There have been a good few threads on this and similar subjects - try doing a search for "Canon" in thread titles. This 15 year old one doesn't answer the question but may be of interest -
I assumed that the "canon" for the films should only include films based on Fleming's books. But that obviously hasn't been the case. Unless we say that this requires James Bond always to be hanging on and dragged along in an airplane, helicopter or boat!
I'm well known for my modesty- it's my only fault.
More seriously, @caractacus potts makes a good point. Dovy, have a read at the thread he suggests which contains a lot of interesting discussion on canon.
I guess when we talk about canon and consistency we can be satisfied that we know that there is always an M, a Moneypenny and a Q in every Bond universe. But of course in each generation the universe changes. Connery's Bond was in the 60s, while Brosnan's Bond was in the 90s, so really it isn't a matter of "continuity" as I thought, but reboots of the Bond universe in different generations. Q in Brosnan's universe was very old, over 80, but he couldn't have gone back to the 1960s. M we find out is not a name but a title, whereby the female M was a successor, but the predecessor could not have gone back all the way to Bernard Lee's universe because Brosnan's Bond wasn't around in the 1960s.
@Dovy I'm guessing you havent got to Casino Royale yet, your head is going to explode
even in your current Brosnan era theres some paradoxes with these recurring characters: it may be the same Q but Brosnan's Moneypenny doesnt act anything like Lois Maxwell's character. and there was another actress during Dalton's two films who barely left an impression. I wish they had just called Dalton's Moneypenny Penelope Smallbone, thatd make more sense.
Yes, you are right. I was just pointing out that since the Bonds exist in different generations the continuity goes along to different generations despite having nothing to do obviously with any previous generation. The Q or Moneypenny who exists in the world of personal computers and cell phones with James Bond is in a different universe than the Q or Moneypenny in Sean Connery's generation. In fact, they didn't really have to keep the same continuity because the generations change, not unlike having Quarrel and then Quarrel Jr., or successive M's. In fact the female M doesn't even have to be the successor in the story to Bernard Lee or Robert Brown because they weren't in the same universe with the same Bond anyway.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,624Chief of Staff
There really aren’t any in Flemings original books. Apart from the attaché case and a DBIII with revolving plates and reinforced bumpers (which are never used), the gadgets are a product of the films. Q in the films was based on Major Boothroyd, the armourer in the books. There is a Q Branch, but they are nothing like the gadget makers of the films. More of a Quartermasters stores, a supply department.
More than "based on" though. The character was literally called Major Boothroyd, both when Peter Burton played him and way later when Anya adresses Desmond Llewelyn's character as such in TSWLM. Q in the movies seems to be more of a nickname for the head of Q branch, which existed also in the books (admittedly with less frequent and less fanciful gadgetry).
"I'm afraid I'm a complicated woman. "
"- That is something to be afraid of."
According to some people, each Bond is a "reboot" with some common features and co-stars, including Tracy, who does not exist as far as we know with Connery or Craig. But we can assume she does. The universe changes after Tracy was killed because Brosnan's Bond did not even raise the issue of Tracy to Blofeld when he encountered him.
If the writers and producers intended there to be a reboot with each new actor, with an M, Moneypenny and Q, I suppose it didn't matter to introduce Tracy's name. Was Tracy introduced in Craig's reboot history? I have only seen Casino Royale so far.
Right, but remember the female character at the bar recount her knowledge of (Brosnan) Bond's background, mentioning that he was once married, and he changed the subject? The fact of the marriage was "continuity" in different Bond universes which was unnecessary. There was enough with M, Moneypenny and Q, which wasn't really continuity but simply rebooting.
Have Harry Saltzman or the Broccolis and Wilson had any opinions about the issue of continuity and consistency either based on Fleming's books or internal continuity/consistency among the films from one Bond actor to the next?
We can wonder why each Bond was a separate universe but the writers had to introduce Quarrel and Quarrel Jr. The son in LALD was known to Moore's Bond, though the father was only known in Dr. No, with Connery's Bond! Two separate Bond universes.....
It has nothing to do with that, Dovy. Quarrel was introduced in Fleming's 2nd book LALD then reappeared and died in his 6th, DN. Since the films were not made in that order, adding one word ("Junior") to the script of LALD solved a potential continuity problem. It wouldn't have mattered if Connery had played Bond in LALD, they would still have had to do the same.
Yes, but the fact is that it was a separate "universe" which nonetheless introduced contrinuity (along with M and Moneypenny) into the world of a different Bond.
the presence of Quarrel Jr in Live and Let Die is a very rare bit of continuity in the series at a time when Blofeld has already forgotten meeting Bond once before, and Bond seems to have forgotten ever being married.
Live and Let Die actually adapts the general plot structure of Fleming's book even of all the specifics are near unrecognisable. Moreso than You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever. And Quarrel was in the book, helping Bond prepare to swim to Mr Big's island and rescue Solitaire. This prparation is done differently in the film, but still occurs in the same place as in the novel.
another theory; as this was Moore's first film, perhaps they wanted to include some details that would identify MooreBond as the same character as ConneryBond. Much like the drawer full of souvenirs in OHMSS. Otherwise one might mistake this for an episode of The Saint.
Dovy
Posts: 206MI6 Agent
Comments
There have been a good few threads on this and similar subjects - try doing a search for "Canon" in thread titles. This 15 year old one doesn't answer the question but may be of interest -
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/discussion/28122/continuity-canon-mystery#Comment_337328
Well the Bond of the books and the Bond of the films are different beasts…so what do you consider ’canon’…the Book Bond or film Bond? 🤔
I assumed that the "canon" for the films should only include films based on Fleming's books. But that obviously hasn't been the case. Unless we say that this requires James Bond always to be hanging on and dragged along in an airplane, helicopter or boat!
@Barbel 's being too modest
this is the best thread about Canon
I'm well known for my modesty- it's my only fault.
More seriously, @caractacus potts makes a good point. Dovy, have a read at the thread he suggests which contains a lot of interesting discussion on canon.
I guess when we talk about canon and consistency we can be satisfied that we know that there is always an M, a Moneypenny and a Q in every Bond universe. But of course in each generation the universe changes. Connery's Bond was in the 60s, while Brosnan's Bond was in the 90s, so really it isn't a matter of "continuity" as I thought, but reboots of the Bond universe in different generations. Q in Brosnan's universe was very old, over 80, but he couldn't have gone back to the 1960s. M we find out is not a name but a title, whereby the female M was a successor, but the predecessor could not have gone back all the way to Bernard Lee's universe because Brosnan's Bond wasn't around in the 1960s.
@Dovy I'm guessing you havent got to Casino Royale yet, your head is going to explode
even in your current Brosnan era theres some paradoxes with these recurring characters: it may be the same Q but Brosnan's Moneypenny doesnt act anything like Lois Maxwell's character. and there was another actress during Dalton's two films who barely left an impression. I wish they had just called Dalton's Moneypenny Penelope Smallbone, thatd make more sense.
Yes, you are right. I was just pointing out that since the Bonds exist in different generations the continuity goes along to different generations despite having nothing to do obviously with any previous generation. The Q or Moneypenny who exists in the world of personal computers and cell phones with James Bond is in a different universe than the Q or Moneypenny in Sean Connery's generation. In fact, they didn't really have to keep the same continuity because the generations change, not unlike having Quarrel and then Quarrel Jr., or successive M's. In fact the female M doesn't even have to be the successor in the story to Bernard Lee or Robert Brown because they weren't in the same universe with the same Bond anyway.
But Q isn’t a Fleming character - so, therefore isn’t canon 🤣
I never knew that. Who was the inventor of the gadgets in the books?
There really aren’t any in Flemings original books. Apart from the attaché case and a DBIII with revolving plates and reinforced bumpers (which are never used), the gadgets are a product of the films. Q in the films was based on Major Boothroyd, the armourer in the books. There is a Q Branch, but they are nothing like the gadget makers of the films. More of a Quartermasters stores, a supply department.
More than "based on" though. The character was literally called Major Boothroyd, both when Peter Burton played him and way later when Anya adresses Desmond Llewelyn's character as such in TSWLM. Q in the movies seems to be more of a nickname for the head of Q branch, which existed also in the books (admittedly with less frequent and less fanciful gadgetry).
"- That is something to be afraid of."
He's also Boothroyd in FRWL.
Here's the real life Boothroyd with Fleming-
According to some people, each Bond is a "reboot" with some common features and co-stars, including Tracy, who does not exist as far as we know with Connery or Craig. But we can assume she does. The universe changes after Tracy was killed because Brosnan's Bond did not even raise the issue of Tracy to Blofeld when he encountered him.
If the writers and producers intended there to be a reboot with each new actor, with an M, Moneypenny and Q, I suppose it didn't matter to introduce Tracy's name. Was Tracy introduced in Craig's reboot history? I have only seen Casino Royale so far.
Brosnan's Bond never encountered Blofeld, and there's no Tracy in Craig's films.
Right, but remember the female character at the bar recount her knowledge of (Brosnan) Bond's background, mentioning that he was once married, and he changed the subject? The fact of the marriage was "continuity" in different Bond universes which was unnecessary. There was enough with M, Moneypenny and Q, which wasn't really continuity but simply rebooting.
I think you mean Roger Moore, not Pierce Brosnan, and are referring to a scene from TSWLM.
Have Harry Saltzman or the Broccolis and Wilson had any opinions about the issue of continuity and consistency either based on Fleming's books or internal continuity/consistency among the films from one Bond actor to the next?
MGW once said (and I can't remember the circumstances) that he viewed the Bond films as "a series of series". Make of that what you will.
We can wonder why each Bond was a separate universe but the writers had to introduce Quarrel and Quarrel Jr. The son in LALD was known to Moore's Bond, though the father was only known in Dr. No, with Connery's Bond! Two separate Bond universes.....
That's what you called a "floating timeline".
It has nothing to do with that, Dovy. Quarrel was introduced in Fleming's 2nd book LALD then reappeared and died in his 6th, DN. Since the films were not made in that order, adding one word ("Junior") to the script of LALD solved a potential continuity problem. It wouldn't have mattered if Connery had played Bond in LALD, they would still have had to do the same.
Yes, but the fact is that it was a separate "universe" which nonetheless introduced contrinuity (along with M and Moneypenny) into the world of a different Bond.
That isn't a fact.
Barbel, how would you interpret it?
It's your opinion, not a fact as you stated in post 24. The facts are as I stated them in post 23.
the presence of Quarrel Jr in Live and Let Die is a very rare bit of continuity in the series at a time when Blofeld has already forgotten meeting Bond once before, and Bond seems to have forgotten ever being married.
Live and Let Die actually adapts the general plot structure of Fleming's book even of all the specifics are near unrecognisable. Moreso than You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever. And Quarrel was in the book, helping Bond prepare to swim to Mr Big's island and rescue Solitaire. This prparation is done differently in the film, but still occurs in the same place as in the novel.
another theory; as this was Moore's first film, perhaps they wanted to include some details that would identify MooreBond as the same character as ConneryBond. Much like the drawer full of souvenirs in OHMSS. Otherwise one might mistake this for an episode of The Saint.