Hold on there sport; Henry Cavill is a very capable actor and there are some scenes where he is a terrific Superman and a pretty good Clark Kent. It’s just the tone of the script and woeful writing gave the poor bastard nearly nothing to work with. If they’d given him a more traditional style of Superman movie he would have been amazing. In fact I’ll lay my cards down and say he’d have been as good as Reeve.
I already dislike Lashana Lynch (No Time to Die)
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
If I'd have any criticism of Cavill I'd say his facial features are a bit too harsh for Superman, who I think benefits the best from a softer expression. Supes face should look less like that of a brow-knitted warrior and more like one of a gentle caregiver.
I disagree on his ability to actually act and show emotion. It's why he's become most popular playing a Witcher, a creature supposedly genetically modified to not have emotions. Where the extend of his dialogue often boils down to "Grunt" or "Grunt but with feeling."
Now I like the guy, and in person (in public and in interviews I mean, I haven't met him myself), I find him to be a VERY charismatic dude, but his portrayal of Superman was terrible. Maybe it's just the script, and acting direction, but I doubt it.
Everything from Dr. No to DAD forms one continuity, Casino Royale started another one. As stretched as it is, the original run clearly shared continuity.
But they're still the same character, just recasted.
Again, Craig's run started a new continuity. Moore shares the same continuity with every other Bond besides Craig.
Isn't Clease more or less done with acting?
How so?
What's wrong with Clease?
Afterlife isn't erasing anything. It's taking place in the continuuity that began with the original film. Afterlife is in a separate continuity.
No.
I know. Just pointing out that the same M and Q actors being there between two different runs doesn't imply continuity.
He does not. Moore's silly tone doesn't even match Connery's. (He was the worst Bond.) Besides, that would make Bond very, very old in GoldenEye, which references the end of the Cold War. It's not a codename. 007 is the codename. It was never implied in any of the movies to be a code name.
I remember him being upset that he was dropped. But I can't find the quote now. It was about fifteen years ago.
You have evidence to the contrary?
Differences in tone isn't really an argument. Tone varies between actor, and varies even within actor (compare something like GoldenEye to DAD for instance). As for the timeline thing, it's a minor issue, but we can assume that Bond operates on a floating timeline.
But evidence that the Bonds are in continuity? Well, Moore is seen mourning over his wife's grave from OHMSS. And in DAD, Bond fiddles with the jetpack from the Connery era. Plus, one of the Bronsan novelizations references events from Connery's era.
As thin as the continuity was prior to Craig, there was still continuity regardless. Evidence to the contrary would need a hard statement.
Evidence to the contrary is his age and the changing time period. I mean, fine, you can try to link the early movies, but beyond them it just doesn't work at all.
It's James fucking Bond, who cares about continuity? It's a series of films adapted from some really badly written books about what is now an extremely dated and gross version of a male fantasy that directors have updated to suit the time period, but still shoving in references to previous films even though they often don't make sense. It's a series of barely connected films about a man who drives fast cars, shoots people, and has sex with beautiful women (sometimes against their will), and his character radically changes between films. The question is not whether you could make a Bond film with a female lead, but whether the often rather tawdry, goofy, and/or exploitative Bond franchise is really the best home for that female superspy you've thought up.
I like to think of James Bond as being like a long-running comic book character. Something like main series Spidey
A character that can be around during both the Vietnam War, current day and everything in between, but who doesn't age, unless the plot demands it. Who can differ in appearance and personality, and whose stories can vary wildly in tone, depending on who is drawing and writing them. As times change, so does the character and the setting it inhabits, yet it is still the same character in the same continuity. Which doesn't make sense if you think about it too much, but then again, you're not supposed to.
Doesn’t change the fact that Dr. No through to Die Another Day are considered a single continuous - if tenuous - continuity. And stamping your feet and declaring ‘No’ isn’t going to change that. If they weren’t they wouldn’t have made such a big deal about Craig’s series being a fresh start for a new series of films.
Now if any of that is a problem for you, I suggest you take it up with Barbara Broccoli.
Last edited:
Tracy also gets a mention in License to Kill, when Felix’s wife asks him why James isn’t married and Felix replies “He was once” in a tone of voice suggesting tragedy.
Well, presumably the film makers. Though personally, due to Judi Dench, I'd extend that beyond there, but say the continuity is a mess.
Lol, presumably. Actually, you can have your continuity. But, you know what? Casino Royale has to be a part of that continuity as well, since the filmmakers have never stated otherwise. So, congrats, your continuity is a total mess and your protagonist can time travel.
Although, I've asked this on a movie forum and so far the majority opinion is that it is not one continuity.
Do you consider all the Bond movies from Dr. No to Die Another Day one continuity? - Blu-ray Forum
Do you consider all the Bond movies from Dr. No to Die Another Day one continuity? Movies
Yes to the first, and as to the second, Timothy Dalton played a time lord in Dr Who. Explains it all.
More seriously, Bond continuity has always been a total mess, I think you have to not worry about that (and a fair few other things) if you like the series.
No, not really.
Casino Royale has two key differences from every previous Bond film - it depicts Bond's origin story, and takes place explicitly after 9/11.
While Bond more or less had a floating timeline from DNO to DAD, there was a constant in that the timeframe was either during the Cold War, or in the case of GoldenEye onwards, explicitly taking place after it (bar the intro). The only way for Casino Royale to be in continuity with the previous films is for something like this to occur:
-Intro scene (where Bond gets his two kills)
-Every Bond film from Dr. No to DAD
-The rest of Casino Royale
This really doesn't work in the context of the film. And if we move onward, there's other things that can't work, such as:
-In Casino Royale, Bond meets Felix for the first time. In the original continuity, they'd met by Goldfinger.
-In Skyfall, Moneypenny is a field agent who retires for desk work. So, what, she started off as a secretary, then went into the field, then went back to being a secretary?
-Back to Casino Royale, M comments that "I knew it was too early to promote you to 00 status." So, what, he was promoted, saved the world plenty of times, and she's having regrets now because he kills a bomb maker? It works in the context of the film, but not in the context of a wider series.
There's at least some argument to be made that every Bond actor started a new continuity, but there's no way that Casino Royale can take place in the same continuity as any Bond film before it. Not to mention that going by the games, different versions of previous events occur (e.g. the Craig!GoldenEye game).