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