Best "reboot"

[Kristatos]

In the sense that any Bond actor's first movie is a reboot to a certain extent, I thought I'd start a discussion on which film handled the change of actor best. I'm not including Dr. No in this, since it was the first film in the series and EON pretty much had a blank slate.

OHMSS: Played it safe, with lots of shots of Bond in shadow before we finally see Lazenby, and a scene where he looks over artifacts from previous movies, complete with music cues from their soundtracks. I was only 2 years old in 1969, but older Bond fans who saw the film in the cinema say that it had the effect of reminding the audience that Connery wasn't around.

L&LD: Subtlety is not a word one associates with this film, but it applies to the way the "reboot" was handled. EON had learned the lessons of OHMSS and tried to make the audience forget the Connery Bonds as much as possible, not by scrapping the continuity and starting again, but in little details like having Bond wear a safari suit instead of a tuxedo, cutting out the scenes in M's office and Q branch, and even having Bond's signature self-introduction cut off with a cry of "names is for tombstones, baby".

TLD: A less sure-footed reboot, mainly because during pre-production, EON were not sure whether Bond would be played by Moore or another actor. The script was rewritten to suit Dalton's more serious style, but certain scenes, like the cello case toboggan ride, still seem as if they belong in a Moore movie.

Goldeneye: Didn't go as far as CR in shouting "Look at me! Look how different I am from all those other Bond films! This is me being different!" but the signs of Barbara Broccoli's vague embarrasment at her father's cinematic legacy were already starting to show (even Leonard Maltin in his capsule review notes the "PC remarks about Bond being an anachronism"), though the film was viewed by Cubby before his death, so I guess he must have approved it. The 6-year absence and the death or retirement of several key personnel meant a radical overhaul with a new M, a new Moneypenny, a new opening credits designer and a score that owed nothing at all to John Barry. Furthermore, EON looked outside the Bond "family" for the first time in choosing writers and directors. With a new Bond in Brosnan, the presence of Desmond Llewellyn as Q and the occasional snatch of the James Bond Theme were virtually the only connection with the "old" franchise. This meant that Goldeneye had the feel of a reboot more than any Bond film before CR.

CR: And of course, the film that junked 40 years of Bond movie history in order to pattern itself on a film trilogy that was nowhere near as successful as Bond outside the US, and a TV series whose ratings currently resemble the ski slope at Piz Gloria.

For me, L&LD gets the balance right between respecting the conventions of the franchise and steering it in a new direction, without drawing attention to the fact that's what it was doing. What does everybody else think?

[The Sweeney]

Interesting thread. I think with each reboot, you have to put it in context of what went immediately before, and you find most (if not all) the previous Bond films were pretty dire.

YOLT and DAF - two of Connery's worst.

AVTAK - pretty bad

LTK - I personally love it, but many don't

DAD - no comment

So considering the previous film before each reboot, this gives more of an accurate picture on why some reboots were more drastic than others. And with DAD being the ultimate low, more drastic measures were desperately needed for CR.

[Kristatos]

Good point, Sweeney. It seems like Dalton was the only Bond actor to go out on a high, even if the general public disagrees.

[Skywalker]

Excellent idea Kris. I enjoyed reading your post. I will add my own thoughts shortly.

[James]

When you think about it, hiring Roger Moore and making Live and Let Die without the traditional Bond grace notes was quite a radical step.

Barbara Broccoli's vague embarrasment at her father's cinematic legacy

I don't think that Barbara likes the traditional cinematic James Bond much.

[Skywalker]

Ok here I go.

OHMSS

With Connery gone and with the franchise still hugely popular, EON had the difficult task of replacing an Icon. Ian Fleming’s James Bond had been brought to life on the big screen and the impact made by Connery had everyone associating him with the James Bond character. A relatively unknown actor in the shape of George Lazanby stepped up to the mark and he had the unenviable task of carrying on the torch. The story itself is probably the best of the series and is supplemented by an excellent John Barry score. The film had a different style and feel to it and although it is now considered a classic and GL’s performance is regarded highly amongst Bond fans, It did not have the appeal of Connery’s films mainly due to the fact it did not star Connery.

LALD

Following on from the rather poor DAF, EON had to deliver a first rate Bond movie to ensure longevity of the franchise. Sir Roger stepped up to the breach and IMO had the right balance between the gritty ‘Flemingesque Bond’ and the humorous ‘Cinematic Bond’.
The story itself wasn’t the best, but this did not detract from an excellent debut and the audience in general loved it.

The James Bond character now had another face, a different style and a new identity.

TLD

After the general disappointment of AVTAK, Sir Roger decided to step down from the role as Old father time had finally caught up with him. The role was to be taken by Timothy Dalton who wanted to return to the more dark, gritty style of the novels. I thought TD gave a good account of himself and the film worked, despite the imbalance of being written for PB.

Goldeneye

Was the start of the modern era for Bond. Dalton had gone and PB had accepted the role. The film is probably more of a ‘reboot’ than the previous movies, in the way that a new M and Moneypenny were added along with the new Bond. From an acceptance POV, this movie was a huge success, it propelled the Bond franchise back to the dizzy heights of the late 70’s in terms of popularity and Brosnan did well in his first start. I don’t personally feel he had a stronger debut performance compared to the other actors, but the film really kicked ass and the support cast was one of the best in the franchise’s history.

CR

Easily the most radical and controversial of the ‘reboots’. This film spawned a different style actor and had a totally different feel to it. The film itself has sparked more debate than any of the previous films. It has been a Box Office success and is considered by many to be the greatest ever Bond film. My own conclusion is that the film is too far removed from the cinematic character of the previous 20 films. I also question the belief that CR saved the franchise after the general disappointment of DAD. What cannot be questioned is that regardless of your own personal thoughts of DAD, the film was a commercial success and in essence gave CR a strong platform from which to build on. None of the previous ‘reboots’ followed a commercially successful Bond film. (DAF is debateable).

My own conclusion would be that LALD was the best of the reboots. If this film had failed and the public did not take to RM's bond then I feel the franchise could have ended.

[paco chaos]

OHMSS was a great movie, and it had the unfortunate task of trying to replace a film legend at the height of his career as Bond.
LALD was inmhop Roger Moore at his best. to me this was the reboot that saved the franchise. Not as good as a Bond film from the 60's, but better than what followed.
LD was a mixed bag film. a serious Bond played by Timothy Dalton, yet the script betrayed the seriousness. too many people my age grew up with Moore in the role, and did not understand the point of what Dalton was doing. an Unfortunate side effect of having Moore stick around for far too long.
GE was great reboot that reintroduced Bond to a new generation who hadn't really seen a Bond film at the theatres. if it hadn't of been a success, you wouldn't have seen the rival studios scrambling to create their own spy franchises with remakes of Mission Impossible, the Saint, the Avengers, I Spy, ect.
Casino Royale, well it was successful at the box office.

[The Sweeney]

I think I pretty much agree with everyone else here. Looking back at the entire series, LALD appears to be the strongest reboot to keep the franchise alive. I would then say GE was the second strongest, as Dalton's tenure is kind of dismissed as an experiment that went wrong, similar to Lazenby's OHMSS (even though I love these films).

Brosnan, for all his films faults, kept the franchise going throughout the 90's, the same way Moore kept it going throughout the 70's.

At this stage, no one can say if Craig's Bond is more successful, but I wonder how CR will be judged 10 years from now?

[Kristatos]

When you think about it, hiring Roger Moore and making Live and Let Die without the traditional Bond grace notes was quite a radical step.

But the great thing is that you don't think about it, at least not while you're watching it. Guy Hamilton doesn't thrust his radicalism in the audience's face the way Martin Campbell would have done, had he been directing Bond films in those days, rather than silly sex comedies featuring Christopher Biggins.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Live And Let Die was the best of the reboots for the reasons other people have given.

Casino Royale was the worst becuase they jettisoned too much and the choice of Bond was far too radical. Many criitics (who loved the movie) were right when they said that Casino Royale was not a Bond movie and that Craig was not really playing James Bond.

[The Sweeney]

Live And Let Die was the best of the reboots for the reasons other people have given.

Casino Royale was the worst becuase they jettisoned too much and the choice of Bond was far too radical. Many criitics (who loved the movie) were right when they said that Casino Royale was not a Bond movie and that Craig was not really playing James Bond.

Just your opinion.

Ironic that many die-hard Fleming purist Bond fans would disagree with you....