44 replies to this topic

[Major Tallon]

Hi, From1964To2012.  You are entitled to place any interpretation on the Bond franchise that you like, and if you're happy with it, great.  But here's my question:  in Dr. No, Jamaica was still a British Colony (it became independent in August 1962) and a rocket still hadn't orbited the moon.  In CR, Vesper's cell/ mobile phone screen gave the year as 2006, and in QOS, it was 2008.  How do you deal with the obvious passage of time covered by the series' fifty years?   

 

I know that some think Craig was looking a bit old in "Skyfall," but not that old. 

[tdalton]

To answer the original question posed in this thread, Skyfall (as well as the other two Craig films) takes place in their own timeline.  Skyfall is the third film in a new series of Bond films (although I do wish they had done more to distinguish the two series of Bond films).  It doesn't take place before Dr. No, as it really couldn't anyway considering that Skyfall sees the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Gareth Mallory to the office of M, whereas Dr. No features a firmly established Admiral Miles Messervy as M.

 

There is no line of continuity that runs through the franchise.  The only real continuity, outside of a direct reference to Tracy in For Your Eyes Only and a very vague reference to her in Licence to Kill, can be found within the tenures of each of the individual actors.  Connery has his own timeline, as do Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig.  Any idea that there is a direct line of continuity throughout the entire series is lost when considering the trio of You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Diamonds are Forever.  We go from Bond meeting Blofeld in YOLT to the two of them not knowing each other in OHMSS, to DAF being released right after OHMSS and featuring the duo of Bond and Blofeld acting almost civil towards each other and with no hint of any carry over from the events that ended OHMSS to DAF.

 

Also, regarding Dalton's supposed appearance in the GoldenEye title sequence.  Dalton, like all of the other Bonds, is right-handed in his gunbarrel pose.  The model that is used in the GoldenEye pre-titles is left handed.  Clearly not Dalton.  It's just a model, and one that actually more closely resembles Pierce Brosnan than Dalton anyway.

Edited by tdalton, 07 April 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[From1964To2012]

Hi, From1964To2012.  You are entitled to place any interpretation on the Bond franchise that you like, and if you're happy with it, great.  But here's my question:  in Dr. No, Jamaica was still a British Colony (it became independent in August 1962) and a rocket still hadn't orbited the moon.  In CR, Vesper's cell/ mobile phone screen gave the year as 2006, and in QOS, it was 2008.  How do you deal with the obvious passage of time covered by the series' fifty years?   

 

I know that some think Craig was looking a bit old in "Skyfall," but not that old. 

I know you refused to read my previous post. Rule 1, don't base on actor's age for Pierce Brosnan's age doesn't fit to originally own the 1964 Aston Martin used by Sean Connery in Goldfinger. And all Eon-produced James Bond films belong to the original timeline except for the 2 films. These 2 films Daniel Craig's James Bond reboot set don't belong to the original timeline. But Skyfall doesn't belong in these 2.

[From1964To2012]

To answer the original question posed in this thread, Skyfall (as well as the other two Craig films) takes place in their own timeline.  Skyfall is the third film in a new series of Bond films (although I do wish they had done more to distinguish the two series of Bond films).  It doesn't take place before Dr. No, as it really couldn't anyway considering that Skyfall sees the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Gareth Mallory to the office of M, whereas Dr. No features a firmly established Admiral Miles Messervy as M.

 

There is no line of continuity that runs through the franchise.  The only real continuity, outside of a direct reference to Tracy in For Your Eyes Only and a very vague reference to her in Licence to Kill, can be found within the tenures of each of the individual actors.  Connery has his own timeline, as do Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig.  Any idea that there is a direct line of continuity throughout the entire series is lost when considering the trio of You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Diamonds are Forever.  We go from Bond meeting Blofeld in YOLT to the two of them not knowing each other in OHMSS, to DAF being released right after OHMSS and featuring the duo of Bond and Blofeld acting almost civil towards each other and with no hint of any carry over from the events that ended OHMSS to DAF.

 

Also, regarding Dalton's supposed appearance in the GoldenEye title sequence.  Dalton, like all of the other Bonds, is right-handed in his gunbarrel pose.  The model that is used in the GoldenEye pre-titles is left handed.  Clearly not Dalton.  It's just a model, and one that actually more closely resembles Pierce Brosnan than Dalton anyway.

There is continuity in the franchise, whether you like it or not. Not only that in saying there is continuity but, the bigger picture is that, the whole 1962-2002 has no reinterpretation. But if you're CR-QOS-SF fan, you'll refuse to listen to all of this and still try to persist reinterpretation of the universe for every new actor who took the role.

 

Considering this timeline as valid to be consistent has spawned a popular ridicule among James Bond fans known as "James Bond is a Doctor Who's universe time lord". So it's not true that when a new actor takes the role, the Bond universe is reinterpreted, except for Daniel Craig in 2006. It is consistent, so it is assured that James Bond's franchise will not have the licence revoke again other than of Timothy Dalton's James Bond.

 

First, the 1962-2002 timeline is, believe it or not, PROVEN CONSISTENT. Many who are just up to disprove continuity elements between them. In spite of many disagree with continuity between YOLT and OHMSS, still, George Lazenby's Bond is Sean Connery's Bond as indicated in OHMSS. Second, it isn't true that Diamonds Are Forever comes before OHMSS. In the prologue of Diamonds Are Forever, Bond is taking revenge on Blofeld for the murder of his wife. Third, the man in shooting form silhouette in Goldeneye opening theme means Brosnan's James Bond and Timothy James Bond is the same person.

 

So if the man in shooting form silhouette in Goldeneye opening theme is a model that fires a gun left-handed, it's no problem to mean either Brosnan's Bond or Dalton's Bond because there's no Bond who is left-handed. And if it's the hairstyle of silhouette to point out, it's Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. But regardless of all of it, the purpose of the film maker in this part for this silhouette's shooting form is to indicate Timothy Dalton's James Bond shooting form in gun barrel sequence.

Edited by From1964To2012, 08 April 2013 - 01:32 AM.

[tdalton]

It sounds to me like you're more arguing against the idea of the "code name theory".  I don't think that anyone on this site is arguing in favor of the "code name theory", and I'll agree, all six of the men who have been cast as Bond are in fact playing the same man, a man named "James Bond".  But, there are far too many instances of inconsistencies in the series for it to be true that it's a single timeline running from 1962-2012.  First, and most important, if it was a single timeline, then Bond would be somewhere in his 80s or 90s by the time the Skyfall mission came about.  It can't be a single timeline about a man who does not age.  

 

Each actor has their own contained timeline, in which there generally aren't that many inconsistencies, but it's when moving from one to the other that shows that they can't all be happening in the same timeline.  Lazenby even breaks the fourth wall in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, drawing the audience's attention directly to the fact that he's not Sean Connery.  His film is contained within an entirely different timeline, as we see Connery's Bond films begin moving towards the Roger Moore style of filmmaking with You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever, with a film in On Her Majesty's Secret Service that ignores the film before it (Blofeld and Bond seem to meet for the first time in both films), and is also, in turn, ignored by the film that follows in, in which EON tap dances around the events of the finale of On Her Majesty's Secret Service by just supposedly going away with the perpetrator in the PTS only to have him return later.  That in an of itself is not a bad idea, but the fact that Bond doesn't even seem the slightest bit upset or angry about Blofeld still being alive is yet another inconsistency between the tenures of two different actors that lends to the idea that there is no singular timeline in the series.

 

So if the man in shooting form silhouette in Goldeneye opening theme is a model that fires a gun left-handed, it's no problem to mean either Brosnan's Bond or Dalton's Bond because there's no Bond who is left-handed. And if it's the hairstyle of silhouette to point out, it's Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. But regardless of all of it, the purpose of the film maker in this part for this silhouette's shooting form is to indicate Timothy Dalton's James Bond shooting form in gun barrel sequence.

 

If the model is left handed and looks like Pierce Brosnan, how can it be Timothy Dalton?  I think the fact that he's left handed and looks like Brosnan trumps the fact that the model bends his leg when he turns, which is the only similarity between the model and Timothy Dalton.  The only intention on the part of Kleinman was to have a Bondian image amidst all of the women in the frame.  He certainly did not intend for it to be Timothy Dalton, as having Dalton in the PTS for GoldenEye would have been disrespectful to both Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.

Edited by tdalton, 08 April 2013 - 03:36 AM.

[S K Y F A L L]

The Bond films from DN to DAD take place during the original Star Trek timeline, after The Lord of The Rings but before Star Wars depending on how long you've been in the Matrix. Some may agree that CR is a roboot so everything that is old is new again in some alternate reality/timeline and parallel universe much like the Star Trek reboot, this is so outlandish S K Y F A L L don't play like Homey. And Homey don't play like that. You see like the Star Trek reboot Bond has new actors playing old characters. However Jedi Dench and the new M are part of the overall continuity of the entire 007 series. So half the reboot is not a reboot at all and the other half takes place in a parallel universe and alternate timeline which in the Bond films is always the present day. 

[SecretAgentFan]

We should not forget to take into account what Doc´s time machine experiment and Marty´s fiddling with the past probably have done to EON´s plans.

[Jim]

But regardless of all of it, the purpose of the film maker in this part for this silhouette's shooting form is to indicate Timothy Dalton's James Bond shooting form in gun barrel sequence.

 

Is it?

 

Bit of a leap of logic, that one.

[From1964To2012]

First, and most important, if it was a single timeline, then Bond would be somewhere in his 80s or 90s by the time the Skyfall mission came about.  It can't be a single timeline about a man who does not age.  

 

Each actor has their own contained timeline, in which there generally aren't that many inconsistencies, but it's when moving from one to the other that shows that they can't all be happening in the same timeline.

 

So if the man in shooting form silhouette in Goldeneye opening theme is a model that fires a gun left-handed, it's no problem to mean either Brosnan's Bond or Dalton's Bond because there's no Bond who is left-handed. And if it's the hairstyle of silhouette to point out, it's Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. But regardless of all of it, the purpose of the film maker in this part for this silhouette's shooting form is to indicate Timothy Dalton's James Bond shooting form in gun barrel sequence.

 

If the model is left handed and looks like Pierce Brosnan, how can it be Timothy Dalton?  I think the fact that he's left handed and looks like Brosnan trumps the fact that the model bends his leg when he turns, which is the only similarity between the model and Timothy Dalton.  The only intention on the part of Kleinman was to have a Bondian image amidst all of the women in the frame.  He certainly did not intend for it to be Timothy Dalton, as having Dalton in the PTS for GoldenEye would have been disrespectful to both Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.

 

But regardless of all of it, the purpose of the film maker in this part for this silhouette's shooting form is to indicate Timothy Dalton's James Bond shooting form in gun barrel sequence.

 

Is it?

 

Bit of a leap of logic, that one.

It means Timothy Dalton's shooting form. There's no contradiction of logic. But the anti consistent-timeline says it isn't Timothy Dalton's shooting form. Well, there it goes according to them what is that shooting form as they see. But the sihouette should look Pierce Brosnan because it's Goldeneye.

 

I know it would say that it isn't right if James Bond doesn't age so it's right to believe every actor is a reinterpretation. James Bond is the one from 1962 and it continues until Daniel Craig in 2012 but not in2006 & 2008, while he witnessed he didn't aged but his first Q aged, turned to appear as his uncle in 1989, and aged more in Pierce Brosnan's bond until retires and replaced by Q's assistant, the 2nd Q or Cleese's Q in 1999, and because of this, an emergence of ridicule "James Bond is Doctor Who's universe time lord" because seemingly James Bond is the same James Bond when an actor changed to another. CR-QOS-SF timeline fans would prove inconsistencies between actors' James Bonds, to simply prove that every new actor reboots James Bond. Actually, there are still inconsistencies, e.g., James Bond wasn't blonde turned blonde so James Bond is re-interpreted, seemed to audience that James Bond and Blofeld meet the first time in OHMSS so James Bond is re-interpreted, etcetera, but those inconsistencies doesn't prove re-interpretation.

 

But, CR-QOS-SF is wrong. SF returns to the most recent end of the timeline, Die Another Day. And, 2012 Skyfall's Aston Martin didn't come from 2006 Casino Royale.

[From1964To2012]

The Bond films from DN to DAD take place during the original Star Trek timeline, after The Lord of The Rings but before Star Wars...

 

We should not forget to take into account what Doc´s time machine experiment and Marty´s fiddling with the past probably have done to EON´s plans.

You should include Hannibal Lecter dining with Jaws I think in 1970s. This seems that James Bond franchise was like Batman franchise, where if an actor change, then the story re-interprets. Thinking franchise is like when Batman's universe is reinterpreted.

 

It's wrong for Blofeld to come back to the future Bond movies appearing with the should-be-already destroyed Bond's 1964 'Goldfinger' Aston Martin. If Eon decides for Blofeld comes back, it's a reboot like Craig's Casino Royale. But Craig's James Bond in Skyfall is not the James Bond in 2006 & 2008. And, most importantly to reiterate, 2012 Skyfall's Aston Martin didn't come from 2006 Casino Royale.

 

First idea when watching the Eon-produced Bond films, all Ms were not first Ms. Judi Dench's M is not the first M in Goldeneye. But I know the anti-consistent timeline fan is always aware to disprove it and insist Dench's M is the first M in Pierce Brosnan's James Bond and no one else because for him Goldeneye is a reinterpretation and there's no other M mentioned in any Brosnan's bond to fulfill my claim.

 

I assure you, expect that in any coming Eon-produced James Bond film after Skyfall, 100% sure there will be no re-revoking of James Bond licence. Think about this if thinking a reinterpretation. It should only to happen once when James Bond acted by Timothy Dalton where licence revoked by 2nd M. Future actors will not have that scenario if the films they are into were having continuity elements.

 

Continuity element is the first thing to consider to test if an Eon-produced Bond film belongs to a timeline.

Edited by From1964To2012, 08 April 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[From1964To2012]

I know it would say that it isn't right if James Bond doesn't age so it's right to believe every actor is a reinterpretation. James Bond is the one from 1962 and it continues until Daniel Craig in 2012 but not in2006 & 2008, while he witnessed he didn't aged but his first Q aged, turned to appear as his uncle in 1989, and aged more in Pierce Brosnan's bond until retires and replaced by Q's assistant, the 2nd Q or Cleese's Q in 1999, and because of this, an emergence of ridicule "James Bond is Doctor Who's universe time lord" because seemingly James Bond is the same James Bond when an actor changed to another.

But, I shouldn't oppose to much more against anti-consistency to the timeline. I still consider there are inconsistencies that seem to break the timeline per se. Yes, I still agree with all those who flag for inconsistencies.

 

There are so much bigger inconsistencies rather than calling them just inconsistencies. I have much to present this inconsistencies present in the 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline, e.g., James Bond shouldn't make James Bond like Doctor Who's time lord if it has continuity elements to consider to connect between time in films that would make James Bond an actual more than 60 years old who appears to remain in his 30s and it would make James Bond has another intruiging story about immortality and without mentioning about any of it why, James Bond from non-blonde to blonde, Moneypenny has lieutenant R. N. but does another Moneypenny in Skyfall a different one with a different employment background or a successor to the first Moneypenny, and may she didn't revealed her real name yet when said "Eve, Eve Moneypenny" that means she is the successor to the first Moneypenny, and if not, Skyfall just made to seemingly introduced new characters and makes Skyfall itself an another reboot that still doesn't belong to CR-QOS timeline, and so much more inconsistencies.

 

But still, which remains to be valid only except for Skyfall just in case of introducing Moneypenny as the first Moneypenny which means Moneypenny hasn't existed in the position until 2012 in this universe, continuity element is the first thing to consider to test if an Eon-produced Bond film belongs to a timeline.

Edited by From1964To2012, 08 April 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[The Shark]

"He's quite mad, you know."

[Dustin]

'When exactly did you become a Leninist, turned to the Dark Side of the Force and decided to betray Camelot to the Simpsons, Mr Dumbledore?'

Edited by Dustin, 08 April 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[Jim]

My brain hurts.

[glidrose]

You have one?