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 always explained it like this: Blofeld we know already had plastic surgery, while Bond when he met Blofeld in YOLT still had some Japanese makeup (okay, not in the movie, but that is minimal retcon). In the novel YOLT, Blofeld did not recognised Bond immediately, it is important to remember.
I always got the impression that casting Lazenby shifted the whole narrative away from the Connery era? There's no real effort to remain consistent in any films prior to CR. I don't ever get too distressed about continuity in the films. To me they're all primarily standalone, it just so happens a few contain references, mostly for fun and not for narrative consistency or continuity. I don't even think of FYEO featuring Blofeld, it's almost a parody of itself. I've never craved the canonical cohesion that others seem to be obsessed by. Maybe I'm alone in that.
The films, at least from the Connery to Dalton-eras do seem to make up a consistent universe and timeline, although there are some inconsistencies, i.e., Blofeld and Bond don't recognize each other in OHMSS, Bond goes from being in his late 30s, to his late 20s, to his early 40s, from his late 50s to early 40s, etc.
I can understand Bond not recognizing Blofeld, but Blofeld should have recognized Bond. A Gretcho Marx glasses and nose would have been more convincing than that "Japanese disguise."
You are right about the book, but that doesn't explain the inconsistency in the film.
That's it. I don't really see why some try and dig further into it. Actually thats one reason why I think Majestys in many ways works better as a stand alone film.
The film OHMSS follows YOLT, but in the novels it's the other way around. Blofeld should have recognized Bond in the OHMSS film.
With this kind of respect to the source you wonder what Hunt and Lazenby would have gone on to do next.
I know that. What's your point? As I said, book as written. In the novel Blofeld has had plastic surgery and Bond uses a disguise.
Never say that.
Everything is not explained. I understand that the book OHMSS follows the film very closely, that said, since they changed the order of the films from the books, there is an inconsistency that's created. In the film Blofeld should have recognized Bond as they just met two years earlier in YOLT. I'm not really hung up or upset by it, just pointing out an inconsistency.
Of course if you were watching the series in order there would be inconsistencies but I'm trying to point out why that is and giving the reason for them.
They actually go out of their way to bring in the other films at the start of the movie when Lazenby is going though everything in his desk. They really wanted us to know that this was the same character and the other events in the films took place.
Don't mind me, It's my Star Trek geek need to have everything explained and for everything to be consistent.
That is how I take it. As for the inconsistencies between YOLT and OHMSS, they can be explained, by retconning and tweaking things a bit. And I blame YOLT more than OHMSS.
I've always took those as references for the audience, nothing else as it does not relate to the plot.
Now I know I'm talking to a Star Trek fan, I shouldn't have bothered. ;) This Bond series must be hard work for you! I, for one, am glad everything is so messed up - it leaves no doubt.
Try following Red Dwarf...
Back to the OT--I think that the weakest part of TWINE (an otherwise good film) is the casting of Denise Richards as Christmas Jones.
A nuclear physicist? Yeah, okay...
We couldn't be more on the same page.
Well played.
Star Trek fan here too, btw.
B-)
So she's not credible as a nuclear physicist just because she's fit?
Probably because she's an utterly appalling actress who fails to convince the audience of the character she's meant to be portraying. ;-)
No, she's was not credible as a nuclear physicist. How many 27 year-olds are? And how many of them go to work looking like they are getting ready for a beauty pageant?
Lois Chiles was far more convincing as Dr. Holly Goodhead. She was older, for one thing and dressed the part.
Are you looking for a glimmer?