2121 replies to this topic

[Simon]

There are a fair old number of timelines and reboots going on now.

Anyone deciding to venture into the world of Jimbo now really has their work cut out for themselves if they want to make head nor tail of the whole, 'who did what to whom and when' story.

[Trident]

There are a fair old number of timelines and reboots going on now.

Anyone deciding to venture into the world of Jimbo now really has their work cut out for themselves if they want to make head nor tail of the whole, 'who did what to whom and when' story.

Really? IMO the Bond novels are still fairly stand-alone and, beyond a basic familiarity with the genre, need only little knowledge of previous adventures. I'd be surprised if readers had problems to find their way through the series. Not more problems than pre-Project X at any rate. I daresay the closest continuity features in Benson's Union-trilogy and still you'll be able to read them out-of-order or as stand-alones.

[zencat]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

[OmarB]

I really don't see what the hang ups are in the timeliness. Why struggle to place Deaver's book into Fleming's continuity? In literature (comics as well as novels) these reboots have been happening all the time. It does not change the nature of the character, his supporting cast (much) or the task at hand. Those prior events are just placed into a weird place where you mentally play with tense saying things like "It happened before, but he didn't do it yet now."

Mack Bolan's origin was in Nam, as well as The Punisher's. Both characters have relegated that first conflict into the past pretty much. We know it's some conflict some years ago but it's never specifically stated and both characters continue on fine. It's a device that keeps them young, like in the (Thomas Jane) Punisher movie it was strongly hinted at that the conflict was the middle east.

Superman's been restarted quite a few times too, but he's still the same person. The original Slagel continuity, the '80's John Byrne restart that kept Pa Kent alive, Superman Birthright even more recently. The of course the 52 event showing that all continuities do exist and are correct within their own universe ... you just have to pick the version of the story that clicks with you.

[David Schofield]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

A triffle vituperative, Zen?

Spend too much time up on that cross and you could end up with splinters, mate.

[Loomis]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

Quite. Continuity has always been shot to hell in both the books and the films. It really isn't worth worrying about.

People can privately subscribe to the "floating timeline" and the idea of a mysteriously age-defying 007 who travels through the decades like Doctor Who, or they can adopt the codename theory, as I do. Alternatively (and probably the sanest option), they can just quit thinking about any of this stuff.

If Deaver's Bond turns out to be a 32-year-old former dentist with no military background whatsoever and an addiction to maple syrup, then that'll be fine by me.

[Trident]

If Deaver's Bond turns out to be a 32-year-old former dentist with no military background whatsoever and an addiction to maple syrup, then that'll be fine by me.

Maple syrup is where I draw the line...

[terminus]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

I have to say, I pretty much agree with what you're saying Zencat, I tried to voice the same thoughts a few pages earlier but my thoughts got brushed aside.

[zencat]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

A triffle vituperative, Zen?

Spend too much time up on that cross and you could end up with splinters, mate.

Really? I don't think so. At least I didn't mean to be abusive or righteous. In fact, I think if anything I'm just stating the obvious.

[David Schofield]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

A triffle vituperative, Zen?

Spend too much time up on that cross and you could end up with splinters, mate.

Really? I don't think so. At least I didn't mean to be abusive or righteous. In fact, I think if anything I'm just stating the obvious.

Well, as someone who's (only!) really facile past-time is trying to make a continuity and a sensible progression for Bond, whoever he is written by, I'll respectfully step back from this element of this thread.

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Even though Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

This is a 45 year old Englishman signing off. Kids to play with. Ciao.

See you over Jeff's next move.

[TheREAL008]

Wow, I expect this kind of discussion from the Highlander forum fellas, but not here!

I'm a die hard Fleming fan as the next guy and girl around here and I have no problem whatsoever with the lit reboot. I find it exciting because I had missed out on the original adventures in the fifties because they were alittle bit before my time.

In essence I don't see how this could harm the legacy of both James Bond and Ian Fleming in any way. It's a win/win situation all around. In no way are IFP trying to erase the history of what's come before because that would be impossible. But attempting something new like this? It's very daring and really interesting.

Not too long ago I once read on the BBC website how even Sherlock Holmes was going to be modernized for television. I'm not sure on the status of the show at the moment but I'm hoping that gets a successful attempt also.

And on the other hand There are still are the Young Bond Series 2 books to look forward to also. I don't think Charlie Higson is finished with Bond just yet, and maybe if there was an author who could write Bond adventures in the 70's, then that would be alright in my book as well.

Despite the troubles with MGM, it's still quite a time to be a Bond fan right now and I think once Deaver's novel comes out we might all be pleasantly surprised.

All in all, we've got the best of both worlds, when we could have nothing at all. Enjoy it I say.

Edited by TheREAL008, 11 June 2010 - 04:34 PM.

[terminus]

Not too long ago I once read on the BBC website how even Sherlock Holmes was going to be modernized for television. I'm not sure on the status of the show at the moment but I'm hoping that gets a successful attempt also.

It's due to be aired in the Autumn, a three part series. The pilot has been dropped, from what I understand, as things have changed between pilot and series (possibly due to Gatiss taking over control of the show solo instead of being in conjunction with Moffatt).

[darthbond]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

A triffle vituperative, Zen?

Spend too much time up on that cross and you could end up with splinters, mate.

Really? I don't think so. At least I didn't mean to be abusive or righteous. In fact, I think if anything I'm just stating the obvious.

Well, as someone who's (only!) really facile past-time is trying to make a continuity and a sensible progression for Bond, whoever he is written by, I'll respectfully step back from this element of this thread.

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

This is a 45 year old Englishman signing off. Kids to play with. Ciao.

See you over Jeff's next move.

On the note of continuity, I seem to recall that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was way loose on his time line with Sherlock Holmes; to my knowledge, that hasn't really bothered anyone. Why can't it be the same thing with Bond? Other than creating a confusion when trying to link up the stories, does it really matter that there are "parallel" universes with the Bond character?

darthbond

darthbond

[whiteskwirl]

I've never thought of Bond as a continuous series, in regards to story. The character continues, and he can do that because he doesn't really change much as a person. To have a continuous storyline, you really need to have a character that goes through various changes. Bond has different, important things happen to him, but at the end of the day he's still essentially the same person. So having a continuous storyline doesn't matter much.

We all know who Bond is, what he's like. Each time we drop in we're looking to see what's going to happen to him, and how he'll save the day. Bond books are largely about the plot, not the character.

[zencat]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

A triffle vituperative, Zen?

Spend too much time up on that cross and you could end up with splinters, mate.

Really? I don't think so. At least I didn't mean to be abusive or righteous. In fact, I think if anything I'm just stating the obvious.

Well, as someone who's (only!) really facile past-time is trying to make a continuity and a sensible progression for Bond, whoever he is written by, I'll respectfully step back from this element of this thread.

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Even though Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

This is a 45 year old Englishman signing off. Kids to play with. Ciao.

See you over Jeff's next move.

Sorry David. Wasn't singling you out. And I like discussing continuity to a certain extent and I like authors following continuity to an extent as well (but more character than timeline). I just think, ultimately, continuity with James Bond comes second and can be thrown out the window if necessary because Bond is allowed to be timeless. I think it's liberating for both the readers and authors to look at the Bond universe this way. So when we get too deep in the weeds like this, I think it's time to put fidelity to continuity into the background and just go with the new. I mean, even Fleming did this.

Besides, I thought we had put Project X into a nice spot. After WWII and before Fleming (the mental continuity). Works for me.

[Trident]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

A triffle vituperative, Zen?

Spend too much time up on that cross and you could end up with splinters, mate.

Really? I don't think so. At least I didn't mean to be abusive or righteous. In fact, I think if anything I'm just stating the obvious.

Well, as someone who's (only!) really facile past-time is trying to make a continuity and a sensible progression for Bond, whoever he is written by, I'll respectfully step back from this element of this thread.

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

This is a 45 year old Englishman signing off. Kids to play with. Ciao.

See you over Jeff's next move.

David, if you've managed to include any Bond written up to now into your very own idea of continuity, then I don't think X-Bond can come up with anything that can ever keep you from doing so in the future. It's your Bond experience and if you insist on continuity, I surely won't discourage you. I'd just ask you to give the idea a thought. See it as a play with quantum physics (sic!), the Bond that might have been, finally seeing the light of day. The basic concept of any fiction writing, if we look closer at it.

I can't guarantee the quality of the final product, of course. I merely have faith in the potential of the bold concept. Prior to 2006 I would have downright hated the idea, now I think it may just be what keeps the series from obscurity. We shall see.

[Quantumofsolace007]

as long as the story is good im happy. I am curious about X Bond and what he is like. i hope this continues as a series

[zencat]

I actually think Charlie Higson sweats continuity too much. From the very start he said he was worried that he'd have to change how long Bond was at Eton and what fans might say, and ultimately he worked hard to find a way that allowed it to fit with Fleming. Now he talks about the constraints of the Paris incident should he do more books. I feel like saying, "Just ignore it!" I think fans can easily accept YB as it own universe just as they can accept Project X. But it's nice that CH tries to make it all work, and it's probably one of the reasons his books feel so cosmically plugged into Fleming, so who am I to give advice. I just don't want the fear of breaking continuity to ever stand in the way of a great idea or story.

[OmarB]

A couple posts seem to be hung up on what changes might occur with the new time-line/universe or whatever you may wish to call it. They are not gonna change the character or those around him drastically. Just enough to make the new starting point (the 80's) more plausible. Those include the nature of how spycraft is carried out as well as immigration into England and how that affects it's workforce (his new servant).

I keep going back to the DC example. On Earth 0 we have the most commonly known continuity. On Earth 2 we have the version of the universe started by Slagel and Schuster, this contains a dead Pa Kent, the Daily Star) instead of Daily Planet), Superman's most powerful of all his various version here, Supergirl is dead, Metropolis and Gotham are right next to each other, it's perpetually WW2 era, etc. http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Multiverse

[zencat]

The DC example is a good. The Multiverse. Fun to think how this should it work for Bond. There's the Fleming continuity, which includes YB, CS, and DMC. Should Gardner be in this universe as well? He could be. But he could also belong to his own universe, which means we could have more MicroGlobe One Bond adventures. Benson probably belongs to his own universe. A universe where The Union is the major threat. I also feel like Benson's Bond is clearly younger than Gardner's Bond. Then there's the movie Bond universe (a multiverse in itself) where the novelizations live, although JGs LTK is a weird cross-over. And let's not forget the newspaper strip universe where Madam Specter reigns!

And Project X is clearly an entirely NEW universe.

Maybe IFP should start coding the books.

[Loomis]

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Even though Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

Why are you apologising to me, and furthermore why are you accusing me of "hiding" behind a user name?

[David Schofield]

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Even though Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

Why are you apologising to me, and furthermore why are you accusing me of "hiding" behind a user name?

Context thus:

1. I've enjoyed the contents of your posts and replying to them and also those of Trident. I apologise because I'd happily continue with them, but feel this subject now futile.

2. I believe there are various folks hiding behind user names who have already fallen for Deaver without a word being written; these may or may not be Americans - I am unable to decypher who they might be in the Bond community, and hence nationality, due to the anonymity of user names. (I've been around the "Bond community" for some years, know some real folk, etc )

Sorry if the original punctuation of my original post doesn't make it clear.

Now, back to the kids.

[zencat]

Hey David, I actually always thought your user name was an alias Bond uses in one of the books (a Gardner book maybe?). I don't know why I thought this now. Is it your real name?

[David Schofield]

Hey David, I actually always thought your user name was an alias Bond uses in one of the books (a Gardner book maybe?). I don't know why I thought this now. Is it your real name?

No.

My real name is Perigrine Carruthers.

[zencat]

Now that's a Gardner name.

[whiteskwirl]

I'll let the Bond Youth (not Young Bond) and their better understanding of comic book retcons/reboots make their own sense of this. Them and the essentially American "Even though Jeffrey Deaver hasn't written a word of James Bond I'm a fan" (with apologies to Trident, Loomis and various others hiding behind user names on here).

Why are you apologising to me, and furthermore why are you accusing me of "hiding" behind a user name?

Context thus:

1. I've enjoyed the contents of your posts and replying to them and also those of Trident. I apologise because I'd happily continue with them, but feel this subject now futile.

2. I believe there are various folks hiding behind user names who have already fallen for Deaver without a word being written; these may or may not be Americans - I am unable to decypher who they might be in the Bond community, and hence nationality, due to the anonymity of user names. (I've been around the "Bond community" for some years, know some real folk, etc )

Sorry if the original punctuation of my original post doesn't make it clear.

Now, back to the kids.

I guess if you consider being optimistic as "falling" for Deaver, then yeah. I am American, and I am optimistic about Deaver, but my being American shouldn't matter at all. I don't know why you bring it up, but for all your talk of being one of the older members, you seem to be acting the most immature.

I'm also not sure why using a username instead of your real name is a bad thing. Does it matter who is saying what?

EDIT: Also, it is true Deaver hasn't written the Bond novel yet, so we don't know if he's going to do a good job. But we also don't know if he's not. There's no more reason to be pessimistic about it than to be positive about it.

Edited by whiteskwirl, 11 June 2010 - 07:50 PM.

[terminus]

I'm English and I'm looking forward to Deaver writing the book as I've picked up Garden of Beasts and think he's got the right touch to write Bond from the prose in that book.

Also, not sure why using a username is a bad thing.

[zencat]

Let's be careful not to turn this into a flame war. If Jeffery Deaver decides to read any thread on CBn, it will be this one, and it would be nice for him to see us at our best (not our worst).

If he makes it as far as page 26, that is.

[whiteskwirl]

Let's be careful not to turn this into a flame war. If Jeffery Deaver decides to read any thread on CBn, it will be this one, and it would be nice for him to see us at our best (not our worst). If he makes it as far as page 26, that is.

I don't want to get too personal either, but I do get annoyed when nationality is brought into a discussion that doesn't call for it. Everyone else has been talking about Project X, not where the posters come from.

However, being pessimistic about Deaver, or just cautious, or whatever, is a perfectly legitimate attitude to have about it.

[David Schofield]

I guess if you consider being optimistic as "falling" for Deaver, then yeah. I am American, and I am optimistic about Deaver, but my being American shouldn't matter at all. I don't know why you bring it up, but for all your talk of being one of the older members, you seem to be acting the most immature.

I'm also not sure why using a username instead of your real name is a bad thing. Does it matter who is saying what?

Christ - some people are either sensitive or just bloody argumentative!

Of course you're being American is irrelevant - it's just that I've observed that the firmest support for Deaver seems to be coming from the USA.

Well, on user names I've never seen the point - what's the point in making up a damn silly name? - just be your self and believe in your opinons. Why the need to hide? Also - and it's an old fashioned failing of mine - I like to know who I'm conversing with. Sort of makes it a bit friendlier.

But hey, that's me. Always prefer face to face banter over a pint than this anonymous cyber space nonsense.