An Exploration of Timeline Theories
Agent Lee
Posts: 254MI6 Agent
My Boss and I are both Bond fans, and the other day at work we were discussing the implications of the Craig-era on the timeline of the whole film series, the pros and cons of the "reboot", and a few alternate timeline theories. I'm sure all of these theories have been discussed before, but I thought I'd share a summary of our conversation and my conclusions because I find it really interesting.
Here are the three theories we discussed, along with the pros and cons of each:
1. The Reboot:
This we're all familiar with, and it's the "official" explanation, I suppose. Basically all the pre-Craig Bond films were one timeline and the series hit the reset button with Casino Royale. The pros are that it's clean, and doesn't have to account for continuity issues, plot holes, etc. The con is that it almost implies an attitude of "everything that came before is now obsolete, and the timeline we're in now is the one that matters", but only if you really value the notion of a timeline in the first place.
2. The Craig-era as Prequel:
Daniel Craig's bond films are a "prequel series" to the rest of the films, meaning that CR-SF are the first four "chapters" of the series, and once Craig's films end, the next chapters are DN-DAD, etc. The major con of this theory is obvious: so many plot holes and continuity problems that you can't really take any of the logistical specifics of any of the films literally, but rather, only view the characters, basic plots, and implications on the development of Bond's character as important to the "timeline". Even these considerations are complicated by the fact that Judi Dench's M comes both at the beginning and end of the timeline. And there's no telling how much further this theory will be complicated with the release of Spectre.
Clearly, there are too many problems to count with this theory. At the same time, it's also more interesting than a reboot, IMO. it has some really interesting implications on the development of Bond's character and opens the door for any future bond films after the Craig era to take place at virtually any point in the timeline--they could be further prequels pre-DN, post-Connery-pre-Moore, post-Brosnan, etc. I don't know why but that's just a really cool thought to me.
3. The Web, or "Anti-Timeline":
This isn't really a timeline theory, I guess, as it eliminates the concept of a timeline altogether in favor of something more nebulous. Instead of even taking a specific timeline into consideration, we can view all of the films as part of a web, and each film is simply a specific pinpoint and accompanying story and characters within the web. Viewing the films this way, we favor the character of Bond and the exploration of him and his universe through various, non-linear "adventures". The pros are simply that they eliminate the cons of the other two theories heretofore discussed. I guess the only major con would be that it makes a literal timeline obsolete. But maybe that's a pro as well.
Note: There are plenty of other theories we could explore (i.e. the IMO crappy theory of each bond being a different person using the "James Bond 007" codename, among others). These are just the three that my boss and I discussed and the ones I've been pondering since.
My Conclusions:
I have two seperate conclusions here; One embracing character, story, and theme over timeline, and the other a whole new timeline theory of my own design:
1. Of the three timeline theories we've explored, I think the Web/Anti-Timeline theory is the best. But this is only a matter of taste. While I'm sure there are many others who love Bond for other reasons, I love Bond for Bond--that is, I love the franchise because I'm intrigued by James Bond the character, and the mythology. While I ultimately find the prequel theory much more "interesting" than the reboot, I get really anxious when thinking about all the continuity problems and become more attracted to the "clean-slate" approach of the Reboot. But in the end, I find that both of these theories distract from what makes Bond so enjoyable for me, and prefer to view each film as it's own exploration of the Bond mythos, and part of a larger web of Bond-explorations.
2.That being said, if I were to come up with a suitable timeline theory of my own, I would split the series into not two, but THREE distinct Timelines, or as I like to call them, "Continuities":
Continuity 1: DN-AVTAK
The Connery/Lazenby era and the Moore era are one distinct timeline. Bond ages seamlessly here, starting the series as a young, rugged, rascal Double-O agent in 1962 and ending as an aging but still suave veteran of espionage in 1985. Granted, you could argue that Connery's, Lazenby's and Moore's portrayals are different enough to raise eyebrows, but I'd argue that they're just similar enough to be the same person, and certain aspects of 007's character and psyche are merely accentuated by each of the three actors.
Continuity 2: TLD-DAD
With the introduction of Dalton's Bond comes a whole new timeline, beginning in 1987 and ending in 2002. Though Dalton is older than Brosnan, it's feasible to imagine them as the same person. Not sure what else to say about this one besides the fact that the best thing it has going for it is that we watch James Bond move from the Cold War into, as the GE trailer puts it "a new world with new enemies and new threats".
Continuity 3: CR-?
The Craig era is neither a reboot, nor a prequel, but simply the last of three "continuities" in the series so far. Like the other two, it reflects the narrative and cinematic sensibilities of its time. Rather than leave Bond's origins mostly shrouded in mystery as the other two "continuities" did, this timeline explores Bond's character through both narrative and thematic development of his past and present. It's unclear where this timeline will end and where a fourth will begin. Only time will tell.
Phew, well, that's it I guess. Looking forward to reading your thoughts...
Here are the three theories we discussed, along with the pros and cons of each:
1. The Reboot:
This we're all familiar with, and it's the "official" explanation, I suppose. Basically all the pre-Craig Bond films were one timeline and the series hit the reset button with Casino Royale. The pros are that it's clean, and doesn't have to account for continuity issues, plot holes, etc. The con is that it almost implies an attitude of "everything that came before is now obsolete, and the timeline we're in now is the one that matters", but only if you really value the notion of a timeline in the first place.
2. The Craig-era as Prequel:
Daniel Craig's bond films are a "prequel series" to the rest of the films, meaning that CR-SF are the first four "chapters" of the series, and once Craig's films end, the next chapters are DN-DAD, etc. The major con of this theory is obvious: so many plot holes and continuity problems that you can't really take any of the logistical specifics of any of the films literally, but rather, only view the characters, basic plots, and implications on the development of Bond's character as important to the "timeline". Even these considerations are complicated by the fact that Judi Dench's M comes both at the beginning and end of the timeline. And there's no telling how much further this theory will be complicated with the release of Spectre.
Clearly, there are too many problems to count with this theory. At the same time, it's also more interesting than a reboot, IMO. it has some really interesting implications on the development of Bond's character and opens the door for any future bond films after the Craig era to take place at virtually any point in the timeline--they could be further prequels pre-DN, post-Connery-pre-Moore, post-Brosnan, etc. I don't know why but that's just a really cool thought to me.
3. The Web, or "Anti-Timeline":
This isn't really a timeline theory, I guess, as it eliminates the concept of a timeline altogether in favor of something more nebulous. Instead of even taking a specific timeline into consideration, we can view all of the films as part of a web, and each film is simply a specific pinpoint and accompanying story and characters within the web. Viewing the films this way, we favor the character of Bond and the exploration of him and his universe through various, non-linear "adventures". The pros are simply that they eliminate the cons of the other two theories heretofore discussed. I guess the only major con would be that it makes a literal timeline obsolete. But maybe that's a pro as well.
Note: There are plenty of other theories we could explore (i.e. the IMO crappy theory of each bond being a different person using the "James Bond 007" codename, among others). These are just the three that my boss and I discussed and the ones I've been pondering since.
My Conclusions:
I have two seperate conclusions here; One embracing character, story, and theme over timeline, and the other a whole new timeline theory of my own design:
1. Of the three timeline theories we've explored, I think the Web/Anti-Timeline theory is the best. But this is only a matter of taste. While I'm sure there are many others who love Bond for other reasons, I love Bond for Bond--that is, I love the franchise because I'm intrigued by James Bond the character, and the mythology. While I ultimately find the prequel theory much more "interesting" than the reboot, I get really anxious when thinking about all the continuity problems and become more attracted to the "clean-slate" approach of the Reboot. But in the end, I find that both of these theories distract from what makes Bond so enjoyable for me, and prefer to view each film as it's own exploration of the Bond mythos, and part of a larger web of Bond-explorations.
2.That being said, if I were to come up with a suitable timeline theory of my own, I would split the series into not two, but THREE distinct Timelines, or as I like to call them, "Continuities":
Continuity 1: DN-AVTAK
The Connery/Lazenby era and the Moore era are one distinct timeline. Bond ages seamlessly here, starting the series as a young, rugged, rascal Double-O agent in 1962 and ending as an aging but still suave veteran of espionage in 1985. Granted, you could argue that Connery's, Lazenby's and Moore's portrayals are different enough to raise eyebrows, but I'd argue that they're just similar enough to be the same person, and certain aspects of 007's character and psyche are merely accentuated by each of the three actors.
Continuity 2: TLD-DAD
With the introduction of Dalton's Bond comes a whole new timeline, beginning in 1987 and ending in 2002. Though Dalton is older than Brosnan, it's feasible to imagine them as the same person. Not sure what else to say about this one besides the fact that the best thing it has going for it is that we watch James Bond move from the Cold War into, as the GE trailer puts it "a new world with new enemies and new threats".
Continuity 3: CR-?
The Craig era is neither a reboot, nor a prequel, but simply the last of three "continuities" in the series so far. Like the other two, it reflects the narrative and cinematic sensibilities of its time. Rather than leave Bond's origins mostly shrouded in mystery as the other two "continuities" did, this timeline explores Bond's character through both narrative and thematic development of his past and present. It's unclear where this timeline will end and where a fourth will begin. Only time will tell.
Phew, well, that's it I guess. Looking forward to reading your thoughts...
Wish I Was at Disneyland, podcast about Disneyland, Disney news, Disney movies, Star Wars, and life in Southern California.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
Comments
The pre-Craig Era clearly represents a different and distinct continuity from that of the Craig Era, for the following reasons:
1) Casino Royale is set in the year it was made (2006), making it impossible for it to represent the first mission of the Bond played by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan (who were very much playing the same character, something that I picked up on pretty much immediately while doing research on the pre-Craig movies)
2) Despite remaining in the role for Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, Dame Judi Dench is NOT playing the same character that she played in Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough, and Die Another Day. The former's name, as revealed in the Goldeneye script, was Barbara Mawdsley (the same as the female M introduced in the John Gardner Bond novels), while the latter's name was Olivia Mansfield (as revealed in Skyfall during the scene where Moneypenny brings James the box with the ceramic bulldog in it)
3) At least 2 of the 3 male actors to have appeared in the role of M are/were playing different characters: Bernard Lee's M was clearly meant to be the literary M, Admiral Miles Messerley, while Ralph Fiennes' M's real name, as revealed in Skyfall, is Gareth Mallory (it could be argued that Robert Brown's M is his TSWLM character, Admiral Martin Hargreaves, which would make it so that all 3 of the male M's we've seen are/were playing different characters)
You got it!
Number 1 is the only one that makes complete sense (as long as you believe that Bond does not age, especially since it makes little sense that Bond could truly be the same age as Roger Moore in his last few films). Everything that came before Craig is indeed obsolete in Craig's films, which is unfortunate. Like Agent Lee, I had that they did that but I accept the reality of it.
And I can't accept that Dalton's Bond started a new timeline because there are too many things that connect his Bond to previous Bonds.
Matt S, what don't you like about the producers' decision to do a clean-slate reboot of the franchise, JOOC?
That's true. I guess I'd argue that, if Dalton's bond started a new timeline, it would still be possible for the new timeline to share story elements and circumstances with the previous timeline. So it's possible that Dalton/Brosnan's Bond had a run-in with Rosa Klebb (which explains her shoe showing up in DAD) even though we only see her in the previous timeline. But if you can't accept it you can't accept it. I just have a harder time accepting that Dalton and Brosnan exist in the same timeline as Connery and Moore given the age difference.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
Because of General Gogol, TLD is meant to follow AVTAK. Don't confuse the actors' ages with Bond's age. Is James Bond really supposed to be 57 in A View to a Kill?
Yeah I get that. And officially there's probably little doubt that every film pre-Craig era is meant to be one timeline. It just makes more sense to me to view TLD-DAD as a new timeline, or maybe only "kind of" a new timeline, and kind of in the same timeline, if that makes any sense.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
"In ‘Skyfall’, Ralph Fiennes’ character, Mallory, congratulates M on having had “a great run” in the job, suggesting that it's time for her to go. It’s as though he’s simultaneously addressing:
(a) Dame Judi Dench as an actor (she's appeared in seven consecutive Bond films);
(b) the 'rebooted' M of the three Daniel Craig films (who we know from her dialogue in CR has been in post at least since the Cold War);
and
(c) a popular memory of Dench's character, which ranges across all of her previous Bond movies and thus merges together (i) the M of the Craig films, and (ii) the 'pre-reboot' M of the Pierce Brosnan films (a successor to Bernard Lee's M, whose portrait hangs in the background of an MI6 venue in TWINE. When, in 'Skyfall', M makes a knowing reference to the vintage Aston Martin DB5's ejector seat, it's almost as if the film has realigned her with 'pre-reboot' continuity. Come to think of it: is the DB5 in 'Skyfall' meant to be the same one that the newly promoted 007 of CR won from Alex Dimitrios, with a few modifications added? Or is it, by a sleight of merged continuities, meant to be the same vehicle in which the earlier Bond raced around during TB and GE, preserved in MI6 storage?)
By the end of ‘Skyfall’, Fiennes himself has taken up the mantle of M. The final moments of the film make it clear that Fiennes' lineage in the role extends back through the whole fifty years of the franchise: we see him as the new M in a version of M's office dressed as it used to be in the early Bond films featuring Bernard Lee, complete with leather padded door and hard copy dockets marked 'Top Secret'."
The writers were on record saying the DB5 was intended to be the car from CR. Mendes wanted to add in the ejector seat for a 50th anniversary homage. The origins of the AM story-wise are different in both films. In Connery's films, Bond never wanted an Aston Martin and would rather have kept his Bentley. In Craig's reboot he never had a Bentley, got an DB5 of his own not through Q-branch. The different DB5 in SF doesn't make sense in any regard.
There are, of course, recurring trademarks in the series, like card games, martinis, the Walther PPK, the tux, and the sex scenes.
But I think each Bond exists in a separate fictional universe (in general terms, according to the actor who played him, although to what extent this is feasible is something I think is open to discussion) which is reflects the time in which each of the films came out.
The Bond films have been, in a sense, reflections of the times in which they were made, and looking at them from that point of view makes them very interesting.
This is just the way I see it though.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
How do you reason all the pieces of continuity from one actor to the next?
Reading about stuff like this puts me in mind of nuTrek in terms of homages and little nods to what's come before whilst simultaneously forging ahead with brand-new stories.
Simple. They are all parallel universes. They share similar events, characters, places, and continuity, but also have characteristics that are slightly different. To use your example of including Gogol in TLD, this could either signify that Dalton's Bond exists in the same continuity as Moore's, or that both of them inhabit their own parallel universes, both of which include General Gogol. Whether or not that's what the creator's "intended", I think Agent Purple's view is just as valid as the notion that everything pre-Craig exists in one universe, continuity, timeline, etc.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thats overly and unnecessarily complicating what is clearly meant to be simple.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
You're probably right. But it's all in good fun.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1) The re-boot/prequel: CR/QoS/elements of SF.
2) The major plots or continuity-conscious: OHMSS, Tracy's grave in FYEO etc.
3) All the rest.
"Better make that two."
Yes the times change around Bond, but he's supposed to be the same character. I guess the longevity of the series and a focus on the film being set in the present causes a few issues around that.
"Better make that two."
Really interesting way of looking at it. I like the idea of there being a difference between bond films that are more "continuity-conscious" and ones that are more self-contained.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
Not according to Barbara Mawdsley (AKA M), who specifically refers to Brosnan's Bond as a relic of the Cold War.
I've only seen Dr. No and Tomorrow Never Dies, and even I can see that Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were clearly meant to be playing the exact same character as Connery.
As an aside, somebody really ought to come up with some descriptors for the two filmic continuities we're dealing with now.
Suspending disbelief, Brosnan is a post-cold War Bond - so is Craig.
But that's not to say that James Bond hasn't lived through the cold-war and come out of it to still be a fit, working agent at the same general age...hence the line from M.
"Better make that two."
All the mentions of Brosnan's Bond being stuck in the past in GE is how they're the same character. Plus, at the beginning of GoldenEye it is 1986, so Brosnan started out as Bond during the Cold War.
2006 was a clean slate Bond.
End of story IMO. 8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS