An Exploration of Timeline Theories

chrisisall

We should also take a lesson from GE & Dark Angel... IMO it's a matter of time until some bunch of nuts deploy EMP to wipe out our grids (or try to).

Thunderpussy

Just thinking ....... Connery's Bond went to Oxford
While, Moore's Bond went to Cambridge. ...... While
The literary Bond went to the university of Geneva..
........ More great Continuity )

Matt S

Thunderpussy wrote:

Just thinking ....... Connery's Bond went to Oxford
While, Moore's Bond went to Cambridge. ...... While
The literary Bond went to the university of Geneva..
........ More great Continuity )

Connery's Bond studied Oriental Languages at Cambridge, so both Connery's and Moore's Bonds went to Cambridge.

Thunderpussy

Well that blows my argument out of the water ) both you and DigificWriter
Must have been right all along ! )

Agent Lee

DigificWriter wrote:

Recognizing that there's intended to be a singular sense of continuity and an overall structure to the franchise isnt "charging at windmills".

Sure, but there's a difference between arguing that there is an "overall structure" to the series and arguing that the entire pre-Craig series is a completely sound, logical timeline without any continuity hiccups whatsoever.

Thunderpussy

With this thread I can only quote Broadshoulder
" Bangs head against wall 8-) 8-) ". )
For Me, I think it's now best left alone

Barbel

Agent Lee wrote:

Sure, but there's a difference between arguing that there is an "overall structure" to the series and arguing that the entire pre-Craig series is a completely sound, logical timeline without any continuity hiccups whatsoever.

Agreed- there IS an overall structure, but only broad continuity with quite a few hiccups. Most are fairly minor, but there are one or two large ones.

DigificWriter

Agent Lee wrote:

Sure, but there's a difference between arguing that there is an "overall structure" to the series and arguing that the entire pre-Craig series is a completely sound, logical timeline without any continuity hiccups whatsoever.

No-one, as far as I know, has said that the pre-Craig Bond-verse continuity fits together perfectly; however, just because there are issues with it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that the people who don't want to discuss the ways in which it fits together, issues and all, should be treating any analysis of and discussion about it at all as a source of deriding amusement.

Barbel wrote:

Agreed- there IS an overall structure, but only broad continuity with quite a few hiccups. Most are fairly minor, but there are one or two large ones.

I don't get how you can look at the following things - characters that appear in multiple movies played by the same actors; multiple specific references that stretch across films; multiple minor references that stretch across films; and certain movies that are clearly meant to be direct or indirect sequels to other movies - and say that there's only meant to be "broad continuity" between the movies pre-Craig; I really don't.

Yes, there are some issues, as you say, but that doesn't mean that their presence completely invalidates the myriad number of things that demonstrate an otherwise coherent and cohesive 'link' between the films and establish them as forming a fluid continuity with one another.

There are a number of things - some really quite major - about Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek series that don't in fact match up with the things that followed it, but, even with those problems, fans of the franchise recognize and accept that the franchise does in fact link together and that each of its various pieces is in fact meant to follow on or link up with the others, regardless of how smoothly this 'linking' actually is.

Thunderpussy

Hey guys don't use up all your good stuff, save some for the
Second season. {[]

Barbel

DigificWriter wrote:

I don't get how you can look at the following things - characters that appear in multiple movies played by the same actors; multiple specific references that stretch across films; multiple minor references that stretch across films; and certain movies that are clearly meant to be direct or indirect sequels to other movies - and say that there's only meant to be "broad continuity" between the movies pre-Craig; I really don't.

I realise that.

However, you don't have to take my word for it: Michael G. Wilson has said that Bond films weren’t one big film series but rather a “series of series”- which is roughly what the OP and others have said in this thread.

DigificWriter

^ Hmm. Can you give me more information?

I don't see it that way based on my own observations, but I'd like to find out more about what he meant by that.

Barbel

He said that while Brosnan was Bond, if that helps.

DigificWriter

Do we know the exact context in which he made those comments?

Barbel

Yes. He was answering questions whilst in New York for the premiere of GE.

DigificWriter

^ Okay. Thanks.

I did a search of the 'Net to try and see if I could find his comments, and came up empty, so does anybody know where I could find a transcript of them?

Agent Lee

Thunderpussy wrote:

Hey guys don't use up all your good stuff, save some for the
Second season. {[]

)

chrisisall

DigificWriter wrote:

^ Hmm. Can you give me more information?

I don't see it that way based on my own observations, but I'd like to find out more about what he meant by that.

I think he meant that he felt the Bonds are a series of series.

DigificWriter

^ I'd like to find out the 'why' behind his statement since, as I noted, my own observations on the films themselves (which go beyond just what I've seen and encompass the research on them that I've done and the opinions/observations of some of the people here) indicate that there's far greater connectivity and interconnectedness than a statement like the one he made would indicate.

chrisisall

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Agent Lee

chrisisall wrote:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

+1

Lady Ice

Thunderpussy wrote:

The films were never made to fit a Timeline, so to even try and find
a Timeline that works for them all, is Fun, but Crazy. )

This! The Craig films have more of a timeline but even then, it doesn't feel like Skyfall particularly progresses after QoS.

Barbel

DigificWriter wrote:

^ I'd like to find out the 'why' behind his statement since, as I noted, my own observations on the films themselves (which go beyond just what I've seen and encompass the research on them that I've done and the opinions/observations of some of the people here) indicate that there's far greater connectivity and interconnectedness than a statement like the one he made would indicate.

Without intending to sound condescending, and apologies if it comes across that way: there's a trope called "Word Of God" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.WordOfGod and here's a quote from that:

A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the Word of God comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director, or producer. Such edicts can even go against events as were broadcast, due to someone making a mistake.

So, in this context the ambigious or undefined aspect is continuity, the ultimate authority is Michael G. Wilson (aided and abetted by his half-sister, of course) and if he says it isn't one big series then his words carry a lot of weight.

DigificWriter

"Word of God" statements do carry a lot of weight with me, but I will also readily admit that, in cases where there appears to be conflict between "Word of God" statements and what's actually shown, I personally tend to err on the side of what's been shown, which is why I'm interested in seeing if I can't ascertain the 'why' behind his statement so as to better understand whether or not his statement does in fact conflict with what's been shown as far as the interconnectivity between and continuity of the films themselves is concerned.

chrisisall

^ Dude, just enjoy the world of James Bond first before all this over-thinking on something you haven't even fully experienced yet. Give us reviews as you go (they're good, btw). -{

Barbel

Thanks, Chris . The James Bond stories (books, films, whatever) are there to be enjoyed first and foremost, which is why I am here. Which is why you are here. Which is why here exists.

(No prizes to whoever spots what I'm paraphrasing here )

DigificWriter

I personally get as much enjoyment from figuring out how the films fit together as I do from experiencing them for the first time as they are, so there's not really anything about my enjoyment of them that would change one way or the other if I weren't focusing on the continuity aspects of things.

Thunderpussy

) The world of Bond is like being in the most exciting restaurant, full of the most
Amazing food and wines ! Yet you want to sit and discuss the font used on the menu. )

chrisisall

Hahahahahahh!!! )

DigificWriter

The way I look at my fascination with the continuity of the films is that I'm a "foodie" who wants to savor and explore what I'm consuming, rather than just consuming it, because the experience of consuming it is enhanced by my having a deeper understanding of what it is I'm consuming.

Thunderpussy

You suffer from consumption then ?