›

Bond's Final Mission : AVTAK or ?

13»

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    The only real continuity that the first films shared was Bond's martial status. Otherwise there was precious little to link the films.

    FRWL there is a mention of Bond interfering in SPECTRE's plans with DN and how they want his death to be an unpleasant one.

    OHMSS Bond is seen with the knife from DN, garrote watch from FRWL, and the re-breather from TB. Draco and M talk about the bullion job of 1964 which may or may not reference GF.

    Spy Tracy Bond is mentioned and hits a nerve with Bond.

    FYEO Bond is seen at Tracy Bond's gravesite

    LTK Bond's marriage is mentioned by Felix to Della

    That is really all I can think of that stands as any continuity.

    The only other thing is the character of Felix who appears in various adventures until LTK but isn't seen again until the series is rebooted. Only played by the same actor once and that actor appears with two different Bond actors.

    Could Felix exist in the Brosnan timeline and isn't mentioned or around, sure it's possible. To me there is a strong case that Brosnan was a bit of a departure from the original Bond timeline, but that's merely an opinion and can't be defended. LOL!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,694
    In FRWL, Sylvia talks about Bond having gone off to Jamaica.

    If you consider the Brosnan era continuing on from Dalton's, then Felix' injuries from the shark attack would suggest he's not going to be in the field as much, if at all, focusing on helping the DEA from his office. Since there is no drug plot in the Brosnan films, he's not really needed.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941
    To me DAD connects to Leiter through the items on display at Q Branch, including the TB rebreather and Bell rocket belt, plus gold bars and line "I never joke about my work" indicating GF.

    So I see that as the filmmakers presenting a loose timeline for the same Bond character played by different actors that had the same missions.

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    Meant character returns to tighten the continuity:

    In A View To A Kill, Pola Ivanova was supposed to be Anya Amasova.

    In Licence To Kill, I'm not sure, but some have said that Sharkey was meant to be Quarrel Jr.

    Then in Tomorrow Never Dies, Paris Carver was also meant to be a returning (former) Bond Girl, although it's up to conclusions whom she could be.

    Then in The World Is Not Enough, Elektra asked Bond if he ever lost a loved one, but Bond brushed off the question (in the IMDb trivia, the screenwriters made it as a reference to Paris Carver, although, some said it's meant for Tracy).

    Then in Goldeneye, Alec Trevelyan's line that could also be a reference to Bond's past adventures: "Oh, please James, spare me the Freud. I might as well ask you for the vodka martinis that have silenced the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women, for all the dead ones you failed to protect.".
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,171
    I think a lot of this is subjective to each individual. So much of it isn't canon as far as I'm aware.
    Quite a lot of the Bond series is open to each individual's interpretation. It's quite unusual when you think about it.
  • Scaramanga1974Scaramanga1974
    Posts: 750
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Meant character returns to tighten the continuity:

    In A View To A Kill, Pola Ivanova was supposed to be Anya Amasova.

    In Licence To Kill, I'm not sure, but some have said that Sharkey was meant to be Quarrel Jr.

    Then in Tomorrow Never Dies, Paris Carver was also meant to be a returning (former) Bond Girl, although it's up to conclusions whom she could be.

    Then in The World Is Not Enough, Elektra asked Bond if he ever lost a loved one, but Bond brushed off the question (in the IMDb trivia, the screenwriters made it as a reference to Paris Carver, although, some said it's meant for Tracy).

    Then in Goldeneye, Alec Trevelyan's line that could also be a reference to Bond's past adventures: "Oh, please James, spare me the Freud. I might as well ask you for the vodka martinis that have silenced the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women, for all the dead ones you failed to protect.".

    I always assumed TWINE was reference to Tracey but now you mention it, it could be Paris. Good call.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited August 2023 Posts: 701
    Scaramanga1974 wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Meant character returns to tighten the continuity:

    In A View To A Kill, Pola Ivanova was supposed to be Anya Amasova.

    In Licence To Kill, I'm not sure, but some have said that Sharkey was meant to be Quarrel Jr.

    Then in Tomorrow Never Dies, Paris Carver was also meant to be a returning (former) Bond Girl, although it's up to conclusions whom she could be.

    Then in The World Is Not Enough, Elektra asked Bond if he ever lost a loved one, but Bond brushed off the question (in the IMDb trivia, the screenwriters made it as a reference to Paris Carver, although, some said it's meant for Tracy).

    Then in Goldeneye, Alec Trevelyan's line that could also be a reference to Bond's past adventures: "Oh, please James, spare me the Freud. I might as well ask you for the vodka martinis that have silenced the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women, for all the dead ones you failed to protect.".

    I always assumed TWINE was reference to Tracey but now you mention it, it could be Paris. Good call.

    I guess it could also reference his parents or other relatives. It's a fairly open-ended line for a character who's experienced loss all through his life. Although, when I first saw the film my mind immediately jumped to Tracy.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Based on age, and that Bond films exist in the present ,
    I think there have been three incarnations of the character. Yes, this way of looking at it can be confusing because of many of the same actors appearing in different timelines; like Dench and “M” , they may be placed the same character but in reality they are a different incarnation.

    The first Is Connery , Lazenby and Moore; the Bond in Dr.No is the same Bond seen in AVTAK, which is the final film in that era of Bond

    Next is Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in LD is the same Bond seen in DAD.

    Then there’s Craig whose incarnation is the only one to feature a single actor.

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,171
    talos7 wrote: »
    Based on age, and that Bond films exist in the present ,
    I think there have been three incarnations of the character. Yes, this way of looking at it can be confusing because of many of the same actors appearing in different timelines; like Dench and “M” , they may be placed the same character but in reality they are a different incarnation.

    The first Is Connery , Lazenby and Moore; the Bond in Dr.No is the same Bond seen in AVTAK, which is the final film in that era of Bond

    Next is Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in LD is the same Bond seen in DAD.

    Then there’s Craig whose incarnation is the only one to feature a single actor.

    So how do we find gadgets in DAD, that come from the Connery and Moore era films?
    Surely you're not suggesting the
    codename theory
    are you @talos7 ?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited August 2023 Posts: 8,255
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Based on age, and that Bond films exist in the present ,
    I think there have been three incarnations of the character. Yes, this way of looking at it can be confusing because of many of the same actors appearing in different timelines; like Dench and “M” , they may be placed the same character but in reality they are a different incarnation.

    The first Is Connery , Lazenby and Moore; the Bond in Dr.No is the same Bond seen in AVTAK, which is the final film in that era of Bond

    Next is Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in LD is the same Bond seen in DAD.

    Then there’s Craig whose incarnation is the only one to feature a single actor.

    So how do we find gadgets in DAD, that come from the Connery and Moore era films?
    Surely you're not suggesting the
    codename theory
    are you @talos7 ?

    Well as with actors, objects can be seen in different incarnations / timelines but in reality they are not the same as the ones seen in a different incarnations . Brosnan acquired those objects in his timeline, not Connery, Lazenby or Moore’s. Confusing fan service, no doubt.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,800
    Here's my theory:

    Connery Era then Lazenby Era (Lazenby Bond had Connery Bond's gadgets in his drawer in OHMSS), regarding Diamonds Are Forever, I'd assume it happened before OHMSS, why it's not referenced in OHMSS? You Only Live Twice wasn't referenced in OHMSS, so the same could be happened for DAF.

    Then Lazenby Era to Dalton Era (makes sense for the age, after Tracy died, Bond, still young, became more vulnerable in that he's longing for love, hence he fell in love with both Pam and Kara).

    Dalton Era to Moore Era (Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond makes sense since Moore was more older, now the explanation for him being morr jovial was the fact that it's been long since Tracy's death and he's now moved on from it, and his getting older too, maybe avoiding some emotional stress, hence at his treatment of women), people do move on, then so Bond, but then, he's still remembering her, he visits her in For Your Eyes Only.

    There's a progress in here:
    Connery-Lazenby
    Lazenby-Dalton
    Dalton-Moore (Connery/Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond, became older).

    Now that's where it ends.

    Now, I'm not sure about Brosnan-Craig, maybe here's my theory to it (could still change):

    So, after the Classic Era, there's a restart! Here comes another era.

    Enter Casino Royale with Craig (makes sense since he's a beginner, a rookie 00 agent, because of his naivety, he'd fell in love with Vesper, but he lost her), then, Quantum of Solace

    So, in that long interval (3 years, right?), That's where Craig's Bond doing his basic, standalone missions (these missions happened in the Brosnan Era), after the events of Quantum of Solace, Bond focused on a more basic mission in Goldeneye, now there's Alec Trevelyan's line, it could be a reference to Vesper and maybe Strawberry Fields.
    Then Tomorrow Never Dies, let's assume Paris Carver was Camille Montes 😅.
    Then The World Is Not Enough (let's assume Elektra's line was a reference to Vesper and Camille Montes).
    Then Die Another Day.

    Regarding Dench M's thoughts about the Cold War, it's not much of a hole, in CR, she missed the Cold War Days, then in GE, she thought of Bond as being a relic of Cold War, so, maybe she just couldn't get over it 😅

    Then it would continue with Skyfall, the last mission of Bond with Judi Dench as M, and it would've makes sense since Bond in this film was already old and seasoned.

    Then SPECTRE (why the Brosnan Era villains were not a part of SPECTRE? Let's assume they're not connected to SPECTRE at all, like what I've said, they're standalone missions), found Madeleine and fell in love with her.

    Then No Time To Die, the end of Craig/Brosnan Era.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2023 Posts: 554
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Based on age, and that Bond films exist in the present ,
    I think there have been three incarnations of the character. Yes, this way of looking at it can be confusing because of many of the same actors appearing in different timelines; like Dench and “M” , they may be placed the same character but in reality they are a different incarnation.

    The first Is Connery , Lazenby and Moore; the Bond in Dr.No is the same Bond seen in AVTAK, which is the final film in that era of Bond

    Next is Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in LD is the same Bond seen in DAD.

    Then there’s Craig whose incarnation is the only one to feature a single actor.

    So how do we find gadgets in DAD, that come from the Connery and Moore era films?
    Surely you're not suggesting the
    codename theory
    are you @talos7 ?
    Same way Craig has the Goldfinger DB5, he went on versions of those adventures.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Agent_Zero_One wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Based on age, and that Bond films exist in the present ,
    I think there have been three incarnations of the character. Yes, this way of looking at it can be confusing because of many of the same actors appearing in different timelines; like Dench and “M” , they may be placed the same character but in reality they are a different incarnation.

    The first Is Connery , Lazenby and Moore; the Bond in Dr.No is the same Bond seen in AVTAK, which is the final film in that era of Bond

    Next is Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in LD is the same Bond seen in DAD.

    Then there’s Craig whose incarnation is the only one to feature a single actor.

    So how do we find gadgets in DAD, that come from the Connery and Moore era films?
    Surely you're not suggesting the
    codename theory
    are you @talos7 ?
    Same way Craig has the Goldfinger DB5, he went on versions of those adventures.

    Indeed, that DB5 is not Connery’s
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2023 Posts: 6,393
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Here's my theory:

    Connery Era then Lazenby Era (Lazenby Bond had Connery Bond's gadgets in his drawer in OHMSS), regarding Diamonds Are Forever, I'd assume it happened before OHMSS, why it's not referenced in OHMSS? You Only Live Twice wasn't referenced in OHMSS, so the same could be happened for DAF.

    Then Lazenby Era to Dalton Era (makes sense for the age, after Tracy died, Bond, still young, became more vulnerable in that he's longing for love, hence he fell in love with both Pam and Kara).

    Dalton Era to Moore Era (Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond makes sense since Moore was more older, now the explanation for him being morr jovial was the fact that it's been long since Tracy's death and he's now moved on from it, and his getting older too, maybe avoiding some emotional stress, hence at his treatment of women), people do move on, then so Bond, but then, he's still remembering her, he visits her in For Your Eyes Only.

    There's a progress in here:
    Connery-Lazenby
    Lazenby-Dalton
    Dalton-Moore (Connery/Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond, became older).

    Now that's where it ends.

    Now, I'm not sure about Brosnan-Craig, maybe here's my theory to it (could still change):

    So, after the Classic Era, there's a restart! Here comes another era.

    Enter Casino Royale with Craig (makes sense since he's a beginner, a rookie 00 agent, because of his naivety, he'd fell in love with Vesper, but he lost her), then, Quantum of Solace

    So, in that long interval (3 years, right?), That's where Craig's Bond doing his basic, standalone missions (these missions happened in the Brosnan Era), after the events of Quantum of Solace, Bond focused on a more basic mission in Goldeneye, now there's Alec Trevelyan's line, it could be a reference to Vesper and maybe Strawberry Fields.
    Then Tomorrow Never Dies, let's assume Paris Carver was Camille Montes 😅.
    Then The World Is Not Enough (let's assume Elektra's line was a reference to Vesper and Camille Montes).
    Then Die Another Day.

    Regarding Dench M's thoughts about the Cold War, it's not much of a hole, in CR, she missed the Cold War Days, then in GE, she thought of Bond as being a relic of Cold War, so, maybe she just couldn't get over it 😅

    Then it would continue with Skyfall, the last mission of Bond with Judi Dench as M, and it would've makes sense since Bond in this film was already old and seasoned.

    Then SPECTRE (why the Brosnan Era villains were not a part of SPECTRE? Let's assume they're not connected to SPECTRE at all, like what I've said, they're standalone missions), found Madeleine and fell in love with her.

    Then No Time To Die, the end of Craig/Brosnan Era.

    Interesting. I think it's fun for us fans to try to retroactively impose continuity on the series, although of course that's impossible because not even the filmmakers tried to do that!

    YOLT is referenced in the title credits of OHMSS, although I suppose the credits sit outside of Bond's reality in the movie.

    It does make sense, otherwise, to go directly from YOLT to DAF because OHMSS has the biggest continuity gaffe in the series: "Why doesn't Blofeld recognize Bond?" (Yes, I know, I know, the abandoned plastic surgery explanation, which in retrospect was a good thing to drop because was Bond going to have plastic surgery with every new actor?)

    Whose idea was it to drop the plastic surgery plot...Hunt's?...whoever it was was a genius.

    Ignoring the change of actors' faces, you could conceivably go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO to LTK.

    But wait! Happening alongside the Tracy thread of OHMSS-TSWLM-FYEO-LTK is the Felix thread of DAF-LALD-TLD-LTK, and the mini-threads of J.W. Pepper and Jaws and Gogol that draw in TMWTGG and MR and OP, so I'd argue this is all one big continuity.

    I think Dalton is playing the same character as Moore, because of where the short story falls in the book series and the world-weary older Bond lines like "If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."

    And that Brosnan is still in this timeline, albeit more lightly, because of all the gadgets that tie it together.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    edited August 2023 Posts: 1,088
    From 1962-1985 it was believable that it was all the same 'timeline' I think. Then when TD took over there was more of a leap of faith involved that he was portraying the same character. But he was, and so was PB. By the time we got to PB, it was obviously ridiculous that he'd have been spying in 1962, but there was still the nods to the viewer that it was the same character. I enjoyed those.
    I think the first three Craig films, whilst being an obvious reboot, weren't really a big problem with the notion that he was still the same character. It wasn't for me anyway. And at the end of Skyfall, I really felt we'd come full circle and the series had very neatly bought us round to the classic James Bond, with Bond in M's old office, and a male, cranky, M. I thought it was a great ending.
    But of course, the last 'Bond film' has forced us all to accept, without doubt, that Craig's Bond was a different James Bond to the one that came before, and the one that comes after.
    Some people are okay with these different universes, others, like me, think it's a pretty naff concept, separating the screen James Bonds into different characters. I've made the point many times that I think it's a narratively dishonest thing to do, kill off a character and then say 'don't worry, he'll be back, but you've got to pretend it's in a different universe'. To me, that's all billy-bollocks for a series that's not sci-fi, and based in real world science. But the answer I keep getting is "Batman did this, Batman did that". So I suppose James Bond is now in the realm of super-heroes where anything goes. That's how it is now.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2023 Posts: 554
    echo wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Here's my theory:

    Connery Era then Lazenby Era (Lazenby Bond had Connery Bond's gadgets in his drawer in OHMSS), regarding Diamonds Are Forever, I'd assume it happened before OHMSS, why it's not referenced in OHMSS? You Only Live Twice wasn't referenced in OHMSS, so the same could be happened for DAF.

    Then Lazenby Era to Dalton Era (makes sense for the age, after Tracy died, Bond, still young, became more vulnerable in that he's longing for love, hence he fell in love with both Pam and Kara).

    Dalton Era to Moore Era (Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond makes sense since Moore was more older, now the explanation for him being morr jovial was the fact that it's been long since Tracy's death and he's now moved on from it, and his getting older too, maybe avoiding some emotional stress, hence at his treatment of women), people do move on, then so Bond, but then, he's still remembering her, he visits her in For Your Eyes Only.

    There's a progress in here:
    Connery-Lazenby
    Lazenby-Dalton
    Dalton-Moore (Connery/Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond, became older).

    Now that's where it ends.

    Now, I'm not sure about Brosnan-Craig, maybe here's my theory to it (could still change):

    So, after the Classic Era, there's a restart! Here comes another era.

    Enter Casino Royale with Craig (makes sense since he's a beginner, a rookie 00 agent, because of his naivety, he'd fell in love with Vesper, but he lost her), then, Quantum of Solace

    So, in that long interval (3 years, right?), That's where Craig's Bond doing his basic, standalone missions (these missions happened in the Brosnan Era), after the events of Quantum of Solace, Bond focused on a more basic mission in Goldeneye, now there's Alec Trevelyan's line, it could be a reference to Vesper and maybe Strawberry Fields.
    Then Tomorrow Never Dies, let's assume Paris Carver was Camille Montes 😅.
    Then The World Is Not Enough (let's assume Elektra's line was a reference to Vesper and Camille Montes).
    Then Die Another Day.

    Regarding Dench M's thoughts about the Cold War, it's not much of a hole, in CR, she missed the Cold War Days, then in GE, she thought of Bond as being a relic of Cold War, so, maybe she just couldn't get over it 😅

    Then it would continue with Skyfall, the last mission of Bond with Judi Dench as M, and it would've makes sense since Bond in this film was already old and seasoned.

    Then SPECTRE (why the Brosnan Era villains were not a part of SPECTRE? Let's assume they're not connected to SPECTRE at all, like what I've said, they're standalone missions), found Madeleine and fell in love with her.

    Then No Time To Die, the end of Craig/Brosnan Era.

    Interesting. I think it's fun for us fans to try to retroactively impose continuity on the series, although of course that's impossible because not even the filmmakers tried to do that!

    YOLT is referenced in the title credits of OHMSS, although I suppose the credits sit outside of Bond's reality in the movie.

    It does make sense, otherwise, to go directly from YOLT to DAF because OHMSS has the biggest continuity gaffe in the series: "Why doesn't Blofeld recognize Bond?" (Yes, I know, I know, the abandoned plastic surgery explanation, which in retrospect was a good thing to drop because was Bond going to have plastic surgery with every new actor?)

    Whose idea was it to drop the plastic surgery plot...Hunt's?...whoever it was was a genius.

    Ignoring the change of actors' faces, you could conceivably go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO to LTK.

    But wait! Happening alongside the Tracy thread of OHMSS-TSWLM-FYEO-LTK is the Felix thread of DAF-LALD-TLD-LTK, and the mini-threads of J.W. Pepper and Jaws and Gogol that draw in TMWTGG and MR and OP, so I'd argue this is all one big continuity.

    I think Dalton is playing the same character as Moore, because of where the short story falls in the book series and the world-weary older Bond lines like "If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."

    And that Brosnan is still in this timeline, albeit more lightly, because of all the gadgets that tie it together.
    It is the same character, who still did broadly all the same things, but Dalton's Bond is a clearly younger man than Moore was in AVTAK. Him and Brosnan are plausibly one career in the same way Connery to Moore is.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Agent_Zero_One wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Here's my theory:

    Connery Era then Lazenby Era (Lazenby Bond had Connery Bond's gadgets in his drawer in OHMSS), regarding Diamonds Are Forever, I'd assume it happened before OHMSS, why it's not referenced in OHMSS? You Only Live Twice wasn't referenced in OHMSS, so the same could be happened for DAF.

    Then Lazenby Era to Dalton Era (makes sense for the age, after Tracy died, Bond, still young, became more vulnerable in that he's longing for love, hence he fell in love with both Pam and Kara).

    Dalton Era to Moore Era (Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond makes sense since Moore was more older, now the explanation for him being morr jovial was the fact that it's been long since Tracy's death and he's now moved on from it, and his getting older too, maybe avoiding some emotional stress, hence at his treatment of women), people do move on, then so Bond, but then, he's still remembering her, he visits her in For Your Eyes Only.

    There's a progress in here:
    Connery-Lazenby
    Lazenby-Dalton
    Dalton-Moore (Connery/Lazenby/Dalton Bond now aged into Moore Bond, became older).

    Now that's where it ends.

    Now, I'm not sure about Brosnan-Craig, maybe here's my theory to it (could still change):

    So, after the Classic Era, there's a restart! Here comes another era.

    Enter Casino Royale with Craig (makes sense since he's a beginner, a rookie 00 agent, because of his naivety, he'd fell in love with Vesper, but he lost her), then, Quantum of Solace

    So, in that long interval (3 years, right?), That's where Craig's Bond doing his basic, standalone missions (these missions happened in the Brosnan Era), after the events of Quantum of Solace, Bond focused on a more basic mission in Goldeneye, now there's Alec Trevelyan's line, it could be a reference to Vesper and maybe Strawberry Fields.
    Then Tomorrow Never Dies, let's assume Paris Carver was Camille Montes 😅.
    Then The World Is Not Enough (let's assume Elektra's line was a reference to Vesper and Camille Montes).
    Then Die Another Day.

    Regarding Dench M's thoughts about the Cold War, it's not much of a hole, in CR, she missed the Cold War Days, then in GE, she thought of Bond as being a relic of Cold War, so, maybe she just couldn't get over it 😅

    Then it would continue with Skyfall, the last mission of Bond with Judi Dench as M, and it would've makes sense since Bond in this film was already old and seasoned.

    Then SPECTRE (why the Brosnan Era villains were not a part of SPECTRE? Let's assume they're not connected to SPECTRE at all, like what I've said, they're standalone missions), found Madeleine and fell in love with her.

    Then No Time To Die, the end of Craig/Brosnan Era.

    Interesting. I think it's fun for us fans to try to retroactively impose continuity on the series, although of course that's impossible because not even the filmmakers tried to do that!

    YOLT is referenced in the title credits of OHMSS, although I suppose the credits sit outside of Bond's reality in the movie.

    It does make sense, otherwise, to go directly from YOLT to DAF because OHMSS has the biggest continuity gaffe in the series: "Why doesn't Blofeld recognize Bond?" (Yes, I know, I know, the abandoned plastic surgery explanation, which in retrospect was a good thing to drop because was Bond going to have plastic surgery with every new actor?)

    Whose idea was it to drop the plastic surgery plot...Hunt's?...whoever it was was a genius.

    Ignoring the change of actors' faces, you could conceivably go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO to LTK.

    But wait! Happening alongside the Tracy thread of OHMSS-TSWLM-FYEO-LTK is the Felix thread of DAF-LALD-TLD-LTK, and the mini-threads of J.W. Pepper and Jaws and Gogol that draw in TMWTGG and MR and OP, so I'd argue this is all one big continuity.

    I think Dalton is playing the same character as Moore, because of where the short story falls in the book series and the world-weary older Bond lines like "If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."

    And that Brosnan is still in this timeline, albeit more lightly, because of all the gadgets that tie it together.
    It is the same character, who still did broadly all the same things, but Dalton's Bond is a clearly younger man than Moore was in AVTAK. Him and Brosnan are plausibly one career in the same way Connery to Moore is.

    Yes!
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,129
    Here's how I see the movie timeline:
    The first timeline goes from:
    - Connery/Lazenby/Moore (1962-1985)
    The franchise has a soft-reboot and we have the second timeline, which is:
    - Dalton/Brosnan (1987-2002)
    The franchise gets rebooted and we have the third timeline:
    - Craig (2006-2021)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »
    Here's how I see the movie timeline:
    The first timeline goes from:
    - Connery/Lazenby/Moore (1962-1985)
    The franchise has a soft-reboot and we have the second timeline, which is:
    - Dalton/Brosnan (1987-2002)
    The franchise gets rebooted and we have the third timeline:
    - Craig (2006-2021)
    Exactly what I said several posts above. You’re brilliant. 👍🏼
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2023 Posts: 6,393
    LTK and the presence of Hedison (not to mention M and Q and Gogol) do not indicate a reboot, soft or hard, at the point of Dalton taking over.

    TLD features recastings (notably Bond, Moneypenny, and Leiter), but is not a reboot.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    echo wrote: »
    LTK and the presence of Hedison (not to mention M and Q and Gogol) do not indicate a reboot, soft or hard, at the point of Dalton taking over.

    TLD features recastings (notably Bond, Moneypenny, and Leiter), but is not a reboot.

    Like Judi Dench and M , Brosnan’s M is not Craig’s M even if portrayed by the same actor, all of the actors that you name could be playing the same character but in a different incarnation.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,029
    I doubt any actor imagines he is playing the same Bond as a predecessor. Each wants to bring his unique abilities to the role. References to a previous mission or character in a film by a previous actor is the thinest of attempts to connect one series to another. Timelines and universes are nonsense. For me it's "this is Bond now. Forget about previous films by other actors." I hope we don't get memories of Tracy and Vesper in the next film. I don't want to see an actor trying to conjure emotions about events that never happened to his Bond. Just get on with it. I don't want to see any Bond films in which we are supposed to imagine the next Bond will one day become Craig.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2023 Posts: 554
    Bond being a Time Lord from Doctor Who is my personal headcanon.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 701
    Agent_Zero_One wrote: »
    Bond being a Time Lord from Doctor Who is my personal headcanon.

    Fortunately AVTAK ended moments before Roger slipped in Stacey's shower and regenerated into Timothy Dalton.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    Agent_Zero_One wrote: »
    Bond being a Time Lord from Doctor Who is my personal headcanon.

    Fortunately AVTAK ended moments before Roger slipped in Stacey's shower and regenerated into Timothy Dalton.

    I'm now imagining it 😅
Sign In or Register to comment.