LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
One simply must make concessions, somewhere, if it's insisted upon that all pre-Craig films were one person, embarking upon 20 major missions dating from 1962 thru 2002. You have to adjust for evolving geopolitics, technology, age of the protagonist, etc., et al.
Bond exists in the moment - always. It's as simple as that...or as complicated as you want to make it.
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
What's your logical explanation for Bond not aging with the passage of time when the characters he interacts with do?
As Loeffelholz wrote, "Bond exists in the moment - always." Watch the films and you'll see no signs of the character ageing. Roger Moore in the 1980s clearly cannot do the things required of Bond in those film (like simple running), but Bond certainly can. The only characters who actually age in the Bond films are Q (TWINE) and Moneypenny (OP). Q retires and Moneypenny resets in TLD. Bond's age is never brought up when others' ages are.
What's your logical explanation for Bond not aging with the passage of time when the characters he interacts with do?
because nobody wants a 70 year old 007...
That's a really flimsy argument to make, and not at all realistic, even for a fictional universe, and especially not for a fictional universe that largely adheres to real-world norms and natural laws.
What's your logical explanation for Bond not aging with the passage of time when the characters he interacts with do?
because nobody wants a 70 year old 007...
That's a really flimsy argument to make, and not at all realistic, even for a fictional universe, and especially not for a fictional universe that largely adheres to real-world norms and natural laws.
ok ok professor....
you're trying to explain the unexplainable and I don't really know what you're trying to get to?!
Bond simply doesn't age like Loeffelholz has said!
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Bond simply doesn't age like Loeffelholz has said!
I reject that argument because I don't think it can't be supported within the logical realities of the character's universe.
Asking people to contribute to this discussion by using real-world logic and the logical confines of the Old!Bond Continuity to outline a realistic chronology of the character's career the way that I did (and quite easily, I might add) isn't "trying to explain the unexplainable"; it's trying to think in-depth about the universe as presented.
Bond simply doesn't age like Loeffelholz has said!
I reject that argument because I don't think it can't be supported within the logical realities of the character's universe.
Asking people to contribute to this discussion by using real-world logic and the logical confines of the Old!Bond Continuity to outline a realistic chronology of the character's career the way that I did (and quite easily, I might add) isn't "trying to explain the unexplainable"; it's trying to think in-depth about the universe as presented.
It's ONE character, ONE human being that's going through 20 missions throughout his whole career at the secret service. That's the fictional reason.
this ONE character doesn't age because the actors that portrayed him were of different age so that the movies could run for 40 years. that's the real-world reason.
both fiction and real-world mustn't/cannot be combined here.
I mean what should the producers have done when RM retired in 1985? should they have stopped the whole franchise because the lead actor would have to have been 60yo for continuity reasons? NO, they didn't care for Bond's age and decided to go with TD in order to carry on the franchise!
you see, continuity isn't needed in a Bond movie, e.g. Leiter actor and Maud Adams' two different roles in TMWTGG abd AVTAK, they can't be explaned by "real world rules" eiter, either one goes with it or not...
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
The character aging or not aging within the logical confines of his own fictional reality has very little to do with the real-world logistics that exist outside of that reality. It's not by any means impractical or impossible to reconcile the character aging (even without any outward signs that he's doing so) within the confines of his universe as presented with the real-world, out-of-universe logistics of the actors portraying him ranging in age from their late 20s to their late 50s over the course of 20 films.
The character aging or not aging within the logical confines of his own fictional reality has very little to do with the real-world logistics that exist outside of that reality. It's not by any means impractical or impossible to reconcile the character aging (even without any outward signs that he's doing so) within the confines of his universe as presented with the real-world, out-of-universe logistics of the actors portraying him ranging in age from their late 20s to their late 50s over the course of 20 films.
but there is no end to the franchise so it would be hard for them to keep an actor and let him age as Bond
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
The character doesn't need to age along with the actor; we just need to believe that he is in fact aging with the confines of the fictional reality in which he exists, which is very easy to do even if they keep periodically replacing the actor.
Saying that Bond can't and doesn't age within the confines of his fictional reality because the age of the actors playing him fluctuates is removing oneself from the contextual reality of the character's universe as presented without taking into account the fact that those two things aren't in any way codependent on each other, and is, IMO, counterintuitive to accepting things as they're being presented within the context of the character's fictional reality itself.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
) Ah, this is delightful.
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
Albus Dumbledore, the Burton-Schumacher Bruce Wayne, and Rachel Dawes all aged within the context of the fictional universes in which they existed, but were all played by multiple actors of very different ages, and I've seen nothing within the context of the James Bond franchise to convince me that such is not also the case there as well.
The actors playing Bond are prone to the natural aging factors that all real people encounter (free radical cellular damage, ultra violet radiation on skin surfaces, built-in cellular replication imperfections, etc.) and therefore an aging acceptance suspension of the character becomes a normal sublimative reaction on the part of the viewer for the purposes of elongated and antagonistic-free emotional fulfillment during the immersive entertainment experience. To attempt a series of motion pictures with the continuity of fictional aging would limit the movies to a near set-in-stone tone as well as limit the stories to a multiverse-less linear progression that would demand of us a narrowing of emotional and narrative focus to which I would, in time, be disinclined to acquiesce.
It's already been demonstrated that the pre-Craig films do represent a gradually and progressively unfolding interconnected narrative, which by necessity carries with it the logical and logistical requirement of the character himself progressing along with that narrative.
Ah, but that is only applicable to the first two films as the third started a definite parallax progression with tone deviation and accelerated time dilation in order to tell a non-linear and indeed narratively skewed faux logical character-departure vehicle story.
Even when the stories are standalone, there's still an easily demonstrable through-line connecting every single one of the pre-Craig films to one another narratively in some fashion, so I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Ah, but that is only applicable to the first two films as the third started a definite parallax progression with tone deviation and accelerated time dilation in order to tell a non-linear and indeed narratively skewed faux logical character-departure vehicle story.
)
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Ah, but that is only applicable to the first two films as the third started a definite parallax progression with tone deviation and accelerated time dilation in order to tell a non-linear and indeed narratively skewed faux logical character-departure vehicle story.
I'm watching Thunderball right now, and although there aren't any overt indicators as to when it takes place, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for it to actually take place prior to the events of Goldfinger and within relatively close proximity to the events of From Russia with Love and Dr. No.
I'm watching Thunderball right now, and although there aren't any overt indicators as to when it takes place, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for it to actually take place prior to the events of Goldfinger and within relatively close proximity to the events of From Russia with Love and Dr. No.
Thoughts?
no! why? two words: Aston Martin
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Comments
Bond exists in the moment - always. It's as simple as that...or as complicated as you want to make it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Still, there's nothing that shows Bond ageing. Just because other people have an age doesn't mean that Bond does.
As Loeffelholz wrote, "Bond exists in the moment - always." Watch the films and you'll see no signs of the character ageing. Roger Moore in the 1980s clearly cannot do the things required of Bond in those film (like simple running), but Bond certainly can. The only characters who actually age in the Bond films are Q (TWINE) and Moneypenny (OP). Q retires and Moneypenny resets in TLD. Bond's age is never brought up when others' ages are.
Just because there's no outward indication of the character aging doesn't mean he's not intended to.
because nobody wants a 70 year old 007...
That about sums it up for me. -{
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
That's a really flimsy argument to make, and not at all realistic, even for a fictional universe, and especially not for a fictional universe that largely adheres to real-world norms and natural laws.
ok ok professor....
you're trying to explain the unexplainable and I don't really know what you're trying to get to?!
Bond simply doesn't age like Loeffelholz has said!
I reject that argument because I don't think it can't be supported within the logical realities of the character's universe.
Asking people to contribute to this discussion by using real-world logic and the logical confines of the Old!Bond Continuity to outline a realistic chronology of the character's career the way that I did (and quite easily, I might add) isn't "trying to explain the unexplainable"; it's trying to think in-depth about the universe as presented.
But the sad truth is, DC rebooted the timeline. That's what is official, and that's what we have to accept.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
It's ONE character, ONE human being that's going through 20 missions throughout his whole career at the secret service. That's the fictional reason.
this ONE character doesn't age because the actors that portrayed him were of different age so that the movies could run for 40 years. that's the real-world reason.
both fiction and real-world mustn't/cannot be combined here.
I mean what should the producers have done when RM retired in 1985? should they have stopped the whole franchise because the lead actor would have to have been 60yo for continuity reasons? NO, they didn't care for Bond's age and decided to go with TD in order to carry on the franchise!
you see, continuity isn't needed in a Bond movie, e.g. Leiter actor and Maud Adams' two different roles in TMWTGG abd AVTAK, they can't be explaned by "real world rules" eiter, either one goes with it or not...
but there is no end to the franchise so it would be hard for them to keep an actor and let him age as Bond
Saying that Bond can't and doesn't age within the confines of his fictional reality because the age of the actors playing him fluctuates is removing oneself from the contextual reality of the character's universe as presented without taking into account the fact that those two things aren't in any way codependent on each other, and is, IMO, counterintuitive to accepting things as they're being presented within the context of the character's fictional reality itself.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
...and endless
#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
Even when the stories are standalone, there's still an easily demonstrable through-line connecting every single one of the pre-Craig films to one another narratively in some fashion, so I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thoughts?
no! why? two words: Aston Martin