29 replies to this topic

[Byron]

If you watch LTK again towards the end Bond is told that M needs him for a job asap which pretty much means that once news of Sanchez's fall came through pretty much all was forgiven (yes one of the many, many flaws of LTK). Some fans have speculated on this and other forums that M would have punished Bond but that's fan fiction at best and doesn't chime with the described ending.


The above quote by Baerrtt in the "Did the writers get Bond wrong in LTK?" thread got me wondering as to what would have happened to Dalton's Bond post LTK? How would he have been received by M after such an unauthorised mission? Would he have been punished or let off the hook? If punished, how? How would Dalton's Bond himself have readjusted into official MI6 service duties and gone on to Goldeneye six years later? What did he do in the meantime?

Personally i like to think that Bond was punished by having to do 6 years of desk duties (explaining the long gap between films) as a form of rehabilitation, before the Goldeneye mission. Hence M's comment that he shouldn't make this mission personal.

Feel free to speculate and have fun.

[Harry Fawkes]

M would have let him off the hook. He would have understood what Bond was going through thus allowing him some flack. To a certain extent I believe M knew exactly how Bond was going to react and knew he could use it to his advantage. One thing is sure though, being old school M most certainly gave our man Bond one hell of a bollocking back at HQ.

[Dell Deaton]

Either interpretation works for me.

In the novels, it seems Bond had some "time out" periods where he was behind a desk, or working the phones on night shift. That's per Ian Fleming.

On the other hand, when Bond goes after Scaramanga in The Man w/ the Golden Gun (movie version), there's that piece of dialogue between 007 and M where Bond says "officially" M would not know. So I think there's a grey line between what M says Bond must not do, and his satisfaction w/ 007 when he does dirty work successfully, to the benefit of Queen and Country.

[Agent 76]

[...] and his satisfaction w/ 007 when he does dirty work successfully, to the benefit of Queen and Country.

Because, as Mr Alec Trevelyan would say, Bond is Her Majesty's loyal terrier.

[Scottlee]

No idea what he'd do in the six intervening years between LTK and GE (aside from dump Pam).

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD. I know the Bond stories aren't supposed to be trapped in the years their corresponding films were released in cinema, but us fans like to sometimes speculate that they might be. So anyway, wouldn't it have been cooler if Bond had done his bungee jump sometime in 1990 instead of 1986? Then we could have actually seen post-LTK Bond.

Even better, I wonder how effective it would have been for Tim Dalton to play Bond in the GE pre-title sequence and then be replaced by Brosnan '9 years later' for the rest of the movie.

[jaguar007]

Since Bond brought down a big drug lord's entire operation, the British government would probably have back peddeled and said it was a top secret "authorized" mission just so they could get the recognition.

[Royal Dalton]

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD. I know the Bond stories aren't supposed to be trapped in the years their corresponding films were released in cinema, but us fans like to sometimes speculate that they might be. So anyway, wouldn't it have been cooler if Bond had done his bungee jump sometime in 1990 instead of 1986? Then we could have actually seen post-LTK Bond.

Absolutely. They could easily have set that bit in a post-LTK 1989, or 1990.

[Jim]

http://commanderbond.net/article/2434

...although the punctuation is a bit weird.

[Turn]

I'd like to think it was back to life as usual for Bond. Like any modern athlete, politician or celeb who gets a slap on the wrist for indescretions, he would be put right back on the job. Why wouldn't you want Bond saving the world when all the other 00s end up dead most of the time?

[Jeff007]

What about Q? Lets look at LTK if it were real life. Bond had an assignment to do and he quit and went on a unauthorized murdering spree. He no longer had his "Licence to Kill".

The only way Bond would have his job back is because of M being old school as it was previously mentioned. M would have kept that hush hush and disciplined Bond his own way. Probably through months of training not sending him out in the field.

Now, Q was on leave and helped out Bond. Should Q been disciplined too for not helping bring Bond in since they did send an agent out to get Bond. Did bond have a warrant out for him?

Edited by Jeff007, 07 July 2008 - 12:46 AM.

[DaveBond21]

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD. I know the Bond stories aren't supposed to be trapped in the years their corresponding films were released in cinema, but us fans like to sometimes speculate that they might be. So anyway, wouldn't it have been cooler if Bond had done his bungee jump sometime in 1990 instead of 1986? Then we could have actually seen post-LTK Bond.

Absolutely. They could easily have set that bit in a post-LTK 1989, or 1990.

I think it was important that it was set before the fall of the Berlin Wall (in late 1989) and the opening up of Eastern Europe. It was supposed to have been a different time (and still Cold War era).

[Byron]

http://commanderbond.net/article/2434

...although the punctuation is a bit weird.

Very amusing, thanks Jim!

[baerrtt]

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD. I know the Bond stories aren't supposed to be trapped in the years their corresponding films were released in cinema, but us fans like to sometimes speculate that they might be. So anyway, wouldn't it have been cooler if Bond had done his bungee jump sometime in 1990 instead of 1986? Then we could have actually seen post-LTK Bond.

Absolutely. They could easily have set that bit in a post-LTK 1989, or 1990.

I think it was important that it was set before the fall of the Berlin Wall (in late 1989) and the opening up of Eastern Europe. It was supposed to have been a different time (and still Cold War era).

Boothroyd quite probably (plausibly don't you think ) didn't tell them where he was going on leave and after the case was wrapped up Bond quite possily didn't mention Q's involvement, even if things were (as they appeared to be) forgiven.

[00Twelve]

Byron, I really like your idea that Bond would have spent a considerable amount of his post-LTK/pre-GE time doing desk work and "standard intelligence duties". It's in keeping with Fleming, IMO. I think also that Bond might have had to escape charges for the presumed death of the MI6 agent who captured him with Hwang in Isthmus City. Perhaps he'd have gotten help from a somewhat sympathetic M, but he might have had to pay some pennance in the form of psych-evaluations by Sir James Moloney (while Messervy was still M). I would like to think that Bond had regained Messervy's trust and become a fully-fledged 00 again before Messervy's retirement.

Anyway, my thoughts.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Perhaps he took time off for numerous plastic operations, resulting in his appearance in GoldenEye...

[DaveBond21]

Byron, I really like your idea that Bond would have spent a considerable amount of his post-LTK/pre-GE time doing desk work and "standard intelligence duties". It's in keeping with Fleming, IMO. I think also that Bond might have had to escape charges for the presumed death of the MI6 agent who captured him with Hwang in Isthmus City. Perhaps he'd have gotten help from a somewhat sympathetic M, but he might have had to pay some pennance in the form of psych-evaluations by Sir James Moloney (while Messervy was still M). I would like to think that Bond had regained Messervy's trust and become a fully-fledged 00 again before Messervy's retirement.

Anyway, my thoughts.

OR...

Admiral Hargreaves (M) was fired for ever considering giving Britain's top spy "standard intelligence duties", and Barbara Mawdsley was promoted, presumably in the wake of John Major taking over from Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in November 1990.

[Byron]

Byron, I really like your idea that Bond would have spent a considerable amount of his post-LTK/pre-GE time doing desk work and "standard intelligence duties". It's in keeping with Fleming, IMO. I think also that Bond might have had to escape charges for the presumed death of the MI6 agent who captured him with Hwang in Isthmus City. Perhaps he'd have gotten help from a somewhat sympathetic M, but he might have had to pay some pennance in the form of psych-evaluations by Sir James Moloney (while Messervy was still M). I would like to think that Bond had regained Messervy's trust and become a fully-fledged 00 again before Messervy's retirement.

Anyway, my thoughts.

OR...

Admiral Hargreaves (M) was fired for ever considering giving Britain's top spy "standard intelligence duties", and Barbara Mawdsley was promoted, presumably in the wake of John Major taking over from Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in November 1990.

Thanks 0012! I was thinking that M (as described by Fleming) is the type that would have rehabilitated Bond through a long stint of boring office work.

DaveBond you have point. A change of govt sometimes leads to a change in beaurocrats.

I do feel that the totally unexplained re-emergence of Bond in GE, remains one of the series biggest black holes in terms of continuity. Some sort of direct but subtle reference by Dame Judi in her long speech berating Bond, such as "that Isthmus City personal vendetta of yours, got us all into very hot water", would have made a big difference in at least partly explaining the 6 year long gap by tying in with the previous film. Fleming did do that in the novels and i really appreciated it.

It's a shame the powers that be did not acknowledge but rather ignored LTK all together.

[solace]

M got bond back by sending him to a plastic surgeon, having him brainwashed and re-programmed turning him into Brosnans Bond. ' That'll teach you ' he said.

[Mister E]

M got bond back by sending him to a plastic surgeon, having him brainwashed and re-programmed turning him into Brosnans Bond. ' That'll teach you ' he said.

[DaveBond21]

Byron, I really like your idea that Bond would have spent a considerable amount of his post-LTK/pre-GE time doing desk work and "standard intelligence duties". It's in keeping with Fleming, IMO. I think also that Bond might have had to escape charges for the presumed death of the MI6 agent who captured him with Hwang in Isthmus City. Perhaps he'd have gotten help from a somewhat sympathetic M, but he might have had to pay some pennance in the form of psych-evaluations by Sir James Moloney (while Messervy was still M). I would like to think that Bond had regained Messervy's trust and become a fully-fledged 00 again before Messervy's retirement.

Anyway, my thoughts.

OR...

Admiral Hargreaves (M) was fired for ever considering giving Britain's top spy "standard intelligence duties", and Barbara Mawdsley was promoted, presumably in the wake of John Major taking over from Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in November 1990.

Thanks 0012! I was thinking that M (as described by Fleming) is the type that would have rehabilitated Bond through a long stint of boring office work.

DaveBond you have point. A change of govt sometimes leads to a change in beaurocrats.

I do feel that the totally unexplained re-emergence of Bond in GE, remains one of the series biggest black holes in terms of continuity. Some sort of direct but subtle reference by Dame Judi in her long speech berating Bond, such as "that Isthmus City personal vendetta of yours, got us all into very hot water", would have made a big difference in at least partly explaining the 6 year long gap by tying in with the previous film. Fleming did do that in the novels and i really appreciated it.

It's a shame the powers that be did not acknowledge but rather ignored LTK all together.

I do like my idea of the change of Prime Minister and cabinet in 1990, being the reason behind Hargreaves (M) leaving.

[DamnCoffee]

No idea what he'd do in the six intervening years between LTK and GE (aside from dump Pam).

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD.

Aside from the score, that is probably the only thing I dislike about GoldenEye. By setting the PTS in 1986, the producers have basically ignored Daltons Bond all together. I mean, why not 1990? It would've made sense. It didn't even feel like it was set in the 80's, either. the atmosphere was all wrong. It made me lol that Brosnan had the exact same hair style for 9 years, too. It might've well of been set in 1990

[David_M]

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD.

Well, you could take that as a "retcon," couldn't you? We don't learn what happened to Bond after LTK because that adventure -- and TLD -- never happened. James Bond in 1986 looked like Pierce Brosnan, so whoever that guy was who looked like Timothy Dalton doesn't count.

I'm not saying that's what they meant, or how I wish it was, but it's an easy enough explanation (and I likes 'em easy). Anyway until Craig came along it was a given that anything that happened in a Bond film would be conveniently forgotten by the time the next one rolled around. Continuity wasn't exactly a priority with Eon.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Byron, I really like your idea that Bond would have spent a considerable amount of his post-LTK/pre-GE time doing desk work and "standard intelligence duties". It's in keeping with Fleming, IMO. I think also that Bond might have had to escape charges for the presumed death of the MI6 agent who captured him with Hwang in Isthmus City. Perhaps he'd have gotten help from a somewhat sympathetic M, but he might have had to pay some pennance in the form of psych-evaluations by Sir James Moloney (while Messervy was still M). I would like to think that Bond had regained Messervy's trust and become a fully-fledged 00 again before Messervy's retirement.

Anyway, my thoughts.

OR...

Admiral Hargreaves (M) was fired for ever considering giving Britain's top spy "standard intelligence duties", and Barbara Mawdsley was promoted, presumably in the wake of John Major taking over from Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in November 1990.

Thanks 0012! I was thinking that M (as described by Fleming) is the type that would have rehabilitated Bond through a long stint of boring office work.

DaveBond you have point. A change of govt sometimes leads to a change in beaurocrats.

I do feel that the totally unexplained re-emergence of Bond in GE, remains one of the series biggest black holes in terms of continuity. Some sort of direct but subtle reference by Dame Judi in her long speech berating Bond, such as "that Isthmus City personal vendetta of yours, got us all into very hot water", would have made a big difference in at least partly explaining the 6 year long gap by tying in with the previous film. Fleming did do that in the novels and i really appreciated it.

It's a shame the powers that be did not acknowledge but rather ignored LTK all together.

Kinda like how back in the 1970s they tended to ignore the events of OHMSS(at least until TSWLM). DAF could easily be argued to be a sequel to YOLT, not OHMSS.

No idea what he'd do in the six intervening years between LTK and GE (aside from dump Pam).

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD.

Aside from the score, that is probably the only thing I dislike about GoldenEye. By setting the PTS in 1986, the producers have basically ignored Daltons Bond all together. I mean, why not 1990? It would've made sense. It didn't even feel like it was set in the 80's, either. the atmosphere was all wrong. It made me lol that Brosnan had the exact same hair style for 9 years, too. It might've well of been set in 1990

But historically, the Berlin Wall had already fallen in 1989 and much of the Cold War tensions that were very much alive in 1986 had changed by 1990.

I did wonder though why it was necessary to have the GE pre-title sequence set nine years before the rest of the film. That would place the events in 1986 between AVTAK and TLD.

Well, you could take that as a "retcon," couldn't you? We don't learn what happened to Bond after LTK because that adventure -- and TLD -- never happened. James Bond in 1986 looked like Pierce Brosnan, so whoever that guy was who looked like Timothy Dalton doesn't count.

I'm not saying that's what they meant, or how I wish it was, but it's an easy enough explanation (and I likes 'em easy). Anyway until Craig came along it was a given that anything that happened in a Bond film would be conveniently forgotten by the time the next one rolled around. Continuity wasn't exactly a priority with Eon.

I'd like to think that one reason Bond was so moody and serious in the Dalton years was due to his brooding over the "death" of 006. On the other hand, I have hypothesized that the Brosnan era was itself a reboot although the direct references to the first 19 adventures in DAD tends to hurt that theory.

[00Twelve]

Much too easily back to normal, or so the ending would have us believe.

[CasinoKiller]

Frankly speaking, I don't at all find it that surprising that Bond was let off the hook by the end. There are just so many reasons for it. To begin with, he's England's most accomplished secret agent, potentially the most valuable asset of the Secret Service, who has saved the world numerous times from all sorts of megalomaniacs with world domination plots and criminals masterminds. He pretty much single-handedly smashed SPECTRE and probably killed Blofeld, the world's greatest criminals/terrorist mastermind. There is NO WAY in hell they would let a guy like that remain outside the service just because of one unauthorized 'mission' against a South American drug dealer who was ANYWAY beyond the law. M could not officially sanction a mission against Sanchez, and neither would the Americans, and while they were all concerned about the diplomatic ramifications of Bond's actions, they came to realise that if he succeeded, all their problems vis a vis Sanchez would be resolved forever. Hell, Bond probably even got a pat on the back for his job, for all we know!

For that matter, the reason why we don't hear any mention of the events of LTK in GE is for the same reason why we rarely see references to ANY previous mission of Bond's in a new film. The Bond films have a loose continuity at best. The recurring characters maybe the same, but ultimately, there is no real linear progression where the characters life is concerned, for the most part. At the most, the only real progress I see in Bond's character and his life from Dr. No to Licence to Kill, is that while in the Connery films, he was just one among the Service's accomplished agents, later, starting with the Moore era, he acquired the tag of being the best. And with Goldeneye, they were more focused on showing how Bond adapted to the post Cold War world, rather than showing how he readapted to life in the Service after a rogue mission which, as per the 'rules' of the series continuity, was never to be acknowledged.

[Tybre]

Personally I like to think that M probably only took Bond back because thanks to his absence they were shortstaffed and every other 00 was busy elsewhere, but they still needed someone on another assignment, so M reinstates Bond as 007 and puts him on the assignment as a sort of probationary thing. If Bond screws up big time, or otherwise proves he's no longer fit to be a 00, they yank him off the assignment and kick his so fast out of MI6 it'd make Roadrunner look like a slug. It would've been an interesting way of approaching a third Dalton film anyway, and it's kind of a fun way of highlighting the sense of "Bond vs Bureaucracy" that was present, albeit lightly, in his previous two films.

It made me lol that Brosnan had the exact same hair style for 9 years, too. It might've well of been set in 1990

Well his GE hair is essentially just not-quite-as-poofy Remington Steele hair.

[Tybre]

He'll have to be an Eurasian actor, but that shouldn't be a problem.

Albert R. Broccoli's EON Production presents
Yevgeny Mironov as Raymond Benson's James Suzuki
in
SHATTERHAND 2: SON OF BOND

?

[Mr. Blofeld]

He'll have to be an Eurasian actor, but that shouldn't be a problem.

Albert R. Broccoli's EON Production presents
Yevgeny Mironov as Raymond Benson's James Suzuki
in
SHATTERHAND 2: SON OF BOND

?

Exactly as silly as it sounds, huh?

[PrinceKamalKhan]

the reason why we don't hear any mention of the events of LTK in GE is for the same reason why we rarely see references to ANY previous mission of Bond's in a new film. The Bond films have a loose continuity at best.

I've always considered the Connery/Lazenby/Moore incarnation to be the same 007. Basically the character gradually ages from his early 30's in 1962, to late 50's by 1985. And Moore's version of 007 is linked with Lazenby's marriage to Diana Rigg.

Good theory. And would make sense in series continuity. And the 3 of them all shared the same Miss Moneypenny. They could call Connery/Lazenby/Moore the "Lois Maxwell Bond."

I consider Dalton to be a complete reboot...a "one-off", so to speak, even though he did two films, and even though Hedison comes back for a pairing with Dalton, and even though Hedison makes mention of Dalton's 007 having been married once, even though we've never seen Dalton's 007 married, or having lost Tracy.

Also a good one. Restarting with an actor who 14-19 years younger than the Connery/Lazenby/Moore Bond.

I consider the Brosnan 007 to be a complete reboot as well. There's really no mention of a great love in 007's life when Brosnan was Bond, and the subject was vaguely hinted at when Elektra questions 007 upon their initial meeting. I don't see Brosnan's Bond being a continuation of any other actor's Bond.

I've often had that theory as Brosnan's Bond as a completely separate Bond from all the others though Paris Carver comes closest to qualifying as the great love of his Bond's life. However, the Brosnan as complete reboot theory gets undermined by all the references to the previous 19 films in Die Another Day so it would only ring true if The World is not Enough had been his final Bond film.

[Tybre]

However, the Brosnan as complete reboot theory gets undermined by all the references to the previous 19 films in Die Another Day so it would only ring true if The World is not Enough had been his final Bond film.

I'd forgotten about that. Well, there goes that theory.

Maybe BrosBond just had similar adventures in his past?