I'm personally not a fan of the idea that Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan all play the same character. That's simply too absurd in my opinion, and it probably makes more sense to think of each Bond encompassing a separate universe, with the possible exception of Connery and Lazenby.
Essentially it would go like this:
The Connery-Lazenby universe: It would encompass Dr No all the way to Diamonds Are Forever. SPECTRE is the main villain throughout and Blofeld goes down eventually in that end scene in the oil rig of DAF.
The Moore universe: His background is similar to that of Connery's Bond-Her wife dies at some point prior to the films and presumably reduces Blofeld's power and dismantles SPECTRE prior to LALD. The movies then start, and the storyline of Blofeld picks up early in FYEO, when he seeks final revenge on Bond. Bond kills Blofeld then. The storyline continues until AVTAK.
The Dalton universe: Encompasses both TLD and LTK. Gogol exists in both timelines, but that doesn't really matter. Bond was married to Tracy also in this timeline, but died for some unknown reason.
The Brosnan universe: This timeline goes from GE to DAD. Bond also presumably married Tracy at some point but also died due to unknown reasons.
The Craig universe: So far, the only timeline in which we have seen Bond from the beginning, when he earned the 00 rank. SPECTRE also comes to play in this timeline, though how it will relate to the previous Quantum organization remains to be seen.
You give all the main reasons why Connery through Brosnan is one timeline. You've only convinced me more of that. It's not absurd if you look at it through the perspective of Bond's world.
What I thought too.
They're the same character, there are too many examples throughout the series of Bond being in the same line. As **** as DAD is, there's enough "nod-to" previous missions included in this film as well.
I'm personally not a fan of the idea that Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan all play the same character. That's simply too absurd in my opinion, and it probably makes more sense to think of each Bond encompassing a separate universe, with the possible exception of Connery and Lazenby.
Essentially it would go like this:
The Connery-Lazenby universe: It would encompass Dr No all the way to Diamonds Are Forever. SPECTRE is the main villain throughout and Blofeld goes down eventually in that end scene in the oil rig of DAF.
The Moore universe: His background is similar to that of Connery's Bond-Her wife dies at some point prior to the films and presumably reduces Blofeld's power and dismantles SPECTRE prior to LALD. The movies then start, and the storyline of Blofeld picks up early in FYEO, when he seeks final revenge on Bond. Bond kills Blofeld then. The storyline continues until AVTAK.
The Dalton universe: Encompasses both TLD and LTK. Gogol exists in both timelines, but that doesn't really matter. Bond was married to Tracy also in this timeline, but died for some unknown reason.
The Brosnan universe: This timeline goes from GE to DAD. Bond also presumably married Tracy at some point but also died due to unknown reasons.
The Craig universe: So far, the only timeline in which we have seen Bond from the beginning, when he earned the 00 rank. SPECTRE also comes to play in this timeline, though how it will relate to the previous Quantum organization remains to be seen.
You give all the main reasons why Connery through Brosnan is one timeline. You've only convinced me more of that. It's not absurd if you look at it through the perspective of Bond's world.
What I thought too.
They're the same character, there are too many examples throughout the series of Bond being in the same line. As **** as DAD is, there's enough "nod-to" previous missions included in this film as well.
They can all be "the same character" and still all exist in their own universes. I don't think anyone is arguing that every actor isn't playing the same character. And I don't think that nods to previous missions inherently mean they all exist in the same universe.
You're trying to use the term "the same character" in the abstract and as shorthand for "they're all playing a VERSION of the same character" when that's not what was happening at all.
The connections between and references to past films - even across different actors' tenures - are so blatant and explicit that even a person such as myself who has only seen 3 of the pre-Craig movies to date can recognize them just by reading plot synopses and doing a little bit of other research.
The relationship between the pre-Craig films is exactly the same as the relationship between the four Batman films released btween 1989 and 1997: even with multiple actors playing the titlular character, his history carries over in full from movie to movie and actor to actor, and it's so obvious that even somebody like me who's only seen a few of the films in question can figure it out.
You're trying to use the term "the same character" in the abstract and as shorthand for "they're all playing a VERSION of the same character" when that's not what was happening at all.
The connections between and references to past films - even across different actors' tenures - are so blatant and explicit that even a person such as myself who has only seen 3 of the pre-Craig movies to date can recognize them just by reading plot synopses and doing a little bit of other research.
The relationship between the pre-Craig films is exactly the same as the relationship between the four Batman films released btween 1989 and 1997: even with multiple actors playing the titlular character, his history carries over in full from movie to movie and actor to actor, and it's so obvious that even somebody like me who's only seen a few of the films in question can figure it out.
I'm not "trying" to use the term "the same character" as shorthand for "they're all playing a VERSION of the same character". I AM using the term "the same character" as shorthand for "they're all playing a VERSION of the same character", very consciously in fact. Whether you think that they all exist in the same timeline or not, each actor is inherently playing a VERSION of the same character, just by virtue of the fact that each actor plays Bond in his own unique way (you could say the same of the three actors who played Batman in the Burton-Schumacher Batman series). You, Matt S, and a few others who have posted on this thread seem pretty darn adamant that all the pre-Craig films are empirically in the same timeline. As I'm not as passionate about my view of the timeline(s) as you seem to be about debunking it, I'm not going to argue the matter anymore. What I will argue is that each actor, no matter what the official, conceived, or believed status of the timeline of the films, is definitely playing their OWN VERSION of the same character. Watch all the films and you'll see what I'm talking about. But I suppose even that is arguing semantics, which is all we've been doing here for the last few days.
Also just wanted to add: I was discussing this thread and some of your responses with my wife (who as seen a handful of bondfilms, some of the connery films, GE, and the Craig films), and she responded right away, "I always assumed that each actor had his own timeline." Which, I think, goes to show that it's not as crystal clear as you keep asserting that all the pre-Craig films are one continuity without question.
chrisisall is right. This thread is crazy. Had I any idea that it would end up going this way, I never would have started it in the first place. 8-)
I believe there are three timelines in the Bond series:
Timeline 1: Connery/Lazenby/Moore
This one goes from 1962 until about 1983 (presuming some films take place in the same year). Blofeld is a double in YOLT and DAF, or YOLT is no longer cannon.
Timeline 2: Dalton/Brosnan
Takes place between about 1987 - 2002. In this timeline, Bond has been married, although it ended differently to how OHMSS ended (Blofeld or SPECTRE do not exist in this timeline). Although I have not read the Gardner novels, I would like to think the film's take place in the same universe as the books.
Timeline 3: Craig
Just CR to whatever Craig's final film will be. As his Bond will be about 50 by the time his last film comes out, I'd like to think if the series continues then the next Bond takes place in a different timeline (without an origin story).
My thoughts as well (as stated in my original post on this thread, though I'm becoming more attracted to the idea that each actor represents his own continuity), but you've added some interesting caveats. The notion that the Gardner novels exist in the Dalton/Brosnan continuity is quite intriguing. And pointing out that Bond was also married in the Dalton/Brosnan timeline gets at my thoughts that all the continuities share similar events and characters, whether they occur on or off-screen.
Also intrigued by the idea that YOLT might retroactively not be canon, given the Blofeld(s) issue.
From the perspective of the actors, the actors are playing their own versions of the character. I'd even say that Roger Moore plays the character much differently in the 70s than he does in the 80s. But the character is always the same character. Bond always has the same characterisitc, just that some actors emphasise some of those characteristics more than others. Why wouldn't nods to previous missions mean they all exist in the same universe? All the same things happen to the 5 different Bonds, so if all those things happened in theirs pasts and futures, what's your argument for them being in different universes?
Each actor might bring their own individual approach to the character, but they're still playing a single character whose history, experiences, quirks, tastes, and general personality are carried over from film to film and actor to actor. Connery and Co. aren't playing 5 different versions of one character; they're bringing their own individual appoaches to the portrayal of one single character, just as Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Richard Harris and Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), and Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer and George Clooney (Bruce Wayne) did.
And as far as this thread getting "crazy" goes, no-one has been uncivil or out-of-control here, so I don't see where you're getting the idea from that creating this thread was a bad idea.
Each actor might bring their own individual approach to the character, but they're still playing a single character whose history, experiences, quirks, tastes, and general personality are carried over from film to film and actor to actor. Connery and Co. aren't playing 5 different versions of one character; they're bringing their own individual appoaches to the portrayal of one single character, just as Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Richard Harris and Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), and Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer and George Clooney (Bruce Wayne) did.
And as far as this thread getting "crazy" goes, no-one has been uncivil or out-of-control here, so I don't see where you're getting the idea from that creating this thread was a bad idea.
I think we really are arguing semantics at this point.
Forgive me if I'm being overly sensitive. Yes everyone has been civil, obviously. I was just surprised at the direction this thread has taken and the hard stances people are taking. I never thought that it would become a debate, just sort of a speculation with slightly differing views. The debate aspect of it just kind of threw me off I guess.
chrisisall is right. This thread is crazy. Had I any idea that it would end up going this way, I never would have started it in the first place. 8-)
I didn't mean crazy 'bad'. Just wacky. It's been a fun & civil thread. A good creation, Lee. -{
Thanks -{ . Again, my apologies for being overly sensitive. Just surprised at the energy of the discussion. Really happy this caught on as much as it did though. Thanks everyone for your enthusiasm
chrisisall is right. This thread is crazy. Had I any idea that it would end up going this way, I never would have started it in the first place. 8-)
I didn't mean crazy 'bad'. Just wacky. It's been a fun & civil thread. A good creation, Lee. -{
Thanks -{ . Again, my apologies for being overly sensitive. Just surprised at the energy of the discussion. Really happy this caught on as much as it did though. Thanks everyone for your enthusiasm
Yes, no one's afraid to do a bit of over-thinking in the pursuit of fun And there's no shortage of energy where Bond's concerned!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just in the interest of discussion, I'd like to see other people's thoughts on how they'd arrange the pre-Craig films into a cohesive, singular timeline the way that I did earlier in the thread. Anybody willing to indulge me?
Just in the interest of discussion, I'd like to see other people's thoughts on how they'd arrange the pre-Craig films into a cohesive, singular timeline the way that I did earlier in the thread. Anybody willing to indulge me?
I'm in.
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
OHMSS
TSWLM
FYEO
TLD
LTK
GE
TWINE*
TND*
*Order switched for Bond ending up with Wai Lin, whom he would marry & have many strong children with!
First Generation Bond fan: Fleming novels in the 50s
Second Generation: Connery movies in the 60s
Third Generation: Moore in the 70s
Fourth Generation: Moore then Dalton in the 80s; Gardner novels
Fifth Generation: Brosnan in the 90s; Benson novels
Sixth Generation: Craig in the 00s; novels by whoever
(broad categories with room for crossovers, of course) I'm the second generation, although I did read the books first.
I guess I'm putting things this way because the point I want to make is this: one's view of the timeline depends on where you came in. When I got hooked on Bond, it was perfectly possible to believe that the man in the novels was being portrayed by Connery onscreen- he's a little younger than literary Bond, of course, whose adventures mainly took place in the 50s while Connery's Bond was in the 60s but that's easily overlooked. Moore in the 70s was a continuation of the same (he's about 3 years older than Connery) and could easily be interpreted as the same man now in his 40s and 50s.
Where this falls apart is when Dalton replaced Moore- he's 20 years younger and could not have had the experiences Connery and Moore had had (yes, ok, and Lazenby too- for the purposes of this argument I'm regarding him as a Connery substitute/stand-in and ignoring his age). It's at this point in the mid-80s that Bond became ageless- otherwise he'd simply be too old to continue his work. Gardner took a similar approach in his novels.
To a large extent, James Bond the character has become a victim of his own success. The film producers and novel authors are obliged to present adventures either taking place now whether that happens to be 1987 or 2015, or alternatively give us period pieces (eg Trigger Mortis). (This mirrors the situation with Bond's closest comparison, Sherlock Holmes- Holmes is as big now as he's ever been whether presented in a contemporary setting or in Victorian times.) It isn't possible that the man who had his balls smashed by Le Chiffre in 1953 is the same one who, er, entertained Halle Berry in 2002, and if one chooses to ignore the novels ( , but some do) then it's pretty unlikely that the man who was just looking at Ursula Andress could be the same one who unconvincingly escaped from Gustav Graves' laser.
So, 007's biggest and deadliest enemy hasn't been Blofeld, or Goldfinger, or SMERSH, SPECTRE or Quantum- it's time. Some franchises (Star Trek, for example) attempt to create a single all-unifying continuity with varying degrees of success that give us fanboys and girls plenty of material to chew on. With James Bond, that simply is not possible.
So, my solution? Pour yourself a vodka martini, shaken not stirred of course, and sit back and enjoy the ride. James Bond was maybe 37 in Nineteen Fifty Whotsit when he went to Harlem with Felix, their table sunk through the floor, and he met Solitaire and Mr Big. He was maybe 37 in Nineteen Seventy Whotsit when it happened again. He'll be maybe 37 in the next film. And the next book. He is there to be enjoyed as he has been since Fleming first thought him up. He'll be there to be enjoyed after we have all passed away.
Just in the interest of discussion, I'd like to see other people's thoughts on how they'd arrange the pre-Craig films into a cohesive, singular timeline the way that I did earlier in the thread. Anybody willing to indulge me?
I'm in.
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
OHMSS
TSWLM
FYEO
TLD
LTK
GE
TND
TWINE
I was hoping people would follow my lead and outline each of Bond's adventures by year and also outline the age that the character would've been at the time of said adventures, but I guess that works.
James Bond was maybe 37 in Nineteen Fifty Whotsit when he went to Harlem with Felix, their table sunk through the floor, and he met Solitaire and Mr Big. He was maybe 37 in Nineteen Seventy Whotsit when it happened again. He'll be maybe 37 in the next film.
Like Superman is always 29? ?:)
Sir Rog broke the OO glass age ceiling for us at 57. Now that I'm his age in OP I really appreciate that! )
Just in the interest of discussion, I'd like to see other people's thoughts on how they'd arrange the pre-Craig films into a cohesive, singular timeline the way that I did earlier in the thread. Anybody willing to indulge me?
I'm in.
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
OHMSS
TSWLM
FYEO
TLD
LTK
GE
TND
TWINE
I was hoping people would follow my lead and outline each of Bond's adventures by year and also outline the age that the character would've been at the time of said adventures, but I guess that works.
My view is that James Bond doesn't age. Sean Connery may have been 32 in DN, but I think of him as more like late 30s. Roger Moore may have been 57 in his last Bond film, but story-wise he's in his 40s. Dalton and Brosnan are also the same. I'd say Bond is 38 in DN and 48 in DAD, with the others scaled in the middle.
Even for the Craig films, I don't think of Bond as the same age as Daniel Craig. Though Craig is 6 years older in CR than Connery is in DN, Craig's Bond acts a lot younger. I'd say Bond is early 30s in CR and QOS and late 40s in SF, based on both story and how much older Craig looked as Bond in SF than he did in real life. With Moore in AVTAK, they did the best they could with his looks. With Craig in SF, it's as if they made him look bad on purpose because he looked so much better on his SNL appearance later that year.
The "James Bond doesn't age" thing really doesn't hold much validity in either continuity because of the character's backstory, and because, in the case of the New!Bond Continuity, we have a defined birth year for him: 1969 (which makes him 38 in CR and QoS).
The "James Bond doesn't age" thing really doesn't hold much validity in either continuity because of the character's backstory, and because, in the case of the New!Bond Continuity, we have a defined birth year for him: 1969 (which makes him 38 in CR and QoS).
Where is the evidence that Bond ages in the old continuity?
It's unrealistic to believe that Bond is an 'ageless' character in the pre-Craig films when certain of said films contain defined dating (two examples being Tracy Bond's birth and death years - 1943 and 1969, respectively - and Paris Carver's birth year - 1969).
It's unrealistic to believe that Bond is an 'ageless' character in the pre-Craig films when certain of said films contain defined dating (two examples being Tracy Bond's birth and death years - 1943 and 1969, respectively - and Paris Carver's birth year - 1969).
Dude, chill. Relax. This is all about entertainment... stories... fiction. :007)
Comments
( I'll hold the coats)
I need me a hearing aid...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
What I thought too.
They're the same character, there are too many examples throughout the series of Bond being in the same line. As **** as DAD is, there's enough "nod-to" previous missions included in this film as well.
"Better make that two."
They can all be "the same character" and still all exist in their own universes. I don't think anyone is arguing that every actor isn't playing the same character. And I don't think that nods to previous missions inherently mean they all exist in the same universe.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
The connections between and references to past films - even across different actors' tenures - are so blatant and explicit that even a person such as myself who has only seen 3 of the pre-Craig movies to date can recognize them just by reading plot synopses and doing a little bit of other research.
The relationship between the pre-Craig films is exactly the same as the relationship between the four Batman films released btween 1989 and 1997: even with multiple actors playing the titlular character, his history carries over in full from movie to movie and actor to actor, and it's so obvious that even somebody like me who's only seen a few of the films in question can figure it out.
I'm not "trying" to use the term "the same character" as shorthand for "they're all playing a VERSION of the same character". I AM using the term "the same character" as shorthand for "they're all playing a VERSION of the same character", very consciously in fact. Whether you think that they all exist in the same timeline or not, each actor is inherently playing a VERSION of the same character, just by virtue of the fact that each actor plays Bond in his own unique way (you could say the same of the three actors who played Batman in the Burton-Schumacher Batman series). You, Matt S, and a few others who have posted on this thread seem pretty darn adamant that all the pre-Craig films are empirically in the same timeline. As I'm not as passionate about my view of the timeline(s) as you seem to be about debunking it, I'm not going to argue the matter anymore. What I will argue is that each actor, no matter what the official, conceived, or believed status of the timeline of the films, is definitely playing their OWN VERSION of the same character. Watch all the films and you'll see what I'm talking about. But I suppose even that is arguing semantics, which is all we've been doing here for the last few days.
Also just wanted to add: I was discussing this thread and some of your responses with my wife (who as seen a handful of bondfilms, some of the connery films, GE, and the Craig films), and she responded right away, "I always assumed that each actor had his own timeline." Which, I think, goes to show that it's not as crystal clear as you keep asserting that all the pre-Craig films are one continuity without question.
chrisisall is right. This thread is crazy. Had I any idea that it would end up going this way, I never would have started it in the first place. 8-)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
My thoughts as well (as stated in my original post on this thread, though I'm becoming more attracted to the idea that each actor represents his own continuity), but you've added some interesting caveats. The notion that the Gardner novels exist in the Dalton/Brosnan continuity is quite intriguing. And pointing out that Bond was also married in the Dalton/Brosnan timeline gets at my thoughts that all the continuities share similar events and characters, whether they occur on or off-screen.
Also intrigued by the idea that YOLT might retroactively not be canon, given the Blofeld(s) issue.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
And as far as this thread getting "crazy" goes, no-one has been uncivil or out-of-control here, so I don't see where you're getting the idea from that creating this thread was a bad idea.
I think we really are arguing semantics at this point.
Forgive me if I'm being overly sensitive. Yes everyone has been civil, obviously. I was just surprised at the direction this thread has taken and the hard stances people are taking. I never thought that it would become a debate, just sort of a speculation with slightly differing views. The debate aspect of it just kind of threw me off I guess.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thanks -{ . Again, my apologies for being overly sensitive. Just surprised at the energy of the discussion. Really happy this caught on as much as it did though. Thanks everyone for your enthusiasm
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
Yes, no one's afraid to do a bit of over-thinking in the pursuit of fun
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
OHMSS
TSWLM
FYEO
TLD
LTK
GE
TWINE*
TND*
*Order switched for Bond ending up with Wai Lin, whom he would marry & have many strong children with!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Second Generation: Connery movies in the 60s
Third Generation: Moore in the 70s
Fourth Generation: Moore then Dalton in the 80s; Gardner novels
Fifth Generation: Brosnan in the 90s; Benson novels
Sixth Generation: Craig in the 00s; novels by whoever
(broad categories with room for crossovers, of course) I'm the second generation, although I did read the books first.
I guess I'm putting things this way because the point I want to make is this: one's view of the timeline depends on where you came in. When I got hooked on Bond, it was perfectly possible to believe that the man in the novels was being portrayed by Connery onscreen- he's a little younger than literary Bond, of course, whose adventures mainly took place in the 50s while Connery's Bond was in the 60s but that's easily overlooked. Moore in the 70s was a continuation of the same (he's about 3 years older than Connery) and could easily be interpreted as the same man now in his 40s and 50s.
Where this falls apart is when Dalton replaced Moore- he's 20 years younger and could not have had the experiences Connery and Moore had had (yes, ok, and Lazenby too- for the purposes of this argument I'm regarding him as a Connery substitute/stand-in and ignoring his age). It's at this point in the mid-80s that Bond became ageless- otherwise he'd simply be too old to continue his work. Gardner took a similar approach in his novels.
To a large extent, James Bond the character has become a victim of his own success. The film producers and novel authors are obliged to present adventures either taking place now whether that happens to be 1987 or 2015, or alternatively give us period pieces (eg Trigger Mortis). (This mirrors the situation with Bond's closest comparison, Sherlock Holmes- Holmes is as big now as he's ever been whether presented in a contemporary setting or in Victorian times.) It isn't possible that the man who had his balls smashed by Le Chiffre in 1953 is the same one who, er, entertained Halle Berry in 2002, and if one chooses to ignore the novels (
So, 007's biggest and deadliest enemy hasn't been Blofeld, or Goldfinger, or SMERSH, SPECTRE or Quantum- it's time. Some franchises (Star Trek, for example) attempt to create a single all-unifying continuity with varying degrees of success that give us fanboys and girls plenty of material to chew on. With James Bond, that simply is not possible.
So, my solution? Pour yourself a vodka martini, shaken not stirred of course, and sit back and enjoy the ride. James Bond was maybe 37 in Nineteen Fifty Whotsit when he went to Harlem with Felix, their table sunk through the floor, and he met Solitaire and Mr Big. He was maybe 37 in Nineteen Seventy Whotsit when it happened again. He'll be maybe 37 in the next film. And the next book. He is there to be enjoyed as he has been since Fleming first thought him up. He'll be there to be enjoyed after we have all passed away.
I was hoping people would follow my lead and outline each of Bond's adventures by year and also outline the age that the character would've been at the time of said adventures, but I guess that works.
Sir Rog broke the OO glass age ceiling for us at 57. Now that I'm his age in OP I really appreciate that!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
My view is that James Bond doesn't age. Sean Connery may have been 32 in DN, but I think of him as more like late 30s. Roger Moore may have been 57 in his last Bond film, but story-wise he's in his 40s. Dalton and Brosnan are also the same. I'd say Bond is 38 in DN and 48 in DAD, with the others scaled in the middle.
Even for the Craig films, I don't think of Bond as the same age as Daniel Craig. Though Craig is 6 years older in CR than Connery is in DN, Craig's Bond acts a lot younger. I'd say Bond is early 30s in CR and QOS and late 40s in SF, based on both story and how much older Craig looked as Bond in SF than he did in real life. With Moore in AVTAK, they did the best they could with his looks. With Craig in SF, it's as if they made him look bad on purpose because he looked so much better on his SNL appearance later that year.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Where is the evidence that Bond ages in the old continuity?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS