› ›

which timeline to follow after craig departs???

2»

Comments

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    Man some people the james bond theroy that 007 is a codename explains all this
    continuity mess
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,136
    002 wrote:
    Man some people the james bond theroy that 007 is a codename explains all this
    continuity mess

    The Bond is a codename theory is kind of blown away, when Bond returns to his family home in Skyfall, and we see the grave of Andrew Bond and Monique Bond.
  • TimothyDalton007TimothyDalton007
    Posts: 42
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote:
    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.
    and
    JamesStock wrote:
    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.

    You can spend hours, days even, trying to rationalise an ongoing continuity from DN to SF. The fact is, it is impossible to do so.

    I agree with both the above statements. As @Aziz_Fekkesh say, we should enjoy each film on its own merits, and accept that they are individual episodes or clusters - such as YOLT-OHMSS-DAF and CR-QOS - as proposed by @JamesStock.

    That's not to suggest we should necessarily ignore or forget what has happened before; IMO, each incarnation of Bond brings the weight of each preceding film/mission with him (apart from CR, again, naturally).

    In my eyes it the same scenario as in the Batman comics; DC have tried to create some sort of continuity for the character, via some pretty drastic ret-conning. Yet, whenever I read a Batman story - regardless of what the official timeline says has happened, or where that story now fits - Batman is still Batman, with all that accrued experience within him.

    And as for @002's comment above, re the 007 as codename theory: it's a nice idea, but I personally don't buy it. It certainly doesn't answer everything, and was used as a plot device in the abomination that is Casino Royale (1967) - that should be enough to rule it out on its own.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    002 wrote:
    Man some people the james bond theroy that 007 is a codename explains all this
    continuity mess

    Any time I see this comment I wonder where the writer's carer is and how sloppy they are to leave their computer on while nipping to get the medication.
  • LeiterStrombergLeiterStromberg
    edited December 2012 Posts: 75
    I like to think that Sf comes before DN. The only continuity problems are the M muddle and Bond meeting Leiter twice (DN and CR). But perhaps GE came before CR?
    Something along the lines of:

    1. Goldeneye
    2. Casino Royale
    3. Quantum of Solace
    4. Tomorrow Never Dies
    5. The World is not Enough
    6. Die Another Day
    7. Skyfall
    8. Dr. No- License to Kill
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    LeiterStromberg wrote:
    I like to think that Sf comes before DN.

    You like to think that a film about Cyber-terrorism in the 21st century comes before a film about the the toppling of American missiles during a period 35 years prior to the Internet becoming readily available in civilian homes?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I really dont see why this is so hard to grasp for some people.

    DN-DAD was basically one timeline - although a very f**ed up one in which Bond got younger and nonsensical things like the YOLT-OHMSS paradox occurred.

    Then CR started the whole thing again about a secret agent called James Bond who had just been promoted to 00 status.

    Craigs Bond has never heard of SPECTRE, Blofeld, Goldfinger or Tracy so in theory all these people can be reintroduced into the Craig timeline (although this doesnt necessarily mean its a good idea for EON to go down this road) and it still makes sense.

    Of course the elephant in the room is the DB5 in SF which was done for sentimental reasons for the 50th and instantly shatters any sense of the Craig timeline being logical.
    The only way to rationalise it to yourself is to say that this is the car he won off Dmitrios and he weaponised it himself or with the help of some technical minded person he knew and also for some curious reason went to all the effort and expense of switching it to left hand drive. If you try and think that it is the same DB5 as in GF then the whole flimsy edifice falls down and is exposed as being ludicrous.

    However that some people now think that because we have a male M, a Moneypenny, a Q and the office is like the old one we have somehow gone back to the original timeline is the most preposterous of all and bereft of even the most basic logic.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,298
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Craig's Bond has never heard of SPECTRE, Blofeld, Goldfinger or Tracy so in theory all these people can be reintroduced into the Craig timeline (although this doesnt necessarily mean its a good idea for EON to go down this road) and it still makes sense.

    Of course the elephant in the room is the DB5 in SF which was done for sentimental reasons for the 50th and instantly shatters any sense of the Craig timeline being logical....However that some people now think that because we have a male M, a Moneypenny, a Q and the office is like the old one we have somehow gone back to the original timeline is the most preposterous of all and bereft of even the most basic logic.

    Well said, sir.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Thanks for reiterating @TheWizardOfIce, although I'm sure there will be a lot more nonsensical posts re. This topic. Some people don't seem to be able to let it go.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    It baffles me that people find the timelines so hard to grasp. If Casino Royale was a prequel, then there would be an issue, but it is a reboot. Anything prior to Casino Royale doesn't exist in the Craig universe.
  • LeiterStrombergLeiterStromberg
    edited December 2012 Posts: 75
    RC7 wrote:
    LeiterStromberg wrote:
    I like to think that Sf comes before DN.

    You like to think that a film about Cyber-terrorism in the 21st century comes before a film about the the toppling of American missiles during a period 35 years prior to the Internet becoming readily available in civilian homes?

    There are different versions of these stories set in different times, with different themes relevant to these times. What I'm talking about is the basic structure and character development. Dr. No could be remade set in today's world, Casino Royale was originally Cold War; anything is possible. I'm mostly focussing on the awful M timeline.
  • BoundONbonDBoundONbonD
    Posts: 1
    This subject is really good to make people talk but... has anyone thought of a more important matter ? What about BOND's hair colour ? Through all these timelines -multiple or not- between all these bloody dangerous missions, after having shagged all these wonderful women, the man has been capable to find some personal time to find this marvelous hairdresser/colourist ?
    He surely didn't mess with the Zohan...
    ;)
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    Posts: 204
    Is it really not as simple as each Bond / Bond film exists in its own timeline and is not / doesn't have to be connected to the one preceding / succeeding it?

    RE: Star Trek, the timeline is not messed it, it is an alternate timeline, that is to say Nero's incursion from the prime reality altered everything that happened after it in the Quinto-Spock/Pine-Kirk reality. Despite visual liberties and technological changes regarding the appearance and ages of the Enterprise and it's crew, it can exist independently of the prime reality.

    CR is a reboot, therefore remade in accordance with when it was produced - i.e not in the 60's and so Dr. No and all that is irrelevant. The only way these would fit into a timeline would be if they were re-made etc, but in all honesty, I think Bond is most likely going to have a series of microcosmic unrelated adventures which don't tie in to the one before or after like before.


  • acestarchildacestarchild
    Posts: 1
    Nolan's Batman reestablished a timeline away form the earlier 4 films started by Tim Burton (and after Batman and Robin, no-one would say it was a bad thing!) I wonder if a box set of all 7 films will surface? Bond is different as Judi Dench was retained in a key role and David Arnold's music (giving the audience a continuity) it messes up any chance of a timeline. If though we had one, just how old would Bond be now?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,117
    echo wrote:
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Craig's Bond has never heard of SPECTRE, Blofeld, Goldfinger or Tracy so in theory all these people can be reintroduced into the Craig timeline (although this doesnt necessarily mean its a good idea for EON to go down this road) and it still makes sense.

    Of course the elephant in the room is the DB5 in SF which was done for sentimental reasons for the 50th and instantly shatters any sense of the Craig timeline being logical....However that some people now think that because we have a male M, a Moneypenny, a Q and the office is like the old one we have somehow gone back to the original timeline is the most preposterous of all and bereft of even the most basic logic.

    Well said, sir.

    That sums it up to me. I think Mendes was giving room for some of the events of the original timeline to appear in this one, albeit modernised and modified (Bond cannot receive his Walther in DN for instance).
Sign In or Register to comment.