Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
The New Bond Timeline/Universe (2006 - present)
I am having this interesting discussion with @BondJames about this new timeline that has been created ever since "Casino Royale" premiered. Perhaps most people call me a bit crazy, or find this an unnecessary topic. But I do find it a bit unique. And down below I want to lay out my arguments why we should see the Craig-era as an entire new timeline/universe. This is especially pivotal for a future, 7th, actor who's going to follow Craig's footsteps. Are we going to reboot again? Or not?
First of all, why is it actually so clear that with Daniel Craig we are experiencing an entire new timeline, or in 'comic book terms'...a new 'cinematic universe'? Let me elaborate this with examples:
--> During the PTS of "Casino Royale" we get to see how Commander James Bond executed his first two MI6-licensed kills. Mr Bond is assigned to investigate the illegal selling of secrets from Station "CR" (Czech Republic). His first kill leads Bond to Lahore, Pakistan, where Bond kills Dryden's contact Mr Fisher during a cricket match. Fisher's information led him to section chief of station "CR", Mr Dryden. As he was the responsible head selling those secrets information, Dryden was Bond's 2nd kill. These events took place around 2006, looking at the 2006-manufactured car from Dryden.
--> These successful events led to "M" promoting Commander James Bond to the elite "00"-status of MI6's SIS-service. Although "M" considered it was too early to promote him, he stays agent "007" from that time, 2006, onwards.
--> The female "M", played by Dame Judi Dench in the Craig-era, should be seen as a different female "M" as opposed to Judi Dench's portrayal of the role during the Brosnan-era. Why? "Skyfall" gives us the exact explanation. After Silva has been captured inside the new underground MI6-bunker, "M" clearly explains that before she came "M", she was handling the Hong Kong-handover in 1996/1997, probably as section chief as well (Station "H", Hong Kong). One of her agents, Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez, went rogue. But she got "6 agents in return", probably the first 6 "00"agents. So it is impossible that at that time, which equals to the 1997 events of "Tomorrow Never Dies", an entire "00"-SIS-section existed.
--> It is not very likely that James Bond-007 turned 'Naval Commander' during the events of his adventures between 2006 and now. Still, from "M"s obituary statement we know that James Bond-007 is a 'Commander to the British Royal Navy'.
--> In the new timeline, James Bond-007 has never married. Although it was a close call with Vesper Lynd, as of 2015 he still remains a bachelor. All the events from the old timeline, where James Bond married Contessa Teresa "Tracy" Di Vicenzo. do not exist anymore, or should still take place in the future. Yes, there are references to Tracy in "The Spy Who Loved Me", "For Your Eyes Only" and "Licence To Kill". And perhaps an indirect reference in "The World Is Not Enough". But that only strengthens the idea that the old timeline continued all the way from 1969 until 1999.
--> There's a short reference in "GoldenEye" to "M"s male predecessor when Bond says: "Your predecessor kept some cognac in the...", being quickly cut off by the new "M": "I prefer bourbon!". It's not only this reference that firmly puts the Brosnan films in the old timeline, but also the visible portrait of "M" as portrayed by Bernard Lee in the MI6-offices in Scotland ("The World Is Not Enough").
--> "M" mentions in "Skyfall" that a new 'Quartermaster' will further assist 007 on his trip to Shanghai, China. It turns out to be the very first man that is nicknamed by James Bond "Q". Uttered with a big smirk on Bond's face. And although it's from a narrative point of view a bit flawed, James Bond only knows Eve's last name at the very end of the film:"My name is Eve....Eve Moneypenny".
--> Forget about all previous wooden-paneled offices that Bernard Lee's "M" and Robert Brown's "M" occupied. Because the real reason that the "00"-section went to a new building, is merely because of Silva's (and perhaps "SPECTRE"s??) terrorist attack on the official MI6-building at Vauxhall Cross. A new housing had to be found. And that's most likely inside Whitehall. So the first time you saw this wooden-paneled office in "Doctor No" is obviously a different one, as the big MI6-building at Vauxhall Cross wasn't even built back in 1962. Also, we quickly see in the new "SPECTRE"-trailer that the new offices in essence are way much larger as previously seen in the old timeline. There's probably not just one secretary (Moneypenny) but several hundreds.
Now my big question for you:
Should we continue this entire new 2nd timeline, that started with "Casino Royale" until the present, if Daniel Craig leaves as agent 007? Or should we reboot the whole thing again when EON Productions begins casting Bond actor no#7?
Personally, I really hope that this timeline now continues for a long time, similar to the previous timeline (1962-2002).
First of all, why is it actually so clear that with Daniel Craig we are experiencing an entire new timeline, or in 'comic book terms'...a new 'cinematic universe'? Let me elaborate this with examples:
--> During the PTS of "Casino Royale" we get to see how Commander James Bond executed his first two MI6-licensed kills. Mr Bond is assigned to investigate the illegal selling of secrets from Station "CR" (Czech Republic). His first kill leads Bond to Lahore, Pakistan, where Bond kills Dryden's contact Mr Fisher during a cricket match. Fisher's information led him to section chief of station "CR", Mr Dryden. As he was the responsible head selling those secrets information, Dryden was Bond's 2nd kill. These events took place around 2006, looking at the 2006-manufactured car from Dryden.
--> These successful events led to "M" promoting Commander James Bond to the elite "00"-status of MI6's SIS-service. Although "M" considered it was too early to promote him, he stays agent "007" from that time, 2006, onwards.
--> The female "M", played by Dame Judi Dench in the Craig-era, should be seen as a different female "M" as opposed to Judi Dench's portrayal of the role during the Brosnan-era. Why? "Skyfall" gives us the exact explanation. After Silva has been captured inside the new underground MI6-bunker, "M" clearly explains that before she came "M", she was handling the Hong Kong-handover in 1996/1997, probably as section chief as well (Station "H", Hong Kong). One of her agents, Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez, went rogue. But she got "6 agents in return", probably the first 6 "00"agents. So it is impossible that at that time, which equals to the 1997 events of "Tomorrow Never Dies", an entire "00"-SIS-section existed.
--> It is not very likely that James Bond-007 turned 'Naval Commander' during the events of his adventures between 2006 and now. Still, from "M"s obituary statement we know that James Bond-007 is a 'Commander to the British Royal Navy'.
--> In the new timeline, James Bond-007 has never married. Although it was a close call with Vesper Lynd, as of 2015 he still remains a bachelor. All the events from the old timeline, where James Bond married Contessa Teresa "Tracy" Di Vicenzo. do not exist anymore, or should still take place in the future. Yes, there are references to Tracy in "The Spy Who Loved Me", "For Your Eyes Only" and "Licence To Kill". And perhaps an indirect reference in "The World Is Not Enough". But that only strengthens the idea that the old timeline continued all the way from 1969 until 1999.
--> There's a short reference in "GoldenEye" to "M"s male predecessor when Bond says: "Your predecessor kept some cognac in the...", being quickly cut off by the new "M": "I prefer bourbon!". It's not only this reference that firmly puts the Brosnan films in the old timeline, but also the visible portrait of "M" as portrayed by Bernard Lee in the MI6-offices in Scotland ("The World Is Not Enough").
--> "M" mentions in "Skyfall" that a new 'Quartermaster' will further assist 007 on his trip to Shanghai, China. It turns out to be the very first man that is nicknamed by James Bond "Q". Uttered with a big smirk on Bond's face. And although it's from a narrative point of view a bit flawed, James Bond only knows Eve's last name at the very end of the film:"My name is Eve....Eve Moneypenny".
--> Forget about all previous wooden-paneled offices that Bernard Lee's "M" and Robert Brown's "M" occupied. Because the real reason that the "00"-section went to a new building, is merely because of Silva's (and perhaps "SPECTRE"s??) terrorist attack on the official MI6-building at Vauxhall Cross. A new housing had to be found. And that's most likely inside Whitehall. So the first time you saw this wooden-paneled office in "Doctor No" is obviously a different one, as the big MI6-building at Vauxhall Cross wasn't even built back in 1962. Also, we quickly see in the new "SPECTRE"-trailer that the new offices in essence are way much larger as previously seen in the old timeline. There's probably not just one secretary (Moneypenny) but several hundreds.
Now my big question for you:
Should we continue this entire new 2nd timeline, that started with "Casino Royale" until the present, if Daniel Craig leaves as agent 007? Or should we reboot the whole thing again when EON Productions begins casting Bond actor no#7?
Personally, I really hope that this timeline now continues for a long time, similar to the previous timeline (1962-2002).
^ 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
No to a reboot. It's completely unnecessary. They should start afresh, but with Bond as a fully formed character. I'm not sure there needs to be any explicit reference to Craig or the previous Bond films, though.
I agree @RC7. I really hope they won't start rebooting the whole thing again. Which certain franchises, like "Fantastic Four", "Superman" and "Batman" keep doing. It becomes a rather uninspiring way of making new films. And as we saw already, many times such 'reboots-from-reboots' aren't even successful.
The four films
The four video games
And Carte Blanche
I am sure I can be done but would love to see how
However GG, the first paragraph of your opening post where you say you'd like to lay out your arguments why we should see the Craig-era as an entire new timeline/universe- well, I thought it was understood that it is indeed a new timeline/universe with mere references and winks to the past- at least common knowledge to those who know what they are talking about, and that the arguments against this are just coming from fans obsessed with chronology and continuity.
Similarly, to a degree, they are arguably 'rebooting' SPECTRE in SP.
Having said that, I personally (in order to maintain my sanity) choose to believe that the Daniel Craig era (when it's all said and done) is blending into the timeline of the past. So that once a new actor takes over, we are essentially back to the old timeline (apart from messed up chronologies etc.). It just sort of got there in a 'parallel universe' sort of way.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I choose to believe this because that, to me, would explain the MP, Q, male M situation, as well as the appearance of the tricked out DB5 in SF, as well as Bond's more casual manner (from what I can see) in SP.
So CR was a hard reboot, but they have actually been soft rebooting characters as they've gone along during the Craig era, from my point of view.
The only thing that would throw this off for me is a OHMSS remake, which I'm 100% sure they will not do (at least not officially, with a character named Tracy Di Vincenzo in it).
I would prefer the new actor to just take over this 'melded' hodge podge timeline post Craig.
"M" clearly mentions that she was running things in Hong Kong during the hand-over period. That's clearly the mid 90's, and it absolutely includes 1997. That's a fact.
So all 'M's, 'Moneypenny's and 'Q's from before the Craig-era don't matter anymore. There was no clear finalized 00-section yet around 1997. "M" also clearly mentions that: "I got 6 agents in return!". That must have happened the years following the 1997 Hong Kong handover. And before 2012 there was no "Q", as Bond nicknames the young guy that way in "Skyfall".
And then it's a fact that James Bond got his "00"-licence around 2005/2006. That's fact. So everything that has happened during the pre-Craig era has been erased now. There was no 007 in the period 1962-2004. There was never a marriage between Bond and Tracy post-Brosnan, after 2002 (throughout the period 1969-1999 they refer to Bond's pervious wife).
This is how I see that timeline. So perhaps it's possible that during future Bond films the look and feel of the Bond films are very much like the pre-Craig era (1962-2002), with wooden paneled MI6-offices. But the fact still is, that at least until "SPECTRE" that's still part of an entire new timeline.
I mean soft reboot in the sense that the characteristics of the individuals in question are very similar to those of their predecessors in the prior timeline (M is a bit hard edged and doesn't take any b-s but respects Bond's decisions, MP potentially has a crush/respect for him and looks out for him, and Q is a bit of a humorous dunce, but with an element of genius hiding beneath). So there is a clear connection to the past.
I also mean soft reboot because of the very deliberate appearance of the DB5 from the 1960s with all the tricks as well as the fact that Bond is supposed to have 'aged' dramatically and become 'played out' just by 2012, when he only received his license in 2006. This implies an 'alternate parallel universe' which incorporates elements and aspects of the previous era.
In a way, for me, if they had not gone into such detail to give these characters their backstory, and if they had not reintroduced the DB5 & office, I'd personally have been more readily able to buy the concept of a completely new timeline.
So I do see this as an 'alternate parallel retcon universe' that eventually can be made to either 'mesh/blend' in to the prior timeline (without dates matching of course) post-Craig, or can proceed in a different way. There are options for future films depending on desired direction.
As I said elsewhere however, trying to look for timeline continuity in the Bond film universe is difficult unless one suspends disbelief to a degree.
The 00-section probably existed long before we knew of it in Casino Royale. But, it's assuring that Bond in this universe is not one of the firsts. Dench's M, now named 'Olivia Mansfield' as opposed to the Brosnan era's 'Barbara Mawsdley' is definitely a different character. Even her persona traits are different, with this M being more angry and dominating. Besides, she's been the head of the agency since the Cold War, presumably circa 1980, who knows? Whereas Brosnan's M was an accountant who was newly promoted in mid-90s (the film doesn't specify).
There certainly was a Q, like there was M. Again, the "exploding pen" dialogue was just a friendly reminder that this is a Bond film, not that GoldenEye took place before Skyfall. They are of separate timelines and the 1995 film doesn't exist in this universe.
But on the whole @ClarkDevlin, you agree that the Craig-era is in essence a new timeline? In which the events of the Hong Kong hand-over (1997) and the events leading to Bond's "00"-status (2006) are pivotal to this new timeline?
For me it's not so clear. As I said above, the DB5 does not fit that theory, nor does Bond's aging or burning out so dramatically over the course of 6 years (or even 4, if you consider that QoS references 2008).
As I mentioned, Bond timelines are a load of hogwash generally (unless one is looking at direct sequels like CR/QoS and potentially SF/SP). They are designed to suit the narrative, whatever that may be at a point in time, that's it. Looking for logic in it is pointless.
The only 'hard' reboot was CR (and from my perspective only since it was a start of career rather than in relation to any injected narrative elements like Hong Kong or even the referenced '911' in CR etc.), but they've sort of moved on from that and blended into the previous timeline from my point of view.
I actually see this as a 3rd timeline. The first being from Dr. No to A view to A Kill. Although played by three different actors, the incarnation of bond seen in DN is the same seen in AVTAK. The second is the Dalton/Brosnan era; the Bond seen in The Living Daylights is the same in Die Another Day. Finally there is the latest starting with Casino Royale.
As far as continuing this one or starting another, it depends on the age of the actor cast. If a much younger actor is cast I would go with a new timeline. If it's in the same ballparlk, 10 years?, as Craig then this one can continue.
But then you have the prickly issue of the 'he was married once' line, that tips that theory on its head. I think getting too bogged down in timelines only leads to headaches. There isn't really much logic to any of it. They cherry pick references at will, as and when they want, irregardless of whether they make logical sense. Each film exists in it's own mini universe, that may or may not put a different slant on elements connected via the canon.
I don't agree. If--and it's a big "if--she's the same M, she could have overseen both the events of TND and the events referenced in SF.
I guess you could argue that Dalton's Bond experienced a different marriage tragedy but it seems more likely that Leiter (as Bond's best friend, also part of the Connery/Moore/Dalton continuity) is indeed referencing Tracy.
What I mean is that each individual film (and tenure) is a sort prism through which we view the world of 007. Each view features and/or references different elements of the canon. Some are more closely connected than others, but in terms of valid chronologies each actor seems to have their own to an extent, but that's about it.
This is exactly my view. Apart from the hard reboot (i.e. start of career) in CR, everything else just exists to further a particular narrative at a point in time. There is really no logic to any of it, except to reference elements that we are familiar with in order for us to connect with the character. The DB5 is the biggest example of this.
CR is clearly a "hard" reboot (except for perhaps M): Bond is at the beginning of his career.
Almost every Bond film (at least from LALD onward) is a "soft" reboot in that Bond is rebooted to the present (for example, the 2006 references in CR and then the 2008 references in QoS).
I say LALD because the timing of Bond pursuing SPECTRE from DN-DAF feels like it could have happened in real time. An example of this is M's: "You've had two years to track him down" in OHMSS, which ties nicely back to YOLT.
Bond's age is never explicitly referenced (except perhaps in documents/SF obituary) so we can look past the relative ages of each Bond actor when it is not a "hard" reboot. As old as Moore looks in AVTAK, the film never refers to his age.
Still, it seems that when the Craig-era started, continuity has been taken more serious by the Bond producers and screenplay writers. In such a way that one could easily attach the word "unprecedented" to it.
In 1962 due to various reasons it was quite impossible to adapt the Fleming novels in chronological order. Hence why continuity never was as strong or taken as serious in the old days (1962 - 2002) than in the current Craig era (2006 - present).
Hell, "SPECTRE" will even tie the previous three Bond films together chronologically (Mr White, events in "Skyfall"). So obviously Barbara and Michael are way more aware of this. And this all started when the very first Fleming novel was adapted properly. In 2006. But which should have been adapted already 53 years ago.
The old Bond films, from Dr. No to Brosnan's swansong: "everyone's favourite", the timeline never bothered with keeping up with the continuity and each film was made maintaining the contemporary setting, that is all. An ageless Bond. Sure, Moore was old in A View To A Kill, but the films don't necessarily point out that the Dalton Bond and the Moore Bond aren't the same person or character. Sure, Michael G. Wilson wanted a reboot, but Cubby vetoed it. At the end of the day, if an explanation isn't given or there isn't an on-screen evidence or official word from the producers, things remain the way they are.
I also stand by my view that we are going, post-DC, to a meshed timeline, similar to what we had pre-DC, with an ageless Bond.
Why do I think this? Well, because post-Craig, EON are more than likely to cast someone in their 30's (which will debunk the timeline argument because that is unlikely to be the same person who was 'played out' in SF), or alternatively they will cast someone in the their mid to late 40's, to continue DC's aged timeline, but this is far less likely.
Bottom line: Timeline discussions in Bond's world are, for the most part, moot. It's whatever they want them to be to deliver their chosen narrative.
This is the final point on the matter. It succinctly answers any issue anyone has ever had re. timelines in the Bondverse.
Yes the DC films will be interconnected more than the others, that is clear. But regard timelines in general, @bondjames nails the basic ethos behind EON's decisions. Each new film is a treated as a blank canvas, it can incorporate elements very specifically from a previous film, or it can dismiss them. It all depends on the creative force and thrust of the director and team. For SP to neatly tie together the preceding trilogy it will take some creative retconning, that in itself won't seamlessly mesh. There will still be questions left unanswered that will bug fans, I've no doubt of that. This is about connecting Bond's journey as a man, the other elements are superfluous to the thrust of Mendes direction (hence his willingness to include the GF DB5). Bond will always operate this way as the films are made in a bubble, in a moment and they reflect that moment, not a predefined one created years previously.
Yeah, continuity has never been the series' strong suit. OHMMS, following YOLT, being a reboot but not really a reboot but sorta a reboot but not at all, anybody?
Not entirely true. Hence why I posted this: