Hello ppl! New here! I Have my own theory considering the timeline.

George Downloved

Greetings ppl, i am new here and nice to meet you all

I Have my own theory of linking the Craig movies to the original timeline. I Must also say that this is purely the way i see it and as a James Bond fanatic for 20 or so years now, it is impossible for me to accept that the movies we all grew up with (1962-2002) never happened. So the way i see it is that the movies Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace are set BEFORE the original timeline (1962-2002) (always as missions and stories, i do understand that "A movie set in 2006 can't be a prequel to a movie set in 1962" , im just talking about the missions timeline) and after Quantum, Bond lived all these adventures in a period of 8 to 10 years (witch i guess in the spies world is likely possible). Then we have Skyfall, set somewhere after the Brosnan's Bond adventures. The Female "M" is the same from the Brosnan's films, and the old "Q" (John Cleese) and old "Moneypenny" (Samantha Bond) from the Brosnan's Bond adventures where actually present in Skyfall (yet never shown) and got killed in the MI6 explosion caused by Raul Silva. As the movie prosceeds we get references from the "new quortermaster" (suggesting there was and OLD one before him at some point) on explosive pens and ejector seat Aston Martins. We also have the same MI6 Headquorters from the Brosnan films (never seen before in the previous 2 Daniel Craig films) In this movie not only "M" dies and gets replaced by Mallory, but also the old "Q" and "Moneypenny" died in the explosion and sucseeded by Eve and the well "new quortermaster". As i said before no reboot and new continuty "trend" stands in my opinion and if i may say this, it's completely disrespectful to the original films. Also Craig in my opinion is extremely over valued as Bond. He after all did copy what Dalton did back in the 80's with the difference that Dalton got fired back then for doing it.

Barbel

Hello there, and welcome to our site. Please take a look at http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45180/introduction-how-to-use-the-forum/, our introduction for new members, and please introduce yourself at http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/34154/welcome-comings-goings/page/55/

Barbel

Having said that, I do agree that Craig "is extremely over valued as Bond". And Dalton did NOT get fired.

George Downloved

Thank you dear sir, i will do so

George Downloved

Barbel wrote:

Having said that, I do agree that Craig "is extremely over valued as Bond". And Dalton did NOT get fired.

The way i see it, they "resigned him"...They made him wait too long and bore him to resignastion :P
By the way, is this section the right one to post about personal opinions on the films or i should try another section?

Barbel

No, you go right ahead.

Re Dalton: that's a tangled story. As I understand it, MGM/UA wanted to replace him but Eon (read: Cubby Broccoli) were determined to keep him. His contract allowed for 3 films over a certain amount of years, and he did the first 2, but legal wrangling held up the production of the 3rd till over the length of time specified. At this point, he announced his resignation from the part. He wasn't fired.

George Downloved

Barbel wrote:

No, you go right ahead.

Re Dalton: that's a tangled story. As I understand it, MGM/UA wanted to replace him but Eon (read: Cubby Broccoli) were determined to keep him. His contract allowed for 3 films over a certain amount of years, and he did the first 2, but legal wrangling held up the production of the 3rd till over the length of time specified. At this point, he announced his resignation from the part. He wasn't fired.

I May have read somewhere over the Dalton Bond 17 unmade movie that they wanted to boot him, but maybe it was the production company as you said before. Got confused there :P Thanks man.

Thunderpussy

I remember reading ( somewhere) that Dalton even said himself
That due to the length of time, it was the perfect time for another
Actor to take over the role. So he walked away to let Cubby off the
Hook with the studio.

George Downloved

Well the true and sad story is that he never had the chance to do a couple more films. He is one of the best Bonds to date...

Thunderpussy

{[] I agree with you there. -{

George Downloved

Thunderpussy wrote:

{[] I agree with you there. -{

Thank you sir! How about my timeline theory? No code name crap included :P

Thunderpussy

) Your theory is as good as anyone else's.. SF ends as if, he could
Be sent off to a certain island to deal with a suspicious Dr No. ) but
Honestly, however we explain it to ourselves, so long as we enjoy the
Films that's really all that maters, but yes I hate the code name idea X-(
In my world the Craig movies are a new beginning, Bond for a " Brave new
World" , I love the classic films but also love the new ideas and stories they
Are coming up with. Bond has to stay current, contemporary and keep moving
Forward.
Aspects of the character will stay constant but who knows where Bond will
Go in years to come. -{

Jag

Every new actor is a new beginning. You could not seriously suggest that Brosnan’s post-cold war Bond is the same Bond who fought Smersh and Spectre only a couple of decades after World War 2. There are also always some carry-overs from previous actors (Lazenby reminisces on adventures Connery experienced, Moore visit’s Tracey’s grave, Craig serves under the same M as Brosnan, and most Bonds work with the same Q), but they do not prove that the producers are serious about continuity.

Matt S

George Downloved wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

{[] I agree with you there. -{

Thank you sir! How about my timeline theory? No code name crap included :P

I can't buy your theory. I see it as it is intended: Casino Royale is a reboot, and Barbara and Michael said they were starting fresh as if none of the previous films had happened before. Michael wanted to do that for The Living Daylights, but Cubby wouldn't have it. I agree that it's completely disrespectful to the original films, but that's simply what it is.

Jag wrote:

Every new actor is a new beginning. You could not seriously suggest that Brosnan’s post-cold war Bond is the same Bond who fought Smersh and Spectre only a couple of decades after World War 2. There are also always some carry-overs from previous actors (Lazenby reminisces on adventures Connery experienced, Moore visit’s Tracey’s grave, Craig serves under the same M as Brosnan, and most Bonds work with the same Q), but they do not prove that the producers are serious about continuity.

Bond doesn't age. That's simply how it is. How do you explain these "carry-overs"? There are many others than the ones you mention. Bond films have loose continuity. Except for Bond meeting Blofeld for the first time twice (perhaps the second time was actually Bond's second life? ), I don't see any conflicts of how each actor is a new beginning when they have the loose continuity to show all the Bond actors until Craig are playing the same character in the same timeline. Craig is a reboot as Barbara and Michael said, so you can't deny that.

Jag

As I stated elswhere, I don't buy the idea of a special Craig "reboot". You have to treat each actor's period as a new series, as only in those individual series will you find true continuity. The idea that Bond doesn't age is just to absurd to be accepted, especially when Skyfall is all about an aging agent. If the producers are not worried about continuity, why should we? Let's take each movie on its own merits.

My personal view is that Bonds from Connery to Brosnan are the classic period, whereas after that we have a more Bourne-like Bond. It will be interesting what the producers will do when the next actor takes over!

Matt S

Jag wrote:

As I stated elswhere, I don't buy the idea of a special Craig "reboot". You have to treat each actor's period as a new series, as only in those individual series will you find true continuity. The idea that Bond doesn't age is just to absurd to be accepted, especially when Skyfall is all about an aging agent. If the producers are not worried about continuity, why should we? Let's take each movie on its own merits.

My personal view is that Bonds from Connery to Brosnan are the classic period, whereas after that we have a more Bourne-like Bond. It will be interesting what the producers will do when the next actor takes over!

But how do you explain the pieces of continuity that actually exist, like Tracy being mentioned in Moore and Dalton films? Lazenby's Aston Martin in DAF? or General Gogol in TLD? The Bond series was never one to place strong links from film to film, but the many subtle references from one actor to the next are enough for me.

Perhaps Bond ages in the CR reboot? Age or physical condition was never a concern before, even with 57-year-old Roger Moore!

Jag

Its actually easier to explain those that the presence of Goldfinger DB5 with ejector seat in Skyfall (didn't the scriptwriters get the "reboot" memo???). ) ) )

Matt S

Jag wrote:

Its actually easier to explain those that the presence of Goldfinger DB5 with ejector seat in Skyfall (didn't the scriptwriters get the "reboot" memo???). ) ) )

It's a 50th anniversary homage. That's all. It was Mendes' idea, not the scriptwriters. The writers had intended it to be the DB5 Bond won in CR, and that makes the most sense based on it being Bond's personal car that doesn't have a tracking device. Do you also think Roger Moore is playing James Bond in the Cannonball Run because he is driving a silver DB5?

Jag

He would be, if the silver DB5 had an an ejector seat!

Obviously Skyfall was symbolically about the whole series being old, but not to be written off yet, and that's why it was full of references to previous movies.

So it was Mendes who didn't read the reboot memo!!! X-(

Barbel

Jag wrote:

He would be, if the silver DB5 had an an ejector seat!

It does:

Sir Miles

Jag wrote:

....especially when Skyfall is all about an aging agent....

Is it ? ?:)

Ageing in what sense ?

For me it's about a 'burnt out' agent...not really an 'ageing' one...

Thunderpussy

Yes, he was burnt out and sick from those nasty bullet fragments.
Once he got those out and a shave from a good woman, he was back on form.
Only "bluffing" Silva, in to thinking, he wasn't operating at 100%
Bond is quite clever at times.

Higgins

I must say that I am having a lot of theories about Thunderpussy and none of them has to do with timeline ) ) )

Thunderpussy

" Well, the theories of the great pioneers, like Me !
have often puzzled conventional minds "

Higgins

Sir Miles wrote:

For me it's about a 'burnt out' agent...not really an 'ageing' one...

At my and Barbel's age, you can't differentiate anymore between ageing and being "burnt out"

Higgins

Thunderpussy wrote:

" Well, the theories of the great pioneers, like Me !
have often puzzled conventional minds "

not puzzled, "deeply worried" matches it better :v

Thunderpussy

A classic 60s DB5 is ............" Ageing "
A car on blocks, on fire is .... Burnt out
Big difference. )

Higgins

what is a DB5 on blocks, on fire? :v

Higgins

an insurance claim, or a writeoff? ) ) )

Thunderpussy

No way, you can't get insurance for a burning car.
Or where I live, it's a street BBQ. )

Higgins

or street illumination?