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
Hm, all right. Depends on B25.
However, always quite felt LTK had a ‘last film’ vibe to it. Maybe more ‘end of an era’ feel though. Classic Bond finishes there in 1989 with the final tunes of Patti LaBelle’s end title song. Modern Bond quite appropriately starts with the synth beats of the GE gunbarrel.
There is never a final mission in my, excuse the term, view.
Quite true. That would be most unfortunate.
I also agree that there is no "final mission" with James Bond. It just goes on and on, like EastEnders.
But I think the least that can be said of AVTAK is, it's a real recognition of time passing. Obviously Rog's age, but with that the length of his tenure, and even a recognition that he really could have been playing Bond since 1962. With him go certain ties to an old movie glamour. Further, conservative 80s Britain is pretty much the complete opposite of 60s Britain; you could reasonably argue that Glen's first three films were heritage films but not TLD or LTK.
Admittedly there are obvious reasons to see GE as the start of the modern era: (1) change in tone between LTK and GE, (2) the change of lead actors, (3) the change in producers, and (4) the six year gap.
But the change in tone between two films is nothing special (FRWL/GF, OHMSS/DAF, MR/FYEO). So I think maybe instead of 'tone' the right word would be 'energy.' Fans see GE as re-invigorating energy into the franchise, energy which possibly could be described as American. However, I think there's a case that LTK does this; maybe a less obvious one that TLD does it beforehand.
TLD really seems closer to GE in attitude than to any of the Bonds before it. I know fans like to include it with the more 'gritty' entries in the franchise (I disagree) but even granting the point I think that the combination of energy, lead actor, and style and amount and focus of action alone precludes it from the usual placement alongside FRWL et al. LTK is also vastly different than what came before. (Ironically, GE bases itself on being a remix of what came before, and is seen as the start of the 'new' point.)
In terms of lead actor change, Brosnan and Tim are very different but Glen has stated that if Brosnan had starred in TLD the film would've been the same. In this regard I don't think the film misses Brosnan.
In terms of producers, Cubby did take more of a backseat. GE was in many ways Barbara and MGW's show. But it's also noteworthy that TLD was the first Bond film on which Barbara was credited as a producer, and that the interest the film had in its main character carries more forward into the present than backward into the past.
In light of all this I just feel like the six-year gap between LTK and GE is a little too convenient of a line in the sand. I see more of a through-line going forward from TLD than backward. I think TLD is to GE in the modern era what DN was to GF in the classic.
As for the character, I can see where you are going with this @barryt007 you cite that this incarnation of Bond could have been the same Bond we saw back in 1962. I always felt the shoe horning in of Tracy into LTK as a bit of a stretch. I remember thinking how the hell was this Bond (Tim's) able to be married to Tracy in 1969. It just felt wrong. Yet when Anya brings it up to Bond in TSWLM I don't shudder, and even when we see her grave in FYEO it feels okay.
To your point of Bond's age, I remember thinking of his struggles in this film. When May Day somehow wraps him up in the string during the Tower sequence and his struggle to get out of the string. When he has trouble dusting off the couple of thugs in the plant at the stables. When in TMWTGG he handles 3 thugs with no real trouble.
You may have redeemed this film in my eyes!
I always view it as Bonds final mission and it really enhances the enjoyment of the film,and you really get behind Bond,knowing the odds he is up against.
You can see that when he finds out that Tibbet has been killed,the amount of young,strong people all arriving on horses and cars,practically surrounding him at the Rolls Royce.
He knows he is possibly out of his depth due to age,as Zorin points at at city hall later.
An even bigger stretch would occur 10 years later in TWINE when Tracy is indirectly referenced in a conversation between Brosnan's Bond and Elektra.
I get around it this way: I consider that Connery, Lazenby and Moore all essentially played the same Bond with all the same adventures from DN in 1962 to AVTAK in 1985. Then when the Dalton era started the series got a partial reboot for the ages of both Bond and Miss Moneypenny. Dalton Bond experienced all the DN-AVTAK adventures but they happened more recently for him. When Brosnan took over, he and Dalton essentially played the same Bond with the events of TLD and LTK retroactively occurring between the events of the GE PTS and the remainder of the GE film.
It's the only one that feels designed as a farewell story. It's Bond at one final mission, and as such after a period of inactivity. It's Bond ending his service and living it out with Domino at his retreat at the Bahamas. It's as happy an ending as any Bond could ever get.
I would love to see this in Bond 25, but sadly I don't think that it's in the cards. They teased it a bit in SF but I always found that a bit much. He wasn't gone for long how could all those skills erode that fast.
I really think this universe and timeline stuff can get a bit much. Outside of Bond's wife being mentioned and in FRWL referencing DN I don't think there has ever been a lot of continuity between the films. It was only when we got to CR that the producers have attempted to build on the character and add a complex continued story line.
I agree 100% and have posted this theory several times. I've had a long time, not adopted by many, that there have been 2 re-boots, with three different incarnations of Bond. Now I know there inconsistencies, actors who have appeared in multiple incarnations, such as Judi Dench, and other things that muddy the waters, but I base my theory on two things, the ages of the actors and the fact that Bond in always in the present day.
With that said, Connery, Lazenby and Moore are the same James bond; although played by different actors, the Bond in Dr. No is the Bond in A View to a Kill. This does make AVTAK bonds final mission , of that incarnation.
Dalton and Brosnan are the next, with the Bond we see in Living Daylights being the same Bond in Die Another Day.
Finally there's Craig.
And the thing is the same names and events can exist in different timelines/incarnations. Tracy existed in Dalton's universe but it wasn't the same Tracy as in the Lazenby film. Look at M; the same actress plays M but they are not the same M. Craigs M died; theoretically if they were to do a one off with Brosnan, Dench could return as that M.
It's entirely feasible that in Craig's incarnation , he has dealt with Dr. No and Goldfinger but we didn't see those stories.
Absolutely.
TWINE does the same thing when Bond's shoulder is injured in the pretitle and referred to a couple times and then it's conveniently forgotten and it doesn't affect him the rest of the film.
We don't need a superman, but at the same time he is and if the creators are going to go that route by giving him things to humanize him then have the courage to take it all the way. I guess that's part of Cubby's mandate that nobody wants to see Bond as an amateur.
LTK implied he'd go back to the service, and nothing in DAD, the only other time he'd have reason to leave, implies that he would. Only SP really implies this, as in Skyfall he was simply incapacitated and implied to have been in amnesia prior to returning to the service.
Well, we got the answer to that.
Yup x) NTTD is obviously as “final mission” as it gets. Thread resolved!
I told you.
DN---LTK
GE---DAD
CR---NTTD
The only thing that kinds of spoils it is that we have the same M for the last two series. Course that also happened in the first films, but given the character was re-imagined in the last group of films this is a bit weird.
Course CR series also references a car given to Bond in 1964 with an ejector seat so who the hell knows at this point. I have come to wish the producers give the Aston a rest with the next fellow!
My own segmentation would be Connery - Moore, Dalton - Brosnan, Craig.
DN-MR feel like the one, true series of Bond films to me. Everything after that feels a bit like officially-recognised fanfic.