14 replies to this topic

[Miles Miservy]

Since the producers seemed more comfortable with re-invention of OO7 and filming out of sequence, I wonder if they'll address the lapse in missions between the years 1989 and 1995?

It might be interesting to see if they could pen a script that would bridge Dalton's Bond & Brosnan's Bond.

Any thoughts?

[Vauxhall]

I don't think there's anything that can be achieved by going back in time to a frankly iffy era of the Bond franchise. CASINO ROYALE rebooted the franchise, so I imagine the plan is to plough on with the successful Bond we now have, and don't look back.

[tdalton]

I don't see much point in going back to that time period either. Given that EON went somewhat out of the way to pretty much ignore Dalton's tenure in the role (setting the GE PTS during Dalton's tenure in the role), I don't see them being particularly keen on bridging the gap between the two.

[RJJB]

The gap only exists in the real world. Not every detail needs to be mentioned and frankly, who cares? The series has always made changes without explanation, and trying to figure out the continuity between "eras" is just a waste of time. Connery through Brosnan portrayed the same character; Craig is the new version. If you like the movies, take them for what they are and quit making entertainmnet so difficult.

[AMC Hornet]

Leave the gap-filling to a continuation novelist. Couldn't be any worse than Devil May Care.

Oh, wait - John Gardner was writing in that period. There's your answer - after quitting the service, Bond was brought back via the Royal Navy for operation LandSea, then went after Brokenclaw Lee, General Yuskovich, et al. Since there were no movies then, read the books.

EON was not able to film in that period. They are filming now. I'm looking forward to the future. The early 90s weren't a great time for me anyway.

[Guy Haines]

They did pen a script for "Bond 17", didn't they? As opposed to "GoldenEye". Unfortunately it didn't translate into a film. As for the Dalton era - it never really had a fair chance. I thoroughly enjoyed both of his Bond films, but they could have done with the change of directors and screenwriters we saw in the Brosnan era, if only to bring in a fresh approach to Bond and one that was even more suited his interpretation of the role.

Instead we were stuck with that very frustrating six year hiatus and, as I understand it - somebody out there correct me if I'm wrong - an MGM studio boss who was determined to have Timothy Dalton replaced as Bond.

Having re-booted the series in 2006 I can't honestly see the point in trying to fill in the gap on screen between 1989 and 1995 now. But there's other media out there. If the Bond franchise was run like, say, Star Trek, Star Wars or Dr Who, we would have had paperback after paperback by now along the lines of "Bond:The Lost Years".

[S K Y F A L L]

Instead we were stuck with that very frustrating six year hiatus and, as I understand it - somebody out there correct me if I'm wrong - an MGM studio boss who was determined to have Timothy Dalton replaced as Bond.

I do not know if that is correct. However I've had the saying feeling, maybe we are just paranoid. I've tried finding information about the hiatus online and all I've been able to find is that it was because of some legal battle regarding the broadcasting rights, which I couldn't understand why they still could not be making them during the law suit.

[AMC Hornet]

As I recall, it was the sale and resale of MGM and/or United Artists - along with the litigation of the video and TV distribution rights - that hamstrung EON through the early 90s. As the stability of the studio was too uncertain when it came to promoting and releasing the next film, EON was not prepared to start a production that may have ended up being shelved before completion. As it was, in whatever state MGM was in, they were already tempted to pull the plug on 007 after the relatively 'poor' performance of AVTAK, TLD & LTK. Then, when everything was settled, there was the little matter of continuing with Timothy Dalton, or recasting with Pierce Brosnan...

As for monthly continuation novels, have you ever been unfortunate enough to read any of the Dirty Harry novels that were cranked out between The Enforcer and Sudden Impact (or was it between Sudden Impact and The Dead Pool?)? Nothing would have killed the Bond franchise like an over-inundation of inferior pulp novels. Even if some of Mr. Gardner's novels were less than stellar, that year-long wait between them only whetted the appetite for the next installment. Fleming wrote one a year, and IFP were wise not to try to accelerate that pace.

[SecretAgentFan]

What´s this obsession with continuity within the Bond film series? That went out of the window when Connery left for OHMSS and then came back for one more film and then was replaced with Sir Roger. Even his Bond was mixed up within the framework (FYEO opening sequence). And then Dalton´s Bond re-booted completely. Only to be re-booted by Brosnan´s Bond. And then with Craig´s Bond.

You can only assume a kind of continuity for one Bond actor.

Is see it in eras. Right now we have the Craig era. When he leaves another timeline will start.

[mttvolcano]

What´s this obsession with continuity within the Bond film series? That went out of the window when Connery left for OHMSS and then came back for one more film and then was replaced with Sir Roger. Even his Bond was mixed up within the framework (FYEO opening sequence). And then Dalton´s Bond re-booted completely. Only to be re-booted by Brosnan´s Bond. And then with Craig´s Bond.

You can only assume a kind of continuity for one Bond actor.

Is see it in eras. Right now we have the Craig era. When he leaves another timeline will start.

I am totally with you on this one. Bond is just a character who transcends time, played by different actors. Too many people read too much into trying to make a timeline fit and so they come up with the ludicrous idea that Bond is Bourne-esque as espoused by Tamahori (glad his ideas didn't work out).

Edited by mttvolcano, 10 April 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[Pussfeller]

That's how I always saw it. In fact, I've always been mildly annoyed by the scattered handful of "continuity moments" which some fans cite as proof that everything before Craig ties together into a single neat timeline. You can count these moments on one hand: the desk-rifling in OHMSS, the visit to Tracy's grave in FYEO, and the "He was married once" line in LTK. I think that's it. If not for this handful of mischievous little winks, it would be reasonable to assume that every actor represented a total reboot of the character.

Then I have to remind myself, "it's just a show, I should really just relax."

[MajorB]

I love continuity myself, but yeah, I sometimes have to stop and say "This is stuff somebody made up. There are no rules." No matter how you choose to see continuity, you have to shrug something off. People who prefer to consider each change in actor as rebooting the series have to shrug off the small moments that bother Pussfeller. Personally, I always liked to consider the films from Connery through Brosnan as being part of one continuity, just because that's my taste, and I like the little cross-refernecs between the films. But of course that means I have to shrug off a lot of stuff, like a perpetually changing Bond, and one who, in a "real" timeline, would have been forced to go on pension by the start of the Brosnan era. I'm fine making that mental adjustment because I prefer my way of looking at it, for me. Other folks prefer different ways of thinking about it. That's cool. Even the sometimes-derided "code name" theory doesn't bother me, if it appeals to people. There's no right or wrong. It's all pretend. Win-win.

[Aston V8]

There has never been any continuity, for the most part these are stand alone adventures, not a series of episodes. The PTS often sets up the end of a mission we did not see in the previous film. If there was continuity, the franchise would have been over years ago, with all of the characters too old or dead. It is simple entertainment, not an alternate universe.

[S K Y F A L L]

The continuity can be saddening sometimes but I think the producers realize this and are working on at least having better casting continuity. I believe this will be worked on. http://en.wikipedia....ond_film_series

[S K Y F A L L]

As I recall, it was the sale and resale of MGM and/or United Artists - along with the litigation of the video and TV distribution rights - that hamstrung EON through the early 90s. As the stability of the studio was too uncertain when it came to promoting and releasing the next film, EON was not prepared to start a production that may have ended up being shelved before completion. As it was, in whatever state MGM was in, they were already tempted to pull the plug on 007 after the relatively 'poor' performance of AVTAK, TLD & LTK. Then, when everything was settled, there was the little matter of continuing with Timothy Dalton, or recasting with Pierce Brosnan...

As for monthly continuation novels, have you ever been unfortunate enough to read any of the Dirty Harry novels that were cranked out between The Enforcer and Sudden Impact (or was it between Sudden Impact and The Dead Pool?)? Nothing would have killed the Bond franchise like an over-inundation of inferior pulp novels. Even if some of Mr. Gardner's novels were less than stellar, that year-long wait between them only whetted the appetite for the next installment. Fleming wrote one a year, and IFP were wise not to try to accelerate that pace.

I couldn't find much online about the hiatus, thanks.