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
So NTTD did right then?
It’ll never be non-canon.
If only because there isn't really such a thing as canon for Bond.
Well, I think there is, and it’s the Fleming estate and EON that are responsible for it. Whatever they put out goes.
Yes, E's just resting
To anyone who feels the need to try and tie every single Bond story as the same iteration of Bond, I honestly feel sorry for you. It's an impossible task, and it must cause a lot of stress. How could he have possibly gotten started in the early fifties as a 00, and is continuing on nearly seventy years later?
No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Stressing out over it though - stoopid! 8-}
The way Harry Palmer turned out to be Austin Powers dad?
Let’s say, yes. :P
It certainly explains how Craig ended up with the car from Goldfinger!
Interesting concept, perhaps we'll see the equivalent of Moore's son in a vintage Lotus next?
(Lazenby's son in the later model Aston might be too much to hope for?)
Heart attack?
Bathos plus pathos if at all.
NO mawkish sentimental bollox monologue about the actor's tenure projected onto the character, though ;)
Spot on.
It does take a suspension of disbelief to imagine it's all the same character, but it's no stress at all Nick. It's fun to see the little grave-visiting, shoe-sniffing scenes along the way. It was part of the pleasure of Bond movies for me, that little knowing wink to the audience that it's the same man all over the years. It made the Bond films unique in that way.
They've properly cocked it up now, obviously, but it was fun while it lasted.
What I meant by that is there's numerous ways of interpreting the chronology to suit one's own view of Bond. Connery through Brosnan could be the exact same man. They could all be separate, rebooted versions of the characters who just happened to share the same experiences (explaining the differences in tone between eras but also the way they reference each other). The same goes for the Craig era, albeit now more bluntly. You can take it or leave it. There's no right answer for Bond.
The literary Bond is a different matter.
PS And yes, I have no idea what that means either ... haha.
To paraphrase a famous line....
It means everything and nothing. ;)
A little too similar to... what was done several decades ago:
Oh, very nice, but already done perfectly the first time ... but the potential parallels between the McGoohan & Craig characters feel tantalizing real. And Fiennes' M, in NTTD, already feels like a potential "No. 2" figure.
So who was #1?