How about dividing the films?
Jimmy Bond
Posts: 324MI6 Agent
With CR now out and so intent with showing a Bond starting over, I was thinking that maybe, the past 20 (or 21 with NSNA) Bonds film could be divided into two eras: The Connery-Moore era and the Dalton-Brosnan era. Lazenby's OHMSS would be a common link, a film interpreted twice, to both worlds.
In the Connery/Moore timeline, NSNA would serve as its finale, obviously set after AVTAK. OHMSS would be the seventh film, as DAF would become its prequel (DAF on its own made it pretty clear at its time to deviate itself from OHMSS, with Connery returning and all).
In the Dalton/Brosnan timeline, OHMSS would be the first film, and the rest of them (TLD, LTK, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD) would be its sequels. Mainly because of Tracy's death being a mention to LTK and TWINE.
So, what do you think of the idea? I mean, its much less far-fetched than Bond being the same person over the years, while his age is changing as if its made out of plastic.
Well?
In the Connery/Moore timeline, NSNA would serve as its finale, obviously set after AVTAK. OHMSS would be the seventh film, as DAF would become its prequel (DAF on its own made it pretty clear at its time to deviate itself from OHMSS, with Connery returning and all).
In the Dalton/Brosnan timeline, OHMSS would be the first film, and the rest of them (TLD, LTK, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD) would be its sequels. Mainly because of Tracy's death being a mention to LTK and TWINE.
So, what do you think of the idea? I mean, its much less far-fetched than Bond being the same person over the years, while his age is changing as if its made out of plastic.
Well?
Comments
Its more plausible to think that Connery and Moore are one Bond and Dalton and Brosnan are another. Its not hard to think that, instead of two timelines (CR and the old series), there's three: The way I suggested.
What do you think, all?
Plus I have always considered of all of the actors (save for Craig) to be playing the same Bond.
Watch each film for itself, not for the other films. I learned this when watching CR. I was, at first appaled when I heard them discussing 9/11 and I saw the cell phone's date at 2006. (If I'd had it my way they would have made a film that took place in the 1950's, but hey) I thought, so are we expected to belive that, since this is the prequel and it takes place in 2006, do all of the previous Bond films take place in the future? I fully realized the producer's "reboot," but found it, and still find it, completely unnecessary.
Then I realized you can't watch each film and place it amongst the others in some semblance of a timeline. In a way it's unfair to that particular film. Just watch the Bond movies, know that this is one hardcore character named James Bond, and this is one of his many incredible stories.
Anywho, I just watched TLD and LTK and that thought occured to me because of them.
Thing is, OHMSS is quite a dated work - like all Bonds, and I don't mean it in a bad way. They just reflect their times. So I guess you have a point, but wouldn't it be nice to deviate them? It would make for a better story for each seperate continuity..
Each Bond is Bond in his own universe. Some events are common to his own universe (marriage to Tracy, Blofeld, etc). MAYBE Dalton and Brosnan are the same universe Bond... would be logical.
NSNA is the final story of the Connery Universe 007, while the Moore Bond was in an adventure during Octopussy. AVTAK wasn't the last Moore 007 universe adventure, but surely close to his retirement.
Casino Royale is introducing us to a new parallel universe.
But anyway, as it seems, I'm not the only one who thought Dalton and Brosnan were essentially the same character...
Besides, all the Connery films, including NSNA, had a running theme of SPECTRE and Blofeld (except Goldfinger) so the logic is there...
I applaude Jimmy Bond for the thread!
And my applaud for RJJB in being sensible and stating perhaps the most intelligible thing thus far. {[]
They weren't four years between TMWTGG and TSWLM, maybe months or max a year.
What i mean is simple, the timeline could (if you need to) be stretched to be shortened, i mean, even if you want or need, why two things could happened the same year?
And, as far i understand (being or trying to be Fleming-esque) Bond was always in his mid-thirties...
I also think in the stretch line between Dalton and Brosnan, but, hey, i like the way it is and thankfully it haven't keep me awake in the ningts (no pun or offense intended, is a good theory but, as i said before, i like the way it is)
We all see it our own way... but it is fun to discuss!
Greeting Zebond and RJJB. I'm a charter member of the Who Gives A S*** About Continuity Club. It is a lot like the Twilight Zone, isn't it?
Thats the thing. I only say that the Connery and Moore films would be a timeline of their own, and Dalton/Brosnan one of their own. I say Connery and Moore together, because I feel that, while Moore's performance as Bond is radically different from Connery's, he's an older agent by FYEO and OP, both of which feature Moore's most serious takes on Bond. Its easy to say that after AVTAK, M got shifted and replaced by a new M, and a few years might've passed since that last adventure, and Connery as NSNA is up there.
You might ask about Blofeld... Now, I hate to say this, as I love Von Sydow's performance as Blofeld. I think he's the best Blofeld the series (official and unofficial entries included) ever had. But one can perceive him not as Blofeld, but rather a Blofeld wanna-be. I mean, nowhere in the film his name is stated, right? So no big fuss there...
And Brosnan-Dalton is no brainer, to me. Dalton's Bond walked away from MI6 in LTK, and in GE its been some time he's come back. Remember, the Travelyan thing happened before TLD.
Lazenby's OHMSS can be viewed in two ways: One, as it is, which is a sequel to Connery's Bond, and Two, as a semi prequel to TLD and the rest of the recent (sans CR) entries. Main reason, of course, is Tracy.
And now, Craig and CR have opened a brand new continuity/timeline, where Bond's at the beggining and earning of his career. Lets see where will he drive off to..
So, what do you think?
i won't touch your timelines, but i have to add this: (for me, i don'tknow anyone else opinion - but i like to hear yours -) that is important to Craig or his replacement to meet, marry and lose Tracy
i dont mean Bond 22, but, yeah, in a future he must
Exactly, that's what I mean... but seeing it took almost 40 years for the event of Tracy's death to be eliminated from continuity, it may be another 40 years for Bond to marry again (after another reboot probably)
One thing I noticed while reading that book was how young Bond was when his espionage career began. After studying the chronology, it seems feasible that the Bond that has appeared on screen from 1962 to 2002 was one man.
In the book, Bond was born on November 11th, 1920, and was only 16 when he started receiving his first intelligence assignments.
In the movie Dr. No, Bond mentions how he had been using the Beretta for ten years, and M orders him to start using a different gun or he will return to "Standard Intelligence Duties." From this exchange we can surmise that Bond's Double-O status is relatively new and that he had been with MI6 for ten years.
So let's say the Bond of the film world was born in late 1937. So when he turned 16 in 1953, he started working Standard Intelligence duties for MI6. (By the way, I couldn't help but notice the significance of the year 1953. If that was the year Bond started in MI6, it also happens to coincide with the year Casino Royale was published and the year Pierce Brosnan was born!)
Anyways, if Dr. No took place in 1962, that would be nine years later. If it was late 1962, Bond would have just turned 25. Sean Connery obviously looks older than this (he would've been about 31 at the time), but Pearson's biography does mention that Bond looked older than his true age. So if the year was about to turn 1963, Bond's "ten year" reference for his Beretta could have just been him rounding up a bit to improve his retort to M.
Having established that Bond turned 25 in 1962, that would mean he was 64 in early 2002. Although this is certainly no spring chicken, it wouldn't be too far fetched for a man as fit and amazing as James Bond to still be on active duty at this age. Just look at real life examples: Sylvester Stallone will be 62 when Rambo IV premieres. Arnold Schwarzenegger turns 60 this year. Harrison Ford will actually be 66 when Indiana Jones IV comes out. And even Roger Moore turned 58 the year AVTAK was released.
Therefore, Die Another Day could have ended in early 2002, and James Bond #1 could have retired once he turned 65. Seems like one man could have been Bond after all.
It puts things in a differnt light... I really like that!
agood work indeed, but as i said it before, don't take dates to serously, dot think in a 6 years period since LTK and GE, if movies where in a year or months appart, keeping your theory, DAD would be sooner therefore be younger (why not 50 something)
That is, with the exception of Craig, who is playing Bond in a new series in tha same way that Michael Keaton and Christian Bale played Batman in different series.
Ian Fleming made one character named James Bond. Not two or three. All of the actors who have portrayed Bond even as far back as Niven, have all portrayed this one character: 007. So why make such a fuss over something that in all reality matters very little at all? I'm not siding with anyone - I don't think people should view the different actors' Bonds as different from the others, nor do I expect some reasonable explanation as to why Bond could have been the same Bond as he was in 1953.
Even now with Daniel Craig as Bond in CR. I fully realize the "reboot" and the "starting with a clean slate" - but do you people realize what you're saying? - "Well, uh this is a different James Bond son - he's not the same Bond we've seen in the past twenty films. He's another secret agent named James Bond with similar characteristics and the uncanny ability to escape anything."
So enough explanations - enough this Bond is different from this Bond, they're all different people with the same name - that's disrespectful to the character and by golly disrespectful Ian Fleming's vision of this one secret agent, licence to kill 007, James Bond.
Thing is, I DO have a problem watching TLD after AVTAK. I just can't think Dalton's the same Bond that "did" Grace Jones a film earlier.
I KNOW all of them 'cept Craig were the same man - if Brosnan's performance doesn't catapulte this, what does? Thing I like to believe that this way, I can appreciate both Dalton and Brosnan's Bond for what they are, and not for being a continuance to Connery and others. Moore is distinctive, and for some reason I don't mind him and Connery sharing a Bond contunuity (AVTAK and TMWTGG and MR do get me, but the others are alright). Plus, Dalton's Bond is acting rather like Connery in DR. NO, a youthful but experienced fellow, with some years on his back on this game.
In the end, whats so wrong with people thinking about this possibility, really?