It wouldn't in any way be unfeasible for Bond to be in his 50s or 60s by the events of DAD and yet still have the physicality and looks of a much younger man, so I don't really see the need to play 'fast and loose' with the character's age in the old continuity.
There's strong evidence to indicate that the series' internal chronology doesn't actually correspond with the real-world timetable of the films' production, and so long as we've left the Cold War Era behind by the time of Goldeneye, it's very feasible for Bond to have started out DN in his early 30s and have only aged 20 or 30 years by the time we hit DAD.
There's strong evidence to indicate that the series' internal chronology doesn't actually correspond with the real-world timetable of the films' production
It's very feasible for Bond to have started out DN in his early 30s and have only aged 20 or 30 years by the time we hit DAD.
I don't agree. In the context of the films that's 40 years. So Bond would be in his 60s. I'd say realistically that the films are basically set over a 10-15 year time period of missions.
There's strong evidence to indicate that the series' internal chronology doesn't actually correspond with the real-world timetable of the films' production, and so long as we've left the Cold War Era behind by the time of Goldeneye, it's very feasible for Bond to have started out DN in his early 30s and have only aged 20 or 30 years by the time we hit DAD.
But you haven't even seen the films ?:)
There are no references to Bond's age in the films before Craig. We're not supposed to think about the actors' ages. Bond is always in good health. Moore's Bond is the most mature in his manner from TSWLM and on. Perhaps him rejecting Bibi in FYEO is a reference to Bond being too old for a 22-year-old girl (the character was probably younger, but the actress was 22), but even if he were 10 years younger that part of the story still would have made sense.
It's very feasible for Bond to have started out DN in his early 30s and have only aged 20 or 30 years by the time we hit DAD.
I don't agree. In the context of the films that's 40 years. So Bond would be in his 60s. I'd say realistically that the films are basically set over a 10-15 year time period of missions.
My own father is in his 60s and he's in better shape physically than some people much younger than he is, so trust me, it's very feasible for Bond to be in his 60s by the time the old continuity is retired and still be in prime physical shape.
We regress the age of the character to keep him current. 1962 through 2002.
2006 was a clean slate Bond.
End of story IMO. 8-)
In my opinion---worth exactly what you're paying to read it!---this is a very fun discussion, of which I appreciate every bent and persuasion...but ultimately, we really should just enjoy the films.
I'm willing to say that DN to DAD was a single-line continuity...that CR is a reboot, and we're in a new Bond reality...and that each of the (soon to be) 24 films exist as self-contained bits of high entertainment, to be enjoyed in any order without regard to The Meaning Of It All.
Ian Fleming's James Bond, as written in the novels, was born in the early 1920s, played cards against the Nazis in WWII and apparently never really aged once he hit his stride with the CR novel in 1953, when he was a nebulous 35ish...and then he was in his early thirties in '62, hit the Big Screen and commenced with subsequent adventures taking him clear into the 21st Century. In the meantime, he has been as young as 29 and as old as 57, if the age of his portraying actors is anything to go by (not saying that it is!). He has moved through eras---regardless of technology, fashion and politics...and he is now poised to take on SPECTRE anew, for the first time, in 2015.
At some point it has to happen: the abandonment of 'by-the-calendar' rationalization of his age, and the precise timeline of his escapades.
That said, every fan is 100% free to frame his career in any way they like---disregarding some things entirely whilst celebrating others. It's art...and one is freely entitled to over-think, under-think, or not think at all (which occasionally works best). We all will make our own peace with how things play out.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
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.
This is one thing that really jumped out at me, they gave him Connery's exact car, right down to the number plate and everything.
Even though it was a 50th Anniversary nod, that was a mistake as far as I am concerned.
It was great to see the DB5, the theatre I was in cheered when he flipped the light on in the lock-up garage. In fact, that was my favourite moment of the entire film.
But I don't think it should have been loaded up like Connery's.
Just as a thought-exercise, I've put together a hypothetical timeline of James Bond's career in the Old!Bond Continuity that I figured I'd share:
1962 - Dr. No and From Russia with Love* (Bond is 30 years old)
1964 - Goldfinger (Bond is 32)
1965 - Thunderball (Bond is 33)
1967 - You Only Live Twice (Bond is 35)
1969 - On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Bond is 37)
1971 - Diamonds are Forever (Bond is 39)
1973 - Live and Let Die (Bond is 41)
1974 - The Man with the Golden Gun (Bond is 42)
1977 - The Spy Who Loved Me (Bond is 45)
1979 - Moonraker (Bond is 47)
1981 - For Your Eyes Only (Bond is 49)
1983 - Octopussy (Bond is 51)
1985 - A View to a Kill (Bond is 53)
1987 - The Living Daylights (Bond is 55)
1989 - License to Kill (Bond is 57)
1995 - Goldeneye (Bond is 54 in the "cold open" sequence [which is set between the events of A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights] and 62 in the rest of the movie)
1997 - Tomorrow Never Dies (Bond is 64)
1999 - The World is Not Enough (Bond is 66)
2002 - Die Another Day (Bond is 69)
* Even though FRwL was released in 1963, it is clearly meant to be a direct sequel to Dr. No, taking place 6 months after the events of that movie
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Of course he would
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
1973 - Live and Let Die (Bond is 41)
1974 - The Man with the Golden Gun (Bond is 42)
1977 - The Spy Who Loved Me (Bond is 45)
1979 - Moonraker (Bond is 47)
1981 - For Your Eyes Only (Bond is 49)
1983 - Octopussy (Bond is 51)
1985 - A View to a Kill (Bond is 53)
I didn't realize until just now that I accidentally inverted OHMSS and DaF in the above timeline, so I've gone back and fixed it.
As an aside, I'm mulling the possibility of shifting DaF from its release year of 1971 to 1969 (the same year as OHMSS) since what I just learned about the "cold open" sequence of DaF suggests that it's meant to be a direct or semi-direct follow-up to the ending of OHMSS.
Just out of curiosity, is there ANYONE out there who isn't completely repulsed by the thought of my 3-timelines theory?
I'm not in the slightest bit repulsed; as I said above it's a fun exercise. I appreciate the effort, but simply don't have the time (or perhaps it's a deficit of brain power) to think that hard on it. Beyond the reboot, I pretty much take each picture as a grand time :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm not repulsed by the theory, but I think it's unnecessary and ends up complicating what is clearly meant to be a simple and straightforward situation where the pre-Craig films represent a singular fluidic continuity that starts with Dr. No and ends with Die Another Day.
I believe there are three timelines in the Bond series:
Timeline 1: Connery/Lazenby/Moore
This one goes from 1962 until about 1983 (presuming some films take place in the same year). Blofeld is a double in YOLT and DAF, or YOLT is no longer cannon.
Timeline 2: Dalton/Brosnan
Takes place between about 1987 - 2002. In this timeline, Bond has been married, although it ended differently to how OHMSS ended (Blofeld or SPECTRE do not exist in this timeline). Although I have not read the Gardner novels, I would like to think the film's take place in the same universe as the books.
Timeline 3: Craig
Just CR to whatever Craig's final film will be. As his Bond will be about 50 by the time his last film comes out, I'd like to think if the series continues then the next Bond takes place in a different timeline (without an origin story).
I believe there are three timelines in the Bond series:
Timeline 1: Connery/Lazenby/Moore
This one goes from 1962 until about 1983 (presuming some films take place in the same year). Blofeld is a double in YOLT and DAF, or YOLT is no longer cannon.
Timeline 2: Dalton/Brosnan
Takes place between about 1987 - 2002. In this timeline, Bond has been married, although it ended differently to how OHMSS ended (Blofeld or SPECTRE do not exist in this timeline). Although I have not read the Gardner novels, I would like to think the film's take place in the same universe as the books.
I'm personally not a fan of the idea that Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan all play the same character. That's simply too absurd in my opinion, and it probably makes more sense to think of each Bond encompassing a separate universe, with the possible exception of Connery and Lazenby.
Essentially it would go like this:
The Connery-Lazenby universe: It would encompass Dr No all the way to Diamonds Are Forever. SPECTRE is the main villain throughout and Blofeld goes down eventually in that end scene in the oil rig of DAF.
The Moore universe: His background is similar to that of Connery's Bond-Her wife dies at some point prior to the films and presumably reduces Blofeld's power and dismantles SPECTRE prior to LALD. The movies then start, and the storyline of Blofeld picks up early in FYEO, when he seeks final revenge on Bond. Bond kills Blofeld then. The storyline continues until AVTAK.
The Dalton universe: Encompasses both TLD and LTK. Gogol exists in both timelines, but that doesn't really matter. Bond was married to Tracy also in this timeline, but died for some unknown reason.
The Brosnan universe: This timeline goes from GE to DAD. Bond also presumably married Tracy at some point but also died due to unknown reasons.
The Craig universe: So far, the only timeline in which we have seen Bond from the beginning, when he earned the 00 rank. SPECTRE also comes to play in this timeline, though how it will relate to the previous Quantum organization remains to be seen.
I'm personally not a fan of the idea that Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan all play the same character. That's simply too absurd in my opinion, and it probably makes more sense to think of each Bond encompassing a separate universe, with the possible exception of Connery and Lazenby.
Essentially it would go like this:
The Connery-Lazenby universe: It would encompass Dr No all the way to Diamonds Are Forever. SPECTRE is the main villain throughout and Blofeld goes down eventually in that end scene in the oil rig of DAF.
The Moore universe: His background is similar to that of Connery's Bond-Her wife dies at some point prior to the films and presumably reduces Blofeld's power and dismantles SPECTRE prior to LALD. The movies then start, and the storyline of Blofeld picks up early in FYEO, when he seeks final revenge on Bond. Bond kills Blofeld then. The storyline continues until AVTAK.
The Dalton universe: Encompasses both TLD and LTK. Gogol exists in both timelines, but that doesn't really matter. Bond was married to Tracy also in this timeline, but died for some unknown reason.
The Brosnan universe: This timeline goes from GE to DAD. Bond also presumably married Tracy at some point but also died due to unknown reasons.
The Craig universe: So far, the only timeline in which we have seen Bond from the beginning, when he earned the 00 rank. SPECTRE also comes to play in this timeline, though how it will relate to the previous Quantum organization remains to be seen.
You give all the main reasons why Connery through Brosnan is one timeline. You've only convinced me more of that. It's not absurd if you look at it through the perspective of Bond's world.
I'm personally not a fan of the idea that Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan all play the same character. That's simply too absurd in my opinion, and it probably makes more sense to think of each Bond encompassing a separate universe, with the possible exception of Connery and Lazenby.
Essentially it would go like this:
The Connery-Lazenby universe: It would encompass Dr No all the way to Diamonds Are Forever. SPECTRE is the main villain throughout and Blofeld goes down eventually in that end scene in the oil rig of DAF.
The Moore universe: His background is similar to that of Connery's Bond-Her wife dies at some point prior to the films and presumably reduces Blofeld's power and dismantles SPECTRE prior to LALD. The movies then start, and the storyline of Blofeld picks up early in FYEO, when he seeks final revenge on Bond. Bond kills Blofeld then. The storyline continues until AVTAK.
The Dalton universe: Encompasses both TLD and LTK. Gogol exists in both timelines, but that doesn't really matter. Bond was married to Tracy also in this timeline, but died for some unknown reason.
The Brosnan universe: This timeline goes from GE to DAD. Bond also presumably married Tracy at some point but also died due to unknown reasons.
The Craig universe: So far, the only timeline in which we have seen Bond from the beginning, when he earned the 00 rank. SPECTRE also comes to play in this timeline, though how it will relate to the previous Quantum organization remains to be seen.
You don't have to 'buy' it, but the evidence that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are playing the same character really is irrefutable and about as clear as it can possibly be.
The pre-Craig Bond universe is hardly the first time that multiple actors have played a single character, and it's really not that had to understand the logistics on which it operated.
This whole thread is crazy. )
Certain movies have a definite continuity (DN-TB, CR-QOS), but most are just the tales told for the times they were made in, loosely connected in the ethereal realm of imagination.
This discussion reminds me of the Legend of Zelda Timeline debates that weren't settled officially until the publishing of the Hyrule Historia even though the connections between the various games were clearly defined.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yep.
I don't agree. In the context of the films that's 40 years. So Bond would be in his 60s. I'd say realistically that the films are basically set over a 10-15 year time period of missions.
"Better make that two."
But you haven't even seen the films ?:)
There are no references to Bond's age in the films before Craig. We're not supposed to think about the actors' ages. Bond is always in good health. Moore's Bond is the most mature in his manner from TSWLM and on. Perhaps him rejecting Bibi in FYEO is a reference to Bond being too old for a 22-year-old girl (the character was probably younger, but the actress was 22), but even if he were 10 years younger that part of the story still would have made sense.
My own father is in his 60s and he's in better shape physically than some people much younger than he is, so trust me, it's very feasible for Bond to be in his 60s by the time the old continuity is retired and still be in prime physical shape.
In my opinion---worth exactly what you're paying to read it!---this is a very fun discussion, of which I appreciate every bent and persuasion...but ultimately, we really should just enjoy the films.
I'm willing to say that DN to DAD was a single-line continuity...that CR is a reboot, and we're in a new Bond reality...and that each of the (soon to be) 24 films exist as self-contained bits of high entertainment, to be enjoyed in any order without regard to The Meaning Of It All.
Ian Fleming's James Bond, as written in the novels, was born in the early 1920s, played cards against the Nazis in WWII and apparently never really aged once he hit his stride with the CR novel in 1953, when he was a nebulous 35ish...and then he was in his early thirties in '62, hit the Big Screen and commenced with subsequent adventures taking him clear into the 21st Century. In the meantime, he has been as young as 29 and as old as 57, if the age of his portraying actors is anything to go by (not saying that it is!). He has moved through eras---regardless of technology, fashion and politics...and he is now poised to take on SPECTRE anew, for the first time, in 2015.
At some point it has to happen: the abandonment of 'by-the-calendar' rationalization of his age, and the precise timeline of his escapades.
That said, every fan is 100% free to frame his career in any way they like---disregarding some things entirely whilst celebrating others. It's art...and one is freely entitled to over-think, under-think, or not think at all (which occasionally works best). We all will make our own peace with how things play out.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
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.
This is one thing that really jumped out at me, they gave him Connery's exact car, right down to the number plate and everything.
Even though it was a 50th Anniversary nod, that was a mistake as far as I am concerned.
It was great to see the DB5, the theatre I was in cheered when he flipped the light on in the lock-up garage. In fact, that was my favourite moment of the entire film.
But I don't think it should have been loaded up like Connery's.
^This^
1962 - Dr. No and From Russia with Love* (Bond is 30 years old)
1964 - Goldfinger (Bond is 32)
1965 - Thunderball (Bond is 33)
1967 - You Only Live Twice (Bond is 35)
1969 - On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Bond is 37)
1971 - Diamonds are Forever (Bond is 39)
1973 - Live and Let Die (Bond is 41)
1974 - The Man with the Golden Gun (Bond is 42)
1977 - The Spy Who Loved Me (Bond is 45)
1979 - Moonraker (Bond is 47)
1981 - For Your Eyes Only (Bond is 49)
1983 - Octopussy (Bond is 51)
1985 - A View to a Kill (Bond is 53)
1987 - The Living Daylights (Bond is 55)
1989 - License to Kill (Bond is 57)
1995 - Goldeneye (Bond is 54 in the "cold open" sequence [which is set between the events of A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights] and 62 in the rest of the movie)
1997 - Tomorrow Never Dies (Bond is 64)
1999 - The World is Not Enough (Bond is 66)
2002 - Die Another Day (Bond is 69)
* Even though FRwL was released in 1963, it is clearly meant to be a direct sequel to Dr. No, taking place 6 months after the events of that movie
...and one hell of a surfer/parasurfer
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Brosnan's been living in Malibu for a while. He'd fit right in with all the other 69-year-old surfers.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Funnily enough, that's nearly about right!
"Better make that two."
As an aside, I'm mulling the possibility of shifting DaF from its release year of 1971 to 1969 (the same year as OHMSS) since what I just learned about the "cold open" sequence of DaF suggests that it's meant to be a direct or semi-direct follow-up to the ending of OHMSS.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
I'm not in the slightest bit repulsed; as I said above it's a fun exercise. I appreciate the effort, but simply don't have the time (or perhaps it's a deficit of brain power) to think that hard on it. Beyond the reboot, I pretty much take each picture as a grand time :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Timeline 1: Connery/Lazenby/Moore
This one goes from 1962 until about 1983 (presuming some films take place in the same year). Blofeld is a double in YOLT and DAF, or YOLT is no longer cannon.
Timeline 2: Dalton/Brosnan
Takes place between about 1987 - 2002. In this timeline, Bond has been married, although it ended differently to how OHMSS ended (Blofeld or SPECTRE do not exist in this timeline). Although I have not read the Gardner novels, I would like to think the film's take place in the same universe as the books.
Timeline 3: Craig
Just CR to whatever Craig's final film will be. As his Bond will be about 50 by the time his last film comes out, I'd like to think if the series continues then the next Bond takes place in a different timeline (without an origin story).
This is all one singular continuity.
Essentially it would go like this:
The Connery-Lazenby universe: It would encompass Dr No all the way to Diamonds Are Forever. SPECTRE is the main villain throughout and Blofeld goes down eventually in that end scene in the oil rig of DAF.
The Moore universe: His background is similar to that of Connery's Bond-Her wife dies at some point prior to the films and presumably reduces Blofeld's power and dismantles SPECTRE prior to LALD. The movies then start, and the storyline of Blofeld picks up early in FYEO, when he seeks final revenge on Bond. Bond kills Blofeld then. The storyline continues until AVTAK.
The Dalton universe: Encompasses both TLD and LTK. Gogol exists in both timelines, but that doesn't really matter. Bond was married to Tracy also in this timeline, but died for some unknown reason.
The Brosnan universe: This timeline goes from GE to DAD. Bond also presumably married Tracy at some point but also died due to unknown reasons.
The Craig universe: So far, the only timeline in which we have seen Bond from the beginning, when he earned the 00 rank. SPECTRE also comes to play in this timeline, though how it will relate to the previous Quantum organization remains to be seen.
You give all the main reasons why Connery through Brosnan is one timeline. You've only convinced me more of that. It's not absurd if you look at it through the perspective of Bond's world.
You don't have to 'buy' it, but the evidence that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are playing the same character really is irrefutable and about as clear as it can possibly be.
The pre-Craig Bond universe is hardly the first time that multiple actors have played a single character, and it's really not that had to understand the logistics on which it operated.
Certain movies have a definite continuity (DN-TB, CR-QOS), but most are just the tales told for the times they were made in, loosely connected in the ethereal realm of imagination.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
King Lear knew a thing or two.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS