All I'm going on is this - in the last movie he owned a lodge (presumably), an Aston Martin, and $5,000 suits. Nobody batted an eyelash then, so who cares about a nice London flat in this film? *Clearly* he has family money over and above his salary...
All I'm going on is this - in the last movie he owned a lodge (presumably), an Aston Martin, and $5,000 suits. Nobody batted an eyelash then, so who cares about a nice London flat in this film? *Clearly* he has family money over and above his salary...
Haven't you forgotten how Bond obtained the DB5 in Casino Royale?
Indeed. Bond won the DB5 in a poker game in CR. It's weird that it had an ejector sit and machine guns installed, but that's the way he won it. -{
It didn't have any of those installed when he won the car. Some time before Skyfall he had it modified with the gadgets (perhaps by Q-Branch for a mission) and had the car converted from LHD to RHD.
That's one question I would ask Mendes in the future: is the DB5 in "Skyfall" the same one as in "Casino Royale". The theory about modifiyng the car for special purposes sounds pretty reasonable, it definitely wasn't an MI6 vehicle because a) M would know what's inside of that storage <the line "I'm not hiding in there if that's your brilliant plan" shows she had no idea> b) it was Bond's personal storage, not MI6's.
In the books Bond modified a Bentley and called it "The Locomotive" so it was kind of his hobby. He also took good care of his Blower Bentley as it was explained in "Casino Royale".
M was a clever girl. Me myself I would get it if a guy would reveal a hidden big red button and ask me "are you going to complain the whole way?" Especially after watching "Too Fast, Too Furious". X-(
Besides: she probably knew what car James was driving personally, Bond was her agent and she knew pretty anything about them, including the fact how their parents died. She probably just didn't know that his Aston was in that particular storage.
One. Had to be the DB5 from CR. The new Aston in CR and QOS were from Q Branch. They wanted Craig to get the DB5 from someplace other than MI6 to show it was his own personal vehicle so they wrote him winning it. Two - M said she sold off his flat in SF and put his other possessions in storage. She knew he owned the DB5 - her reaction in seeing it in storage was not because she was unaware of it - it was because she knew they were going to be riding in it and she wasn't too thrilled about it (she complained about it being uncomfortable). Three - it's was given the GF equipment because Mendes and Craig wanted to provide some nostalgia for the audience because Bond was going "back in time" to SF and it also provided the excuse to demolish it literally and symbolically along with the house and Dench and any remnants of Bond's past to make way for a new future.
Back to the subject of the post - his flat. Yes SF lodge was his, but didn't Kincaid say it was sold because he was supposed to have been thought dead? If so, who got the money? If Bond had a will, who would he have left it to? If he had been alive and sold it, it would explain how he could get the new flat, but he was considered dead.
They could start every Bond film with M rushing up to Skyfall to
Get Bond , because of some emergency. Where Bond would be
Working on rebuilding it ( like in the old Petrocelli TV show)
After all Bond has spent a lot of time in diggers and JCBs. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Guys, I am well aware he won the DB5 in "Casino." I never said he bought it. As long as he had it insured he probably made quite a bit of cash from it after the events in "Skyfall." My point wasn't that he had the money to buy a DB5, rather he had an asset that he essentially liquidated since the last film. Same with the lodge...
...all of this adds up to Bond probably having enough to live very comfortably in London.
Guys, I am well aware he won the DB5 in "Casino." I never said he bought it. As long as he had it insured he probably made quite a bit of cash from it after the events in "Skyfall." My point wasn't that he had the money to buy a DB5, rather he had an asset that he essentially liquidated since the last film. Same with the lodge...
...all of this adds up to Bond probably having enough to live very comfortably in London.
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.
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.
Yes I distinctly remember that with CR, Eon said this was a new Bond, they even put out a history for this new Bond on a website, (SBS I think rather than RNVR etc).
Problems started with Skyfall, where all of a sudden Bond was no longer starting out as it were, but was presented as a seasoned veteran. The DB5 joke about the ejector seat makes no sense at all in the context of this new Bond, but was included a) because it was funny and b) because of the 50th anniversary celebrations.
Ultimately such continuity errors have plagued the series for years, but because the films have a more serious tone than those in days gone by, we're looking for sense where there probably is none.
After all, I don't see many in depth conversations about why Bond did a Tarzan yell in Octopussy!
Japanese proverb say, "Bird never make nest in bare tree".
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.
The same could be said about the Bond actors themselves. All 6 actors look nothing alike and are obviously not genetic identical clones of Sean Connery but they're all the same man. This whole business with the db5 was just a throw away bit of fun and people are making too much of a big deal about it.
I gave up long ago, on trying to rationalise the time line. ) as AOS points out
The Craig films are a reboot, in many ways like the Star Trek reboot. To be honest
I try to just enjoy the films. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
At least Moore covered his up in OP.
I expect Bond to live in a flash London Pad
Suits me.
Haven't you forgotten how Bond obtained the DB5 in Casino Royale?
It didn't have any of those installed when he won the car. Some time before Skyfall he had it modified with the gadgets (perhaps by Q-Branch for a mission) and had the car converted from LHD to RHD.
That's probably not what Mendes intended, after all the series isn't one for continuity.
Anyone wants to believe how Bond changed the db5, just go with it.
Not fully pimped !
In the books Bond modified a Bentley and called it "The Locomotive" so it was kind of his hobby. He also took good care of his Blower Bentley as it was explained in "Casino Royale".
Besides: she probably knew what car James was driving personally, Bond was her agent and she knew pretty anything about them, including the fact how their parents died. She probably just didn't know that his Aston was in that particular storage.
Back to the subject of the post - his flat. Yes SF lodge was his, but didn't Kincaid say it was sold because he was supposed to have been thought dead? If so, who got the money? If Bond had a will, who would he have left it to? If he had been alive and sold it, it would explain how he could get the new flat, but he was considered dead.
Had insurance.
If it hadn't gone through escrow the buyers could unwind the contract and the loss would be Bond's (unless he had insurance).
Of course, he always hated that place, anyway.
Get Bond , because of some emergency. Where Bond would be
Working on rebuilding it ( like in the old Petrocelli TV show)
After all Bond has spent a lot of time in diggers and JCBs.
...all of this adds up to Bond probably having enough to live very comfortably in London.
Good points..I agree.
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.
Problems started with Skyfall, where all of a sudden Bond was no longer starting out as it were, but was presented as a seasoned veteran. The DB5 joke about the ejector seat makes no sense at all in the context of this new Bond, but was included a) because it was funny and b) because of the 50th anniversary celebrations.
Ultimately such continuity errors have plagued the series for years, but because the films have a more serious tone than those in days gone by, we're looking for sense where there probably is none.
After all, I don't see many in depth conversations about why Bond did a Tarzan yell in Octopussy!
The same could be said about the Bond actors themselves. All 6 actors look nothing alike and are obviously not genetic identical clones of Sean Connery but they're all the same man. This whole business with the db5 was just a throw away bit of fun and people are making too much of a big deal about it.
The Craig films are a reboot, in many ways like the Star Trek reboot. To be honest
I try to just enjoy the films. {[]