103 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

The Japanese actor that passed away recently was Ken Takakura - he was the cop in Ridley Scott's Black Rain, starring alongside Michael Douglas.

[WhatMeWorry?]

While I do believe that the character of James Bond does have a loose but nonetheless real linear history (Earns 00 status - marriage to Tracy - life after Tracy), I also believe there is no true continuity or chronological order within the Bond film franchise. Each film (or 2 in the case of CR and QoS) may or may not chronologically come after the previous film in terms of Bond's true narrative which I loosely stated above. I do not fixate on small contradictions like is the BD5 in SF the same as the the one in GF or CR, really who cares?

 

For example:

FYEO, LTK, TWINE are post-Tracy (her loss is mentioned/implied)

CR. QoS are pre-Tracy

SF, DN, LALD, TND, and many others are undefined, either pre or post

 

So I don't think of Craig's Bond as a reboot (I hate that word). I think of each film individually as fitting into different parts of Bond's greater linear narrative.

[Solex Agitator]

While I do believe that the character of James Bond does have a loose but nonetheless real linear history (Earns 00 status - marriage to Tracy - life after Tracy), I also believe there is no true continuity or chronological order within the Bond film franchise. Each film (or 2 in the case of CR and QoS) may or may not chronologically come after the previous film in terms of Bond's true narrative which I loosely stated above. I do not fixate on small contradictions like is the BD5 in SF the same as the the one in GF or CR, really who cares?

 

For example:

FYEO, LTK, TWINE are post-Tracy (her loss is mentioned/implied)

CR. QoS are pre-Tracy

SF, DN, LALD, TND, and many others are undefined, either pre or post

 

So I don't think of Craig's Bond as a reboot (I hate that word). I think of each film individually as fitting into different parts of Bond's greater linear narrative.

There is also the mention at the Mujaba Club in TSWLM...

[RMc2]

I always thought OHMSS-TSWLM-FYEO formed a nice little trilogy.

 

OHMSS: Bond meets Blofeld, marries Tracy; Blofeld becomes paraplegic, kills Tracy

 

TSWLM: Bond gets on with life, struggles to deal with Tracy's death (Mujaba Club scene); also gets the Lotus

 

FYEO: Bond finally kills Blofeld and lays that chapter to rest; also loses the Lotus

 

 

As it happens, I find DAF and the rest of Moore's run easy to skip over (although I have a huge soft spot for TMWTGG). So whenever I do mini-marathons, I break it up into Sean Connery's first five films, the trilogy above, then Dalton's films, then maybe Brosnan's (not a big fan of the Brosnan era). I consider the Craig era a complete reboot (GF Aston continuity error aside).

 

Interestingly, I've always thought OHMSS deliberately wrote YOLT out of canon. That office scene explicitly references all Connery's films but that one... Still, YOLT is one of my favourites.

[S K Y F A L L]

The Craig era is a reboot like any other new actor talking the role. It was a cheap gimmick at the time to cash in on the new trends  and bring in a new audience. But it worked, I mean it is Bond, James Bond. To me the few lame lines of dialog about M promoting Bond to early and Bond being an dumba** is just not enough for me to change my faith and religion.

 

 

I got to remember to create a new thread: NO REBOOT v REBOOT

 

I'll go to war for none reboot. I'll be that guy. If I don't quit smoking I'll be with Allah soon anyway right....

 

What do they mean about reboot anyway, that would be like impling there was something wrong with the Brosnan Era right..... THATS HORSE S***! They should have got off their asses and gave us a decent send off for Broz in 2004 and they could have still done CR in 2006. 

 

 

Heres a thead title : 1 SERIES 1 SAGA vs 2 SERIES'ES 2 SAGAS

 

 

ok thats enoghu of me now lol.

[x007AceOfSpades]

After DAD, I too would've prompted a reboot.....

[Guy Haines]

I wonder if there would have been a "reboot" at all if the rights to film Casino Royale had not become available to Eon? Daniel Craig could have been signed and moved straight into place taking up where Pierce Brosnan left off. But the producers, having waited so long for the CR rights wanted, understandably, to make a film which reflected the book, even if set in 2006.

 

(And even though, if you think about it, there's no reason why the film CR couldn't have been "just another mission" for Bond rather than deliberately pitched as his first as 007. It wouldn't have been the first time the producers disregarded the source material, had they done so.)

 

But we are where we are. And I don't see how the films since CR aren't a new series, rather than a continuation of events from 2002 onwards. For example, why go out of the way to reintroduce characters such as Q and Moneypenny, and Felix Leiter as if Bond had never met them before if this wasn't part of a reinvention of Bond?

[Professor Pi]

I always thought OHMSS-TSWLM-FYEO formed a nice little trilogy.

 

OHMSS: Bond meets Blofeld, marries Tracy; Blofeld becomes paraplegic, kills Tracy

 

TSWLM: Bond gets on with life, struggles to deal with Tracy's death (Mujaba Club scene); also gets the Lotus

 

FYEO: Bond finally kills Blofeld and lays that chapter to rest; also loses the Lotus

 

 

That's a good trilogy there!  I hadn't thought like that before, and they all fit together stylistically too, lots of skiing, though Spy is a bit over the top.  Given that its original villains were supposed to be a new form of SPECTRE, that works quitely nicely.  Also, John Glen was either 2nd unit director, editor, and director on each.

Edited by Professor Pi, 21 December 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[RMc2]

 

I always thought OHMSS-TSWLM-FYEO formed a nice little trilogy.

 

OHMSS: Bond meets Blofeld, marries Tracy; Blofeld becomes paraplegic, kills Tracy

 

TSWLM: Bond gets on with life, struggles to deal with Tracy's death (Mujaba Club scene); also gets the Lotus

 

FYEO: Bond finally kills Blofeld and lays that chapter to rest; also loses the Lotus

 

 

That's a good trilogy there!  I hadn't thought like that before, and they all fit together stylistically too, lots of skiing, though Spy is a bit over the top.  Given that its original villains were supposed to be a new form of SPECTRE, that works quitely nicely.  Also, John Glen was either 2nd unit director, editor, and director on each.

 

 

Thanks Professor! The skiing is a nice connection, isn't it? Hadn't thought of the John Glen connection; it helps it all make sense.

[Guy Haines]

Something occurred to me today about the Craig film titles. With the exception of the first, they all have some connection to Bond himself or his history rather than a line in the film or book, or the name of a villain.

 

Quantum of Solace - a Fleming title I know but used in this context to mean that Bond has found some closure after Vesper's death.

 

Skyfall - we discover is where Bond came from.

 

Spectre - OK, the title of a villainous organisation. But one that was significant in the early part of the 1962-2002 period of movies and looks as if it might be so again.

 

I've argued that the Craig films are as much films about Bond as Bond films. The reboot seems to be setting up what made James Bond what he is - and for the matter of that, the series. The first "00" mission in CR. The aftermath at the end of CR and throughout QoS. The introduction of Q and Moneypenny. The loss of one M and the introduction of a new one. And now in film #4 the emergence of his great nemesis.

 

I wonder what will be left to put in place by Bond 25?

[SecretAgentFan]

BLOFELD.

[Gothamite]

Someone mentioned that there hasn't really been any sense of great continuity throughout the series beyond the odd mention or hint of Tracy. There's also the matter of a sliding timeline not really working for a character whose adventures often rely on a political backdrop.

 

I tend to 'believe' (for all it's worth) that each actor belongs in their own continuity with some loose interpretation of OHMSS taking place for each. So with that, Daniel Craig's films are no more a 'reboot' than any of the previous actors', only that they specifically take place at the start of his career rather than an undefined era.

[DaveBond21]

Yes, that is my theory too.

 

Obviously FRWL takes place in 1963 for Connery. But for Brosnan it takes place in, say, 1983, and the political situation was different but he more or less met Rosa Klebb (hence recognising her shoe in 2002) and he went on a mission to Istanbul.

 

Which is why I think Daniel Craig fits in with this timeframe too. If we can ignore the actual dates in movies, and the political situation, then we can ignore a few lines of dialogue and Judi Dench's M turning up twice.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Guy Haines]

Secret Agent Fan may be right - "Blofeld", or rather a final to the death confrontation with him. ESB may turn out to be the real identity of Franz Oberhauser, but I can't see him being finished off in just one movie. It now appears that, with the teaser trailer featuring Mr White, there was probably a link between Quantum and SPECTRE, so the whole Craig era, as well being setting up James Bond, may be also setting up this final showdown between 007 and his most infamous nemesis.

 

At least I hope so!

[Call Billy Bob]

Judi Dench's M turning up twice.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is still a problem. In GoldenEye, she is new to the job and knows of Bond's reputation from his previous adventures. In Casino Royale, she's been on the job a little while and BOND is the one who is new. I can't see how you reconcile this...

[Major Tallon]

Same actress, comparable role, different people.  In GE, her unnamed M is, according to Raymond Benson's novelization, Barbara Mawdsley.  In CR, her unnamed M is, according to the label on the box handed to Bond in "Skyfall", Olivia Mansfield.   

[Call Billy Bob]

Same actress, comparable role, different people.  In GE, her unnamed M is, according to Raymond Benson's novelization, Barbara Mawdsley.  In CR, her unnamed M is, according to the label on the box handed to Bond in "Skyfall", Olivia Mansfield.

My point exactly.

[seawolfnyy]

Ugh, we've been over this sooooooooo many times people. Brosnan's M and Craig's M are DIFFERENT characters!!!!!!!!!

[x007AceOfSpades]

Ugh, we've been over this sooooooooo many times people. Brosnan's M and Craig's M are DIFFERENT characters!!!!!!!!!

Agreed. Just because he (Martin Campbell) said it's the same character from her previous four films doesn't mean it is. They're clearly two different people especially they way they approached by Dench. At least that's my view point on it.

[JCRendle]

Connery's M = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy
Lazenby's M = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy
Moore's Ms = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy & Admiral Hargreaves
Dalton's M = Admiral Hargreaves
Brosnan's M = Barbara Mawdsley
Craig's M = Olivia Mansfield & Gareth Mallory
 
Whilst Brosnan's M (Mawdsley) and Craig's first M (Mansfield) may have been mistaken for each other, indeed their looks were uncanny, they are different ladies.

[Call Billy Bob]

Connery's M = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy

Moore's Ms = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy & Admiral Hargreaves

Dalton's M = Admiral Hargreaves

Brosnan's M = Barbara Mawdsley

Craig's M = Olivia Mansfield & Gareth Mallory

 

Whilst Brosnan's M (Mawdsley) and Craig's first M (Mansfield) may have been mistaken for each other, indeed their looks were uncanny, they are different ladies. 

Bravo, JCRendle!

[Vauxhall]

Whilst Brosnan's M (Mawdsley) and Craig's first M (Mansfield) may have been mistaken for each other, indeed their looks were uncanny, they are different ladies.

Very similar indeed, but I always thought Mansfield looked a touch older too.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Connery's M = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy
Lazenby's M = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy
Moore's Ms = Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy & Admiral Hargreaves
Dalton's M = Admiral Hargreaves
Brosnan's M = Barbara Mawdsley
Craig's M = Olivia Mansfield & Gareth Mallory
 
Whilst Brosnan's M (Mawdsley) and Craig's first M (Mansfield) may have been mistaken for each other, indeed their looks were uncanny, they are different ladies.

Correct except that Roger Moore had only one M--Sir Miles Messervy. He was just played by two different actors, one of whom played a different character in another film much like Charles Gray played Henderson in You Only Live Twice and Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever.

 

And as a result, Dalton's M was also Sir Miles Messervy.

[DaveBond21]

Judi Dench said she was playing the same person, so I go with that. I don't see the problem.

 

It's like having a problem with Brosnan's Bond being the same man who moaned about the Beatles in 1964.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[seawolfnyy]

We never really got confirmation who Robert Brown's M really was. It could have been Admiral Hargreaves, though that would have meant he had gotten demoted from his previous rank. He could have been Masservy, but I doubt it. My thought has always been that he was a different character entirely.

Also JC, you forgot to include Tanner who filled in for M in FYEO.

[Pierceuhhh]

Craig's M is Brosnan's M. Blofeld and Bond met for the first time twice. Quarrel Jr is the same age as his father. Craig's Bond is the same guy that went into space in MOONRAKER. These are all facts and I for one am glad Eon doesn't give a hoot! Timelines and strict continuity are for joyless Dr Who nerds, not carefree Bond nerds. Bringing the GOLDFINGER DB5 back in Skyfall was a masterstroke from Mendes. Cubby's proud legacy...

[JCRendle]

Also JC, you forgot to include Tanner who filled in for M in FYEO.

I didn't include him because he was still the Chief of Staff, rather than M. I count Messervy and Hargreaves as different Ms because, in my view at least, they have different personalities. Same with Dench's two Ms, their personalities seem different and we have two sources that give us different names, Gardner's novels (though not canon to the movies, the closest we had to a name in Brosnan's tenure) and on the props in Skyfall.

[tdalton]

 

Also JC, you forgot to include Tanner who filled in for M in FYEO.

I didn't include him because he was still the Chief of Staff, rather than M. I count Messervy and Hargreaves as different Ms because, in my view at least, they have different personalities. Same with Dench's two Ms, their personalities seem different and we have two sources that give us different names, Gardner's novels (though not canon to the movies, the closest we had to a name in Brosnan's tenure) and on the props in Skyfall.

 

 

No reason to include Tanner in the list.  He wasn't M.

 

The fact of the matter is that these films are a new timeline.  It really is that simple.

[Call Billy Bob]

Timelines and strict continuity are for joyless Dr Who nerds, not carefree Bond nerds.

Can we not be both? I certainly am! Personally, having a distinct grasp of continuity helps me enjoy the films more.

[SecretAgentFan]

Continuity and Bond films = only really there within an actor´s tenure.

 

The exeception of this rule: Connery - but only because he came back for one film.  If one forgets about OHMSS coming between YOLT and DAF, the rule above applies again (with Bond chasing Blofeld in the PTS not because of Tracy´s death but because of Blofeld´s escape at the end of YOLT).

 

Why did Lazenby find Bondian stuff in his drawer in OHMSS?  - Because the producers desperately wanted to tie him into their success story with the previous Bonds.

 

And why did Sir Roger flinch at an allusion to Tracy in TSWLM and why did he lay down flowers at Tracy´s grave in the PTS for FYEO and kill Blofeld?  - Because that was another attempt at constructing some kind of continuity.

 

Okay, but why is Judi Dench M for Brosnan and Craig?  - Because she is an Oscar-nominated actress EON and SONY did not want to let go.  Simple as that.