Literally: Casino Royale was published after her accession to the throne - James Bond 007 has never known any other ultimate boss in any of his many incarnations until now.
I get that we're all mostly here because of the movies, but the books matter to some of us, too.
That aside, the question of whether there is such a thing as a canonical cinematic Bond is an interesting one. You could make a case that there was implied continuation through DAD, and in that storyline Bond was married to Tracy, went into space for a laser fight, dropped Blofeld down a smokestack.
But so what does that make the Craig arc? At best I think you can say Eon has created two competing canons.
And when they resurrect him, there will be a third.
I just bristle when people say that Barbara Broccoli (with Craig as her accomplice) killed James Bond, a fictional character she didn't create or even bring to the screen, as if Ian Fleming never mattered.
I'm not sure that the Palace would approve of 'On His Majesty's Secret Service' as the title of a Bond film, much as it would be an easy win for Eon.
Traditionally, Bond films have been supported by the Royal Family, through attendance at premieres and so on; and the Royal connection has looped back into Bond a little, too, with the most significant example being Danny Boyle's skit with Daniel Craig and Her Majesty for the Olympics Opening Ceremony in 2012 (the year of Craig's zenith as Bond, in SF).
But the King Charles of today isn't necessarily the same character who good-humoredly allowed himself to be hit over the head by Diana with a fake glass prop on the set of TLD in the 80s. The Windsor brand going forward might choose to disassociate itself a little from Bond and the po-faced violence which (fairly or otherwise) the series is perceived to be more about, latterly. When the Queen delighted the nation earlier this year with her second skit, for the Jubilee celebrations, the Palace plumbed for Paddington Bear, a far more cuddly icon than (the late) Bond, and a safe bet.
Whatever the Queen may once, or twice, have made of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' as a clever title for a Bond adventure, our issues-sensitive King might not receive with royal favour the idea of the obvious, neat reworking of that title for a future film. Maybe, the progressive William even less so?
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
lueth2048
Posts: 120MI6 Agent
Comments
Literally: Casino Royale was published after her accession to the throne - James Bond 007 has never known any other ultimate boss in any of his many incarnations until now.
Yes it would have been, had EON not killed him off last year…
The only person who could ever have killed Bond off was his creator, Fleming.
NTTD is noncanon to borrow a term from fantasy and science fiction.
It's Eon's canon.
I get that we're all mostly here because of the movies, but the books matter to some of us, too.
That aside, the question of whether there is such a thing as a canonical cinematic Bond is an interesting one. You could make a case that there was implied continuation through DAD, and in that storyline Bond was married to Tracy, went into space for a laser fight, dropped Blofeld down a smokestack.
But so what does that make the Craig arc? At best I think you can say Eon has created two competing canons.
And when they resurrect him, there will be a third.
I just bristle when people say that Barbara Broccoli (with Craig as her accomplice) killed James Bond, a fictional character she didn't create or even bring to the screen, as if Ian Fleming never mattered.
Now Eon (or another filmmaker after 2034) can use the title "On His Majesty's Secret Service" for a future film.
Cheverian said: NTTD is noncanon to borrow a term from fantasy and science fiction.
the term "canon" goes back a bit further than fantasy and science - fiction
see @Barbel 's fine thread on the topic
I'm not sure that the Palace would approve of 'On His Majesty's Secret Service' as the title of a Bond film, much as it would be an easy win for Eon.
Traditionally, Bond films have been supported by the Royal Family, through attendance at premieres and so on; and the Royal connection has looped back into Bond a little, too, with the most significant example being Danny Boyle's skit with Daniel Craig and Her Majesty for the Olympics Opening Ceremony in 2012 (the year of Craig's zenith as Bond, in SF).
But the King Charles of today isn't necessarily the same character who good-humoredly allowed himself to be hit over the head by Diana with a fake glass prop on the set of TLD in the 80s. The Windsor brand going forward might choose to disassociate itself a little from Bond and the po-faced violence which (fairly or otherwise) the series is perceived to be more about, latterly. When the Queen delighted the nation earlier this year with her second skit, for the Jubilee celebrations, the Palace plumbed for Paddington Bear, a far more cuddly icon than (the late) Bond, and a safe bet.
Whatever the Queen may once, or twice, have made of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' as a clever title for a Bond adventure, our issues-sensitive King might not receive with royal favour the idea of the obvious, neat reworking of that title for a future film. Maybe, the progressive William even less so?
Believe me, I am well aware. Harold Bloom personally taught me a little about the subject. Google him if you're inclined.
I was referring to how SF and fantasy fandom has coopted the term to mean a legendarium or officially sanctioned narrative.
It's quite a departure from the concept of the Biblical canon.