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
Then why doesn't Bond know Leiter or SPECTRE in Dr. No? And why does M say she misses Cold War if CR is set before movies such as Octopussy and The Living Daylights?
Stupid Mendes.
I don't mind people fantasising about timelines and stuff, but personally I will never look at the Bond franchise with "timelines" in mind.
Bond is not Star Trek, if you look for alternate timelines there you'll find a plenty.
Given how old Bond is, perhaps it's not too hard to see it that way ...
Exactly.
Hence I already took into account the two different main timelines in the Big Bond Poll @ClarkDevlin :-):
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/16631/bond-polls-2016-the-top-10-james-bond-007-film-ranking-contest-results-winner-on-page-60#latest
Regarding the three unofficial screen adaptations.......I did want to take into account the production chronology. Hence I put them in the list like I did.
But overall -if you check other Bond forums and IMDB forums- the above division in two main timelines is largely agreed upon.
That makes nice sense. Slight problem with Dalton remembering being married. I think they should have gone to the Bond identity as a code name or role switched between agents when they rebooted to be honest...that way the relationship with Judi Dench M makes more sense. (There's an argument for doing that even sooner in TLD, but M is only really developed as an actual character once it's Dench.) ...and might have made the end of Skyfall less silly as we could have avoided dour Scotland scenes (nothing wrong with Scotland, but it felt....cheap.)
Not exactly. Tim's/Pierce's Bond married Tracy in their timelines as well. OHMSS happened for them though we don't see it on screen obviously. No need for the Code Name theory.
Best to bring a new Bond in ,start afresh again..my worry is they will wait until 2020 ,to start a new Bond in a new decade,especially with his 60th anniversary in 2022.
Does "ongoing" mean anything that happens after Casino Royale regardless? Just trying to clarify.
If they carry on then that means Tracy never existed and Bond never married,which is not right,as that is all part of Bond's history and Fleming's writing.
Connery-Brosnan are all one time line loosely (I look at it like the events of the various batman comics they all fought Catwoman Joker Penguin but the when and how of the events uhm yeah )
Craig- (whomever is the next bond and possibly the next actor after that) is a new time line
end of discussion
Craig is in the same time line as Connery, he just came before. IF we want to time line the films, which imho is ridiculous and useless anyway.
How can you say that? You don't have as many earth shattering proves as I do.
Dalton and Brosnan are the same Bond and then there is Craig. Depending upon the age of his successor, his timeline can continue or a new one can begin with a younger actor.
There is no evidence for neither theory. EON has always just violated continuity as they pleased. Craig being a sorts of Bond Begins was no different really.
Biggest "proof" though that CR is not a new time line is Judi Dench of course.
And saying she played two different characters is downright silly and clinging to an illusion.
In theory, if Brosnan were to return in a one-off, Dench could also return because that M has not died.
I've felt this way for a while too and I'm not sure why. I think it's because of Moore's age and the sometimes melanchonic score (if you listen to Wine With Stacey, it's easy to imagine that playing over a scene of Bond deciding to retire). How about this as alternate ending to AVTAK: after the violence he's witnessed (the miners getting gunned down) Bond decides that he's had enough and he's too old. He turns Stacey down, and after one last visit to Tracy's grave, decides to take Moneypenny out for a drink. That's the end then TLD is a reboot. I think that would have been a great ending for Moore's version of Bond and Maxwell's moneypenny.
The pre-Craig films focused on the hero that is. Bond and told the story of each mission in a standalone film, thus updating the character and the setting without having to give it much of a thought. The dates are discarded (like the one on Tracy's gravestone) and don't play important parts for the audience, unless you're a die-hard fan and like to look too much into it and nitpick, like the DB5 in Skyfall and the constant assumption of it being the same as the one acquired from Dimitrios. It's just there, take it for what it is.
It's only the Craig films that started this tight continuity "relevance". It can be made to work out on many pasted ideas with a fan's creative mind. But, at the end of the day, it's just its own. If a film tells you the otherwise, then you can start thinking about it. If it doesn't, then it isn't.
1. Connery/Lazenby/Moore.
2. Dalton/Brosnan
3. Craig
Bond, with Q, was looking at some of the gadgets from his past adventures, even smelling Klebb's shoe, if memory serves... So wouldn't that indicate that Bond is (loosely) the same man from Dr No to DAD?
(even the reference about Tracy in LTK, would suppose that Dalton Bond was also in the original timeline)
Yep! Like I said, the pre-Craig films never "rebooted" Bond, never started a new timeline. They just move the timeline into newer settings. So, if Dr. No happened in 1962, with Brosnan, you're going to suppose it happened in 1982, or whatever. It just updates it, without coherence in detection of a continuity. It's all the same. There's no "old Bond", "young Bond" in either. The aging character debuted in the Craig timeline to certain given dates.
You sir, are a wise man. ;)