13 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

So if we will see Bond 23 in 2010 will it mean that Bond 23 is going to be 4 years later of QOS ? ( Taking into acount both CR and QOS happened in 2006)

If you think its definetly enough time for 007 to evolve and also to introduce Moneypenny and Q.

[Captain Tightpants]

I always thought of Bond films as happening in the here and now, rather than being in a pre-set time like 2006.

[tdalton]

I had always been under the impression that QoS took place in 2008, and that the end of Casino Royale was meant to have taken place in 2008 as well, and that it took roughly 2 years for Bond to track down Mr. White and have the confrontation with him at his home.

[Joey Bond]

There is no such thing as continuity in the James Bond franchise

[Blonde Bond]

Blasphemy!

Next you're going to say that there's no Santa Claus...

[Eurospy]

There's no Santa Claus????

[Quantumofsolace007]

I had always been under the impression that QoS took place in 2008, and that the end of Casino Royale was meant to have taken place in 2008 as well, and that it took roughly 2 years for Bond to track down Mr. White and have the confrontation with him at his home.

I agree 100%

[YOLT]

I said 4 years because its important how 007 evolves. It will easier 007 to change and become the Bond we know in 4 rather than 2 years.

[Quantumofsolace007]

bond is 007 bond is the bond we know and love no more need of growing.

he's learned how to keep his humanity and do his job that is what quantum of solace is all about.

[00Twelve]

Good question, really, even if it's not a very significant issue.

It seems that he'll be well into his stint as The Bond We All Know And Love in Bond 23. Naturally, the tone will be somewhat lighter than QOS (how could it not be?), but I do hope he's still grounded and keeping the zingers dry and sparse.

I really wonder if Dan might be it. I doubt it, but it's worth consideration (there's another thread specifically for that, though). I was thinking earlier about the idea of his last Bond film being Bond at the end of his career (00 agents don't have very long careers, anyway) and his going out like in YOLT. Not very likely, but fun to muse on.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I had always been under the impression that QoS took place in 2008, and that the end of Casino Royale was meant to have taken place in 2008 as well, and that it took roughly 2 years for Bond to track down Mr. White and have the confrontation with him at his home.

I don't really think so... If that would be the case why M would be still complaining about Bond regarding to the potencial (and even futures) american gripes for not delivering Le Chiffre for interrogation, after TWO YEARS!!

M: The americans are not going to be too pleased about this.
Bond: I promise them Le Chiffre, and they got Le Chiffre.

But in a second thought, perhaps M is referring to a possible american annoying regarding to Mr. White being shoot on the leg, hence keeping some slight resemblance to Le Chiffre being shoot to death (in that case, for the same Mr. White).

What are your thoughts??

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 23 December 2008 - 07:23 AM.

[Craig Arthur]

QOS is set long after CR. Long enough for M to move ot a new office. Long enough for Tanner to replace Villier's. M is referring to the fact that the Americans did not manage to land either Le Chiffre or White in custody; MI6 bet them to it.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

QOS is set long after CR. Long enough for M to move ot a new office. Long enough for Tanner to replace Villier's. M is referring to the fact that the Americans did not manage to land either Le Chiffre or White in custody; MI6 bet them to it.

Being like that, it make much more sense to me, that in the final scene of CR, just like Campbell stated it in the audio commentaries, Bond is already a fully formed as the character tha we know and love. Hence, in QOS he's just put it to a test (a very tough one, because it includes dealing with personal matters), to proved his recently achieved professionalism, and he successeds.

That's why OO7 says "I never left", because he left to be a profesiional for the entire movie, but he had to struggle very hard to accomplished that.

[Craig Arthur]

Yes, basically setting the movie back in 2006 would not work. The movie would be a period piece when everybody expects a Bond movie to showcase new technology and the latest model cars (even if the Aston Martin DBS is the same model we are meant to think that Bond has at least progressed to a new colour).

But also it would be too limiting to still show Bond’s character under construction; it would even limit the themes of the action. I have just delivered a new main page article ("A Quantum of Gold-dust") where, in one passage, I say that a central theme of "CR" was Bond's character is under construction. Hence two major action sequences - Madagascar and Venice - set on construction sites whereas "QOS" is about Bond's desolation. He knows who he is put needs to verify his assumptions about Vesper etc. Hence - like TS Eliot's "The Waste Land" the action sequences are based around the four elements. Bond's character is no longer under construction, he is fully formed but struggling and needing closure. So even the form of the movie shows that Bond is in a different psychological 'place' from "CR" (as you say, "he never left"; he is no longer under construction). Hence a period of time has passed between the conversation with M when she says the trail has gone cold and Bond confronting Mr White and shooting him in the leg. At least that is my theory.