Tying Craig's movies playing between LTK - GE

Sweepy the Cat

I suppose you could, I mean, the only real ****-up in the theory is Felix. Hey, what about a false leg, plus, Felix changes his identity all the time. It's probably just a code-name for several agents (One of which was one ofBond's close friends)

Napoleon Plural

Eh? What do you mean, Sweepy? ?:)

Sweepy the Cat

Hard to explain

Lexi

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Eh? What do you mean, Sweepy? ?:)

yes, I thought it was just me....

what are you talking about...or have you had one too many Vesper's

Sweepy the Cat

OK, we all currently see the Bond series like this, 'DN-DAD' & 'CR-?'

How about DN-LTK, DC's movies, then Brozzers?

Hardyboy

Are you saying you think Craig's movies can take place between LTK and GE? If so, why? Methinks you've been in the catnip, Sweeps.

Sweepy the Cat

Why not?

Seahawk

GE's PTS takes place the better part of a decade prior to the demise of the Soviet Union at a point where Bond is already an experienced 00 Agent.
In CR Bond is a newly appointed 00 Agent & the year is explicitly shown to be 2006.
(It is also made clear in DAD that Brosnan is playing the same character who took on Dr No many years earlier, whereas in CR Bond's year of birth is shown to be 1968.)

Napoleon Plural

I sort of see what you're saying. But in a way, you'd be better having CR, QoS then NSNA as Felix is black in those and you could maybe imagine Craig's Bond evolving into Connery in NSNA - plus none have the old style traditional Bond feel, being a bit different.Maybe chuck in OHMSS into the mix as it doesn't have Felix in at all and ties in with Craig's approach.

Loeffelholz

Quite well-trodden ground here, but...

In order to assign any chronological reason---and true continuity ( ) ) ) )---to the Bond series, one has to ignore/disregard many things...not the least of which are evolving geopolitical situations, technologies...i.e., the advancement of time itself.* Requires more than the recommended daily dosage of existentialist abandon, IMRO, :007) though it's a choice open to any who choose to take it.

Therefore, one would assert that CR (and of course QoS...therefore by definition Craig's entire arc in the character) takes place before the events of DN, when Sean Connery assumes the cinematic face of Our Hero. Then it's just straight on thru to a miserable end (thus far) with DAD

Personally, I prefer to think of the Craig era as simply the current incarnation of this lush and vibrant legend that is James Bond. It just happens that we're currently examining the (heretofore unexamined) early phase of his career...and we are of course free to place his other (previous??) adventures into any order we choose---or at least the one that best quiets the insistently chattering voices in our collective head...

I don't take this to mean that Bonds #1 through #20 have been 'disrespected,' etc., ad nauseam. It's just that they exist outside the place in which we currently find ourselves...hence the tag 'legend,' which lends itself to the notion of mythology. Bond is like a story told round campfires over the long history of our advancement from the primordial ooze---the 'Hero's Journey,' as detailed by historian Joseph Campbell.

CR and QoS are the latest stories, IMRO. Period. It might be best not to overthink it. At any rate, I try not to.

* Interestingly, Fleming found himself wrestling with this very problem, even within the decade-and-change run of active production of the original novels, in order to keep his character at the 'proper' age. By the time he wrote Bond's obituary in YOLT, he'd decided to fudge the numbers a bit

Thunderbird 2

Loeffelholz wrote:

By the time he wrote Bond's obituary in YOLT, he'd decided to fudge the numbers a bit

Something a lot of authors end up having to do when their creations grow legs!

The way I look at it is there has been a soft "reset" with each actor comencing their turn in playing 007. Mr Craig's turn is the one that is unique, because it is a "complete reset," taking out the past history.

My (rhetorical) question is, if QOS is carrying on the storyline from CR, how will they account for a two year gap?
If technology seen in the film etc, is from today, won't that neccesitate a "Two years later" kind of break for temporal continuity? - I will wait to see the film so if anyone knows the answer already, please DO NOT say here!

Loeffelholz

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

The way I look at it is there has been a soft "reset" with each actor comencing their turn in playing 007. Mr Craig's turn is the one that is unique, because it is a "complete reset," taking out the past history.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me...at least Bond avoids being ninety years old!

jetsetwilly

If we're talking chronologies (and I apologise for re-treading old ground) - if you ignore the actual year it is set, Casino Royale could be the first Bond film quite easily, except for one single fact.

To explain: for forty years, cinema goers were happy to accept that a man in his late thirties in 1962 could also be a man in his late thirties in 2002. LTK in 1989 referred to Bond's marriage in 1969 (one of the few dates confirmed onscreen, in FYEO), despite the fact that Timothy Dalton was only 23 in 1969, so clearly the year a film is made is unimportant to the series. Therefore Casino Royale in 2006 can clearly depict events that took place prior to Dr No in 1962 - no-one cares.

The Judi Dench problem? How about this: we know M is a codename. We know that Bernard Lee and Robert Brown and Judi Dench and, heck, Edward Fox and John Huston, weren't actually called M. So how about the M of GE-DAD is one small woman with cropped grey hair, and the M of CR-QOS is a different woman with cropped grey hair.

The only problem, completely irreconcilable continuity problem, is that Bond meets Felix Leiter for the first time in both Dr No and Casino Royale. Though let's be honest, he might just not recognise Felix when he meets him a second time in Dr No, because he's white now. But put it a different way: he meets Blofeld for the first time in YOLT and OHMSS. A Blofeld who is, incidentally, Mittel European in YOLT, American in OHMSS, and British in DAF. Bond has also at various points in his career, encountered women who can crush men to death with their thighs, men who kill people with steel rimmed hats, and ridden across St Marks Square in a hovercraft gondola which causes the local wild birds to do a double take. Frankly, if you're looking for logic and internal consistency, you're watching the wrong films.

Loeffelholz

Hmm. As ever, JSW delineates most effectively -{

superado

Loeffelholz wrote:

It might be best not to overthink it. At any rate, I try not to.

Evidently so )

Sir Hillary Bray

jetsetwilly wrote:

The only problem, completely irreconcilable continuity problem, is that Bond meets Felix Leiter for the first time in both Dr No and Casino Royale. Though let's be honest, he might just not recognise Felix when he meets him a second time in Dr No, because he's white now.

) ) )
Dude, where you been hiding? No one in the history of online Bond fans makes me laugh the way you do! {[]

Although, to continue your point...wouldn't Bond have said something to Quarrel like, "Felix, what the hell are you doing dressed shabbily and painting boats? You have new alimony payments since Montenegro? Oh, and since you're dressed like that...fetch my shoes."

Loeffelholz

superado wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

It might be best not to overthink it. At any rate, I try not to.

Evidently so )

That's our supes. MIA for months...and then this. Not sure where you're coming from, but if it's fun at my expense, help yourself! {[]

Sweepy the Cat

I suppose anything is possible with really long and far-fetched explanation.