Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Continuïty has become more vital for the Bond franchise ever since 'Casino Royale'
Perhaps most fans have heard from Elaine Schreyeck. Back in the old days she was responsible for 'continuity'....whatever that may be. But if you ask me, both 'Cubby' and Harry were not really in the position to focus heavily on the continuity that Ian Fleming created with his ongoing series of Bond novels.
I think money was actually the main issue for this. We all know 'Thunderball' was en route to become the first ever Bond film, but a heavy fight in the courts between Kevin McGlory and Fleming prevented this.
But most importantly, back in 1962 many of Fleming's novels were quite hard to translate into a movie. Cubby and Harry had to proof United Artists that they could gather enough money with their first Bond film. So what do you do then? You pick the novel that is easy enough to put into a film. Novels like 'OHMSS' were quite hard to use back in 1962, as there weren't very good options to film extensive ski chase scenes. At least, it could have been done, but the budget for the film would have prevented a perfect and believable execution of these kind of scenes.
So I think already in the 1960's the decision was made to take continuity with a grain of salt and let the chronological order of the novels behind. With that, certain continuity mistakes were made, of which the one in 1969's 'OHMSS' was the perfect example. I mean, it's a continuity mistake if Blofeld doesn't recognize 007 from the previous events in 'YOLT', no?
But I have the feeling that this is being corrected almost perfectly ever since Barbara and Michael had the opportunity to film the novel 'Casino Royale'. The first ever Bond novel adventure gave us a complete new timeline in which all the events from 1962's 'Doctor No' until 2002's 'Die Another Day' were wisely....erased. Time to start again up to scratch, was most likely the motto of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson.
It also gave the screenplay writers more creative freedom to re-introduce important characters. From the main character 007 to Felix Leiter ('CR'), from Mr. White to QUANTUM ('CR' and 'QOS'), from Vesper Lyndt and Bond's memories of her to Severine ('CR' and 'SF'), from Bond being an orphan to his parents Andrew Bond & Monique DeLacroix-Bond ('CR' and 'SF') and from 'M', 'Q' and even Miss Moneypenny ('SF').
And, here is were I kick in a new discussion: From the events in 'Skyfall' to Bond's new mission briefing and the 'For Your Eyes Only' folder he receives from the new 'M' at the end of 'Skyfall'........ My question therefore: Wouldn't it be nice if Bond 24 kicks off with exactly the same scene in 'M's 'leather door office' straight away after the PTS (Actually making 'M' respond on Bond's remark "With pleasure 'M'........with pleasure !", making the actual PTS from Bond 24 an exciting one with no appearance at all of James Bond 007 ?????
I think money was actually the main issue for this. We all know 'Thunderball' was en route to become the first ever Bond film, but a heavy fight in the courts between Kevin McGlory and Fleming prevented this.
But most importantly, back in 1962 many of Fleming's novels were quite hard to translate into a movie. Cubby and Harry had to proof United Artists that they could gather enough money with their first Bond film. So what do you do then? You pick the novel that is easy enough to put into a film. Novels like 'OHMSS' were quite hard to use back in 1962, as there weren't very good options to film extensive ski chase scenes. At least, it could have been done, but the budget for the film would have prevented a perfect and believable execution of these kind of scenes.
So I think already in the 1960's the decision was made to take continuity with a grain of salt and let the chronological order of the novels behind. With that, certain continuity mistakes were made, of which the one in 1969's 'OHMSS' was the perfect example. I mean, it's a continuity mistake if Blofeld doesn't recognize 007 from the previous events in 'YOLT', no?
But I have the feeling that this is being corrected almost perfectly ever since Barbara and Michael had the opportunity to film the novel 'Casino Royale'. The first ever Bond novel adventure gave us a complete new timeline in which all the events from 1962's 'Doctor No' until 2002's 'Die Another Day' were wisely....erased. Time to start again up to scratch, was most likely the motto of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson.
It also gave the screenplay writers more creative freedom to re-introduce important characters. From the main character 007 to Felix Leiter ('CR'), from Mr. White to QUANTUM ('CR' and 'QOS'), from Vesper Lyndt and Bond's memories of her to Severine ('CR' and 'SF'), from Bond being an orphan to his parents Andrew Bond & Monique DeLacroix-Bond ('CR' and 'SF') and from 'M', 'Q' and even Miss Moneypenny ('SF').
And, here is were I kick in a new discussion: From the events in 'Skyfall' to Bond's new mission briefing and the 'For Your Eyes Only' folder he receives from the new 'M' at the end of 'Skyfall'........ My question therefore: Wouldn't it be nice if Bond 24 kicks off with exactly the same scene in 'M's 'leather door office' straight away after the PTS (Actually making 'M' respond on Bond's remark "With pleasure 'M'........with pleasure !", making the actual PTS from Bond 24 an exciting one with no appearance at all of James Bond 007 ?????
^ 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'm sorry, but I can't believe that. Continuity is not THAT big a thing compared for instance with 'Star Trek'..... Hence the fact that even movies like the recent 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'Fast & Furious 6' follow continuity patterns almost very strictly.
Why not? On the other hand, I wasn´t upset at all by QoS apparently starting right where CR ended even though everybody had different clothes on. Nor did I see a big problem in SF giving the impression that it happens at least 6 or 7 years after CR and QoS. Strict continuity is blown as soon as the next actor comes in. I think Eon are quite clever indeed with their way of continuity. I mean, CR wasn´t a complete reboot. Leave away the mentioning that Bond has just become a double-oh, and you have a direct continuation from the previous films, albeit more down-to-earth in the action department, and with a different lead actor.
I see both points here. @Perdogg makes sense to me. CR while an awesome movie on it's own merits that did not lose the key points of the novel with LeChiffre, a criminal organization, Vesper, Mathis, etc, also followed a reboot trend. It seemed to work out well enough as far as establishing Craig and making the film stand out rather than it being just the latest Bond adventure. QOS got compared to Bourne due to the style in which it was filmed. And SF had elements of other popular films that weren't in the spy genre, yet the reminders from prior adventures brought CR/QOS full circle and reminded me that this was the regular Bond now restored to normalcy by way of acknowledging Bond's past. He also brought up another trend by pointing to a recent article in the Daily Mail that states how formulaic scripts are in a sense of writing format. The biggest problem is one I've seen for years, there simply aren't a lot of original ideas going around and many films are redundant as a result. You tweak what you can if you're a writer to put a different spin on it, but someone will always see through it. When "Nightmare On Elm Street" came out, it was ferociously original and revitalized the horror genre to a certain extent. If I had an original idea for a story that Hollywood clamored for, I could be a rich man right now. You only need one.
As far as BOND24 picking up where Skyfall left off, I'd say why not but I think it would be better to just begin with the gunbarrel and PTS and move from there to M giving Bond his current assignment. Especially since they plan for 24 and 25 at this point to be related to the other as were CR and QOS. The fact that the clothes had changed in the beginning of QOS showed the continuity person was either ignored by Forster or wasn't doing their job in that respect as Bond's suit surely was different and without explanation. I'm not a person who harps on minute detail but it's a very good point when it is noticed and beginning 24 this way is no good if the continuity is wrong, meaning the same clothes for not two but three, and one with his arm in a sling and 3 years older.
Not necessarily, but I think we might see Quantum again.
Continuity has become very important to the DC era. The three films are closely knitted together. More essentially Bond has been given an arc from CR through to SF. He started as the rookie, rough-diamond before becoming a more finessed agent and later in SF shown as being past his prime and sluggish. I'm interested to see what the next step in DC's trajectory will be.
I do think that the DC series will be contained and the films will reboot themselves a la Casino Royale once he retires.
I do hope Mendes brings back Quantum, but I don't think he will. He wants to do his own thing and Quantum is too associated with Campbell/Forster's movies. I feel like Quantum is a massive loose thread that needs tying up. Connery went after Goldfinger instead of SPECTRE in his third film, so maybe Craig going after Silva in his third has set a precedent before DC gets his Thunderball. If that makes sense.
The next Bond movie, Pierce Brosnan will return to London as a rouge 00 agent and the English sun will give him the same powers that it has given Craig-Bond. Brosnan will return with Miranda Frost as his evil side kick who battle Moneypenny on the first floor of Selfridges. Brosnan, depressed, angry, and emo, will have turned to darkside, Quantum, after he finds out that Vladimir Putin is really Craig-Bond's twin and not his long lost brother.
The final scene will be a "to the death" battle between Brosnan and Craig in an inflamed Wembley Stadium with the Manchester United fight song blaring over the loudspeakers, just like Fleming wrote it up in Moonraker and Goldfinger.
I didn't bother reading beyond this.
Bond 24 wil start where QOS start with and possible shared with Bond 25.
Then why posting. Why actually being here.....in this topic? Complete utter boredom? Or genuine interest in the Bond franchise and all those various aspects of it? Or do you want to make me 'feel it'? Take the joy away that the Bond franchise is for me?
If you were interested in the many facets of Bond you wouldn't have made such a flippant comment.
Well, not really.
QoS picks up where CR left, yet does so in a visibly different style, thus actually consciously breaking continuity. The assumption that the aspect of continuity was handled unconsciously sloppy is preposterous.
SF seems to take place quite a while afte CR/QoS, so again there´s no real continuity there.
Not a very straight arc it seems. What has happened to make Bond be past his prime? Were those things boring, not worthy to be included in the arc? And if they are being told later, where´s the conituity?
No, I don´t see how continuity should be so important in the Craig era.
Until now the opposite has taken place.
I am hoping for a Quantum return! They are the BIG loose end that needs resolving whilst DC is Bond.
the importance of continuity between films lays obviously with availability of actors such as the guy who plays mister white or indeed bond. craigs signed up for two more, i assume M,q and moneypenny are signed up for at least that.
As i noted before CR takes place before dr no, yet dr no sees bond get the walther ppk, goldfinger sees the db5 with full modifications, yet 007 legends retold the story of goldeneye with the dbs.
M is akin to bearnard lee now but his background stems from military instead of navy, the CR script sudgests bond was in the SAS instead of the navy.
outside of Gustav mentioning the end of skyfall where a mission was accepted I dont see how we will see a joining of films. unless you read the film as the pre-title sequence is that mission and whatever happens after the credits, such as bond returning to M's office for a new mission
almost the same thread as this
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7583/how-are-we-supposed-to-address-inconsistences-among-the-fleming-novels#Item_22
I dont know where the idea of charting a characters timeline like it was set in stone came from, the time line of star trek by the Okudas maybe, but that seemed like a bible to help future writers of the show.
for us as consumers I dont think this really matters, these types of debates push us back into bonds a code name for people, bonds a time traveler, bonds immortal.
I hope the next film will show M having adjustment tensions with 007 ; Q becoming better and assisting in the field; Moneypenny flirting harder with 007; and Bond fighting a big, bad organization, Quantum, like the good, old SPECTRE. HAHAHA. And most importantly, the fast movie pace should be maintained.
Thats exaclty what im talking about. Let me draw up batman, hes a character somehow wrestling with near future geat yet his world is constantly in the early forties, sometimes 80s and then frank miller wrote his year one and final year in the same decade. where he concluded it in some nightmare 2000s setting born of the 80's
Much like Bond you can admire a 50s setting and a currant 2010's. i wonder if anyone would dare throw him back to the 80s- 90s and merge Dalton and golden eye
sure bond's guns, and style can elude to his time setting but im better without it. some times fleming mentions its been a year since hes seen miss t. case for example sure this lets me know how long its been since the last one but im glad its ambiguous