2006-12-01 02:33:19 · 9 answers · asked by Skippy 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I doubt the majority of the movie-going public would tolerate/ accept an action film that fit in the chronology of the other 007 films - that is, if they set "CR" in the late '50s/ early '60s to place it before 1962's "Dr. No."
This is the same thing they're doing with (as the previous poster mentioned) Batman as well as the Superman and Spiderman franchises (although there haven't been previous Spiderman films, these have been set out-of-sequence with the comic books and cartoon series. Admittedly not quite the same thing). I haven't seen the Superman film, but I love the contemporary treatments of Bond, Batman and Spiderman.
"Casino Royale" and "Batman Begins" are easily the best entries in their respective franchises (and I don't have a problem with watching older movies).
2006-12-01 03:07:07 · answer #1 · answered by kcbranaghsgirl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The choronology of the Bond movies doesn't make sense. Bond never ages, yet those around him do and time changes. Like you said, this movie is supposed to be the first Bond story right after he got his promotion to 007. However, it references September 11th and things that happened decades after the other Bond movies. Also, if you haven't thought of this: M is a woman in this movie. However, M was a man in the earlier movies which supposedly took place after Casino Royale.
2006-12-01 02:38:49 · answer #2 · answered by The Force 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Daniel Craig is large because of the fact the hot Bond. He ranks suited up there with Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. surprisingly adequate, i became staring at a British action picture Daniel became in, called "Layer Cake." This action picture got here out whilst Pierce Brosnan became thinking retiring as 007 and the manufacturers began searching for brand spanking new ones. i presumed to myself that Daniel might make a reliable James Bond. i became suited!! The action picture continues to be honest to the e book. it incredibly is something that hasn't incredibly been achieved considering "Diamonds Are consistently." Craig's portrayal as 007 is strictly how Ian Fleming meant James to be. The action picture became splendidly directed via Martin Campbell (who additionally had the exhilaration of introducing to the international Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, as he directed "Goldeneye" besides), the action sequences have been suspenseful and interesting. the outlet foot chase is unquestionably to flow down in historic previous! It even delves far flung from the popular Bond cliches (instruments that had gotten way too corny, undesirable puns, etc.) They even replaced up the outlet "gun barrel" establishing. From Chris Cornell's rousing song, to the ever-conventional word, 'Bond. James Bond.' on the tip, this action picture became one huge thrill trip. I gave the action picture 3 a million/2 stars.
2016-12-14 10:23:26 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they're setting it up so that they can remake the early James Bond films from the 60's like Diamonds are Forever, Goldfinger, and Dr. No.
2006-12-01 02:41:03 · answer #4 · answered by Hulkerino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sort of look at it like a new beginning, like Batman Begins. They're trying to reinvent the entire character/story because the last films had gotten stupid. Best one so far.
2006-12-01 02:41:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
James Bond has a license to kill continuity.
2006-12-01 02:40:40 · answer #6 · answered by sakicfriend 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's also a remake. David Niven starred in the original.
2006-12-01 02:41:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
just dont think too hard and accept it. if the chronology stayed correct bond would be in his 70s now, and no one wants to see that
2006-12-01 05:42:36 · answer #8 · answered by kitkat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sometimes they do that for example ummmm well this is all i can think of is lion king they did the first then second then 1 and a half
2006-12-01 02:38:41 · answer #9 · answered by enemany 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋