Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Skyfall in the Bond timeline


44 replies to this topic

#1 Platapus94

Platapus94

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Oxford

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:35 PM

After seeing skyfall on friday, I am terribly confused with how it fits in. Before seeing it I assumed that it was supposed to be a modern day bond, set after DAD but after seeing the ending of the film I assumed it was set before Dr No and now I am so confused! (SPOILER) in the DB5, M makes a joke about the ejector seat, from Goldfinger, and Q makes a joke about the exploding pen in Goldeneye ( I believe ) but at the end of the film are we supposed to believe that eve transforms in to Lois maxwell, Q into Desmond Llewelyn and M into Bernard Lee? And eventually, M's successor in Goldeneye just happens to look and act exactly like the M from Casino Royale to skyfall?

This bugging anyone else? Or are we just supposed to accept it for what it is? Haha

#2 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:52 PM

Before seeing it I assumed that it was supposed to be a modern day bond, set after DAD

Different timeline. Craig's first Bond film, Casino Royale, rebooted the series, showing one of Bond's earliest missions, but set in present day.

but at the end of the film are we supposed to believe that eve transforms in to Lois maxwell

well, Moneypenny - yes.

Q into Desmond Llewelyn

this is more uncertain, as Whishaw's Q is never named, we don't know if he is Boothroyd or not. It doesn't seem likely as Boothroyd was a military Major, and Skyfall's Q is more of a computer genius who knows about guns etc.

and M into Bernard Lee?

Different characters. Lee's M was called Sir Miles Messervy, Fiennes M in Skyfall is called Gareth Mallory.

And eventually, M's successor in Goldeneye just happens to look and act exactly like the M from Casino Royale to skyfall?

As I said, different timelines different continuity.

The DB5 and exploding pen are just nods to previous films - Though if you go by the 007 Legends video game, the Bond missions Goldfinger, OHMSS, Moonraker, Licence to Kill and Die Another Day all happened to Daniel Craig's Bond before the Skyfall mission - though this is only a game and not part of the Bond film Canon.

#3 Tony_OO_Black

Tony_OO_Black

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 112 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:02 PM

If you want timelines and continuity with Bond, you're looking in the wrong franchise.

#4 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:03 PM

Not everyone has seen Skyfall yet, anything that has major spoilers should go into the Skyfall Spoilers section.

#5 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:05 PM

Sorry Jimmy, when I clicked on this through the recent topics tab I thought it was in the Spoiler section.

#6 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

You didn't post the thread, you're OK.

I do that too though, click on a thread, not realizing what forum it's in.

#7 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:24 PM

Back on topic: If the Bond films had a straight continuity then Bond would be at least 72 in Die Another Day, the last film before Casino Royale rebooted back to Bond's earliest missions. There have been several mini reboots through the films, GoldenEye - Making Bond a post Cold War spy who had shared several missions with 006, Alec Trevelyan - A character never seen before though apparently they were quite close. Timothy Dalton's Bond, very different feel to Roger Moore's Bond, with a Moneypenny, played by Caroline Bliss, who's character was very different from Lois Maxwell etc.

#8 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:45 PM

The different timelines bit is a given.

That said, before watching the movie, I assumed that CR and QOS were being treated as the 'prequel' films set in Bond's early career...while Skyfall would be hypothetically at least, something which could be set after DAD. The 007 Legends game supported that theory, as did the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 with all its modifications (and the reference to Whishaw's character being the 'new quartermaster'...implying there had been a previous one).

But, given the way the film ended, I'm more inclined to believe that Skyfall marks the end of the 'prequel' era...as we now have pretty much the same status quo at MI6 that we had at the start of Dr. No! Of course, the new M is TECHNICALLY different from the Fleming/Bernard Lee character, but for all intents and purposes, he's meant to play pretty much the same role (ditto for Q, who I doubt is Major Boothroyd - certainly not 'Major' at any rate).

When Dr. No started, Bond was already established as a highly respected veteran agent...the first three Craig films thus tell the story of how he became that veteran agent. As for the gap between QOS and Skyfall...you can either assume some of the classic adventures might have happened in that span; or you can assume Bond went on a bunch of other unknown missions.

#9 TheSilhouette

TheSilhouette

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 183 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:50 PM

The different timelines bit is a given.

That said, before watching the movie, I assumed that CR and QOS were being treated as the 'prequel' films set in Bond's early career...while Skyfall would be hypothetically at least, something which could be set after DAD. The 007 Legends game supported that theory, as did the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 with all its modifications (and the reference to Whishaw's character being the 'new quartermaster'...implying there had been a previous one).

But, given the way the film ended, I'm more inclined to believe that Skyfall marks the end of the 'prequel' era...as we now have pretty much the same status quo at MI6 that we had at the start of Dr. No! Of course, the new M is TECHNICALLY different from the Fleming/Bernard Lee character, but for all intents and purposes, he's meant to play pretty much the same role (ditto for Q, who I doubt is Major Boothroyd - certainly not 'Major' at any rate).

When Dr. No started, Bond was already established as a highly respected veteran agent...the first three Craig films thus tell the story of how he became that veteran agent. As for the gap between QOS and Skyfall...you can either assume some of the classic adventures might have happened in that span; or you can assume Bond went on a bunch of other unknown missions.

That seems to be what makes the most sense.

#10 Joey Bond

Joey Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:25 AM

With the exception of Casino Royale with Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE linking some of the earlier films, each Bond film is meant to be standalone pieces. Any references to previous films are meant just for fun.

You can even argue that Skyfall is set in a different timeline to Casino Royale/ Quantum of Solace as M's place in Skyfall looks different from the one Bond broke into in Casino Royale (unless of course she has more than one house). Although you can also make the argument, since M mentioned that her husband died and we saw him in Casino Royale and heard him in Quantum of Solace that perhaps she moved into the new place after her husband died. Still, she tells Bond in Casino Royale never to break into her house again. Had this been the same timeline I think she would have mentioned something in Skyfall when Bond appears at her place. My guess is that James Bond in Skyfall may or may not be the same Bond as in Casino Royale/ Quantum of Solace, but he's definitely in the middle of his career already, maybe even leaning a bit towards the end (as characters like Q, Mallory and Silva all make a reference to Bond being out of shape, either from disappearing from the service or from age). If you want to put it in the same timeline as Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, you can- in the 4 years between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, perhaps Quantum is eliminated and, like CasinoKiller said, Bond goes on various missions (Bloodstone?), M's husband died and she moved places, Bond ships the Aston Martin DB5 that he won in Casino Royale to England from the Bahamas and gives it the BMT214A license plate. Either ways, it's just fun speculation. Never treat Bond like Harry Potter or Star Wars when it comes to continuity, it will do your head in.

#11 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:10 PM

With the exception of Casino Royale with Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE linking some of the earlier films, each Bond film is meant to be standalone pieces. Any references to previous films are meant just for fun.

You can even argue that Skyfall is set in a different timeline to Casino Royale/ Quantum of Solace as M's place in Skyfall looks different from the one Bond broke into in Casino Royale (unless of course she has more than one house). Although you can also make the argument, since M mentioned that her husband died and we saw him in Casino Royale and heard him in Quantum of Solace that perhaps she moved into the new place after her husband died. Still, she tells Bond in Casino Royale never to break into her house again. Had this been the same timeline I think she would have mentioned something in Skyfall when Bond appears at her place. My guess is that James Bond in Skyfall may or may not be the same Bond as in Casino Royale/ Quantum of Solace, but he's definitely in the middle of his career already, maybe even leaning a bit towards the end (as characters like Q, Mallory and Silva all make a reference to Bond being out of shape, either from disappearing from the service or from age). If you want to put it in the same timeline as Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, you can- in the 4 years between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, perhaps Quantum is eliminated and, like CasinoKiller said, Bond goes on various missions (Bloodstone?), M's husband died and she moved places, Bond ships the Aston Martin DB5 that he won in Casino Royale to England from the Bahamas and gives it the BMT214A license plate. Either ways, it's just fun speculation. Never treat Bond like Harry Potter or Star Wars when it comes to continuity, it will do your head in.


Yeah, that's pretty much what we're meant to believe IMO.

I believe its been SIX years since the events of CR and QOS (both of which were set in 2006). In that time, Bond has become a veteran 00 and has been on numerous missions, having thus been established as M's top agent. He probably had his personal Aston Martin DB5 modified by Q Branch for use in a mission (presumably some variation of 'Goldfinger'). M's husband in the meantime died (and she probably moved shortly after). Who knows, maybe the death of M's husband actually made her and Bond closer since they are both the closest each other has to a family now.

#12 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:55 PM

I tried to read some of these posts before commenting but, it's Saturday evening, I've had some Malbec, smoked a cigarette and to be frank, my concentration was waning even before trying to read some people's attempts to install 'order' to the world of the Bond timeline.

'There isn't one.'

Maybe there is a sequencing, for want of a better word, for each of the actors' tenures. And maybe we were supposed to believe that Bond didn't exist before Casino Royale '06, but to be frank, who gives a damn.

With this last stunt of including in a 2012 film, a 48 year old gadget from what was supposed to have been previously ignored, should be taken for what it is. And that, my friends, is a message to all to stop worrying about timelines and sequencing.

In terms of reality, it really is the last '[censored] it'. They should all be considered as stand alone films or a series of continual reboots. However it is taken, the question of timelines and sequencing is moot. Ignore it.

Look elsewhere for sense and order in the universe.

#13 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 March 2013 - 05:55 PM

Timeline from 1962 and continuity to prove consistency of the whole is all that matters and nothing else in Eon's James Bond films.

 

Continuity in James Bond's 1962-2012 timeline here doesn't refer to any random but only to the past and it doesn't vaguely refer to the past either. First to take note of to avoid any confusion if a James Bond film is a reinterpretation or not, is continuity. It was proven that 2006 & 2008 James Bond films are only a set of reboot. Nothing else has been rebooted in the entire Eon's James Bond except for the 2 films. Many fans have strongly assumed Skyfall's 1964 car was from 2006 Casino Royale then Q branch modified it somewhere in 2006-2012 time. But the fact is, it wasn't true that it's the car from 2006 film. Second is appplication of common sense when dealing with a continuity element rather thinking about the continuity of the actor's contract, for instance, in Skyfall, Q branch 1964 Aston Martin DB5 is truly a 48-year old car in the film's story, where it doesn't have a different past other than it was from 1964 when James Bond had a mission to Goldfinger. James Bond's 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall is not in 2006 Casino Royale.



#14 trevanian

trevanian

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 355 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:25 AM

 
With this last stunt of including in a 2012 film, a 48 year old gadget from what was supposed to have been previously ignored, should be taken for what it is. And that, my friends, is a message to all to stop worrying about timelines and sequencing.

 

Seriously? If true, then we should just as likely expect to see Mathis turn up with a blue glow around him in the next movie, telling Bond to go buy a Dagobah chocolate bar at his local health food emporium from a big-eared dude named Yoda. This isn't jumping the shark, this is EATING the shark, Jaws-level idiocy. 

 

You can play goofy like this with stuff if you're doing ACTION JACKSON or MOONRAKER. But don't try to deliver an allegedly serious movie -- I stress alleged, given the plotting and character deficiencies which still make me wonder if Eon didn't spike everybody's punch, because I can't for the life of me understand why whole audiences didn't jeer this movie into oblivion -- and then run back to the 'don't take it so serious' disclaimer. 



#15 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:01 AM

...my concentration was waning even before trying to read some people's attempts to install 'order' to the world of the Bond timeline.

'There isn't one.'

Maybe there is a sequencing, for want of a better word, for each of the actors' tenures. And maybe we were supposed to believe that Bond didn't exist before Casino Royale '06, but to be frank, who gives a damn.

...they should all be considered as stand alone films or a series of continual reboots. However it is taken, the question of timelines and sequencing is moot. Ignore it.

Look elsewhere for sense and order in the universe.

 

There were no standalone films in Eon-produced James Bond from 1962 to 2012, not even Skyfall. Therefore, the iconic 1964 Aston Martin found in Skyfall is not a re-interpeted James Bond element, where it cannot possibly have a different past except it came from when James Bond had a mission to Goldfinger. Therefore, 2012 Skyfall's 1964 Aston Martin is not in 2006 Casino Royale.

And, except 2006 Casino Royale, every film with a new actor who took the role as James Bond didn't re-interpret James Bond universe. Not only continuity elements within the films indicate every other actor is just one person from 1962. There are points from James Bond opening themes that show previous actor and the new actor are the same person. Concludes that every film with a new actor except 2006 Casino Royale is never a re-interpretation.

For example, the clips of previous James Bond films shown in On Her Majesty's Secret Service opening theme primarily indicates George Lazenby's bond is still Sean Connery, therefore, this film isn't a re-interpretation.

Second example, an indication same to George Lazenby's James Bond that means up to 1995 (Goldeneye), James Bond is still original James Bond. In Goldeneye opening theme at 0:47-0:48, the man shooting in side view silhouette is Timothy Dalton.



#16 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:04 AM

. In Goldeneye opening theme at 0:47-0:48, the man shooting in side view silhouette is Timothy Dalton.

 

He looks like Brosnan to me.

 

You could simply say that GoldenEye's overture is set in 1986, before Dalton's movies.



#17 PPK_19

PPK_19

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1312 posts
  • Location:Surrey, England.

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:17 PM

Bond films have no timeline. Just take each film as it comes and enjoy it. 



#18 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

In Goldeneye opening theme at 0:47-0:48, the man shooting in side view silhouette is Timothy Dalton.

 

In Goldeneye opening theme at 0:47-0:48, the man shooting in side view silhouette is Timothy Dalton.

 

He looks like Brosnan to me.

 

You could simply say that GoldenEye's overture is set in 1986, before Dalton's movies.

 

Bond films have no timeline. Just take each film as it comes and enjoy it. 

All Bond films have a timeline, only except for Craig's bond in 2006 & 2008, I didn't took each them having no consideration for their 1962-2002 and 2012 timeline. Not only it is a timeline, but this all Eon-produced Bond films except for the 2 films have a proven PERFECT CONSISTENT timeline. Perfect consistent timeline means that there is no re-interpretation of James Bond's universe since 1962.

 

There are no reinterpretations in 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline. If Skyfall is part of 1962-2002 timeline, then the much debated CR-QOS-SF timeline is proven wrong. Many considered OHMSS is also a reinterpretation. The fact in this is, OHMSS is not a reinterpretation because it means its James Bond is Sean Connery's James Bond. It's absolutely wrong to insist an Eon-produced James Bond film doesn't have a timeline. The persons who became M aren't all first Ms. Dench's M in Skyfall is not the first M whom James Bond had served in MI6, but we should keep in mind the first M of James Bond whom he served is Miles Messervy. Remember, even in Skyfall, its 1964 Aston Martin only came from 1964 when James Bond had a mission to Goldfinger.

 

100% Skyfall's 1964 Aston Martin is not which Craig's James Bond won in 2006 Casino Royale. Skyfall's Aston Martin isn't a continuity element from 2006 Casino Royale. The common error among James Bond fans is saying this 1964 Aston Martin came from 2006 Casino Royale then Q branch modified it somewhere in 2006-2012 time. Skyfall doesn't belong to the timeline of Craig's 2006 & 2008 bond. This is an obvious persistence of many fans who refused to consider the continuity elements from the original timeline.

 

Indeed Goldeneye's prologue is in 1986, but, this is to be taken literally as James Bond had infiltrated Arkangel Chemical Weapons Facility in 1986 that took after when Max Zorin killed in 1985 and before when he joined forces with General Leonid Pushkin to arrest Koskov in 1987. This means this James Bond had a past based on Goldeneye prologue before he went to 1987 The Living Daylights. Plus, the reasons were Roger Moore's James Bond is Timothy Dalton's James Bond, and Timothy Dalton's James Bond is Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. Since this certainly meant to be literally the same person for every transition of every actor's tenure, then Roger Moore's bond and Pierce Brosnan's bond is literally the same person. Believe it or not, this all means that James Bond had only one past based on all the films on only one timeline.

 

This all means in the entire original timeline there are literally no re-interpretations of James Bond. The 1964 Aston Martin in Skyfall cannot be modified by Q branch designed for James Bond's mission that only took place in 1964. And according to Trevelyan in 1995, James Bond became an orphan in 1930s, that is same time of Stalin's tenure in Russia.

 

As for in Goldeneye's opening theme at 0:32-0:35 of the movie and at 0:47-0:48 of Tina Turner's MTV with a man shooting side view silhouette, it is unlike the Daniel Craig's silhouette concept in 2006 Casino Royale's opening theme where Craig's silhouette means it's the actual Craig's James Bond when revealed. But Goldeneye's James Bond silhouette doesn't actually moved and looked like Timothy Dalton nor Pierce Brosnan. This silhouette doesn't even pertain to a look like of an actor when it reveals. The only purpose of this silhouette by the film maker for its opening theme is to pertain to Timothy Dalton's form in gun barrel part. It logically means this man shooting side view silhouette is Timothy Dalton's James Bond.


Edited by From1964To2012, 07 April 2013 - 04:23 PM.


#19 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

Wow, it means that!



#20 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:03 PM

The silhouette in the GoldenEye theme is not Timothy Dalton.  One of the purposes of the way GoldenEye is constructed is to deliberately whitewash over the "disappointing" Dalton films (notice they use a nine year gap from the PTS to the film proper in order to go back one year prior to the start of Dalton's tenure), so there's no reason to believe that Dalton, or his interpretation of Bond, appears in the film.



#21 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 05:09 PM

The silhouette in the GoldenEye theme is not Timothy Dalton.  One of the purposes of the way GoldenEye is constructed is to deliberately whitewash over the "disappointing" Dalton films (notice they use a nine year gap from the PTS to the film proper in order to go back one year prior to the start of Dalton's tenure), so there's no reason to believe that Dalton, or his interpretation of Bond, appears in the film.

The silhouette in Goldeneye theme is Timothy Dalton's shooting form in gun barrel sequence. It's not Pierce Brosnan's shooting form regardless of any evidence can be brought out to disprove it. Logically, it's only Timothy Dalton has that shooting form in gun barrel sequence.

 

So there are any argumentors who will be actually insisting Brosnan's James Bond is a reinterpretation, then that they are ignorant of continuities. Goldeneye is the real continuation to Licence To Kill. So, in Goldeneye, Bill Tanner introduced the new M of MI6. This introduction of new M to James Bond means there was a previous M whom Bond had served. Dench's M here is not the first M of MI6. James Bond in Goldeneye have already years in work before this female M.

 

The silhouette in Goldeneye theme whether at 0:32-0:35 of the movie or at 0:47-0:48 of Tina Turner's MTV has the hairstyle of Pierce Brosnan's James Bond in gun barrel sequence, but an addition to the silhouette, whether like it or not, the purpose of silhouette by the film maker on this part is to pertain to Timothy Dalton's James Bond in previous gun barrel sequence in side view. And, not to forget in case if anyone intends to ignore an Eon-produced James Bond film's timeline again, the much debated CR-QOS-SF timeline is proven wrong.

 

There are no reinterpretations in the entire timeline. It's not true that Brosnan's Goldeneye is not a continuation to Dalton's Licence To Kill. Many insists Brosnan's bond is a reinterpretation, like the case of George Lazenby's bond. Many fans are up to disprove these continuity elements which proves connection between films in this timeline. Some of them are most probably supporters of CR-QOS-SF timeline. But CR-QOS-SF timeline is proven wrong because of 1962-2002 + 2012 consistency. It is consistent because every film in it has fundamental continuities. Some didn't figured them or ignored them for the sake of disproving continuities between different actors.

 

Timothy Dalton's James Bond is Pierce Brosnan's James Bond, regardless of anything that is disappointment, such as, Roger Moore's A View To A Kill or Moonraker. The 9-year gap in Goldeneye doesn't mean anything like whitewashing anything from Timothy Dalton. It's not true that it is one of the purposes. There is never a reinterpretation due to it. There is no whitewash either in all Eon-produced James Bond films. James Bond's licence is revoked by the 2nd M of MI6 in 1989 whose James Bond character played by Timothy Dalton. It remains in all James Bond that his licence is revoked only once, only in 1989, and nothing else. The revoke will never happen again in his life. And the 9-year gap simply only means the prologue of 1995 Goldeneye film took place between A View To A Kill and The Living Daylights. There were no such things were in influence to make a James Bond reinterpretation.


Edited by From1964To2012, 07 April 2013 - 06:09 PM.


#22 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:00 PM

You seem to try to make a point, From1964To2012. Only I'm not sure I can follow it...



#23 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:14 PM

You seem to try to make a point, From1964To2012. Only I'm not sure I can follow it...

Yes, but I'm not trying. But only if you can quote from me and disprove something.

 

Anyone can follow continuities, except for those who refuse to follow them. Here's one of the truth, Goldeneye is NOT a reinterpretation of James Bond. It's a continuation to Licence to Kill.


Edited by From1964To2012, 07 April 2013 - 06:15 PM.


#24 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:20 PM

I would say that Skyfall is just a bad dream

#25 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:22 PM

Many said the Aston Martin in Skyfall came from Casino Royale, but it's not true. Many said Q branch added the gadgets somewhere in 2006-2012 time, but it's still not true. It cannot be the car from Casino Royale. Therefore, 2012 Skyfall's 1964 Aston Martin is not the one which James Bond had won in 2006 Casino Royale. I hope this one is extremely clear to be followed.



#26 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:39 PM

2012 Skyfall's 1964 Aston Martin is not the one which James Bond had won in 2006 Casino Royale.

Remember that before Skyfall, there was a theory emerged saying James Bond is a code name, which there were different men became 007 and took the name of James Bond as their full name.

 

Many are just entitled to be in refusal that some in saying like only I'm not sure I can follow. Like no matter how many times to implant to their brains the very logic of 1964 Aston Martin in Skyfall that it cannot have a different past for it only came from the year 1964 when James Bond had a mission to Goldfinger. Which means, CR-QOS-SF is wrong. Skyfall connects to the most recent end of the original timeline, which is Die Another Day. Skyfall didn't happen before Goldfinger.



#27 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:00 PM

I would say that Skyfall is just a bad dream

Goldeneye takes place before Skyfall. Don't worry. What I said for you is not wrong to believe.

 

I am not surprised that there are many who are actually believing CR-QOS-SF timeline. And in Skyfall, there is now the first Q for Daniel Craig. Is this the first Q? This Q is the third Q of MI6. Why? Because he is the new quartermaster, which means that.

 

Skyfall's Q said to James Bond "Were expecting an exploding pen?". This means the pen made by the other Q whom James Bond had known. This means this James Bond is not James Bond of Quantum of Solace anymore. It is the James Bond from Die Another Day. No wonder this James Bond had suffered from stings of scorpions in North Korea, that's why he is just playing with scorpions in Skyfall. This Q's name is not yet revealed but it is sure that it is not Major Boothroyd. If he's not the new quartermaster, then he must be the first quartermaster.

 

There should be no confusion if watched them with consideration to their continuity elements. There should be reasons why there is a confusion. Maybe, anyone shoudn't base on the actor's actual age, because, for example, Pierce Brosnan cannot be having 1964 'Goldfinger' Aston Martin if he's born 1953.



#28 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

You seem to try to make a point, From1964To2012. Only I'm not sure I can follow it...

As for you again, as long as I am here, no one can ever prove Goldeneye is a reinterpretation of James Bond's universe nor there was any Eon-produced film in 1962-2002 is a James Bond reinterpretation. I can prove there are continuities in every film in 1962-2002 timeline. If this timeline is inconsistent, then you can really show to convince everyone that you really cannot follow.

BTW, i liked youtube.com/watch?v=t10mNXtfdUw because it's true.

#29 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:53 PM


You seem to try to make a point, From1964To2012. Only I'm not sure I can follow it...

As for you again, as long as I am here...

You don't think it will be for long then?

#30 From1964To2012

From1964To2012

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 15 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:05 PM

 


You seem to try to make a point, From1964To2012. Only I'm not sure I can follow it...

As for you again, as long as I am here...

You don't think it will be for long then?

It will be eternally long if you cannot disprove me. Refrain from talking back with such unnecessary things or questions. I suggest you quote a whole argument you didn't liked about James Bond universe which I persist then disprove it.

 

So, you said you're not sure you can follow what I am saying about continuity. But it's clear you will refuse to follow it if you are up to the reinterpretation theory. Well, I am so sure you cannot prove Goldeneye is a reinterpretation of James Bond's universe as long as I am here. So, CR-QOS-SF fans won't take chances anymore saying Skyfall 1964 Aston Martin is from Casino Royale only if when I am here because I proved it didn't came from it.

 

Simply there are no reinterpretations except for the 2 films (CR and QOS).

 

BTW, i liked youtube.com/watch?v=t10mNXtfdUw only because it renders the truth what I am saying.


Edited by From1964To2012, 07 April 2013 - 08:25 PM.