84 replies to this topic

[billy007]

You can't consider CR QOS and SF prequels If you can't explain meeting Felix twice "for the first time"

[JSDude1]

Sure I can: it's fiction there's bound to be inconsistencies,  especially after 23 movies  !

[George White]

 

 

 

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"

 

I don't think it's so much that Judi Dench or the new M are the same person (and had sent JB to all the missions) I think it's more like just that James Bond is the same person throughout (in otherwords they aren't just throwing out the past 20 movies in the "reboot") that they consider CR a "reboot" but also that now that we have had that for a few years, in retrospect (I hope) they also tie Craig's movies to the old movies, maybe mentioning that he was married to Tracy Bond, etc..

 

I am OK with CR being both a reboot, and yet Daniel Craig Bond (starting with Skyfall) and future movies 24 & 25 etc..also tying the continuity to the old movies as well.  They can be BOTH reboot and old formal style SEQUELS.

 

 

If Casino Royale is a reboot (which it is, albeit a fairly weak one) that is meant to start everything back over at essentially be a "Bond Begins" type of film, then I don't see how it can be that subsequent movies featuring Craig Bond can be then tied back into the first 20 films.  None of those events have happened in this timeline.  Bond hasn't met and married Tracy, nor has he gone up against the likes of Goldfinger, Blofeld, etc.  Those are things that should be left in the past for the previous Bonds to have dealt with, and the future should be Craig and his successor(s) moving forward against new and original characters and being involved in capers and situations that are either Fleming-esque, actually derived from Fleming's unfilmed work (if/when appropriate or possible), or something completely original that suits the creative direction that the series happens to be in at the given time.  

 

 

Perfectly stated and agreed.

are then't the two dench ms different, as craig-dench M served in hong KOng at the time the brosnans were set. In my opinion, they are twins. 

[George White]

 

 

 

 

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"

 

I don't think it's so much that Judi Dench or the new M are the same person (and had sent JB to all the missions) I think it's more like just that James Bond is the same person throughout (in otherwords they aren't just throwing out the past 20 movies in the "reboot") that they consider CR a "reboot" but also that now that we have had that for a few years, in retrospect (I hope) they also tie Craig's movies to the old movies, maybe mentioning that he was married to Tracy Bond, etc..

 

I am OK with CR being both a reboot, and yet Daniel Craig Bond (starting with Skyfall) and future movies 24 & 25 etc..also tying the continuity to the old movies as well.  They can be BOTH reboot and old formal style SEQUELS.

 

 

If Casino Royale is a reboot (which it is, albeit a fairly weak one) that is meant to start everything back over at essentially be a "Bond Begins" type of film, then I don't see how it can be that subsequent movies featuring Craig Bond can be then tied back into the first 20 films.  None of those events have happened in this timeline.  Bond hasn't met and married Tracy, nor has he gone up against the likes of Goldfinger, Blofeld, etc.  Those are things that should be left in the past for the previous Bonds to have dealt with, and the future should be Craig and his successor(s) moving forward against new and original characters and being involved in capers and situations that are either Fleming-esque, actually derived from Fleming's unfilmed work (if/when appropriate or possible), or something completely original that suits the creative direction that the series happens to be in at the given time.  

 

 

Perfectly stated and agreed.

are then't the two dench ms different, as craig-dench M served in hong KOng at the time the brosnans were set. In my opinion, they are twins. 

if one count the video game 007 legends, then BOnd-CRaig has married Tracy, met Goldfinger etc

[Walecs]

 

 

 

 

 

there's kind of been a mishmash all through the years, thing's they have done don't really make sense from one movie to the next. obviously in the last scene of Skyfall they winked at us by bringing Bond into the 'original" M office. Does that mean Mallory is Bernard Lee's M. No. In the same movie they have Bond's Aston Martin equipped with the gadgets from Goldfinger (which means Dench would have had to send him on that mission)

so it's not like in the next movie they're going to say "hey Bond nice work on the Dr. No caper last month!"

 

I don't think it's so much that Judi Dench or the new M are the same person (and had sent JB to all the missions) I think it's more like just that James Bond is the same person throughout (in otherwords they aren't just throwing out the past 20 movies in the "reboot") that they consider CR a "reboot" but also that now that we have had that for a few years, in retrospect (I hope) they also tie Craig's movies to the old movies, maybe mentioning that he was married to Tracy Bond, etc..

 

I am OK with CR being both a reboot, and yet Daniel Craig Bond (starting with Skyfall) and future movies 24 & 25 etc..also tying the continuity to the old movies as well.  They can be BOTH reboot and old formal style SEQUELS.

 

 

If Casino Royale is a reboot (which it is, albeit a fairly weak one) that is meant to start everything back over at essentially be a "Bond Begins" type of film, then I don't see how it can be that subsequent movies featuring Craig Bond can be then tied back into the first 20 films.  None of those events have happened in this timeline.  Bond hasn't met and married Tracy, nor has he gone up against the likes of Goldfinger, Blofeld, etc.  Those are things that should be left in the past for the previous Bonds to have dealt with, and the future should be Craig and his successor(s) moving forward against new and original characters and being involved in capers and situations that are either Fleming-esque, actually derived from Fleming's unfilmed work (if/when appropriate or possible), or something completely original that suits the creative direction that the series happens to be in at the given time.  

 

 

Perfectly stated and agreed.

are then't the two dench ms different, as craig-dench M served in hong KOng at the time the brosnans were set. In my opinion, they are twins. 

if one count the video game 007 legends, then BOnd-CRaig has married Tracy, met Goldfinger etc

 

 

In 007 Legends, Felix Leiter was completely different from Jeffrey Wright. That, and the fact the plot sucked, means 007 Legends is not canonical at all

[sharpshooter]

There are aspects of Bond which are eternal and fixed points in time, and are ingrained into the DNA of all on screen incarnations. The death of his parents being the basic one. Joining the secret service another. The CR Bond is most definitely a reboot, but that's not a big deal. It's always more or less been a series of series'. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I´ll give a Ron Swanson answer to this thread´s question:

 

No.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 29 January 2014 - 01:28 PM.

[Call Me Hilly]

I think its a difficult one. Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace are Bond at the beginning of his career, but Skyfall seems to have jumped past the other films, and yet Moneypenny is being introduced.

[ChickenStu]

I gave up worrying about this a long time ago cause it just tied my head in knots. The way I see it, the first 20 movies are the same continuity - the 21st movie begins a new one. I just think of Judi Dench's "M" as a different character to the one who was in Brosnan's movies (it helps that Dench plays the role a bit differently aswell). 

 

I did wonder for a while if Skyfall was an attempt to tie the continuities together - but then I just took the references to previous movies as a nod to the 50th anniversary, rather than try to read anything particularly definitive into them. 

 

From now on I just take each film as it comes. 

 

At the end of the day who cares? They are only movies. 

Edited by ChickenStu, 22 February 2014 - 05:06 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

This might be the dumbest argument but here it is; it's Bond 24 not Bond 4.

[ChickenStu]

This might be the dumbest argument but here it is; it's Bond 24 not Bond 4.

 

Wouldn't even go that far. Each film is just what it is. 

 

If ANYTHING bothers me about the continuity - it's about how Diamonds Are Forever ties into On Her Majesty's Secret Service if at all. The events of OHMSS are never explicitly referenced - but I always thought Our Man's dogged determination to wipe out Blofeld at the start of DAF was motivated by a thirst for revenge for murdering his wife in the previous movie. 

 

Yet others say that DAF ignores OHMSS and instead picks up from the end of You Only Live Twice and Our Man is just pissed that Blofeld got away from him. The thing is, THAT is not explicitly referenced either. 

 

I guess you could take it either way. 

[Walecs]

 

This might be the dumbest argument but here it is; it's Bond 24 not Bond 4.

 

Wouldn't even go that far. Each film is just what it is. 

 

If ANYTHING bothers me about the continuity - it's about how Diamonds Are Forever ties into On Her Majesty's Secret Service if at all. The events of OHMSS are never explicitly referenced - but I always thought Our Man's dogged determination to wipe out Blofeld at the start of DAF was motivated by a thirst for revenge for murdering his wife in the previous movie. 

 

Yet others say that DAF ignores OHMSS and instead picks up from the end of You Only Live Twice and Our Man is just pissed that Blofeld got away from him. The thing is, THAT is not explicitly referenced either. 

 

I guess you could take it either way. 

 

 

I do better. I watch OHMSS and ignore YOLT and DAF.

[ChickenStu]

Rather than try to tie the reboot continuity with the old continuity - I think they should revisit important plot points to work them into the character again. For instance him falling in love with Tracy DiMarco and her death after their wedding. 

 

That does NOT mean remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service. That is a big no-no, as is remaking ANY previous film. I wouldn't mind however IF certain plot points were revisited for the purpose of bringing Bond back to a point where we feel we know him. 

 

I felt Tracy's death added a pathos to the character. I know that continuity during the original run was dubious at best - but I enjoyed the references to her in The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill and the "almost" reference in The World Is Not Enough. 

 

Obviously Casino Royale wiped this out - and it was one of the things I was sorry to see go. So they should work it back into the rebooted continuity. 

 

I've said in another thread that they should take some unused plot points from You Only Live Twice and make a film from that - maybe titled Shatterhand. The whole garden of death thing. However, he shouldn't meet Tracy in that story. I think in the story he should have been seeing her for a while already when it starts and maybe we see Our Man propose to her before he goes off on the mission. This is where the Blofeld character is re-introduced and we get a new slant on Our Man facing that rotter for the first time. Our Man is closer to retiring than ever and perhaps we could see him asking Mallory for a desk job so he can finally settle down and have children. 

 

Rather than involve her directly in the plot - we see her as kind of Our Man's personal life. He goes back home bloodied and bruised and she takes care of him. She's a source of solace and comfort. 

 

The story ends with Our Man thinking he has defeated Blofeld and marrying Tracy. But Blofeld's men show up and spray the whole wedding with bullets. Everybody ducks and instinctively Mallory pulls out two guns, throws one to Our Man and they try in vain to shoot back. Only afterwards Our Man is horrified to find Tracy lying dead at the alter. He rushes to her and tries to revive her and we see Mallory gently put his arms round Our Man and pull him away. It ends with Our Man collapsing with grief, howling with anguish and Mallory holding on to him - trying to comfort him as best he can. 

 

I think that would be a good way to re-introduce both Blofeld and Tracy's death into Our Man's story. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Basically, I would rather have the films not trip over themselves and re-use familiar plot points.

 

Then again, the films will always reach a point at which their narrative spine will have to be rethought.

 

At that time it might even be a sensible idea to start remaking Fleming´s stories, in their original sequence.  Of course, not within the Craig era or even the following actor´s tenue.

 

But in 20, 30 years?  I doubt that EON´s heirs or any studio would not consider doing this.

[Walecs]

At that time it might even be a sensible idea to start remaking Fleming´s stories, in their original sequence.  Of course, not within the Craig era or even the following actor´s tenue.

 

But in 20, 30 years?  I doubt that EON´s heirs or any studio would not consider doing this.

 

That's what they should have done with Craig after Casino Royale, instead of having that absymal movie they did in 2008.

[Bill]

Good points all around. 

Sam Mendes deliberately wanted to loop the end of Skyfall with the beginning of Dr. No, which is why we are back in THAT OFFICE again, with Moneypenny in her little outer office.  Thus, visual clues alone point to the Craig films being both reboots and prequels. 

Now, does this make sense?  No--as how could Bond meet Felix for the first time twice, how can Bond work with Judi Dench's M both at the beginning and much later in his career, how can Q go from being an old Army major to a young techo-nerd (for want of a better way to describe it), Messervy v. Mallory, not to mention the changing races of Moneypenny and Felix.  However, I will just apply the Doctor Who phrase of wibbly wobbly timey wimey to this--it is still the same series with the same continuity from 1963 to the present day, but there are a lot of inconsistencies. 

 

Thus, Bond 24 should start with Bond taking orders from M---no need to mention the last name, get his gadgets (hopefully more then a radio) and flirt with Moneypenny before heading out on his mission.  The movie can have the same tone as Craig's other films, and he can be as brutal a Bond as he has been.  There need be no continuity references to other films, nor should they be contradicted.

The only issue is if Blofeld is brought back.  Instead of reintroducing SPECTRE, I would like there to be references to Bond having met them before--no need to reference Tracy at all.  Instead, just mention of an old enemy back from the dead would do just fine. 

Edited by Bill, 25 February 2014 - 02:08 PM.

[Morgan]

No!

 

Prior to CR the Bond films could and did reference in some form or fashion previous missions. This was perfectly okay as the character never changes and stays current despite the times and the many different actor incarnations. After the official "reboot" of CR/QoS you cannot reference back like they did in Skyfall by using the original Aston Martin. They should have used the car from CR and indeed that is what was in the original screenplay.

 

To me Sam Mendes cheats the audience to get the desired affect of old classic Bond soon becoming the new refreshed Bond.

 

 

 

 

The above comment was in reply to the original topic of this post.

[tdalton]

 After the official "reboot" of CR/QoS you cannot reference back like they did in Skyfall by using the original Aston Martin. They should have used the car from CR and indeed that is what was in the original screenplay.

 

To me Sam Mendes cheats the audience to get the desired affect of old classic Bond soon becoming the new refreshed Bond.

 

Very much agreed.  

 

It would seem to me that it should be easy enough to be able to consider Casino Royale through Skyfall to be an entirely separate continuity without having to try to make things fit with the first 20 films.  Even with as weak of a reboot as Casino Royale is, it's clear that it takes place in its own timeline.

[S K Y F A L L]

I thinking I might have to start a new thread 'Did EON take the easy way out 'rebooting''? 

 

Just was thinking on this earlier today and would love some thoughts.

[SecretAgentFan]

There was nothing easy about it, IMO.  It was a huge risk and tons of hard work which paid off at the box office.

 

About the continuity I can only give my standard answer: there is none within the franchise as a whole, only within the eras of each particular actor.

 

Sure, there are references made: OHMSS: Bond clearing out his desk - now wait a minute, this young guy was actually going on these missions? /  DAF: Oh, so Bond looks like the previous Bond again, only older, and still he is hunting down Blofeld for revenge? / TSWLM and FYEO: Wait, this guy was also married to Tracy? / LTK: And this guy, too? / GE onwards: Okay, this guy was NOT married to Tracy.

 

But these references are only there to knit together some plot points and to make general audiences feel good about their memory (gee, wasn´t Bond... uh... wait... like married... well, I didn´t see that movie but I read about it... on a website called... uh... I guess it was because that other actor who played Bond... Jason Konneggy or... S***, I´m concentrating now on this movie.)

 

As for the Aston Martin in SKYFALL:  Why are people so determined to only allow one reading: that this is Connery´s car, therefore Craig cannot own it?  In fact, within the reboot´s logic there was no Connery.  Hence, the car was not from the Goldfinger era.  But, of course, even in the Craig era it is no question that Aston Martin made cars during the 60´s.  So Craig-Bond is an absolute Aston Martin nut since he won a recent model during the CR-mission.  And since Craig-Bond does earn money in his job but probably does not invest it in a sensible retirement plan he bought one of those classic Aston Martins and put it into his garage.  He does not drive around with it all the time, only on special occasions.  For example, when going undercover with M. Um, well, hiding in plain sight, you know?

 

Of course, Craig-Bond is very pissed when Silva perforates this extremely expensive collector´s item.  But what would keep him from hunting down another of these old Aston Martins?  Nothing. Well, maybe a mission, but during his downtime?

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 25 February 2014 - 06:25 AM.

[tdalton]

I think that people always go for the idea that the Aston Martin is meant to be a call back to Connery's car because that's precisely what it's meant to be.  Skyfall has several references to the first 20 films in the franchise (the dig about the exploding pen, the palmprint recognition gun, etc.), and it stands to reason that the primary reason for the inclusion of the gadget-laden Aston Martin is to call back to Connery's car from Goldfinger. 

[007jamesbond]

There should be no reboot just continue on where craig left off 

[ChickenStu]

 GE onwards: Okay, this guy was NOT married to Tracy.

 

 

I beg to differ. Whilst none of the films in the Brosnan era explicitly reference Tracy - The World Is Not Enough does drop a few hints that it exists in a continuity where On Her Majesty's Secret Service happened. There's a bit where Elektra asks Our Man if he is ever lost anyone and for a brief second he looks like he's about to say something. I always figured that the first thing that popped into his head when asked that question was Tracy.

 

Also he says "The World Is Not Enough" is his family motto. He finds that information out in OHMSS. The film where of course... you know the rest. 

[Bill]

ChickenStu:

I agree.  The first 20 films are meant to be part of one continuity.  Just look at Bernard Lee's portrait hanging at MI6HQ in Scotland in TWINE--a silent nod pointing to the fact that all these films are part of the same series.  It was with CR that that we have a new continuity,and until the last two minutes of Skyfall, that appeared to be the case.  Now, it looks like the new continuity is merged into the old.  As it should be--I hated the idea of a different Bond then I had known growing up.   

 

Does any of this make sense?  Not really, but who cares.  I am just glad that Bond is back!

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 GE onwards: Okay, this guy was NOT married to Tracy.

 

 

I beg to differ. Whilst none of the films in the Brosnan era explicitly reference Tracy - The World Is Not Enough does drop a few hints that it exists in a continuity where On Her Majesty's Secret Service happened. There's a bit where Elektra asks Our Man if he is ever lost anyone and for a brief second he looks like he's about to say something. I always figured that the first thing that popped into his head when asked that question was Tracy.

 

Also he says "The World Is Not Enough" is his family motto. He finds that information out in OHMSS. The film where of course... you know the rest. 

 

 

Oh, man - Brosnan-Bond, too? This Tracy...

[Walecs]

The reboot can't merge with the old series, for several reasons:

A) Bond's age

Time periods (Bond became a 00 in 2006, but 1962-2002 he was an experienced 00? No way!)

C) Too many contradictions between the movies. In both Casino Royale and Dr. No, Bond meets Felix for the first time. In From Russia with Love, Moneypenny says she's never been to Istanbul (but she did in Skyfall), and things like those.

[Leo R.]

Rather than try to tie the reboot continuity with the old continuity - I think they should revisit important plot points to work them into the character again. For instance him falling in love with Tracy DiMarco and her death after their wedding. 

 

 

I'd like to see the main points of OHMSS retold in the pre-title sequence (Attack on Piz GLoria, BLofeld escapes, Bond marries Tracy, Tracy dies), and the rest of the film continues from that point. Throw in some original John Barry music for the PTS, then a wonderful new title song, followed by a superb new story about Bond avenging Tracy.

[ChickenStu]

Wouldn't all that be a bit too much to fit into a PTS?

[SecretAgentFan]

Think so, too.  Although the idea to incorporate parts of it in the PTS is intriguing to me.

 

Maybe only marrying and losing Tracy?

 

But please, not now or in the near future.  Bond on a personal mission... not again!

[Walecs]

Yes, that's definitely too much for the PTS. Plus, you wouldn't even feel sorry for Bond and Tracy, if she gets announced just 15 minutes before getting killed. She'd feel just like a random girl. OHMSS built the whole relationship between James and Tracy, and it worked great.

 

I would like to have Craig's Bond married, but I don't want it to be a OHMSS remake.