The James Bond Thread
Discussion
Autonomy said:
I think the DB5 is the one he won on Casino Royale, destroyed in Skyfall - fitted out by Q branch behind the scenes - again nothing to do with Connery, apart from it was the connection back to that film - was in end of spectre and in this new film.
I dont think that correct. The one in Casino Royale is just another DB5, its owned by the bad guy and has foreign plates. Then in Skyfall they get the one out of lock up with BMT 216A as the number plate, which is a nod to Connerys BMT 214A, and also has the ejector seat.That gets destroyed in Skyfall and is then being rebuilt in Spectre.
Think they just a silver DB5 as a nod back to the old films without a direct linkage.
MiniMan64 said:
I think it’s really not worth trying to talk ‘continuity’ with the Bond films. It’s all well and good saying Craig was a reboot of Brosnan but they kept the same M.
As for the trailer for a trailer, it’s a daft concept but most ‘big’ films do it now.
But it was a reboot, he wasn't 007 at the start!As for the trailer for a trailer, it’s a daft concept but most ‘big’ films do it now.
Scabutz said:
Autonomy said:
I think the DB5 is the one he won on Casino Royale, destroyed in Skyfall - fitted out by Q branch behind the scenes - again nothing to do with Connery, apart from it was the connection back to that film - was in end of spectre and in this new film.
I dont think that correct. The one in Casino Royale is just another DB5, its owned by the bad guy and has foreign plates. Then in Skyfall they get the one out of lock up with BMT 216A as the number plate, which is a nod to Connerys BMT 214A, and also has the ejector seat.That gets destroyed in Skyfall and is then being rebuilt in Spectre.
Think they just a silver DB5 as a nod back to the old films without a direct linkage.
I've always thought it's the one from casino, he's shipped back and fitted it out with the uk plates and gadgets etc. That's what I mean, there's no connection there to Connery in the sense of the story, but obviously with the viewer.
I don't understand why noone seemingly doesn't get this, I suppose it's open to interpretation but thought it was self explanatory??
The whole thing of James Bond being a name and carried on with doctor who is b
ks as the back story doesn't make sense then and as I say this one was a reboot.Autonomy said:
I've always thought it's the one from casino, he's shipped back and fitted it out with the uk plates and gadgets etc. That's what I mean, there's no connection there to Connery in the sense of the story, but obviously with the viewer.
I don't understand why noone seemingly doesn't get this, I suppose it's open to interpretation but thought it was self explanatory??
Ah ok see what you're saying . But that's just an assumption there isnt anything to suggest that.I don't understand why noone seemingly doesn't get this, I suppose it's open to interpretation but thought it was self explanatory??
Scabutz said:
Autonomy said:
I've always thought it's the one from casino, he's shipped back and fitted it out with the uk plates and gadgets etc. That's what I mean, there's no connection there to Connery in the sense of the story, but obviously with the viewer.
I don't understand why noone seemingly doesn't get this, I suppose it's open to interpretation but thought it was self explanatory??
Ah ok see what you're saying . But that's just an assumption there isnt anything to suggest that.I don't understand why noone seemingly doesn't get this, I suppose it's open to interpretation but thought it was self explanatory??
Try Googling “Breaking the fourth wall”
;-)
Inclusion of vehicles from earlier episodes in the franchise is nothing more than a nod to the origin of the species and a little talking point for the audience. It’s a shame that in Skyfall they script didn’t go along the lines of:
M: “And where did you get that?”
Bond: “I bought it off a chap who was in movies or something”
....but that’d probably be a gag too far for the Craig era.
Trying to fit anything in a Bond movie in to any kind of chronological order is utterly futile and a bit pointless.
Take it for what it is. A bit of fun.
;-)
Inclusion of vehicles from earlier episodes in the franchise is nothing more than a nod to the origin of the species and a little talking point for the audience. It’s a shame that in Skyfall they script didn’t go along the lines of:
M: “And where did you get that?”
Bond: “I bought it off a chap who was in movies or something”
....but that’d probably be a gag too far for the Craig era.
Trying to fit anything in a Bond movie in to any kind of chronological order is utterly futile and a bit pointless.
Take it for what it is. A bit of fun.
Crossflow Kid said:
Trying to fit anything in a Bond movie in to any kind of chronological order is utterly futile and a bit pointless.
Like the old trope about Blofeld not initially recognising Bond disguised as Sir Hillary Bray despite them coming face-to-face in Japan a few years earlier!(Yeah, I know films were made out of order from the source material hence the continuity b
ks).
Crossflow Kid said:
Try Googling “Breaking the fourth wall”
;-)
Inclusion of vehicles from earlier episodes in the franchise is nothing more than a nod to the origin of the species and a little talking point for the audience. It’s a shame that in Skyfall they script didn’t go along the lines of:
M: “And where did you get that?”
Bond: “I bought it off a chap who was in movies or something”
....but that’d probably be a gag too far for the Craig era.
Trying to fit anything in a Bond movie in to any kind of chronological order is utterly futile and a bit pointless.
Take it for what it is. A bit of fun.
Lazenby did a line of "Breaking the fourth wall" in OHMSS, but that's the only time they've done it in the series;-)
Inclusion of vehicles from earlier episodes in the franchise is nothing more than a nod to the origin of the species and a little talking point for the audience. It’s a shame that in Skyfall they script didn’t go along the lines of:
M: “And where did you get that?”
Bond: “I bought it off a chap who was in movies or something”
....but that’d probably be a gag too far for the Craig era.
Trying to fit anything in a Bond movie in to any kind of chronological order is utterly futile and a bit pointless.
Take it for what it is. A bit of fun.
Shakermaker said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
"This never happened to the other guy"
Which launched a whole conspiracy theory that "James Bond" is a code name not a person.
Yes, not that I buy into that conspiracy. Which launched a whole conspiracy theory that "James Bond" is a code name not a person.
It’s about the most sensible idea (and that’s not saying much) in the history of the franchise.
Crossflow Kid said:
Why not?
It’s about the most sensible idea (and that’s not saying much) in the history of the franchise.
Although the original Casino Royale was a spoof / comedy, they actually had this concept and the 'real' James Bond (David Niven) decreed that, in order to cause confusion with the enemy, *all* agents would henceforth be called James Bond, even the female ones. Apart from Woody Allen's character who called himself "Jimmy Bond". It’s about the most sensible idea (and that’s not saying much) in the history of the franchise.
Crossflow Kid said:
Why not?
It’s about the most sensible idea (and that’s not saying much) in the history of the franchise.
Personally, I believe that the history is that it is intended to be one man who was born as James Bond, went into the Navy, then became a secret agent as 007 and went on some missions. As per Ian Fleming's books. It’s about the most sensible idea (and that’s not saying much) in the history of the franchise.
The film series, much like any film series, has kept up with the times by keeping the films sends in somewhat of a "modern" era just to keep them popular, and replacing the actors as they get a bit older. There's some continuity between them, sometimes its part of the story, sometimes its a bit of fun, sometimes it is shoe-horned in clumsily.
Specifically in the Craig run of films we've had direct reference to his childhood and his parents being Mr and Mrs Bond, more so than I can remember in any of the earlier films.
At the time many of the earlier films were made, I'm not so sure that the producers were fully aware of the longevity of the series and the canon that they would have to maintain the whole way through for 60 years.
Shakermaker said:
Personally, I believe that the history is that it is intended to be one man who was born as James Bond, went into the Navy, then became a secret agent as 007 and went on some missions. As per Ian Fleming's books.
The film series, much like any film series, has kept up with the times by keeping the films sends in somewhat of a "modern" era just to keep them popular, and replacing the actors as they get a bit older. There's some continuity between them, sometimes its part of the story, sometimes its a bit of fun, sometimes it is shoe-horned in clumsily.
Specifically in the Craig run of films we've had direct reference to his childhood and his parents being Mr and Mrs Bond, more so than I can remember in any of the earlier films.
At the time many of the earlier films were made, I'm not so sure that the producers were fully aware of the longevity of the series and the canon that they would have to maintain the whole way through for 60 years.
All Bond films have a connection, sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle. The fun is spotting them. All of Flemings books were chronological with references to the previous in the following. Finding Blofeld is the most obvious thread through the novels although not appearing until 'Thunderball'. Smersh is another.The film series, much like any film series, has kept up with the times by keeping the films sends in somewhat of a "modern" era just to keep them popular, and replacing the actors as they get a bit older. There's some continuity between them, sometimes its part of the story, sometimes its a bit of fun, sometimes it is shoe-horned in clumsily.
Specifically in the Craig run of films we've had direct reference to his childhood and his parents being Mr and Mrs Bond, more so than I can remember in any of the earlier films.
At the time many of the earlier films were made, I'm not so sure that the producers were fully aware of the longevity of the series and the canon that they would have to maintain the whole way through for 60 years.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff