News Lashana Lynch to be the new 007...

[ALF]

He quit in Casino Royale, Skyfall, and Spectre - and that last one isn't at all relevant, except it's the latest we've seen of him. Jesus, do you even watch Bond movies?

Fair point, I haven't seen any of the Daniel Craig offerings yet. Looking forward to a binge on those come autumn. Last Bond film I saw in the theater was Die Another Day.

Hearing news of a new agent stoked me to hurry up and finish the Daniel Craig series.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

As for the idea there's a consistent continuity between Bond films......nope. If you imagine that to be the case you've not been paying attention.

There have been callbacks and references, but nothing remotely approaching a continuity

There's hard continuity: in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond's little trip down previous mission memory lane (desk drawer scene) established that he was the same Bond of the previous 5 Connery films. Of course, this film introduced Tracy, and the Moore Bond visited her grave in the opening of For Your Eyes Only, while License to Kill made a reference to Bond once being married.
That was all solid continuity establishing that this was the same Bond since Dr. No.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Funny, but you know that was a moment of breaking the fourth wall for anyone who still did not know Connery left the series.

Hence the smiley and thanks for not assuming I'm simply an idiot. Unlike some people.

 

[jaime]

No.

That's a tired argument made by people who like to think their "codename" theories hold water... which they don't.



I hate how dumb James Bond fans seem to be. The films themselves clearly demonstrate that James Bond is the given birth name of a single person and that we as an audience have seen two separate versions of him: pre-2006 (where he is portrayed by 5 actors across 20 films) and post-2006 (where he is , to date, portrayed by 1 actor across 5 films).... a scenario that is backed up 100% by the individuals responsible for the current creative oversight and production of the series.

And yet you've got fans acting like they can't tell the difference between what is up and what is down and either denying what the films and their creators demonstrate or making up patently nonsensical theories to explain a scenario that has already been officially explained.

The scenario never, ever makes sense. Because they kept Judi Dench as M, it’s justthe usual rolling continuity that isn’t much of one.
And fans generating theories to explain inconsistencies is what fans do, this is the Star Trek forum after all.

If anything, Bond fans do it less because they know it all doesn’t make any sense as such. Even me when I through little ideas out, am fully aware it makes no sense because the bond films do t entirely work that way. Except when they do. Then they don’t again. Then they do Austin Powers stuff.

Everyone knows they are very very silly, apart from so,times the people making the new batch.

 

[Mudd]

...Bond fans do it less because they know it all doesn’t make any sense as such.

Exactly. Bond has very limited continuity, and no meaningful canon.

One would hope Bond fans harp on this less because they take the property for what it is: a fun, fantasy wish-fulfillment romp of...a certain kind.

 

[Mudd]

Which is one of the more sadly amusing affectations of Political Correctness, since both terms were used concurrently-- and the current usage is used to socially segregate, if not physically segregate. Which is why I refuse to use it.

No.

You're simply needlessly insulting people by choosing not to treat their preferences about self-identification with respect. There's no excuse for it.

 

[thribs]

So is Bond 001 now?
What we need is a new 006. It’s been 20 years.

 

[Tuskin38]

What I would like is original characters with those aspects.

That's what they're doing here, they created an original character.
James Bond is still a white man, he retied last movie and there is new female character with the 007 code name.

So is Bond 001 now?
What we need is a new 006. It’s been 20 years.

He's retired.

 

[jaime]

No.

You're simply needlessly insulting people by choosing not to treat their preferences about self-identification with respect. There's no excuse for it.

It’s not really ‘their’ preferences, because there never is a ‘their’ with these things, no one nips round and has a survey and vote with everyone in ethnic groups around the world. I certainly never voted to be referred as ‘cis’ or indeed ‘white’.
Apart from that, I see your point.

 

[Relayer1]

So is Bond 001 now?
What we need is a new 006.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DigificWriter]

There's hard continuity: in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond's little trip down previous mission memory lane (desk drawer scene) established that he was the same Bond of the previous 5 Connery films. Of course, this film introduced Tracy, and the Moore Bond visited her grave in the opening of For Your Eyes Only, while License to Kill made a reference to Bond once being married.
That was all solid continuity establishing that this was the same Bond since Dr. No.

Exactly.

And when the new M first meets Bond in Goldeneye, she calls him a "mysoginyst ic dinosaur" and a "relic of the Cold War".

Bond, in the pre-2006 films, had an extended and extensive life history stretching from 2002 back to the 60s.

 

[Spot261]

I
Both of these statements are objectively wrong as per the films themselves and the individuals responsible for producing them.

You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face, but the facts are what they are.

Callbacks and references are and were the continuity, because that is how you establish a continuity in the first place.

As is the fact as character one Bond met as an "antiquated dinosaur" was suddenly there at the very beginning of his career, or the fact he's been in his mid thirties since 1954, or the fact that he apparently fought in both in WW2 and against the Russians in Afghanistan. He's been given various dates of birth ranging from 1920, 1921 and 1924 through to 1968. He's been an officer in the naval reserve who joined the secret service, a special forces soldier or a former Royal Marines Commando depending on the source, an English heir or orphan of Scottish nobility who was briefly at Eton but was educated at either the University of Geneva, Oxford or Cambridge, again depending on the source. See also being concurrently a history undergraduate and a languages major.

He's worked for SIS, the SOE, Naval Intelligence and MI6 at the very least (possibly more)

The character varies dramatically from portrayal to portrayal, from Connerys' uber masculine, laconic sporting gentleman, Moores' and Brosans' playboy adventurers, Daltons' virtual introvert and Craigs' sociopathic thug.

There's little other than his marriage and consequent pursuit of Bofeld to tie the films together in terms of a causative narrative and if you want to cal that continuity be my guest but it's a pretty loose excuse for one given the glaring discontinuities. Most of us tend to set that bar a little higher and see Bond films as being by and large simply fun films without overthinking them.

 

[Kor]

It's a "sliding continuity," much like long-running comic books. There's nothing wrong with that.

Kor

 

[DigificWriter]

As is the fact as character one Bond met as an "antiquated dinosaur" was suddenly there at the very beginning of his career

Craig's Bond is not the same character as the Connery-Brosnan Bond, and the M who bosses him around is not the same character - despite being portrayed by the same actress - as the M introduced in Goldeneye.

It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Most of us tend to set that bar a little higher and see Bond films as being by and large simply fun films without overthinking them.

Recognizing that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan played the same version of the James Bond character while Craig plays a completely different version of the character isnt "overthinking things".

 

[The Nth Doctor]

It's a "sliding continuity," much like long-running comic books. There's nothing wrong with that.

Kor

Of course there's not. The problem lies in those who needlessly stick to a rigid framework under the guise of "canon."

 

[Mudd]

"Sliding continuity" in this instance equals "no continuity." Picking and choosing the bits and pieces of old movies that you'll reference is the antithesis of continuity.

 

[DigificWriter]

Of course there's not. The problem lies in those who needlessly stick to a rigid framework under the guise of "canon."

Acknowledging that the EON Bond Canon comprises two different continuities isn't "sticking to some rigid framework"; it's just recognizing the facts.

 

[XCV330]

I'd like to see the Gardner Bond books brought to a movie continuity, set in their time period, with an aging Bond brought back from retirement to a program that barely had a budget. Also the Bond Saab 900 was cool.

 

[DigificWriter]

"Sliding continuity" in this instance equals "no continuity."

False. And there's only a "sliding continuity" in that the Connery-Brosnan Bond perpetually has the physical appearance of a man in his 30s despite the passage of decades around him and the numerous life experiences he has.

Picking and choosing the bits and pieces of old movies that you'll reference is the antithesis of continuity.

Nobody does that other than the fans.

 

[jaime]

False. And there's only a "sliding continuity" in that the Connery-Brosnan Bond perpetually has the physical appearance of a man in his 30s despite the passage of decades around him and the numerous life experiences he has.



Nobody does that other than the fans.

I think the point is that it’s the films that very much do that. That’s why Daniel Craig still has a Connery Aston Martin. Every Bond has hangovers to the previous, inheritances. Craig inherited the shiny modern MI6 and M from Brosnan, before eventually getting a faux Connery set-up complete with Reblootfeld aka Dr. evil.
They made him a newbie in Casino Royale, and he didn’t like shaken martinis (ooh, the radical changes) apart from that...he’s just another interpretation of the same book character.
Eventually each is a different interpretation of the same film character (hence the sliding continuity.)
And they always, always, like to throw some little bit not-continuity-but-would-be-anywhere-else In. They can’t break from the past, and they don’t really need to...there’s a soft-reboot with every new actor on the tacit understanding that the audience goes along on a wink and a nod. He’s the same but not the same. It’s almost Doctor Who. (And that joke was made over in the Who books, where Bond is hinted at as being a Time Lord in the employ of MI6)

Pretending there is a hard continuity is silly.
Pretending that there isn’t this sort of sliding continuity is also silly.
Pretending Craig was a total reboot is both silly and not silly at the same time.
Pretending having him do version of Goldeneye for a video game was a good idea is very silly indeed xD