I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
I know all of this you guys!!! and i know CR is the reboot!!! What I'm saying is, some of the classic missions could have happened in between Quantum and Skyfall. THAT ISN"T TO SAY THAT THE 1964 GOLDFINGER HAPPENED, because that is the year 1964!!! I ain't stupid!!! But some sort of alternate variation of all the classic missions could've happened within Craig Bond's own timeline, just like the video games hinted at with Daniel Craig in Goldeneye, and 007: Legends. I just like to think that if the CR-QoS Saga is to be his first big mission, and by Skyfall they are already considering him an aged hero, that there could be some missions in between there. The DB5 being suped up with the gadgets isn't to deny or confirm that some alternate version of Goldfinger occurred, it is just fun to speculate that on one of his previous missions, Q-Branch suped up what he won. 8-) as for the side the wheel is on, whatevs.
Either way, we know that Craig's Bond hasn't even met Spectre yet, so a lot of the movies wouldn't work. I haven't played 007 legends and can't even contemplate how they could make the On her Majesty's secret Service level without using the thencopyrighted blofeld and spectre
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
2+
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
I'm a bit lost... are we saying now that Bond has one flat that exists in multiple universes? Or multiple flats that co-exist in one universe but in different time parallels? Is Quantum some kind of Quantum physics organisation then?
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
I agree. We don't know why the DB5 has gadgets in Skyfall. And unless a future Bond film explains why, no answer will ever be correct. Most likely they were added for another mission between QoS and SF because M was aware of the ejector seat. That's about all we know.
What bothers me more is when people try to reason that every Bond actor plays a different Bond, and that James Bond is a codename.
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
I agree. We don't know why the DB5 has gadgets in Skyfall. And unless a future Bond film explains why, no answer will ever be correct. Most likely they were added for another mission between QoS and SF because M was aware of the ejector seat. That's about all we know.
What bothers me more is when people try to reason that every Bond actor plays a different Bond, and that James Bond is a codename.
Me too X-(
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
The armed Goldfinger Aston was put in for nostalgia - no other reason. Trying to make sense or logic of it is just a big waste of time. The director is a huge Bond fan and wanted to include nods to the old series because it was going to be a big film and released on the 50th anniversary of the series. It's why Silva was made a retro villain from the old series for Bond to duel with and why
they they brought back Moneypenny and showed the new M in that familiar looking wood panelled office. Most of the nods were woven in logically and worked - the GF Aston serves it's purpose in the third act but logically has no reason to exist (and it is the GF Aston - not his prize from CR souped up by Q. Q would have given it more updated weaponry - not the one's from 1964).
The armed Goldfinger Aston was put in for nostalgia - no other reason. Trying to make sense or logic of it is just a big waste of time. The director is a huge Bond fan and wanted to include nods to the old series because it was going to be a big film and released on the 50th anniversary of the series. It's why Silva was made a retro villain from the old series for Bond to duel with and why
they they brought back Moneypenny and showed the new M in that familiar looking wood panelled office. Most of the nods were woven in logically and worked - the GF Aston serves it's purpose in the third act but logically has no reason to exist (and it is the GF Aston - not his prize from CR souped up by Q. Q would have given it more updated weaponry - not the one's from 1964).
Again for the 9th time now, I am just saying it is fun to speculate. But it is not illogical to asume that Q-Branch would have old 60's technology in storage, even if they weren't using it. Its no more illogical than the minor suspensions of disbelief required to enjoy the movie, such as how bond survived that first fall. Furthermore it is not illogical as far as movies go to assume that bond somehow worked out some deal to supe up the db5 he won with 60s machine turrets and an ejector seat.
The armed Goldfinger Aston was put in for nostalgia - no other reason. Trying to make sense or logic of it is just a big waste of time. The director is a huge Bond fan and wanted to include nods to the old series because it was going to be a big film and released on the 50th anniversary of the series. It's why Silva was made a retro villain from the old series for Bond to duel with and why
they they brought back Moneypenny and showed the new M in that familiar looking wood panelled office. Most of the nods were woven in logically and worked - the GF Aston serves it's purpose in the third act but logically has no reason to exist (and it is the GF Aston - not his prize from CR souped up by Q. Q would have given it more updated weaponry - not the one's from 1964).
You could reasonably argue that MI6 had several armed DB5's manufactured in the mid-60s (there are at least two, Bond wrecks one in GF but is back driving another in TB). The SF DB5 has been kept in mothballs for the last 40+ years before Bond "resurrects" it (there's that theme again).
I've always thought that the Aston in TB is the same one from GF (It's covered in Dust during the PTS) So it was most likely recovered after the GF Business was cleaned up.
Even though it doesn't explain why Q Branch would not give it a Clean?
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
You could reasonably argue that MI6 had several armed DB5's manufactured in the mid-60s (there are at least two, Bond wrecks one in GF but is back driving another in TB). The SF DB5 has been kept in mothballs for the last 40+ years before Bond "resurrects" it (there's that theme again).
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
I agree. We don't know why the DB5 has gadgets in Skyfall. And unless a future Bond film explains why, no answer will ever be correct. Most likely they were added for another mission between QoS and SF because M was aware of the ejector seat. That's about all we know.
Of course we know! It's all suppose to be the same Bond, with each movie, each book, each video game, novel, short story, etc all being part of his same ongoing life! )
I for one believe is good clean fun to try to put the puzzle all together. Even if it can be futile! B-)
I think the DB5 in Skyfall belonged to Bond. Indeed, he makes a point of stating that it is not a company car. It is also (quite obviously) not the same vehicle that he obtained in Casino Royale. Rather, we should assume that Bond is a collector and that he weaponized the car on his own. None of this can be reconciled with M's ejector seat remark (how would M know?), but I compare that comment to Lazenby looking into the camera and quipping about "the other fella" in OHMSS. It's an inside joke between the audience and the filmmakers that transcends the narrative of the film.
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
I agree. We don't know why the DB5 has gadgets in Skyfall. And unless a future Bond film explains why, no answer will ever be correct. Most likely they were added for another mission between QoS and SF because M was aware of the ejector seat. That's about all we know.
Of course we know! It's all suppose to be the same Bond, with each movie, each book, each video game, novel, short story, etc all being part of his same ongoing life! )
No, it's not all the same canon. It's all the same Bond until Daniel Craig. Craig's Bond is supposed to be a different Bond, starting over again with everything before not part of his life. The books have their own canon, the first twenty films have their own canon, and Craig's Bond has his own canon, which may extend to the Bond after him unless the series starts from the origins again (which given current film trends wouldn't surprise me).
it takes a little stretch of the imagination, but we can asume that all those classic missions like Goldfinger happened to Craig's Bond in his time period, more or less, off-camera. This is evident in the video game 007 Legends, which is an awful game, but had a great concept. the car that Craig won could've been modified with all the Q-Branch gadgetry after Casino Royale.
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life. Is the Aston Martin that he wins in CR supposed to be the same car that's in Skyfall? It's clearly not the same car since one is LHD and the other is RHD. But are we supposed to think it's the same? Did Bond trade in one to get the other? In GF, it's not Bond's own Aston Martin. The stories can't fit together in any logical way. It's hard enough fitting together one timeline or the other.
Whether Craig's films are a reboot of the Bond series is irrelevant. There are some parts of the James Bond character that are now canonical, like the DB5. Similarly, no matter how many times Batman is rebooted, Bruce Wayne will always be an orphan.
it takes a little stretch of the imagination, but we can asume that all those classic missions like Goldfinger happened to Craig's Bond in his time period, more or less, off-camera. This is evident in the video game 007 Legends, which is an awful game, but had a great concept. the car that Craig won could've been modified with all the Q-Branch gadgetry after Casino Royale.
I don't agree with this. Craig's Bond cannot be compared with the old film Bond. With Casino Royale they've started fresh. It's not a retelling of Bond, but it's the character newly imagined with a different life. Is the Aston Martin that he wins in CR supposed to be the same car that's in Skyfall? It's clearly not the same car since one is LHD and the other is RHD. But are we supposed to think it's the same? Did Bond trade in one to get the other? In GF, it's not Bond's own Aston Martin. The stories can't fit together in any logical way. It's hard enough fitting together one timeline or the other.
Whether Craig's films are a reboot of the Bond series is irrelevant. There are some parts of the James Bond character that are now canonical, like the DB5. Similarly, no matter how many times Batman is rebooted, Bruce Wayne will always be an orphan.
Canon refers to story and chronology, not characters, locations, objects, etc.
But do you try to relate Christian Bale's Batman series to Adam West's? It's the same character but in a different universe. Just as Craig's Bond is in a different universe from the Bonds that came before him.
No no no...you've all missed it. May was the real James Bond all along. So top secret were her doings that they still haven't been de-classified. The fake James Bonds who lived in the house where she worked were distractions there solely to provide her with cover as a Scottish housekeeper. The fake Bonds' travels coincided perfectly with May's still Top Secret overseas missions. Sadly, she died in a tragic knitting accident not so long ago. The current fake James Bond used May's DB5 in SF partly because it was useful to him, partly as an homage to the late brilliant spy and partly just because he's a very naughty boy.
Skyfall, it can be argued, is another 'alternate' universe within an 'alternate' universe...Bond all of a sudden got old and dispensable and he JUST now incorporates the classic M and the modern Monneypenny all at the same time...
All kidding aside, Skyfall does feel far removed and detached in many ways from CR and QOS...
Skyfall was all a dream. Bond wakes up in his flat, gives a huge sigh of relief, gets dressed and goes to the garage where he gets into his left hand drive DB5 that has just been shipped from the Bahamas.
Comments
For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks keep overlooking this and going back over the same old ground. Maybe the inclusion of things like the DB5 with an ejector seat confuses some people, but as has been stated many times it is absolutely futile to try to reconcile the timeline of all 24 Bond films. So please, stop already!
+1!!
Either way, we know that Craig's Bond hasn't even met Spectre yet, so a lot of the movies wouldn't work. I haven't played 007 legends and can't even contemplate how they could make the On her Majesty's secret Service level without using the thencopyrighted blofeld and spectre
2+
I agree. We don't know why the DB5 has gadgets in Skyfall. And unless a future Bond film explains why, no answer will ever be correct. Most likely they were added for another mission between QoS and SF because M was aware of the ejector seat. That's about all we know.
What bothers me more is when people try to reason that every Bond actor plays a different Bond, and that James Bond is a codename.
Me too X-(
they they brought back Moneypenny and showed the new M in that familiar looking wood panelled office. Most of the nods were woven in logically and worked - the GF Aston serves it's purpose in the third act but logically has no reason to exist (and it is the GF Aston - not his prize from CR souped up by Q. Q would have given it more updated weaponry - not the one's from 1964).
Again for the 9th time now, I am just saying it is fun to speculate. But it is not illogical to asume that Q-Branch would have old 60's technology in storage, even if they weren't using it. Its no more illogical than the minor suspensions of disbelief required to enjoy the movie, such as how bond survived that first fall. Furthermore it is not illogical as far as movies go to assume that bond somehow worked out some deal to supe up the db5 he won with 60s machine turrets and an ejector seat.
This. Well said.
Even though it doesn't explain why Q Branch would not give it a Clean?
My thoughts about the DB5 too.
Of course we know! It's all suppose to be the same Bond, with each movie, each book, each video game, novel, short story, etc all being part of his same ongoing life!
I for one believe is good clean fun to try to put the puzzle all together. Even if it can be futile! B-)
No, it's not all the same canon. It's all the same Bond until Daniel Craig. Craig's Bond is supposed to be a different Bond, starting over again with everything before not part of his life. The books have their own canon, the first twenty films have their own canon, and Craig's Bond has his own canon, which may extend to the Bond after him unless the series starts from the origins again (which given current film trends wouldn't surprise me).
I'm watching the Bond of the moment.
Whether Craig's films are a reboot of the Bond series is irrelevant. There are some parts of the James Bond character that are now canonical, like the DB5. Similarly, no matter how many times Batman is rebooted, Bruce Wayne will always be an orphan.
Canon refers to story and chronology, not characters, locations, objects, etc.
But do you try to relate Christian Bale's Batman series to Adam West's? It's the same character but in a different universe. Just as Craig's Bond is in a different universe from the Bonds that came before him.
All kidding aside, Skyfall does feel far removed and detached in many ways from CR and QOS...
Maybe...