It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
True but not like this. 4 movies earlier a seasoned Bond is talking to a newly appointed female M and then in CR the same actress cast as M is appointing and promoting Bond to 00 status. It's silly and utterly ridiculous but according to Campbell and Wilson they didn't give a shit because Dench is Dench so they ignored sense and reason just to keep her. They should have recast the role but they didn't so even with Craig still as Bond, whatever corner they backed themselves in with SP I'm sure they can quite easily manoeuvre themselves out.
Me neither. Charles Gray played Henderson and Blofeld, Maud Adams played two different Bond girls, who cares if Dench plays two different Ms in two different timelines?Moreover, she's a wonderful actress, keeping her was a great decision.
To be fair, Eva Green played a massive role in Casino Royale (perhaps rivaled in magnitude only by Diana Rigg before her), unlike say Maud Adams who played a relatively minor role in Golden Gun before returning four films later as Octopussy. A more appropriate modern-day comparison might be suggesting Gemma Arterton return as a future Bond girl—an idea I'm sure many here, myself included, would be fully behind!
Wait till you get to her teeth! ;)
Whether a girl is a blonde or er... brunette.
*shrugs*
"Providing the collars and cuffs match..."
Not really. Even MGW once questioned whether the memory of Tracy exists in the Brosnan era. The "have you ever lost a loved one" line from Elektra, is more likely to refer to Paris Carver.
I'd say that's up to personal interpretation. I always saw it as a nod to Tracy.
You'll have to dig up that MGW reference, I've never heard that said before. And Paris? Bond has lost enough sacrificial lambs in his time that I doubt Paris would have any longer lasting effect on him. He may as well be reacting to Ferrara or Saunders there. No, his response clearly carries the weight of Tracy.
Hydrogen Peroxcide for the Blonde hair .
The Brosnan era is where the idea of Bond marrying Tracy in 1969 is no longer believable at all, for me. It's complicated even with Dalton, he has to be able to have married Tracy in 1969, be an active agent, and have held the rank of Commander. Dalton might just be able to get away with that, by the skin of his teeth, just. But Brosnan has no chance, whatsoever.
As for MGW, it must have been a Bond reference book that I read that it. The Rough Guide To Bond, The Essential Bond, or maybe The Bond Files.
Fits in well with the older Bond image.
To me, there are only two official existing timelines. DN-->DAD, CR-->Ongoing.
Agreed....no need to over-complicate things,just ignore the dates the films were made and keep the timelines as above ...job done.
And you cannot go with dates as Piercebond would have been 10 in 1962, for instance.
In Die Another Day it was the same Bond we saw in Dr. No. The character just does not age. You'll have to assume whatever happened in '62 with Connery, hypothetically happened with Brosnan in '82 or something. That's about it.
Anyway, I said it here, and we'll go back to Bond 25... Again!