52 replies to this topic

[JSDude1]

This is a theory that I have thought about, and it may or may not be true (probably not true with the Producers' intentions) however just a theory.  I don't know if I even fully believe it, but here goes:

 

In Casino Royale, in the opening pre credits sequence, we see James Bond get his 00 status, then gun barrel, then obviously "You know my name", then into the main feature.

 

My theory is that the opening credits happened YEARS before the main story of Casino Royale.  Evidenced by the black and white "retro" feel to the whole thing, and that the actual story of CR takes place after Die Another Day.

 

In essence the opening when James Bond gains his 00-is a "flashback".  This is just a theory, and I probably wrong.   If this is true then the rest of the Craig era could neatly fit in after the events of Pierce Brosnan's 007.  I am probably wrong, and doubt that I am correct, like I said I don't fully believe this, it's just a theory, but IF true or taken this way could unify the timelines (the other obvious way would be for someone to claim the Craig era is a "Prequel" to the original timeline) or that we just have a freaking Screwed up Timeline that is both a reboot AND a continuation (that's what I ACTUALLY subscribe to as of now).

 

I want to hear what ya'll think of this new theory!?

[seawolfnyy]

Debunked.

 

M: "I knew it was too early to promote you."

 

He's still a rookie, when he's in Madagascar. It's an interesting theory, but not true.

[Call Billy Bob]

Yep, false. Totally separate timeline.

[FlemingBond]

like they said, no.

i always wish they had just done it as a flashback though.

[Skylla]

This is a theory that I have thought about, and it may or may not be true (probably not true with the Producers' intentions) however just a theory.  I don't know if I even fully believe it, but here goes:

 

In Casino Royale, in the opening pre credits sequence, we see James Bond get his 00 status, then gun barrel, then obviously "You know my name", then into the main feature.

 

My theory is that the opening credits happened YEARS before the main story of Casino Royale.  Evidenced by the black and white "retro" feel to the whole thing, and that the actual story of CR takes place after Die Another Day.

 

In essence the opening when James Bond gains his 00-is a "flashback".  This is just a theory, and I probably wrong.   If this is true then the rest of the Craig era could neatly fit in after the events of Pierce Brosnan's 007.  I am probably wrong, and doubt that I am correct, like I said I don't fully believe this, it's just a theory, but IF true or taken this way could unify the timelines (the other obvious way would be for someone to claim the Craig era is a "Prequel" to the original timeline) or that we just have a freaking Screwed up Timeline that is both a reboot AND a continuation (that's what I ACTUALLY subscribe to as of now).

 

I want to hear what ya'll think of this new theory!?

Or you start with CR and QoS, jump to the pts from GE, then go from DN to SF and end it with NSNA because Bond retires at the end ...

[tdalton]

As the others have said, this theory doesn't work.  Casino Royale starts a new timeline, as much as Skyfall would like you to believe that it doesn't.

[seawolfnyy]

end it with NSNA because Bond retires at the end ...

 

NEVER!

[Skylla]

 

end it with NSNA because Bond retires at the end ...

 

NEVER!

 

Well, I think because we will never ever see a Bond film with an old Bond in the likes of NSNA where they actually talk about him being too old for the job, deskjob, retirement etc., NSNA will always be the end of Bonds career to me, sailing into the sunset with the young Kim Basinger     .....I still hope for many films in between, no matter if it is Philip Winchester, Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hardy or somebody unknown....  

[JSDude1]

So let me get this right: It's CR then QOS, then GE, then DN -(etc)-> SF-> Spectre --(#25, 26, and on and on..), then NSNA?

[billy007]

I repeat what I said previously.

Craig's CASINO ROYALE is a re-boot starting a fresh,new timeline.

Any references to previous films(i.e. DB 5 in CASINO ROYALE & SKYFALL) are respectful homages to a series with a 50 year old history.

[Jim]

So let me get this right: It's CR then QOS, then GE, then DN -(etc)-> SF-> Spectre --(#25, 26, and on and on..), then NSNA?

Not sure there's anything to get "right" as such.

[JSDude1]

Well I don't really care what anyone thinks.  I still think of Craig JB as BOTH a reboot AND party of the old continuity.  It's fiction and open to interpretation, so we can believe what we want.

[dtuba]

Then how do we explain him meeting Felix for the first time in CR?

 

(I know! It's the old "Felix Leiter is  a Codename Theory" explanation.)

[JSDude1]

No, I don't really dwell on that, I just go with enjoying the individual movies.

[glidrose]

Then how do we explain him meeting Felix for the first time in CR?
 
(I know! It's the old "Felix Leiter is  a Codename Theory" explanation.)

Or maybe in Bond's universe, Felix Leiter is a common name a la John Smith. Perhaps this Felix is even distantly related to the original Felix, perhaps a strain of the family that the original Felix doesn't talk about much.

[stromberg]

 

Then how do we explain him meeting Felix for the first time in CR?
 
(I know! It's the old "Felix Leiter is  a Codename Theory" explanation.)

Or maybe in Bond's universe, Felix Leiter is a common name a la John Smith. Perhaps this Felix is even distantly related to the original Felix, perhaps a strain of the family that the original Felix doesn't talk about much.

 

No, they are entirely different families. All the Leiters are of German descent, but whereas in one family origins from the German word for 'ladder' (Leiter), the other family name origins from the German word for 'chief' or 'director' (Leiter). And as if it weren't enough, another family claims the name comes from the word for 'conductor' (in the technical/electric meaning): Leiter. To make confusion complete, a musical conductor can also be a... you guessed it... 'Leiter'.

 

It's clear: all the Felixes are different persons and not related. The fact that they're all named Leiter is happenstance, the fact that they were all given the name Felix is pure coincidence. Not certain if the fact that they all befriend a guy named James Bond can be considered enemy action... 

 

(the lengths I go to in order to disprove the awful codename theory...)

[The*SPY*]

Oh and where will this topic go when Idris Elba becomes the next James Bond?

[JSDude1]

Elba isn't going to be the next JB.  So we don't have to worry about that.

[Guy Haines]

Sorry, but the Bond series rebooted - started all over again - in 2006. There are respectful nods to what went before but this is a new series of films, imho. Dame Judi Dench held over but not playing the same M, I think, then succeeded by an M who was a former British Army officer. Q a computer whiz. Eve Moneypenny a former field agent. And I suspect that Bond's most infamous nemesis won't have the same back story either if he appears in "Spectre". (Not that "you know who" had a back story in the pre 2006 films. He was just there, in charge of things for the bad guys in the 1960s.)

 

I enjoy the 1962-2002 films for what they are and the 2006-to date films for what they are as well. But I can't see how they can be linked up.

[S K Y F A L L]

What's this reboot thing everyone is talking about? 

[DaveBond21]

Sorry, but the Bond series rebooted - started all over again - in 2006. There are respectful nods to what went before but this is a new series of films, imho. Dame Judi Dench held over but not playing the same M, I think, then succeeded by an M who was a former British Army officer. Q a computer whiz. Eve Moneypenny a former field agent. And I suspect that Bond's most infamous nemesis won't have the same back story either if he appears in "Spectre". (Not that "you know who" had a back story in the pre 2006 films. He was just there, in charge of things for the bad guys in the 1960s.)

 

I enjoy the 1962-2002 films for what they are and the 2006-to date films for what they are as well. But I can't see how they can be linked up.

 

Except Martin Campbell explained to Judi Dench that she is playing the same M in CR as she was in Goldeneye.

 

There are so many things like this, that of course it can be part of the same timeline.

 

Bond and Ralph Fiennes' M end up in Tokyo in Bond 25 and have 'an interesting time" - we will have visual evidence of their trip there mentioned in FRWL.

 

Indeed, Bond tells Moneypenny in FRWL how much he enjoyed Istanbul on his previous visit - this visit was in the lead up to the PTS in Skyfall.

[Call Billy Bob]

It's a reboot. End. Of. Story.

[Guy Haines]

I'm puzzled as to how the mission in Istanbul at the start of SF can possibly be the same as the trip referred to by Bond in the film of FRWL. A mission involving trying to recover a stolen laptop computer disk drive, something that didn't exist in the early 1960s. Unless we treat the Craig films as the real start of Bond's career, followed by all the other movies, which were filmed as period pieces.

 

The only way I can think of to fit these films into the original timeline is to treat them as contemporary versions of Bond missions pre-Dr No. In other words, the events of Casino Royale really happened in the 1950s - as in the book - but have been filmed as if in the 2000s. Of course, it leaves one wondering what the late fifties equivalents of the events of QoS, SF and now SP were.

 

This is why I prefer to think of the new movies as a new series of Bond films.

[Vauxhall]

Indeed, Bond tells Moneypenny in FRWL how much he enjoyed Istanbul on his previous visit - this visit was in the lead up to the PTS in Skyfall.

Ah, but Moneypenny also says she's never been to Istanbul. If it was the same timeline, she'd surely remember shooting Bond the first time they met.

More seriously, I follow the two different Bond stories, 1962-2002 and 2006 onwards, but it's good how some details fit better than others if someone's attempting to make a single timeline.

[hilly]

Martin Campbell cheerfully admitted, when making Casino Royale, that retaining Judi Dench as M completely screwed up any timeline or attempt at continuity, so I really wouldn't worry about it.

I can't imagine it keeps EON awake at night.

[stromberg]

I can't imagine it keeps EON awake at night.

Not one single bit. On the other hand I tend to believe that they do certain things on purpose, just because they know that it drives one or the other Bond nerd up the wall. Thoughts about some kind of "Fanboard BS Bingo" come to mind...

[Professor Pi]

Skyfall segues quite nicely into Never Say Never Again, what with the new M explained and the continuing theme of Bond being too old for the job.  One could even argue SF fits in with universes of Goldfinger, Octopussy, etc. with references to the Aston Martin and exploding pen.  SF's M could even be the same M as the latter Brosnan's.  But CR and QoS are still separate from those timelines, and there's no way to reconcile the contradictions of GE and CR.  They're separate universes.

[DaveBond21]

 

Indeed, Bond tells Moneypenny in FRWL how much he enjoyed Istanbul on his previous visit - this visit was in the lead up to the PTS in Skyfall.

Ah, but Moneypenny also says she's never been to Istanbul. If it was the same timeline, she'd surely remember shooting Bond the first time they met.

 

Ah yes, good point.

 

But as for Guy Haines' point about the technology not being available. That is true of your "first series". There is no way that Brosnan's 007 used the tickertape watch at the beginning of TSWLM, but he did complete that mission. It's the technology and decor you have to reimagine only.

[Skylla]

The longer I think about this, I guess I prefer to take it like the film The One with Jet Li. Every actors Bond lives in his own universe. Because no one could hit Sean Connery hard enough to look like Pierce Brosnan 24 years after DAF....or shrink and bleach Brosnan to look like Craig. The same goes for saying 62 until 02 is the same timeline: you never could explain the transformation from Moore to Dalton without Rhas al Ghul´s Lazarus pit.    

[Vauxhall]

The longer I think about this, I guess I prefer to take it like the film The One with Jet Li. Every actors Bond lives in his own universe. Because no one could hit Sean Connery hard enough to look like Pierce Brosnan 24 years after DAF....or shrink and bleach Brosnan to look like Craig. The same goes for saying 62 until 02 is the same timeline: you never could explain the transformation from Moore to Dalton without Rhas al Ghul´s Lazarus pit.

I've never found it particularly taxing to separate each actor into his own block of films, although Roger Moore's reaction to any sort of Lazarus pit would clearly have been memorable...