|
|
Post by String on Feb 9, 2019 12:25:42 GMT -5
As for the fan theory about Bond, it falls down due to Bond's wife, Tracy. It was Lazenby's Bond that married her in OHMSS. But in the next film, Diamonds Are Forever, an angry and vengeful 007, played by Connery, is on Blofeld's trail. In For Your Eyes Only, Bond, played by Roger Moore, puts flowers on Tracy's grave. And in Licence To Kill, Bond, played by Timothy Dalton, is uncomfortable when marriage is mentioned (Felix tells his new bride how Bond was once married). If it was a codename, and we assumed each actor was a different Bond, why would Moore's Bond have put flowers on the grave of his predecessor's wife? Why would Dalton's Bond be so sore about marriage prior to Felix's comments? Then what about or who is Daniel Craig? A younger Bond who just joined the 00 section and thus precedes Connery? Or is his films more of a reboot? Sigh, I really need to read Fleming's novels. I had a trilogy book at one point that had, I think, Thunderball, OHMSS, and You Only Live Twice but I can't remember what happened to it (may have donated it to my local library due to a move some years back). Currently the only Bond book I have it is the Union Trilogy by Raymond Benson, whom I understand most fans consider to be one of the finer successors to Bond fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 12:49:30 GMT -5
There's no easy answer to the Daniel Craig conundrum, and the studio cocked up that one. I mean, Judi Dench's M is there at the beginning of Bond's career but is somehow the one who takes over during Pierce Brosnan's era and admonishes him for being a "relic of the Cold War". That is not something one can reconcile. Shall we assume Craig's Bond is the 007 equivalent of Earth-2's superheroes?  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 9, 2019 14:13:00 GMT -5
I haven't watched Casino Royale with Craig , wasn't it set in the 60's?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 9, 2019 14:29:45 GMT -5
I haven't watched Casino Royale with Craig , wasn't it set in the 60's? No. It had a contemporary setting...so circa 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 15:12:28 GMT -5
I haven't watched Casino Royale with Craig , wasn't it set in the 60's? No. It had a contemporary setting...so circa 2006. Which means that Bond's later career (e.g. Doctor No, Diamonds Are Forever, etc.) are set in the 2010s or 2020s. Logically.  |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 9, 2019 19:59:30 GMT -5
I see the Craig Bond films as a new series. The tone is completely different, as is the character's portrayal. Judi Dench, maybe just a nod to the previous series, or they just really liked her.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 10, 2019 6:03:42 GMT -5
My point is, I try not to get too hung up on Doctor Who continuity because of it's non-linear nature. It's linear to us, as far as the episodes are presented, but the Doctor is a non-linear being. But he is living a linear life when it comes to his "deaths" and regenerations, which were all tied to specific, fixed periods of time, involving characters who only existed to him at those times. For example, Jo Grant left the third Doctor in 1973, and subsequently, Sarah Jane Smith entered his life--those are tied to a Doctor and fixed a period of time. Sarah Jane was with him as he was "killed" in 1974's "Planet of the Spiders" and transformed into the fourth Doctor--again, events of a fixed period of time. So, contrary to what Doctor 10 said in "Blink" about time-- "People assume that time is a straight progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, its more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly...timey-wimey...stuff." ...for his own lives, deaths and the events which caused it, they are very much placing him in fixed linear time--that straight progression of cause to effect for both a in-series personal (character) and universal calendars. Good observation. Tracy's existence makes at least four actors in a row playing the same character in the same continuity--the first three all having some animosity toward Blofeld, including the bald man Bond dumps into a factory smokestack in 1981's For Your Eyes Only (even if the man could not be named Blofeld for the McClory legal ownership over the Blofeld character), thus linking characters and bringing a significant piece of Bond continuity to an end. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 6:58:35 GMT -5
I like how that links all the Bonds because there's little else to link them.
In one film, possibly Die Another Day, Bond is in R's lab - and notices (I think) some equipment from Thunderball. He makes a remark such as, "Does this still work?" Or something similar. So even that was great because it was a nice nod to the pre-Brosnan era.
I suppose the plot of Spectre puts us into familiar continuity. I suppose Judi Dench's presence always did, but it never worked for me. Calling Bond a "relic of the Cold War" in GoldenEye, and then saying how much she missed the Cold War in one of the Daniel Craig films, kind of "pollutes" the timeline a tad.
Also, didn't Felix Leiter first meet Bond in Doctor No, yet in Casino Royale, he's meeting 007 for the first time?
It's purely my own self-indulgence, but Daniel Craig's Bond is to 1962-2002 Bond what Earth-2 Superman is to Earth-1 Superman.
And there's your next Bond plot right there: SPECTRE create a cross-dimensional vehicle that can travel to other Earths. Craig's Bond takes a trip in it and ends up on "our" Earth where he teams with Pierce Brosnan's Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 10, 2019 7:47:40 GMT -5
Do you want a messed-up continuity? Try to make sense of Pink Panthers' movie!  I mean, this character is literately disintegrated in one movie, while he was trying to blackmail the world, still he reappears in the following movies and is reinstated Chief Inspector.  |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 10, 2019 9:37:44 GMT -5
I like how that links all the Bonds because there's little else to link them. In one film, possibly Die Another Day, Bond is in R's lab - and notices (I think) some equipment from Thunderball. He makes a remark such as, "Does this still work?" Or something similar. So even that was great because it was a nice nod to the pre-Brosnan era. I suppose the plot of Spectre puts us into familiar continuity. I suppose Judi Dench's presence always did, but it never worked for me. Calling Bond a "relic of the Cold War" in GoldenEye, and then saying how much she missed the Cold War in one of the Daniel Craig films, kind of "pollutes" the timeline a tad. Also, didn't Felix Leiter first meet Bond in Doctor No, yet in Casino Royale, he's meeting 007 for the first time? It's purely my own self-indulgence, but Daniel Craig's Bond is to 1962-2002 Bond what Earth-2 Superman is to Earth-1 Superman. And there's your next Bond plot right there: SPECTRE create a cross-dimensional vehicle that can travel to other Earths. Craig's Bond takes a trip in it and ends up on "our" Earth where he teams with Pierce Brosnan's Bond. What I want to know is how Operation Kid Brother fits in. It's obviously in the same universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 10, 2019 11:02:40 GMT -5
So why wasn't there a James Bond comic in the classic age? WAS there? There was that one DC issue of Dr. No, but that's all I can think of.
Seems like a natural.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 11:59:19 GMT -5
Do you want a messed-up continuity? Try to make sense of Pink Panthers' movie! I mean, this character is literately disintegrated in one movie, while he was trying to blackmail the world, still he reappears in the following movies and is reinstated Chief Inspector. Good Catch, I did not think of that ... and since you mentioned it you are right on the nose. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 10, 2019 13:44:54 GMT -5
So why wasn't there a James Bond comic in the classic age? WAS there? There was that one DC issue of Dr. No, but that's all I can think of. Seems like a natural. Yeah, considering the number of 007 toys and games in th 60s. This is just a guess, but possibly that one DC issue somehow tied up the rights in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 10, 2019 13:55:43 GMT -5
So why wasn't there a James Bond comic in the classic age? WAS there? There was that one DC issue of Dr. No, but that's all I can think of. Seems like a natural. Yeah, considering the number of 007 toys and games in th 60s. This is just a guess, but possibly that one DC issue somehow tied up the rights in the US. Perhaps this one?  |
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Jul 14, 2019 21:29:19 GMT -5
At the risk of being a continuity pedant, the first two Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film were made by a different studio to the later twelve (known as the Baker's Street Dozen). So most fans regard the Dozen as separate continuity where Holmes and Watson were active during WWII. When it comes to films based on literary characters, right away you have a SEPARATE continuity from "the original". And whenever a different studio makes a film based on a certain character-- or, for that matter, whenever a main character is RECAST--- quite often, one can easily consider each one a different continuity.
In the case of SHERLOCK HOLMES, many younger fans do not realize that every single Holmes film before 1939 was "updated" to take place in the "present day". The 2 Fox films with Rathbone & Bruce were actually the first-ever Holmes "period piece" films set in his proper time period.
When Universal picked up the series 3 years later, they returned to the previous practice of "updating" the characters to the present day.
The 1954 TV series with Ronald Howard & H. Marion Crawford was a "period piece". As was the 1959 Hammer film with Peter Cushing & Andre Morell. As have been MOST Holmes films since then. But every so often, even to this day, someone will do a new film-- or even TV series-- updated to the present day. Some are well-received-- some are dismissed as abominations (heh).
I keep wondering if we will EVER see a James Bond film or series done as a "period piece". (I have to admit-- I LOVE the books!!)
What gets really funny is when you have a single actor appearing in MORE than one "version", as happened with Sherlock Holmes-- or for that matter, Peter Cushing. In 1968, he did the 2nd season of the BBC's SHERLOCK HOLMES tv series, picking up where Douglas Wilmer left off 3 years earlier (and with the same Watson, Nigel Stock, but, a different Lestrade). Both the 1959 Hammer film and the 1968 BBC series adapted "The Hound of the Baskervilles", meaning Cushing appeared in 2 VERY different versions of the SAME story (and ever since seeing it last year, I've come to love the '68 version WAY more than the '59 one). And then on top of that, Cushing did another Holmes film in 1983, set in Holmes' retirement years. Is this part of the '59 continuity or the '68 one-- or neither?
As a fan of TARZAN movies, I've long ago reconciled that every time they recast the part, you're looking at a different continuity. Even when it's the same producer. It goes further, because actor Gordon Scott, in my mind, played 3 DIFFERENT versions of Tarzan!!! First was the tail-end of the Sol Lesser series, where Tarzan was still speaking in broken English a la Johnny Weismuller... then the unsold TV pilot where he had his own Jane and Boy... and then the beginning of Sy Weintraub's run as producer, where suddenly Tarzan was intelligent, educated, tougher and even looked a bit older. Same actor, 3 different versions!
On the other hand, while "continuity" does not really come into this... there've been a couple of instances where I can easily believe that 2 different, unconnected versions of a character feel like they might be the 'SAME" version. One is Jock Mahoney's Tarzan-- who really feels to me like he's an older, TOUGHEER version of Ron Ely's Tarzan from the later TV series (from the same producer).
Another is Ian Richardson's Holmes (also from Sy Weintraub, funny enough), who, to me, feels like the SAME version as played by Ronald Howard in 1954. Both have a youthful enthusiam and sense of humor unusual for Holmes. Richardson feels to me like he's a much-older version of Howard.
|
|
