Favourite Bond films

[Captaindemotion]

Ive always liked the 'loose continuity' idea in terms of linking the Connery-Brosnan movies.

I think the greatest difficulty in viewing them in that way is with the original 'Blofeld trilogy.' Three different actors as Blofeld, all of them playing him very differently and looking very different (scars vanishing, eyes and hair growing back), Bond changes from Connery to Lazenby and then back again. Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, despite the events of YOLT (perhaps not surprising, given that he has a different face!) and let's not even mention the 'this never happened to the other guy' line! The third actor to play Blofeld was in YOLT in a different role. DAF makes no mention of the somewhat significant events at the end of OHMSS.

 

[DigificWriter]

The storyline of Licence to Kill was specifically designed by the producers and writers to directly piggyback off of what happened to James' marriage to Tracy in OHMSS, so I stand by the statement I made earlier: that TV Tropes article just isn't accurate.

 

[Karzak]

It also cribs a fair amount from 'Live and Let Die' (the novel) for much of the Felix Leiter stuff, but yes is directly inferring to events from 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' as well.

I think it's also worth noting that back when most of the films were made, home video wasn't really a thing. The producers probably thought they could approach the series in 'broad strokes' and be done with it, adapting, adding, omitting, and ignoring things as they saw fit as the films went on. Obviously, that changed with the advent of home video and what not, and the effort to at least unify the series as a whole (by whatever means one might choose) now exists.

I quite like CorporalClegg's interpretation, even if I don't agree with it in every instance (as in 'The Living Daylights.') So M, Q, and Moneypenny got older as Bond changed faces. So what? The ingredients are still there and it still works.

 

[Galileo7]

Ive always liked the 'loose continuity' idea in terms of linking the Connery-Brosnan movies.

I think the greatest difficulty in viewing them in that way is with the original 'Blofeld trilogy.' Three different actors as Blofeld, all of them playing him very differently and looking very different (scars vanishing, eyes and hair growing back), Bond changes from Connery to Lazenby and then back again. Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, despite the events of YOLT (perhaps not surprising, given that he has a different face!) and let's not even mention the 'this never happened to the other guy' line! The third actor to play Blofeld was in YOLT in a different role. DAF makes no mention of the somewhat significant events at the end of OHMSS.

DAF opens with Connery "killing" Blofeld and then M confirms [in few words] at a briefing of his new assignment for Bond that he has completed the Blofeld problem due to the end of OHMSS.

For Your Eyes Only opens with Roger Moore leaving flowers on his wife's grave [OHMSS]. We see the last of Blofeld when Roger Moore drops him down a smoke stack before the opening credits.

 

[Karzak]

Ive always liked the 'loose continuity' idea in terms of linking the Connery-Brosnan movies.

I think the greatest difficulty in viewing them in that way is with the original 'Blofeld trilogy.' Three different actors as Blofeld, all of them playing him very differently and looking very different (scars vanishing, eyes and hair growing back), Bond changes from Connery to Lazenby and then back again. Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, despite the events of YOLT (perhaps not surprising, given that he has a different face!) and let's not even mention the 'this never happened to the other guy' line! The third actor to play Blofeld was in YOLT in a different role. DAF makes no mention of the somewhat significant events at the end of OHMSS.

DAF opens with Connery "killing" Blofeld and then M confirms [in few words] at a briefing of his new assignment for Bond that he has completed the Blofeld problem due to the end of OHMSS.

For Your Eyes Only opens with Roger Moore leaving flowers on his wife's grave [OHMSS]. We see the last of Blofeld when Roger Moore drops him down a smoke stack before the opening credits.

...which is nothing to say of the hints of Blofeld (even though we never see his face) appearing in 'From Russia with Love' and 'Thunderball' before we finally see him in 'You Only Live Twice.'

Also, Blofeld makes some comment in 'Diamonds Are Forever' that some of his underlings have altered their appearance to look like him, via plastic surgery. Obviously this was a somewhat clumsy way for the producers to acknowledge why Blofeld looks so different in each of his appearances, but at least it makes more sense than Bond himself endlessly undergoing constant plastic surgery.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The storyline of Licence to Kill was specifically designed by the producers and writers to directly piggyback off of what happened to James' marriage to Tracy in OHMSS, so I stand by the statement I made earlier: that TV Tropes article just isn't accurate.

Then you must have misread the article. In a "broad strokes" or "loose" continuity, there is nothing that limits how much writers can pick and choose from earlier installments, as long as there is some sort of essential resemblance. They can select a little or they can select a lot. One that selects a lot can be followed by one that selects a little and then back again later. It does not mean that each successive installment has little relation to earlier ones. It simply means that it is not possible to fit them all together into a coherent literal continuity.

 

[Karzak]

Worth mentioning: Doctor Who has been doing precisely this for the past nine seasons.

 

[DigificWriter]

The storyline of Licence to Kill was specifically designed by the producers and writers to directly piggyback off of what happened to James' marriage to Tracy in OHMSS, so I stand by the statement I made earlier: that TV Tropes article just isn't accurate.

Then you must have misread the article. In a "broad strokes" or "loose" continuity, there is nothing that limits how much writers can pick and choose from earlier installments, as long as there is some sort of essential resemblance. They can select a little or they can select a lot. One that selects a lot can be followed by one that selects a little and then back again later. It does not mean that each successive installment has little relation to earlier ones. It simply means that it is not possible to fit them all together into a coherent literal continuity.

Which is decidedly not how the franchise has ever worked, as demonstrated by the films themselves.

The idea that the franchise has ever been only loosely linked is a misconception that doesn't jive with what the films themselves show.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, no.

 

[Karzak]

Yeah, DigificWriter, I think you're missing the point with the "broad strokes" description. both CorporalClegg and CorporalCaptain have explained it pretty thoroughly and they're right.

There's no shame in it, but by your own admission you ignore whole films in the series trying to make it fit your interpretation of it:

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

Surely that should tell you something.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I've watched 12 pre-Craig films thus far and every single one of them has contained something linking them to other movies either implicitly or explicitly. That's decidedly the opposite of "broad-strokes", at least as far as I'm concerned.

There's also the very specific link of Tracy's gravestone as seen in FYEO listing her date of death as 1969, which is the year OHMSS was released.

BTW, everybody tries to use Lazenby clearly breaking the fourth wall as an example of the pre-Craig films having only a loose continuity, but it just doesn't fly.

 

[Karzak]

With respect, being that you've not seen all the films, I hardly think you're in a position to be making such qualifying statements about the entire series.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ I've watched 12 pre-Craig films thus far and every single one of them has contained something linking them to other movies either implicitly or explicitly. That's decidedly the opposite of "broad-strokes"

No, it isn't "opposite" of it at all.

 

[DigificWriter]

Two specific references that disqualify this "broad-strokes continuity" idea as defined by TV Tropes:
1- Judi Dench's old!M blatantly calls James a "relic of the Cold War" in Goldeneye

2- Leiter tells Della in TLD that James' marriage happened "a long time ago"

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

They're not going to race-swap Bond without completely rebooting the franchise again; whoever inevitably replaces Craig is going to be Caucasian.

I don't see why that would be necessary. Since James Bond continuity has always been pretty vague, I don't see why casting a black actor to replace Daniel Craig would require a reboot while casting a new white actor wouldn't.

Personally, I've never liked Craig in the role. I think he's a dour, joyless thug. He lacks the inherent charm that, IMHO, is the entire point of the franchise.

I'd love to see Idris Elba in the role. I think he could bring some sparkle back to the role while still keeping a bit of the weight that Craig gave to it.

As an aside, I'm about 65 minutes into TND, and am very seriously leaning towards giving it a 10 because it genuinely deserves one. It's quintessentially Bond in every conceivable way, with great "Bond Girls", insane action sequences that work without feeling silly, and an antagonist in Elliot Carver whom I would honestly consider to be one of the best since Blofeld (chiefly because he's certifiably insane and played with unequivocal relish and gusto by the one and only Jonathan Pryce).

Yeah, Pryce is awesome in that film. I also love Michelle Yeoh. IIRC, she was originally supposed to come back for Die Another Day but they replaced her with Halle Berry.

I'd say my favorite movies in the series are The Living Daylights & the 1st 3 Brosnan films. I love Goldeneye mostly for the tank chase and the gleefully murderous Xenia Onatopp. I love Tomorrow Never Dies for Pryce & Yeoh. And I love The World Is Not Enough because...

 

[Karzak]

Two specific references that disqualify this "broad-strokes continuity" idea as defined by TV Tropes:
1- Judi Dench's old!M blatantly calls James a "relic of the Cold War" in Goldeneye

2- Leiter tells Della in TLD that James' marriage happened "a long time ago"

So what? All that proves is that the producers cherry picked two elements from previous films to utilize/reference later.

I think you're really focusing on the "letter of the law" vs. the "spirit of the law" here and the result is (forgive the further cliche) that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Letter of the law is observed, too, actually. He's focusing on the wrong end of the stick. It's not determined by whether there are any elements that line up exactly, it's determined whether there are other elements that don't. The elements that line up exactly simply constitute the picked cherries.

 

[DigificWriter]

Aside from Paris Carver's birth year, there really isn't all that much that I can think of that doesn't match up that can't be covered by the "Selective Character Aging Syndrome" thing I mentioned.

 

[Skywalker]

Just realized that today, November 17, marks the 20th anniversary of GoldenEye's general release (it premiered on November 13). Hard to believe it's been 20 years already.

 

[Karzak]

Just realized that today, November 17, marks the 20th anniversary of GoldenEye's general release (it premiered on November 13). Hard to believe it's been 20 years already.

Ironically, today is also Pierce Brosnan's birthday.