28 replies to this topic

[Single-O-Seven]

Let's just say Casino Royale were a prequel, and that the events of Dr. No were to happen some time in Bond's future. How long before Dr. No would CR have taken place? Months? Years? Take into consideration Bond's character development and professionalism, which was obviously raw in CR.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

5 years.

[Thunderfinger]

Right on, Sharky.
+/- a couple of monthss.

[I Like Sharks]

Interesting thought but I'd just say their in Bond's future as are all the other films. Their not even the same timeline/period of history so it's impossible to say and it dosn't really matter anyway

[EyesOnly]

I would also agree that it would be five years before Dr. No!

[DaveBond21]

Good question.

I like this point, because it's the way I see CR in the timeline.

I would say, that the Dr No mission was one of Bond's earliest ones - since he was still being reminded of being demoted and back to office duties, or whatever the quote was.

However, I do believe that there was the mission with M in Tokyo (mentioned in FRWL) between CR and Dr No. So I wonder if we'll get Bond and M in Japan in Bond 22 or 23?

[K1Bond007]

Well he had been using the Beretta for 10 years he claimed so it's more than 5 in my opinion. Not necessarily the full 10, however.

[Flash1087]

It doesn't mean he'd been a 00 for 10 years, though. Maybe he carried the Beretta before he became a 00 as a self-defense weapon, or maybe he just liked taking it to the range and was used to it.

[K1Bond007]

As I said, not necessarily the full 10. It's impossible to say. It could be - for this hypothetical question - 2 years.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]2 years or less I

[FlemingBond]

Not that long.

[Vauxhall]

I'd tend to think a good few years, probably around five.

[darkpath]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='694939' date='29 January 2007 - 15:10'][mra]2 years or less I

[Scottlee]

I agree with the 4/5 year estimate. Bond already seemed very rounded in Dr No.

[RazorBlade]

I was going to say 2 years but I'm feeling peer pressure to say 5 years.

[Mr_Wint]

However, I do believe that there was the mission with M in Tokyo (mentioned in FRWL) between CR and Dr No. So I wonder if we'll get Bond and M in Japan in Bond 22 or 23?

... and the events that happens in YOLT must take place before Dr No and after CR, since the YOLT-mission is Bond's first visit to Japan...

[JCRendle]

Just so long as they don't try and make Craig look "Japanese" by slicking his hair back.

[the other fellow]

In terms of Bond "continuity" i like to think that Bond has about 2 big assignments a year. Therefore DN and FRWL take place in the same year and likewise GF and TB in the same year etc, etc.

So presuming that it's Goldfinger in CR and he looks about 10 years younger, I'd say about 8 years.

[CM007]

I hate to break it to ye but James Bond ain

[00Twelve]

How long before? Hmm. Long enough for Jeffrey Wright to pull a Michael Jackson and end up looking like Jack Lord, I suppose.

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='CM007' post='696725' date='2 February 2007 - 10:24']I hate to break it to ye but James Bond ain

[JCRendle]

[quote name='CM007' post='696725' date='2 February 2007 - 16:24']I hate to break it to ye but James Bond ain

[JimmyBond]

[quote name='JCRendle' post='696767' date='2 February 2007 - 11:09'][quote name='CM007' post='696725' date='2 February 2007 - 16:24']I hate to break it to ye but James Bond ain

[JCRendle]

Why do you think my name's James? I've had to change my surname incase people think I'm my da... er, I'm that fictional spy.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Although the question is a logical progression for the fans to think about, the answer is redundant. The film series can now be considered in alternative universes because of the Cold War and each actor's age.

Therefore we can lump both Sean Connery and George Lazenby into one universe. Roger Moore into his own since his were light comedy adventures. Timothy Dalton can be lumped into his own with one toe in Lazenby's, and Brosnan's universe is completely isolated since his Bond never met Leiter or the male version of 'M'. Only 'Q' links him to the actual series, and that ended with TWINE, making DAD a homage mess.

Now Daniel Craig will have his universe and the years between CR and DN are further apart than we can imagine since there is no such future of a DN or SPECTRE in Craig's timeline. Vesper is Craig's starting point for the next two adventures, similar to Tracy in OHMSS who haunts Bond in TSWLM, FYEO and LTK. Vesper's death will be more dominant in Craig's Bond and therefore the driving force behind his desire to hunt down the terrorist organization. If the producers decided to do the next Bond adventure with Craig and remove any memory of Vesper or the CR affair, than the next film will lose its soul. The producers know this and will no doubt continue the character progression of Craig's Bond.

It is doubtful that the producers will remake LALD and follow the book closely, most likely they will come up with original titles and stories with a touch of unfilmed Fleming elements from previous novels. However, for us die hard Fleming fans, the days of silly southern sheriffs, love lost steal toothed henchmen and their girlfriends, and snowboard Beach Boys sequed tunes are left to the past. Craig's Bond is going to be serious and very, very dangerous.

[the other fellow]

History repeats.

[Loomis]

The film series can now be considered in alternative universes because of the Cold War and each actor's age.

Agreed.

Therefore we can lump both Sean Connery and George Lazenby into one universe. Roger Moore into his own since his were light comedy adventures. Timothy Dalton can be lumped into his own with one toe in Lazenby's, and Brosnan's universe is completely isolated since his Bond never met Leiter or the male version of 'M'. Only 'Q' links him to the actual series, and that ended with TWINE, making DAD a homage mess.

Well, don't forget the opening of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY in which Bond visits Tracy's grave and the headstone tells us that she died in 1969 - this clearly links Moore to Lazenby's universe. Also, it's clearly implied in GOLDENEYE that Bond (a veteran Double-O of at least nine years at the start of the main portion of the film) did meet (and work for) the male M, given Bond's reference to her predecessor and Zukovsky's remark about "the new M" being a woman.

Personally, I break it down like this:

FIRST UNIVERSE: Connery, Lazenby, Moore

SECOND UNIVERSE: Dalton, Brosnan (THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS marked the first time that a Bond actor, due to his age, could not possibly be playing the same man who went up against Dr. No in 1962)

THIRD UNIVERSE: Craig

Strictly speaking, though, I guess you'd have to think of each actor as having his own universe (which Michael G. Wilson, with his famous remark about the Bond franchise being not a series but "a series of serieses", seems to do), if only because each actor looks different to the others and behaves in his own unique way!

[Nimsworth]

If we're playing the game is Casino Royale dumbed down technology wise or is Dr. No all souped up with Bond using GPS devices and email and whatnot?

[Doctor Shatterhand]

If we're playing the game is Casino Royale dumbed down technology wise or is Dr. No all souped up with Bond using GPS devices and email and whatnot?

I refer to my previous post.

Well, don't forget the opening of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY in which Bond visits Tracy's grave and the headstone tells us that she died in 1969 - this clearly links Moore to Lazenby's universe. Also, it's clearly implied in GOLDENEYE that Bond (a veteran Double-O of at least nine years at the start of the main portion of the film) did meet (and work for) the male M, given Bond's reference to her predecessor and Zukovsky's remark about "the new M" being a woman.

Personally, I break it down like this:

FIRST UNIVERSE: Connery, Lazenby, Moore

SECOND UNIVERSE: Dalton, Brosnan (THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS marked the first time that a Bond actor, due to his age, could not possibly be playing the same man who went up against Dr. No in 1962)

THIRD UNIVERSE: Craig

Strictly speaking, though, I guess you'd have to think of each actor as having his own universe (which Michael G. Wilson, with his famous remark about the Bond franchise being not a series but "a series of serieses", seems to do), if only because each actor looks different to the others and behaves in his own unique way!

I didn't lump in Moore into Connery and Lazenby's universe only because you could not have a double feature of FRWL and MR playing side by side. The two films don't work together. But yes, the grave of Tracy is a link back to OHMSS which makes FYEO unique in the Moore universe. However, up until the first day of filming, Moore was not signed to play Bond and John Glen was the author of the pre-credit sequence that would have introduced a new Bond.