Could we say Craig is Bond number 1 Again?

SzonanaSzonana Mexico
edited September 2016 in Bond Movies Posts: 1,130
No im not saying it as he is as great as Connery or better than him but this reboot in some way means everything started again like if Casino Royale was the first Bond flick opening a new timeline.

Yes Bond never followed an exact timeline or the films were never way too connected but we only saw the desth of Tracy once and some of latter films made a reference to her in a subtle way and we saw Blofeld die with Roger Moore.
So have not so strict timeline but at the end it existed without contradicting whatever happened in previous or latter films.

Now Craig has oppened a whole new story where Madeline could be Tracy without using the name and that way had the two important deaths of a woman in the franchise making a bitt more sense.
After all this reboot is telling us a different backstory to the character and it feels to me like they started a new Bond franchise which starts with Craig as James Bond number 1.

What do you guys think of this new theory ive made. ?

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,487
    No, that makes no sense.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I certainly hope that this is not the case, and it's not how I see it.

    It's true that Craig Bond definitely exists in a bit of an alternate timeline, because there is a continuity to his story and we did see him from the start of his career.

    However, I don't see him as 'Bond 1'. He's just the one who they told Casino Royale and the 'origin' story with, as well as the Blofeld 'origin' story (big brother etc.).

    That is also one of the reasons why I would personally prefer if they recast now and move back to the 'no direct timeline' films. So as not to confuse the issue further.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    bondjames wrote: »
    I certainly hope that this is not the case, and it's not how I see it.

    It's true that Craig Bond definitely exists in a bit of an alternate timeline, because there is a continuity to his story and we did see him from the start of his career.

    However, I don't see him as 'Bond 1'. He's just the one who they told Casino Royale and the 'origin' story with, as well as the Blofeld 'origin' story (big brother etc.).

    That is also one of the reasons why I would personally prefer if they recast now and move back to the 'no direct timeline' films. So as not to confuse the issue further.

    Wow. I just realized why Logan made Bond and Blofeld connected. "Big Brother" and the plot being about surveillance. It's one giant Orwell reference. That's kinda lame.
  • Posts: 1,296
    I heard someone say in my theater after Skyfall ended that Bond was about to do the Dr No mission, and it was all I could do to not rip the man's pants off, knock him over and call him names.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,406
    That was the end scene to one of Maibaum & Wilson's early drafts to TLD, where Bond was a young naval officer.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The irony is that Gogol is mentioned at the safehouse in TLD and actually shows up at the end at the concert. So they probably would have had to drop him in that case to avoid confusion with Moore's Bond, unless they were going to 'pull a Judi'.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,487
    Bond should have dropped Gogol down a chimney.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,183
    No. Craig is the 6th actor to play Bond so he will always be Bond 6.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    that's what sets the stage perfectly for Aidan: (00)7th Bond, 25th film, 50th anniversary of OHMSS.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 16,317
    No. We couldn't. End of discussion.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Aiden ? as in the Aiden i'm thinking of ? ....God i hope not.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    I certainly hope that this is not the case, and it's not how I see it.

    It's true that Craig Bond definitely exists in a bit of an alternate timeline, because there is a continuity to his story and we did see him from the start of his career.

    However, I don't see him as 'Bond 1'. He's just the one who they told Casino Royale and the 'origin' story with, as well as the Blofeld 'origin' story (big brother etc.).

    That is also one of the reasons why I would personally prefer if they recast now and move back to the 'no direct timeline' films. So as not to confuse the issue further.


    Yes this tight continuity is bothering me more than i wanted so and it's making me look for explanations for it without having an effect with the other timeline.

    So i guess i will keep with my previous theory that Craig films are just a prequel to Dr No but the blofeld appearnce bugs me because we saw him die in For your eyes only. I guess i wished they would have never got back the rights for Spectre and blofeld.

    Bond did much better without them.

  • The Craig films are not a prequel lol. Separate universe. Do agree on Spectre though.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    The Craig films are not a prequel lol. Separate universe. Do agree on Spectre though.

    Yes, i wished Spectre didn't came back but it we just make myself th eidea thta Craig films are just an alternate universe of Bond it bothers me a little less.

  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 13,110
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There were inconsistencies from the DN onward. Now it's just more defined. Continuity is meaningless to me. Just enjoy the films. It's all the same frickin' character so far as I'm concerned.

    Quoted for the truth.

    ^:)^

    That's the way I've always seen the series. Moments of continuity to keep the die hard fans happy if they like. A sprinkle of Fleming here and there, but for the casual filmgoer, the majority of the audience it goes straight over their heads.
    It's a James Bond film, he beats the bad guys and saves the day and gets the girl. And if they're entertained (and hopefully we are too), then it's all good.
    The only thing I'd like is a more stable release schedule, the two year cycle was perfect, three years is okay, though too long for me. Anything longer and it's becoming a mess.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Benny wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There were inconsistencies from the DN onward. Now it's just more defined. Continuity is meaningless to me. Just enjoy the films. It's all the same frickin' character so far as I'm concerned.

    Quoted for the truth.

    ^:)^

    That's the way I've always seen the series. Moments of continuity to keep the die hard fans happy if they like. A sprinkle of Fleming here and there, but for the casual filmgoer, the majority of the audience it goes straight over their heads.
    It's a James Bond film, he beats the bad guys and saves the day and gets the girl. And if they're entertained (and hopefully we are too), then it's all good.
    The only thing I'd like is a more stable release schedule, the two year cycle was perfect, three years is okay, though too long for me. Anything longer and it's becoming a mess.

    Actually i prefer non continuity, standalone flicks its the best way to go with Bond and i agree on going back to a film every two years. I actually think three is a bitt too long.

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 730
    For me, Connery is "Coke" and Craig is "New Coke". Before Craig entered, it was merely differently flavoured versions of the Original. Craig completely re-defined Bond by his physicality, vulnerability and his grit.

    I liked all of the actors who played the part - but talking about our Introduction to Bond it is now done twice: Once in DN and once in CR.

    Connery defined some rules for the character that most of his successors before 2006 had to follow while "just" emphasizing some of Connerys qualities (Lazenby = Physicality, Moore = Humour and Gadgets, Brosnan = Sophistication and Gadgets). Dalton was a first attempt to bring in something new but still mixed in the gadgets and such which, in my opinion, is one reason it just did not work out the way they wanted and did not click with audiences like, in comparison, Craig did. Or he was just ahead of his time.

    But I can't imagine a "New Timeline" Bond not showing some sorts of the physicality, roughness and vulnerability - the rules for James Bond of our time which is how Craig defined the onscreen character (which is closer to the books). Craig will be the one any successor of the role will be compared to in the first place - and not Connery like the other actors before have been compared to.

    Therefore kinda agree to what you said - even though the "Number 1" implies he's the best. For me, I can't really tell - all I can say is that (most of) Connerys 007 movies and (most of) Craigs 007 movies are the ones I can constantly rewatch without being bored for a second. Who's my favourite Bond? I think it's two because to me at least, there is really 2 distinct versions of the character now.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    For me, Connery is "Coke" and Craig is "New Coke". Before Craig entered, it was merely differently flavoured versions of the Original. Craig completely re-defined Bond by his physicality, vulnerability and his grit.

    I liked all of the actors who played the part - but talking about our Introduction to Bond it is now done twice: Once in DN and once in CR.

    Connery defined some rules for the character that most of his successors before 2006 had to follow while "just" emphasizing some of Connerys qualities (Lazenby = Physicality, Moore = Humour and Gadgets, Brosnan = Sophistication and Gadgets). Dalton was a first attempt to bring in something new but still mixed in the gadgets and such which, in my opinion, is one reason it just did not work out the way they wanted and did not click with audiences like, in comparison, Craig did. Or he was just ahead of his time.

    But I can't imagine a "New Timeline" Bond not showing some sorts of the physicality, roughness and vulnerability - the rules for James Bond of our time which is how Craig defined the onscreen character (which is closer to the books). Craig will be the one any successor of the role will be compared to in the first place - and not Connery like the other actors before have been compared to.

    Therefore kinda agree to what you said - even though the "Number 1" implies he's the best. For me, I can't really tell - all I can say is that (most of) Connerys 007 movies and (most of) Craigs 007 movies are the ones I can constantly rewatch without being bored for a second. Who's my favourite Bond? I think it's two because to me at least, there is really 2 distinct versions of the character now.


    I agree with you.
    Craig is the one next generations will compare bond to, now the next Bonds will have to live up to what Craig just did. I made the mistake of reducing it to tge timeline.

    But i feel like with Daniel the counting stopped and went back to 1 in the sense of setling new to to his succesors.
    Your comparisons to coke and new coke are perfect.
    Like you said Pierce, Moore, Lazenby and Dalton had their own stuff but followed in some way Connery's mold and now Craig is the new mold for Bond number 7 and few more since i believe When we get to Bond number 12 will be the new standard for bond 13 and another few succesors.

    I feel like every 5 actors we will see a whole new take of the character.

    Meaning Bond Number 1 (Connery),6 (Craig) 12, 18 24 etc will set rules for 5 succesors.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Well we all know what happened to New Coke.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There were inconsistencies from the DN onward. Now it's just more defined. Continuity is meaningless to me. Just enjoy the films. It's all the same frickin' character so far as I'm concerned.

    Exactly. People beat themselves up too much about such matters.

    OHMSS was made as a standalone version of the Fleming novel, ignoring the fact that Blofeld was quite aware of who Bond was and what he looked like from as far back as FRWL. Almost it's own re-boot.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,406
    You're speaking my language chaps. I wonder though, in this continuity obsessed world - with the likes of Marvel and DC having heavy continuity in their films - if that's an option any more?

    Or is this merely a fad?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fad. I would think. All art (or entertainment) is cyclic.

    Yep.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,406
    I do hope so.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,508
    The Bond films no longer need to follow any kind of logical timeline. The Moore era had already established self-parody and reference. OHMSS has demonstrated a willingness for the fourth wall to be broken.

    For me, the DC era is all about the "paratext." The four films are better understood by way of the various texts (video logs, cast interviews, etc.) that accompany them. In a way these "paratexts" point out further self-reference and parody, and maybe a bit of fourth wall breaking. For example: how many of us know that the james Bond book, "Birds of the West Indies" was a prop in the apartment in SP? A great many of us, even though the book can't be seen. But we know it was there--via paratextual elements.

    I mention this because it shows how "otherworldy" the Bond universe is and how it can't be contained within logic. The superhero films are similar.
Sign In or Register to comment.