40 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

There have been a lot of discussions about the lack of continuity in the Bond movies, and Casino Royale is the best example of making a fresh start.

But, after we all get used to the fact that there is little or no continuity in the Bond movies, are they going to change it all, and actually have some in Bond 22???!!!

And if so, are they also going to in Bond 23??? Will that please those CBners who found it easier to say goodbye to any continuity in the past or not???

And when Bond 24 comes along, there will be a new Bond actor - will his movies carry on from Craig's or will they reboot again?

I think it will be interesting to see.

[pedroarmendariz]

one of the members here once said that the continuity didn't tie the movies so much that it would be hard to watch one without watching another before it. you can watch tb before dn and you don't miss much other than the smooth progress connery made into the character. i think that as long as the continuity isn't part of the plot, you can act as if bond was started in the 21st century. daf was suppost to be about bond's revenge for tracy's death, but that was left in the first part of the movie. the rest dealt with the new plot. we don't even know what happened to irma bunt in the movie world. benson killed her in his first short story.

[Emma]

It looks as if this fresh start it an opportunity to re-introduce everyone to Bond in a 21st century context. I really think that they can revisit some of Fleming stories, provided that they change the titles of the books. The not all of the films followed that closely to the books in the first place.

My guess is that in this reboot they have borrowed from the Batman Begins formula and are making it so that all the three films tie into one another.

But after Craig leaves who knows if they will follow a continuity formula? My guess is that one day they will go back to the lighter fare of the camp. It all depends on the state of cinema as a whole (at the time) and the world around us.

Edited by Emma, 10 December 2006 - 11:01 PM.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

There's plenty of continuity from Dr NO to OHMSS. At DAF it starts to waver and by LALD it's more or less gone...

The way I look at it, we're at Dr No again, so there's going to be some continuity for at least 2 more movies (probably) while with Bond going after Mr White's organization.

[DaveBond21]

But after Craig leaves who knows if they will follow a continuity formula?

Well, if Craig is a big success (and I think he will be), it will be tempting for them to go for a similar actor (possibly someone who is yet to make it in 2006 but will be better known by 2011).

But will they also reboot the series again, or follow on from Bond 23?

There's plenty of continuity from Dr NO to OHMSS. At DAF it starts to waver and by LALD it's more or less gone...

Well, Tracy's death is also mentioned in TSWLM and LTK, and we see her grave in FYEO. It is also referred to in TWINE.

[Publius]

Well, Tracy's death is also mentioned in TSWLM and LTK, and we see her grave in FYEO. It is also referred to in TWINE.

It was unimportant in the first three (well, LTK is arguable, but it works just fine without it, although I do think it's better with), and could very well just be referencing her off-camera death for those Bonds and the different continuities they occupy. And TWINE is a hell of a stretch (which actually requires the off-camera theory anyway).

Anyway, I do think we'll see a good three film story arc for Craig's era, possibly expanded beyond that if he decides to stick around (and provided Bond 22 and 23 are up to the quality of CR, I think he will). I think making his last movie a stand-alone swan song might be the best way to go if they're going to have a new Bond within two or three years of him.

[DaveBond21]

Fair enough, Publius.

I just wondered if those fans against continuity, who have very convincingly put their argument across, are now going to change their tune to..."Yes, we must have continuity!! It's the only way to go for Bond 22 & 23!!!"

That would amuse me.

What about a reboot for the next actor??? Or just a new adventure?


One thing they can't ever do again - show Bond on his first mission. Or can they??

[Publius]

Actually, as someone who constantly rails against claims of there being a single continuity, I would love if each actor had their own personal timeline. In other words, for the "series of series" moniker to truly hold some water (it didn't for the Brosnan run, unfortunately).

As for future reboots, sure, as TLD and/or GE were implicit ones (and possibly even LaLD) anyway, so we've been there, done that. Let's just keep away from any other "first mission" movies for many, many years.

[JWM Tanner]

There is just one thing about Casino Royale that is not good in my opinion.
The relation with the 20 other 007 movies.
A pitty.

The producers want too make a new start.
I don`t like that because you can`t forget the previous 20 films!
That`s why i give Casino Royale a 9 and not a 10 mark.

No offence, Casino Royale is the best Bondmovie in years!

[00Twelve]

This can, of course, be disregarded if you like, but the official website for Casino Royale includes "Bond's dossier," which lists his official, now canonized birthdate as April 13(?), 1968.

To me, that eliminates all of the previous actors from any possibility of being the same James Bond. The continuity has started over, I'm afraid.

[Publius]

There is just one thing about Casino Royale that is not good in my opinion.
The relation with the 20 other 007 movies.
A pitty.

The producers want too make a new start.
I don`t like that because you can`t forget the previous 20 films!

Past movies are never referenced, except for the occasional wink (or an entire collection of them, in the case of DAD). You still have them to watch in all their glory, and since they were not even part of a single timeline to begin with I just don't see what the problem is.

This can, of course, be disregarded if you like, but the official website for Casino Royale includes "Bond's dossier," which lists his official, now canonized birthdate as April 13(?), 1968.

To me, that eliminates all of the previous actors from any possibility of being the same James Bond. The continuity has started over, I'm afraid.

The website is not canon. Besides which, birthdates were clearly visible for Dalton's Bond and Brosnan's Bond in actual movies of theirs. So unless we're accepting Casino Royale as Bond 4.1 (at the very least), there's no reason to think it's any less a part of a single continuity than the last six films.

[DaveBond21]

I think it is really up to the individual fans.

To me, they are all the same man, in the same universe. Time/date references, references to specific events or people are irrelevant.

If Casino Royale took place in 2006 (which it obviously did), then Dr No takes place the same year or 2007. It's as simple as that, and will be, at least until 2008 when Bond 22 comes out.

[00Twelve]

The website is not canon.

I'm only curious, not refuting you, but are you sure? The same people that produced the movie had every aspect of the official site designed to tie in to the film.



The other reason that I believe that this is a new continuity, besides it being harder to reconcile that it's not than to accept that it is, is that no other Bond film has moved backward in his life, yet progressed in every other aspect of history. Technology is current, world events are current, yet Bond is a fledgling 00-agent. No other films have moved backwards in his life at all, much less doing so while allowing the rest of the world to go on. Two of the last six films also dealt with the Cold War, and Craig's Bond clearly was never a 00 until 2006, nearly 20 years after the Cold War ended.



I guess I just find it easier and more satisfying to start from scratch. And believe me, you could not find a person more wary of ignoring 20 films of continuity (or however you see it). As far as I'm concerned, the artistry is still there and will always be there (just as all original adapted works are never overshadowed by their re-adaptations).

[DaveBond21]

Ever since they said they were rebooting the series, I have wanted them to show the time Bond and M were in Tokyo together (as he mentions in FRWL), and so would like it if they did that in the next one.

I actually think they will carry on from CR.

But if not, then any mention of Dr No or Goldfinger will make me applaud and laugh in delight!!!

[00golf]

The character of Bond is as much a concept as anything. Many of his missions from previous movies simply would not happen because there would be no reason for them to happen. Bond supposedly became a 00 somewhere in his early to mid 30's. References that were made from many of the previous movies, especially with FYEO have considerably aged the character of Bond.

FYEO would have made Bond well into his 40's simply from the fact that in the movie Tracey's death happened 12 years prior. In the movie Goldeneye, 9 years from the pre title sequence put Bond already with MI6 a seasoned veteran already by 1986, with the Goldeneye Mission being in 1995.

For me personally I just enjoy the older movies and sort of place myself in the time frame and the character of Bond in that time frame. If that makes any sense.

[DaveBond21]

For me personally I just enjoy the older movies and sort of place myself in the time frame and the character of Bond in that time frame. If that makes any sense.

Yes, me too. Although when I watch Goldeneye, I always think that the PTS (1986) takes place between his Zorin mission and his Koskov mission.

[bill007]

For me, the novels are the novels. And the movies are the movies. It is great when the studio references the novels in order to give the movie credibility. The first twenty movies were about a series of missions our hero was assigned to, mostly to do with SMERSH and SPECTRE, before moving on to random villians.

With Casino Royale, like Michael Wilson said, they finally had the opportunity to go back to the beginning, and tell us a story of how our hero came to be.

It is my desire to see a trilogy, of sorts, providing an 'arc' of our hero's growth into a well tested British secret agent. It would be an interesting adventure in the overall canon.

[Skudor]

B22 will follow the Vesper story line to its conclusion, foil some plot, and leave a villain dead. Like Largo or Dr No. But leave us with the organisation still out there. I don't think they'll have a direct link with B23 - they'll want to avoid too much continuity. That's my way of thinking, anyway.

[Tiin007]

To me, they are all the same man, in the same universe. Time/date references, references to specific events or people are irrelevant.

If Casino Royale took place in 2006 (which it obviously did), then Dr No takes place the same year or 2007.

I agree with your first point but not your second point. To me, all the Bond movies were in the same universe with the same man. But with CR, a new timeline begins- an alternate universe. So Bond Version 1 is Connery-Brosnan (DN-DAD) and Bond Version 2 is Craig-the final Bond actor (unless they ever reboot it again). The reason I divided it this way is because even though it's a stretch to think everything in the 1st 20 movies happened to the same man, it's still technically possible (to some degree at least). But CR contradicts all that (Bond meeting Leiter again for the 1st time?) so, with his first mission as a 00, this starts a new timeline (separate/alternate universe). That's my take on the matter.

Edited by Tiin007, 12 December 2006 - 02:45 AM.

[00golf]

To me, they are all the same man, in the same universe. Time/date references, references to specific events or people are irrelevant.

If Casino Royale took place in 2006 (which it obviously did), then Dr No takes place the same year or 2007.

I agree with your first point but not your second point. To me, all the Bond movies were in the same universe with the same man. But with CR, a new timeline begins- an alternate universe. So Bond Version 1 is Connery-Brosnan (DN-DAD) and Bond Version 2 is Craig-the final Bond actor (unless they ever reboot it again). The reason I divided it this way is because even though it's a stretch to think everything in the 1st 20 movies happened to the same man, it's still technically possible (to some degree at least). But CR contradicts all that (Bond meeting Leiter again for the 1st time?) so, with his first mission as a 00, this starts a new timeline (separate/alternate universe). That's my take on the matter.

The timeline has already been broken somewhat. After YOLT, Bond is not reckognised by Blofeld in OHMSS.

[00Twelve]

The one element that takes away the possibility that this is the same continuity, IMO, is the fact that Dench's M is a completely different character that she was with Brosnan. In Brosnan's time, she obviously came on shortly before the 1995 section of the film began. She was new to the job, and spoke of Bond with disdain, calling him a "relic of the Cold War." That naturally leads me to think she not only didn't do much significant espionage work in the Cold War, but thinks the warfare and mentality of the time is out of date, and that Bond is nothing but an aging tool of the time.

Contrast with M in Casino Royale, a different woman played by the same actress. This M expicitly remarks that she "misses" the Cold War. That leads me to deduce several things. First, she had some significant work to do in active espionage during the time. Like, perhaps, and only perhaps, be the chief of the 00-section. Otherwise, she'd have no credibility for making such a remark. Second, she preferred the black & white, good and evil POV of the Cold War, having a visible, obvious enemy with which to fight. Third, she misses the professionalism of the time, when spies knew the cost of folly well enough not to commit it, or if they did, they would "at least have the good sense to defect." That was an option then. Add on that her demeanor is different, that she commands far more respect and runs a much tighter ship, and that she knows much better how to keep personal feelings out of the work.

For a fine example several months from now, just watch TWINE, pay special attention to M, then pop in Casino Royale, and do the same. I personally find it impossible for myself to contrive to call them the same woman, just because they're played by the same actress and work in the same office.

My two cents, don't want to rattle my sword.

[DaveBond21]

For a fine example several months from now, just watch TWINE, pay special attention to M, then pop in Casino Royale, and do the same. I personally find it impossible for myself to contrive to call them the same woman, just because they're played by the same actress and work in the same office.

My two cents, don't want to rattle my sword.

That is a fair enough point, if it wasn't for the fact that Judi Dench has said in all her interviews that it is the same woman.

I assume she would know.

[00Twelve]

You caught me talking out of my again...

Must be the same woman in an alternate universe, I suppose...otherwise, she created an inconsistent character, and she's a much better actress than that.

[DaveBond21]

You caught me talking out of my again...

Must be the same woman in an alternate universe, I suppose...otherwise, she created an inconsistent character, and she's a much better actress than that.

LOL. Yes.

But it does mean that Bond was talking rubbish when he mentioned M's predecessor in Goldeneye, because he wouldn't have known, would he?

[00Twelve]

No, because that version of M replaced Bond's former chief, Sir Miles Messervy (or Admiral Hargreaves, however you like). I don't think that she could be in the same continuity, because Craig's Bond never knew Sir Miles...so Sir Miles does not know Bond yet. All this Bond knows is Dench. Perhaps in the years to come, Messervy will "replace" Dench...

This is so confusing...that's why I just say, "screw it, the past 40 years never happened! Fine!"

[bonds_walther]

It'd be great to see the level of continuity that we had with the first films, particularly Dr. No and From Russia With Love. I really enjoy the fact that Blofeld mentions Dr. No and that part of the plot is to kill Bond to get revenge for Dr. No's death.

Edited by bonds_walther, 12 December 2006 - 10:59 PM.

[DaveBond21]

This is so confusing...that's why I just say, "screw it, the past 40 years never happened! Fine!"

LOL. It is confusing, you're right.

But I actually say, CR comes before the other 20 films, as an adventure, as an experience for Bond (the staff at MI6 don't matter in this).

And my original post was all about, whatever your opinion on the continuity up to now, are they now, with Bond 22, actually going to have some continuity? Or will we always be able to slot any Bond movie into any time frame?

[00Twelve]

Oh, sorry...yes, I think Bond 22 could have no immediate predecessor except Casino Royale. I think it'll follow right on its heels.

[DaveBond21]

Oh, sorry...yes, I think Bond 22 could have no immediate predecessor except Casino Royale. I think it'll follow right on its heels.

No need to apologise. Anyway, the point of my thread is that it amuses me that those who are really against any hint of continuity in the past 20 Bond movies, are now desperate to see Bond 22 carry on from CR!!!

And does that mean they also want continuity in Bond 23 aswell? What if we also had obvious links in Bond 24, 25 and 26? Suddenly we have a series with undeniable continuity (the very thing those fans hated in the past!!!)

[EL7]

The way I look at Bond is this....


He doesn't have an intact continuity, but an familiar history.


Depending when you meet him (meaning, when you watch one of his movies) you know he's a english spy, a Double O working for MI6, likes to wear a tux, has refined tastes, fast expensive cars, been married once and sleeps with a gun under his pillow.


This hasn't changed, really... in all the years we have known him.


Now, the franchise is one of the longest movie franchise's ever (if not the longest), so... it remains that you can't change your winning formula that much to keep ppl coming back, that of course we know, but you can change the facts.


For example, Bond now has a different Birth date... in Batman Begins, his parent's death is different from Keaton's Batman movie, with the Joker being the murderer. Spider Man's webslingers were at first inventions of his own, now apart of his spider powers. But Batman is still an orphan millionare and Spider Man is still a photographer, amoung other facts related to them as a character.


My point is, you can own change so much of what fans will accept and what causal fans can identify with.


Now Bond does have those stand out movies, and a lot of thme can be told in almost any order, much like some other films of different stories and character, except you may have to be careful in reguards to what happened before in the previous movie before the sequeal. But the stand alone works for Bond IMO because after all, he is a agent who is put out on missions. When that mission is done, he's ordered on to another. And this makes it easy for the causal fan, cause there the ones that need the most convincing sometimes.


Basicly, hardcore fans are hooked. They may like or not like a new Bond flick, it doesn't matter, they so in to it they'll see the next one. Where as a causal fan, needs to be brought back for the next one. So, depending what film you watch, with which ever actor, he has to remain the same in some sort of fashion, and to me, its easier to explain that Bond was married once rather to explain how Brosnan's Bond went against Dr. No. The challege being the difference is years and the technology.


So I see Bond History being more sinifigant to the movies rather then his continuity, continuity in the sence of what we saw from Dr. No to DAD (or depending on where it starts or begins for you yourself). And I use his history as a defining point, since CR is suppose to be the beginnings of the Bond he becomes.


And to finish up, I think another reason why we have this huge story or series or series, is because not one of the ppl responsible in making Bond movies realized that it would last this long! I have a suspicion that maybe, IMO, some felt that it would end sooner then later so there was no point in trying to explain things. Or perhaps they felt they just didn't need to, or that it would be too complex to try for the average movie goer at the time, or perhaps they felt it added to the mystery of James Bond.