›

Timeline of events between Skyfall and Spectre?

RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
in Bond Movies Posts: 132
Hello,

I am mighty confused :(

I just watched Skyfall and Spectre back and back and my mind is swirling. What happened to MI6?

In Skyfall:

https://zombiewoodproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/die-maya-pyramide-brennt.jpg

In Spectre:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t1Ps_1IUJZo/VRaRbWdvguI/AAAAAAAAXeo/XLF9t4ZXocw/s1600/spectre-teaser-016-1280x720.jpg

Did it get bombed again????

Fan theory: Will B25 be set between SF and SP and cover the missing events? I sure hope so!
«134

Comments

  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    It didn't get bombed again, after Silva blew it up, mi6 moved into Churchills old war tunnels. As the old building was deemed strategicly vulnerable, at the end of Skyfall bond goes to see m in presumably mi6s new digs, these new digs continue into spectre. It's only q who is setting up else where, as the old mi6 building has been abandoned and partially destroyed by Silva its due for demolition. And thats it I think??
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    It didn't get bombed again, after Silva blew it up, mi6 moved into Churchills old war tunnels. As the old building was deemed strategicly vulnerable, at the end of Skyfall bond goes to see m in presumably mi6s new digs, these new digs continue into spectre. It's only q who is setting up else where, as the old mi6 building has been abandoned and partially destroyed by Silva its due for demolition. And thats it I think??

    I think that's pretty much it.

    My bigger question is how much time has passed given there's no sign of the CNS building in SF when M is driving along Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge yet there it is fully finished and kitted out in SP.

    Although according to this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe) the Gherkin, which the CNS building closely resembles went from start to finish in 3 years so it's just about credible.

    Assuming planning permission etc was all completed at the time of SF then it is plausible if the first brick was laid the day after M's funeral.

    Although if the government had given the green light to CNS to wouldnt someone mention it in SF, either Mallory when he's talking about M's retirement or during the enquiry?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And who didn't want MI6 being blown up for a third goddamned time? What a brilliant move.

    Yes, it's all a bit much really in the credibility stakes. It also suggests that MI6 is not as secure a facility as James Bond would make them seem. It's just another example of them putting "the British end down" if you will.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    It didn't get bombed again, after Silva blew it up, mi6 moved into Churchills old war tunnels. As the old building was deemed strategicly vulnerable, at the end of Skyfall bond goes to see m in presumably mi6s new digs, these new digs continue into spectre. It's only q who is setting up else where, as the old mi6 building has been abandoned and partially destroyed by Silva its due for demolition. And thats it I think??

    I think that's pretty much it.

    My bigger question is how much time has passed given there's no sign of the CNS building in SF when M is driving along Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge yet there it is fully finished and kitted out in SP.

    Although according to this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe) the Gherkin, which the CNS building closely resembles went from start to finish in 3 years so it's just about credible.

    Assuming planning permission etc was all completed at the time of SF then it is plausible if the first brick was laid the day after M's funeral.

    Although if the government had given the green light to CNS to wouldnt someone mention it in SF, either Mallory when he's talking about M's retirement or during the enquiry?

    But is there any relation between the duration between two films (three years beween Skyfall and Spectre) and the years that have passed by in the Bond timeline?

    Between Casino Royal and QoS this is definately not the case.

    I have further the impression that Bond aged more than 4 years between QoS and Skyfall whereas he seemed younger again in Spectre.

  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Spectre: how Bond got his groove back....again.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited July 2016 Posts: 5,767
    GBF wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    It didn't get bombed again, after Silva blew it up, mi6 moved into Churchills old war tunnels. As the old building was deemed strategicly vulnerable, at the end of Skyfall bond goes to see m in presumably mi6s new digs, these new digs continue into spectre. It's only q who is setting up else where, as the old mi6 building has been abandoned and partially destroyed by Silva its due for demolition. And thats it I think??

    I think that's pretty much it.

    My bigger question is how much time has passed given there's no sign of the CNS building in SF when M is driving along Millbank and Vauxhall Bridge yet there it is fully finished and kitted out in SP.

    Although according to this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe) the Gherkin, which the CNS building closely resembles went from start to finish in 3 years so it's just about credible.

    Assuming planning permission etc was all completed at the time of SF then it is plausible if the first brick was laid the day after M's funeral.

    Although if the government had given the green light to CNS to wouldnt someone mention it in SF, either Mallory when he's talking about M's retirement or during the enquiry?

    But is there any relation between the duration between two films (three years beween Skyfall and Spectre) and the years that have passed by in the Bond timeline?

    Between Casino Royal and QoS this is definately not the case.

    I have further the impression that Bond aged more than 4 years between QoS and Skyfall whereas he seemed younger again in Spectre.
    Given the utter senselessness of the massive age theme in SF, I would compare the appearance of the CNS building to Bond´s change of clothes between the ending of CR and the beginning of QoS. As if the same story was continued by a different narrator.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    The timelines between the films just do not correlate at all, so it took 3 years for Bond's personal possessions to be released from the skyfall lodge destruction, Bond is homeless in Sf because mi6 sold his flat but when Moneypenny asks him in SP if he's just moved in he says no?, also how long is it taking q to repair the db5??!
    I hated the aging of Bond in Sf, here we are just the third film after the reboot and Mendes gives us the aging, weary, old dog 007. With mallory even saying it's a young man's game. FFS bond is bond the best 00 agent and an exemplar of British fortitude. Not some alcoholic, tablet swallowing washed up has been. I love all the bond films but sometimes I find myself a tad disappointed with mendes's offerings.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,718
    What I don't understand in SP is during Tanner's exposition speech as he brings Bond to Q's lab, he says the old MI6 building will be demolished within a week. If you add up all the time jump in the film, the climax in London takes place over 10 days after that moment, so why in God's name hasn't it been demolished by then? Are they holding out until Nine Eye's is installed? But Tanner mentions both the demolition and Nine Eye's in the same scene, so by that logic the building was still planned to be taken down despite that.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    It's no wonder DC hurt his knee..... Falling down all the plot holes.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    It's no wonder DC hurt his knee..... Falling down all the plot holes.

    That's a good one! :))
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    I hated the aging of Bond in Sf, here we are just the third film after the reboot and Mendes gives us the aging, weary, old dog 007. With mallory even saying it's a young man's game.
    Not to mention that he still looks younger than Connery or Moore in many of their films.

  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    Yup, I think Mendes had on old idea in his head from watching bond in his youth and ran with it despite the reboot.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    It's was a time for the Bond films to question their relevance given 50 years, so I assume Mendes thought to characterize this in SF through Bond, hence all the themes of old and new. But hell, Bond can still beat aging if bullets and falling off a train won't either.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Gettler wrote: »
    It's was a time for the Bond films to question their relevance given 50 years, so I assume Mendes thought to characterize this in SF through Bond, hence all the themes of old and new.
    First there´s the fact that Bond´s relevance has been questioned as far back as NSNA, or if you don´t want to count that, it started with GE, and was repeated at least in DAD, at a time when the franchise was earning huge amounts of money, thus questioning the relevance of questioning its relevance.
    Then they kind of re-booted the series, which by itself denies completely the idea of doubt about being relevant. Again, hugely successful.
    Questioning their relevance after 50 years was about the most insulting thing they could do.
    What would have made sense given 50 years is a film where Bond does his job. That would have shown his relevance. The stage was all set, after CR and QoS they could have seamlessly shifted to Bond going on a mission and letting all colors fly. Instead we got an indulgent film that not only ignores the basis created by the two films before, but basic points of the whole franchise.

  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    I wished that they had gone that route. I was sure that after CR the producers would aim to adapt modern versions of the novels on that same level.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    They missed a great opportunity I think, and in that respect using Mendes was a mistake. Its well documented Mendes is bond fan and his favourite bond and films are Roger Moore's. Thats I think why the series went backwards after qos, despite loving all DC's films, CR and QoS are a two part adventure, Sf is a stand alone film and SP sits on its own clumsily trying to thread the story together.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    They missed a great opportunity I think, and in that respect using Mendes was a mistake. Its well documented Mendes is bond fan and his favourite bond and films are Roger Moore's.
    What do you mean, "well documented"? Mendes claimed here and there to be a Bond fan. In his films it´s hard to find much respect for either the novels or the film franchise.

  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    edited August 2016 Posts: 281
    He's said it in many interviews, before and during Sf and also SP.
    Mendes unpicked the reboot, made an anniversary film, then made the bond film he'd always wanted to, without the Blofeld connection SP could quite easily have followed dad such was the retrograde step.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    He's said it in many interviews, before and during Sf and also SP.
    Mendes unpicked the reboot, made an anniversary film, then made the bond film he'd always wanted to, without the Blofeld connection SP could quite easily have followed dad such was the retrograde step.
    Yes, he said it in interviews, but it doesn´t show in his films.
    I agree about DAD, that was the first film SP reminded me of.

  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    Other than he reintroduced q and Moneypenny, more gadgets sp, brought back m's iconic office and brought back the shtick which DC preports to hate. Dont get me wrong, I love all the bond films I just myself a bit dissapointed the reboot basically died as opposed to being built on, and the whole Blofeld brother thing was totally unnecessary imho
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I agree with that @Chriscoop the Brother thing ( foster or just childhood friend) was a
    Mistake. I think they were trying to be a little too clever.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    I think your right @Thunderpussy, I think that particular aspect of SP just pushes the bond fan too far, I try to ignore it and take Blofeld's whole I'm responsible for everything as just Blofeld messing with Bond's head.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    On first reading about it, I thought this must be a bit of bad journalism, as They
    Wouldn't copy ... Austin Powers ? ...... Would they ? :(
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    On first reading about it, I thought this must be a bit of bad journalism, as They
    Wouldn't copy ... Austin Powers ? ...... Would they ? :(
    How about that "Giant Lazur" in DAD?

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    To be honest Bond had one in 71 (DAF) ;)
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    This video expalins things nicely.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,591
    It doesn't really, because they're forgetting the fact that Bond was in Mexico City approximately two days before. At that point he was on a rogue mission, so the "work" M refers to at the end of SF has nothing to do with Bond's business in Mexico. I think the time interval between the two films is at least a few months.
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    I think it is more like a week, how come he didn't get personal effects from Skyfall for a few months?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,591
    RareJamesBondFan wrote: »
    I think it is more like a week, how come he didn't get personal effects from Skyfall for a few months?
    I think it would take longer than a week for Bond to receive his personal effects, as I'm sure numerous forensic investigations would have taken place after a mysterious helicopter attack on a private residence was reported by local Scottish authorities? All speculation of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.