I think only Fleming's books had a deliberate timeline linking each volume. With certain paired exceptions, the films are episodic and self-contained.
I think of each one as its own universe unrelated to what we have seen in any previous film. If you watch all of them in a row, even just one actor's tenure, the rapid movement forward in time from film to film makes it hard to believe these are all subsequent missions in one agent's career. Plus, the frequent changes in actor and director make it hard to believe these missions each exist in the same universe.
like I assume Never Say Never Again is a Bond film in its own parallel universe (otherwise ConneryBond should be experiencing even more deja vu than usual), and the "funny" Casino Royale. But OHMSS also seems to be off on its own, at least separate from the Connery-verse.
So there's at least 26 parallel universes out there, each with its own James Bond, each experiencing his own personal most exciting adventure ever as we watch. Even if some of these parallel universes Bonds do sometimes look the same, with infinite possible universes diverging on infinite possible contingencies, that's inevitable.
exceptions would be the very rare cases where a character reappears in a subsequent film. Since Sherriff Pepper appears in two films, MooreBond's first two films are more likely to have occurred in the same universe than some of the others.
Fleming told us official double-oh retirement age is 45. Most of these actors in real life are way past official double-oh retirement age, so we already have to suspend disbelief and assume we are watching a professional actor play the part of a younger man.
And each film takes place in its relative Present, instead of being a period piece. So we see the trappings of contemporary fashions and technology, which adds to the sense these stories cannot all be experienced by the same man. And those fashions and technologies are important to the whole Bond film experience, so they take priority over any film-to-film consistency. But they are in a sense also real world details inevitably caught on film that need to be ignored, like an actors watch in a gladiator epic, along with the actor's age, if we are to accept the illusion.
So I see each universe having a Bond character on the most exciting adventure ever, just each universe somehow has its Bond experience his own personal best adventure in two year offsets to the next universe over. They probably each settle down with the Girl after the credits roll, and never go on a mission again, and we never see a sequel set in that old universe because it would be boring, so we switch to the next universe over where that Bond is just setting out on his personal best adventure.
You know Basil Rathbone's first two Sherlock Holmes films were Victorian period pieces, then the rest were set during the present day, i.e. World War II. Doyle's last Holmes story was written in 1926, so at the time they weren't that far back in the exotic past as we think of them now. But the WWII settings do look anachronistic to modern eyes. Sherlock Holmes should travel by hansom cab.
Maybe it was also a mistake assuming James Bond exists in an eternal Present? We are now fifty-odd years after Fleming's last James Bond story, and aside from the issues of the actor's age, we have long since lost a lot of the historic context of Fleming's stories, making the latest episodes seem connected to the original concept by name only .
Reeeeee I thought I hated the code name theory but this... This is worse. No, there are a lot of little signs that the films are connected to each other. Like Moore visiting Tracy, or Lazenby checking stuff from Connery adventures. We just have to accept that time isn't really a big thing in the Bond universe. Bond just lives in the time the films are made, that can be 1962, 1987 2015. But if this is the ultimate way for you to enjoy the movies, go for it. The most important thing is to have fun watching them -{
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
because you were kind enough to read my theory and express an opinion, Dutch, I shall reply to your reply.
I get that this theory is not for you and that's alright.
The way parallel universes work, they are created whenever a choice is made, so all else that has happened in the past remains the same and what happens in the future may or may not differ based on that one choice.
So these 26 (actually 27 counting Cardsharp Jimmy Bond) different parallel universe Bonds may indeed have some, even many, shared experiences.
LazenbyBond no doubt did experience (unseen versions of) most of the same missions ConneryBond did, because his adventure is so close to what Fleming wrote and FlemingBond experienced those adventures too. YOLT may present a bit of a paradox though, is there a YOLT souvenir in his desk drawer?
And sure MooreBond was married once, even to a woman named Tracy. And DaltonBond was married once, but we don't actually know the name of his bride. Amongst 27 possible Bonds, its statistically inevitable at least three of them had been married before, even to woman named Tracy.
Couldn’t all of the various timeline “problems” regarding the films be resolved by simply making the novels into films, in the order they were written, and keeping the novels' original settings, plots, costumes and timeline?
This way, all the films up till then could be seen as the hallucinations and nightmares of the Bond character while he is being tortured and under the affects of various truth drugs.
That would explain the timeline and chronological “problems” that have come to mind since the 2006 reboot.
There just isn't really a definitive way I'd say. The movies aren't just that logical if you start to think about it, I just ignore the little mistakes. But it's fun to see what people come up with. Bond until Craig isn't really made for timelines.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Couldn’t all of the various timeline “problems” regarding the films be resolved by simply making the novels into films, in the order they were written, and keeping the novels' original settings, plots, costumes and timeline?
This way, all the films up till then could be seen as the hallucinations and nightmares of the Bond character while he is being tortured and under the affects of various truth drugs.
That would explain the timeline and chronological “problems” that have come to mind since the 2006 reboot.
But then those very remakes could be hallucinations and nightmares from the Bond character during and after the torture scene in SPECTRE... leaving us back where we started...
Maybe we should consign the whole timeline debate to the Twilight Zone... #justsayin’
My Boss and I are both Bond fans, and the other day at work we were discussing the implications of the Craig-era on the timeline of the whole film series, the pros and cons of the "reboot", and a few alternate timeline theories. I'm sure all of these theories have been discussed before, but I thought I'd share a summary of our conversation and my conclusions because I find it really interesting.
Here are the three theories we discussed, along with the pros and cons of each:
1. The Reboot:
This we're all familiar with, and it's the "official" explanation, I suppose. Basically all the pre-Craig Bond films were one timeline and the series hit the reset button with Casino Royale. The pros are that it's clean, and doesn't have to account for continuity issues, plot holes, etc. The con is that it almost implies an attitude of "everything that came before is now obsolete, and the timeline we're in now is the one that matters", but only if you really value the notion of a timeline in the first place.
2. The Craig-era as Prequel:
Daniel Craig's bond films are a "prequel series" to the rest of the films, meaning that CR-SF are the first four "chapters" of the series, and once Craig's films end, the next chapters are DN-DAD, etc. The major con of this theory is obvious: so many plot holes and continuity problems that you can't really take any of the logistical specifics of any of the films literally, but rather, only view the characters, basic plots, and implications on the development of Bond's character as important to the "timeline". Even these considerations are complicated by the fact that Judi Dench's M comes both at the beginning and end of the timeline. And there's no telling how much further this theory will be complicated with the release of Spectre.
Clearly, there are too many problems to count with this theory. At the same time, it's also more interesting than a reboot, IMO. it has some really interesting implications on the development of Bond's character and opens the door for any future bond films after the Craig era to take place at virtually any point in the timeline--they could be further prequels pre-DN, post-Connery-pre-Moore, post-Brosnan, etc. I don't know why but that's just a really cool thought to me.
3. The Web, or "Anti-Timeline":
This isn't really a timeline theory, I guess, as it eliminates the concept of a timeline altogether in favor of something more nebulous. Instead of even taking a specific timeline into consideration, we can view all of the films as part of a web, and each film is simply a specific pinpoint and accompanying story and characters within the web. Viewing the films this way, we favor the character of Bond and the exploration of him and his universe through various, non-linear "adventures". The pros are simply that they eliminate the cons of the other two theories heretofore discussed. I guess the only major con would be that it makes a literal timeline obsolete. But maybe that's a pro as well.
Note: There are plenty of other theories we could explore (i.e. the IMO crappy theory of each bond being a different person using the "James Bond 007" codename, among others). These are just the three that my boss and I discussed and the ones I've been pondering since.
My Conclusions:
I have two seperate conclusions here; One embracing character, story, and theme over timeline, and the other a whole new timeline theory of my own design:
1. Of the three timeline theories we've explored, I think the Web/Anti-Timeline theory is the best. But this is only a matter of taste. While I'm sure there are many others who love Bond for other reasons, I love Bond for Bond--that is, I love the franchise because I'm intrigued by James Bond the character, and the mythology. While I ultimately find the prequel theory much more "interesting" than the reboot, I get really anxious when thinking about all the continuity problems and become more attracted to the "clean-slate" approach of the Reboot. But in the end, I find that both of these theories distract from what makes Bond so enjoyable for me, and prefer to view each film as it's own exploration of the Bond mythos, and part of a larger web of Bond-explorations.
2.That being said, if I were to come up with a suitable timeline theory of my own, I would split the series into not two, but THREE distinct Timelines, or as I like to call them, "Continuities":
Continuity 1: DN-AVTAK
The Connery/Lazenby era and the Moore era are one distinct timeline. Bond ages seamlessly here, starting the series as a young, rugged, rascal Double-O agent in 1962 and ending as an aging but still suave veteran of espionage in 1985. Granted, you could argue that Connery's, Lazenby's and Moore's portrayals are different enough to raise eyebrows, but I'd argue that they're just similar enough to be the same person, and certain aspects of 007's character and psyche are merely accentuated by each of the three actors.
Continuity 2: TLD-DAD
With the introduction of Dalton's Bond comes a whole new timeline, beginning in 1987 and ending in 2002. Though Dalton is older than Brosnan, it's feasible to imagine them as the same person. Not sure what else to say about this one besides the fact that the best thing it has going for it is that we watch James Bond move from the Cold War into, as the GE trailer puts it "a new world with new enemies and new threats".
Continuity 3: CR-?
The Craig era is neither a reboot, nor a prequel, but simply the last of three "continuities" in the series so far. Like the other two, it reflects the narrative and cinematic sensibilities of its time. Rather than leave Bond's origins mostly shrouded in mystery as the other two "continuities" did, this timeline explores Bond's character through both narrative and thematic development of his past and present. It's unclear where this timeline will end and where a fourth will begin. Only time will tell.
Phew, well, that's it I guess. Looking forward to reading your thoughts...
Basically, I agree with this. I would have the following annotations:
1) Connery's NSNA serves at Continuity 1's finale/end, with Bond in semi-retirement but goes on one last mission anyway. Obviously set after AVTAK.
2) Continuity 2 surely has some references in the first - most explicitly in LTK, TWINE and especially DAD, and all in most particular OHMSS. So my suggestion would be, that the '60's entries did occur for this continuity too, but definitely in an altered/different fashion, and certainly not set in the early '60's. So you have a "loose" history for the character, thus classifying TLD as a soft reboot, rather than a hard reboot, which Continuity 3 definitely is.
3) As plastic surgery is established to be quite ahead of its time in Continuity 1, I suggest (and others have before me also by now, for sure) that Blofeld escaped YOLT by using Henderson's face, who hadn't been aknowledged to have been killed for whatever reason, and uses it frequently in DAF to trip around Bond and the authorities, trying to escape. By the end of DAF, he does manage to escape, miraculously so, but with select memory amnesia that would enable Bond meeting him up in OHMSS - or so Blofeld allowed others to believe, so as to fool everyone and have the upper hand, once again.
Comments
I think of each one as its own universe unrelated to what we have seen in any previous film. If you watch all of them in a row, even just one actor's tenure, the rapid movement forward in time from film to film makes it hard to believe these are all subsequent missions in one agent's career. Plus, the frequent changes in actor and director make it hard to believe these missions each exist in the same universe.
like I assume Never Say Never Again is a Bond film in its own parallel universe (otherwise ConneryBond should be experiencing even more deja vu than usual), and the "funny" Casino Royale. But OHMSS also seems to be off on its own, at least separate from the Connery-verse.
So there's at least 26 parallel universes out there, each with its own James Bond, each experiencing his own personal most exciting adventure ever as we watch. Even if some of these parallel universes Bonds do sometimes look the same, with infinite possible universes diverging on infinite possible contingencies, that's inevitable.
exceptions would be the very rare cases where a character reappears in a subsequent film. Since Sherriff Pepper appears in two films, MooreBond's first two films are more likely to have occurred in the same universe than some of the others.
Fleming told us official double-oh retirement age is 45. Most of these actors in real life are way past official double-oh retirement age, so we already have to suspend disbelief and assume we are watching a professional actor play the part of a younger man.
And each film takes place in its relative Present, instead of being a period piece. So we see the trappings of contemporary fashions and technology, which adds to the sense these stories cannot all be experienced by the same man. And those fashions and technologies are important to the whole Bond film experience, so they take priority over any film-to-film consistency. But they are in a sense also real world details inevitably caught on film that need to be ignored, like an actors watch in a gladiator epic, along with the actor's age, if we are to accept the illusion.
So I see each universe having a Bond character on the most exciting adventure ever, just each universe somehow has its Bond experience his own personal best adventure in two year offsets to the next universe over. They probably each settle down with the Girl after the credits roll, and never go on a mission again, and we never see a sequel set in that old universe because it would be boring, so we switch to the next universe over where that Bond is just setting out on his personal best adventure.
You know Basil Rathbone's first two Sherlock Holmes films were Victorian period pieces, then the rest were set during the present day, i.e. World War II. Doyle's last Holmes story was written in 1926, so at the time they weren't that far back in the exotic past as we think of them now. But the WWII settings do look anachronistic to modern eyes. Sherlock Holmes should travel by hansom cab.
Maybe it was also a mistake assuming James Bond exists in an eternal Present? We are now fifty-odd years after Fleming's last James Bond story, and aside from the issues of the actor's age, we have long since lost a lot of the historic context of Fleming's stories, making the latest episodes seem connected to the original concept by name only .
I get that this theory is not for you and that's alright.
The way parallel universes work, they are created whenever a choice is made, so all else that has happened in the past remains the same and what happens in the future may or may not differ based on that one choice.
So these 26 (actually 27 counting Cardsharp Jimmy Bond) different parallel universe Bonds may indeed have some, even many, shared experiences.
LazenbyBond no doubt did experience (unseen versions of) most of the same missions ConneryBond did, because his adventure is so close to what Fleming wrote and FlemingBond experienced those adventures too. YOLT may present a bit of a paradox though, is there a YOLT souvenir in his desk drawer?
And sure MooreBond was married once, even to a woman named Tracy. And DaltonBond was married once, but we don't actually know the name of his bride. Amongst 27 possible Bonds, its statistically inevitable at least three of them had been married before, even to woman named Tracy.
This way, all the films up till then could be seen as the hallucinations and nightmares of the Bond character while he is being tortured and under the affects of various truth drugs.
That would explain the timeline and chronological “problems” that have come to mind since the 2006 reboot.
Maybe we should consign the whole timeline debate to the Twilight Zone... #justsayin’
Think of any other
1) Connery's NSNA serves at Continuity 1's finale/end, with Bond in semi-retirement but goes on one last mission anyway. Obviously set after AVTAK.
2) Continuity 2 surely has some references in the first - most explicitly in LTK, TWINE and especially DAD, and all in most particular OHMSS. So my suggestion would be, that the '60's entries did occur for this continuity too, but definitely in an altered/different fashion, and certainly not set in the early '60's. So you have a "loose" history for the character, thus classifying TLD as a soft reboot, rather than a hard reboot, which Continuity 3 definitely is.
3) As plastic surgery is established to be quite ahead of its time in Continuity 1, I suggest (and others have before me also by now, for sure) that Blofeld escaped YOLT by using Henderson's face, who hadn't been aknowledged to have been killed for whatever reason, and uses it frequently in DAF to trip around Bond and the authorities, trying to escape. By the end of DAF, he does manage to escape, miraculously so, but with select memory amnesia that would enable Bond meeting him up in OHMSS - or so Blofeld allowed others to believe, so as to fool everyone and have the upper hand, once again.