Bond Films Don't Make Sense
Tatoo
Posts: 6MI6 Agent
The films are always set in the present. The technology is always up to date, but Bond never gets much older. Maybe there should be a sucession of agents. 008, 009, 010, etc.
Comments
Actors are real people.
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Besides, James Bond is not a SUPER hero.
It does not make sense at all, but it is great fun.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The movies are not meant to be viewed as a linear narrative, but instead as individual stand alone stories. Even where previous events are mentioned in the Bond series, it is only a loose reference point at best.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, but he is FICTION and he occupies his own universe that operates along rules devised by Ian Fleming and the filmmakers. Fleming himself once said that Bond is "permanently 35," and I can accept that.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You know the phrase about giving someone enough rope?
Actually, everyone deserves a chance until they prove otherwise!
Still, if fans would like to assume that Craig's CR takes place before the DN mission---and correspondingly choose to ignore all of the aspects of any film/mission that basically date-stamp it in time (this includes the advancing age of the actor playing him!)---they can certainly feel free to do so. Rigid continuity vanished from the series in 1969 (when Blofeld didn't recognize Bond, natch)...and the only sort which survives occurs on an individual, 'between-one's-own-ears' basis.
CR wasn't filmed in a linear sense, with regard to the others, but all you have to do is put it in front of the rest on your shelf, and...presto! B-)
If one can accept Roger Moore's AVTAK-era Bond, any and all other rationalizations (regardless of size or scale) are certainly not impossible.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Explain how the term "spammer" applies.
Life is messy, even for film fans. Regardless of our preferences Bond films have been cranked out repeatedly since 1960 and will likely go on until after we are all in the dirt!
Daniel Craig IS James Bond, so was David Niven, Roger Moore and Barry Nelson. "Never Say Never Again" IS a Bond movie even though EON did not produce it, so is Feldman's "Casino Royale".
One can sit on his bed, under the covers and work out what is acceptable. But nasty reality creeps in and still we must face it that QOS stars Daniel Craig, Bond films are not perfect and DAD is in the Ultimate DVD collection along with "Moonraker".
I recall Mr. Spock of Star Trek wearing a hideous hippie medallion called the IDIC, a rather dopey PC symbol that touted something about "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" or something like that.
Well old Spock did manage to work a kernal of wisdom into his IDIC massage. I would encourage folks to look closely at ALL the Bond media, especially the original novels, and embrace the entire pantheon, I personally adore the fact that each film is unique - sometimes in the worst way, and ultimately have found something good in all of them. The notion that there is a "proper Bondian continuity" is creative strangulation.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I have no problem with DAD being in the Ultimate DVD collection, since it is a proper Bond film.
One more thing; you talk about how one can 'sit on his bed, under the covers and work out what is acceptable;' you do exactly the same thing. Every time you criticise a Moore/non-Fleming Bond, you are essentially talking about what you can and can not accept.
Not to me. Pre-CR, I found it relatively easy to determine a continuity for the Bond films. Obviously you disagree, but at the end of the day this comes down to a matter of opinion, and whether one accepts such a continuity.
-- You could never have an operating center in a nuclear core; everyone would die of radiation poisoning.
-- Pencil-sized "rebreathers" did not exist in 1965.
-- No one could hollow out a volcano without someone else noticing -- where did they put all the excess dirt?
-- An exploding space station would not make a sound, nor give off much flame, due to lack of oxygen.
-- No way Trevelyan could have survived falling from the radio antenna.
-- Invisible cars don't exist.
-- And, as you point out, the main character never really ages.
But so what? Yes, Bond films are set in the present time. They have never been set in the present reality. If that means they "don't make sense", all I can say is thank goodness for that.
Let me clarify my points as stated above.
Conceeding that all this discussion about film is nothing more than personal opinion. I like to think though we are critic's - expressing what works for us and does not - and why.
When the words "personally accept" are applied it sounds more to me like denying very existance of certain films and actors. Also, I cannot fathom such a thing as a "proper Bondian continuity", except to address the films in the order in which they were made.
Dan, I want to thank you for encouraging me to watch a couple of the Moore Bonds, because it opened my eyes to a segment of the Bond pantheon that I had long dismissed. While I am still not comfortable with Moore, I did find in his films some elements that worked and were enjoyable.
I came to the conclusion that many Bond films are "dated" and while some approach timelessness, others are products of the era in which they were made, and one must evaluate (read accept) them in that context. Up until now a time line was not of much consequence in Bond, except to note a progression of toupees/hairstyles and automobiles.
The fact that DC does not look like SC or GL is what fascinates me about his CR'06 preformance. Maybe it was the "reboot" but for the first time since the days of SC, here was a actor that convinced me he was Bond from the start of the film. I think the well-written script helped alot too.
Other than the first two films each oo7 epic was - as pointed out before - a "stand alone" project, with an ocassional "bone toss" to another film - but nothing more. QOS promises to shake this up with a direct continuation from CR'06. It's a radical change for EON, I am looking forward to more of them.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I laughed soooooo hard. Great post, Sir Hil. {[]
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
That's because they're invisible silly!
-Roger Moore
It is all in interpretation of the viewer though, some people like seventies fashion over sixties, some fashion over style, whatever, Bond will prevail {[]
I think they all believe that as you've posted only four times (to now) and all of them have seemed to be attempting to cause an argument - some people believe that you are just spaming the site.
As for Bond's age not making sense, try not thinking about it too much. Yeah it is a little bit silly, but they are good movies and they need to have a Bond who wasnt born in the 1930's.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Obviously aging is for us mortals, not for a fictional character who brings entertainment and enjoyment into our hectic 9 - 5 days. New fans deserve him too.
Not to cause an argument. To cause a discussion. No one as gotten abusive. I'm tired of B.S. in movies. Yeah, Bond movies are fiction, but does that mean they have to be so unrealistic? Wouldn't they be better if they were more believable?
A spammer is someone who is selling something.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM