the same pace as ours though, as evidenced by his lack of aging. For all we know "nine years ago" for Bond could be more like thirty years ago for us, which would put Goldeneye's prologue somewhere back in the Connery era.
shareIt is that way. GoldenEye is set in the year its released, so are the other Bond films. The pre title sequence can't be 30 years ago. For example when Bond visits Tracy's grave in For Your Eyes Only her grave says 1969 (The year OHMSS was made)
So basically the GoldenEye pre title sequence is set before The Living Daylights in 1986. Also remember Bond was on evaluated by that woman in the beginning of GoldenEye because he was rogue in License to Kill in 1989 (six years prior)
Floating timeline: each movie readjusts the setting to the present regardless of when it takes place in relation to previous movies. That way you keep Bond young yet don't have to make the movies period pieces. Fleming did the same thing in his books, only it wasn't as noticeable because those only lasted a little over a decade. If you take every reference to the year literally and the series is taking place over 40 years Bond should be in his mid sixties in Goldeneye, yet he's clearly not. So if it's all one continuity, either it's a floating timeline or Bond is an ageless immortal. I don't know about you but I prefer the former.
shareI see what you mean but think about it. The Bond films exist in their own world/timeline. We just have to accept that the James Bond character doesn't age and we shouldn't take it seriously. For example the way the Simpsons have not aged over the years; its the same thing for James Bond in the films from 1962- 2002.
shareThat's exactly what I'm talking about though. If the movies are in their own world/timeline there's no reason to equate those 40 real life years with however many years passed for Bond. Basically the producers were saying "We know Dr. No was in the early '60s, but for the sake of keeping Bond relatively young let's just pretend it happened about 20 years more recently." Comic books do this kind of thing all the time. George Romero also did it for his zombie movies.
share