Skyfall (aka Bond 23)

[Platty]

Somebody said that Barbie Broccoli doesn't like dolls.

Yeah apparently there will be no more Bond figures because of her. There was a prototype Daniel Craig sideshow did but dc turned it down. There's quite a bit going on with the bond figures behind the scenes!

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

There is no such thing as the word "reboot" in the Bond franchise-- with every new Bond it's just that-- a new Bond. The only confusing thing might be the continuation of the same actor playing M (a la Dench) or Q (a la Llewelyn).

So you are saying that "Bond" is a code name, like a title? So Pierce Brosnan was the previous Bond and now Daniel Craig is his successor in a passing-of-the-torch way, but it isnt their real name? Because that's the only way to even attempt to make sense of that reply.

I thought when they made Casino Royale they were very clear that this was going to be Bond in the very beginnings of his career and now in Skyfall it's gearing towards the end? So, everything involving Connery, Brosnan, etc happened inbetween those two films?

 

[DarthNeil]

So you are saying that "Bond" is a code name, like a title? So Pierce Brosnan was the previous Bond and now Daniel Craig is his successor in a passing-of-the-torch way, but it isnt their real name? Because that's the only way to even attempt to make sense of that reply.

I thought when they made Casino Royale they were very clear that this was going to be Bond in the very beginnings of his career and now in Skyfall it's gearing towards the end? So, everything involving Connery, Brosnan, etc happened inbetween those two films?

No.

There is no TIMELINE in and amongst the Bonds... They are simply that-- Bond.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

No.

There is no TIMELINE in and amongst the Bonds... They are simply that-- Bond.

You do know that "Bond" isn't necessarily an adjective right?

There's some sort of timeline happening in the Craig series of films, wether you want to acknowledge it or not.

What he did in Casino Royale I'm pretty sure is apart of what he's done in Skyline...

 

[K07]

Exchanged the disc at a different Wal-Mart. Same problem. I'm lending this to a friend who has a PS3. I'll tell him how to get around the issue if he experiences it. If he doesn't, I'll know it's my player.

Would that be a firmware issue? I have never done that before. There's not even an option to do it for my player/brand on this website:

https://www.blu-ray.com/firmware/

My player is not wireless. Would I just hook it up manually and it will walk me through it?

 

[DarthNeil]

You do know that "Bond" isn't necessarily an adjective right?

There's some sort of timeline happening in the Craig series of films, wether you want to acknowledge it or not.

What he did in Casino Royale I'm pretty sure is apart of what he's done in Skyline...

I didn't say there wasn't a timeline in the Craig series (the first two are a little bit connected-- thanks for the condescension) I said that looking for a timeline among ALL of the Bond movies is ridiculous as with each new Bond hire they function as their own with some similar faces (Llewelyn for example) in supporting roles... Sorry I haven't explained this further but we've got a blizzard here and I'm dealing with three little kids in the throes of cabin fever.

Adjective? What's that? We never dealt with them thingies in any of my degrees starting with my first degree (Honours in English Lit.).

If you're still hung up on trying to explain that Goldfinger happened before The Spy Who Loved Me while From Russia With Love exists after Casino Royale dismiss Llewelyn for a moment (equal in age almost to Connery, embarrassed uncle to Moore, doting Grandpa to Dalton) and simply look at two scenes that prove my point admirably... Look at Brosnan's first scene with Dench in Goldeneye. He thinks she views him as a relic of an age gone by while he has issues with a desk jockey (and maybe a woman) in charge-- now flash to Casino Royale... Dench as M (the same character) gives 007 (Craig) his first assignment after getting 00 status--- and he's viewed as not the relic (or super suave Brosnan) but rather a blunt instrument. These are two scenes with the same character M dealing differently with DIFFERENT Bonds.

I hope I've elucidated things for you. Feel free to respond with oblivious condescension in five... four... three... two...

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

I didn't say there wasn't a timeline in the Craig series (the first two are a little bit connected-- thanks for the condescension) I said that looking for a timeline among ALL of the Bond movies is ridiculous as with each new Bond hire they function as their own with some similar faces (Llewelyn for example) in supporting roles... Sorry I haven't explained this further but we've got a blizzard here and I'm dealing with three little kids in the throes of cabin fever.

Adjective? What's that? We never dealt with them thingies in any of my degrees starting with my first degree (Honours in English Lit.).

If you're still hung up on trying to explain that Goldfinger happened before The Spy Who Loved Me while From Russia With Love exists after Casino Royale dismiss Llewelyn for a moment (equal in age almost to Connery, embarrassed uncle to Moore, doting Grandpa to Dalton) and simply look at two scenes that prove my point admirably... Look at Brosnan's first scene with Dench in Goldeneye. He thinks she views him as a relic of an age gone by while he has issues with a desk jockey (and maybe a woman) in charge-- now flash to Casino Royale... Dench as M (the same character) gives 007 (Craig) his first assignment after getting 00 status--- and he's viewed as not the relic (or super suave Brosnan) but rather a blunt instrument. These are two scenes with the same character M dealing differently with DIFFERENT Bonds.

I hope I've elucidated things for you. Feel free to respond with oblivious condescension in five... four... three... two...

The face palm isn't condescending?

Bond did have a continuity.

As crazy as it sounds the Bond we saw the last of in Die another day, was still meant to be the same person who was in from Dr No.

Bond reminisses on past adventures as Sean Connery, when he threatens to resign as Geroge Lazenby.

GL gets married, and when she dies, SC comes back for one last (official) time, to get revenge.

Roger Moore visits the grave of his wife in one of the later films, so we know he is still meant to be the same person too, plus at that point, all three actors so far had been roughly the same age, in fact Moore is a year older than Connery.

The actor playing Bond then got younger when Timothy Dalton took over, but it was still meant to be the same Bond, who still mourned for his wife, and they even tied him in with the first person to ever return as Felix Lightner for two films in Licence to kill.

Brosnan again still mentions the dead wife, again still locking him down as the same character, if you want to justify how young he looks, then you have to say, the old films still took place, but not nessisarily in the years we are used to them taking place in.

Kind of like how the year Homer and Marge met keeps coming forwards in the Simpsons as they are locked into meeting half a year longer than Bart is old, and since Bart never ages...

Daniel Craig is the first Bond actor who comes with no back story, no continunity, I know the fact that Judi Dench is still M is confusing, but she was locked into a contract.

And since they have started again, this means all the books can be made again, if they want to go down that route.

But, to me, a reboot is when all previous continuity is swept to the side and a new starting point for a series is underway, kind of like Batman Begins. Considering that Casino Royale is the start of Bond's career, I simply do not know how it isn't a reboot. It's new beginnings....and then evolving into the eventual QoS and Skyfall storylines.

 

[DarthNeil]

The face palm isn't condescending?

Bond did have a continuity.

As crazy as it sounds the Bond we saw the last of in Die another day, was still meant to be the same person who was in from Dr No.

Bond reminisses on past adventures as Sean Connery, when he threatens to resign as Geroge Lazenby.

GL gets married, and when she dies, SC comes back for one last (official) time, to get revenge.

Roger Moore visits the grave of his wife in one of the later films, so we know he is still meant to be the same person too, plus at that point, all three actors so far had been roughly the same age, in fact Moore is a year older than Connery.

The actor playing Bond then got younger when Timothy Dalton took over, but it was still meant to be the same Bond, who still mourned for his wife, and they even tied him in with the first person to ever return as Felix Lightner for two films in Licence to kill.

Brosnan again still mentions the dead wife, again still locking him down as the same character, if you want to justify how young he looks, then you have to say, the old films still took place, but not nessisarily in the years we are used to them taking place in.

Kind of like how the year Homer and Marge met keeps coming forwards in the Simpsons as they are locked into meeting half a year longer than Bart is old, and since Bart never ages...

Daniel Craig is the first Bond actor who comes with no back story, no continunity, I know the fact that Judi Dench is still M is confusing, but she was locked into a contract.

And since they have started again, this means all the books can be made again, if they want to go down that route.

But, to me, a reboot is when all previous continuity is swept to the side and a new starting point for a series is underway, kind of like Batman Begins. Considering that Casino Royale is the start of Bond's career, I simply do not know how it isn't a reboot. It's new beginnings....and then evolving into the eventual QoS and Skyfall storylines.

A face palm is more of a cleansing.

Great points made (about continuity) but there isn't a TIMELINE like say Indiana Jones (where Temple was released after Raiders but is supposed to be before in the official TIMELINE). The character becomes new with every new actor and elements from past adventures/moments (and characters) can be remembered or omitted as the writer/director sees fit. For example, at the beginning of Moore's journey as Bond he should have started with the scene that they originally wanted to use as his introduction (visiting his wife's grave to connect with OHMSS) but they instead didin't use it until the beginning of one of his later films For Your Eyes Only.

Bond is Bond. I enjoy each Bond as if they are their own version of Fleming's creation. They exist both separately and also uniquely intertwined. That is the joy of Bond (noun).

 

[JAWS]

Bond is Bond.

You just accept the fact that different actors play the part and that different timelines / Universes exist.

If Bond was just a "Code name" for an agent there would no be the mentions of families death (Goldeneye/Skyline) or wives (OHMSS/FYEO)

I just take each film with each actor to be the start of another Bond Timeline or new Bond Universe. Because there is no real way to match up the whole series.

Basically when you watch CR non of the other Bonds ever exsisted. It's a fresh start. Same goes for Goldeneye. Sure a bit of the history is there for Brosnan but it's his Bond story now.


If they were supposed to be different people only with the name Bond then why do they run around saying "Bond, James Bond", "shaken not stirred", and have funny little Jokes when they kill someone?

I have not read back far enough to see if someone feels that it's supposed to be different agents given a code name Bond but IMO that would be just a tad silly.

 

[JAWS]

A face palm is more of a cleansing.

Great points made (about continuity) but there isn't a TIMELINE like say Indiana Jones (where Temple was released after Raiders but is supposed to be before in the official TIMELINE). The character becomes new with every new actor and elements from past adventures/moments (and characters) can be remembered or omitted as the writer/director sees fit. For example, at the beginning of Moore's journey as Bond he should have started with the scene that they originally wanted to use as his introduction (visiting his wife's grave to connect with OHMSS) but they instead didin't use it until the beginning of one of his later films For Your Eyes Only.

Bond is Bond. I enjoy each Bond as if they are their own version of Fleming's creation. They exist both separately and also uniquely intertwined. That is the joy of Bond (noun).

 

[a-dev]

I don't think any set of Bond films are intended to be an actual continuation of (or prequel to) a previous actor's Bond films. Yes there has been times where Bond's wife is referanced or something like that but these things are only included as a ''vague history'' to the character. Old cars and Q-branch gadgets that make appearances in Die Another Day and Skyfall are just in-jokes.

Craigs films clearly cannot be prequels to films that are set in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s because they are pretty obviously set today with todays London, todays technologies, todays fashions, todays political sensibilities etc etc. I don't think even Brosnans films are supposed to be counted as part of Daniel Craigs continuity.

Plus if it was all one continuity Bond would be...well as old as Sean Connery is now.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

A face palm is more of a cleansing.

Great points made (about continuity) but there isn't a TIMELINE like say Indiana Jones (where Temple was released after Raiders but is supposed to be before in the official TIMELINE). The character becomes new with every new actor and elements from past adventures/moments (and characters) can be remembered or omitted as the writer/director sees fit. For example, at the beginning of Moore's journey as Bond he should have started with the scene that they originally wanted to use as his introduction (visiting his wife's grave to connect with OHMSS) but they instead didin't use it until the beginning of one of his later films For Your Eyes Only.

Bond is Bond. I enjoy each Bond as if they are their own version of Fleming's creation. They exist both separately and also uniquely intertwined. That is the joy of Bond (noun).

Then I apologize for the condescending tone, I reacted to how I perceived I was being communicated with.

I hear what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they dug a little deeper to "start over" with Craig's Bond than they did with the other Bonds in the past, no?

But I see you're point. The timeline certainly isn't as straight as other series'.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

I don't think any set of Bond films are intended to be an actual continuation of (or prequel to) a previous actor's Bond films. Yes there has been times where Bond's wife is referanced or something like that but these things are only included as a ''vague history'' to the character. Old cars and Q-branch gadgets that make appearances in Die Another Day and Skyfall are just in-jokes.

Craigs films clearly cannot be prequels to films that are set in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s because they are pretty obviously set today with todays London, todays technologies, todays fashions, todays political sensibilities etc etc. I don't think even Brosnans films are supposed to be counted as part of Daniel Craigs continuity.

Plus if it was all one continuity Bond would be...well as old as Sean Connery is now.

Like i said, I definitely don't think Casino Royale is a prequel for the reasons you said above. But, then what is it?

If it's starting over the series, and pressing the reset button so-to-speak on Bond's career, that always made it a reboot in my mind. But that's my opinion. The series just been rebooted several times before already.

But now I'm just getting a headache.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's not that hard.

The first 20 are all in the same universe, despite having no real continuity. The Craig films are in a completely different universe.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

It's not that hard.

The first 20 are all in the same universe, despite having no real continuity. The Craig films are in a completely different universe.

But we've all established that in this thread already when someone asked if it takes place before Connery's films.

It's whether it's a reboot or not is how this started.

 

[DarthNeil]

It's not that hard.

The first 20 are all in the same universe, despite having no real continuity. The Craig films are in a completely different universe.

Dame Judi is a multi-dimensional being then.

 

[CelticPredator]

If you're a big Bond fan, you'd know the series doesn't always take it self seriously. It likes to have fun with itself every once in a while.

Just because the time line of 007 didn't exist in the 60's in the Craig verse, doesn't mean they never gave someone a DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns.

These movies ARE stand alone, for the most part. But the Casino Royale was the start of an entirely new universe. James Bond was never a cold war secret agent. He became a 00 in 2006.

 

[CelticPredator]

Dame Judi is a multi-dimensional being then.

In the old universe she was the replacement. In the new one, she was always there.

 

[DarthNeil]

If you're a big Bond fan, you'd know the series doesn't always take it self seriously. It likes to have fun with itself every once in a while.

Just because the time line of 007 didn't exist in the 60's in the Craig verse, doesn't mean they never gave someone a DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns.

These movies ARE stand alone, for the most part. But the Casino Royale was the start of an entirely new universe. James Bond was never a cold war secret agent. He became a 00 in 2006.

That's because the movie came out in 2006... Just like Brosnan's Bond interacted with M in 1995 and the bad guys involved defunct generals from the former Soviet Union because that's what was happening in 1995... I lived through Moore as Bond--- thankfully Connery was available on the electric television-- and then dour Dalton to the daper Brosnan. They are all Bond and I can't say this enough. Bond is Bond. Once that simple statement is accepted each and every Bond movie can be enjoyed for what it is. This isn't Star Trek that needs a whole new universe. It's Bond. Insert theme music here.

I can't wait for the six or seven years to pass when a younger actor walks into Ralph Fiennes' M's office and we can all enjoy another "is this a reboot?" conversation once more.

It's Bond. And in their own unique way they are all awesome.

 

[CelticPredator]

No, it IS a new universe. That's a fact. Because we clearly see Bond getting his 007 status in 2006, and we've been watching his rise to becoming the agent we all know and love.

Dr. No - DAD is one whole package. Casino - ???? is the next chapter.



It's not that hard. Even the producers have said this.