A few Movies and he'll be off.
then we can have, all sorts of New Qs through the series.
Including a female Q. The current era has opened up all sorts of possibilities that would never have been considered in Cubby's day.
As for continuity in the films. Loeffelholz's suggestion of taking each film as a self contained adventure is the best approach. Just enjoy each film for what it is.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I wonder if any mention will be made of the new Q's real name? A nod to Boothroyd would be quite nice.
I can't really add much to this debate but will shove in my two-penneth for interest. The early Bonds probably tried for some form of continuity, but it unravelled with Connery's leaving & YOLT & OHMSS being shot out of sequence. By this point the producers had probably discarded any notion of linkage, with the odd reference to past incidents being used more as a tip of the hat to fans. Craig's first two films aside, I don't see the Bonds as a continuation of one man's adventures. They seem to exist in isolated bubbles, straying into one another's territory infrequently (eg Tracy's death, the Aston Martin), a bit like a Venn diagram.
As someone who has spent a lot of time watching Star Trek and Stargate allow me to clarify.
First off, as hard as it might be for some to accept (myself included) The films themselves imply that Connery / Lazenby / Moore / Dalton / Brosnan Bond are the same man. The first is the scene in OHMSS, when Lazenby is seen removing his "souvenirs" from his desk. On top of this there is the ahem scene in DAD with Cleese's Q and all the headbanging of the archive props. I mean equipment. However it was a matter that was never addressed directly, and it IS open to interpretation. All the same, the intent in retrospect is Connery - Brosnan is Bond Universe I
From Casino Royale, its reset button time. (Or alternate Universe if you prefer.) Ie, everything seen before is separate, not connected with what we see from that point onwards, where the producers can cherry pick what they want from the books, and other sources, and lix that with the world we live in and contemporary issues. Effectively Bond Universe II
The only break in this rule slightly is Dame Judi Dench. Is her character the same Barbara Mawdsley "M" as seen in the Brosnan period? Unlikely, as she has dealt with two completely different James Bonds, and in different ways. - Plus CR implies she has been in espionage for a long time. (Christ I miss the Cold War!) Whereas Goldeneye's introduction suggested the character's history was more analytical. - Those who have read the books featuring the character can prob provide far more insight than I can on that score.
In the original continuity you could ask is Robert Brown's M is the same man as Bernard Lee's Sir Miles Messervy, or an unseen promotion of Admiral Hargreaves? - I prefer to think the latter, but we were never told!
Coming back to Q II, Ben Whishaw will either bring a new different take on the character completely, or may be intended to be a modern, 31 year old subtle version of George Boothroyd. I suspect the latter, since its a similar approach to the re-intro of Bill Tanner, now played by Rory Kinnear as of QoS. Maybe M-Penny will prob be back in a new form the next film after SF?
If the trailer is anything to go by, I think Mr Whishaw is going to bring a new sense of fun as this new version of Q!
I appreciate you taking the time to explain... that stargate universe must sure be a conundrum...
...but i'm not yet convinced gentlemen...
...During Casino Royale there was so much noise concerning 'explaining' how certain things came to be in the Bond universe...Craig, Barbara etc... they all put in their two cents worth in explaining how this explains this and how it explains that...
take for example all the talk about Vesper and how Vesper's actions influence Bond's treatment and attitutude toward women...this MUST have referred to future episodes and encounters???
or what about the 'backstory' to the famous Aston Martin and how Bond comes upon it??
...did this not imply that future elements ARE related in continuity?
Well, he's got the steering wheel swapped on that DB5 between CR and SF...AN UNTOLD STORY!
I think what they were doing with that chatter before CR was letting you know you're seeing Bond as a "rough draft" - not referring to his future adventures, but showing how the man before he became the icon.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain... that stargate universe must sure be a conundrum...
Stargate is not so bad (SG1 and Atlantis seasons 1-2 were great) Trek is far more complicated what with time travel, parallel realities, alternate realities, and lord knows what else!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I appreciate you taking the time to explain... that stargate universe must sure be a conundrum...
Stargate is not so bad (SG1 and Atlantis seasons 1-2 were great) Trek is far more complicated what with time travel, parallel realities, alternate realities, and lord knows what else!
interestingly enough, the first Stargate movie i saw only served to deepen my intrigue for all pyramids, inlcuding those in Egypt...
do you dabble in the 'metaphysics' of these structures or are you purely a sci-fi fan? hope i dont go off-subject here...
Not this continuity thing again PLEASE I beg of you. It was established long ago that continuity is not an element of the James Bond films.
Agreed, a good example is OHMSS where Bond and Blofeld didnt remember each other, yet in YOLT they did meet.
We could always use the theory that Bond went plastic surgery between YOLT and OHMSS as a result of being familiar amongst the villians. Same can apply for Blofeld.
As far as continuity is concerned, I think of the Connery, Lazenby and Moore films as one consistent stream. The Dalton and Brosnan movies must be before the later Moore films, with the possible exception of DAD, where PB looked pretty old. At the same time, the very modern and sometimes futuristic nature of the Brosnan films suggests they occur later. So I assume they are a re-interpretation of the same continuity for a new era.
As for the Craig era, this is a complete re-boot that doesn't follow the continuity of the previous films but sticks to the basic story of the Bond character, so Whishaw's Q is a new interpretation of the same character like Tom Hardy's Bane in The Dark Knight Rises is a major reinterpretation of the same character in Batman & Robin.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
As for the Craig era, this is a complete re-boot that doesn't follow the continuity of the previous films but sticks to the basic story of the Bond character
I totally agree with that, this indeed has been re-boot since CR (2006) and i'm glad to see new Quartermaster. Bond was well brought to the new millenium in CR and QOS (don't start it guys with this). M has been a lady since Goldeneye, so why not go with young computer geek as Q at this point. "Q", "Double-O-Seven", seems brilliant to me. Admittedly i miss Des Llewelyn and i miss the dialogue between Bond and him. Having that said - we had a re-boot, so much for continuity - such is life Deal with it!
Knowing who to trust is Everything in this business.
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Watching tomb raider again during the week I couldn't help but think
Eon may of thought of a young Q from watching this guy
hope not, cos that bloke, and his character, in fact the whole film sucked balls from start to finish. even DC's accent slips on several occasions. crap CGI, a totally daft plot, rimmer as a butler (for gods sake who cast rimmer?!) and a soundtrack that sounds like a 9 year picked the tunes. the best bit is the part where the woka woka's drop off big tits et co, then do the slow mo flypast with the heavy metal tunes thrashing out (just don't pay attention to the constantly changing surround countryside/ice flow or the muggy weather/snow storm). you've got the bad guy from MI:1 as the 'dead but can speak from the grave' father, leslie philips totering along (i was almost expecting a 'ding dooooong' when ange went to visit him), and i just couldn't figure out why when grand knockers and rimmer live in the big mansion, does the daft wimpy geek live in an airstream trailer in the garden?
total cack. the only way that EoN should use it as influence is by saying 'yeah, thats how we don't make movies.'
I really don't think you can get too fussy about the continuity in Bond films. There have been so many films now, and the character has been portrayed by six different actors (officially), all of whom are supposedly playing the same character, while other characters around them are replaced by new characters when the actor becomes too old... if you try to look at it logically as a real series of events, putting each film into chronological order it just makes no sense whatsoever! Apart from anything Bond would be about 70+ years old by now!!!
I think you just have to accept that each film has the right to do whatever it likes with continuity. Even if one film contradicts another that doesn't mean they are saying that the first film doesn't count anymore... it's just a fantasy after all!
JediM
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
As in the new Star Trek Reboot, It's basically a Different Bond universe.
It's as if all the other Bond Movies never happened. )
So they have a Cart Blanche to change Everthing or Nothing :007)
Of course that what his "official dossier" says. It's a false identity fabricated by MI6. They're not going to reveal their agents' true identities, are they?
Interesting point. It would mean that each agent taking on the "Bond identity" is only "acting out" the references they make to "their" past in each film, maybe to give their "cover" more plausibility to any enemy agents they come across.
I once heared that Lee Tamahori was also a fan of the 'James Bond cover name' theory. He wanted to give Connery a cameo in DAD by letting it seem like James Bond was a cover name, that he took during the sixties, and then comes to Brosnan's Bond to wish him luck or something.... I mean common!
it's just that if you want to tell a story of a young Bond at the start of his career that the previous adventures as a 00 simply couldn't have taken place, thats all....
But why do we need to see a young Bond at the start of his career? Especially seeing as this novelty led to a "reboot too far".
Look, by DAD the franchise was kinda stalling, Tamahori had fucked the monkey so to speak and the franchise needed new blood.
In steps DC, now what can you do here, a prequel to DN? Well prequels have limited life, eventually you'll catch up with the past and you're back to square one with no where to go with it.
So whats the alternative? A reboot. Restart the franchise and take it in a new direction, bypassing all thats gone before and virtually wiping the slate clean and starting over with a blank page.
THATS why the reboot happened, to give the franchise new legs.
As for young bond / younger Q etc, why not? whats the harm in having a guy younger than bond play Q?
At first I didn't like the idea as I always thought if M was bond's surogate mother, Q must be some kinda father figure to him. A young Q blows that dynamic out the water, but to be honest, when i first heard the idea my initial reaction was that i didn't like it. Now i've seen it, I've changed my mind, it works imo and there's no harm in it.
So basically, STFU with the continuity questions, cos the slate has been wiped clean and we're back to the drawing board.
Look, by DAD the franchise was kinda stalling, Tamahori had fucked the monkey so to speak and the franchise needed new blood.
In steps DC, now what can you do here, a prequel to DN? Well prequels have limited life, eventually you'll catch up with the past and you're back to square one with no where to go with it.
So whats the alternative? A reboot. Restart the franchise and take it in a new direction, bypassing all thats gone before and virtually wiping the slate clean and starting over with a blank page.
THATS why the reboot happened, to give the franchise new legs.
As for young bond / younger Q etc, why not? whats the harm in having a guy younger than bond play Q?
At first I didn't like the idea as I always thought if M was bond's surogate mother, Q must be some kinda father figure to him. A young Q blows that dynamic out the water, but to be honest, when i first heard the idea my initial reaction was that i didn't like it. Now i've seen it, I've changed my mind, it works imo and there's no harm in it.
So basically, STFU with the continuity questions, cos the slate has been wiped clean and we're back to the drawing board.
I honestly don’t see the need for a reboot or a prequel. There was nothing wrong with the formula as it was. Ok, the last couple of Brosnan ones were over the top, but all they needed to do when Craig came in was to tone it down to where it was with LTK.
If either of the Dalton films should be a milestone point to dial back to, surely TLD would be better?
Brossa was great dont get me wrong here, but it was the end of the road for the guy. Age wasn't on his side, the plots were getting tiresome and Tamahori was the final nail in the coffin.
Besides, the reboot has been done now, so I guess ya just gonna have to get over it.
I disagree. The formula as it had devolved during the Brosnan era had indeed grown tired and stale (but not Brosnan's fault). A reboot was sorely needed, and fortunately they did it right with Craig. It's done. Let's move on.
Look, by DAD the franchise was kinda stalling, Tamahori had fucked the monkey so to speak and the franchise needed new blood.
In steps DC, now what can you do here, a prequel to DN? Well prequels have limited life, eventually you'll catch up with the past and you're back to square one with no where to go with it.
So whats the alternative? A reboot. Restart the franchise and take it in a new direction, bypassing all thats gone before and virtually wiping the slate clean and starting over with a blank page.
THATS why the reboot happened, to give the franchise new legs.
As for young bond / younger Q etc, why not? whats the harm in having a guy younger than bond play Q?
At first I didn't like the idea as I always thought if M was bond's surogate mother, Q must be some kinda father figure to him. A young Q blows that dynamic out the water, but to be honest, when i first heard the idea my initial reaction was that i didn't like it. Now i've seen it, I've changed my mind, it works imo and there's no harm in it.
So basically, STFU with the continuity questions, cos the slate has been wiped clean and we're back to the drawing board.
I honestly don’t see the need for a reboot or a prequel. There was nothing wrong with the formula as it was. Ok, the last couple of Brosnan ones were over the top, but all they needed to do when Craig came in was to tone it down to where it was with LTK.
If either of the Dalton films should be a milestone point to dial back to, surely TLD would be better?
Brossa was great dont get me wrong here, but it was the end of the road for the guy. Age wasn't on his side, the plots were getting tiresome and Tamahori was the final nail in the coffin.
Besides, the reboot has been done now, so I guess ya just gonna have to get over it.
Yes, I meant to say TLD.
The irony of Brosnan aging is that Craig looks far older than Brosnan did.
I don't think a reboot need be irreversible. If continuity matters little in Bond films (as most in this thread think) anything is possible. After all, were not taking reality here.
If either of the Dalton films should be a milestone point to dial back to, surely TLD would be better?
Brossa was great dont get me wrong here, but it was the end of the road for the guy. Age wasn't on his side, the plots were getting tiresome and Tamahori was the final nail in the coffin.
Besides, the reboot has been done now, so I guess ya just gonna have to get over it.
Yes, I meant to say TLD.
The irony of Brosnan aging is that Craig looks far older than Brosnan did.
I don't think a reboot need be irreversible. If continuity matters little in Bond films (as most in this thread think) anything is possible. After all, were not taking reality here.
If either of the Dalton films should be a milestone point to dial back to, surely TLD would be better?
Brossa was great dont get me wrong here, but it was the end of the road for the guy. Age wasn't on his side, the plots were getting tiresome and Tamahori was the final nail in the coffin.
Besides, the reboot has been done now, so I guess ya just gonna have to get over it.
Yes, I meant to say TLD.
The irony of Brosnan aging is that Craig looks far older than Brosnan did.
I don't think a reboot need be irreversible. If continuity matters little in Bond films (as most in this thread think) anything is possible. After all, were not taking reality here.
Jesus, go the whole hog and have bond cast as a gay ginger black woman?
If either of the Dalton films should be a milestone point to dial back to, surely TLD would be better?
Brossa was great dont get me wrong here, but it was the end of the road for the guy. Age wasn't on his side, the plots were getting tiresome and Tamahori was the final nail in the coffin.
Besides, the reboot has been done now, so I guess ya just gonna have to get over it.
Yes, I meant to say TLD.
The irony of Brosnan aging is that Craig looks far older than Brosnan did.
I don't think a reboot need be irreversible. If continuity matters little in Bond films (as most in this thread think) anything is possible. After all, were not taking reality here.
I think what Osris is saying here is that you could do a Sean Connery Bond film (with a computerized Sean Connery) set back in the 60's for the next film and it wouldn't matter.
Continuity has absolutely been thrown out of the window with the re-boot, obviously.
With Skyfall, I believe the series has opened a very exciting door, where Bond can really go anywhere now. The reboot itself has made this possible. (just like it did with Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and basically ANY story for that matter.)
Continuity doesn't make sense/matter in the bond films. That's why I just go with my imaginary theory, and I suggest we all go with our own imaginary theories (If we're even concerned about continuity that is).
My theory that I choose to believe (even though it's obviously not true) is that the only films that are actually linked are per actor. So, DN-DAF = Linked. OHMSS = Alone. LALD-AVTAK = Linked. TLD-LTK = Linked. GE-DAD = Linked. CR-SF = Linked.
And for those who will ask "Well how come there's references to Tracy's death in other films then?" My answer is that the "events" of OHMSS still happened in the Connery/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan universes, but we just never got to see those "versions". The "version" we got to see was from the Lazenby universe. That's how I choose to look at this whole continuity thing. Each actor's bond is in an alternate dimension! (With DC's obviously being the most different)...
Comments
A few Movies and he'll be off.
then we can have, all sorts of New Qs through the series.
Including a female Q. The current era has opened up all sorts of possibilities that would never have been considered in Cubby's day.
As for continuity in the films. Loeffelholz's suggestion of taking each film as a self contained adventure is the best approach. Just enjoy each film for what it is.
I can't really add much to this debate but will shove in my two-penneth for interest. The early Bonds probably tried for some form of continuity, but it unravelled with Connery's leaving & YOLT & OHMSS being shot out of sequence. By this point the producers had probably discarded any notion of linkage, with the odd reference to past incidents being used more as a tip of the hat to fans. Craig's first two films aside, I don't see the Bonds as a continuation of one man's adventures. They seem to exist in isolated bubbles, straying into one another's territory infrequently (eg Tracy's death, the Aston Martin), a bit like a Venn diagram.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain... that stargate universe must sure be a conundrum...
...but i'm not yet convinced gentlemen...
...During Casino Royale there was so much noise concerning 'explaining' how certain things came to be in the Bond universe...Craig, Barbara etc... they all put in their two cents worth in explaining how this explains this and how it explains that...
take for example all the talk about Vesper and how Vesper's actions influence Bond's treatment and attitutude toward women...this MUST have referred to future episodes and encounters???
or what about the 'backstory' to the famous Aston Martin and how Bond comes upon it??
...did this not imply that future elements ARE related in continuity?
I think what they were doing with that chatter before CR was letting you know you're seeing Bond as a "rough draft" - not referring to his future adventures, but showing how the man before he became the icon.
Stargate is not so bad (SG1 and Atlantis seasons 1-2 were great) Trek is far more complicated what with time travel, parallel realities, alternate realities, and lord knows what else!
interestingly enough, the first Stargate movie i saw only served to deepen my intrigue for all pyramids, inlcuding those in Egypt...
do you dabble in the 'metaphysics' of these structures or are you purely a sci-fi fan? hope i dont go off-subject here...
+1
Agreed, a good example is OHMSS where Bond and Blofeld didnt remember each other, yet in YOLT they did meet.
We could always use the theory that Bond went plastic surgery between YOLT and OHMSS as a result of being familiar amongst the villians. Same can apply for Blofeld.
As for the Craig era, this is a complete re-boot that doesn't follow the continuity of the previous films but sticks to the basic story of the Bond character, so Whishaw's Q is a new interpretation of the same character like Tom Hardy's Bane in The Dark Knight Rises is a major reinterpretation of the same character in Batman & Robin.
I totally agree with that, this indeed has been re-boot since CR (2006) and i'm glad to see new Quartermaster. Bond was well brought to the new millenium in CR and QOS (don't start it guys with this). M has been a lady since Goldeneye, so why not go with young computer geek as Q at this point. "Q", "Double-O-Seven", seems brilliant to me. Admittedly i miss Des Llewelyn and i miss the dialogue between Bond and him. Having that said - we had a re-boot, so much for continuity - such is life
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Formerly known as Teppo
Eon may of thought of a young Q from watching this guy
hope not, cos that bloke, and his character, in fact the whole film sucked balls from start to finish. even DC's accent slips on several occasions. crap CGI, a totally daft plot, rimmer as a butler (for gods sake who cast rimmer?!) and a soundtrack that sounds like a 9 year picked the tunes. the best bit is the part where the woka woka's drop off big tits et co, then do the slow mo flypast with the heavy metal tunes thrashing out (just don't pay attention to the constantly changing surround countryside/ice flow or the muggy weather/snow storm). you've got the bad guy from MI:1 as the 'dead but can speak from the grave' father, leslie philips totering along (i was almost expecting a 'ding dooooong' when ange went to visit him), and i just couldn't figure out why when grand knockers and rimmer live in the big mansion, does the daft wimpy geek live in an airstream trailer in the garden?
total cack. the only way that EoN should use it as influence is by saying 'yeah, thats how we don't make movies.'
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I think you just have to accept that each film has the right to do whatever it likes with continuity. Even if one film contradicts another that doesn't mean they are saying that the first film doesn't count anymore... it's just a fantasy after all!
JediM
This frightens me. Stop it!
Interesting point. It would mean that each agent taking on the "Bond identity" is only "acting out" the references they make to "their" past in each film, maybe to give their "cover" more plausibility to any enemy agents they come across.
Bad as that sounds, I think the reboot is worse.
But why do we need to see a young Bond at the start of his career? Especially seeing as this novelty led to a "reboot too far".
In steps DC, now what can you do here, a prequel to DN? Well prequels have limited life, eventually you'll catch up with the past and you're back to square one with no where to go with it.
So whats the alternative? A reboot. Restart the franchise and take it in a new direction, bypassing all thats gone before and virtually wiping the slate clean and starting over with a blank page.
THATS why the reboot happened, to give the franchise new legs.
As for young bond / younger Q etc, why not? whats the harm in having a guy younger than bond play Q?
At first I didn't like the idea as I always thought if M was bond's surogate mother, Q must be some kinda father figure to him. A young Q blows that dynamic out the water, but to be honest, when i first heard the idea my initial reaction was that i didn't like it. Now i've seen it, I've changed my mind, it works imo and there's no harm in it.
So basically, STFU with the continuity questions, cos the slate has been wiped clean and we're back to the drawing board.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I honestly don’t see the need for a reboot or a prequel. There was nothing wrong with the formula as it was. Ok, the last couple of Brosnan ones were over the top, but all they needed to do when Craig came in was to tone it down to where it was with LTK.
If either of the Dalton films should be a milestone point to dial back to, surely TLD would be better?
Brossa was great dont get me wrong here, but it was the end of the road for the guy. Age wasn't on his side, the plots were getting tiresome and Tamahori was the final nail in the coffin.
Besides, the reboot has been done now, so I guess ya just gonna have to get over it.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Yes, I meant to say TLD.
The irony of Brosnan aging is that Craig looks far older than Brosnan did.
I don't think a reboot need be irreversible. If continuity matters little in Bond films (as most in this thread think) anything is possible. After all, were not taking reality here.
Jesus, go the whole hog and have bond cast as a gay ginger black woman?
The reboot is done, there's no going back, ende.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I think what Osris is saying here is that you could do a Sean Connery Bond film (with a computerized Sean Connery) set back in the 60's for the next film and it wouldn't matter.
Continuity has absolutely been thrown out of the window with the re-boot, obviously.
With Skyfall, I believe the series has opened a very exciting door, where Bond can really go anywhere now. The reboot itself has made this possible. (just like it did with Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and basically ANY story for that matter.)
-{
My theory that I choose to believe (even though it's obviously not true) is that the only films that are actually linked are per actor. So, DN-DAF = Linked. OHMSS = Alone. LALD-AVTAK = Linked. TLD-LTK = Linked. GE-DAD = Linked. CR-SF = Linked.
And for those who will ask "Well how come there's references to Tracy's death in other films then?" My answer is that the "events" of OHMSS still happened in the Connery/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan universes, but we just never got to see those "versions". The "version" we got to see was from the Lazenby universe. That's how I choose to look at this whole continuity thing. Each actor's bond is in an alternate dimension! (With DC's obviously being the most different)...
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby