It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Think Eons long term plan has been made clear by the age of the actors playing Q and moneypenny. I expect the actors to be playing the roles for twenty years. I think they will just continue to follow the Craig 'post total reboot' bond :-)
It'll be interesting if the Bond in the next film has been married previously (if they choose to drop in that bit of information). I'm not sure anybody knows for sure.
I agree though I'm not best pleased about it. I'm totally fine with having two timelines, Connery - Brosnan and now Craig onwards, but it felt like the 50th anniversary put some pressure on the film makers to pay homage to Bond's legacy even if it doesn't make sense to do so in the current timeline.
On the otherhand I'm glad there's never been a convoluted attempt to explain the timeline in the films themselves. It's a mess but we'll just have to live with it!
Nah, I wouldn't like that. Bad idea imo, Bond should move with the times (but not change too much).
I'm not sure. Skyfall came across as very much a 50 year celebration. The number of knowing nods to the past, while well done in parts, were laboured in others. I hope they return to the Quantum trilogy as we still have to have Mr. White dealt with.
LOL. And now who comes first, the chicken (Lee) or the egg (Dench)? Recall his "appearance" in TWINE.
Craig's era despite all the nods to the past has nothing to do with Connery's, Lazenby's Moore's, Dalton's or Brosnan's. Can't we just accept this is a new beginning and stop trying to link these films with the previous era, some of you are taking Mendes comments a little too literally, he doesn't actually mean it's starting at the beginning with Dr No he's saying this is reverting to the original Bond type it's still Craig's era he's just getting the male M and the office with Q & MP it's not going back to any previous era, is it that hard to grasp this?
Too much wishful thinking on this forum me thinks!
How many more bloody threads on this subject?
We have Q, Moneypenny, Ms old office. I think we're pretty much back in the old timeline. Or if Craigs is still different then it's gotten extremely similar hasn't it?
No it's not the beginning of Dr No but the reboot arc is pretty much over now I think. We're back to normal and I think that's what SFs ending was saying.
M is male, we have Q we have MP why does this mean we are moving back to the old timeline? as i said before too much wishful thinking on this subject.
Each film or mini-timeline stand on their own.
But M is called Gareth Mallory not Miles.
No they're not going to reboot it again.
It's basically the same as the old timeline.
And M was a woman in the Brosnan films, which were still part of the old timeline.
But being CR a reboot it means Brosnan's M is not the same as Craig's M (which is obvious by the fact that in GE Bond's tenure as a double 0 agent is longer than M's as the chief, which doesn't happen in CR where M gives Bond the double 0 status).
To build on this, each time an actor of another generation takes on the role of Bond it marks a new incarnation of the character, even if some of the supporting actors overlap in the same roles such as M and Q . As 0013 pointed out, Brosnan's M is not Craig's M even if she is portrayed by the same Actress. I believe incarnation is a more applicable term than timeline.
1. Connery, Lazenby, Moore
2. Dalton, Brosnan
3. Craig, ?
I never said Brosnans M and Craigs M were the same. I said M doesn't have to be called Miles for it to be the old timeline. Even if we're not back in the old timeline it's basically exactly the same now so it doesn't matter, they'll just carry on as normal now.
Ok. Well... I won't call it the same, although you're right, they are very similar. However the M's could never be the same not only because of the name (Miles/Gareth Mallory) but also for the rank and military background (Navy Admiral/Lieutenent Colonel in the Army).
In my opinion this is very clearly a new timeline being after the reboot of CR.
That's the opposite of what I said. With SF the timeline of Craig is the same, a rebooted one and not the old.