Continuity/canon mystery

crawfordboon · February 2007

A niggling question about the Bonds is one that had been dogging me for years, without any danger of a fully satisfactory conclusion:

The question is, how come Bond and Blofeld are supposed to be strangers in OHMSS, when they already met in YOLT?

OK, so the series states that Blofeld has had plastic surgery, but I highly doubt that this could have affected his vision / memory. Clearly, if YOLT is set before OHMSS, there is no way the two could fail to recognise each other (though they are both played by different actors). YOLT certainly implies that Bond and Blofeld first meet in that film, (which means OHMSS cannot come first in continuity) and yet later in OHMSS they both act like they do not reconise each other. Is OHMSS set in a different universe, or is this the case for YOLT?

I don't know if this issue has been resolved, but I think it has been discussed in depth. However, I am going to start a new thread on it so we can go through all the evidence and theories from the top.

Loeffelholz · February 2007

Wowee Zowee...I'm not getting into this again,

except to hold it up as proof that so-called 'continuity' in the Bond series has been a joke for a long...long...long time

darenhat · February 2007

It never bothered me to any great degree concerning tho YOLT/OHMSS discrepancy. I always felt that one could watch any Bond movie without directly referencing the other films, but rather having only a dim awareness that other adventures awaited with no real 'timeline'. For instance: I could watch 007 in Dr No directly after watching OHMSS and believe that the it's the same Bond either before or after the events of Tracy. I can shuffle the films around and seem fairly comfortable with the idea that they could have occured in any order. With the exception of a few references to Tracy's death, the films pretty much standby themselves.

This is one of the reasons that I felt the reboot concept behind CR was not necessary. Other than being loyal to the novel in the fact that Vesper preceded Tracy in Bond's life, it served no strong purpose in my mind. I could easily accept the fact that Bond fell in love with Vesper years after Tracy's death. The story could have the same dramatic punch without having to serve or even abolish any existing timeline, letting the audience decide where the story exists in the canon continuity.

Loeffelholz · February 2007

I would counter that the very fact that the films do stand alone makes the 'reboot' nothing to be concerned about...CR, regardless of its 'reboot' status, stands alone as admirably as any of them.

Now, #22, on the other hand, looks to directly reference its previous film unlike any Bond film in the past...but I'm equally sure it will also stand alone, providing ample 'Vesper' backstory via..

the computer video message/flashback which has been rumoured

I guess I just don't accept the premise that CR abolishes, or makes obsolete, any previous so-called 'continuity,' despite its obvious place at the beginning of Bond's career. One can easily enjoy it as a self-contained Bond adventure, place it (mentally) before DN and the rest---or, as some like JFF seem wont to do---ignore it altogether

darenhat · February 2007

I really don't mind 'placing' CR before DN in the canon. But I do feel the Dench as M thing mucks everything up. It could have been avoided easily by simply casting another face. A bit more difficult to do in the case of 'Why doesn't Blofeld recognize Bond in OHMSS' since it would require a re-write of the plot.

Barbel · February 2007

crawfordboon wrote:

The question is, how come Bond and Blofeld are supposed to be strangers in OHMSS, when they already met in YOLT?
I am going to start a new thread on it so we can go through all the evidence and theories from the top.

The original plan was to film OHMSS first and then YOLT, thus preserving the continuity of the novels. Certainly Sean Connery was under the impression that this was to be the case, as a quote from a contemporary interview indicated.
The cited reasons for the change range from a similarity in plot between TB and OHMSS to weather problems for such a snow-based locale. However, the main continuity problem is that although YOLT the film differs drastically from YOLT the novel OHMSS doesn't, mainly owing to Peter Hunt's insistence. It is essential to the plot of OHMSS that Bond and Blofeld do not (initially, anyway) recognise each other. Plastic surgery isn't mentioned in the film, although it is in the novel. There was some discussion among Hunt/Maibaum/Broccoli/Saltzman as to whether Bond had undergone plastic surgery to baffle his enemies (thus explaining the difference in his appearance), but this idea was (mercifully) dropped. Although Bond is technically in disguise as Sir Hilary Bray, it's really only a pipe and spectacles- neither of which he has when he meets Blofeld!
So, basically, Peter Hunt is the man to blame/credit for this situation.

Tee Hee · February 2007

My two biggest problems with OHMSS are:

1. The breaking of the forth wall.
2. The inability of Bond and Blofeld to recognize each other despite first encountering in YOLT.

Why didn't they recognize each other? Well the Blofeld character was understood to be the same in OHMSS, so he must have been expecting "the other fella." If Bond had been Connery, perhaps Blofeld could have pointed him out in a second. Instead, he was thrown off by this self-declared "different Bond."

Either that or a pair of glasses and a pipe was a convincing disguise. Afterall, Clark Kent could not be recognized without glasses and Robin's identity was hidden behind a small mask.

Would it be a stretch to suggest that the Men in Black came in with their memory erasing device?

I agree that the Bond films generally stand alone, however there are certain references that come into play, such as Tracy. As Bond visits Tracy's grave in FYEO, as Anya mentions Tracy in TSWLM, as Felix mentions Tracy in LTK, we can deduce that these missions occurred post-Tracy's death.

Just because the series made a slip in "continuity" in 1969, doesn't mean that we (JFF, myself, and others) don't have a problem with it. It also doesn't make it acceptable for "continuity" to be thrown out the window in future films either (CR).

One of the things that bothers me about the Batman series is the inconsistency of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne's killer. In "Batman Begins," it is just some random beggar. In the original "Batman" it is The Joker. I don't want to see this same disregard in the Bond series. For example, Bond's parents died in a climbing accident. This is revealed for the first time in GE. Would it be acceptable in the Craig films to change the story and say that they abandoned him at birth? Bond does have a history and it has been consistent throughout the films up until CR. Now we have a reboot, where M is still Judi Dench despite that fact that the first female head of MI6 wasn't appointed until GE (when Bond was already an established agent). Bond meets Felix despite meeting him for the first time in DN. Bond is just starting out in the post 9/11 world despite haven't been an agent throughout the Cold War.

It is true that most Bond films can be watched in any order and still maintain the illusion that this is the same man. However, this cannot be said of CR. Would it be possible to watch CR and then OP for instance? Well M makes it clear in CR that it's post 9/11 and that "she misses the Cold War." However, in OP the Cold War is very much at hand. So how can Bond just be starting out after the Cold War if he was an agent during the Cold War? 8-)

Like darenhat has said, the reboot was completely unnecessary. CR could have easily been set in the present day and still have been a huge success. "But Tee Hee, if they didn't reboot we wouldn't have found out how Bond earned his license to kill or came to like vodka martinis.” I say "Who cares!" Bond's history prior to DN is insignificant. These tiny details do not have to be explained. And if they absolutely had to be revealed, then it should have been done right!

If I had it my way, in CR Bond would have been the usual veteran agent fighting global terror. Judi Dench could still be M. The movie would be virtually the same minus the PTS/Earning of the license to kill, the origin of the vodka martini, and the unfamiliarity of Bond and Felix. I even would have not had a problem with Bond falling in love again after Tracy.

The series was only reboot to quench the public's thrist for these "beginning" pictures. So far Batman has done it, Bond has done it, and now Hannibal, to name a few. Although it may be fun to explore the roots of our beloved heros (or killers), it is not worth the expense of continuity.

JennyFlexFan · February 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

My two biggest problems with OHMSS are:

1. The breaking of the forth wall.
2. The inability of Bond and Blofeld to recognize each other despite first encountering in YOLT.

Why didn't they recognize each other? Well the Blofeld character was understood to be the same in OHMSS, so he must have been expecting "the other fella." If Bond had been Connery, perhaps Blofeld could have pointed him out in a second. Instead, he was thrown off by this self-declared "different Bond."

Either that or a pair of glasses and a pipe was a convincing disguise. Afterall, Clark Kent could not be recognized without glasses and Robin's identity was hidden behind a small mask.

Would it be a stretch to suggest that the Men in Black came in with their memory erasing device?

I agree that the Bond films generally stand alone, however there are certain references that come into play, such as Tracy. As Bond visits Tracy's grave in FYEO, as Anya mentions Tracy in TSWLM, as Felix mentions Tracy in LTK, we can deduce that these missions occurred post-Tracy's death.

Just because the series made a slip in "continuity" in 1969, doesn't mean that we (JFF, myself, and others) don't have a problem with it. It also doesn't make it acceptable for "continuity" to be thrown out the window in future films either (CR).

One of the things that bothers me about the Batman series is the inconsistency of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne's killer. In "Batman Begins," it is just some random beggar. In the original "Batman" it is The Joker. I don't want to see this same disregard in the Bond series. For example, Bond's parents died in a climbing accident. This is revealed for the first time in GE. Would it be acceptable in the Craig films to change the story and say that they abandoned him at birth? Bond does have a history and it has been consistent throughout the films up until CR. Now we have a reboot, where M is still Judi Dench despite that fact that the first female head of MI6 wasn't appointed until GE (when Bond was already an established agent). Bond meets Felix despite meeting him for the first time in DN. Bond is just starting out in the post 9/11 world despite haven't been an agent throughout the Cold War.

It is true that most Bond films can be watched in any order and still maintain the illusion that this is the same man. However, this cannot be said of CR. Would it be possible to watch CR and then OP for instance? Well M makes it clear in CR that it's post 9/11 and that "she misses the Cold War." However, in OP the Cold War is very much at hand. So how can Bond just be starting out after the Cold War if he was an agent during the Cold War? 8-)

Like darenhat has said, the reboot was completely unnecessary. CR could have easily been set in the present day and still have been a huge success. "But Tee Hee, if they didn't reboot we wouldn't have found out how Bond earned his license to kill or came to like vodka martinis.” I say "Who cares!" Bond's history prior to DN is insignificant. These tiny details do not have to be explained. And if they absolutely had to be revealed, then it should have been done right!

If I had it my way, in CR Bond would have been the usual veteran agent fighting global terror. Judi Dench could still be M. The movie would be virtually the same minus the PTS/Earning of the license to kill, the origin of the vodka martini, and the unfamiliarity of Bond and Felix. I even would have not had a problem with Bond falling in love again after Tracy.

The series was only reboot to quench the public's thrist for these "beginning" pictures. So far Batman has done it, Bond has done it, and now Hannibal, to name a few. Although it may be fun to explore the roots of our beloved heros (or killers), it is not worth the expense of continuity.

Encore, encore Tee Hee! Wonderfully written! I commend you on your efforts, and thank you for the mention, it's a great honor to be mentioned in such a great post!

Tee Hee · February 2007

Thank you JFF. I am a firm believer that Bond is a character that is supposed to be adapted for the times. He may not age, but he is always meant to be a veteran agent. Bond's past is better left unsaid. We know enough about his background to get by. I think the reboot was poorly handled and continuity was sacrificed in order to feed the public's interest in these new "beginning" films.

Michael G Wilson once said that a reboot was considered as early as the time of TLD, but Cubby thought we shouldn't look back.

I believe Cubby was right.

Also, upon leaving the series in the hands of Babs and Mikey, Cubby warned them not to "screw it up."

Although the film is an obvious financial success, I don't think Cubby would be a happy camper today. The Bond films were more to him than just a "cash crop."

Loeffelholz · February 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

Thank you JFF. I am a firm believer that Bond is a character that is supposed to be adapted for the times. He may not age, but he is always meant to be a veteran agent. Bond's past is better left unsaid. We know enough about his background to get by. I think the reboot was poorly handled and continuity was sacrificed in order to feed the public's interest in these new "beginning" films.

Michael G Wilson once said that a reboot was considered as early as the time of TLD, but Cubby thought we shouldn't look back.

I believe Cubby was right.

Also, upon leaving the series in the hands of Babs and Mikey, Cubby warned them not to "screw it up."

Although the film is an obvious financial success, I don't think Cubby would be a happy camper today. The Bond films were more to him than just a "cash crop."

I'm sure you're right. As a movie producer, he'd likely give the $600 million back

)

Tee Hee · February 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'm sure you're right. As a movie producer, he'd likely give the $600 million back )

) Obviously he wouldn't, but my point is: Cubby would not have defiled the sanctity of that which is a "Bond film" for the sake of making a pretty penny. I guess the acorns don't fall far from the tree afterall.

darenhat · February 2007

Well, the 'reboot' and 'Bond earning his licence to kill' is basically a one-trick pony. In fact, I'd be more inclined to call it a half-trick pony since Bond's first two kills had no real merit plot-wise. It showed us that he was a tough killer (uh yeah...knew that) and that he killed two people to earn his 00 status (uh yeah...knew that, too. Thanks for wasting the screentime). In the novel CR, Fleming dedicated only a few sentences to Bond earning his 00, but take a hint: That's because it had nothing to do with the plot. Best left on the cutting room floor, or ascribed a line or two of dialogue. But that's it.

Yeah, the producers made some dough. But can they keep it up? Only time will tell.

crawfordboon · February 2007

well the CR opening was OK but was spoiled because the trailers had long since given away what was going to happen, therefore no suspense, therefore little interest. I was just waiting for the film to start properly.

Barbel · February 2007

The continuity debate seeming to be overlapping from OHMSS into CR, here's one thought:

The continuity problem with OHMSS was accidental or at best casual (see above).

The continuity situation with CR is deliberate and calculated (see Lord knows how many posts and threads).

The two cases are, to paraphrase darenhat in another thread, apples and oranges.

Dan Same · February 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

My two biggest problems with OHMSS are:

1. The breaking of the forth wall.
2. The inability of Bond and Blofeld to recognize each other despite first encountering in YOLT.

Why didn't they recognize each other? Well the Blofeld character was understood to be the same in OHMSS, so he must have been expecting "the other fella." If Bond had been Connery, perhaps Blofeld could have pointed him out in a second. Instead, he was thrown off by this self-declared "different Bond."

Either that or a pair of glasses and a pipe was a convincing disguise. Afterall, Clark Kent could not be recognized without glasses and Robin's identity was hidden behind a small mask.

Would it be a stretch to suggest that the Men in Black came in with their memory erasing device?

I agree that the Bond films generally stand alone, however there are certain references that come into play, such as Tracy. As Bond visits Tracy's grave in FYEO, as Anya mentions Tracy in TSWLM, as Felix mentions Tracy in LTK, we can deduce that these missions occurred post-Tracy's death.

Just because the series made a slip in "continuity" in 1969, doesn't mean that we (JFF, myself, and others) don't have a problem with it. It also doesn't make it acceptable for "continuity" to be thrown out the window in future films either (CR).

One of the things that bothers me about the Batman series is the inconsistency of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne's killer. In "Batman Begins," it is just some random beggar. In the original "Batman" it is The Joker. I don't want to see this same disregard in the Bond series. For example, Bond's parents died in a climbing accident. This is revealed for the first time in GE. Would it be acceptable in the Craig films to change the story and say that they abandoned him at birth? Bond does have a history and it has been consistent throughout the films up until CR. Now we have a reboot, where M is still Judi Dench despite that fact that the first female head of MI6 wasn't appointed until GE (when Bond was already an established agent). Bond meets Felix despite meeting him for the first time in DN. Bond is just starting out in the post 9/11 world despite haven't been an agent throughout the Cold War.

It is true that most Bond films can be watched in any order and still maintain the illusion that this is the same man. However, this cannot be said of CR. Would it be possible to watch CR and then OP for instance? Well M makes it clear in CR that it's post 9/11 and that "she misses the Cold War." However, in OP the Cold War is very much at hand. So how can Bond just be starting out after the Cold War if he was an agent during the Cold War? 8-)

Like darenhat has said, the reboot was completely unnecessary. CR could have easily been set in the present day and still have been a huge success. "But Tee Hee, if they didn't reboot we wouldn't have found out how Bond earned his license to kill or came to like vodka martinis.” I say "Who cares!" Bond's history prior to DN is insignificant. These tiny details do not have to be explained. And if they absolutely had to be revealed, then it should have been done right!

If I had it my way, in CR Bond would have been the usual veteran agent fighting global terror. Judi Dench could still be M. The movie would be virtually the same minus the PTS/Earning of the license to kill, the origin of the vodka martini, and the unfamiliarity of Bond and Felix. I even would have not had a problem with Bond falling in love again after Tracy.

The series was only reboot to quench the public's thrist for these "beginning" pictures. So far Batman has done it, Bond has done it, and now Hannibal, to name a few. Although it may be fun to explore the roots of our beloved heros (or killers), it is not worth the expense of continuity.

Tee Hee wrote:

Thank you JFF. I am a firm believer that Bond is a character that is supposed to be adapted for the times. He may not age, but he is always meant to be a veteran agent. Bond's past is better left unsaid. We know enough about his background to get by. I think the reboot was poorly handled and continuity was sacrificed in order to feed the public's interest in these new "beginning" films.

Michael G Wilson once said that a reboot was considered as early as the time of TLD, but Cubby thought we shouldn't look back.

I believe Cubby was right.

Also, upon leaving the series in the hands of Babs and Mikey, Cubby warned them not to "screw it up."

Although the film is an obvious financial success, I don't think Cubby would be a happy camper today. The Bond films were more to him than just a "cash crop."

{[] Two terrific posts. I couldn't have said it better myself.

-{

crawfordboon · February 2007

Quoting: Tee Hee
My two biggest problems with OHMSS are:

1. The breaking of the forth wall.

What is the forth wall? Is it near the Forth Bridge? ?:)

JennyFlexFan · February 2007

crawfordboon wrote:

Quoting: Tee Hee
My two biggest problems with OHMSS are:

1. The breaking of the forth wall.

What is the forth wall? Is it near the Forth Bridge? ?:)

Come on, you know what he means.

Tee Hee · February 2007

crawfordboon wrote:

Quoting: Tee Hee
My two biggest problems with OHMSS are:

1. The breaking of the forth wall.

What is the forth wall? Is it near the Forth Bridge? ?:)

The forth wall was broken in OHMSS when George Lazenby said "This never happened to the other fella." Basically, he is saying that he is not Sean Connery, but a different actor playing the same role. So with that line he is undermining any reality that might exist in the "Bond Universe." He is admitting that these are movies and he is an actor. One of the worst moments in the series IMO.

Dan Same · February 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Come on, you know what he means.

Maybe he doesn't.

Crawfordboon, the term 'the fourth wall' refers to a symbolic boundary between the film (or play) and the audience. Tee Hee was referring to the 'that never happened to the other guy' line, in which Bond acknowledged the audience.

I also agree with Tee Hee that it was a terrible moment. There are a few things about OHMSS which I would love to change; this is one of them.

Napoleon Plural · February 2007

Remember that in 1967 and 69, with no DVD access or TV showings, along with different actors in BOTH roles, the Bond-Blofeld situation is muddied a bit anyway... maybe they were a bit less anal about it, the new Bond actor being the main distraction...

I slightly disagree about the CR reboot being unnecessary. I don't like it but a) There was a feeling that a lot of silt and detrius was building up in the series, esp with DAD, and that Bond had somehow gone on too long
b) Without the reboot theme, or indeed a different-looking Bond in Craig, frankly much of CR would just be same old same old, eg: oh he's gambling, oh he's tortured, oh he's betrayed by a woman again... Imagine if Dr No was the 15th film rather than the first and ask how impressive it would seem... as the first film, however, it's all fresh, as CR does, I admit, appear.

Harry Palmer · February 2007

I loved the idea of the reboot. For me, it is part of the charm of CR that Bond is an inexperienced agent, on a learning curve.

If you're troubled by continuities how's this one: in "Dr. NO" M asks Bond if he knows who Felix Leiter is, and if I'm not mistaken Bond answers that he's heard the name but never actually met the chap. THis is borne out by their first meeting.
Now we learn that in CR the two had shared a poker table.

This doesn't trouble me too much (I'm more annoyed by the YOLT-OHMSS discrepancy)... but I'd thought I'd mention it.

Dan Same · February 2007

Harry Palmer wrote:

If you're troubled by continuities how's this one: in "Dr. NO" M asks Bond if he knows who Felix Leiter is, and if I'm not mistaken Bond answers that he's heard the name but never actually met the chap. THis is borne out by their first meeting.
Now we learn that in CR the two had shared a poker table.

This doesn't trouble me too much (I'm more annoyed by the YOLT-OHMSS discrepancy)... but I'd thought I'd mention it.

Sorry Harry. Bond's meeting Felix for the first time in CR has already been mentioned.

Dan Same · February 2007

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Remember that in 1967 and 69, with no DVD access or TV showings, along with different actors in BOTH roles, the Bond-Blofeld situation is muddied a bit anyway... maybe they were a bit less anal about it, the new Bond actor being the main distraction...

I hope you're not calling us anal?

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I slightly disagree about the CR reboot being unnecessary. I don't like it but a) There was a feeling that a lot of silt and detrius was building up in the series, esp with DAD, and that Bond had somehow gone on too long

I don't really buy that reason as not every Bond has to be a DAD. Straight before DAD there was TWINE which I personally loved. (It would be negligent of me not to mention that after AVTAK, there was TLD, which for some absurd reason, alot of people like.

) But if the filmmakers really thought that even the best of the modern Bond films weren't fresh enough, then surely they could have produced a new and exciting Bond film that wasn't quite as radical as to be a reboot. Basically, what I'm saying is that IMO the producers threw the baby out with the bath water; they believed that the opposite of a film like DAD was a reboot and IMO it wasn't. (As well as being unnecessary, I also think it's offensive but that's for another time.

)

Napoleon Plural wrote:

b) Without the reboot theme, or indeed a different-looking Bond in Craig, frankly much of CR would just be same old same old, eg: oh he's gambling, oh he's tortured, oh he's betrayed by a woman again... Imagine if Dr No was the 15th film rather than the first and ask how impressive it would seem... as the first film, however, it's all fresh, as CR does, I admit, appear.

It is certainly different, but is it better? Obviously that's a personal call, but different does not always mean better.

Plus, if indeed it is true that if one took out the reboot and the different-looking Bond then it would be like any other Bond film (and I have to agree with that) then IMO it makes the reboot all the more unnecessary. The way I look at it is that a reboot is only necessary if 1)there was no other direction for the series to take, and less importantly, 2) the film would have been radically different (and perhaps inferior) if it wasn't a reboot. IMO the answer to both questions is no, which is why I don't think the reboot is necessary.

Napoleon Plural · February 2007

I suppose I meant necessary from a publicity point of view, ie what is the main selling point, not from the fans' perspective but that of the average punter... otherwise it's 'blimey why see that when it's just more of the same'

And that would have appealed to the producers, who have gone more and more introspective with Bond over the years, ie his feelings and character arc. A new guy will always be learning, an old pro, well, you can't teach him new tricks... That's their pov, not mine, mind. But they just might share that with the av punter.

Loeffelholz · February 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'm sure you're right. As a movie producer, he'd likely give the $600 million back )

) Obviously he wouldn't, but my point is: Cubby would not have defiled the sanctity of that which is a "Bond film" for the sake of making a pretty penny. I guess the acorns don't fall far from the tree afterall.

'Defiled'?!?!? Thank goodness we're not inclined toward hyperbole {:)

As brilliant a producer as Cubby was, he was far from infallible IMRO...keeping a Bond actor until he's nearly sixty years old comes to mind. To me, that (and a bad cover of 'California Girls') went further toward, in your words, defiling the 'sanctity of that which is a "Bond film"'---than what his daughter has done with CR...wildly different box office $$$$ notwithstanding. Just my opinion, naturally, but one which is strongly and sincerely held. CR has revitalized the franchise; AVTAK...didn't.

Hi JFF!

Bottom line: If Eon's calculated risk had been proven an error, and CR had failed, they simply slather a bit of wrinkle cream on Brozzer (or otherwise hire a more 'traditional' replacement), and remake GF yet again---which, sadly, I'm convinced they'll get back round to doing eventually; it's just a question of how soon...

But, lo and behold, CR is a thunderous success---and may well be viewed as a classic in the rear-view mirror of history---regardless of where they go from here.

JennyFlexFan · February 2007

Loeff, I've defended AVTAK countless times and you can go back and search for all the reasons why I love it and the defenses, but now I'll just show you the series of facial expressions I went through after reading your post.

--

-- X-(

(To clarify, the wink is not part of the facial expressions)

Loeffelholz · February 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Loeff, I've defended AVTAK countless times and you can go back and search for all the reasons why I love it and the defenses, but now I'll just show you the series of facial expressions I went through after reading your post.

-- -- -- X-(

(To clarify, the wink is not part of the facial expressions)

S'all right...this one pretty much defines my reaction:

)

Dan Same · February 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

Considering that the Bond franchise has been inconsistent regarding continuity for over 40 years, why are you complaining about it?

I can only speak for myself, but I happen to believe that the Bond films have in fact followed a continuity; albeit a limited one. Tee Hee's first post on this thread said it best.

Fish1941 wrote:

And what is this complaint about Lazenby breaking the "fourth wall" in OHMSS? It was just a little in-joke between the producers and the audience, and now some people are freaking out over it . . . and using this topic as an excuse to complain about the "reboot" of CR.

Firstly, why can't we complain about the reboot in CR if we want to?

Secondly, as for breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS, I personally hate it and I consider it to be a truly horrible moment in the Bond series. In-joke or not, I didn't appreciate it and I would give anything for the line to be removed. The reason being that when I see a Bond film I don't want to be reminded that I'm watching a Bond film. I want to be convinced of the reality like with any other film. IMO that line took away from the reality that was the PTS.

Plus, you can't be too suprised that people would have a problem with a seemingly small detail. Afterall, you always criticise FRWL and GF for things that arguably are also not that significant.

Dan Same · February 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

I guess that not everyone has a sense of humor. Which is just as well. I don't have a sense of humor about everything, myself.

It's not about not having a sense of humour, but that's fine. We are obviously unlikely to agree on this.

Continuity/canon mystery

Comments