Does QOS Take place in 2006?

Dominic Greene

...so we've all heard that QOS takes place two hours after the events of Casino Royale. It's also obvious that CR takes place in July & August of 2006.

Does this mean QOS is set in 2006? Or at some point after the opening sequence will time "catch-up." I guess like what was done in "Goldeneye" when the teaser was set seven years earlier.

I can't imagine the entire movie takes place almost three years ago. Thoughts?

Napoleon Plural

I don't think the movie will 'catch up' to present day, DG, as it's been said that during the film

Bond doesn't enter into a real relationship with the main Bond girl, not having gotton over Vesper yet

implying that it's with a short time frame because

some two years would be a long time for Bond - or anyone - to be going without sex!

Dominic Greene

Thank's Guy's

Solaris

It never says that Bond goes 2 years without sex, it says he doesn't have a relationship, which, especially in Bond's case, is two very different things.

Napoleon Plural

Well okay, but somewhere I read implied Bond doesn't get it on with the main Bond girl, ie have sex with her, because he's still grieving over Vesper and it's too soon. Which does imply it's within a few weeks of the end of CR. It's questionable in that case whether Bond has a relationship with ANY of his Bond girls in the real sense of the term, bar Tracy and Vesper.

emtiem

Dominic Greene wrote:

...so we've all heard that QOS takes place two hours after the events of Casino Royale. It's also obvious that CR takes place in July & August of 2006.

Well, depends how long after the Venice bit the end of CR occurs. Perhaps Bond took a few weeks to find Mr White? Putting it in the autumn, and perhaps the rest of QoS follows on a bit later from that? We've seen M and Bond in the snow together so it must be a month or two after CR at least.

We've seen Bond in a brand new Ford Ka, which wouldn't be out in 2006 (but then again, neither were the Mondeo or DBS! ).

highhopes

There's always a danger of overthinking Bond films. The events happening onscreen follow the events of CR, all of which happen in the present day -- that's all we really need to know to enjoy the film. Does it add or detract from the fun to know or not know that the events occurred between 11:17 a.m. on Tuesday May 12 of this and that year and 1:36 p.m. on Sunday, June 30 of that year? It's a movie. Just so long as Bond isn't flitting from a world of powdered wigs and horse and buggies in one scene to a world of flying cars in another, I could care less for the time frame.

Agent Wade

Bond is the modern-day Paul Bunyan. His missions are modern-day tall tales. The continuuity is off from one film to the next. In the end, it doesn't really matter all that much. It's just fun to watch.

Napoleon Plural

highhopes wrote:

Just so long as Bond isn't flitting from a world of powdered wigs and horse and buggies in one scene to a world of flying cars in another, I could care less for the time frame.

?:) You used that phrase before, hh. Shouldn't it be "I couldn't care less..."? Or I have been getting it wrong all these years?

JADE66

Brilliant, Agent Wade, positively brilliant.
I remember the 70s and my old Atari games very vividly. From Space Invaders to Missile Attack and Defender and your little tribute was a great reminder of what gaming used to be like. Just the thing I needed to get my day started.
Hope we'll be seeing more of the same.B-)

Napoleon Plural

Wooshing noise...

highhopes

Napoleon Plural wrote:

highhopes wrote:

Just so long as Bond isn't flitting from a world of powdered wigs and horse and buggies in one scene to a world of flying cars in another, I could care less for the time frame.

?:) You used that phrase before, hh. Shouldn't it be "I couldn't care less..."? Or I have been getting it wrong all these years?

You are correct, Nape.

Consider my take a contraction of a contraction ). Or compensation for the odd double-negative that slips off my tongue now and then.

Loeffelholz

If QoS actually does take place in '06, I doubt we'll have any concrete evidence of it, such as the dates on the surveillance discs at the Ocean Club in CR...by the same token, I wouldn't be surprised if the PTS of QoS occurs at the much-ballyhooed "twenty minutes after" CR, and then we fast-forward in time after the opening titles (such as in GE or DAD).

Doesn't really matter too much to me, except for the minor detail of Bond's haircut. One way to handle this would be to cut Craig's hair to CR length/style at the final stage of filming, and shoot his PTS close-up work at the end of principal photography...but for all I know, that footage is already in the can, so who knows?

Dan Same

highhopes wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

highhopes wrote:

I could care less for the time frame.

?:) You used that phrase before, hh. Shouldn't it be "I couldn't care less..."? Or I have been getting it wrong all these years?

You are correct, Nape.

It's actually both. I usually use "I couldn't care less' but I often hear people say 'I could care less' so really both forms would be acceptable.

Mr Beech

I think you are meant to just assume present day whether a date is spotted or not. They would have put "July 1, 2006 - Sienna" if the date was important and meant to be in mind.

I am not sure why I revived this, but I just thought this was interesting. Does the time frames matter?