Hero Worship: The 007 Approach to Continuity

It’s oddly fitting that with the release of the latest (and reportedly greatest) James Bond flick impending, we got an influx of genre movie news that has one prevalent theme: continuity. We’ve learned that Arnie is returning to the role of Conan the Barbarian. We’ve gotten our first glimpse at a kick-ass new Evil Dead movie that’s reportedly a reboot but whose trailer suggests ties to the original. And we learned of where The Wolverine takes place in relation to the other X-Men films.

All of these news bits hold relevance to the continuity of their respective franchises, but if the looming presence of 007 should remind us of anything, it’s that continuity is rarely anything more than a distraction from good storytelling.

Bond has avoided continuity for decades. Different actors have taken on the role time and again without a strict continuity other than some recurring characters, but that’s totally accepted by viewers. We just sort of recognize it as a collective anthology of Bond’s greatest tales – after all, we’ll never hear about that time 007 went on a mission to Bangkok and everything went totally fine and he was home in time for tea. Because who cares?

Movies (and stories in general) are cherry-picked adventures from a greater tapestry of less interesting tales that happen off screen. Because of that, movies should be self-contained without a reliance on trivial events of other films in a series. Or, in other words, continuity.

Continuity, particularly in comics and the other media based on those comics, has taken on a life of its own. Many readers desperately want the elements of a universe that have been in flux for sometimes 75 years to line up perfectly. But they never will. It’s just how it’s going to be. It’s impossible. But in movies, it’s a little bit different.

Movies, particularly of one franchise, have a much more spread out release schedule than comics. Whereas upwards of 10 X-Men comics release every month, we’ve gotten five X-Men movies in the last 13 years. Plus, films are more streamlined with fewer characters and side stories. There’s less to keep track of. So then why is it so important to know that The Wolverine happens after the rest of the X-movies?

Well, it’s not, really. If that movie is really going to be a Wolverine solo adventure without reliance on the events that happened before, why even bother to acknowledge the timeline? If there’s any X-character that can work in a Bond-esque capacity, it’s Wolverine. X-Men: First Class had wonky continuity (thanks in part to an appearance from Wolverine), so the matter is only further complicated from that perspective.

In fact, the reason I enjoy First Class so much is because it’s not overly concerned with its placement within the established franchise. Things don’t quite line up, but to the internal benefit of that movie. There has to come a point where the story serves itself instead of the films that came before, and unfortunately getting bogged down in continuity is one of the fastest ways to fall into that trap.

And then there is Conan and Evil Dead, which are both in this strange sort of in-between area. The Legend of Conan is technically a sequel to the 80s Conan flicks, presumably set in the age of King Conan when the character had usurped the throne of the Hyborian Age, “ignoring” the 2011 reboot of the franchise.

But it seems silly to even acknowledge that, as Conan is a character in the same vein as James Bond – he’s a mythic character with no real beginning or end; he simply exists to have adventures and do nothing of interest between said adventures. As such, there’s no reason not to consider Conan in all of his forms as one part of the larger tapestry in the same way we accept James Bond as one cohesive entity despite his different renditions.

As for Evil Dead, we’re dealing less with a specific character (due to Ash’s exclusion) and more a mythology. They are billing this movie as a remake/reboot, though I’m not entirely convinced. I like the idea of presenting this thing in that way, though, promoting the idea of disconnection from the original so that A.) new/younger viewers will be interested and B.) if there are some easter eggs to the original flicks, it will be more of a surprise for Evil Dead diehards.

That said, if the movie goes full on with connections to the original movies (like, say, the main character being Ash’s daughter or something), then Evil Dead runs the risk of betraying its own internal world by requiring familiarity with something beyond the film itself.

Granted, it’s really too early to speculate on either Conan or Evil Dead, I’m just saying that those movies are in prime position to undermine their own potential by choosing to be beholden to past continuity. That’s why, as a reader/viewer, it’s best to simply ignore the concept altogether.

I understand that some people like the idea of continuity; that when done right, it can build the experience into something much larger. I get that. But in an era where reboots are getting stacked onto remakes with some odd cases in between, it’s going to be easier to enjoy these projects when we’re not constantly distracted by what fits where and why.

After all, Bond never had to worry about it, and he’s doing just fine.

Joey is IGN's Comics Editor and a comic book creator himself. Follow Joey on Twitter @JoeyEsposito, or find him on IGN at Joey-IGN. He loves superhero pets so hard.

Source : ign[dot]com