Timeline of events between Skyfall and Spectre?

13

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2016 Posts: 40,956
    SF is noted as having a 2013 date in the film somewhere, even though it was filmed in 2012? Interesting.

    I've brought this question up before, but it really is a matter of the prop department using the current month/day/year. There's no need to look into the dates and come up with a timeline solely based off of those. If the dates were correct, why would there be a two-year gap between the scenes in the Bahamas in CR and the Eco Party in QoS?

    As for the mission handed to Bond at the end of SF? Obviously it was nothing but blank pages, it's not like the screenwriters concocted a unique, original mission to place in a packet that nobody would ever see. Just a generic ending that those involved didn't want to follow through with when the time came to write and shoot SP.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I've brought this question up before, but it really is a matter of the prop department using the current month/day/year. There's no need to look into the dates and come up with a timeline solely based off of those. If the dates were correct, why would there be a two-year gap between the scenes in the Bahamas in CR and the Eco Party in QoS?

    Finally some f***ing sense.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    The reason people wonder is because it is interesting if the films are made back to back or if the movies are all 2-3 year gaps. I don't understand why people aren't more curious to what Bond does inbetween the films. If there are gaps most of its not worth an entire movie most likely.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    As for the mission handed to Bond at the end of SF? Obviously it was nothing but blank pages, it's not like the screenwriters concocted a unique, original mission to place in a packet that nobody would ever see. Just a generic ending that those involved didn't want to follow through with when the time came to write and shoot SP.
    It seems to me that they've been on this never ending ride since Craig came along to never get back to the mission specific stories of yore, but they keep hinting at it nevertheless. Like they are embarrassed by them or something. So we always get this 'promise' that we're going to leave this continuity and 'start up' phase behind and move forward, and it never happens. It's like we're stuck in a perpetual alternate universe. Like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Very strange indeed.
  • Posts: 4,408
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    The timelines between the films just do not correlate at all, so it took 3 years for Bond's personal possessions to be released from the skyfall lodge destruction, Bond is homeless in Sf because mi6 sold his flat but when Moneypenny asks him in SP if he's just moved in he says no?, also how long is it taking q to repair the db5??!
    I hated the aging of Bond in Sf, here we are just the third film after the reboot and Mendes gives us the aging, weary, old dog 007. With mallory even saying it's a young man's game. FFS bond is bond the best 00 agent and an exemplar of British fortitude. Not some alcoholic, tablet swallowing washed up has been. I love all the bond films but sometimes I find myself a tad disappointed with mendes's offerings.

    Woah.

    Some very interesting questions that I didn't consider regarding the time-jump.

    However, I have to completely disagree with you and others about SF's ageing theme. For me, it's the one thing that distinguished that film and really gave it some gravitas. Even reading some of the comments here makes me slightly confused. People appear to want there Bond to be completely unflappable and always 'the best'. There's very little dramatically interesting about that. Also if you want that, then just watch a Roger Moore film. If this route is utilised the character becomes stodgy and stagnant.

    The Bond in SF felt like a natural evolution from the naive upstart we met in CR. DC looked all his 45 years and the story is essentially Bond's mid-life crisis; as he questions his relevancy and his ability to physically and mentally do the job, that we know him to be typically so competent at. That's some really interesting dramatic meat that Mendes and Craig chew on.

    The film obviously allows Bond to win and he proves his relevance in a new world. 007 is embraced by the new MI6 and we see him back in full swing in the sequel. The Bond in SP is renewed and reenergised as he has a new sense of purpose driving him (his own personal mission left to him by Judi's M).

    As for the time jump......

    It's hard to peg down. I believe the bureaucratic red-tape that would need to be cut through to implement CNS could take years. Not to mention design and build their new HQ. So I suspect the entire enterprise to take up to 2-3 years in film time. In reality, it would be far longer. However, the attack on MI6 may have sped things up in the real world.

    However, the film tells us that Bond got the video message from M a week after her funeral. Do we really think it would take him 3 years to find Sciarra? Maybe? After all, he is the top assassin for a secret organisation.

    But it dosen't make sense considering how advanced Q's resources are. After all he uses a magic ring finder on a ski lift. Couldn't he have done some research for 007? Or couldn't Bond have hacked into Q's system?

    By trying to tie everything together, Craig's continuity-ridden era has tied itself into knots. But who cares? As long as the films are entertaining. Despite their attempts at tying things togethers, I still think Craig's films are relatively self-enclosed.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The reason people wonder is because it is interesting if the films are made back to back or if the movies are all 2-3 year gaps. I don't understand why people aren't more curious to what Bond does inbetween the films. If there are gaps most of its not worth an entire movie most likely.

    The films aren't made back to back.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    As for the mission handed to Bond at the end of SF? Obviously it was nothing but blank pages, it's not like the screenwriters concocted a unique, original mission to place in a packet that nobody would ever see. Just a generic ending that those involved didn't want to follow through with when the time came to write and shoot SP.
    It seems to me that they've been on this never ending ride since Craig came along to never get back to the mission specific stories of yore, but they keep hinting at it nevertheless. Like they are embarrassed by them or something. So we always get this 'promise' that we're going to leave this continuity and 'start up' phase behind and move forward, and it never happens. It's like we're stuck in a perpetual alternate universe. Like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Very strange indeed.

    Exactly!! Thank you!! It is confusing to me that he gets a "blank" mission. So we are supposed to just act like that mission never happened? I am just curious to know what exactly he did. People can say it doesn't matter but to me it does. The next movie immediately starts with Bond on a rogue mission. It has nothing to do with the "mission", "M" handed him at the end of "SF".

    Sure that's "not how storytelling works", but if Craig's franchise did what the rest of the Bond series did and made every film completely seperate and new then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Instead all of his films are linked and they all involve tracking down Quantum and Spectre agents.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2016 Posts: 40,956
    The reason people wonder is because it is interesting if the films are made back to back or if the movies are all 2-3 year gaps. I don't understand why people aren't more curious to what Bond does inbetween the films. If there are gaps most of its not worth an entire movie most likely.

    The movies have gaps in terms of filming, and shortened (or none at all, depending on the storyline) gaps in terms of the story. You aren't suggesting CR and QoS were filmed back-to-back, I would hope.

    Obviously QoS takes place immediately after CR; White is in the trunk and he is fleeing from his men as he drives through Italy. I'd rather believe in that continuity than follow on-screen dates and wonder where the two-year gap inexplicably occurs from CR to QoS.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The reason people wonder is because it is interesting if the films are made back to back or if the movies are all 2-3 year gaps. I don't understand why people aren't more curious to what Bond does inbetween the films. If there are gaps most of its not worth an entire movie most likely.

    The movies have gaps in terms of filming, and shortened (or none at all, depending on the storyline) gaps in terms of the story. You aren't suggesting CR and QoS were filmed back-to-back, I would hope.

    Obviously QoS takes place immediately after CR; White is in the trunk and he is fleeing from his men as he drives through Italy. I'd rather believe in that continuity than follow on-screen dates and wonder where the two-year gap inexplicably occurs from CR to QoS.

    No obviously not "filmed" back to back, but "Qos, takes place right after the Mr. White scene in "CR"...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,956
    Yes, only the prop department opts to use the current year. If that inconsistency bugs you, just ignore the date on the Eco fundraiser ticket the next time you watch QoS, and voila.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    They put the Aston back together really quickly, it would seem. Or at least Q branch shipped a new one to Bond very fast.

    The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    edited August 2016 Posts: 1,003
    bondjames wrote: »
    They put the Aston back together really quickly, it would seem. Or at least Q branch shipped a new one to Bond very fast.

    The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).

    Completely forgot about that...
    Maybe they just have those cars in stock though? LOL

  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    edited August 2016 Posts: 1,003
    EDIT
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,383
    bondjames wrote: »
    They put the Aston back together really quickly, it would seem. Or at least Q branch shipped a new one to Bond very fast.

    The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).

    That explains it then, there was a time jump after all. That has bugged me forever!
  • Posts: 4,602
    I always thought that the end of SF was just perfect for any script writer to come in and just fill in whats in the file that we see right at the end. Everything is set up so perfectly for a clean, new story but with a connection to the last scene. It makes the mess that is SP even harder to understand IMHO
    PS they missed a trick as they could have put "Project something" on the cover, something to reference in the new movie.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    Even if I love the film, I feel GE is a lot more ambiguous about its timeline than CR/QOS.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,956
    bondjames wrote: »
    They put the Aston back together really quickly, it would seem. Or at least Q branch shipped a new one to Bond very fast.

    The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).

    This is going solely off of the placeholder dates in the movies. If this was true, why would Bond wait two whole years after receiving White's phone number to track him down, call him, and kidnap him?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Or the ticket date is just a typo.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    They put the Aston back together really quickly, it would seem. Or at least Q branch shipped a new one to Bond very fast.

    The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).

    This is going solely off of the placeholder dates in the movies. If this was true, why would Bond wait two whole years after receiving White's phone number to track him down, call him, and kidnap him?
    Just trying to give some reasoning for the apparent confusion around dates. I'm not wholly bothered by the inconsistencies, and put it down to poor vision and planning on EON's part.

    Having said that, even back in 2006, I felt that the final scene took place some time after the rest of the film. As if at least six months had passed before Bond tracked down White. There was something different about Bond in that scene. Cooler. More 'fully formed'. It's a shame that we're still on that track 10 yrs later imho, but hopefully we finally move on soon.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    There has to be a time jump between bond on the boat in venice and whites villa, Bond had to get hold of the new Aston unless it was parked in Mr whites garage? He also had to source the mpk and the ppk, as he lost the p99 in the venice palazzo fight. Q branch would also need some time to triangulate Mr whites mobile phone. And above all bond arrives at whites villa by his yacht, that would take a fair while also. It doesn't bother me about the waistcoat. CR was made with a follow on in mind as was qos but Sf was not the follow on. Mendes introduced all this personal stuff and most fans just wanted our new Bond on a bloody good sanctioned mission.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,956
    @Chriscoop, so if Bond arrives by yacht, why does he have the Aston there, too? How did he get both of them to White's villa?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    bondjames wrote: »
    They put the Aston back together really quickly, it would seem. Or at least Q branch shipped a new one to Bond very fast.

    The only way to explain it (if I'm not mistaken) is to assume that the last scene in CR at Lake Como takes place much later. Bond may have even had a few missions between the Venice discussion with M and that Lake Como sequence. Hence the 'Bond, James Bond' line. You could say that this final scene takes place in the future (i.e. in 2008).

    So why are Bond and M talking about LeChiffre's corpse two years later? And is Bond still grieving about Vesper?
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    The timelines between the films just do not correlate at all, so it took 3 years for Bond's personal possessions to be released from the skyfall lodge destruction, Bond is homeless in Sf because mi6 sold his flat but when Moneypenny asks him in SP if he's just moved in he says no?, also how long is it taking q to repair the db5??!
    I hated the aging of Bond in Sf, here we are just the third film after the reboot and Mendes gives us the aging, weary, old dog 007. With mallory even saying it's a young man's game. FFS bond is bond the best 00 agent and an exemplar of British fortitude. Not some alcoholic, tablet swallowing washed up has been. I love all the bond films but sometimes I find myself a tad disappointed with mendes's offerings.

    Woah.

    Some very interesting questions that I didn't consider regarding the time-jump.

    However, I have to completely disagree with you and others about SF's ageing theme. For me, it's the one thing that distinguished that film and really gave it some gravitas. Even reading some of the comments here makes me slightly confused. People appear to want there Bond to be completely unflappable and always 'the best'. There's very little dramatically interesting about that. Also if you want that, then just watch a Roger Moore film. If this route is utilised the character becomes stodgy and stagnant.

    The Bond in SF felt like a natural evolution from the naive upstart we met in CR. DC looked all his 45 years and the story is essentially Bond's mid-life crisis; as he questions his relevancy and his ability to physically and mentally do the job, that we know him to be typically so competent at. That's some really interesting dramatic meat that Mendes and Craig chew on.

    The film obviously allows Bond to win and he proves his relevance in a new world. 007 is embraced by the new MI6 and we see him back in full swing in the sequel. The Bond in SP is renewed and reenergised as he has a new sense of purpose driving him (his own personal mission left to him by Judi's M).

    As for the time jump......

    It's hard to peg down. I believe the bureaucratic red-tape that would need to be cut through to implement CNS could take years. Not to mention design and build their new HQ. So I suspect the entire enterprise to take up to 2-3 years in film time. In reality, it would be far longer. However, the attack on MI6 may have sped things up in the real world.

    However, the film tells us that Bond got the video message from M a week after her funeral. Do we really think it would take him 3 years to find Sciarra? Maybe? After all, he is the top assassin for a secret organisation.

    But it dosen't make sense considering how advanced Q's resources are. After all he uses a magic ring finder on a ski lift. Couldn't he have done some research for 007? Or couldn't Bond have hacked into Q's system?

    By trying to tie everything together, Craig's continuity-ridden era has tied itself into knots. But who cares? As long as the films are entertaining. Despite their attempts at tying things togethers, I still think Craig's films are relatively self-enclosed.
    How can they be self enclosed when Mendes links them all together?
    Aging bond in Sf just put a limit on DC's tenure, it also cheapens bonds work rate, in his entire career he's only been sent on three errands.

  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Chriscoop, so if Bond arrives by yacht, why does he have the Aston there, too? How did he get both of them to White's villa?
    Mr white looks down at bonds yacht moored in the Lake when his phone rings, the Aston was delivered when his ppk was, and he took his waistcoat off the put on his ppk shoulder rig
    ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    I guess the easiest way out of this mess is that when watching CR you imagine that QOS will also happen in 2006, when watching QOS you imagine that CR also took place in 2008.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Bond films have always had a loose continuity. Don't over analyze it or you'll drive yourself nuts.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,956
    It looks like the one from the previous scene, but that isn't Bond's yacht.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I guess the easiest way out of this mess is that when watching CR you imagine that QOS will also happen in 2006, when watching QOS you imagine that CR also took place in 2008.

    Is it a mess, though? The films are still great, CR is a borderline masterpiece. Why this would ever, ever be a problem to people absolutely baffles me. I think some of you need to go and have a good shag or something. A drink at least.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Bond has just crossed the dateline. He is in another time zone in QOS.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2016 Posts: 15,712
    RC7 wrote: »
    I guess the easiest way out of this mess is that when watching CR you imagine that QOS will also happen in 2006, when watching QOS you imagine that CR also took place in 2008.

    Is it a mess, though? The films are still great, CR is a borderline masterpiece. Why this would ever, ever be a problem to people absolutely baffles me. I think some of you need to go and have a good shag or something. A drink at least.

    I love both films and couldn't care less about the continuity. Continuity ceased to be important since the 1960's when OHMSS came along.
Sign In or Register to comment.