Bond Continuity Theory: Paris Carver from TND was the reason why there was not a 3rd Dalton film
sinlum
Posts: 118MI6 Agent
I think the title of this thread is going to cause a lot of confused looks and head scratching. Let me fill you in with some context and then maybe you might agree that my theory does hold some water.
In terms of the production timeline of the Bond films following LTK, EON wanted to make another film with Dalton as Bond. There were rumours it was going to be called “Property Of A Lady” and it was going to come out in the early 90s. The film was shelved because of legal issues that had to be resolved with EON productions. This was the historical reason why there was never a third Dalton Bond film.
However, I think there is also a possible way within the Bond universe to explain why this mission never happened and why it took until 1995 for Bond to continue as a secret agent. It’s all to do with Paris Carver from TND. Here’s my theory:
Following LTK, Bond is no longer a 00 agent. He resigned from the post in LTK and went rogue. His behaviour even in TLD also suggests that he was looking to give up his job. In the scene with Sanders in the car he says about M “Stuff my orders. If he fires me, I’ll thank him for it”. (I have another theory that connects Bond’s disdain for MI6 with Alec Trevelyn but I will write about that another time). So just to summarize for the moment: Bond has been growing weary of being a 00 agent throughout Dalton’s era.
Following LTK, Bond meets and falls in love with Paris Carver. It is mentioned by M in TND that Bond had a relationship with Paris which Bond confirms happened a long time ago before she was married to Elliot Carver. Could it be that in the early 90’s, Paris Carver was Bond’s true other half. He wasn’t an agent anymore so he could have opened up a lot more to her. He seems very emotionally connected to her in TND which suggests he was much closer to her than any of the other women he had been with. He might even have told her the truth that he liked sleeping with lots of women and killing lots of people which she references in the line “This job of yours is nothing but murder and relationships”. Not being a 00 at the time would have allowed him to open up completely to her and she would have been the first woman to really mean something to him since Tracy.
Bond’s mission in the early 90s therefore doesn’t happen because he’s in love with Paris. There is even an implication that they were going to get married as when Paris leaves Bond in his hotel room in TND it looks as if she kisses his ring finger.
I theorise that Bond may have eventually taken part in a re-evaluation program with MI6 about a year or so before Goldeneye because maybe he wanted to rejoin the service but not as a 00 agent and Paris was fine with his decision. However once 1995 came about, Bond decided to get his 00 licence back and ditch Paris (the reason for this I will theorise another time).
She says in TND that she always checked the obituary section for his death. Her marriage to Elliot could also be recent so maybe she married Elliot in 1996 once Bond went off on his mission in Goldeneye and never came back.
If you really think about this as a possible theory, Bond’s scenes with Paris do actually have a lot of emotional weight and Bond seems quite distraught when he sees what happens to her in the end.
Comments
It's great that you look at these things in new ways and post your ideas here. It forces others to think twice too. But M offers Bond to return to his 00-section at the end of LTK. You imagine Bond rejected that offer. Is that right?
Very interesting @sinlum I'd not considered that angle before. It has some weight.
I had to check the end of LTK to see if there was something I had missed. I guess you are referring to the scene at the end when Bond is on the phone with Felix Leiter. All that Leiter says is "M called - he may have a job for you". Once Lupe arrives, Bond immediately ends the call with Leiter. He doesn't say anything which expresses any interest in returning. He could have said something like "Tell M, I'll speak to him later". In fact look at Dalton's face when Leiter says "he may have a job for you". He looks clearly disinterested!
I am thinking post LTK would be the perfect time for Bond to fall in love with Paris Carver. He's not on active service anymore and she is never referenced in any of the other films. Also just to add more weight to my theory - Leiter got married and then Delah, his wife, accidentally upsets Bond by implying he should get married next. Maybe this event causes Bond to think more about giving up as a 00 agent after LTK to he can finally settle down. Also if you think Bond finished with Paris before his Goldeneye mission (from the DB5 sequence onwards), look at Bond when he's on the beach in Cuba. He seems to be thinking very deeply about his current status in life and might have Paris in his thoughts in this scene.
And one final thought - Dalton's proposed third film was going to be called "Property of a Lady". If you follow this theory that Bond was in the process of settling down with Paris post LTK then this title is appropriate. The events of the film actually happened - Bond became the property of Paris Carver ))))))
I think your theory works. It's not what I imagine happened, but it works.
Two small points -
"Della" rather than "Delah"
When Bond knew her initially, Paris was Paris McKenna
Thanks for the corrections. I couldn't really be fussed at the moment to check the spelling of Della when I wrote the post. I didn't know that Paris's maiden name was McKenna. Where is that mentioned?
Raymond Benson's novel.
Ah ok I guessed it must have been in some extended media somewhere. Some beautiful looking books in that picture!
Those aren't mine, I got that pic online.
These are mine, though -
Terrible pic, I know!
It is 🤣
But still, very nice collection 🍸
Those are only a few....
Again, I'm a terrible photographer but you get the idea. They're not all firsts, sadly.
(And there are plenty more but I'll stop there since this is derailing the thread)
Again, lovely stuff…and apologies for helping derail - hence why I’ve not included any of my own 🫣
this is an excellent theory that ties together onscreen evidence in both License to Kill and Goldeneye.
I've always thought the backstory for Paris was begging for some exploration, an Unseen Mission that one day might be revealed. and I like that there is an explanation for that six year gap between adventures.
______________________________________
the boss wrote:
When Bond knew her initially, Paris was Paris McKenna
______________________________________
is there any more info about Bond and Paris's time together in the Benson novelization?
The continuity/potential timelines between LTK and CR certainly is an interesting thing to dig through as many of the films either have timespan or timeline references and also recurring characters, actors and back stories. Excuse anything that's not 100% correct below, but it's my quick summation...
IMO I've always seen LTK as taking place much later in Bond's career, quite far apart rom TLD and almost an end to the LALD-LTK period. Brosnan's timeline is completely within its own world and mid (GE) to late (DAD) career Bond.
Sorry to rain on the parade with your great theory, it just made me think about all the timeline stuff that occurs between Moore and Craig.
* I personally think Paris Carver is a terrible character and badly acted by Hatcher, and Brosnan hams up the romance - but then again...TND is all ham.
"Better make that two."
I'll try and share my views on the interesting points you raised:
1) I agree that LTK is a continuation of the Moore era and I see no reason why the Brosnan era is not a continuation of the Dalton era. There is evidence in the films to back up the idea that the films form one continuous chronology.
2) I don't get why some Bond fans insist that Bond is a certain age in certain films. It is NEVER specified or implied in any of the films how old he really is (NTTD may have a slight clue but I'll dig into that one at a later date).
3) I will write my theory about the Goldeneye PTS sequence soon which explains how and why Brosnan's Bond is the same as Moore's and Dalton's
4) Like point 2) there is no evidence in the film which suggests how old Bond really is in Goldeneye.
5) There is continuity with TND in the Bronsnan era. Bond recognises Jack Wade who he first met in GE. Also Bond gets a Walther which fires 16 rounds and he comments that he asked Q to get him one. In TWINE he continues to use a 16 round Walther.
6) I agree that the writers at the time just wanted to include a character that would have some emotional weight just for this film. I remember when I watched TND as a young boy back in the 90s with my older sister, she adored the fact that Teri Hatcher was in the film because she was a fan of hers at the time. She then wanted to know which other Bond film she was in. I had a guide which outlined all the cast members from each film and we couldn't find her name in any other films. My sister was disappointed to discover that this was the only role Hatcher had in the Bond series. The theory I came up with explains the long gap between missions following LTK and does not upset any of the previously established narrative since Paris is not mentioned in any of the other films.
7) Just because Bond has a grey beard in DAD does not necessarily mean he has aged. I know of some men who went grey in their early 30s. Also Bond is probably malnourished in the prison or they might be fed stuff that could have some effect on his hair colour. Could you clarify which jokes are made in the film about Bond's age?
8) I disagree that Casino Royale is the first film in the series. There's plenty of evidence in the film to suggest it's not Bond's origin story. I will detail my thoughts on that in a later thread.
The final point: Why is it so bad to accept that Brosnan's era follows on from LTK if Dalton's era follows Moore's and the others? In Goldeneye, Bond seemingly drives the same Aston Martin from GF and TB and has the same Q like before. Also the PTS does a decent job to establish the storyline of GE within the already established chronology. I will write my theory in another thread one day soon about the PTS of Goldeneye.
Just a small point (you'll get used to me doing this) - it isn't the same Aston Martin in GE that was in GF and TB.
Examine the number plates....
Edit- although it is the original one again in SF
Wow that is something I missed before! I will need to have a think about that later.
My initial thoughts are Bond simply has a new plate on the car since he hasn't driven the car for quite a while. Or he has used the revolving number plate to change the plate number slightly to avoid being detected (ok I doubt one digit would make a big difference but maybe it puts off the tracer cameras on the motorways). Or it is a different car to the original. It does have a champagne compartment which seems to be missing from the original DB5!
My theory is that if you think about this sort of thing too much your brain will explode. I think mine exploded around 1979, reading Christopher Wood's "James Bond And Moonraker", so I gave up trying to get some sort of consistency to 007's adventures.
I personally think if you read too much into extended media, the universe becomes too big and often things get retconned later. I just prefer to stick to what is said and done in the films. I do however think that the Bond films are consistent even including the unofficial ones!
It's the films that are extended media since the books were there first. Fleming is canon. Admittedly, less so for the continuation authors including Wood.
Good thread @sinlum 👍️
And nothing wrong with creating one's your own little continuation snippets and theories, whatever works in your own world of 007 shouldn't matter either way to anyone else. Personally, although different watches of course, I like to think that Bond could have had his own same personal watch (a silver/white chronograph) in OHMSS, AVTAK and SP;
That is true what you say but I would suggest that there are two canons: the Fleming literary and the EON cinematic
Thanks for the kind words - also to everyone else who finds the theory interesting. With reference to the watches though, I don't think Bond is so attached to them like his Aston Martin DB5. He clearly wears different watches in the series. There is a kind of in-joke about it when Bond meets Vesper on the train in CR when she asks him about his watch brand.
Forgive me if I am posting too much but I thought some more about explaining the change in numbers of Bond's licence plate in GE. My idea is based on a few snippets of info from GE, TND and SF.
It's clear in GE that Bond has a new M and is being evaluated. As the theory I put forward suggests that Bond is returning to active service after his relationship with Paris, Bond decides to ride around in his original DB5 to get back into his old spirit again. It's possible that M demands that the number plate be changed in order for there to be a tracking device fitted to it. It's possible this is so Bond can receive the documents on Xenia in the car from Moneypenny in the evening so it acts as a kind of GPS tracker meaning documents can be sent securely. However, as M is not Bond's biggest fan at he beginning, she possibly also has the tracking device fitted so she can monitor Bond's movements in the car.
Q in GE possibly alludes to this fact as he says to Bond in his workshop "You have a licence to kill not to break the traffic laws". So it's possible he knew that the tracker would be able to monitor whether Bond broke any driving laws. Bond uses the car again in TND with the new plate and probably knows that he's being monitored since when Moneypenny phones him in TND he immediately says that he's at Oxford.
Finally in SF, Bond tells M that government vehicles have trackers in them which might also be a reference to the fact that he knew she was monitoring his movements in his DB5. Bond obviously changes the plate back to the original so it doesn't have a tracker on it anymore but doesn't drive it for risk of breaking protocol - he probably isn't allowed to drive the DB5 with the original plate since it doesn't have a tracking device on it. It just occurred to me that this makes the scene of their journey to Scotland in the car with the original plate more ironic ))
Barbel sez:
It's the films that are extended media since the books were there first. Fleming is canon. Admittedly, less so for the continuation authors including Wood.
__________________________
__________________________
sinium sez:
That is true what you say but I would suggest that there are two canons: the Fleming literary and the EON cinematic
__________________________
barbel once started an excellent thread on the topic of Canon, with some silly digressions from me
I agree with Barbel here: Fleming's books are Canon. The films are adaptations, and many of the small ways the films seem to contradict each other are the result of choices made to adapt the Canon. Adapting it out of order, updating it for a modern audience, sometimes throwing it all away and telling a completely different story. I dont actually expect the films to be consistent with one another, as I see each one as its own unique attempt to adapt something Fleming wrote (including this most recent one). and I accept most of these changes as necessary for a cinematic experience as opposed to literary.
continuation novels are also not Canon, they are similar to the films in that regard: further works inspired by what Fleming wrote.
This is a subjective view however, depending on how familiar one is with Fleming. I would guess most viewers of the films don't even know who Fleming is, and the proportion that only know Bond from the films grows with every passing year. Thus, the number of BondFans who only accept Fleming as Canon would be a minority. Those who accept the films as Canon and only know Fleming as a footnote to Bond history however have a harder time of it, as the films contradict like crazy, and Fleming kept his series relatively tight.
and I am enjoying these fanficky efforts to reconcile some of the seeming contradictions, this attempt to chronologically locate the affair with Paris has especially good explaining power.
To enjoy the films it’s best not to delve too deeply into its treasures. First and foremost, they are there solely for entertainment purposes, for the general public at large. Only a tiny percentage analyse the movies on websites such as this. As a longtime Bond fan I enjoy these sort of threads, but ultimately, the producers are not going to care about tiny details that most viewers won’t notice, or even care about. So whilst it’s fun to debate and analyse small plot points the truth of the matter is that the writers and producers will not have given them much, or any consideration, otherwise we wouldn’t be posting these sort if articles in the first place.
Apologies you're completely right about Jack Wade and the Walther stuff in TND.
I didn't mean that CR is start from scratch in the sense that it's pre-Dr No. More that it's clearly before some timeline that's within LTK to DAD.
"Better make that two."
Thanks for sharing this thread about the "canon" of Bond. I will have a good read through that thread and post my thoughts there in response to the literary version of Bond. I seem to have lost the point as to why we are talking about the literary Bond here in a part of the forum where we are meant to discuss the James Bond films including the unofficial ones.
The theory I put forward here only relies on evidence which you see and hear in the film series. I personally don't think it is a great idea to base theories which relate to other Bond media such as the original novels, continuation novels, computer games etc. I always saw the Bond films as establishing their own chronology which gets extended with every new Bond film released in the series. Most of Bond's audience is unaware of the extended media and in most cases, I find extended media establishes its own narrative and often retcons previous events.
You say that the films contradict like crazy. Could you list some examples as I would love to try and explain the inconsistencies in the films? Or if there is an existing thread, please point me in the right direction.
I agree that for the most part discussions like these are only speculation. However I disagree that the producers don't give them much thought. These forums are open to the public so what's to stop them coming here and reading about what interesting things Bond fans have to say about the series they made?
I believe that NTTD contains some Easter eggs that were deliberately put in the film to get Bond fans to discuss them (assuming they picked up on them). I will post some new theories one day that might make you look at NTTD in different ways. I also believe the PTS in Goldeneye was also deliberately made to contain Easter eggs for the fans and tie in GE with the rest of the established cinematic Bond timeline up to that point.
sinium sez:
You say that the films contradict like crazy. Could you list some examples as I would love to try and explain the inconsistencies in the films?
______________________________________________________
for an early example, in Thunderball why does nobody in SPECTRE know who Bond is, when they had a whole training camp devoted to practice killing their archenemy two films ago?
I think thats the first time one film disregards whats been established in a previous film, and the realworld explanation is Thunderball had its own unique genesis, preceding Dr No until legal difficulties arose, and because of that it actually follows the book more closely than FRWL did.
______________________________________________________
sinium also sez:
I seem to have lost the point as to why we are talking about the literary Bond here in a part of the forum where we are meant to discuss the James Bond films including the unofficial ones.
______________________________________________________
somewhere upthread in your exchange with Barbel, I think when you referred to Fleming's books as extended media. I just know personally, when watching the film, I passively assume everything Fleming wrote was true unless explicitly contradicted, even when not shown onscreen. Examples: M's real name is Miles Messervy, Pussy Galore is a lesbian, Mary Goodnight used to be Bond's personal secretary.
you make a valid argument that the films are only to be understood as selfcontained texts. Knowing the realworld backstory is not relevant to the plot shown onscreen, and if there are minor continuity errors, we must make our own theory to complete the narrative flow. Following that logic, my own habit of remembering what Fleming wrote also is introducing external information, and may be the very source of confusion
I cant wait to see how youre going to reconcile Casino Royale with the first twenty films!