› ›

which timeline to follow after craig departs???

danielcraigbonddanielcraigbond Suspended
edited November 2012 in Bond 26 & Beyond Posts: 39
continue craigs timeline or go back to the original timeline that ended with die another day . recast all the bond charachters like q and moneypenny and M or keep the same ones from the craig era ?
«1

Comments

  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    danielcraigbond wrote:
    continue craigs timeline or go back to the original timeline that ended with die another day . recast all the bond charachters like q and moneypenny and M or keep the same ones from the craig era ?

    Think Eons long term plan has been made clear by the age of the actors playing Q and moneypenny. I expect the actors to be playing the roles for twenty years. I think they will just continue to follow the Craig 'post total reboot' bond :-)
  • Pauly_TPauly_T
    Posts: 17
    I think the general critical and fan response to QoS put EON off the idea of a whole separate timeline. Skyfall seems like a first attempt to blur the stark line they drew in the series w/ CR and followed through QoS. I think by the end of DC's run, aside from some casting, the line will be pretty much indistinguishable.
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    Indeed, didn't Sam Mendes make some comments regarding Skyfall being something of a 'loop' with Dr No?

    It'll be interesting if the Bond in the next film has been married previously (if they choose to drop in that bit of information). I'm not sure anybody knows for sure.
  • 00070070007007
    Posts: 12
    i hope they follow craigs :)
  • calvindysoncalvindyson
    Posts: 31
    Pauly_T wrote:
    I think the general critical and fan response to QoS put EON off the idea of a whole separate timeline. Skyfall seems like a first attempt to blur the stark line they drew in the series w/ CR and followed through QoS. I think by the end of DC's run, aside from some casting, the line will be pretty much indistinguishable.

    I agree though I'm not best pleased about it. I'm totally fine with having two timelines, Connery - Brosnan and now Craig onwards, but it felt like the 50th anniversary put some pressure on the film makers to pay homage to Bond's legacy even if it doesn't make sense to do so in the current timeline.

    On the otherhand I'm glad there's never been a convoluted attempt to explain the timeline in the films themselves. It's a mess but we'll just have to live with it!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 2012 Posts: 8,255
    I've always thought that, although some of the actors carried over as Bond actors changed, we are actually seeing the third timeline. The first being Connery, Lazenby, Moore, those three being the same Bond in the same timeline; the Bond who encountered Dr No is the same who delt with Max Zorin. The next Tmeline features Dalton, Brosnan and the third Craig. From this point on the next actor will remain part of the Craig timeline or a new one will begin.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Since we've pretty much got the normal one back now anyway it won't make much difference.
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Just throwing this out there because I've heard other people mention it on other discussions and I thought it was an interesting idea. What if after Craig's Bond films are up, they start a new, retro timeline where Bond is back in the 50's/60's, just like in the books. As unlikely as this may be, it's still pretty interesting.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    The Bond timeline is an absolute mess haha. SF has apparently reconciled the Craig timeline with the DN-DAD semi-continuous-but-not-really timeline. How does one explain the timeline of YOLT-OHMSS-DAF? Or Moore to Dalton? Or Dalton to Brosnan? Just don't think about it too hard or your head will explode.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I think things work up until TLD, where Bond suddenly gets younger.
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    What if after Craig's Bond films are up, they start a new, retro timeline where Bond is back in the 50's/60's, just like in the books. As unlikely as this may be, it's still pretty interesting.

    Nah, I wouldn't like that. Bad idea imo, Bond should move with the times (but not change too much).
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    Pauly_T wrote:
    Skyfall seems like a first attempt to blur the stark line they drew in the series

    I'm not sure. Skyfall came across as very much a 50 year celebration. The number of knowing nods to the past, while well done in parts, were laboured in others. I hope they return to the Quantum trilogy as we still have to have Mr. White dealt with.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Its gotten very messy if you think about Bond like this? But not as messed up as the STAR TREK timelines?!!!!! ~X( 8-}
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,989
    None i hope the series ends after craig and this is coming from a hardcore James Bond fan
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    It'll never happen while there's money to be made. Look at Star Wars. In hindsight, we could happily lose Episodes 1-3, never to be seen again. Now they want to make Episode 7, 8 and 9?!!!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote:
    The Bond timeline is an absolute mess haha. SF has apparently reconciled the Craig timeline with the DN-DAD semi-continuous-but-not-really timeline. How does one explain the timeline of YOLT-OHMSS-DAF? Or Moore to Dalton? Or Dalton to Brosnan? Just don't think about it too hard or your head will explode.

    LOL. And now who comes first, the chicken (Lee) or the egg (Dench)? Recall his "appearance" in TWINE.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Ya, this isn't a pseudo-chronological timeline like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or LOTR. Enjoy the films by themselves and then smile when a reference to YOLT happens in Bond 24.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,043
    Seriously they are not attempting to rejoin the previous time lines, it's like banging your head against a brick wall with some of you.

    Craig's era despite all the nods to the past has nothing to do with Connery's, Lazenby's Moore's, Dalton's or Brosnan's. Can't we just accept this is a new beginning and stop trying to link these films with the previous era, some of you are taking Mendes comments a little too literally, he doesn't actually mean it's starting at the beginning with Dr No he's saying this is reverting to the original Bond type it's still Craig's era he's just getting the male M and the office with Q & MP it's not going back to any previous era, is it that hard to grasp this?

    Too much wishful thinking on this forum me thinks!

    How many more bloody threads on this subject?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Shardlake wrote:
    Craig's era despite all the nods to the past has nothing to do with Connery's, Lazenby's Moore's, Dalton's or Brosnan's. Can't we just accept this is a new beginning and stop trying to link these films with the previous era, some of you are taking Mendes comments a little too literally, he doesn't actually mean it's starting at the beginning with Dr No he's saying this is reverting to the original Bond type it's still Craig's era he's just getting the male M and the office with Q & MP it's not going back to any previous era, is it that hard to grasp this?

    Too much wishful thinking on this forum me thinks!

    We have Q, Moneypenny, Ms old office. I think we're pretty much back in the old timeline. Or if Craigs is still different then it's gotten extremely similar hasn't it?

    No it's not the beginning of Dr No but the reboot arc is pretty much over now I think. We're back to normal and I think that's what SFs ending was saying.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    The surroundings are familiar but we are talking about Craig's Bond where the others don't exist this is his universe and by the casting of the familiar characters I'll bet they have not intention of starting things again, the next Bond will pick up where Craig left off, the same Bond new face like happened before.

    M is male, we have Q we have MP why does this mean we are moving back to the old timeline? as i said before too much wishful thinking on this subject.
  • JamesStockJamesStock
    Posts: 572
    How about viewing it as there is no timeline. Yes the films are linked together, some more than others, but time itself is out the window really. I like to see that there are a few clusters that represent a timeline like OHMSS-DAF-FYEO and CR-QOS-SF. You could also argue that DR, FRWL, and TB must precede the OHMSS-DAF-FYEO timeline. I also like to ignore references to whatever era the film was made. But all in all, I don't think it should be looked as some set timeline (or dual timelines) exist.

    Each film or mini-timeline stand on their own.
  • 00130013
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,817
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    Craig's era despite all the nods to the past has nothing to do with Connery's, Lazenby's Moore's, Dalton's or Brosnan's. Can't we just accept this is a new beginning and stop trying to link these films with the previous era, some of you are taking Mendes comments a little too literally, he doesn't actually mean it's starting at the beginning with Dr No he's saying this is reverting to the original Bond type it's still Craig's era he's just getting the male M and the office with Q & MP it's not going back to any previous era, is it that hard to grasp this?

    Too much wishful thinking on this forum me thinks!

    We have Q, Moneypenny, Ms old office. I think we're pretty much back in the old timeline. Or if Craigs is still different then it's gotten extremely similar hasn't it?

    No it's not the beginning of Dr No but the reboot arc is pretty much over now I think. We're back to normal and I think that's what SFs ending was saying.

    But M is called Gareth Mallory not Miles.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Shardlake wrote:
    The surroundings are familiar but we are talking about Craig's Bond where the others don't exist this is his universe and by the casting of the familiar characters I'll bet they have not intention of starting things again, the next Bond will pick up where Craig left off, the same Bond new face like happened before.

    M is male, we have Q we have MP why does this mean we are moving back to the old timeline? as i said before too much wishful thinking on this subject.

    No they're not going to reboot it again.

    It's basically the same as the old timeline.
    0013 wrote:
    But M is called Gareth Mallory not Miles.

    And M was a woman in the Brosnan films, which were still part of the old timeline.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    But M is called Gareth Mallory not Miles.

    And M was a woman in the Brosnan films, which were still part of the old timeline.

    But being CR a reboot it means Brosnan's M is not the same as Craig's M (which is obvious by the fact that in GE Bond's tenure as a double 0 agent is longer than M's as the chief, which doesn't happen in CR where M gives Bond the double 0 status).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    talos7 wrote:
    I've always thought that, although some of the actors carried over as Bond actors changed, we are actually seeing the third timeline. The first being Connery, Lazenby, Moore, those three being the same Bond in the same timeline; the Bond who encountered Dr No is the same who delt with Max Zorin. The next Tmeline features Dalton, Brosnan and the third Craig. From this point on the next actor will remain part of the Craig timeline or a new one will begin.

    To build on this, each time an actor of another generation takes on the role of Bond it marks a new incarnation of the character, even if some of the supporting actors overlap in the same roles such as M and Q . As 0013 pointed out, Brosnan's M is not Craig's M even if she is portrayed by the same Actress. I believe incarnation is a more applicable term than timeline.

    1. Connery, Lazenby, Moore

    2. Dalton, Brosnan

    3. Craig, ?

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    0013 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    But M is called Gareth Mallory not Miles.

    And M was a woman in the Brosnan films, which were still part of the old timeline.

    But being CR a reboot it means Brosnan's M is not the same as Craig's M (which is obvious by the fact that in GE Bond's tenure as a double 0 agent is longer than M's as the chief, which doesn't happen in CR where M gives Bond the double 0 status).

    I never said Brosnans M and Craigs M were the same. I said M doesn't have to be called Miles for it to be the old timeline. Even if we're not back in the old timeline it's basically exactly the same now so it doesn't matter, they'll just carry on as normal now.
  • 00130013
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,817
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    But M is called Gareth Mallory not Miles.

    And M was a woman in the Brosnan films, which were still part of the old timeline.

    But being CR a reboot it means Brosnan's M is not the same as Craig's M (which is obvious by the fact that in GE Bond's tenure as a double 0 agent is longer than M's as the chief, which doesn't happen in CR where M gives Bond the double 0 status).

    I never said Brosnans M and Craigs M were the same. I said M doesn't have to be called Miles for it to be the old timeline. Even if we're not back in the old timeline it's basically exactly the same now so it doesn't matter, they'll just carry on as normal now.

    Ok. Well... I won't call it the same, although you're right, they are very similar. However the M's could never be the same not only because of the name (Miles/Gareth Mallory) but also for the rank and military background (Navy Admiral/Lieutenent Colonel in the Army).

    In my opinion this is very clearly a new timeline being after the reboot of CR.
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    What 0013 said is right, there are problems with M timeline since the C-R reboot, and what they did explain it in S-f, is that "that problem is solved", thanks to Gareth Malory character...So as written above, we're having the good old-timeline again. :) Whatever Craig's tenure or not anymore... I think so.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    LicencedToKilt69007 wrote:
    What 0013 said is right, there are problems with M timeline since the C-R reboot, and what they did explain it in S-f, is that "that problem is solved", thanks to Gareth Malory character...So as written above, we're having the good old-timeline again. :) Whatever Craig's tenure or not anymore... I think so.

    That's the opposite of what I said. With SF the timeline of Craig is the same, a rebooted one and not the old.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 392
    Lois Maxwell was black then? Bond travels in time, Star Trek style?
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Timelines are so tedious
Sign In or Register to comment.