163 replies to this topic

[DocM]

Films this year for a November 2012 release.

MI6 is reporting that location work will be done in South Africa, even though Bond never visited there.

Speculation: they rebooted, so possibly it's a reimagining of Diamonds Are Forever?

If so, who plays Tiffany Case? Mr. Wint & Mr. Kidd?

Will they dup the previous film or go with the novels Spangled Mob?

[GP007]

Wait, hold on, who rebooted what? No one did a reboot last I checked, just a set of prequels. Both CR and QoS take place before Dr. No.

[Shivan Commander]

GP007, on 07 April 2011 - 18:25, said:

Wait, hold on, who rebooted what? No one did a reboot last I checked, just a set of prequels. Both CR and QoS take place before Dr. No.

They rebooted the franchise in 2006 with Casino Royale.

[kraized]

Wasn't the original Casino Royale a spoof bond film?

[GP007]

Hold on guys, Casino Royale was and has always been the very first Bond book Fleming ever wrote. How is it a reboot?

[Corris]

We already have a Bond 23 topic , though not much news wise had appeared since early feb.

GP007, on 07 April 2011 - 18:35, said:

Hold on guys, Casino Royale was and has always been the very first Bond book Fleming ever wrote. How is it a reboot?

Because Casino Royale was a reboot of the film series so far, starting again on a new timeline at the begging of his career.
Just because it was the first written doesn't mean you just place the film before all the other bond films we have had, it is first in its own continuity.

[GP007]

Corris, on 07 April 2011 - 20:15, said:

We already have a Bond 23 topic , though not much news wise had appeared since early feb.


Because Casino Royale was a reboot of the film series so far, starting again on a new timeline at the begging of his career.
Just because it was the first written doesn't mean you just place the film before all the other bond films we have had, it is first in its own continuity.

None of the original movies follow the novels in order timeline wise. They're all out of whack for the most part, it doesn't matter if the first novel showed up after all the others, no one was following the novel order to begin with. Prequels have come after other movies before, no one says you have to make films in order timeline wise. A "reboot" is something that changes everything from the get go, Casino Royale doesn't change anything from the other movies or novels, hell the movie itself follows the novel more or less to a tee.

The Bond we have now, more physical and less gadget crazy is the original way Fleming wrote him as well, so even that change doesn't count either. A reboot to me is something more like the new Star Trek which totally breaks off and changes enough things to make it it's own continuity. Nothing in the two newer Bond films does this at all. You can argue it's a reboot because it's more modern but I don't think it really matters much.

[mudslag]

I hope this one is better then the second one......Happy Bday too GP007

[Corris]

GP007, on 08 April 2011 - 09:47, said:

None of the original movies follow the novels in order timeline wise. They're all out of whack for the most part, it doesn't matter if the first novel showed up after all the others, no one was following the novel order to begin with. Prequels have come after other movies before, no one says you have to make films in order timeline wise. A "reboot" is something that changes everything from the get go, Casino Royale doesn't change anything from the other movies or novels, hell the movie itself follows the novel more or less to a tee.

The Bond we have now, more physical and less gadget crazy is the original way Fleming wrote him as well, so even that change doesn't count either. A reboot to me is something more like the new Star Trek which totally breaks off and changes enough things to make it it's own continuity. Nothing in the two newer Bond films does this at all. You can argue it's a reboot because it's more modern but I don't think it really matters much.

Yes yes, I know all that, I wasn't claiming that they did follow them and hadn't claimed otherwise, and I didn't say it was a reboot because it was more modern, you are the one that came in asking why it was a reboot if it was the first written.

Casino Royale was a reboot, it doesn't matter how you or I might define a reboot, but it was, it is the first film in its own continuity, it isn't a prequel to the other films, it doesn't have to change anything from the other films, but it has nothing to do with them story wise, anything that is similar or mentioned that hints to older films is only because they are based off the same character/universe.

[GP007]

Corris, on 08 April 2011 - 12:21, said:

Yes yes, I know all that, I wasn't claiming that they did follow them and hadn't claimed otherwise, and I didn't say it was a reboot because it was more modern, you are the one that came in asking why it was a reboot if it was the first written.

Casino Royale was a reboot, it doesn't matter how you or I might define a reboot, but it was, it is the first film in its own continuity, it isn't a prequel to the other films, it doesn't have to change anything from the other films, but it has nothing to do with them story wise, anything that is similar or mentioned that hints to older films is only because they are based off the same character/universe.

You look at it as it is a reboot but I still don't. When asked if it's a reboot the director said "yah, I guess.." that's pretty up in the air if you ask me. It's not like the other movies have anything to do with each other either aside from a few characters to. None of the novels/movies are direct sequels, they're all self-contained stories. The events in one don't change anything in the others, this is why they've also decided NOT to redo any of the older novels over. Everythings going to be original now, but there's nothing in CR or QoS that impacts the originals at all, no glarring story change that flips things. The CR movies uses almost everything in the book except for one of the bad guys who I think was changed because the cold war parts don't apply now. That's about it, the other bits that tie into QoS are new of course.

This is the reason why I don't see it as a reboot, or a change to the continuity aside from being more modern and not having a cold war backdrop.

Regardless, it's not like there's a set timeline in any of the stories anyways, and since each one is it's own thing it matters little how you look at it really.

mudslag, on 08 April 2011 - 10:18, said:

I hope this one is better then the second one......Happy Bday too GP007

Thanks mudslag.

[SuperJediMedia]

[Orange]

Reboot my ass. They will never reboot just an awesome series of films, They just keep going and going on.

[Growled]

rajputwarrior reports to us that:

Quote

007 remains spy who loved Sony in deal with MGM
LOS ANGELES – James Bond is staying put with the studio that distributed his last two big-screen adventures.

Sony Pictures has signed a deal with MGM to co-finance and distribute the 23rd film in the super-spy franchise, due in theaters Nov. 9, 2012. Daniel Craig will be back for the third time as British agent Bond.

In an announcement Wednesday, the studios said they hope to partner up for a 24th Bond film, as well.

Sony Corp. had been a part owner of MGM and distributed Craig's earlier Bond flicks, "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace." But the Bond franchise had been on hold until MGM worked out financial problems and emerged from bankruptcy under new ownership.

Sony will handle worldwide distribution for Bond, except for some overseas markets MGM will oversee directly.

[Rappy]

‘Bond 23′ Will Arrive in the US on November 9, 2012

[DocM]

For the record - there are 3 remaining Fleming titles; The Property of a Lady, Risico and The Hildebrand Rarity.

The Sun tabloid floated Red Sky At Night as being leaked to them as #23's title, but that could be a shooting title, much as TDK's was Rory's First Kiss and TDK Rises is using Magnus Rex