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
2 & 3 are basically the same thing and how I’ve always approached the different Bonds, I don’t really see the problem.
I don’t even massively consider the guy chucking Wint & Kidd off a cruise liner to be the same bloke who shot Prof Dent in the back- they look kind of similar but don’t act much the same and seem to live in different worlds. Continuity was never something I especially thought existed in Bond land.
And by starting the Craig era before he was a double-oh, and ending it five years after he was a double-oh, there shouldn't be an expectation Bond will be back in either of those timestamps.
He'll surely be presented in BOND 26 as 007 receiving and executing a mission.
Exactly. Some folks here are just overthinking how audiences will perceive Bond 26 in relation to NTTD. This doesn’t even take into account audiences who’s first Bond film may actually be Bond 26. Just like there were audiences who’s first exposure to Bond was LALD, TLD, GE, or even CR.
Heck, I’m willing to bet most audiences actually think each new actor introduced is in itself reboots because that’s mostly how it’s been done on other movie franchises.
They made a gravestone for James Bond.
https://nerdist.com/article/james-bond-gravestone-james-bond-no-time-to-die-faroe-islands/
I think a lot of people are going to be genuinely confused by Bond 26 because most audiences don't know that there are different Bond continuities. Bond has been produced by the same company for 60 years. Same theme, same type of opening titles, and constant references to previous eras. It's not like Batman.
Only a few people who can’t grasp fiction will be confused. You’re overestimating how stupid audiences are.
https://screenrant.com/lotr-show-rings-power-seasons-plan-future-details/
This has been my argument all along. How can any emotional weight be attached to Bond's demise, when ten minutes later, we're told 'he'll be back!'
It simply doesn't work. But the only argument I've seen on here for it being acceptable is "it works for Batman/Superman/Captain Chaos etc, so therefore it works for Bond".
I didn't think killing him off showed much respect and love. I thought quite the opposite.
In your opinion.
It will.
Well, erm, obviously. Seeing as I wrote it and it's what I think.
Looks like a fun little tourist attraction to me. It even says in the article it's more a thing for Bond fans...
Again, I think once the marketing for the new film rolls around and they make the concept clear viewers will get it, especially given how these other big franchise films have rebooted themselves nowadays. Most non-fans don't know/care it's been associated with the same company for 60 years, the Bond theme is iconic although subject to different variations within trailers so it won't matter, and the references to the previous era were seen in Craig's tenure and viewers seemed to grasp the whole reboot thing with CR... again, based on the marketing and the actual film. Hell, most people rolled with X-Men and its many prequels/sequels/timelines within the same 'universe' - same company, same actors, same music etc - not to mention the many different reboots of Spiderman and this Multiverse thing in the new film (which was highly successful incidentally). Nah, I think it'll be fine. There are far more pressing issues to worry about for Bond 26.
You just Christopher Hitchens’d him.
Fair enough. We’ll see how that opinion holds up.
Yes we have our own backgrounds and tastes and experiences and reasons for thinking the way we do.
People are STILL discussing this ? Did you really think Brosnan's Bond had done the DN mission ? That Dalton's Bond had done the DN mission ? No to both. They were "soft
re-boots" Even Moore's Bond barely could hold that tenuous timeline after a while !
Well if we're going all Leslie Nielsen on it, here's a re-writing of the dialogue:
M Bond ! Surely you understand the importance of following my orders at least SOME of the time !??
Bond Of course, I do, but don't call me Shirley.
And to be honest I've always viewed Dalton and Broz as essentially "soft reboots" anyway with the tone being so different. Hard to imagine LTK and Moonraker existing in the same universe for example.
I think it works just fine. The papers are always discussing who the next Bond will be, and yet I haven’t seen anyone losing their mind about how there can be another Bond: most people understand that it’s fiction.
It’s not like most people even waited to see the end of the credits anyway.
Yet the same M, Q and Moneypenny throughout most of those films, or if M changed there was an acknowledged reference to it.
They also still managed to make references to Tracey and OHMSS though, in both FYEO and LTK, which existed in different Bond actor timelines. Brozza still interacts with the very same Q that Connery did in 1963.
So I think we were expected to believe this was one long continuation timeline (even if Bond would be about age 100 by the time he was in DAD.)
And I recall a reference to Tracey in one of the Brozza films too (or did I dream that)? Someone correct me here.
I'm not confused, I just think it's daft to ask the audience to care that Bond is dead, when there'll be another Bond along soon enough.
It's like Bobby in the shower. I understood what they were doing, it didn't confuse me. But I still thought it was daft.
You can still think something is silly, and understand it.
It was always the same person, that was one of the cool things about the Bond films. Despite the bonkers continuity, Brosnan's Bond was at Crab Key. If people wanted to see 'soft re-boots', they could do that if they wanted, but the actors playing James Bond all played the same character.
I think there was an oblique reference to Tracy in TWINE, didn't Elektra say "have you ever lost someone you love?" and Brozza doesn't answer? You could take it either way.
Or, to go closer to home somewhat, have Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck and Chris Pine all played the ‘same man’ or simply ‘the same character’?
It’s ok to explicitly recognise that the character in Dr.No and the character in GoldenEye are the same character, without having to accept the frankly daft idea of them being ‘the same man’ as some kind of gospel. It’s ok. Really.
It’s fun for them to be in the same film series, to reference the fact that this one little studio has been doing them forever, without having to make it all contiguous.
What this does do, is allow them to go back and re-adapt the novels all over again in they choose — though I suspect they won’t.
Edit: I think it was the 'someone you loved' one rather than a reference that explicit.
That's in another film though; each film (and I mean any film, not just Bonds) is its own separate world to some extent- you don't fail to laugh at a comedy film because you think the sequel in a few years might have a tragedy in it, and you still feel sad that Tracy dies at the OHMSS even though we knew Bond would likely get over it in the next film.
When you're watching it you're in the moment, you're not thinking 'hmm I wonder if they'll mention this in three years time in a completely different film'. If you are then you're not really engaging with the movie in front of you.
Honestly I never really saw it that he'd had the same adventures as we saw them, that would be silly. But I also didn't think that he hadn't; I just never thought about it because it's not important. The films don't care, unless it's something they actually want you to remember. So Tracy existed, but Bond never looks at Drax's or Stromberg's plans and says "hmm, this reminds me very strongly of what Blofeld was doing with those rockets in Japan that time". It's a pick and choose continuity.
Yeah I always took it to mean Tracy, but then I saw someone suggest it could refer to Paris, which hadn't occurred to me and makes a fair point.
I don't even dwell too much on the whole different timeline perspective.
I think of the Craig era as a loose reimagining of the character. It's just a different interpretation.
I don't believe Eon really needs to stress too much on how to approach B26 and the next era. Just make a great Bond film with memorable characters, a good cast and an excellent production team. It will all fall into place.
Honestly, even the Craig films operate on the old floating timeline in a more limited way - Skyfall implies there was a prior Q and it clearly wants you to think of Goldfinger when Bond introduces the DB5, regardless of the fanwank you can do to make the scene fit with just CR-QoS.
It's a far more open ended line than fans sometimes think. The fact is if you were only a casual viewer you wouldn't think twice about it and presume that yes, Bond has lost many people he has loved in the past... in the previous film, in fact... I mean, it's kinda a big part of his character.
TSWLM has a far more specific reference to Tracy's death, but this was relatively shortly after OHMSS came out and the time frame made it reasonable to presume that there was still a semblance of straightforward continuity (y'know, if you ignore the fact that Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS...)
All this talk of timelines, continuities... it's really boring when it comes to Bond films. Think about it too much and you get nonsense like this: