I came to post something else, got sucked into this discussion... again!
My personal views on the whole "timeline" thing:
I'm basically a #1 according to the OP. I tend to refer to DN-DAD as the the classic Bond movies. I use the word classic, since they all hold true to the formula that I know a love, and which is why the Craig movies will never be listed in my top Bond movies list, and if I am forced to include them, they would be locked to the bottom of the list, always.
With that out of the way, there is also the argument about a timeline within the first 20 movies. Here is the theory I use to keep me from going crazy. The Bond movies are not set in our universe, but rather a parallel one. He does not exist in our world, obviously. In his universe, technology and politics advance at a much faster rate than what we are use to. There are some lines of dialog and subtitles that mention a passage of time (I just watched OHMSS, Bond had been hunting Blofeld for 2 years), so you can add up how many years that universe exists for. Bond could very well go on multiple missions in one year, this solves the stupid aging and technology problem.
There is absolutely no link between actor and character, unless called out specifically in the movie. James Bond is THE James Bond, But Judi Dench's 'M' is obviously a new 'M' character because of the dialog in Goldeneye.
The Craig films are yet another parallel universe. Elements of the classic universes are seen (Money Penny, DB5, M), but specifics are different (Money Penny is a former agent, M is just always a lady).
The End. The End. The End. (One for each universe, "Classic", "Reboot", and the universe we all live in now).
I just have DC's films as the prequels to the DN-DAD films. Now from Spectre on, the films just fit back into the DN-DAD style, which are just stories where continuity doesn't really matter.
I just have DC's films as the prequels to the DN-DAD films. Now from Spectre on, the films just fit back into the DN-DAD style, which are just stories where continuity doesn't really matter.
But DC's films just don't work as prequels because of things like the DB5. Bond gets a DB5 as his personal car in CR whilst Bond has a Bentley as his personal car in FRWL and doesn't want it replaced by the DB5 Q-Branch gives him. It seems like Bond will be discovering Spectre for the first time in SPECTRE, when in Dr. No he wasn't familiar with it until meeting Dr. No himself. It's wackier thinking of the DC films as prequels than it is to think of them as a different universe (which is what the producers intended).
Here's my theory: DN - DAD is one James Bond, Bond doesn't age because he doesn't like logic.
Then suddenly everything stops and there's some sort of weird reboot and Bond has to become a 007 agent and
isn't the other fellow. Wait... I didn't just said what the producers meant with the reboot did I? :v -{
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Here's my theory: DN - DAD is one James Bond, Bond doesn't age because he doesn't like logic.
Then suddenly everything stops and there's some sort of weird reboot and Bond has to become a 007 agent and
isn't the other fellow. Wait... I didn't just said what the producers meant with the reboot did I? :v -{
This isn't a theory, it's the way it is. It shouldn't be any more difficult or complicated to explain the Bond timeline. It's not supposed to be something we're thinking too much about.
Matt S. is right; the way the Bond films fit together really isn't all that complicated.
Even if specific details don't always match up perfectly, DN-DAD constitutes one continuous "Bond-verse" that starts around 1962 and goes until 2002, and the Craig films constitute another completely separate one that starts in 2006.
For me, it's fun to try and figure out how everything fits together in terms of the Old!Bond Continuity, but I'm what you'd call a "Continuity Nazi" and like to know exactly how a particular fictional universe is supposed to work in terms of its internal mechanics and the way that the things that exist within it are supposed to fit together (even if the way in which they fit together doesn't perfectly match up all the time).
I never saw The Living Daylights as a reboot or a complete new Bond. To me, it's a near-perfect Bond film with a younger/new Bond in the role, but obviously a continuation from AVTAK. The only reboot in Bond was in 2006 with Casino Royale.
I never saw The Living Daylights as a reboot or a complete new Bond. To me, it's a near-perfect Bond film with a younger/new Bond in the role, but obviously a continuation from AVTAK. The only reboot in Bond was in 2006 with Casino Royale.
I don't think anyone has argued that it's a straight up reboot the way CR is a reboot. Personally I'd say it's kind of a "half-reboot", or if you prefer not to use the word reboot at all, a continuation of the bond series, but in a sort of "parallel" continuity to the previous where Bond is simply ten years younger than before.
That all being said, I'm becoming more and more persuaded by the idea that each Bond has his own continuity, only with shared events, plotlines, etc. Or perhaps it's all one continuity that becomes fractured with each new Bond up until the reboot in 2006.
Before anyone rebuttles, notice that I've just described a few different possible scenarios in multiple ways. My purpose in doing so is to demonstrate that a)much of the debate on this thread has really been a question of semantics, or simply the different words we used to describe the same thing, and b)because of this, we really all agree more than we disagree.
Agent Lee: You're essentially describing a 'soft reboot' approach to the franchise pre-Craig, but I'm not personally seeing any evidence of such an approach having been taken based on my own current understanding, such as it is, of the franchise and the producers' intent for the ways in which it unfolded itself from 1962 to 2002.
Your perspective is just as valid as others. -{ but in my head they all
make sense, I watch them all as a "One off", and don't think about the
rest.
although I do enjoy dropping in to read this thread as it always gives a
Laugh.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The films were never made to fit a Timeline, so to even try and find
a Timeline that works for them all, is Fun, but Crazy. )
Indeed. Which is why I think it's kind of absurd to assert any timeline theory as the empirical truth of the matter. I personally think it's a fun thing to speculate on (clearly) but I don't really think my own theories (or anyone else's) are more than intriguing speculation.
The films were never made to fit a Timeline, so to even try and find
a Timeline that works for them all, is Fun, but Crazy. )
Indeed. Which is why I think it's kind of absurd to assert any timeline theory as the empirical truth of the matter. I personally think it's a fun thing to speculate on (clearly) but I don't really think my own theories (or anyone else's) are more than intriguing speculation.
But if they weren't meant to fit into a timeline, why would they bother to recall previous films?
Are they previous, or visions of missions to come ? )
Honestly guys if it keeps you happy, keep working on these
Theories keeps the rest of us amused. To be honest
Chrisisall, explained it far better than I ever could. )
Keep charging those windmills.
In Bond 25. Bond awakes to realise all those missions were only a dream, and
He's really only a G4S security guard, having a nap during a night shift !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The films were never made to fit a Timeline, so to even try and find
a Timeline that works for them all, is Fun, but Crazy. )
Indeed. Which is why I think it's kind of absurd to assert any timeline theory as the empirical truth of the matter. I personally think it's a fun thing to speculate on (clearly) but I don't really think my own theories (or anyone else's) are more than intriguing speculation.
But if they weren't meant to fit into a timeline, why would they bother to recall previous films?
It's not necessarily that they aren't meant to fit together at all, just not into a timeline that's as neat and all-inclusive as what we're going for here. Other people have covered this more eloquently than I.
Occam's Razor says that the simplest and most likely explanation for the persistent references that stretch across flms is that said references make it clear that there is in fact intended to be a singular coherent and consistent continuity and structure to the franchise in both of its iterations.
Have you seen the you tube video showing how Back to the Future
Predicted 9/11 ? Only an odd coincidence, but they could teach the
Bond films a thing or two about pushing continuity to the next level.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
My personal views on the whole "timeline" thing:
I'm basically a #1 according to the OP. I tend to refer to DN-DAD as the the classic Bond movies. I use the word classic, since they all hold true to the formula that I know a love, and which is why the Craig movies will never be listed in my top Bond movies list, and if I am forced to include them, they would be locked to the bottom of the list, always.
With that out of the way, there is also the argument about a timeline within the first 20 movies. Here is the theory I use to keep me from going crazy. The Bond movies are not set in our universe, but rather a parallel one. He does not exist in our world, obviously. In his universe, technology and politics advance at a much faster rate than what we are use to. There are some lines of dialog and subtitles that mention a passage of time (I just watched OHMSS, Bond had been hunting Blofeld for 2 years), so you can add up how many years that universe exists for. Bond could very well go on multiple missions in one year, this solves the stupid aging and technology problem.
There is absolutely no link between actor and character, unless called out specifically in the movie. James Bond is THE James Bond, But Judi Dench's 'M' is obviously a new 'M' character because of the dialog in Goldeneye.
The Craig films are yet another parallel universe. Elements of the classic universes are seen (Money Penny, DB5, M), but specifics are different (Money Penny is a former agent, M is just always a lady).
The End. The End. The End. (One for each universe, "Classic", "Reboot", and the universe we all live in now).
I just have DC's films as the prequels to the DN-DAD films. Now from Spectre on, the films just fit back into the DN-DAD style, which are just stories where continuity doesn't really matter.
"Better make that two."
But DC's films just don't work as prequels because of things like the DB5. Bond gets a DB5 as his personal car in CR whilst Bond has a Bentley as his personal car in FRWL and doesn't want it replaced by the DB5 Q-Branch gives him. It seems like Bond will be discovering Spectre for the first time in SPECTRE, when in Dr. No he wasn't familiar with it until meeting Dr. No himself. It's wackier thinking of the DC films as prequels than it is to think of them as a different universe (which is what the producers intended).
Then suddenly everything stops and there's some sort of weird reboot and Bond has to become a 007 agent and
isn't the other fellow. Wait... I didn't just said what the producers meant with the reboot did I? :v -{
This isn't a theory, it's the way it is. It shouldn't be any more difficult or complicated to explain the Bond timeline. It's not supposed to be something we're thinking too much about.
Even if specific details don't always match up perfectly, DN-DAD constitutes one continuous "Bond-verse" that starts around 1962 and goes until 2002, and the Craig films constitute another completely separate one that starts in 2006.
For me, it's fun to try and figure out how everything fits together in terms of the Old!Bond Continuity, but I'm what you'd call a "Continuity Nazi" and like to know exactly how a particular fictional universe is supposed to work in terms of its internal mechanics and the way that the things that exist within it are supposed to fit together (even if the way in which they fit together doesn't perfectly match up all the time).
Agreed, I love the imagination of some on here, it's
"Better make that two."
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
I don't think anyone has argued that it's a straight up reboot the way CR is a reboot. Personally I'd say it's kind of a "half-reboot", or if you prefer not to use the word reboot at all, a continuation of the bond series, but in a sort of "parallel" continuity to the previous where Bond is simply ten years younger than before.
That all being said, I'm becoming more and more persuaded by the idea that each Bond has his own continuity, only with shared events, plotlines, etc. Or perhaps it's all one continuity that becomes fractured with each new Bond up until the reboot in 2006.
Before anyone rebuttles, notice that I've just described a few different possible scenarios in multiple ways. My purpose in doing so is to demonstrate that a)much of the debate on this thread has really been a question of semantics, or simply the different words we used to describe the same thing, and b)because of this, we really all agree more than we disagree.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
To each their own, though.
a Timeline that works for them all, is Fun, but Crazy.
crazy is our profession
I'd say that the movies themselves indicate otherwise - especially the Craig films - but that's just my perspective.
Doesn't work for the Craig films since CR makes it clear that its events are set in 2006.
make sense, I watch them all as a "One off", and don't think about the
rest.
although I do enjoy dropping in to read this thread as it always gives a
Laugh.
I don't like reboots either, but we can't change the sad fact that CR was a reboot.
don't care :v
Indeed. Which is why I think it's kind of absurd to assert any timeline theory as the empirical truth of the matter. I personally think it's a fun thing to speculate on (clearly) but I don't really think my own theories (or anyone else's) are more than intriguing speculation.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
But if they weren't meant to fit into a timeline, why would they bother to recall previous films?
Honestly guys if it keeps you happy, keep working on these
Theories
Chrisisall, explained it far better than I ever could.
Keep charging those windmills.
In Bond 25. Bond awakes to realise all those missions were only a dream, and
He's really only a G4S security guard, having a nap during a night shift !
It's not necessarily that they aren't meant to fit together at all, just not into a timeline that's as neat and all-inclusive as what we're going for here. Other people have covered this more eloquently than I.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
Think you're mixing up Bond with Harry Potter.
" Knows" his tin of corn beef is really a nuclear bomb.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Predicted 9/11 ? Only an odd coincidence, but they could teach the
Bond films a thing or two about pushing continuity to the next level.