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
I've brought this question up before, but it really is a matter of the prop department using the current month/day/year. There's no need to look into the dates and come up with a timeline solely based off of those. If the dates were correct, why would there be a two-year gap between the scenes in the Bahamas in CR and the Eco Party in QoS?
As for the mission handed to Bond at the end of SF? Obviously it was nothing but blank pages, it's not like the screenwriters concocted a unique, original mission to place in a packet that nobody would ever see. Just a generic ending that those involved didn't want to follow through with when the time came to write and shoot SP.
Finally some f***ing sense.
Woah.
Some very interesting questions that I didn't consider regarding the time-jump.
However, I have to completely disagree with you and others about SF's ageing theme. For me, it's the one thing that distinguished that film and really gave it some gravitas. Even reading some of the comments here makes me slightly confused. People appear to want there Bond to be completely unflappable and always 'the best'. There's very little dramatically interesting about that. Also if you want that, then just watch a Roger Moore film. If this route is utilised the character becomes stodgy and stagnant.
The Bond in SF felt like a natural evolution from the naive upstart we met in CR. DC looked all his 45 years and the story is essentially Bond's mid-life crisis; as he questions his relevancy and his ability to physically and mentally do the job, that we know him to be typically so competent at. That's some really interesting dramatic meat that Mendes and Craig chew on.
The film obviously allows Bond to win and he proves his relevance in a new world. 007 is embraced by the new MI6 and we see him back in full swing in the sequel. The Bond in SP is renewed and reenergised as he has a new sense of purpose driving him (his own personal mission left to him by Judi's M).
As for the time jump......
It's hard to peg down. I believe the bureaucratic red-tape that would need to be cut through to implement CNS could take years. Not to mention design and build their new HQ. So I suspect the entire enterprise to take up to 2-3 years in film time. In reality, it would be far longer. However, the attack on MI6 may have sped things up in the real world.
However, the film tells us that Bond got the video message from M a week after her funeral. Do we really think it would take him 3 years to find Sciarra? Maybe? After all, he is the top assassin for a secret organisation.
But it dosen't make sense considering how advanced Q's resources are. After all he uses a magic ring finder on a ski lift. Couldn't he have done some research for 007? Or couldn't Bond have hacked into Q's system?
By trying to tie everything together, Craig's continuity-ridden era has tied itself into knots. But who cares? As long as the films are entertaining. Despite their attempts at tying things togethers, I still think Craig's films are relatively self-enclosed.
The films aren't made back to back.
Exactly!! Thank you!! It is confusing to me that he gets a "blank" mission. So we are supposed to just act like that mission never happened? I am just curious to know what exactly he did. People can say it doesn't matter but to me it does. The next movie immediately starts with Bond on a rogue mission. It has nothing to do with the "mission", "M" handed him at the end of "SF".
Sure that's "not how storytelling works", but if Craig's franchise did what the rest of the Bond series did and made every film completely seperate and new then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Instead all of his films are linked and they all involve tracking down Quantum and Spectre agents.
The movies have gaps in terms of filming, and shortened (or none at all, depending on the storyline) gaps in terms of the story. You aren't suggesting CR and QoS were filmed back-to-back, I would hope.
Obviously QoS takes place immediately after CR; White is in the trunk and he is fleeing from his men as he drives through Italy. I'd rather believe in that continuity than follow on-screen dates and wonder where the two-year gap inexplicably occurs from CR to QoS.
No obviously not "filmed" back to back, but "Qos, takes place right after the Mr. White scene in "CR"...
The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).
Completely forgot about that...
Maybe they just have those cars in stock though? LOL
That explains it then, there was a time jump after all. That has bugged me forever!
PS they missed a trick as they could have put "Project something" on the cover, something to reference in the new movie.
This is going solely off of the placeholder dates in the movies. If this was true, why would Bond wait two whole years after receiving White's phone number to track him down, call him, and kidnap him?
Having said that, even back in 2006, I felt that the final scene took place some time after the rest of the film. As if at least six months had passed before Bond tracked down White. There was something different about Bond in that scene. Cooler. More 'fully formed'. It's a shame that we're still on that track 10 yrs later imho, but hopefully we finally move on soon.
So why are Bond and M talking about LeChiffre's corpse two years later? And is Bond still grieving about Vesper?
Aging bond in Sf just put a limit on DC's tenure, it also cheapens bonds work rate, in his entire career he's only been sent on three errands.
;)
Is it a mess, though? The films are still great, CR is a borderline masterpiece. Why this would ever, ever be a problem to people absolutely baffles me. I think some of you need to go and have a good shag or something. A drink at least.
I love both films and couldn't care less about the continuity. Continuity ceased to be important since the 1960's when OHMSS came along.