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 think he wanted to move on and do other things. I know he couldn't do LTK because he had Throat Surgery. He gave David Arnold his approval so I guess he got bored. He passed on also scoring the Incredibles because he didn't want to rehash his old work. Though listening to his later works, they just didn't sound up to Par. I don't think he could top his score to TLD so I ended his run on a very high note.
Anyone?
We know that Connery/Lazenby/Moore are the same character, even though the actor playing Bond changed. It's also hinted that Dalton is still the same character ("he was married once," LTK). What about Brosnan? Was GoldenEye also a reboot of sorts that establishes a new timeline from the other films the way Casino Royale did?
Also, since Casino Royale is a reboot that establishes a new chronology and timeline, what about M? Is the M (played by Judi Dench) the same person as the M from the Brosnan films, or are those four movies "erased"? It's confusing because usually when there is a reboot of a franchise new actors are cast, but in the case of the Craig-era, they retained one of the actors, playing the same role as they did in the old chronology/timeline.
Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan = same timeline
Craig = Alternative timeline
Judi Dench plays two separate characters, both of whom happen to be head of MI6.
Bond's age has never been chronologically relevant until we get to Craig's parallel universe reboot era, where his age (and experience) were focused on in CR. It's no use trying to place the characters and events of all 23 films in order because of certain contradictions... but it's always fun to try. ;)
Agreed. I'm a big Trek fan so I'm always looking out for inconsistencies when it comes to timelines.
Try being a Red Dwarf fan, it will drive you nuts. With Bond I think most fans don't really think about it. One of the appeals of the Bond fantasy is that he is eternally youthful and even if he does age, i.e., Roger Moore in the 1980s, he is once again seen in his early 40s in the next film with a change of actors.
OHMSS also happens in this timeline as well as the first one, then you have the Goldeneye PTS. After 006 dies M is ordered to send the 00s on a training mission to Gilbatar and TLD begins. Then there's LTK and after that M isn't sure about giving Bond his job back. He gives him a last chance by sending him to work in Japan. Bond meets Tanaka and Blofeld is still alive after the events of OHMSS, etc. So we get YOLT. Like in the book, Bond loses his memory and goes to Russia. He gets his identity back and meets Zukofsky for the first time but he ends up captured, brainwashed etc, and TMWTGG begins. Then there's Colonel Sun, and then the cold war ends. Bond has a few other adventures including one involving Paris Carver. Robert Browns M has been getting more and more stressed though, the assassination attempt and kidnapping have taken there toll on him and in the end he decides to retire. Judi Dench turns up to take over and when she reads up on Bond she can't believe that Bond was even allowed to keep his job after LTK, let alone after trying to kill M. She's not sure about firing him though because he does get results so she sends somebody to evaluate him and Goldeneye continues.
The only hole in the theory I ever saw was how in LTK Felix mentions to Della that Bond was married once, but "it was a long time ago" when our theories state that LTK takes place not very long after OHMSS.
They used Pierce Brosnan's likeness in NF but I assume it was just a matter of the game makers not wanting to fork over the cash for those 3 to lend their voices.
Maybe hats went out of fashion in the 70s for men , cept Kojak ;)
Come to think of it Moore never wore hats , did he......and yet he was often seen throwing a hat in Ms office lol ?
After JFK gave the state of the union address in 1963 he was the first President to arrive to the ceremony not wearing a hat. After that hats immediately went out of style. The Bond films were just keeping up with the trends didn't want Bond to come off as uncool. By the 70s derbies, like the one Bond wore in DN and FRWL, were generally considered an old man kind of thing.
As an American I never understood what everyone's obsession was with JFK. It's silly to think that such a small decision would drive such a mainstay like the hat out of style for men. But it was the 60s so not much made sense in my country.
I've always felt it was a goof, as he mentions it later in the shower:
"I like you better without your Beretta."
Seeing as the casino scene is the first time Bond and Severine are properly introduced, I just see it as a goof.
If I recall correctly, the dress Severine wears in the casino is see-through in the back, so maybe that's what he meant? I've debated the line often myself.
That could be it. It's not necessarily backless, but perhaps since it's revealing, Bond considers it so.
Where did the idea of Fleming writing these gritty, realistic espionage stories come from? It's something I don't really understand. Some of them were more down to earth sure but some of the stuff he wrote was just as insane as some of the films people slag off for being too OTT.
A Nazi posing who has been posing an English soldier since WW2 ended is planning to blow up London. A short bloke with a gold fetish planning to rob Fort Knox. A Chinese gang member turned evil genius with an underground base who sends Bond on an obstacle course of death complete with a giant squid.
So why does Fleming now mean gritty and realistic?
I haven't read as much Fleming as many here, but for me Fleming was able to take the extraordinary and make you believe it was possible. His writing was earnest and down to earth, making you believe that this kind of stuff could actually happen. Compare that to the more campy and outlandish Bond films with tongues stuck firmly in the cheek that in my opinion sacrifice this earnestness for laughs, and you have your answer.
Yes, and we're so determined to know that we start seeking out female fashion magazines to research exactly what constitutes a dress to be "backless", followed by numerous attempts at contacting Vera Wang, only to constantly get her assistants on the line who are "too busy " to forward my call. Not that I've had any experience with this sorta thing before, though... :-\"
I do ask myself the same question, often. The word 'gritty' (which I personally hate) seems to have been adopted by some as a substitute for 'better'. This idea has been perpetuated that the Fleming novels are 'gritty', which in turn is seen as validation for those films that are supposedly 'gritty'. Again, I hate the word, it's a misnomer in the Bond world as it pertains to show a world view without distortion. Bond's world view is distorted, that's what makes it so unique. As you say, Fleming had a bit of balance in there, but for me, I was always truly stoked by the bizarre, otherworldly elements that seemed to raise his books above the norm. The quirks, and the less realistic content are what make the world of Bond sing, for me. It's one of my pet hates when forum users hijack the words 'gritty' and 'realistic' in a bid to defend their arguments. Nothing in the world of Bond is realistic, period.
He also had a torrid time with AHA who wanted more and more control over the score etc and they got their own way on most of what they wanted.
Barry didn't like it and this also contributed to him stopping.
She was supposedly going to be introduced gradually and Lois Maxwell phased out as Moneypenny but they changed their mind,hence the long introduction but never appearing again.
Plus I heard Lois Maxwell wasn't really crazy about the idea of being phased out. Either way we had to get a new Moneypenny for TLD. Seeing a 58/59 year old Lois Maxwell hitting on Timothy Dalton would've just been disturbing.
She was alright, but Bliss was a better MP, IMO.