39 replies to this topic

[solace]

One thing that has bothered me since seeing skyfall is this. In casino royale, Bond is promoted to the 00 section. Quantum carries straight on from the end of Cr. In Skyfall bond is spoken about as veteran   of many years service and later we see the aston equipped with the goldfinger gadgets. Does this mean that in the rebooted world of Craigs Bond is their a long gap between Qos and Sf in which the earlier Bond  films take place.

Thoughts please.

Edited by solace, 04 March 2013 - 10:15 PM.

[mttvolcano]

I have to ask, as Bond movie fans, are we inclined to clear up every discontinuity like why are there for many felix leiters?

 

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that this new Bond had a DB5 as a nod to to the other films

[007jamesbond]

yep there is a gap between QOS and SF.........it not difficult to understand........why can't he be a vet? I mean from 2006 to 2012 is 6 years obviously 6 years later should be consider a vet agent not a rookie anymore.......and how do we know Connery film has no gap....it called character development.......

[Bill]

Sam Mendes meant to loop Skyfall with Dr. No.  He stated that in interviews and said something to that effect when discussing the final scene in Skyfall on the Blu Ray commentary.

In that final scene, we have Bond and Miss Moneypenny in Moneypenny's office from 50 years ago.  We then have that padded door, opening onto what is essentially M's large office from 1962, with the desk in front of the mantle. The only real discernible difference is that both Moneypenny's and M's offices are not as brightly lit as the old days, and, of course, the painting of the destroyed (or damaged) MI6 building replacing the naval painting behind M.  However, the other painting is a naval one, and is clearly seen as Bond stands there.  

While Gareth Mallory is really not Miles Messervy, and apparently served in the Army and not as an Admiral in the Navy, for all intents and purposes, given the set, they are meant to represent the same person, and it appears as if we are meant to think that Bond's next assignment will be to investigate Strangway's disappearance.  We are at the point where these three films serve as both a reboot of and prequel to what has come before.

Now there is plenty here which does not make sense, such as the changing races of Moneypenny and Felix, Judi Dench's M serving both after and before Messervy/Mallory M, Bond meeting Felix Leiter for the first time twice, the technological advances of the last 50 years.  However, just look at Bond and Blofeld meeting for the first time in two subsequent films for continuity discrepancies before the reboot, and you will see that this ultimately is no big deal.

 

I think that this allows for the timeline to be interpreted in several ways, and one may place the adventures in whatever order they see fit.  One may also wish to still look at these three films still as a separate series, despite Mendes' intentions.

I was one of those who was against the reboot, and while still appreciating Casino Royale, thought that Quantum of Solace was the absolute nadir of James Bond.  Skyfall completely changed all of that, as it signifies that Daniel Craig is playing the same 007 as Sean Connery and George Lazenby and Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.  It is a true 50th anniversary celebration, merging the old Bond and the new.  

At the end of the day, and I realize I was as guilty of arguing to the contrary as anyone else, continuity may really not matter.  It probably means more to Sam Mendes then Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson.  However, the fact is that Skyfall has made a billion dollars.  I am sure that at least part of that was due to people glad to see that the old Bond was back.

Here is to another 50 years!

[Hockey Mask]

Six years may be a long time for a 00 agent. An average NFL player lasts 3-6.86 years depending on who you believe. Their bodies go through similar abuse but with the aid of padding.

http://blogs.nfl.com...er-for-players/

[Baccarat]

I mentioned in another thread that I have always viewed the Bond films as having non-linear continuity. It's a bit like The Simpsons; Homer gets fired from the power plant in one episode, but is back working there the next episode without any explanation. Okay, not the best example, but it's the way I watch Bond. The fact that QoS starts where CR left off doesn't mean that QoS is then duty-bound to deliver precise continuity, which it doesn't anyway. I've not heard the Mendes commentary, but the idea that he set the close of SF to mirror the opening of DN - taking the franchise full circle if you will - sounds more like a reverential nod to the past, whilst neatly setting up the new M and Moneypenny for Bond 24.

Edited by Baccarat, 05 March 2013 - 12:44 AM.

[DaveBond21]

Sam Mendes meant to loop Skyfall with Dr. No.  He stated that in interviews and said something to that effect when discussing the final scene in Skyfall on the Blu Ray commentary.

In that final scene, we have Bond and Miss Moneypenny in Moneypenny's office from 50 years ago.  We then have that padded door, opening onto what is essentially M's large office from 1962, with the desk in front of the mantle. The only real discernible difference is that both Moneypenny's and M's offices are not as brightly lit as the old days, and, of course, the painting of the destroyed (or damaged) MI6 building replacing the naval painting behind M.  However, the other painting is a naval one, and is clearly seen as Bond stands there.  

While Gareth Mallory is really not Miles Messervy, and apparently served in the Army and not as an Admiral in the Navy, for all intents and purposes, given the set, they are meant to represent the same person, and it appears as if we are meant to think that Bond's next assignment will be to investigate Strangway's disappearance.  We are at the point where these three films serve as both a reboot of and prequel to what has come before.

Now there is plenty here which does not make sense, such as the changing races of Moneypenny and Felix, Judi Dench's M serving both after and before Messervy/Mallory M, Bond meeting Felix Leiter for the first time twice, the technological advances of the last 50 years.  However, just look at Bond and Blofeld meeting for the first time in two subsequent films for continuity discrepancies before the reboot, and you will see that this ultimately is no big deal.

 

I think that this allows for the timeline to be interpreted in several ways, and one may place the adventures in whatever order they see fit.  One may also wish to still look at these three films still as a separate series, despite Mendes' intentions.

I was one of those who was against the reboot, and while still appreciating Casino Royale, thought that Quantum of Solace was the absolute nadir of James Bond.  Skyfall completely changed all of that, as it signifies that Daniel Craig is playing the same 007 as Sean Connery and George Lazenby and Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.  It is a true 50th anniversary celebration, merging the old Bond and the new.  

At the end of the day, and I realize I was as guilty of arguing to the contrary as anyone else, continuity may really not matter.  It probably means more to Sam Mendes then Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson.  However, the fact is that Skyfall has made a billion dollars.  I am sure that at least part of that was due to people glad to see that the old Bond was back.

Here is to another 50 years!

 

Excellent description of how we can choose our own answers to this question, and also Bill, I agree with you on every point here.

 

If we wish to believe that Bond is off to Jamaica soon after the events of Skyfall then that is fine. We also know about other adventures Bond has had which have not featured in an actual movie - for example when Bond mentions that he and M had an interesting time in Tokyo once.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[delfloria]

They are almost all reboots. No problem. If Blofeld shows up bald with a neck brace after DAF then all bets were off a long time ago.

[talos7]

I've said this elsewhere but I don't think the entire 50 year film series has to tie together; There are 3 generational Bonds, each of the worlds in which they exist seperate from the others. The first is Connery, Lazenby and Moore; while they portray the character differently, there are threads that unite these three actors of the same generation. One being when George goes through his desk and another being when Moore is at his wife's grave. The James Bond seen in Dr. No is the same seen in AVtaK. The next incarnation are the films featuring Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond seen in The Living Daylights is the same Bond seen in Die Another day. The current and 3rd are the Craig films; after him it could either go on as this incarnation or go much younger and start a 4th.

[plankattack]

To be fair on EON, reboot is just a Hollywood term used when they don't want to admit to using the word 'remake.' Add to that that this franchise is 50 years old and has slid from one end of the stylistic spectrum to the other and back again, it's nigh impossible to impose conventional standards to continuity and story-telling.

EON didn't consciously set out to adhere to a narrative arc when they started (unlike say, George Lucas and Star Wars who said from the start that his films were part of nine-story arc), so it's hardly fair to attempt to use any measure on it now. Take a pivotal moment in the character's life (both on page and screen) - his marriage. EON have both ignored it (DAF), and then attempted to reference it with entirely different leads and periods of film (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK, TWINE). To their credit, they've got away with it, but what they've also done is openly dismissed a sense of, or need for, logical continuity.

I actually think it's impossible to place everything into some sort of time-line that even loosely makes sense, and if Sam Mendes thinks that SF finishes before DN starts, then for those who were pulling their hair out at some of the shoddy plotting of SF (don't get me wrong, I love the film but I'm not blind to it's faults), their heads should positively be exploding at his attempts to place the 23 film at the start of the celluloid series.

I see the reboot as referring to style rather than story. On that count, to my taste it's been a success. I rank these films as highly as I rate the first four, and while as a fan, I enjoy at least parts of all of them, I'll admit that the reboot has provided me with the type of Bond film I grew up lusting for (LALD was my first cinema Bond).

Does the reboot 'fit'? No. Has it been a success? IMHO, yes.

[Binyamin]

I think I finally figured it out. Pay attention.

The best way to think of it is that there are different 007's, but it is only a code-name or "character." In reality, different "actors" portray each character. An organization, code-named "EON," uses film to record some of the "actors" in the field. So, we get a glimpse of the "007 character" on different missions, but it's really just for entertainment. Also, we should all go outside and get some fresh air.

[Professor Pi]

Connery/Lazenby/Moore are different actors playing the same character.

 

You could argue Dalton was a new Bond character in TLD, but not in LTK in which they reference his marriage (from 20 years earlier, though Dalton was offered the role for OHMSS.)

 

The biggest continuity problem is from LTK to GoldenEye.  The new M is not adequately explained, nor how Bond was rehired (he resigned in LTK) and the themes of vengeance are handled very differently.  Also, GE's pre-title sequence is set nine years before 1995, pretty much ignoring all of Dalton's legacy. And Brosnan's quip about where Judi Dench's predecessor kept the cognac means his era can't come after Craig's.

 

Judi Dench plays two different M's--Barbara Mawdsley from 1995 to 2002, and Olivia Mansfield from 2006 to 2012.  Same actress playing two different characters who happen to have the same nomenclature -- "M".

 

While Craig is a different Bond, each of his films has glaring references to Goldfinger (CR, QoS and SF) and The Spy Who Loved Me (QoS). Some Bond films almost become self aware (OHMSS' janitor, Octopussy, the non-Eon NSNA, and SF) in winking to the audience.

 

When Craig has his Moonraker Lives Twice Another Day film, Q will have invented both a cloning device and time traveling Aston Martin that will explain all.  We find that Desmond Lewellyn is actually Doc Brown who goes back in time to send his former self Ben Wishaw forward in time in Bond to the Future.  The final frame has Woody Allen spinning his totem before the title "Directed By Chris Nolan" flashes to the screen, THEREBY TYING IN ALL THE JAMES BOND MOVIES ONCE AND FOR ALL.

 

Now...what's all this about this 'fresh air outdoors' I've been hearing so much about?

[SecretAgentFan]

Every actor´s era has a certain continuity. Apart from that - none. Satsfied?

[seawolfnyy]

My feeling is that CR, QoS and SF are prequels to the other 20 films. Trying to make sense of it all, will just give you a headache. The Bond series is littered with continuity errors. Bond says he and M had an interesting experience in Tokyo and then, 3 films later, says he's never been to Japan.

 

Also in regards to what Professor Pi said about Dench's M, the name Barbara Mawdsley only ever appeared in Benson's novels. I would argue that she is actually playing Olivia Mansfield the entire time and the character is just different in the way that Brosnan and Craig's Bonds are different: same character interpreted differently.

[Major Tallon]

There's little point in searching for continuity in a film series involving the adventures of a single character over fifty years.  Either the time span of the adventures has to be compressed past the point of credibility, or we just have to accept that there's a stand-alone element to the various movies that requires no further explanation. 

 

It's not like this hasn't happened many times before in various film series.  The Batman movies have been mentioned, but there are many older examples.  In 1939, Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes in "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes," set in the 1880's.  In 1943, Rathbone played Holmes in "Sherlock Holmes in Washington," an adventure set in the 1940's.  So far as I know, nobody tried to impose an artificial continuity on the two films.

[hilly]

Martin Campbell, when Casino Royale was being made, cheerfully admitted that continuing to have Judi Dench as M screwed any sense of a timeline. Similarly Bond meeting Blofeld in YOLT- and appearing to meet him AGAIN in OHMSS is equally inexplicable....so there's really no point in trying.

[QOS4EVER]

Martin Campbell, when Casino Royale was being made, cheerfully admitted that continuing to have Judi Dench as M screwed any sense of a timeline.

Yep,I remember Michael Wilson clearly saying ' It didn't make any sense taking her, but we could not see anyone but her for the role"

[AMC Hornet]

I've said this elsewhere but I don't think the entire 50 year film series has to tie together; There are 3 generational Bonds, each of the worlds in which they exist seperate from the others. The first is Connery, Lazenby and Moore; while they portray the character differently, there are threads that unite these three actors of the same generation. One being when George goes through his desk and another being when Moore is at his wife's grave. The James Bond seen in Dr. No is the same seen in AVtaK. The next incarnation are the films featuring Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond seen in The Living Daylights is the same Bond seen in Die Another day. The current and 3rd are the Craig films; after him it could either go on as this incarnation or go much younger and start a 4th.

Good to know I'm not alone in this.

[freemo]

I see them all as individal stories, or even myths, under the one "Adventures of James Bond" banner or legend, all free to connect and disconnect from each other, to be retro or modern, as per the preferences of the ones telling the particular story. I'm much more concerned about the character being portrayed consistantly and true and yep, that's what James Bond would say / think / do enjoyment, than I am with the precious continuity of look, there's that object or reference or bit of business from a movie ten-twenty years ago giddiness.

 

I rarely watch more than one Bond in a sitting and I don't watch them in any particular order, and am not interested in how they connect or don't connect with eachother in some sort of timeline. And they are all the same character, they're all "James Bond".

 

Continuity is where creativity goes to die, and is one of the signs of over self-reverence (the other, not Bond related, is characters constantly telling each other how extraordinary the other is). DR. NO has no connections or allusions to previous Bond movies and is none the worse for it.

[DaveBond21]

 

Martin Campbell, when Casino Royale was being made, cheerfully admitted that continuing to have Judi Dench as M screwed any sense of a timeline.

Yep,I remember Michael Wilson clearly saying ' It didn't make any sense taking her, but we could not see anyone but her for the role"

 

And Judi Dench herself said in an interview at the time that she was told she was playing the same character as the M in the Brosnan movies. She also commented "In this one you get to see her husband, albeit briefly..."


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[FlemingBond]

This is why i thought Casino Royale should have been done as a flashback. Have Bond recall his first mission after the pre-credit sequence. Because now they wipe everything out, but the Bond franchise wants to refer back to it's history. I always thought of it as a single timeline (suspending disbelief that Dalton's Bond could have been in adventure's like DAF or TMWTGG LOL) After all Bond's marriage was refered to in LTK, and when Brosnan came in what did they do? First thing you see after the credit's is the DB5 to link him to the earlier films. Now what we have is Mendes has brought Bond full circle, back to M's original office, so it's almost like Bond's adventure's going forward will be taking place during the same time as his other ones. In other words Bond 24 might take place right after Dr. No....i guess.

[plankattack]

A series with a 50-year lifespan has two histories to juggle. Obviously the timeline of its characters, but also its own history as a creative entity.


I've said that I think it's mindbendingly impossible to attempt to force a continuity that would hold water into EON-Bond, and I can't fault the multitude of film-makers over the years for failing to do so.


Take the DB5 in SF. Yes, it makes absolutely no sense for the character - if, as Mendes has claimed, that SF leads to DN, then how can the DB5 from GF showing up in SF possibly make sense?


But in the context of the film series (that has it's own history separate from the characters), it makes perfect sense. This is a Bond film - here is a piece of Bond film history. As much as it's nonsensical, I can forgive it, because the moment the machine guns pop out and fire, it's a touchstone of my history as a viewer with the Bond franchise. To me, that's how Mendes gets away with it. Because how he feels, and how many of us feel, about the franchise is encapsulated in a single moment that says "this James Bond, is your James Bond."


And when you consider how much blather there continues to be about whether or not DC is Bond, or whether these current films are Bond films at all, then you can't blame the film-makers for taking every opportunity to hammer home the notion that this, or any entrant in the series, is a proud member of the franchise.


There are films in the series that all of us low opinions of, but I challenge anyone to make the case that any of them (even NSNA which isn't EON) are not all Bond-films. So while the reboot makes little creative sense from a story-telling standpoint, from a historical stance as a piece of the series' cinematic history, it makes perfect sense.

[Professor Pi]

Rather than argue that there is or has to be continuity, one could go the other way based on the characters and references in the films to argue there are multiple continuities:

 

DN--FRWL--GF--TB--OHMSS--LTK (SPECTRE, DB5, Tracy)

 

YOLT-DAF-LALD-TMWTGG (gangster, JW)

 

FYEO--TSWLM--MR--OP--AVTAK--TLD (General Gogol, Jaws, drunk witness)

 

GE-TND-TWINE-DAD (Wade, Zukovsky, Judi's M#1)

 

CR-QoS-SF (Quantum, Craig, Judi's M#2), maybe even add NSNA at the end of this list?

 

To be sure, there are still inconsistencies.  Here each starting film takes liberties to introduce a new "Bond", not always a reboot, but a redirect.

 

In any case, it's more of a universe than a continuity timeline. 

[billy007]

Any reference to past films should be considered a homage: Aston Martin, M's office, mentioning Tracy,all the in jokes in DAD. Old fans will remember where the references originated(if not fondly remembered)new fans will want to see the older films to discover where the old stuff came from.

[seawolfnyy]

Rather than argue that there is or has to be continuity, one could go the other way based on the characters and references in the films to argue there are multiple continuities:

 

DN--FRWL--GF--TB--OHMSS--LTK (SPECTRE, DB5, Tracy)

 

YOLT-DAF-LALD-TMWTGG (gangster, JW)

 

FYEO--TSWLM--MR--OP--AVTAK--TLD (General Gogol, Jaws, drunk witness)

 

GE-TND-TWINE-DAD (Wade, Zukovsky, Judi's M#1)

 

CR-QoS-SF (Quantum, Craig, Judi's M#2), maybe even add NSNA at the end of this list?

 

To be sure, there are still inconsistencies.  Here each starting film takes liberties to introduce a new "Bond", not always a reboot, but a redirect.

 

In any case, it's more of a universe than a continuity timeline. 

A fix for your timeline.

FYEO, TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK and TLD would all have to be in the same universe as DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF and LTK for 3 factors:

1. Bond's wife is mentioned in TSWLM and FYEO

2. Gogol is in every Bond from TSWLM until TLD

3. Blofeld is mentioned in OHMSS before he is introduced

[iBond]

Connery/Lazenby/Moore are different actors playing the same character.

You could argue Dalton was a new Bond character in TLD, but not in LTK in which they reference his marriage (from 20 years earlier, though Dalton was offered the role for OHMSS.)

The biggest continuity problem is from LTK to GoldenEye. The new M is not adequately explained, nor how Bond was rehired (he resigned in LTK)...[/i]

Well, let's not forget that M called Felix at the end of the film. Bond acknowledged it and was probably considering that he is really needed.

[FlemingBond]

Yes, i believe Felix told James on the phone "i think M might have a job for you"

[Professor Pi]

True enough.  For some reason, that  still bothers me more than the YOLT-OHMSS-DAF string where, film after film. Blofeld meets Bond then forgets about it, and Bond seems to gloss over his wife's death.

 

In my later post, I put YOLT in a separate time line from FRWL because in YOLT he says he's never been to Japan but in FRWL he mentions he and M "had an interesting time in Tokyo."  Likewise, the janitor whistling Goldfinger in OHMSS means GF is a movie characters in OHMSS could have seen, and therefore not part of the same universe.  But of course, Desmond Lewellyn is in everything from FRWL to TWINE, which means one shouldn't even argue Brosnan is a different Bond as well.

 

It seems they can't really be separated as much as they can't really be conjoined!

Edited by Professor Pi, 09 March 2013 - 06:09 PM.

[Iceskater101]

Well when I watched Skyfall, it didn't really bother me, just because I looked at the years that the movies were made, I mean Casino Royale was 2006? I believe and Skyfall was 2012, so that's a five year/six year gap. Plus I am sure James has done a lot more missions in that period of time so I could see why he was well regarded.

[AMC Hornet]

Timeline.

Continuity.

Bollocks!

 

When Mendes said that Skyfall brings Bond full circle to Dr. No, I'm sure he was only referring to Bond's character development. I'm sure he didn't mean to suggest that CR/QoS/SF all take place in the late 1950s (with those really cool futuristic 'cell phones' and other technological marvels which would vanish for a couple of decades before reappearing (like Barbara Mawdsley)), or that Dr. No (with its experimental moon rocket) or FRWL (with a mechanical decoder similar to the German Enigma) are the shape of things still to come.

 

Break it up however you like, just stop trying to get your heads around the idea that it all has to work together. If you're going to take everything literally, then Animal Farm was a story about animals taking over a farm, and George Orwell was 'wrong' when he predicted what 1984 was going to be like.

 

One more thing:

 

"Oh, and the valet ticket." (Cool - now I have one Aston Martin in London and another in Nassau!)