James Bond (Roger Moore) lays flowers at his late wife's tomb in For Your Eyes Only. When he married her, he had George Lazenby's face. It's definitely not just a code name.
They're having us on!!
- Thread starter wonderstoat
- Start date
Maybe Bond is a clone, they don't make any indication in the films he's not so he might be!
If he was a clone, he would still look like Sean Connery. But it still is a better explanation than to accept that Judi Dench transported herself fourty years back into the past to hire a brand new James Bond while all the technology is still on today's standards!
What are you talking about? The bond films aren't based in real time, it's always the eternal present.
What did the guys who have written and directed Nemesis know?
Huh...
Meaning it could not be meant precede a set of movies in which he is already a double-O.
What?
So let me get this straight - The director wanted to do a reboot, the studio wanted to do a reboot, so the writers wrote a reboot and then that's what they delivered.
*However* because the writers of an entirely different franchise did a bad job, it's not a reboot.
Just a minor continuity error.
Wikipedia doesn't prove anything!
As far as I'm concerned, if it does turn out that everything that happens in the movie is reset to the way things were before Nero's interference, I will be FURIOUS; I mean, letter-writing, boycotting, "hot molten hate upon all canonistas until the end of time" furious. If anything damages my fandom of Star Trek in a permanent way, it will be a giant reset button on this movie.
Listen, I don't give one-tenth of one crap what movie, television series, or comic book has gotten away with it before. I don't even care that Star Trek itself has done it before, thereby making it something we should come to expect from the franchise. I cannot conceive of anything more abominably stupid than to create this bold, daring new vision of Star Trek only to more or less press the big "RESET" button and say, "Just kidding!"
And, oh, Hell hath no fury like mine if I find out it's because they're afraid of upsetting the hard-core Trek fans who just ADORE their canon. Their Trek hasn't gone ANYWHERE. It lives on in their memories and hearts, and in television reruns, DVDs, books, and comic books. As long as there are fans of it, someone will keep telling those tales. So these purists need to calm down, take a pill, and let someone else take the reins for a while. Lord knows they can't do more damage to Star Trek than Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise did.
Listen, I don't give one-tenth of one crap what movie, television series, or comic book has gotten away with it before. I don't even care that Star Trek itself has done it before, thereby making it something we should come to expect from the franchise. I cannot conceive of anything more abominably stupid than to create this bold, daring new vision of Star Trek only to more or less press the big "RESET" button and say, "Just kidding!"
And, oh, Hell hath no fury like mine if I find out it's because they're afraid of upsetting the hard-core Trek fans who just ADORE their canon. Their Trek hasn't gone ANYWHERE. It lives on in their memories and hearts, and in television reruns, DVDs, books, and comic books. As long as there are fans of it, someone will keep telling those tales. So these purists need to calm down, take a pill, and let someone else take the reins for a while. Lord knows they can't do more damage to Star Trek than Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise did.
My take on the whole Romulan thing is Stiles, in that episode, is the only one who has a shocked reaction to the first view of the Romulans. Kirk, Sulu, Uhura and Spock seem to calmly take it in. Of course, Spock gives us his "bemused" eyebrow lift. The "main" cast dosen't seem phased by the appearance in "Balance of Terror," so it is possible to infer that they may have already seen the Romulans once before.
It may be stretching things a bit, but there's enough of a "hole" there to make an inference Moreover, how many times have we seen in Trek where events happen only to be kept secret by our cast of characters. This movie might be one of those instances. Or the whole damn thing might just fade away at the end of the film like the climatic battle in "Yesterday's Enterprise" as soon as the ENT-C enters the rift.
It may be stretching things a bit, but there's enough of a "hole" there to make an inference Moreover, how many times have we seen in Trek where events happen only to be kept secret by our cast of characters. This movie might be one of those instances. Or the whole damn thing might just fade away at the end of the film like the climatic battle in "Yesterday's Enterprise" as soon as the ENT-C enters the rift.
What makes you think the guy who directed Casino Royale knew more about James Bond than Stuart Baird did about Nemesis?
Just for your information: Stuart Baird knew NOTHING about Star Trek.
I give up, you are off with the fairies!
The cast, crew, writers and studio thought it was a reboot and that's good enough for me!
Interesting idea. Perhaps the vast majority of the public is shielded from the nature of Romulans out of fear of racial reprisals against the Vulcans. Those in privileged positions, or out of necessity like the veterans of the Enterprise crew may have encountered them face-to-face but been ordered into silence.
No, what just happened here is that I have refuted your point.
Young, as when the world was new.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Ah, I guess the fact that in 'The Spy who loved me' Major Amasova says about Bond that he had many love-affairs but was married only once is also just a 'minor continuity error' then?
Ah, I guess the fact that in 'The Spy who loved me' Major Amasova says about Bond that he had many love-affairs but was married only once is also just a 'minor continuity error' then?
To my mind, the Bond movies all featured the same CHARACTER, but different actors playing him. So, even though one set of movies had Connery as Bond, then one movie had Lazenby, then another set had Roger Moore, they were all in one continuity, following the same incarnation of Bond. The only slip in that theory is when Lazenby says, "This never happened to the other fellow", but I think that line was more of a wink to the viewer than anything plot-wise.
It's the same as the Batman films that started with Tim Burton's Batman and ended with Schumacher's Batman and Robin. I consider them part of the same continuity, with just different actors playing Batman.
But, once Batman Begins and Casino Royale, respectively, came around, it was a new continuity, a new beginning, and I'm thinking the new Star Trek is doing the same thing.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Ah, I guess the fact that in 'The Spy who loved me' Major Amasova says about Bond that he had many love-affairs but was married only once is also just a 'minor continuity error' then?
To my mind, the Bond movies all featured the same CHARACTER, but different actors playing him. So, even though one set of movies had Connery as Bond, then one movie had Lazenby, then another set had Roger Moore, they were all in one continuity, following the same incarnation of Bond. The only slip in that theory is when Lazenby says, "This never happened to the other fellow", but I think that line was more of a wink to the viewer than anything plot-wise.
It's the same as the Batman films that started with Tim Burton's Batman and ended with Schumacher's Batman and Robin. I consider them part of the same continuity, with just different actors playing Batman.
But, once Batman Begins and Casino Royale, respectively, came around, it was a new continuity, a new beginning, and I'm thinking the new Star Trek is doing the same thing.
You are absolutely right.
Similar threads
