Could you link the article from which you read that? I've searched for Broccoli and Eon and any direct comments made about the ending but haven't been successful.
I said the way I think it'll be done: they go ahead like it didn't happen, same as with various superhero movies. As I mentioned, no one thought anything of the fact "Dark Knight Rises" finished Bruce Wayne as Batman but he came back 4 years later in "BvS". Or Batman's 1989-1997 arc that then was ditched in 2005. I don't know if the next Bond will formally reboot the character - they already sent him back to his start with "Casino Royale" - or just pick up with an adventure that assumes we understand the character ala pretty much every movie pre-2006. But I don't think they'll feel any need to explain this or worry about that at all.
Re those who think NTTD is too long... I always thought that OHMSS was, at 142 minutes, a bit lengthy.
Just watched The Last Duel, thank you Ridley Scott... reconfirmed my love for the cinema. Absolutely brilliant.
I agree with much of what you wrote here. What many fans (long time ones) fail to realize is that the Craig Bond films share no relati0nship save rhe characters to whst came before hence going back to the beginning for 007 with Casino Royale as far as his 00 status, etc.
Especially when compared to the Connery Bonds. When I was doing my in order of release rewatch I forgot how relatively short those films are compared to even the Moore films.
One thing even i sometimes forget is how recent the concept of a cinematic reboot is. I mean, they existed, but I believe Batman Begins was the first time it was actually done in the sense we know now. I.E. a complete fresh start that tosses out the events of previous films. Broccoli and Wilson made references in some interviews to Batman Begins as sort of an inspiration for what they wanted to accomplish for Casino Royale and Bond, but I think both keeping Judy Dench as M and Skyfall's looser approach to how it related to the previous films muddied the waters in a way that the older fans in particular, believed CR and QoS were somehow loose prequels to the original cinematic Bond. SPECTRE made it clear by introducing Blofeld and Spectre for the first time that Craig's Bond, while overlapping with and perhaps sharing some of the Previous Bond's adventures, wasn't in the same exact continuity as the old films.
As I alluded in prior posts, I think the 1962-2002 movies had next to zero actual continuity. Outside of the "FYEO" view of Bond at his dead wife's grave, did any of the movies ever really link to any of the others? In meaningful story/character way, that is. I guess when Jaws returned for "Moonraker", there was some notion that Bond knew him already and the character changed. And I know the "Live and Let Die" sheriff returned. Pretty meaningless IMO. For all intensive porpoises, they're standalone movies. You can watch any of them without having seen the others and easily grasp the story/characters, I believe. The Craig Bonds changed that. I asked a friend if she knew of the new movie's shocking ending and she didn't. She said she'd not seen any of the Craig Bonds. She told me she didn't want to know the ending because she might watch "NTtD" eventually, and I said that she really needed to see the prior 4 if she wanted "TTtD" to make sense. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe it'll still make sense if you didn't see... at least "SPECTRE". I suspect it won't make a ton of sense on its own, though. So the Craigs are the only Bonds that offer what I view as "traditional continuity". I think fans enjoy the rest more when they're familiar with the franchise, but still new people can watch Bonds 1-20 in any order without missing much...
Batman Begins isn't even the first Batman film to reboot, if you consider Batman 1943, 1949 and 1966. Earliest examples I can think of which would be undisputed franchises at time of reboot would probably be either the Universal Monsters universe from the 30s-50s or Godzilla. Personally, I'm not a fan of giant reset buttons. I think it's different when there's been a long gap and its a new set of filmmakers, but where - as here - its the same people controlling the franchise, same producers, even largely the same writers, it's a cheap, lazy, get-out clause that ultimately shows disdain for the audience and essentially creates a consequence-less dramatic universe because they never have to follow though with the consequences of their dramatic choices.
I think the thing here is that "Batman Begins" might've been the first time a studio consciously said "boy, that last movie was a dud - we need to go back to square one and fix this!" via a reboot. Or at least least the first time it happened with a massive franchise like Batman. I think that's why "Begins" stands out. The stench from "Batman & Robin" really damaged the franchise, so "BB" had to correct all the "badwill" it engendered. Other "reboots" just felt more like movies that ignored their predecessors, mainly because those predecessors didn't have any real continuity. The 1989-97 Batmans did attempt some form of continuity, even with the fact 3 different actors played the lead. That was especially true for "Forever" into "B&R" since Robin was present for both. Until 2005, I just don't think people felt like Batman, Bond, Godzilla were "rebooted" in the way we now view the term!
I was concerned I might get drowsy, but then I opted to pay the surcharge and experience my first 4DX film. Wow. That was a trip! Kind of like watching a film on an amusement park ride. When the first 4DX trailer ran, the few others in the audience were all laughing their heads off at how crazy it was: blasts of wind, lightning, chairs lurching forwards and back, the occasional splash of mist in your face. I don't think I'd want to see too many films in this way, but there was certainly no worries about dozing off. And yeah, that was a long pre-credits scene! I went to a 6:35 showing and looked at my watch during Billie Eilish's theme song/opening credits. My watch read 7:25!
You think the Batman movies had continuity but not Bond (at least the Connery-Brosnan run)? Beyond Robin being in both Forever and Batman and Robin and some of the actors staying the same, what continuity did Batman attempt? Is there even a single mention of any of the other movies in any of the 89-97 run? I mean with Bond you have not just the Tracey connection (not just mentioned in FYEO, but also The Spy Who loved Me and License to Kill), but Dr No being referenced in From Russia... as a means of revenge, and Sylvia Trench. You have Quarel and Quarel Jr. in Dr No and Live and Let Die respectively, you have Lazenby clearing out his desk of stuff from former missions in OHMSS and saying he's been tracking Blofeld for 2 years - the time period between that and the last film - all of the equipment and the jet pack that "still works" in 'Die Another Day' Judi Dench saying that she's been told about Bond by her predecessor, then in 'The World Is Not Enough' when temporarily relocated behind her is a portrait of her predecessor - Bernard Lee's M. Sure you can write them off as cute callbacks, and with the Craig era it gets a lot more confused (although the DB5 still has the same license plate as in Goldfinger) mainly because of the retention of M and the monstrosity that was Spectre (I generally liked the Craig era, but I think that one rivals Moonraker for worst Bond), but there's a lot more loose continuity than Batman. plus, with Batman Forever they’d already pretty much decided to start from scratch by firing Burton, scrapping the planned 3rd move, and going for a completely different tone etc. new actor etc. the only thing forever and returns really share in common is Micheal Gough
I don't know about other consoles but there are adapters/upscalers that will make possible to play old PS2 games on a modern screen There are FRWL playthrough videos up to 4k but they pixelation is visible. I don't know what adapter is this guy using, but this is the best I've seen the game on a 32 inch 1080p screen. The cutscenes are not improved but the gameplay is. On a bigger TV/monitor? I don't know. The main problem with FRWL on PS2: poorly optimized. The disc keeps spinning fast whatever the player does. No good for the PS2 drive/ laser; the only way to play it without destroying the console is ripping it to an ISO file and play it from a USB drive or even better an external hard drive to hook to the expansion bay. There are ways to do it.
That's another pic I found online that mirrors what I've seen, except in this frame the image was even darker. Detail is the same. Honestly, there were moments when it looked like a SD video on a big screen. Actually, I might be more pissed of by this substandard video quality than Craig's ego-trip driven finale!
Just got back. Theme song was weak for me. I felt like the first 1/4 of the movie was almost a Bond spoof but after that I settle in and it was good! All in all, it's worth seeing for sure for any Bond fan. I thought the 2:43 running time went by pretty fast which is always a good sign for a movie.
The song was awful. Not my kinda thing. I want to say it was the Daily Mail, but I can't locate it. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were all over the place in the last few weeks on a publicity binge. They also refused to speculate on who would be the next Bond and how Bond would continue, other than that "James Bond Will Return." My memory is that their statement was kind of an evasive non-statement, along the lines of, "we can't comment except to say you can take the film's ending at face value, and there's no hidden meaning there." My take is it's not a fantasy or symbolic or anything like that.
I don't claim the 1989-97 Batman movies have real continuity, but I thought there was some - meaning it felt like each one built off the last. But I'm not gonna argue this stridently. Whatever continuity they offered was modest at best - same as the pre-Craig Bonds...
I liked it from beginning to end. Loved the humor and action, and throwback to cold war feel. The Cuban agent was hot and gave us a great scene. Ended on a high note. A fitting end to the Craig era, which I think will prove to be the best in the franchise. The daughter resonated. Malek was a great villain, too. Not sure how anyone could hate it, but then I felt that way about Spectre and people sure hated that.
Saw it yesterday night and it ís a great way to end the Craig-era; the movie resonates nicely with that other great modern Bond-movie; Casino Royale. I didn't find it a long movie; a great balance between action and drama. I found Waltz under-used, but when Waltz ís the bad guy he's almost always getting too little screen time.
I made a poll with over 40 options on what people want to see in the next Bond on the Blu-ray forum. The option to make it a streaming series got 0 votes, compared to 30 for a theatrical movie. Bond 26: Choose Your Own 007 Adventure - Blu-ray Forum Granted, the poll doesn't allow for the "do both" option. But I do think there's still a perception that Bond should be a grand-scale, big spectacle blockbuster. I think a lot of people also want the movies to stand alone again, and wouldn't be looking forward to another episodic storyline in a TV series like we already got in the Craig films. I also don't see the logic that says young people like streaming series, or streaming series are liked by young people. There are plenty of young people attending movies. In fact, the under-40 crowd is considered the prime audience more than ever in the era of COVID. Why are they not going to see Bond? Probably because he's over 50 years old, and almost everyone else in the movie is pretty old. And Spectre left the impression that this movie series moves at a slowed down pace appropriate for its aging star. The poll also shows people want the series to go back to shorter, 2-hour movies. To attract young people, they need a younger lead and a shorter, faster, more action-packed, less plot-heavy movie. You're absolutely right that audiences had no idea what a reboot was in 2005. Stuff like Godzilla 1998 was perceived as a remake, a la King Kong 1976. However, I think Batman Begins wasn't marketed or pitched as a reboot. They didn't try to explain to the audience what it was. They let them think it could be a prequel to the 1989 Batman. And strictly watching the film, it could almost pass as a prequel with some exceptions. I think they very much did the same thing with Casino Royale, which is why a lot of people did think it was a prequel. The later sequels in each series finally negate the possibility that they could be prequels. This reluctance to identify whether a movie was a reboot or a sequel also happened with Superman Returns around this time. I think the first movie reboot that might've been officially marketed that way was The Incredible Hulk in 2008. In that case they really wanted to run away from the 2003 Hulk, which was considered a box office bomb. WHAT kind of porpoises?
Intensive ones, of course. Or maybe its a typo and he meant insensitive porpoises. I think there's a lot of them on this forum.
I don't remember that kind of marketing for "Incredible Hulk". I actually remember it as a bit confusing because it was unclear if the movie attempted to continue from the 2003 one or start over. I guess they technically retell Hulk's origin, but they do so over the opening credits, so they toss it out in a way that implies "we know you know this already". Seems like a formal reboot would retell the origin in more detail and build the characters pre-Hulk!
