Brave new world
SeanIsTheOnlyOne
Posts: 723MI6 Agent
We saw that with Spectre, they created an artificial continuity by trying to patch things together in a clumsy way, even though that hadn’t been planned from the outset.
With Skyfall, what bothered some people was the fact that Bond is portrayed as an ageing agent who's been around, whereas the Casino/Quantum story arc shows him only at the start of his career, not yet seasoned and lacking the experience one can expect from a fully operational man in complete control of his emotions (indeed, it was often said that a film was missing between QOS and SF).
What do you guys think about the theory suggesting that SF is set within the classic timeline (1962–2002), and that even though it is Craig playing Bond, he is in fact embodying the Bond of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan? There is indeed no reference to the events or characters from CR/QOS, and this could explain why, at this stage, Bond is regarded as a relic of the past, given that he has always been the same iteration if we disregard the first two films of whay we use to call the "Craig era".
The conversation at M’s house (you've been playing it long enough, we both have), the gadget-laden DB5 from GF, the new Q replacing Llewellyn/Cleese (hence the remark about the exploding pen in GE), Mallory succeeding M, who herself had been in post since GE, Bond’s return to his homeland...
Bond would thus literally be a figure from a bygone era, the sole survivor (along with Tanner, to a certain extent) of a time at MI6 when the old team (Messervy, Moneypenny, Boothroyd, female M, Robinson, R...) was replaced by a new one (Fiennes, Wishaw, Harris). The only disruptive element would be the Moneypenny disclosure at the end of the film, but this problem could be solved by assuming this Moneypenny is just related to the original one (niece/daughter, etc.), who, like Messervy and Boothroyd before her, would have left the service after DAD, leaving the post vacant and eventually filled by one of her relatives who has initially been taken on as a trainee field agent.
Watching SF through this lens, I find that not only does it fit perfectly, but it also lends the film an even more powerful symbolic significance, particularly as a tribute to the 50th anniversary of the series. And it fully justifies the gunbarrel sequence at the end: the legend never dies, and the "iconic" Bond is very much back after being shattered.
One could obviously view the film as the standalone it was supposed to be within the reboot when it was released. But personally, I really enjoy thinking it has nothing to do with the rest of the Craig timeline but actually belongs to the "golden" era. And guess what, I'm starting to love the film considering it this way.
BRAVE NEW WORLD 😉
Comments
Interesting idea for a thread and I would like to add my own thoughts but could you clarify the following quote:
With Skyfall, what bothered some people was the fact that Bond is portrayed as an ageing agent who's been around, whereas the Casino/Quantum story arc shows him only at the start of his career, not yet seasoned and lacking the experience one can expect from a fully operational man in complete control of his emotions
Where exactly in Skyfall is Bond depicted as an ageing agent? And similarly which scenes depict the Casino/ Quantum story arc with Bond at the start of his career?
Mallory in SF: "It's a young man's game".
The PTS and what M says in CR: "I give him double-0 status, he celebrates by shooting an embassy", "I knew it was too early to promote you".
Of course, you can view it the way you want, but Barbara herself insisted on the fact CR was written as an origin story.
This is an interesting idea! One small thing against it is that while in the MI6 building at the end of Spectre Bond sees a photo of Silva on the wall along with the photos of Vesper, Mr White etc, connecting the story of Skyfall with the story of Spectre.
That's absolutely true, but the idea is precisely to consider a world where Sp and NTTD do not exist. In other words, whenever you watch SF, it's still 2012.
I've never had a problem with the young/old thing: Fleming often wrote about how Double 0s have a short life expectancy, and according to his documents seen in Spectre, Bond is 41 in SF (and that's if it's not taking place in 2014 or so, given that DenchM's message presumably didn't take three years to arrive to him), so Bond is approaching the end for a 00 according to Fleming. They have a short window of usefulness, and bear in mind he's a Commander in the Royal Navy: that's not a rank which people in their early 20s achieve as a rule. The CO of HMS Dragon, as seen in NTTD and a lot in the news recently, is a Commander- it's a high rank.
Also, Skyfall is arguably more about Bond 'losing a step' after his injury and allowing the accidie to get to him, and 'the old ways' being the best; not necessarily about Bond literally being old himself. Yes, there's 'old dog new tricks' and the 'young man's game' line, and Bond isn't young, certainly, but I'd say that all ties into the old world theme more than saying Bond is specifically too old for it. Too old to start again, maybe; but he's James Bond, he can do it.
Has he seen a lot in the six years between QoS and SF? Most probably. To Eve, a newcomer, that makes him an old dog as time moves quickly in that profession.
But I don't disagree with the premise in the OP, the film to some extent unifies the new and old timelines to some extent, and it is the ending of SF where he truly, finally 'becomes Bond': he's learned everything he needs to, he's been re-energised, and the cast of characters of Bond has slotted in around him. That's why, I'd say, in Spectre you see Craig playing the role as the proper archetypal James Bond, comfortable in his own skin and being a superspy.
@emtiem I totally agree and that's why I said one can view it the way he/she wants. Not only is SF relevant within the Craig timeline, but it also can be seen as the 21st film of the "old" series considering all the elements I mentioned in my original post, the Moneypenny issue being solved by an intradiegetic device which works quite well in my opinion.
I think the premise to make Craig the same Bond as Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in 007 Legends was a thrilling idea, despite the poor quality of the game.
Anyway, whatever the perspective, it works in both cases :)
Yeah I think it's absolutely fine to see it that way; that's kind of the good thing about the slightly vague Bond continuity: one can choose to see it how one likes. Moore's Bond both can be the same guy in FRWL if you want him to be, or another version in a slightly different version of the story.
I had a look at a Bond page on Reddit the other day and there were people getting all hot under the collar about someone suggesting that Dalton's Bond was a mild reboot, as Moore & Connery were about the same age and he was significantly younger, came with a new Moneypenny etc. These people were saying it's WRONG to say that, it's all part of the same 'floating timeline' whatever that means; but I was thinking everyone is right and no one is wrong: it can be whatever you want it to be.