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
Honestly, this is ridiculous. The continuity has been violated so many times even in the 60s.
I can buy that Craig comes before Connery if you go for dating the films.
But it's the same universe. The Dench discussion is silly too. It's M. It's her in DAD, it's her in CR, the same character, deal with it.
Grasping at straws really, the whole "it's two different M's"
The Craig era doesn't come before Connery. It's a whole new different timeline unrelated to the old Bond (62-02).
As far as the Connery era gadgets in DAD, that is just a poor attempt at paying homage to earlier films and not to be taken literally.
Then why bother arguing about it? If I want to believe there are 3 timelines, that's my choice. If others want to believe the Judi of Pierce's run is different to the Judi of Daniel's run then that's their choice. It's a matter of personal preference. We as fans will go to great lengths to justify certain inconsistencies over the course of this franchise. One person's theory is another person's silliness. Why try to change their minds when they've clearly made them up?
If right now they cast a 40+ actor as Bond they could continue the Craig timeline, any younger and a new one begins.....Unless they make it a period piece, setting it in the 60's,70's,80's or 90's, then the new actor can portray Bond in either the Connery , Lazenby, Moore, or Dalton, Brosnan era. Now THAT would confuse people ;)
Precisely. I consider the Dalton/Brosnan timeline a soft reboot of the Connery/Lazenby/Moore timeline. Similar events happened but it a new modern timeline.
Nope. Dalton and Moore are both best friends with Felix Leiter and Tracy is alluded to, so they are in the same timeline with Lazenby.
Casino Royale
Quantum Of Solace
Dr. No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
Live And Let Die
Thunderball
You Only Live Twice
Diamonds Are Forever
The Man With The Golden Gun
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
For Your Eyes Only
The Spy Who Loved Me
Moonraker
Octopussy
A View To A Kill
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
GoldenEye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Skyfall
Some notes while watching it this way:
- Honey asks Bond if he's ever had a woman of his own and it looks like the question throws Connery off. You could infer that he could be thinking of Vesper in the moment.
- The Mrs. Bond references in LALD felt off coming so quickly after the events of OHMSS...maybe it's Moore's reaction, especially when compared to how he handles the subject in later films. I think it fits well here due to Hamilton's direction.
- Segwaying straight into DAF from YOLT is almost seamless. Was Henderson a Blofeld clone?
- The mobster from Slumber, Inc. finds himself on Scaramanga's Island after the events of Diamonds Are Forever.
- For Your Eyes Only coming off of OHMSS is very interesting, not just for the PTS... Bond warns Melina about being driven for revenge. Bond understands that "the dead don't care for vengeance."
Congratulations. Your list is the same as mine actually!
Spot-on.
Craig clearly comes before Connery. It's so obvious.
As I've said three times, The same events can happen in the timelines just in different years with a younger man. Do I need to make it any clearer?
I'm happy that my own view happens to be the correct one; nonetheless there are innumerable opinions out there. ;)
I'm not citing this as fact in the slightest. We are talking about a series with a floating timeline, afterall. Bar a couple references here or there, there wasn't the type of continuity they went for in the Craig films. The only time we're ever told that this guy is different is in CR, as this is clearly him before he got his license and CR is clearly not a prequel to DN.
My post was actually in response to Echo.
Why people still don't get it is beyond me.
And I'm saying you're wrong. Not one iota of contemporaneous coverage of TLD or LTK indicates that he's playing a different Bond or a different timeline than Moore. Bond is always updated to "contemporary" with each film--look at the years of technology differences in CR and QoS. You can fanwank it all you want but it doesn't make it true.
I never said it was true. It's my interpretation of things. If you have a problem with it go bury your head in the sand.
of course DN to at least LTK is the same "timeline" the same Bond. Imho Brosnan belongs to that too as Q is clearly an indicator, let alone the many references in DAD.
Or should he just survive or not used at all,which is what I prefer.
Will the timeline revert back to just after DAD and continue with the original Bond's do you think ?