Just how does kid Q fit into the continuity??
Halcon
Zen TemplePosts: 486MI6 Agent
I'm having a hard time fitting this new Q into Bond's continuity. The first time we see Q he is obviously older than Bond...perhaps this Q gets replaced by Lewel's some time in the future??
Comments
It's as if all the other Bond Movies never happened.
So they have a Cart Blanche to change Everthing or Nothing :007)
i thought this was Bond at the Beginning!! not a re-boot??? (of course, a beginning with modern day elements).
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Don't get me wrong, I respect that you like to view the movies in this perspective, however clearly this theory won't work. For example, Lazenby's Bond gets married, then Connery avenges his wife in the next movie. Roger Moore puts flowers on the grave of his wife, and in LTK it is mentioned that Timothy's Bond was married a long time ago. So obviously the 'codename James Bond' theory just doesn't work. The filmmakers have always intented it to be one character. Hell, even Brosnan's Bond mentions that "The World is Not Enough" is his family motto, just like is mentioned in OHMSS. If they were all different characters, it would be a big coincidence that both he and Lazenby have the same family motto right?
And about the rebooth thing, well, weather some of you guys like it or not, the filmmakers decided to stop this kind of continuity, otherwise Casino Royale wouldn't have worked as it is a story about Bond at the start of his carreer however taking place in 2006. So there was no other option. I guess for example in this new univurse, Judi Dench has always been M. While in Goldeneye they still mention her predecessor. In TWINE there was even a picture of Bernard Lee hanging on the wall to show that he had been M in the past.
So yeah, I'd say take the new era for what it is... The previous adventures might not have taken place in "this" univurse. But they have indeed taken place in the James Bond cinema history! -{
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
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?
Ha-Ha-Ha. Sometimes I take this movie stuff too seriously.
And continuity is creative quicksand. Just tell a good story. Each recast has essentially been a soft reboot, except Lazenby, who they tried so hard to connect to the past adventures while he rummaged through his desk, but only after he breaks the fourth wall and says "this never happened to the other fella!"
Yeah you're kind of right, it's nice that they put a slight bit of continuity in that I mentioned in my post above. But then again, if the adventure started in 1962 and he is suppossed to be the same character in 2002 (which he clearly is meant to be, hence my points above.) he would of course have been a VERY old secret agent. Which is why you indeed have to take the series with a little bit of salt.... Bond is kind of like Santa, he'll always be arround and just keeps his age ..
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
It's a dossier written by Royal Navy, SAS, RNR, British Embassy's and MI6 representatives, it's not a "fabricated" one. The website was made to look like M's computer, why would she keep Bond's false identity on her own disc, especially when Villiers mentions that her Secure Website account is the highest, "level 5 access only". Bond false identities are for example Arlington Beech (CR) or Robert Sterling (Qos). If your theory is right, then it would be a false identity "in" a false identity. Sounds a liitle bit like an "Inception - Secret Agents edition" for me...
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! - Just one film before that Brosnan mentions his family motto The World is Not Enough, the same as Lazenby.. that alone proves that he is supposed to be the same character... Tamahori ruined one film, thats more then enough! Luckily Babs didn't let him ruin the entire series by bringing that theory in!!
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
when john cleese took over as Q, the title remained precisely...why would it be any different now with the new Q?
has Barbara and company actually said, "forget everything that came before'???
Well, the fact alone that in Casino Royale James Bond first receives his 00 status is enough to show that. He has always been a 00 in the first 20 films. So obviously everything before it simply didn't happen, why is this so hard for some people to except? It's not like the entire Bond history has been wiped out, 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....
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
this theory would validate many a remark that the new series gives the finger to previous genarations of fans...like saying dont bother if you were a fan before because this isnt the same character...
...but this obviously isnt the case!!! its why they went to the BEGINNING!! and not started in the middle as if nothing before had happened!
i understand what you are trying to explain here...except that by merely starting at the beginning (Casino Royale) doesnt erase what's happened after...Dr. No began in the middle and all films came after THAT story...what happened before though? well i thought that this was the purpose of Craig's Bond...
No, a movie series.... like Batman, Superman. Only Bond has been going on for 50 years non stop (okay, okay, 1989-1995 and now hasn't been great) so there hasn't been much possibilities to reboot the series. But I really can't believe Craig is the one talking to M about a Russian cipher machine called a Lektor. To me (and with that I mean IMHRUIO) 007 is a contemporary movie character. The best MI6 has, whatever the date.
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!
Well obviously.... I was only trying to lighten the mood :007)
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Oops, sorry :007)
Take each film as a self-contained adventure, and just enjoy it. At least that's what I do -{ Otherwise, you can view each actor's tenure as a series of its own, or mentally rationalize the changing times and evolving styles and technologies over one person's very long life...etc.
*Personally, though, I'd like to think that the fellow with the gold Range Rover in CR is Auric Goldfinger...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM