Original Series vs Reboot- Part 2

[MikeRaw]

Ok, so in this thread, like the other thread I will make in a few minutes, simply vote and post as to which series of movies you prefer: The original movie series of said franchise, or the rebooted series.

Note: For those who don't know, a rebooted series is when you reset a series, for example, James Bond. Casino Royale is not meant to be a prequel to Dr.No and the rest of the James Bond films... Instead, it is a new first film, with Quantum of Solace being the second, where they can establish their own new timeline, set it in current times, and do a new side to the series, just like the rebooted Batman series...This is different than say, some shit like Star Wars, where the newest films were prequels that were meant to be linked to the other films.

So, which do you prefer?
The first 20 James Bond movies from 1964-2002 (Dr.No to Die Another Day) or the current, rebooted series (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and eventually Bond 23 and 24)

 

[monkeystyle]

Have never seen a James Bond flick but it's my understanding that it's not a reboot per se but the first book that was written about Bond. As all the movies are based off of Fleming's novels.

 

[J]

I agree with Monk not really reboot's just diffrent parts of the series but yea the books are actually good I read a few.

 

[MikeRaw]

Nah, the movie isn't really based on the first book. Kinda is, kinda isn't, but it is actually a reboot. Says so on wikipedia,. and obviously wikipedia isn't words to live by, the producers also confirmed it.
It's set in 2006 (as witnessed by cell phones, cars, and a 2006 calender)
And although it could easily be a prequel, by the fact that it takes place before he becomes 007, one could easily mistake it as being before all other 20 movies, but it's actually just their way of starting a new series without having to correlate with the other films.
Just like how Batman Begins takes place before and as he becomes Batman, but isn't a prequel to all the other films, they are starting a new series, and use the before he became Batman point as the starting point.

 

[J]

Am I dumb if I don't understand how its takes place before but is not a prequal it's all so confusing to me lol. Monk should be able to dumb it down for me to understand.

 

[MikeRaw]

I'll explain.

Yes, a prequel takes place before, just liek this does. But a prequel takes place before and is intended to take place before, and acknowledged to have taken place before.
This, just like Batman Begins, although it takes place before the other events of the other movie would've happened, is seperate, because they cut ties from the other movies, and when they make movies afterwards (like after Batman begins) the second movie (example: The Dark Knight) takes place in the spot that the movies that the first movie was prequelling, therfore, creating it's own series and it's own timeline, with no regard for the other movies in the other series.


On second though, maybe I didn't dumb it down for you, I think I made it more complex.
But whatever, it's officially been called a new series by the producers, and it will have more movies that follow, and be seperate from the previous other 20movies.

 

[J]

So let me get this straight it's like a prequal but for the simple fact it takes place in a time that is ahead of the time the others take place it is considered a reboot and not a prequal?

And if that's the case definitly gotta go with the classics they had Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan. Don't get me wrong Daniel Craig is a good actor but not as good as the original guys.

 

[MikeRaw]

Lol, I just finished watchign Goldfinger with Sean Connery.
Anyways, to finish the point, it's like this:
It takes place before he becomes 007, or as he becomes 007 (Casino Royale, that is), but it is not actually behind all the othe rmovies, because they are supposed to be seperate from those. It's like they are remaking the whole series, in the modern day, just like Batman, and when you remake a series, you don't pay attention to the old version of the movies. However, while remaking the series, they aren't going to be redoing things like Goldfinger, Goldeneye, etc, they will still be making brand new movies, but that fit in a new series.


As for the best Bond, it's like this:

Brosnan
Craig
Connery
Moore
Dalton
That other dude

After Connery, Craig and Brosnan tough, I don't care for anyone else.
George Lazenzby was only 1 film, so he can suck my dick.
Dalton was only in 2, so he can also suck my dick.

Moore, I actually don't like. i think all the movies he starred in except for maybe 2 were very, very average, and I didn't like his role.

Craig I do like, because I like the darkness and new, freshness he has.
Brosnan I like because he was the one I saw the most, and had a great look and acting for the part.
And Connelly you have to like, because he's the original. Plain and simple.

 

[J]

I got you and defiitly have to agree with you that Brosnen was the best, my personal favorite is Goldeneye and yea my Step Dad has everyone and I watch them from time to time cuase they all really good movies. The Man with The Goldengun was awesom too.

 

[Hometown Kid]

I hate all James Bond movies tbh. I've seen 3. 1 with Connery, 1 with Brosnan and 1 with Craig and they all suck to me. I dunno why I dislike them so much...but real spies and agents aren't anything like him. Pfft. Fuck that "suave" shit tbh.

 

[★Chuck Zombie★]

I honestly can't stand the older films. The only one I liked before Craig was Goldeneye.