Favourite Bond films

[DigificWriter]

They're not going to race-swap Bond without completely rebooting the franchise again

Every time they change Bond actors, that's a reboot anyway.

Nope. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were playing one version of James Bond (with a shared history stretching back to 1962 and earlier), with Craig playing a completely different version of the character whose history is very different.

Casino Royale was the first and so far only time the producers have rebooted the franchise, and it's extremely unlikely that they'd do another one simply for the sake of casting someone like Elba.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

^ But... But the Bond girls were lame and the villain easily forgettable!

You're correct if you're talking about Skyfall, since Silva and Severine both sucked (Silva was far too much of a caricature for the Craig Era/New!Bond Continuity, and Severine was just useless); Dominic Greene, on the other hand, was over-the-top in the classic vein without being ridiculously so, and Camille and Strawberry reminded me of Domino/Tilly/Melina and Aki, respectively. The actresses also played off of Daniel Craig very well, and the banter between James and Strawberry was very much in the classic Bond style without feeling gimmicky and was a great example of how QoS brought humor back to the franchise.

Sorry I should have been more clear. The Bond girls in Skyfall were lame, I actually enjoyed Silva over Dominic Greene. I couldn't even remember his name until you mentioned it. But I did like Camille. My biggest issue with QoS was that I had difficulty following the plot. I knew Bond wanted revenge for Vesper's death but everything else was pretty confusing. I didn't particularly care for Skyfall but out of the two, I'd pick Skyfall.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Every time they change Bond actors, that's a reboot anyway.

Nope. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were playing one version of James Bond (with a shared history stretching back to 1962 and earlier)

Then why isn't Bond a hundred years old when Brosnan plays him?

 

[DigificWriter]

Then why isn't Bond a hundred years old when Brosnan plays him?

The concept of what I'm now going to start referring to as "Selective Character Aging Syndrome". He himself doesn't age, but the other characters around him do.

BTW, we know that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan played the same character because there are a number of references, some subtle and some not-so-subtle, peppered throughout many of the later movies, particularly as it concerns Bond's relationship with Tracy.

One good example on that front that is fresh in my mind is from Tomorrow Never Dies when Paris comments that James' job as murder on relationships; it's a clear inference/reference to what happened with Tracy, and you can see it in the way that James' face reacts.

 

[Karzak]

Every time they change Bond actors, that's a reboot anyway.

Nope. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were playing one version of James Bond (with a shared history stretching back to 1962 and earlier)

Then why isn't Bond a hundred years old when Brosnan plays him?

You're being obtuse. Is that your thing around here?

I think it's pretty apparent that the pre-Craig films were all sharing a 'loose' continuity

-- Moore's 007 clearly was married to Tracy (see the teaser of 'For Your Eyes Only.'

--Felix Leiter's age changes every time he appears, no matter who is playing 007 but they still have the same history.

--Moore's 007 meets Quarrel's son in 'Live and Let Die' so clearly he shared the adventure with Honey and Quarrel Sr. in 'Dr. No.'

--Even more tellingly, a portrait of Bernard Lee as M is seen hanging in the Scotland office for MI6 at the beginning of 'The World is Not Enough.'

--Lois Maxwell is clearly playing the same Moneypenny she played against Connery, Lazenby, and Moore in all the films she appeared in.

Perhaps the most blindingly obvious clue that the pre-Craig films share the same continuity though would be Connery's appearance in 'Diamonds Are Forever' after Lazenby's in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service,' specifically that Connery is on the hunt for righteous vengeance against SPECTRE and Blofeld for Tracy's murder.

Things changed with Craig, obviously, and some fans still can't wrap their narrow minds around the reboot-but-still-keeping-Academy-Award-winner-Judi-Dench-as-M, but that's really the only time there was any kind of "reboot" with the continuity.

You want a mind-bender? A pickle to get bent out of shape over? Ask yourself this: Robert Brown played Admiral Hargreaves in 'The Spy Who Loved Me.' Brown later replaced Bernard Lee as M. So, is Brown's M in 'Octopussy,' 'A View To A Kill,' 'The Living Daylights,' and 'Licence to Kill' a new character named M? Or did Hargreaves get promoted?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

All right, then. Perhaps an Idris Elba Bond WOULD be a clean break in continuity, but since it obviously worked well with Craig, this would just be another example of that.

If you believe that Elba wouldn't make a good Bond, that'd be one thing. But an opposition to total reboots? No, that shouldn't be the reason. The Bondverse handled the Craig reboot, so why wouldn't it handle this?

 

[Karzak]

To be clear, I have no problem with Idris Elba playing 007. I welcome it. He's a fantastic actor and I'd have no trouble accepting him as James Bond.

You just made an absolute statement about the continuity of the previous Bond films that is patently narrow-minded and untrue, so I felt the need to chime in.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You just made an absolute statement about the continuity of the previous Bond films that is patently narrow-minded and untrue, so I felt the need to chime in.

Okay. I consider myself duly chastised. So no harm done.

Speaking of whom, what are Elba's own thoughts on this? I'm sure he's heard the rumors. If he was actually offered the role, would he take it?

 

[DigificWriter]

Mr. Laser Beam: Rebooting again after they've just successfully reintroduced SPECTRE and Blofeld into their new continuity just so that they could use somebody like Idris Elba as Bond would do nothing but piss people off and hurt the franchise in the long run, which is why it's most likely not going to happen.

There were legitimate reasons to do a clean-slate reboot after Die Another Day, but no such reasons exist at the present time.

Karzak: I would argue that the continuity of the pre-Craig films is far tighter than your examples illustrate, but that's really neither here nor there.

I would also like to point out something you didn't mention, which is that James' actions in Licence to Kill are directly motivated - and perhaps more so than any of his other adventures - by what happened to Tracy.

Regarding Elba as Bond, I could see it happening at some point, but not until they've once again squeezed everything that they can out of the new continuity they started with Casino Royale.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Is Craig contracted for any more films? Does he want to continue?

 

[DigificWriter]

I believe he's currently contracted for one more, but there's no reason he couldn't ask to be released from said contract early.

As far as whether he WANTS to return, he's been sending mixed messages on that front, which makes it harder than it might otherwise be to determine whether or not he WILL actually return for a fifth film as contracted.

 

[Karzak]

Karzak: I would argue that the continuity of the pre-Craig films is far tighter than your examples illustrate, but that's really neither here nor there.

My post was not meant to be all-encompassing, just citing a few examples.

I would also like to point out something you didn't mention, which is that James' actions in Licence to Kill are directly motivated - and perhaps more so than any of his other adventures - by what happened to Tracy.

Absolutely.

Is Craig contracted for any more films? Does he want to continue?

Craig will be back.

 

[RandyS]

Nope. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were playing one version of James Bond (with a shared history stretching back to 1962 and earlier)

Then why isn't Bond a hundred years old when Brosnan plays him?

--Moore's 007 meets Quarrel's son in 'Live and Let Die' so clearly he shared the adventure with Honey and Quarrel Sr. in 'Dr. No.'

It's been 25 years since I read it, but I think the reason that happened was because Quarrel died in the Dr, No movie but lived in the book. When they later made Live and Let Die, they made him Quarrel Jr and said he was the first guy's son, but in the novels, they were the same character.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TV Tropes discusses James Bond continuity as occurring only in Broad Strokes:

Broad Strokes is a concept regarding canon where the writers pick and choose what elements of an older story they want to accept into a more recent story. It could be that the overall story is intact but the specific details are changed, or that the story is ignored but the details introduced within are still being worked with. This is most often used when parts of the official canon or even basic continuity cannot be reconciled as they stand.

[...]

When Timothy Dalton took over the role of Bond: as he was about twenty years younger than Roger Moore, the events of the previous films (which had all been quite consistent up to then) were acknowledged to be canon in Broad Strokes but assumed to have occurred more recently than the 1960s.

I have always agreed with the "true, but not necessarily except in broad strokes" approach when it comes to Bond-continuity. That includes Tracey's grave in For Your Eyes Only, M, Q, and Moneypenny being the same character while Bond changes not only actor but character, etc.

 

[Karzak]

Then why isn't Bond a hundred years old when Brosnan plays him?

--Moore's 007 meets Quarrel's son in 'Live and Let Die' so clearly he shared the adventure with Honey and Quarrel Sr. in 'Dr. No.'

It's been 25 years since I read it, but I think the reason that happened was because Quarrel died in the Dr, No movie but lived in the book. When they later made Live and Let Die, they made him Quarrel Jr and said he was the first guy's son, but in the novels, they were the same character.

Oh I know why it happened in the film. In the novels, 'Live and Let Die' was the second book in the series by Fleming and actually preceded 'Doctor No,' by at least two or three more books ('Moonraker' and 'Diamonds Are Forever' for sure, I can't recall the order off the top of my head with the rest) and Quarrel was featured in both 'Live and Let Die' and later 'Doctor No' as one of Bond's associates.

My reason in mentioning it wasn't to explain away why it was Quarrel's son, it was to highlight that the 'Live and Let Die' the film was still in the same continuity as 'Dr. No' the film.

Another fun tidbit: 'Doctor No' (how the book title is spelled) starts for at least a chapter following a crab in the ocean and on an island for some inexplicably long passage before we come to Bond. In the books, Bond was supposed to (originally) be killed off by Rosa Klebb's poisonous boot kick at the end of 'From Russia, With Love.' -- the book ends on that exact cliffhanger. Fleming was over Bond and wanted to end the series, much as Doyle had ended Sherlock Holmes' adventures.

Obviously the book series continued after that. The reason I mention it is because at the beginning of 'Doctor No' and 'Dr. No', M chews out Bond for preferring to use his own Beretta instead of the Walther PPK gun. M mentions in the film specifically that it 'jammed up on your last job.' This is a direct yet oblique reference to the end of 'From Russia, With Love,' (the book keeps the comma in the title, the film omits it) where Bond's Beretta had in fact jammed on him as he was fighting Klebb and then kicked with her poisonous shoe tip dagger. Thereafter, Bond uses the Walther PPK until 'Tomorrow Never Dies' as his go-to sidearm.

In the books, it plays out chronologically and makes perfect sense. In the films, it's ironic because it happens before the events of 'From Russia With Love' and just becomes a generic reference to some unseen adventure of Bond's.

 

[DigificWriter]

Having watched the films in a way that maximizes continuity and character development, that TV Tropes article just isnt accurate.

 

[Kor]

The absurd fan theory that "James Bond" is actually a code name used by different agents also falls apart in consideration of the Tracy Bond situation.... unless she made a really strong impression on three different agents!

Kor

 

[Karzak]

Having watched the films in a way that maximizes continuity and character development, that TV Tropes article just isnt accurate.

I agree that the TV Tropes article misreads the Bond films, but I'm curious -- what "way" 'maximizes continuity and character development' whilst viewing the Bond films beyond just, you know, watching them?

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Cutting out several of the movies and being selective in which of the Moore films I watched.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The TV tropes article is spot on.

Until, CR, Bond continuity has been tentative at best, such that there isn't really any continuity at all. Each film exists solely on its own, even films with the same actor.

Instead of a continuity or a timeline, film Bond has a bio or life story--a dossier if you will. Each film adds to it and the writers of future films cherry pick what ideas, events, etc. they want to use--if they use any at all. But each time they do so, it is clearly implied the events referenced in the current film may not or did not necessarily play out as they did in the previous film.

For example, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan all married Tarcy and she died tragically. But the specifics of how/when she died are never made clear, as they aren't important. Only with Moore is it evident Blofeld was even involved. For all we know, Dalton and Brosnan never faced Blofeld. And it doesn't really matter if he did in regards to how the "idea" of Tracy was used as a center piece in their respective biographies.