Are they like the young more hip hop Illuminati ?
Sure they want to control the world but they want to
do it with their jeans half way down to impress the girls ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
While there is some references from film to film, you could also say that there aren't that much to begin with. In most film series past movies are always mentioned. Characters, villians, lovers ect. Bond has done that but very minimally.
But isn't that what makes Bond great? A different clean slate story each time. You can watch FRWL and then LALD and it will still make sense. Little to no ties from the previous outing. Most people if they were introduced to Bond for the first time would wonder "well where is the girl from the last film. Did she just dissappear." A new bond girl every movie.
The way I usually look at it is its a new Bond every actor. Yes I know Moore's Bond mentions Tracy. But all these Bonds play the character so differently how do you not see them as different people. Especially going into the Brosnan Era. We're at 33 years since Dr.No.
While there is some references from film to film, you could also say that there aren't that much to begin with. In most film series past movies are always mentioned. Characters, villians, lovers ect. Bond has done that but very minimally.
But isn't that what makes Bond great? A different clean slate story each time. You can watch FRWL and then LALD and it will still make sense. Little to no ties from the previous outing. Most people if they were introduced to Bond for the first time would wonder "well where is the girl from the last film. Did she just dissappear." A new bond girl every movie.
The way I usually look at it is its a new Bond every actor. Yes I know Moore's Bond mentions Tracy. But all these Bonds play the character so differently how do you not see them as different people. Especially going into the Brosnan Era. We're at 33 years since Dr.No.
The lack of much continuity is a great thing about the Bond series, but they still tie things together throughout the series, and I like that they do that. The just don't want to put in so much continuity that it would confuse anyone first watching the series. The continuity is never part of the story, but they are small things thrown in for Bond fans who notice them or remember what happened in the past. Just because the stories don't continue from one to the next doesn't discount the many small pieces of continuity that are there.
The women don't disappear, Bond does. "I have to return to the office in London, but I'll phone as soon as the plane lands. I'll be returning next week."
If people think that Bond and the girl fall in love every movie, that's their misunderstanding. I think it's pretty clear in most Bond films that Bond and the girl do not fall in love and there's no reason why the girl would return. Bond almost never has feelings for the women he sleeps with, and I don't get the impression that most of the women care about Bond either, except a few like Tatiana, Tracy, Solitaire, Vesper. I think most of the girls are as uncommitted as Bond is.
Moore has two mentions of Tracy and Dalton has one. The character isn't portrayed so much differently by the different actors as much as it's the tone of the films that differs a lot. The two Darrens on Bewitched are played considerably different and have much different attitudes, but they're still supposed to be the same character in the same timeline.
As i mentioned in my first post this is the way that i see it, without caring what the producers originaly intended to do. This is just the way i like to see it, and counting all the previous entries (1962 - 2002) as cannon. This is my personal opinion, i just wanted to share it with you fine ppl Also as i said in my original post i counted the stories as missions, i never said anything about Cold War or Post Cold War, the movies do happen in the time they are shot, but the missions and stories the way i see it are timelined as : CR,QOS,62-02,SKYFALL, SPECTRE (possibly). See it as if there was a Bond all missions book. In witch order did they happen? Now my theory could be proven dead wrong if we get that Bond meets SPECTRE for the first time in this new movie. But please can someone explain me at least why Ben Wishaw is the "NEW" quortermaster and he talks about explosive pens? Desmond Llewelyn's Q gave Brosnan one back in Goldeneye :P I Can understand that the continuty in the EON franchise is loose and makes no sense, but sometimes the films gives us facts that we simply cannot deny. Also i think that Bond does not age because these missions happened between 8 to 10 years max.
Connery: Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice Lazenby: O.H.M.S.S. FOREVER!
Moore: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, A View To A Kill Dalton: Licence To Kill
Brosnan: Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies Craig: Casino Royale
please can someone explain me at least why Ben Wishaw is the "NEW" quartermaster and he talks about explosive pens? Desmond Llewelyn's Q gave Brosnan one back in Goldeneye :P I Can understand that the continuity in the EON franchise is loose and makes no sense, but sometimes the films gives us facts that we simply cannot deny.
It's just a joke, George, very much along the lines of the Aston Martin DB5's appearance*. It was an anniversary movie and these minor slips in strict continuity are there for audience pleasure. My personal feeling is just sit back and enjoy it.
If Bond ages, the whole thing falls apart. James Bond is always about 37-45 now, whenever now happens to be. In my opinion, if an actor who has been established as Bond (Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Craig) hangs around for a few years after that it's ok... within reason, of course.
* If it's the same car as in CR, which he won in a card game in 2006, why should it have the gadgets from GF nearly fifty years earlier? M's line about the ejector seat, the machine guns....
....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...
Not sure what my mean by "burnt out", but the Bond of Skyfall is simply getting too old for his job. He doesn't pass the physical activity test, and he can no longer shoot straight. And he has to make a huge effort to pull it one more time. I would love to see Bond actually die at the end of SPECTRE (he did die at the end of the From Russia with Love book after all!). Of course, this would not prevent Bond from being resurrected in the next film - and a good way to introduce a new actor.
While there is some references from film to film, you could also say that there aren't that much to begin with. In most film series past movies are always mentioned. Characters, villians, lovers ect. Bond has done that but very minimally.
But isn't that what makes Bond great? A different clean slate story each time. You can watch FRWL and then LALD and it will still make sense. Little to no ties from the previous outing. Most people if they were introduced to Bond for the first time would wonder "well where is the girl from the last film. Did she just dissappear." A new bond girl every movie.
The way I usually look at it is its a new Bond every actor. Yes I know Moore's Bond mentions Tracy. But all these Bonds play the character so differently how do you not see them as different people. Especially going into the Brosnan Era. We're at 33 years since Dr.No.
please can someone explain me at least why Ben Wishaw is the "NEW" quartermaster and he talks about explosive pens? Desmond Llewelyn's Q gave Brosnan one back in Goldeneye :P I Can understand that the continuity in the EON franchise is loose and makes no sense, but sometimes the films gives us facts that we simply cannot deny.
It's just a joke, George, very much along the lines of the Aston Martin DB5's appearance*. It was an anniversary movie and these minor slips in strict continuity are there for audience pleasure. My personal feeling is just sit back and enjoy it.
If Bond ages, the whole thing falls apart. James Bond is always about 37-45 now, whenever now happens to be. In my opinion, if an actor who has been established as Bond (Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Craig) hangs around for a few years after that it's ok... within reason, of course.
* If it's the same car as in CR, which he won in a card game in 2006, why should it have the gadgets from GF nearly fifty years earlier? M's line about the ejector seat, the machine guns....
I think that being “an anniversary movie” is precisely Skyfall’s biggest problem. Those slips for audience pleasure may have helped bring some extra box office cash at the time, but we are now 3 years later, it is no longer and anniversary, and instead of audience pleasure they only make the whole movie age much faster. And they also caused me personally to lose some interest in the current 007. Yes, I still watch the classics, but it only reinforces the feeling that the post-Brosnan movies have someow lost the plot.
....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...
Not sure what my mean by "burnt out", but the Bond of Skyfall is simply getting too old for his job. He doesn't pass the physical activity test, and he can no longer shoot straight. And he has to make a huge effort to pull it one more time. I would love to see Bond actually die at the end of SPECTRE (he did die at the end of the From Russia with Love book after all!). Of course, this would not prevent Bond from being resurrected in the next film - and a good way to introduce a new actor.
The physical activity test had to do with Bond being lazy, and no longer being able to shoot straight had to do with Bond having a bullet in his shoulder. His physical condition didn't have to do with age. I know a man in his 50s who is extremely fit and and shoot straight. He also looks considerably younger than Daniel Craig does.
Thanks in part to the reboot, the Craig films are the only ones in the series that have true continuity, and I expect that trend to continue in SPECTRE.
The Craig reboot was the only "hard" reboot in the series, but every other new actor (with the exception of Lazenby, who they tried very hard to integrate) represented a "soft" reboot. I predict that the next Bond actor will follow the "soft" reboot trend once again.
For me it's about a 'burnt out' agent...not really an 'ageing' one...
Not sure what my mean by "burnt out", but the Bond of Skyfall is simply getting too old for his job. He doesn't pass the physical activity test, and he can no longer shoot straight. And he has to make a huge effort to pull it one more time. I would love to see Bond actually die at the end of SPECTRE (he did die at the end of the From Russia with Love book after all!). Of course, this would not prevent Bond from being resurrected in the next film - and a good way to introduce a new actor.
The physical activity test had to do with Bond being lazy, and no longer being able to shoot straight had to do with Bond having a bullet in his shoulder. His physical condition didn't have to do with age. I know a man in his 50s who is extremely fit and and shoot straight. He also looks considerably younger than Daniel Craig does.
That’s your interpretation. The way is see it, it had nothing to do with the bullet in his shoulder. If it was, wouldn’t they try to remove it surgically – the proper way? Bond instead removed the shards himself, but not to make himself superfit again, but purely to track the villain. So the bullet did not have a significant impact on his condition. Excessive drinking, on the other hand, most likely did, and caused him to age beyond his years. I bet the person you know in their 50, fit and shooting straight (I do not doubt for a minute there are many like this – 50 is the new 30 nowadays) does not drink as much as Bond! ;-)
Thanks in part to the reboot, the Craig films are the only ones in the series that have true continuity, and I expect that trend to continue in SPECTRE.
The Craig reboot was the only "hard" reboot in the series, but every other new actor (with the exception of Lazenby, who they tried very hard to integrate) represented a "soft" reboot. I predict that the next Bond actor will follow the "soft" reboot trend once again.
For the Craig “reboot” to be truly and convincingly hard, you would have to have all actors replaced. With the same M as in Brosnan movies the “reboot” becomes indistinguishable from all the other “reboots”, whenever a new actor took over. And are you saying that there was no true continuity during Moore’s tenure? Or Dalton’s? Or Brosnan’s? If Bond dies in SPECTRE (and all other roles are replaced) then we can really have a "hard" reboot. The only question - would we want it???
Obviously, your theory is as good as anyone else's. That being said, I don't think that Craig's films being a reboot necessarily means that the other films "never happened". No matter how many different timelines there are, they all "happened" within their own universe. Also, I don't think that different timelines necessarily means a different Bond. It's all the same character, just in a different timeline with a different aspects of the character accentuated by each actor.
The way I see it, IF the films need to fit in a set timeline(s), there are three distinct timelines in the series. Timeline 1 is 1962-1985 (DN-AVTAK). Timeline 2 is 1987-2002 (TLD-DAD). Timeline 3 is 2006-present (CR-???). Now, clearly these timelines share similar events and circumstances, which would explain why Bond's marriage to Tracy is mentioned in LTK even if it's not in the same timeline (theoretically). This would also explain why SF mentions exploding pens, has a gadget-laden Aston Martin, and features an aging Bond whose been on a number of missions since we last saw him in QoS.
Again, whatever your choice of timeline conception, I think it's ok, even necessary, to see each timeline as a circumstantial exploration of the SAME character, with shared events and circumstances that make Bond who he is.
Obviously, your theory is as good as anyone else's. That being said, I don't think that Craig's films being a reboot necessarily means that the other films "never happened". No matter how many different timelines there are, they all "happened" within their own universe. Also, I don't think that different timelines necessarily means a different Bond. It's all the same character, just in a different timeline with a different aspects of the character accentuated by each actor.
The way I see it, IF the films need to fit in a set timeline(s), there are three distinct timelines in the series. Timeline 1 is 1962-1985 (DN-AVTAK). Timeline 2 is 1987-2002 (TLD-DAD). Timeline 3 is 2006-present (CR-???). Now, clearly these timelines share similar events and circumstances, which would explain why Bond's marriage to Tracy is mentioned in LTK even if it's not in the same timeline (theoretically). This would also explain why SF mentions exploding pens, has a gadget-laden Aston Martin, and features an aging Bond whose been on a number of missions since we last saw him in QoS.
Again, whatever your choice of timeline conception, I think it's ok, even necessary, to see each timeline as a circumstantial exploration of the SAME character, with shared events and circumstances that make Bond who he is.
All good points! Only one thing we disagree on: nothing can explain gadget-laden Aston Martin in Skyfall. Nothing! It's just ludicrous - even if still mildly fun to watch.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,929Chief of Staff
Not sure what my mean by "burnt out", but the Bond of Skyfall is simply getting too old for his job. He doesn't pass the physical activity test, and he can no longer shoot straight. And he has to make a huge effort to pull it one more time. I would love to see Bond actually die at the end of SPECTRE (he did die at the end of the From Russia with Love book after all!). Of course, this would not prevent Bond from being resurrected in the next film - and a good way to introduce a new actor.
The physical activity test had to do with Bond being lazy, and no longer being able to shoot straight had to do with Bond having a bullet in his shoulder. His physical condition didn't have to do with age. I know a man in his 50s who is extremely fit and and shoot straight. He also looks considerably younger than Daniel Craig does.
That’s your interpretation. The way is see it, it had nothing to do with the bullet in his shoulder. If it was, wouldn’t they try to remove it surgically – the proper way? Bond instead removed the shards himself, but not to make himself superfit again, but purely to track the villain. So the bullet did not have a significant impact on his condition. Excessive drinking, on the other hand, most likely did, and caused him to age beyond his years. I bet the person you know in their 50, fit and shooting straight (I do not doubt for a minute there are many like this – 50 is the new 30 nowadays) does not drink as much as Bond! ;-)
Thanks for your clarification -{
I think you are 100% wrong in your assessment that Bond is now too old to carry out his job...and I'm somewhat perplexed that anybody could reach that conclusion from Skyfall...however, it's your opinion and that's fine with me -{
I'm closer to Matt S on this...Bond failing the tests is to do with his physical and mental condition...NOT his age -{
Obviously, your theory is as good as anyone else's. That being said, I don't think that Craig's films being a reboot necessarily means that the other films "never happened".
Barbara and Michael say that they made Casino Royale "as if no Bond film had been made before". (http://www.gamesradar.com/decade-s-best-casino-royale/) That's enough for me to know that the Daniel Craig reboot is a true reboot of the story.
The way I see it, IF the films need to fit in a set timeline(s), there are three distinct timelines in the series. Timeline 1 is 1962-1985 (DN-AVTAK). Timeline 2 is 1987-2002 (TLD-DAD). Timeline 3 is 2006-present (CR-???). Now, clearly these timelines share similar events and circumstances, which would explain why Bond's marriage to Tracy is mentioned in LTK even if it's not in the same timeline (theoretically). This would also explain why SF mentions exploding pens, has a gadget-laden Aston Martin, and features an aging Bond whose been on a number of missions since we last saw him in QoS.
If Dalton is separate from Moore, why would M need to mention that Gogol was replaced? That's acknowledging the past five films with Gogol were relevant to Dalton's Bond.
for me there is just one timeline despite possible flaws:
CR+QoS before DN then SF after DAD! Simples.
After all these are "just" movies (the best) and mustn't be overthought too hard! :007)
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Respectfully, the idea of a timeline, after 53 years, 25 movies (in two months) and six actors is silly. Is somebody going to try to construct a time line for all the Sherlock Holmes movies and TV shows? This is especially true since prior to CR/QOS the producers didn't even attempt to carry over from one movie to another.
The only reason people try to construct a time line is because the same company has made almost all the Bond movies (but even then the individuals have changed). If Bond had entered the public domain and all kinds of people were making all kinds of Bonds (a Bond film with Felix Leiter as the main character, a Bond film with Tanner as the main character, a gay Bond, a black Bond, etc.) then nobody would attempt a time line.
For example where does CR '67 and Never Say Never Again and Cardshark Jimmy Bond fit in the time line?
In my world the films are the reminiscences of an ageing Bond in a
Nursing home. Hence why there are a few mistakes, as he's old now
and gets some of his facts mixed up.
CR67 was a nightmare Bond had, when on a different medication, same
with NSNA, when he ate the cheese before going to bed.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The physical activity test had to do with Bond being lazy, and no longer being able to shoot straight had to do with Bond having a bullet in his shoulder. His physical condition didn't have to do with age. I know a man in his 50s who is extremely fit and and shoot straight. He also looks considerably younger than Daniel Craig does.
That’s your interpretation. The way is see it, it had nothing to do with the bullet in his shoulder. If it was, wouldn’t they try to remove it surgically – the proper way? Bond instead removed the shards himself, but not to make himself superfit again, but purely to track the villain. So the bullet did not have a significant impact on his condition. Excessive drinking, on the other hand, most likely did, and caused him to age beyond his years. I bet the person you know in their 50, fit and shooting straight (I do not doubt for a minute there are many like this – 50 is the new 30 nowadays) does not drink as much as Bond! ;-)
Thanks for your clarification -{
I think you are 100% wrong in your assessment that Bond is now too old to carry out his job...and I'm somewhat perplexed that anybody could reach that conclusion from Skyfall...however, it's your opinion and that's fine with me -{
I'm closer to Matt S on this...Bond failing the tests is to do with his physical and mental condition...NOT his age -{
I agree that age is not a factor in why Bond failed the tests, although other characters certainly think it is a factor. Mallory makes the comment that it's "a young man's game" and Moneypenny refers to Bond as an "old dog." Q clearly thinks that Bond is a dinosaur during their first meeting and says as much. So while Bond ultimately proved all of them wrong, I can see why someone might attribute Bond's decline early in the film to his age.
That’s your interpretation. The way is see it, it had nothing to do with the bullet in his shoulder. If it was, wouldn’t they try to remove it surgically – the proper way? Bond instead removed the shards himself, but not to make himself superfit again, but purely to track the villain. So the bullet did not have a significant impact on his condition. Excessive drinking, on the other hand, most likely did, and caused him to age beyond his years. I bet the person you know in their 50, fit and shooting straight (I do not doubt for a minute there are many like this – 50 is the new 30 nowadays) does not drink as much as Bond! ;-)
Thanks for your clarification -{
I think you are 100% wrong in your assessment that Bond is now too old to carry out his job...and I'm somewhat perplexed that anybody could reach that conclusion from Skyfall...however, it's your opinion and that's fine with me -{
I'm closer to Matt S on this...Bond failing the tests is to do with his physical and mental condition...NOT his age -{
I agree that age is not a factor in why Bond failed the tests, although other characters certainly think it is a factor. Mallory makes the comment that it's "a young man's game" and Moneypenny refers to Bond as an "old dog." Q clearly thinks that Bond is a dinosaur during their first meeting and says as much. So while Bond ultimately proved all of them wrong, I can see why someone might attribute Bond's decline early in the film to his age.
Are they even aware that Bond has a bullet in him? I would think that if they were they would have removed the bullet and not ignored it. Is Bond hiding the bullet from them so they don't keep him in hospital to recover?
for me there is just one timeline despite possible flaws:
CR+QoS before DN then SF after DAD! Simples.
After all these are "just" movies (the best) and mustn't be overthought too hard! :007)
Why do people insist on this timeline when the producers say that they started fresh with Casino Royale? It's a reboot, not a prequel. We can think whatever we want, but the filmmakers have the most say in this matter. And Bond doesn't even meet Moneypenny until SF, so how could Bond know Moneypenny so well before that? If you had to place SF somewhere in relation to the other Bond films, it would still have to be before the others. Dench plays different Ms since the scripts have her with different names (Mawdsley in GoldenEye and Mansfield in Skyfall), so you can't tie her character to both series. It's like Charles Gray, Maud Adams or Shane Rimmer playing multiple characters in the films. It's the DB5 homage that messes people up, since according to the writers the DB5 is supposed to be the same one from CR.
for me there is just one timeline despite possible flaws:
CR+QoS before DN then SF after DAD! Simples.
After all these are "just" movies (the best) and mustn't be overthought too hard! :007)
Why do people insist on this timeline when the producers say that they started fresh with Casino Royale? It's a reboot, not a prequel. We can think whatever we want, but the filmmakers have the most say in this matter. And Bond doesn't even meet Moneypenny until SF, so how could Bond know Moneypenny so well before that? If you had to place SF somewhere in relation to the other Bond films, it would still have to be before the others. Dench plays different Ms since the scripts have her with different names (Mawdsley in GoldenEye and Mansfield in Skyfall), so you can't tie her character to both series. It's like Charles Gray, Maud Adams or Shane Rimmer playing multiple characters in the films. It's the DB5 homage that messes people up, since according to the writers the DB5 is supposed to be the same one from CR.
in a certain way, I don't care what the producers said.
and like I mentioned before: even if there are flaws (M's name/Moneypenny appearence) I will stick to my illusion because that's the way I enjoy Bond most!
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
for me there is just one timeline despite possible flaws:
CR+QoS before DN then SF after DAD! Simples.
After all these are "just" movies (the best) and mustn't be overthought too hard! :007)
Why do people insist on this timeline when the producers say that they started fresh with Casino Royale? It's a reboot, not a prequel. We can think whatever we want, but the filmmakers have the most say in this matter. And Bond doesn't even meet Moneypenny until SF, so how could Bond know Moneypenny so well before that? If you had to place SF somewhere in relation to the other Bond films, it would still have to be before the others. Dench plays different Ms since the scripts have her with different names (Mawdsley in GoldenEye and Mansfield in Skyfall), so you can't tie her character to both series. It's like Charles Gray, Maud Adams or Shane Rimmer playing multiple characters in the films. It's the DB5 homage that messes people up, since according to the writers the DB5 is supposed to be the same one from CR.
in a certain way, I don't care what the producers said.
and like I mentioned before: even if there are flaws (M's name/Moneypenny appearence) I will stick to my illusion because that's the way I enjoy Bond most!
Like you said, they "mustn't be overthought too hard". That's why I take them for what they are and what the filmmakers say they are. Sorry if I prefer the filmmakers opinions over yours and many other fans'.
Comments
Sure they want to control the world but they want to
do it with their jeans half way down to impress the girls ?
But isn't that what makes Bond great? A different clean slate story each time. You can watch FRWL and then LALD and it will still make sense. Little to no ties from the previous outing. Most people if they were introduced to Bond for the first time would wonder "well where is the girl from the last film. Did she just dissappear." A new bond girl every movie.
The way I usually look at it is its a new Bond every actor. Yes I know Moore's Bond mentions Tracy. But all these Bonds play the character so differently how do you not see them as different people. Especially going into the Brosnan Era. We're at 33 years since Dr.No.
"They say with age, comes wisdom ........ They were Wrong !"
The lack of much continuity is a great thing about the Bond series, but they still tie things together throughout the series, and I like that they do that. The just don't want to put in so much continuity that it would confuse anyone first watching the series. The continuity is never part of the story, but they are small things thrown in for Bond fans who notice them or remember what happened in the past. Just because the stories don't continue from one to the next doesn't discount the many small pieces of continuity that are there.
The women don't disappear, Bond does. "I have to return to the office in London, but I'll phone as soon as the plane lands. I'll be returning next week."
If people think that Bond and the girl fall in love every movie, that's their misunderstanding. I think it's pretty clear in most Bond films that Bond and the girl do not fall in love and there's no reason why the girl would return. Bond almost never has feelings for the women he sleeps with, and I don't get the impression that most of the women care about Bond either, except a few like Tatiana, Tracy, Solitaire, Vesper. I think most of the girls are as uncommitted as Bond is.
Moore has two mentions of Tracy and Dalton has one. The character isn't portrayed so much differently by the different actors as much as it's the tone of the films that differs a lot. The two Darrens on Bewitched are played considerably different and have much different attitudes, but they're still supposed to be the same character in the same timeline.
I wish someone would burn your bloody trainers out !!! :v
Moore: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, A View To A Kill Dalton: Licence To Kill
Brosnan: Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies Craig: Casino Royale
It's just a joke, George, very much along the lines of the Aston Martin DB5's appearance*. It was an anniversary movie and these minor slips in strict continuity are there for audience pleasure. My personal feeling is just sit back and enjoy it.
If Bond ages, the whole thing falls apart. James Bond is always about 37-45 now, whenever now happens to be. In my opinion, if an actor who has been established as Bond (Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Craig) hangs around for a few years after that it's ok... within reason, of course.
* If it's the same car as in CR, which he won in a card game in 2006, why should it have the gadgets from GF nearly fifty years earlier? M's line about the ejector seat, the machine guns....
Not sure what my mean by "burnt out", but the Bond of Skyfall is simply getting too old for his job. He doesn't pass the physical activity test, and he can no longer shoot straight. And he has to make a huge effort to pull it one more time. I would love to see Bond actually die at the end of SPECTRE (he did die at the end of the From Russia with Love book after all!). Of course, this would not prevent Bond from being resurrected in the next film - and a good way to introduce a new actor.
That's exactly how I look at it too!
I think that being “an anniversary movie” is precisely Skyfall’s biggest problem. Those slips for audience pleasure may have helped bring some extra box office cash at the time, but we are now 3 years later, it is no longer and anniversary, and instead of audience pleasure they only make the whole movie age much faster. And they also caused me personally to lose some interest in the current 007. Yes, I still watch the classics, but it only reinforces the feeling that the post-Brosnan movies have someow lost the plot.
The physical activity test had to do with Bond being lazy, and no longer being able to shoot straight had to do with Bond having a bullet in his shoulder. His physical condition didn't have to do with age. I know a man in his 50s who is extremely fit and and shoot straight. He also looks considerably younger than Daniel Craig does.
The Craig reboot was the only "hard" reboot in the series, but every other new actor (with the exception of Lazenby, who they tried very hard to integrate) represented a "soft" reboot. I predict that the next Bond actor will follow the "soft" reboot trend once again.
That’s your interpretation. The way is see it, it had nothing to do with the bullet in his shoulder. If it was, wouldn’t they try to remove it surgically – the proper way? Bond instead removed the shards himself, but not to make himself superfit again, but purely to track the villain. So the bullet did not have a significant impact on his condition. Excessive drinking, on the other hand, most likely did, and caused him to age beyond his years. I bet the person you know in their 50, fit and shooting straight (I do not doubt for a minute there are many like this – 50 is the new 30 nowadays) does not drink as much as Bond! ;-)
For the Craig “reboot” to be truly and convincingly hard, you would have to have all actors replaced. With the same M as in Brosnan movies the “reboot” becomes indistinguishable from all the other “reboots”, whenever a new actor took over. And are you saying that there was no true continuity during Moore’s tenure? Or Dalton’s? Or Brosnan’s? If Bond dies in SPECTRE (and all other roles are replaced) then we can really have a "hard" reboot. The only question - would we want it???
The way I see it, IF the films need to fit in a set timeline(s), there are three distinct timelines in the series. Timeline 1 is 1962-1985 (DN-AVTAK). Timeline 2 is 1987-2002 (TLD-DAD). Timeline 3 is 2006-present (CR-???). Now, clearly these timelines share similar events and circumstances, which would explain why Bond's marriage to Tracy is mentioned in LTK even if it's not in the same timeline (theoretically). This would also explain why SF mentions exploding pens, has a gadget-laden Aston Martin, and features an aging Bond whose been on a number of missions since we last saw him in QoS.
Again, whatever your choice of timeline conception, I think it's ok, even necessary, to see each timeline as a circumstantial exploration of the SAME character, with shared events and circumstances that make Bond who he is.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
All good points! Only one thing we disagree on: nothing can explain gadget-laden Aston Martin in Skyfall. Nothing! It's just ludicrous - even if still mildly fun to watch.
Thanks for your clarification -{
I think you are 100% wrong in your assessment that Bond is now too old to carry out his job...and I'm somewhat perplexed that anybody could reach that conclusion from Skyfall...however, it's your opinion and that's fine with me -{
I'm closer to Matt S on this...Bond failing the tests is to do with his physical and mental condition...NOT his age -{
Barbara and Michael say that they made Casino Royale "as if no Bond film had been made before". (http://www.gamesradar.com/decade-s-best-casino-royale/) That's enough for me to know that the Daniel Craig reboot is a true reboot of the story.
If Dalton is separate from Moore, why would M need to mention that Gogol was replaced? That's acknowledging the past five films with Gogol were relevant to Dalton's Bond.
CR+QoS before DN then SF after DAD! Simples.
After all these are "just" movies (the best) and mustn't be overthought too hard! :007)
The only reason people try to construct a time line is because the same company has made almost all the Bond movies (but even then the individuals have changed). If Bond had entered the public domain and all kinds of people were making all kinds of Bonds (a Bond film with Felix Leiter as the main character, a Bond film with Tanner as the main character, a gay Bond, a black Bond, etc.) then nobody would attempt a time line.
For example where does CR '67 and Never Say Never Again and Cardshark Jimmy Bond fit in the time line?
since they are non-official: nowhere
Nursing home. Hence why there are a few mistakes, as he's old now
and gets some of his facts mixed up.
CR67 was a nightmare Bond had, when on a different medication, same
with NSNA, when he ate the cheese before going to bed.
I agree that age is not a factor in why Bond failed the tests, although other characters certainly think it is a factor. Mallory makes the comment that it's "a young man's game" and Moneypenny refers to Bond as an "old dog." Q clearly thinks that Bond is a dinosaur during their first meeting and says as much. So while Bond ultimately proved all of them wrong, I can see why someone might attribute Bond's decline early in the film to his age.
Are they even aware that Bond has a bullet in him? I would think that if they were they would have removed the bullet and not ignored it. Is Bond hiding the bullet from them so they don't keep him in hospital to recover?
Why do people insist on this timeline when the producers say that they started fresh with Casino Royale? It's a reboot, not a prequel. We can think whatever we want, but the filmmakers have the most say in this matter. And Bond doesn't even meet Moneypenny until SF, so how could Bond know Moneypenny so well before that? If you had to place SF somewhere in relation to the other Bond films, it would still have to be before the others. Dench plays different Ms since the scripts have her with different names (Mawdsley in GoldenEye and Mansfield in Skyfall), so you can't tie her character to both series. It's like Charles Gray, Maud Adams or Shane Rimmer playing multiple characters in the films. It's the DB5 homage that messes people up, since according to the writers the DB5 is supposed to be the same one from CR.
in a certain way, I don't care what the producers said.
and like I mentioned before: even if there are flaws (M's name/Moneypenny appearence) I will stick to my illusion because that's the way I enjoy Bond most!
I use strong recreational drugs mixed with alcohol.
Like you said, they "mustn't be overthought too hard". That's why I take them for what they are and what the filmmakers say they are. Sorry if I prefer the filmmakers opinions over yours and many other fans'.