Continuity Issues

[Jedi007]

This is something that I really was not put off with in CR.

Because you love Craig so much .

I never, for one second, during the film wondered if this Bond had been through the same as the other Bonds. In fact, I don't think I've really ever thought this in any of the films.

That's what you want to see, but in reality the films are made that each Bond incarnation were the same, despite the rough continuity.

Bond song (check)

Fleming has a Bond song?!

Fleming story (check)

CR 2006 might be based on Fleming's novel, but it is never his story or else Bond would be refined and good looking.

Bond girls (check)
Bond car (check)
Exotic locations (check)
Superb stunts/action (check)
Bond in casino/tux (check)
One-liners (check)

Those were the cinematic elements, and I thought we were talking about Bond's cinematic history and the true Fleming characterization. Everyone can have a car (Batman has one), a song, a girl, an exotic location, action and one-liner for a film. Sean Connery is Bond in NSNA without these elements. What matters is those elements that made the cinematic Bond a popular cinematic character. It was gone in CR, it was trashed.

or Bond not appearing as refined as he should, I'll live with the unrefined Bond any day of the week.

What do you mean, that you are disagreeing with Bond's creator? Cause Fleming made Bond good looking and refined, and even if you don't want Bond to look like H. Carmichael, that's what Fleming want. You can't beat that. Or maybe you should create your own fictitious superagent and make him look like Craig .

[The Sweeney]

Because you love Craig so much .

That's what you want to see, but in reality the films are made that each Bond incarnation were the same, despite the rough continuity.

Maybe, but are we led to believe that in 1989, Bond was married to someone in 1969, yet still appear to be 40? Why didn't Blofeld recognise Bond in OHMSS? I didn't think it was the same Bond in the same timeline, but you obviously do.

Fleming has a Bond song?!

I thought we were talking about Bond films here, not Bond novels, and what has supposed to have been `trashed' in the films.

CR 2006 might be based on Fleming's novel, but it is never his story or else Bond would be refined and good looking.

If this is the only basis for what you believe to be whether a Bond film is close to a novel or not, then we clearly have different opinions on this.

Those were the cinematic elements, and I thought we were talking about Bond's cinematic history and the true Fleming characterization.

I thought we were talking about elememts in the cinematic Bond that had been trashed....?

What do you mean, that you are disagreeing with Bond's creator? Cause Fleming made Bond good looking and refined, and even if you don't want Bond to look like H. Carmichael, that's what Fleming want. You can't beat that. Or maybe you should create your own fictitious superagent and make him look like Craig .

Or even Connery, because initially Fleming didn't think Connery was right for the part either.

Like I said, novels are personal interpretations, and we all have clearly different ideas of how Bond should be. It's a matter of opinion and taste. Fleming had his own ideas, Cubby had his own ideas. You ain't right what you are saying, and neither am I. It's down to a matter of opinion, nothing more.

[paco chaos]

The `other fella' line was an in-joke. I don't really recall any in-jokes like this in CR.

The vodka-martini line was an in-joke.

that was a joke? because I didn't laugh. must have been Craig's poor delivery.

[James]

The `other fella' line was an in-joke. I don't really recall any in-jokes like this in CR.

The vodka-martini line was an in-joke.

that was a joke? because I didn't laugh. must have been Craig's poor delivery.

I didn't laugh either. It was a paradigm shift post-modern line that plays on our expectations and prior knowledge of James Bond and then subverts them. I'm sure it sounded clever on paper.

[Greg Haugen]

A lack of witty dialogue was one of my problems with Casino Royale. The double entendres were rightly put to one side but I expect a few laughs from a James Bond film. It isn't supposed to be Dostoevsky.

[Kristatos]

A lack of witty dialogue was one of my problems with Casino Royale. The double entendres were rightly put to one side but I expect a few laughs from a James Bond film. It isn't supposed to be Dostoevsky.

Funnily enough, when I went to see it, the scene that got the most laughs was the torture scene, with all the stuff about "tickling my balls". "That last hand...nearly killed me" got a big laugh as well.

[Greg Haugen]

Was the Kristatos funny bone tickled by any of this?

[Skywalker]

Funnily enough, when I went to see it, the scene that got the most laughs was the torture scene, with all the stuff about "tickling my balls". "That last hand...nearly killed me" got a big laugh as well.

"That last hand nearly killed me" had a good response when I saw the film. I must admit I thought Craig delivered that line well. The little finger remark was cringe worthy though.

[Kristatos]

Was the Kristatos funny bone tickled by any of this?

Well, laughter is infectious, so I did laugh. Whether I would have done so if I'd seen the film on DVD is open to question.

[Captain Nash]

Bond's not supposed to be Carry On folks. I found the level of humour in CR to be fine. Some of which has been missed here.
A couple of examples.
1. When Bond is trying to reach M at Miami airport Villiers tells him he'll have to put Bond on hold. To which Bond replies "Thought you might." It's a nice little line that sets up there relationship perfectly.

2. The limo ride, the cover story about Vesper being Miss Stephanie Broadchest is again well played by Craig, and the resulting by play between the two.
For me this is the mischievious Bond that we've seen throughout the series before.
I'll agree the 'little finger' line is not the best, but then there are plenty of lines from the previous 20 films I could live without too.

[Jedi007]

Maybe, but are we led to believe that in 1989, Bond was married to someone in 1969, yet still appear to be 40? Why didn't Blofeld recognise Bond in OHMSS? I didn't think it was the same Bond in the same timeline,
but you obviously do.

I'm not talking about here of the previous 20 films as being part of the same continuity, but of the different Bond incarnation as one. Like you've said most of the films are stand-alones (different Leiters in Connery's films), but in each incarnation, it is made that an important event that happened to one incarnation happened to every single one of them. It's like having five different men, different character from different time but with the same name, with the same wife, with the same neighbors. Dates and years doesn't matter.

I thought we were talking about Bond films here, not Bond novels, and what has supposed to have been `trashed' in the films.

I'm not talking of cinematic elements here, but rather the cinematic Bond's characterization that appealed to people, that made Bond survive in the modern days. And that it is Bond staying cool and refined, as it is in the novels, despite the violence of his job; able to do things no ordinary man can do.

If this is the only basis for what you believe to be whether a Bond film is close to a novel or not, then we clearly have different opinions on this.

So how can be a Bond film close to a Bond novel? Do tell me. It is because Bond is cold and ruthless in the films? Then maybe all of the films are close to the novels, as every Bond in those films are cold-killers.

Funnily enough, when I went to see it, the scene that got the most laughs was the torture scene, with all the stuff about "tickling my balls".

My father, who introduced me to the Bond films, laughed at that one. But that's just it and he still didn't find Craig as the right Bond.

[stockslivevan]

I think some have forgotten that Bond can't remain the Cold War hero he was. With Brosnan, some people thought he was too young to be considered what M called him "a relic of the cold war". Does anyone honestly believe that a new Bond actor could keep that up? Most of the contenders besides Craig were born in the 60s and if you do the math that would bring them all to at least their 20s during the 80s. As time passes by we'll have a Bond actor born in the 1970s and would it be believable to say that the new actor's Bond is the same Cold War 'relic' despite being a child/teen in the 80s?

Times change and the characters reflect that. Bond could never remain a Cold War hero 30 years after that era ended and is still in his 30s/40s.

Now we're in the 9/11 era and Craig's Bond is the first version of Bond fighting terrorism instead of Soviets. Take it or leave it, Bond will adapt with the times and I have no doubt he will go through another major change like we've witnessed before such as Connery to Moore, Moore to Dalton, Dalton to Brosnan and now Brosnan to Craig.

[The Sweeney]

I'm not talking about here of the previous 20 films as being part of the same continuity, but of the different Bond incarnation as one. Like you've said most of the films are stand-alones (different Leiters in Connery's films), but in each incarnation, it is made that an important event that happened to one incarnation happened to every single one of them. It's like having five different men, different character from different time but with the same name, with the same wife, with the same neighbors. Dates and years doesn't matter.

Difficult to do this with CR being the first novel, and the first time Bond ever falls in love (until OHMSS). If EON wanted to do CR the way you wanted it, were they supposed to make this story follow on after DAD?

I'm not talking of cinematic elements here, but rather the cinematic Bond's characterization that appealed to people, that made Bond survive in the modern days. And that it is Bond staying cool and refined, as it is in the novels, despite the violence of his job; able to do things no ordinary man can do.

And to me we see this in CR. No ordinary man can jump off cranes, jump on buses, crash through flames, survive a severe car crash or torture, win a multi-million pound card game while remaining unruffled, kill 2 huge men with swords, shoot down 4 or 5 men in Venice and destroy an entire building, remain cool and composed while bullets fly around him, etc.

So how can be a Bond film close to a Bond novel? Do tell me. It is because Bond is cold and ruthless in the films? Then maybe all of the films are close to the novels, as every Bond in those films are cold-killers.

A Bond film can be close to a novel if it follows the story as close as it can, the characters in the novel try to remain as close as they can, incidents in the novel try to remain as close as they can, the overall tone of the novel is tried to be replicated on-screen. This is where many Bond films have failed to capture the essence of the Fleming novels. In the books, they were sadistic, extremely violent, humourless, dark, nasty, very serious, etc. For the first time ever, we see Bond recovering in hospital after a severe beating (something that happened in all the books). We see Bond scared (a trait from the books) we see Bond dirty, bloody, torn (again, something that happened in the books). This has never really been shown on film until now.

What never happen in the books was witty, embarrassing Carry On one-liners, OTT action, silly comedy, invisible cars, underwater cars, Bond walking around all day in suits (he often wore casual, comfy outfits), double-taking pigeons, ridiculous gadgets, etc.

[paco chaos]

I have no problem with the Bond character being updated for a post-911 world. obviously if you are going to keep the character in contemporary times, you have to make changes, otherwise he would have to be set in the 50's. my issue about the reboot was that it seemed to be a timid attempt at doing so. sure, Daniel Craig is a drastic about face in terms of what we've come to expect from Bond. But the fact that M wasn't recast, and that we had some very OTT stunt sequences, showed a very sad lack of faith that the film could work without such trappings. And just because Bond is now a brooding killer, does it mean his taste in women had to be so bad. I wouldn't give up my gig as a MI-6 agent for such a bland girl as Eva Green.
as for the continuity in the previous films, I always assumed that in the opening of DAF, the reason Bond was on such a hunt for Blofeld was because of the ending of OHMSS. But I never understood why Blofeld didn't recognize Bond either, in OHMSS, except for the fact that he's the "other fellow". But, I could care less about this in the larger picture.

[The Sweeney]

...that we had some very OTT stunt sequences, showed a very sad lack of faith that the film could work without such trappings.

I agree with this. However, can you imagine the uproar from other Bond fans if the film didn't have any of these big action scenes in either. I don't think many would have been happy. It's the one thing people have come to expect from a Bond movie.

I take it you don't like The Brosnan films much then for this same reason?

[Blowfeld]

Their always was lose continuity to the movies. Cubby always kept Bond "looking forward"
There was a slight attempt to remind the audience that James Bond was the same guy, Her Majesty's Secret Service had a montage to reinforce the notion James Bond was the same.
Not that anyone took it too seriously. Pretty much the people who went to the movies wanted to enjoy the story and believe in what happened on screen.
Now the stories right from the beginning Eon messed up by making them out of order. From Russia with Love was written before Dr No, Although they didn't have the rights to Royale back then, even if they had it would have been a poor first entry for movie in my opinion. Dr No was an astounding start followed up by From Russia cemented Bonds place in movie history.

Royale failed to cement a actor as 007, and forced the audience to "take it seriously" while demanding their disbelief. Forcing the issue like a square peg in round hole. Daniel did not look nor act like Bond.
Doubt if anyone would have cared if this had been a spin-off movie series, 006 or some such.

The ground work for the post 911 world was already laid by M by her statement about the world changing and 007 response "not to me!" All the next movie need was a slightly modified set of goals involving terrorism. Personally I would have liked 007 dealing and commiserating with former enemies, like the Russian, Chinese and North Koreans on the one agreed menace the world faces. Even with a new actor the "reboot" was not necessary.

Royale's Terrorist were just a fictional if not more so than usual.

The outrageous invisible car, how about an Invisible tank? The militaries of the world are working on invisibility very similar to Die Another Day's. Not only for tanks and other vehicles but uniforms (and probably buildings) as well. Not as sci-fi as it once was, still outrageous. I'd imagine you'd hear the tank from miles away.
Of course I wonder about the military's R&D department (no offence guys) after the Thunderball breather incident.

[Jermaine76]

Now the stories right from the beginning Eon messed up by making them out of order. From Russia with Love was written before Dr No, Although they didn't have the rights to Royale back then, even if they had it would have been a poor first entry for movie in my opinion. Dr No was an astounding start followed up by From Russia cemented Bonds place in movie history.

And Goldfinger was the icing on the cake.

Royale failed to cement a actor as 007, and forced the audience to "take it seriously" while demanding their disbelief. Forcing the issue like a square peg in round hole. Daniel did not look nor act like Bond.
Doubt if anyone would have cared if this had been a spin-off movie series, 006 or some such.

Like I said on another thread...the man isn't James Bond and most Bond fans and casual fans know it. Therefore, Sony with their advertising dollars shoves this dude down our throats. On one hand they want to show us a new Bond who just got promoted and is more "grittier" and has a real life feel to it. And on the other hand, want us to still be in some sort of a fantasy. I guess that explains the running through walls and leaping around scenes.

The ground work for the post 911 world was already laid by M by her statement about the world changing and 007 response "not to me!" All the next movie need was a slightly modified set of goals involving terrorism. Personally I would have liked 007 dealing and commiserating with former enemies, like the Russian, Chinese and North Koreans on the one agreed menace the world faces. Even with a new actor the "reboot" was not necessary.

I was thinking the same thing when I was reading some of the posts on here. That statement about the world changing and Bond replaying "not to me!" is from Die Another Day, I believe. There's no need to mention 9/11 in the movie. An odd feeling went through me when I heard M say it in Casino Royale. The audience doesn't need a reminder of 9/11. I definitely don't need a reminder since I live in the Washington Metro area.

As for the reboot...it wasn't neccesary. Hell, I wouldn't have made a Casino Royale movie. They should have left it alone. The reboot idea could have been great if done correctly. But it wasn't. There wasn't any explanation in the film to show the reboot on screen. It was just a few words exchanged and that was it. Batman Begins did it right. When I went to see CR, some people sitting around me where confused for the first 15 minutes of the film. Just let the series as we know it continue and run with it. Although there has been 5 Bonds(I don't count Craig) I look at the character being one and the same. In the 007 game Everything or Nothing, I liked how they took a villian from the Roger Moore films(Jaws) and had him go up against a Brosnan Bond. Also the reference of Nicohlai Diablo being a student of Max Zorin. There was another one during a cut scene where Brosnan Bond makes a funny remark about his fight on the Golden Gate Bridge with Max Zorin in A View to a Kill. I like that idea because it reminds you that James Bond is the same character, but played by different dudes.

The outrageous invisible car, how about an Invisible tank? The militaries of the world are working on invisibility very similar to Die Another Day's. Not only for tanks and other vehicles but uniforms (and probably buildings) as well. Not as sci-fi as it once was, still outrageous. I'd imagine you'd hear the tank from miles away.
Of course I wonder about the military's R&D department (no offence guys) after the Thunderball breather incident.

According to the Die Another Day DVD, the technology has been in the works here in the state of Maryland.

[The Sweeney]

And Goldfinger was the icing on the cake.

Agreed.

Like I said on another thread...the man isn't James Bond and most Bond fans and casual fans know it.

There are plenty (the majority) of Bond fans on most other Bond fan forums that would disagree with you completely.

I was thinking the same thing when I was reading some of the posts on here. That statement about the world changing and Bond replaying "not to me!" is from Die Another Day, I believe. There's no need to mention 9/11 in the movie. An odd feeling went through me when I heard M say it in Casino Royale. The audience doesn't need a reminder of 9/11. I definitely don't need a reminder since I live in the Washington Metro area.

Bond was about fighting cold wars, spies, terrorism (yes, that's what SPECTRE were) usually from foreign countries. In this day and age that has been replaced by 9/11. You may felt it should be ignored and pretend Bond should still be looking for bald men stroking white cats, but not everyone else does. The world has changed.

As for the reboot...it wasn't neccesary. Hell, I wouldn't have made a Casino Royale movie. They should have left it alone.

The last half of CR is very much like the book. The villains backgrounds have been updated, but most other events and characters from the novel are very much in place. I take it you have read the book then?

[Kristatos]

I'm not talking about here of the previous 20 films as being part of the same continuity, but of the different Bond incarnation as one.

I tend to think of the first four Bonds as being a single "block", as the actors were broadly of the same generation (lest we forget, Dalton was offered the role of Bond in OHMSS and is only 4 years younger than Lazenby). Starting with Brosnan, it became necessary to fudge the continuity and leave timelines fuzzy, whereas CR made it explicit that they were scrapping the timeline and starting again. Needless to say, I prefer the Brosnan-era approach, it's less distracting and enables you to just sit back and enjoy the film rather than having to think about this stuff.

[carl stromberg]

I don't mind a reboot; but keeping Dench on and having a 40 year old man as a confused, raw young Bond early on in his 00 career is just daft.

Jermaine76 wrote:

Like I said on another thread...the man isn't James Bond and most Bond fans and casual fans know it.

If you read the (positive) reviews, many say that this isn't Bond and imply that everyone was bored with Bond so it doesn't matter. It seems the general public liked this new character too. I'm not sure where that leaves people like me who liked the old Bond....