Continuity

Denzil2222 · November 2010

I think its a real shame that EON didnt do better continuity with the bond movies, i would have liked if sean bean named tracey when talking to bond in goldeneye.

Thunderpussy · November 2010

I seem to remember reading that the Producers didn't want to burden Brosnan's Bond with the baggage of the previous Ones,even in TWINE when asked if he'd ever lost anyone close to him,Bond just looks away. With Goldeneye they did a re-boot leaving out the whole dead wife back story.But I do agree that the continuity in the series is bad from one film to another Bond either went to Oxford or cambridge. I suppose these are the Best know ones across the world so explains why they didn't use his univerisity from the novels.

Denzil2222 · November 2010

Im sure most people will agree the best example of bad continuity in bond is yolt ohmss and daf.

Loeffelholz · November 2010

Thunderpussy wrote:

I seem to remember reading that the Producers didn't want to burden Brosnan's Bond with the baggage of the previous Ones,even in TWINE when asked if he'd ever lost anyone close to him,Bond just looks away. With Goldeneye they did a re-boot leaving out the whole dead wife back story.

I never felt that Brosnan's Bond was a reboot at all; there simply wasn't any reference to his past marriage in GE (as there wasn't in many Bond films post-OHMSS). In TWINE, the scene you reference is a nicely oblique reference to Tracy...or Paris Carver, or whomever. But I think it certainly works in the context of Bond's tragically brief marriage.

Continuity-wise, nothing makes less sense than Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS

From then on, true continuity (IMO) has really been out the window, except as it occurs within a particular actor's tenure in the role.

mrbain007 · November 2010

Loeffelholz wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

I seem to remember reading that the Producers didn't want to burden Brosnan's Bond with the baggage of the previous Ones,even in TWINE when asked if he'd ever lost anyone close to him,Bond just looks away. With Goldeneye they did a re-boot leaving out the whole dead wife back story.

I never felt that Brosnan's Bond was a reboot at all; there simply wasn't any reference to his past marriage in GE (as there wasn't in many Bond films post-OHMSS). In TWINE, the scene you reference is a nicely oblique reference to Tracy...or Paris Carver, or whomever. But I think it certainly works in the context of Bond's tragically brief marriage.

Continuity-wise, nothing makes less sense than Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS From then on, true continuity (IMO) has really been out the window, except as it occurs within a particular actor's tenure in the role.

What about the one scene in GE when Alec makes that speech to Bond:

"You find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women...for all the dead ones you failed to protect"

That could have been an indirect reference to Tracy

Loeffelholz · November 2010

mrbain007 wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

I seem to remember reading that the Producers didn't want to burden Brosnan's Bond with the baggage of the previous Ones,even in TWINE when asked if he'd ever lost anyone close to him,Bond just looks away. With Goldeneye they did a re-boot leaving out the whole dead wife back story.

I never felt that Brosnan's Bond was a reboot at all; there simply wasn't any reference to his past marriage in GE (as there wasn't in many Bond films post-OHMSS). In TWINE, the scene you reference is a nicely oblique reference to Tracy...or Paris Carver, or whomever. But I think it certainly works in the context of Bond's tragically brief marriage.

Continuity-wise, nothing makes less sense than Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS From then on, true continuity (IMO) has really been out the window, except as it occurs within a particular actor's tenure in the role.

What about the one scene in GE when Alec makes that speech to Bond:

"You find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women...for all the dead ones you failed to protect"

That could have been an indirect reference to Tracy

You're right of course! {[] It probably was...but Bond's had a few women die throughout the series. Ambiguity is a handy tool in a long-running series! The reference works either way.

mrbain007 · November 2010

It is indeed very ambigious but those who are long-term Bond fans will (probably) think of Tracy first when they hear that quote.

As you said though, it works either way.

mrbain007 · November 2010

I certainly think the biggest narrative error they made was not following up OHMSS effectively. For the first time in that film Bond lost, however the Bond theme over the credits suggests he'll be back. Everything suggested a major showdown with Blofeld.

In DAF, with the (possible) exception of the PTS, Bond acts as if nothing happened. Very different from Fleming's follow up YOLT where Bond starts off as a broken man.

I suppose that decision was partly due to the rather limp box office performance of OHMSS in '69. However, nowadays it seems like a major missed opportunity.

SilentSpy · November 2010

Yeah, a big missed opportunity with a true follow up to OHMSS. But then after Casino Royale we got Quantum so who knows what would have happened. The biggest problem was at the beginning of OHMSS when Lazenby says "this never happened to the other fella." I remember seeing that as a kid and turning the film off. It's still awful and pulls me out of the film everytime.

Continuity

Comments