The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:53 am

The Sweeney wrote:Why didn't you sound off like this back in 1969, and continue right the way through until DAD?

Because Craig wasn't in them.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:47 pm

I guess the continuity issue is stronger for some than it is for others.
From what I'm reading of QOS, it would appear (maybe just to me), but other than Daniel Craig, the anti-Craig fan should be happier with Bond 22. I hope they find a happy medium, that keep more of the fans who were let down by CR, happier to return to the world of OO7.
Maybe oneday we can all return to being...Bond fans.

Post by **Kristatos** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:12 pm

The Sweeney wrote:Only a few geeky Bond fans, that's who. EON have never stuck with continuity ever since 1969. If they had done, then I would understand why you are so upset now bj. But the simple fact is, continuity has never been the strong point of the Bond franchise - far from it, yet now you think it is suddenly an issue. Why now? Why didn't you sound off like this back in 1969, and continue right the way through until DAD?

To me, there's a difference between accidental continuity gaffes that most people won't notice unless it's pointed out, and deliberately throwing out all the previous films and starting again from scratch. The longer they continue with this Bond Begins arc, the longer I'm going to be thinking "are we there yet?"

Post by **English Agent** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:20 pm

Kristatos wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:Only a few geeky Bond fans, that's who. EON have never stuck with continuity ever since 1969. If they had done, then I would understand why you are so upset now bj. But the simple fact is, continuity has never been the strong point of the Bond franchise - far from it, yet now you think it is suddenly an issue. Why now? Why didn't you sound off like this back in 1969, and continue right the way through until DAD?
To me, there's a difference between accidental continuity gaffes that most people won't notice unless it's pointed out, and deliberately throwing out all the previous films and starting again from scratch. The longer they continue with this Bond Begins arc, the longer I'm going to be thinking "are we there yet?"

Apart from a few minor continuties in previous Bond films.............does it really matter how the current films are?

They are designed to be films of the current times!!

AB

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:12 pm

Arthur Brain wrote:Apart from a few minor continuties in previous Bond films.............does it really matter how the current films are?

For me it does, although I'm still unsure as to whether continuity in QOS is a good or bad thing!!

Post by **007** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:58 pm

Continuity is less of a concern to me than the actor playing James Bond.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:58 pm

Kristatos wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:Only a few geeky Bond fans, that's who. EON have never stuck with continuity ever since 1969. If they had done, then I would understand why you are so upset now bj. But the simple fact is, continuity has never been the strong point of the Bond franchise - far from it, yet now you think it is suddenly an issue. Why now? Why didn't you sound off like this back in 1969, and continue right the way through until DAD?
To me, there's a difference between accidental continuity gaffes that most people won't notice unless it's pointed out, and deliberately throwing out all the previous films and starting again from scratch. The longer they continue with this Bond Begins arc, the longer I'm going to be thinking "are we there yet?"

Spot on Kris. I agree 100% with you. Deliberate eradication of the past 20 films far outweighs the other films continuity problems, yet all Stocks mentioned did annoy me as well. He is correct as well. Eon knew they were doing this, yet, that great mystery remains, WHY, because they can get away with it? Where does Craig's path lead to? That will be an interesting decision, and maybe Eon has yet to consider this at all.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:01 pm

007 wrote:Continuity is less of a concern to me than the actor playing James Bond.

Both are troublesome in this new realm of Bond.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:08 am

bjmdds wrote:Where does Craig's path lead to? That will be an interesting decision, and maybe Eon has yet to consider this at all.

Who knows.
It's an un-answerable question. Who could've known that George Lazenby would only make one film? Who knew Roger Moore would make seven James Bond films, and be the longest serving actor in the role? Who knew Timothy Dalton would make only two Bond films? Who knew Pierce Brosnan wouldn't make a fifth Bond film? I'm sure Eon didn't intend or want many of these things to happen. But they do.
I don't get the continuity problem though if you're willing to accept a different actor in the role. And seemingly it's only Craig that bother many of you...fair enough. But if you can handle Connery becoming Moore or any other combination then continuity is gone.
You cannot seriously tell me the Bond that Brosnan plays in DAD is the same Bond that married Tracy...or fought Doctor No on Crab Key. Or the M we meet in DN, is the same M as we see in OP. Things change, even the character of Bond has changed. OHMSS>DAF. Different Bond character, and that's after only one film.
The real crux of any of this is not really Eon, it's that most of the members here don't like Craig, but in order to sound credible you have to find new ways in which to validate your argument. Eon are not perfect, they make changes, and even mistakes. But the Bond films would never have lasted this long without having the team at Eon steering the ship.
Please don't take offence at my above comments, it's not a dig at any of you. I've started to appreciate that you guys don't like Craig, or some of the choices that Eon have made. We're only here to make our opinions, and have a little fun discussing the subject that all of us take alot of interest in.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:30 am

You must admit, in a scene where Craig's Bond 'initially' meets Q and Moneypenny with Dench still playing M, would be a Bond moment for the ages. Talk about The Twilight Zone in Bond films!

Such a scene, IMHO, invalidates 40 years of rich history.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:04 am

So a return of Q and Moneypenny would be a big help?
If so, then someone find Eons phone number. We'll try and have them back for 23.

Is it also possible that Craigs Bond could grow on you? I'm not talking about having a complete change of heart, but maybe after QOS or B23, he might have grown slightly in your opinion.
Of course that also works both ways for the likes of myself, Sweeney and Stocks. I'd be annoyed or feel let down if Craigs Bond ended up in an ott, sci-fi / cgi action fest, with poor story and characters. I think each actors style should as often as possible stick with them through there tenure as Bond. Though the Moore era was all over the place...and I love Sir Rog's films. It's bizzare

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:41 am

EON's number is: 020 7493 7953 You can contact them here.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:36 pm

bjmdds wrote:You must admit, in a scene where Craig's Bond 'initially' meets Q and Moneypenny with Dench still playing M, would be a Bond moment for the ages. Talk about The Twilight Zone in Bond films! Such a scene, IMHO, invalidates 40 years of rich history.

It doesn't have to. I've already outlined how the two timelines could be reconciled. OK, it's a bit of a stretch, but since when have Bond films been noted for their plausiblity?

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:10 pm

I would love to know why EON never bothered to keep track of their own plots, as they relate, from film to film. Either 1)They did not care or 2)They never realized it which is hard to believe. If we all know the discrepancies, shouldn't EON as well? Very curious as to the answer, if anyone knows of such a link.

Post by **English Agent** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:22 pm

bjmdds wrote:I would love to know why EON never bothered to keep track of their own plots, as they relate, from film to film. Either 1)They did not care or 2)They never realized it which is hard to believe. If we all know the discrepancies, shouldn't EON as well? Very curious as to the answer, if anyone knows of such a link.

Maybe 'BJ' the main reason there isn't consistency in the Bond series,
is that no one knew at the outset how successful the films were going to be, and how long the series would last.
If you look at the earlier films........i.e DN to GF you will notice that there is some connection or references between these films regarding timeline and characters.

AB

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:32 pm

Arthur Brain wrote:Maybe 'BJ' the main reason there isn't consistency in the Bond series,
is that no one knew at the outset how successful the films were going to be, and how long the series would last.
If you look at the earlier films........i.e DN to GF you will notice that there is some connection or references between these films regarding timeline and characters.

AB

Also, prior to CR/QOS, the films were meant to be self-contained, without audiences needing to know a whole bunch of backstory before watching the film. Yes, there were the links that you mentioned, plus DAF sort of following on from OHMSS, but you can pretty much view the films in any order without it mattering if you haven't seen the previous films in the series. I suspect this business of QOS being the first direct sequel in Bond film history is mostly empty hype too. My guess is that someone who hasn't seen CR will be able to follow 95% of QOS, but I may be wrong on this.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:33 pm

But certainly later on in TND, as Stocks mentioned, Brosnan's Bond could not read chinese, yet Connery's Bond took an 'oriental first at Cambridge". Very puzzling why they never connected the dots, be it the Blofeld lack of recognition in OHMSS, or any other obvious faulty plot content.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:44 pm

bjmdds wrote:But certainly later on in TND, as Stocks mentioned, Brosnan's Bond could not read chinese, yet Connery's Bond took an 'oriental first at Cambridge". Very puzzling why they never connected the dots, be it the Blofeld lack of recognition in OHMSS, or any other obvious faulty plot content.

Because they're not a clever as we are

Post by **English Agent** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:19 pm

Kristatos wrote:
bjmdds wrote:But certainly later on in TND, as Stocks mentioned, Brosnan's Bond could not read chinese, yet Connery's Bond took an 'oriental first at Cambridge". Very puzzling why they never connected the dots, be it the Blofeld lack of recognition in OHMSS, or any other obvious faulty plot content.
Because they're not a clever as we are

........or probably more realistically, that apart from us obsessive Bond fans, the majority of the cinema going audience are not so clued up on
the Bond facts, and dont realise the discrepancies from film to film!

AB

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:51 pm

The filmmakers simply forgot about Bond's oriental knowledge. For Bond geeks it's cringeworthy but in the end the masses will not even care less because TND was made 34 years after FRWL.

As Author noted, the earlier films had certain connections since at the time no one would have fathomed that Bond would outlive Connery. In 1967, You Only Live Twice would have still been referred to as a sequel, along with the previous films and they actually were. Besides Goldfinger, all the films were connected through the SPECTRE. Each film built up on them to the revelation of Blofeld.

By the time Roger Moore came in, the filmmakers were no longer making them as sequels but stand alone films that would throw a connection here or there (Tracy Bond) and that would last all the way to DAD. Even when actors would reprise their roles like Jack Wade or Valentin Zukovsky, there would be no references to events on other films and they were simply treated as characters Bond knew of.