I would say that is not necessarily true: "origin" and "Bond's first mission" could mean prequel as in taking place before DN.
M's comment about missing the cold war pretty much rules out that it is a prequel that is set before DN therefore most fans interpret the movie as being an origin story in a reboot.
However as I mentioned before about Martin Campbell's comment about the timeline getting mixed up with having Dench return as M, he does not seem to imply he intended CR to be seen as a reboot. Otherwise why doesn't he just say they are establishing a new timeline in CR? (Interestingly this does add weight to my original theory that CR is a sequel to DAD 😂)
It was discussed in the forum if Craig's movies were prequels to DN and Malik's character in NTTD was really Dr No himself. This way Craig's Bond movies were prequels. This was of course before we saw NTTD where Bond died and made this impossible. Now I can't see any proof or even serious indications that it was ever the intention of the producers to make those movies prequels.
If a mention of Bond's previous mission by SPECTRE makes it a 'direct' sequel, then it is about as direct as M telling Bond he's had two years to run Blofeld down [in OHMSS]. FRWL is not a sequel. Other than a passing reference to Dr No, it has no relation to the former film at all and can be watched in its own right. QOS cannot. You have to have seen CR, or have knowledge of what occurs in CR, to understand what is happening in QOS.
I know I tread a lonely path in what I’m going to say here but one of the reasons I was so happy to have a rebooted Bond in CR was because it would get rid of the extraordinarily overrated Judi Dench. But, NO!!!! they go and hire her again as a different version of M 🤬 What is it about her that gets everyone so in awe of her acting “talent”? She’s exactly the same in every film she makes. Talk about John Wayne and Clint Eastwood just playing themselves in every film - Judi Dench does it in spades. I actually cheered when M got it in SF 🤪
Rant over and I will duck for cover.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
😂😂😂 It'd be a strange world if we all liked the same things. I've made no secret that I've never been thrilled with the (mis)casting 😛 of the most recent James Bond actor, for example. It hasn't stopped me liking his movies, though - well, two of them anyway.
To be fair though, by the speed at which information is delivered in QOS, I doubt few people would have picked up on all the details from first viewing 😅
If a mention of Bond's previous mission by SPECTRE makes it a 'direct' sequel, then it is about as direct as M telling Bond he's had two years to run Blofeld down [in OHMSS]. FRWL is not a sequel. Other than a passing reference to Dr No, it has no relation to the former film at all and can be watched in its own right.
_________________________________
From Russia with Love also features the return of Sylvia Trench, the only BondGirl to return for a second film until the Craig era. Theres also no contradictions with the previous film unless you count the recasting of Boothroyd
whereas OHMSS includes the massive contradiction that Blofeld does not recognise Bond (the very issue that began sinium's series of theories) as well a smaller issues like the devolution in safecracking technology
I would say that Dr No/FRWL is the tightest pairing of all Bond films until the Craig era, and at this early point they did intend continuity only to abandon it (with the change of directors? definitely by the collaboration with McClory) . I cannot think of a single other preCraig BondFilm that directly references a previous entry within the dialog.
@ thegreatgalling - I've tried to go through your responses to my original questions. It was time-consuming but really enjoyable:
Craig M tells Bond she doesn't yet know if she can "trust" Bond. That is an unlikely statement if they shared the long history of the Brosnan films. That is more of something a superior would tell a brand new agent, like Craig Bond is suggested to be.
I would argue that M is unsure whether veteran Bond's return to the secret service as a 00 agent after a number of years is the right move to take with Bond. If you go along by what I said about Bond resigning in LTK and returning in GE, it's not the first time Bond has returned to the service after a few years away so she has to be sure she can trust him.
2) Why does M send a rookie Bond to kill Dryden, a person in such a prominent position?
Because Bond earned his shot at becoming a 00 and this is the perfect chance for him to prove himself. At the end of the day, Dryden is just another man, and there is no reason why his position matters. If you think about his, his dispatching is a fairly easy assignment.
Even Dryden himself is surprised Bond was sent to come for him. If Bond messed up, Dryden would escape and something like the harddrive of missing agents going missing might just happen just like in SF. I still maintain this mission seems more designed for an experienced agent rather one getting his 00 licence for the first time.
3) How does Bond know it takes 2 kills to get 00 status if he is a rookie?
Maybe he was told when given the assignments.
But why would he be told this before the mission? It seems quite sensitive information to give to someone before they have completed it. Again I would argue an veteran Bond would know the process since he has done it before.
4) What does Bond mean when he says “Yes, considerably” in response to what Dryden says to him previously?
Bond is very clearly referencing the fact that Dryden's contact was not easy to kill and took a tremendous effort to subdue and eventually execute him. That is why Dryden say's "made you feel it, did he?" suggesting that the struggle was so great that it took an emotional toll.
Dryden then begins to tell Bond that he needn't worry because the second is...
He was going to say much easier. What he really meant was EMOTIONALLY less tolling, and easier once you get the hang of it. This is a wider symbolic message to Bond that as he continues to become a killing machine, you "feel it" less.
I agree that Bond's response is referring to the emotional toil. As I wrote earlier, he is referencing that the second kill feels more normal. It's interesting to note that Dryden doesn't specify what the "it" means in his question. He could easily have said something more clear like "Made you feel the difficulty of killing someone?". CR seems to be full of these lines that can be interpreted differently depending on how you read the scenes.
5) If the film is about Bond becoming a 00 agent, why is there no scene detailing the moment he actually gets his 00 status?
There is! It's in the credits. You see on the screen the very moment Villiers (M's assistant in CR) or M herself types "00 Status confirmed." it's at minute 6:29. M later says "I give him 00 status and he shoots up an embassy, is the man deranged."
Sure she doesn't say for the first time but she doesn't say again either.
The "OO status confirmed" flashes up on screen for about 2 seconds. If you were in the cinema trying to find your coke in the dark at the moment you would miss this snippet of information. Again such an important moment would be really emphasized if this really was an origin story. M's line not specifying "first time" or "again" is another example that many lines in the film can be interpreted differently depending on how you view them.
6) Why does Bond, a rookie agent, seem to be working alongside Carter, another rookie?
Just because he held his ear doesn't necessarily make him a rookie, that is an assumption. He is standing in a crowd of yelling people and the move could have been an instinctual mistake. But even if they are both rookies, we don't know why the two men are chosen. Maybe Carter was the best person to track Mollaka's location (which he does).
I agree Carter may not necessarily be a rookie but he seems less sure of himself than Bond. Granted I agree that he may not even be a 00 agent necessarily but why does he have a gun and Bond doesn't?
7) If this film is meant to be a prequel, why is it specified many times that the year is 2006 and why does M say she misses the Cold War? (This question only applies to people who believe Casino Royale is a prequel to the other films in the series).
Because that is the year.
It's also telling. The fact that the Cold War is over also lent to geopolitical considerations that forced Bond to NEED a reboot. For Bond to really be the same Bond in From Russia with Love for example, he would need to be in his 80s. But he's not, so they give the year to make it clear this is a fresh break.
The line is also meant to be a nod to the Bond's before. It's sort of a tongue in cheek reference. It's almost like M is longing for a time when the other Bond's took place.
I think this line single-handedly rules out that CR is not a prequel to any of he other films. Interesting note: Bond was never really a quintessential Cold War character going by the film series. DN, the original Bond film, does not mention the Cold War. Most of the films in the series also do not mention the Cold War or have a plot set in the Cold War.
CR is a rare film in the series since there are several scenes which show the year being 2006. It seems he filmmakers wanted to stress this point which further weakens the idea that the film is a prequel to any of the other films in the series.
8) Why doesn’t M have Bond arrested when he breaks into her house and accesses her computer if he’s just meant to be a rookie?
Because she is intrigued by his abilities. He figured out her name and her address which is impressive. She is more interested in having a very meticulous and effective agent in Bond than just to punish him for breaking in her house. That is part of that look she gives at the end. She figures out he peaked at her computer and she suspects he is on to something. So she keeps him close by monitoring him to see if she is right. She is. He's good.
There is a scene later when Villiers calls M when she is still in bed. She's visibly annoyed that she's being contacted and says "You woke me to share his holiday plans?". Why would she say this if she was monitoring Bond?
9) When M is speaking to Bond in her house, why do many of her comments seem to imply Bond has been in the service longer than what is shown on screen? (More details in the long version)
Because Bond has a lengthy career before becoming a 00. He earned it. To commemorate the film's release, the website used to contain Bond's resume which included his bio. But we'll stick to what we see on film. We can assume he served as a Naval intelligence officer, as written by M in Craig's bio. He has a backstory.
None of Bond's backstory is mentioned in the film. Other media like to fill in the blanks but how would an audience member in the cinema know or care about this information?
10) Why does M go to the Bahamas to visit a rookie agent?
M has been on the field before. She goes there to make sure Bond gets a tracker (she can tell he's a bit independent in spirit, to put it mildly, and to personally deliver the briefing for the next part of his mission.
Right she's been in the field 2 times before 😀 I thought about it a bit more - I do wonder if she becomes nervous of the situation in the Bahamas that a 00 is making kills whilst on official leave and so goes to try to cover up the mess. Going there in person would stabilise her relations with Bond. However I think she would make the decision to go to the field based on her assessments from the previous 2 films.
11) Why does M say to a rookie Bond “Well, I knew you were you”?
Because as I stated above, she was unsure about him. But her gut started telling her she could trust him. That indicates she finally does.
As I said earlier, when she gets the call in bed, she does not seem to be monitoring the situation carefully. She goes to the Bahamas to stabilise relations with the Bond she knew from the previous films.
12) Why doesn’t M just send Bond simply as a card player to wipe Le Chiffre out? Why does he need to go as a 00 agent?
Because that what's in the book, Casino Royale. Also, he is a double 0, so why not? You don't stop being a 00, and it's still an official mission.
Considering Bond has killed people on leave in the Bahamas, gained access to sensitive MI6 data and broken into M's house, why on earth doesn't she revoke Bond's 00 licence? I stipulate she does nothing as she has had a past history with him from the Brosnan years and knows letting Bond keep he 00 licence is what he wants and Bond going there on an official mission would satisfy his ego. I find it more difficult why she would adopt this position for a new 00 agent based on the actions that he has caused in the film so far.
13) Why would M risk a rookie agent continuing on to beat Le Chiffre after nearly being poisoned and told to get to hospital?
She doesn't. Bond goes back on his own and America gives him the money to play. She has no incentive to stop him either. He's her only chance at getting Le Chiffre alive which is the entire point of playing, rather than shooting him in the head. "Big picture."
I admit this is probably the weakest question I originally posed. She is not concerned with the agent at the beginning of SF who is bleeding to death.
14) Why would Bond resign so quickly from a relative short time in the secret service after falling in love with Vesper whom he has known only for a few days?
Bond is still young and jaded. He falls in love with Vesper and sees her as an alternate purpose. Arguably it would be even harder for him to leave the service once he puts down roots.
It seems odd that a guy who has just got his 00 licence after seemingly few years of training would throw in the towel over a woman he has only known for a few days. Surely if Bond wanted to be with her, he could ask to move to a different area of MI6 and not continue to be a 00. Following my theory, Bond falls for Vesper in a similar way to Tracy. She's his way out to find a new life and would be more logical for him to want to resign since coming back to the service after so many years would be something to give up for to spend a new life with Vesper for.
15) Why does M say to Bond that they need him back after just this one mission?
Because she does. She knows he's a good agent and she needs him.
Bond actually failed this mission, wanted to resign from the service and was a pain in the ass to M earlier in the film. I reckon these factors would way down a new 00 agent quite considerably. However if this was the same guy, who handled the GE situation, prevented war between Britain and China, saved M in Istanbul and stopped North Korea from invading South Korea, her willingness to want him back in the service is more understandable😁
I would say that Dr No/FRWL is the tightest pairing of all Bond films until the Craig era, and at this early point they did intend continuity only to abandon it
Comments
I would say that is not necessarily true: "origin" and "Bond's first mission" could mean prequel as in taking place before DN.
M's comment about missing the cold war pretty much rules out that it is a prequel that is set before DN therefore most fans interpret the movie as being an origin story in a reboot.
However as I mentioned before about Martin Campbell's comment about the timeline getting mixed up with having Dench return as M, he does not seem to imply he intended CR to be seen as a reboot. Otherwise why doesn't he just say they are establishing a new timeline in CR? (Interestingly this does add weight to my original theory that CR is a sequel to DAD 😂)
It was discussed in the forum if Craig's movies were prequels to DN and Malik's character in NTTD was really Dr No himself. This way Craig's Bond movies were prequels. This was of course before we saw NTTD where Bond died and made this impossible. Now I can't see any proof or even serious indications that it was ever the intention of the producers to make those movies prequels.
I would argue that FRWL is also a sequel to DN.
If a mention of Bond's previous mission by SPECTRE makes it a 'direct' sequel, then it is about as direct as M telling Bond he's had two years to run Blofeld down [in OHMSS]. FRWL is not a sequel. Other than a passing reference to Dr No, it has no relation to the former film at all and can be watched in its own right. QOS cannot. You have to have seen CR, or have knowledge of what occurs in CR, to understand what is happening in QOS.
I know I tread a lonely path in what I’m going to say here but one of the reasons I was so happy to have a rebooted Bond in CR was because it would get rid of the extraordinarily overrated Judi Dench. But, NO!!!! they go and hire her again as a different version of M 🤬 What is it about her that gets everyone so in awe of her acting “talent”? She’s exactly the same in every film she makes. Talk about John Wayne and Clint Eastwood just playing themselves in every film - Judi Dench does it in spades. I actually cheered when M got it in SF 🤪
Rant over and I will duck for cover.
😂😂😂 It'd be a strange world if we all liked the same things. I've made no secret that I've never been thrilled with the (mis)casting 😛 of the most recent James Bond actor, for example. It hasn't stopped me liking his movies, though - well, two of them anyway.
Sacrilege! Off with their heads 😬
To be fair though, by the speed at which information is delivered in QOS, I doubt few people would have picked up on all the details from first viewing 😅
sinium said:
I would argue that FRWL is also a sequel to DN.
_________________________________
_________________________________
chris said
If a mention of Bond's previous mission by SPECTRE makes it a 'direct' sequel, then it is about as direct as M telling Bond he's had two years to run Blofeld down [in OHMSS]. FRWL is not a sequel. Other than a passing reference to Dr No, it has no relation to the former film at all and can be watched in its own right.
_________________________________
From Russia with Love also features the return of Sylvia Trench, the only BondGirl to return for a second film until the Craig era. Theres also no contradictions with the previous film unless you count the recasting of Boothroyd
whereas OHMSS includes the massive contradiction that Blofeld does not recognise Bond (the very issue that began sinium's series of theories) as well a smaller issues like the devolution in safecracking technology
I would say that Dr No/FRWL is the tightest pairing of all Bond films until the Craig era, and at this early point they did intend continuity only to abandon it (with the change of directors? definitely by the collaboration with McClory) . I cannot think of a single other preCraig BondFilm that directly references a previous entry within the dialog.
@ thegreatgalling - I've tried to go through your responses to my original questions. It was time-consuming but really enjoyable:
Craig M tells Bond she doesn't yet know if she can "trust" Bond. That is an unlikely statement if they shared the long history of the Brosnan films. That is more of something a superior would tell a brand new agent, like Craig Bond is suggested to be.
I would argue that M is unsure whether veteran Bond's return to the secret service as a 00 agent after a number of years is the right move to take with Bond. If you go along by what I said about Bond resigning in LTK and returning in GE, it's not the first time Bond has returned to the service after a few years away so she has to be sure she can trust him.
2) Why does M send a rookie Bond to kill Dryden, a person in such a prominent position?
Because Bond earned his shot at becoming a 00 and this is the perfect chance for him to prove himself. At the end of the day, Dryden is just another man, and there is no reason why his position matters. If you think about his, his dispatching is a fairly easy assignment.
Even Dryden himself is surprised Bond was sent to come for him. If Bond messed up, Dryden would escape and something like the harddrive of missing agents going missing might just happen just like in SF. I still maintain this mission seems more designed for an experienced agent rather one getting his 00 licence for the first time.
3) How does Bond know it takes 2 kills to get 00 status if he is a rookie?
Maybe he was told when given the assignments.
But why would he be told this before the mission? It seems quite sensitive information to give to someone before they have completed it. Again I would argue an veteran Bond would know the process since he has done it before.
4) What does Bond mean when he says “Yes, considerably” in response to what Dryden says to him previously?
Bond is very clearly referencing the fact that Dryden's contact was not easy to kill and took a tremendous effort to subdue and eventually execute him. That is why Dryden say's "made you feel it, did he?" suggesting that the struggle was so great that it took an emotional toll.
Dryden then begins to tell Bond that he needn't worry because the second is...
He was going to say much easier. What he really meant was EMOTIONALLY less tolling, and easier once you get the hang of it. This is a wider symbolic message to Bond that as he continues to become a killing machine, you "feel it" less.
I agree that Bond's response is referring to the emotional toil. As I wrote earlier, he is referencing that the second kill feels more normal. It's interesting to note that Dryden doesn't specify what the "it" means in his question. He could easily have said something more clear like "Made you feel the difficulty of killing someone?". CR seems to be full of these lines that can be interpreted differently depending on how you read the scenes.
5) If the film is about Bond becoming a 00 agent, why is there no scene detailing the moment he actually gets his 00 status?
There is! It's in the credits. You see on the screen the very moment Villiers (M's assistant in CR) or M herself types "00 Status confirmed." it's at minute 6:29. M later says "I give him 00 status and he shoots up an embassy, is the man deranged."
Sure she doesn't say for the first time but she doesn't say again either.
The "OO status confirmed" flashes up on screen for about 2 seconds. If you were in the cinema trying to find your coke in the dark at the moment you would miss this snippet of information. Again such an important moment would be really emphasized if this really was an origin story. M's line not specifying "first time" or "again" is another example that many lines in the film can be interpreted differently depending on how you view them.
6) Why does Bond, a rookie agent, seem to be working alongside Carter, another rookie?
Just because he held his ear doesn't necessarily make him a rookie, that is an assumption. He is standing in a crowd of yelling people and the move could have been an instinctual mistake. But even if they are both rookies, we don't know why the two men are chosen. Maybe Carter was the best person to track Mollaka's location (which he does).
I agree Carter may not necessarily be a rookie but he seems less sure of himself than Bond. Granted I agree that he may not even be a 00 agent necessarily but why does he have a gun and Bond doesn't?
7) If this film is meant to be a prequel, why is it specified many times that the year is 2006 and why does M say she misses the Cold War? (This question only applies to people who believe Casino Royale is a prequel to the other films in the series).
Because that is the year.
It's also telling. The fact that the Cold War is over also lent to geopolitical considerations that forced Bond to NEED a reboot. For Bond to really be the same Bond in From Russia with Love for example, he would need to be in his 80s. But he's not, so they give the year to make it clear this is a fresh break.
The line is also meant to be a nod to the Bond's before. It's sort of a tongue in cheek reference. It's almost like M is longing for a time when the other Bond's took place.
I think this line single-handedly rules out that CR is not a prequel to any of he other films. Interesting note: Bond was never really a quintessential Cold War character going by the film series. DN, the original Bond film, does not mention the Cold War. Most of the films in the series also do not mention the Cold War or have a plot set in the Cold War.
CR is a rare film in the series since there are several scenes which show the year being 2006. It seems he filmmakers wanted to stress this point which further weakens the idea that the film is a prequel to any of the other films in the series.
8) Why doesn’t M have Bond arrested when he breaks into her house and accesses her computer if he’s just meant to be a rookie?
Because she is intrigued by his abilities. He figured out her name and her address which is impressive. She is more interested in having a very meticulous and effective agent in Bond than just to punish him for breaking in her house. That is part of that look she gives at the end. She figures out he peaked at her computer and she suspects he is on to something. So she keeps him close by monitoring him to see if she is right. She is. He's good.
There is a scene later when Villiers calls M when she is still in bed. She's visibly annoyed that she's being contacted and says "You woke me to share his holiday plans?". Why would she say this if she was monitoring Bond?
9) When M is speaking to Bond in her house, why do many of her comments seem to imply Bond has been in the service longer than what is shown on screen? (More details in the long version)
Because Bond has a lengthy career before becoming a 00. He earned it. To commemorate the film's release, the website used to contain Bond's resume which included his bio. But we'll stick to what we see on film. We can assume he served as a Naval intelligence officer, as written by M in Craig's bio. He has a backstory.
None of Bond's backstory is mentioned in the film. Other media like to fill in the blanks but how would an audience member in the cinema know or care about this information?
10) Why does M go to the Bahamas to visit a rookie agent?
M has been on the field before. She goes there to make sure Bond gets a tracker (she can tell he's a bit independent in spirit, to put it mildly, and to personally deliver the briefing for the next part of his mission.
Right she's been in the field 2 times before 😀 I thought about it a bit more - I do wonder if she becomes nervous of the situation in the Bahamas that a 00 is making kills whilst on official leave and so goes to try to cover up the mess. Going there in person would stabilise her relations with Bond. However I think she would make the decision to go to the field based on her assessments from the previous 2 films.
11) Why does M say to a rookie Bond “Well, I knew you were you”?
Because as I stated above, she was unsure about him. But her gut started telling her she could trust him. That indicates she finally does.
As I said earlier, when she gets the call in bed, she does not seem to be monitoring the situation carefully. She goes to the Bahamas to stabilise relations with the Bond she knew from the previous films.
12) Why doesn’t M just send Bond simply as a card player to wipe Le Chiffre out? Why does he need to go as a 00 agent?
Because that what's in the book, Casino Royale. Also, he is a double 0, so why not? You don't stop being a 00, and it's still an official mission.
Considering Bond has killed people on leave in the Bahamas, gained access to sensitive MI6 data and broken into M's house, why on earth doesn't she revoke Bond's 00 licence? I stipulate she does nothing as she has had a past history with him from the Brosnan years and knows letting Bond keep he 00 licence is what he wants and Bond going there on an official mission would satisfy his ego. I find it more difficult why she would adopt this position for a new 00 agent based on the actions that he has caused in the film so far.
13) Why would M risk a rookie agent continuing on to beat Le Chiffre after nearly being poisoned and told to get to hospital?
She doesn't. Bond goes back on his own and America gives him the money to play. She has no incentive to stop him either. He's her only chance at getting Le Chiffre alive which is the entire point of playing, rather than shooting him in the head. "Big picture."
I admit this is probably the weakest question I originally posed. She is not concerned with the agent at the beginning of SF who is bleeding to death.
14) Why would Bond resign so quickly from a relative short time in the secret service after falling in love with Vesper whom he has known only for a few days?
Bond is still young and jaded. He falls in love with Vesper and sees her as an alternate purpose. Arguably it would be even harder for him to leave the service once he puts down roots.
It seems odd that a guy who has just got his 00 licence after seemingly few years of training would throw in the towel over a woman he has only known for a few days. Surely if Bond wanted to be with her, he could ask to move to a different area of MI6 and not continue to be a 00. Following my theory, Bond falls for Vesper in a similar way to Tracy. She's his way out to find a new life and would be more logical for him to want to resign since coming back to the service after so many years would be something to give up for to spend a new life with Vesper for.
15) Why does M say to Bond that they need him back after just this one mission?
Because she does. She knows he's a good agent and she needs him.
Bond actually failed this mission, wanted to resign from the service and was a pain in the ass to M earlier in the film. I reckon these factors would way down a new 00 agent quite considerably. However if this was the same guy, who handled the GE situation, prevented war between Britain and China, saved M in Istanbul and stopped North Korea from invading South Korea, her willingness to want him back in the service is more understandable😁
I would say that Dr No/FRWL is the tightest pairing of all Bond films until the Craig era, and at this early point they did intend continuity only to abandon it
@caractacus potts still not a sequel