Continuity Issues

[Jedi007]

Aside from the not-so-50's-movie-star-looks of Craig, another major problem I have with Craig's version of Bond is the crap reboot. Each different incarnations of Bond may have been set according to the present era they are in (Connery in 60's, Brosnan in 90's), the specifics that have defined the cinematic Bond years are present in those previous incarnations: The death of Tracy was referenced in TSWLM, LTK, and TWINE, they all have the same Q, as well as the male M (in Brosnan's case, "the new M is a lady"), and they are all Cold War Agents as what was intended by Ian Fleming.

There might have been the different portrayal issue, but that's just it: different portrayal, different setting, but still the same Bond because of those specifics. Unlike the new Bond who was very different and very far from those Bond incarnations: Is a post 9/11, with a lady as his first M, Flemingesque? Craig Bond may be ruthless, yes, but that's just 1/3 of being a Fleminquesque Bond. As what I have read on one review here, Fleming Bond is also "sophisticated, well educated, well heeled, has good tailors and knows his food and his drinks", things which are not present in the new Bond. Oh and one important thing: HE DOES NOT LOOK A LIKE A GOOD LOOKING FIFTY's MOVIE STAR!

[The Sweeney]

Aside from the not-so-50's-movie-star-looks of Craig, another major problem I have with Craig's version of Bond is the crap reboot. Each different incarnations of Bond may have been set according to the present era they are in (Connery in 60's, Brosnan in 90's), the specifics that have defined the cinematic Bond years are present in those previous incarnations: The death of Tracy was referenced in TSWLM, LTK, and TWINE, they all have the same Q, as well as the male M (in Brosnan's case, "the new M is a lady"), and they are all Cold War Agents as what was intended by Ian Fleming.

There might have been the different portrayal issue, but that's just it: different portrayal, different setting, but still the same Bond because of those specifics. Unlike the new Bond who was very different and very far from those Bond incarnations: Is a post 9/11, with a lady as his first M, Flemingesque? Craig Bond may be ruthless, yes, but that's just 1/3 of being a Fleminquesque Bond. As what I have read on one review here, Fleming Bond is also "sophisticated, well educated, well heeled, has good tailors and knows his food and his drinks", things which are not present in the new Bond. Oh and one important thing: HE DOES NOT LOOK A LIKE A GOOD LOOKING FIFTY's MOVIE STAR!

The reboot issue is something I never really had a problem with, regardless of what I think about Craig. To me, each Bond film is stand-alone. When I see Connery in GF, I don't immediately think this is the same Bond in MR. To me, they are all different because of the different actors portrayal. In fact, Connery's Bond in FRWL, is very different to the Bond in DAF. If I wanted to believe that the Bond in DAF had also been the same Bond in FRWL, I would have serious issues with each film.

In OHMSS, Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond. Why? This is straight off the back off YOLT. In DAF, Bond doesn't look like he is seething with revenge, and wants to kill Blofeld at all costs for making him a widower (hell, he is more angry at Felix being eaten in LTK).

So for me, Bond doesn't continue in each film. How could it? The stories don't allow it, for one. Do you really believe the Bond in AVTAK, is the same as the Bond in LTK? I certainly don't.

With regards Craig's looks - the same old argument is being dragged up again - he's blonde, he doesn't look like a 50's movie star, blah blah blah!

What strikes me most about Craig looking like the Fleming character, is the eyes. Those killer, ice-cold eyes. If someone said this guy can kill a man with his bare hands, you would d**n well believe it! He looks unpredictable, intimidating even (something that I imagined from the Fleming novels).

But if you think this is not important, and that Bond needs to look more handsome, more smooth, more pretty-boy, more male-model, whatever. Each to their own. We all have a different idea of what Bond should be. No one is right, and no one is wrong. It's just an opinion.

[stockslivevan]

Excellent post Sweeney. I find it odd that while some say they are not bothered with a lot of the Bond films being almost completely standalone where nothing in one film affects the other, they'll bitch about Casino Royale starting new continuity. Oh well, if it makes them sleep at night.

[Skywalker]

The reboot issue is something I never really had a problem with, regardless of what I think about Craig. To me, each Bond film is stand-alone. When I see Connery in GF, I don't immediately think this is the same Bond in MR. To me, they are all different because of the different actors portrayal. In fact, Connery's Bond in FRWL, is very different to the Bond in DAF. If I wanted to believe that the Bond in DAF had also been the same Bond in FRWL, I would have serious issues with each film.

In OHMSS, Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond. Why? This is straight off the back off YOLT. In DAF, Bond doesn't look like he is seething with revenge, and wants to kill Blofeld at all costs for making him a widower (hell, he is more angry at Felix being eaten in LTK).

So for me, Bond doesn't continue in each film. How could it? The stories don't allow it, for one. Do you really believe the Bond in AVTAK, is the same as the Bond in LTK? I certainly don't.

With regards Craig's looks - the same old argument is being dragged up again - he's blonde, he doesn't look like a 50's movie star, blah blah blah!

What strikes me most about Craig looking like the Fleming character, is the eyes. Those killer, ice-cold eyes. If someone said this guy can kill a man with his bare hands, you would d**n well believe it! He looks unpredictable, intimidating even (something that I imagined from the Fleming novels).

But if you think this is not important, and that Bond needs to look more handsome, more smooth, more pretty-boy, more male-model, whatever. Each to their own. We all have a different idea of what Bond should be. No one is right, and no one is wrong. It's just an opinion.

You make some good points there Sweeney about continuity. I also agree with your synopsis of Craig's ability to kill. The issues for me, is the balance between raw/refined and the appointment of Dame Judi.

[carl stromberg]

Fleming does seem to be obsessed with portraying Bond as someone with movie star good looks. What movie star good looks are is probably down to someones personal opinion, and maybe it's just a bland description which should not be taken seriously. I don't think Tatiana would be attracted to a picture of Daniel Craig - he looks more like those Russians!

I think that many fans realise that Daniel Craig looks nothing like Ian Fleming's James Bond, but that they like his attititude which brings Craig's Bond closer to Fleming. That's fair enough, but I still think Bond should be handsome; I think that's supposed to be one of Bond main characteristics. I still think Craig has created a new character as many critics who liked Casino Royale said - such as AICN.

The popularity of Casino Royale maybe suggests that it is a modern intepretaion of Bond which suits today's culture. It's not one I enjoy.

[Skywalker]

Fleming does seem to be obsessed with portraying Bond as someone with movie star good looks. What movie star good looks are is probably down to someones personal opinion, and maybe it's just a bland description which should not be taken seriously. I don't think Tatiana would be attracted to a picture of Daniel Craig - he looks more like those Russians!

I think that many fans realise that Daniel Craig looks nothing like Ian Fleming's James Bond, but that they like his attititude which brings Craig's Bond closer to Fleming. That's fair enough, but I still think Bond should be handsome; I think that's supposed to be one of Bond main characteristics. I still think Craig has created a new character as many critics who liked Casino Royale said - such as AICN.

The opening pages of CR describe Bond as handsome with movie star good looks. I guess personal choice dictates whether you consider Craig to fall into this category. I personally looked beyond the blonde hair and soured face, as I did not want these issues to affect my enjoyment of the film, but as we all know I ended up not enjoying the film anyway, but for different reasons.

[The Sweeney]

Fleming does seem to be obsessed with portraying Bond as someone with movie star good looks. What movie star good looks are is probably down to someones personal opinion, and maybe it's just a bland description which should not be taken seriously. I don't think Tatiana would be attracted to a picture of Daniel Craig - he looks more like those Russians!

I think that many fans realise that Daniel Craig looks nothing like Ian Fleming's James Bond, but that they like his attititude which brings Craig's Bond closer to Fleming. That's fair enough, but I still think Bond should be handsome; I think that's supposed to be one of Bond main characteristics. I still think Craig has created a new character as many critics who liked Casino Royale said - such as AICN.

The popularity of Casino Royale maybe suggests that it is a modern intepretaion of Bond which suits today's culture. It's not one I enjoy.

It's very difficult from a male perspective to judge whether a man will be desirable by women or not. David Beckham is described as handsome, yet my wife doesn't fancy him one bit. Craig on the other hand, she defines as not handsome, but she does fancy him (or says he is sexy).

It seems to me, on a supeficial level, women will fall for either pretty boy handsome looks, or rugged, more masculine looks.

Jack Nicholson has a movie star face, and women do fancy him, but I definitely wouldn't describe him as handsome.

With Brosnan, males and females alike can identify with the fact that Brosnan is handsome. No arguments there. But with Craig, judging from the various women's polls I've seen, the females I know, interviews with females such as Britt Ekland who says Craig is `absolutely gorgeous' etc. it appears women do fancy Craig just as much as Brosnan. However, because he isn't conventionally handsome, but perhaps posesses animal magnetism, sex-appeal, charisma, whatever you want to call it, it is more difficult for a hetrosexual male to understand the appeal. That's why men are men and women are women.

So when the argument crops up that Craig isn't good-looking enough, he obviously has something, otherwise the countless positive female opinions I've read since the release of CR would never have existed. Jonathan Ross described Craig as the sexiest man in the room, when he introduced him at the BAFTA's, to a roar of approval from mainly female voices. The guy obviously does have something that appeals to women, even if it is on a more primeval, animal, basic level.

[Skywalker]

It's very difficult from a male perspective to judge whether a man will be desirable by women or not. David Beckham is described as handsome, yet my wife doesn't fancy him one bit. Craig on the other hand, she defines as not handsome, but she does fancy him (or says he is sexy).

It seems to me, on a supeficial level, women will fall for either pretty boy handsome looks, or rugged, more masculine looks.

Jack Nicholson has a movie star face, and women do fancy him, but I definitely wouldn't describe him as handsome.

With Brosnan, males and females alike can identify with the fact that Brosnan is handsome. No arguments there. But with Craig, judging from the various women's polls I've seen, the females I know, interviews with females such as Britt Ekland who says Craig is `absolutely gorgeous' etc. it appears women do fancy Craig just as much as Brosnan. However, because he isn't conventionally handsome, but perhaps posesses animal magnetism, sex-appeal, charisma, whatever you want to call it, it is more difficult for a hetrosexual male to understand the appeal. That's why men are men and women are women.

So when the argument crops up that Craig isn't good-looking enough, he obviously has something, otherwise the countless positive female opinions I've read since the release of CR would never have existed. Jonathan Ross described Craig as the sexiest man in the room, when he introduced him at the BAFTA's, to a roar of approval from mainly female voices. The guy obviously does have something that appeals to women, even if it is on a more primeval, animal, basic level.

Your on form today Sweeney. Well argumented post there mate.

Where I disagree is that Craig has a certain appeal to certain women. Like you mentioned he is rugged and alot of women do like that. The difference for me is that he is not handsome in the way I believe Fleming had intended.

[The Sweeney]

Your on form today Sweeney. Well argumented post there mate.

Where I disagree is that Craig has a certain appeal to certain women. Like you mentioned he is rugged and alot of women do like that. The difference for me is that he is not handsome in the way I believe Fleming had intended.

Thanks SW, and I think there is some truth in what you say about how Fleming intended Bond to look. I would never have imagined Hoagy Carmichael playing Bond, yet this is what Fleming described him as resembling most. I also recall Fleming wanting people like David Niven and Peter Sellers to play Bond, again something I would not have wished to see on screen. Give me Connery any day of the week.

Fleming objected to Connery initially too, so I think Fleming should have done what he did best, stick to the writing, and leave the film makers to decide what works best on screen or not....

[carl stromberg]

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And many people do not have a problem with Craig's looks as he is a popular Bond. Personally Craig is as far away from my vision of Bond as is possible. Maybe if Peter Beardsley was playing James Bond all the women would love him just because he is a rich film star playing James Bond.

Would people complain if Daniel Craig played Peter Parker or Clark Kent? Probably not if today's tastes are anything to go by!

[The Sweeney]

Maybe if Peter Beardsley was playing James Bond all the women would love him just because he is a rich film star playing James Bond.

I don't quite think Craig is on Beardo's level - there is a limit!

Not a bad idea though. He would have no problem getting in the MI6 pub team on a Sunday morning.

[Kristatos]

The reboot issue is something I never really had a problem with, regardless of what I think about Craig. To me, each Bond film is stand-alone. When I see Connery in GF, I don't immediately think this is the same Bond in MR. To me, they are all different because of the different actors portrayal. In fact, Connery's Bond in FRWL, is very different to the Bond in DAF. If I wanted to believe that the Bond in DAF had also been the same Bond in FRWL, I would have serious issues with each film.

There's a lot of truth in this - certainly Blofeld never seems to be the same character in any two films. But most Bond films don't throw the lack of continuity in your face the way CR did. I hate the "this never happened to the other fella" line in OHMSS for the same reason. At least the in-joke in DAF about Connery's Bond "returning from his holiday" had a double meaning and made some sort of sense within the narrative of the film. But "this never happened to the other fella" was just one line - CR was a whole film like that.

[The Sweeney]

The reboot issue is something I never really had a problem with, regardless of what I think about Craig. To me, each Bond film is stand-alone. When I see Connery in GF, I don't immediately think this is the same Bond in MR. To me, they are all different because of the different actors portrayal. In fact, Connery's Bond in FRWL, is very different to the Bond in DAF. If I wanted to believe that the Bond in DAF had also been the same Bond in FRWL, I would have serious issues with each film.

There's a lot of truth in this - certainly Blofeld never seems to be the same character in any two films. But most Bond films don't throw the lack of continuity in your face the way CR did. I hate the "this never happened to the other fella" line in OHMSS for the same reason. At least the in-joke in DAF about Connery's Bond "returning from his holiday" had a double meaning and made some sort of sense within the narrative of the film. But "this never happened to the other fella" was just one line - CR was a whole film like that.

The `other fella' line was an in-joke. I don't really recall any in-jokes like this in CR. Can you explain how CR as a whole film was like that...?

[James]

The `other fella' line was an in-joke. I don't really recall any in-jokes like this in CR.

The vodka-martini line was an in-joke.

[The Sweeney]

The `other fella' line was an in-joke. I don't really recall any in-jokes like this in CR.

The vodka-martini line was an in-joke.

Absolutely! So was the Aston Martin DB5.

But the entire film....?

[Kristatos]

Can you explain how CR as a whole film was like that...?

The film was peppered with reminders that it had nothing to do with any of the previous films - the casting of Dench as M, the reference to 9/11, "Christ, I miss the cold war" and so on.

[The Sweeney]

Can you explain how CR as a whole film was like that...?

The film was peppered with reminders that it had nothing to do with any of the previous films - the casting of Dench as M, the reference to 9/11, "Christ, I miss the cold war" and so on.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, post 9/11, it is very hard NOT to ignore it, with terrorism being as significant today as the Cold War was 50 years ago.

A spy film today that pretends terrorism and 9/11 never existed would be laughed at, or at the very least, have very little credibility. I guess the producers really had no choice, if they want to keep the franchise going for another 10 years.

[Skywalker]

Your on form today Sweeney. Well argumented post there mate.

Where I disagree is that Craig has a certain appeal to certain women. Like you mentioned he is rugged and alot of women do like that. The difference for me is that he is not handsome in the way I believe Fleming had intended.

Thanks SW, and I think there is some truth in what you say about how Fleming intended Bond to look. I would never have imagined Hoagy Carmichael playing Bond, yet this is what Fleming described him as resembling most. I also recall Fleming wanting people like David Niven and Peter Sellers to play Bond, again something I would not have wished to see on screen. Give me Connery any day of the week.

What was Fleming thinking.

I think the stereotypical 'Hollywood Handsome' was somewhat different in the 50's/60's.

Hoagy looks ok in this picture. (Thanks DCINB)



Without the glasses Sellers looks ok.



And Niven without the facial hair

[Jedi007]

To me, each Bond film is stand-alone.

You're point there is correct, however, the films are made that in each incarnation, what happened to one incarnation happens to every single one of them, despite the different setting and different portrayals. It is established in Dr. No that Bond is a veteran Cold war agent, all of the other incarnations are the same; Bond marries Tracy in OHMSS, so does the other Bonds; Bond has a male as his first M, so does the others, even Brosnan.

So for me, Bond doesn't continue in each film. How could it? The stories don't allow it, for one. Do you really believe the Bond in AVTAK, is the same as the Bond in LTK? I certainly don't.

Like I said, different portrayal isn't an issue; it's more like having a different storyteller with a different point of view in different era. The storyteller in Moore's time sees Bond as a charming funny guy, the storyteller in Dalton's era have read and was a fan of Fleming's books like Sweeney. What made most people see the different incarnations of Bond as one and the same, like I've said in the initial post, was the specific points and events in the cinematic Bond's life.

What strikes me most about Craig looking like the Fleming character, is the eyes. Those killer, ice-cold eyes. If someone said this guy can kill a man with his bare hands, you would d**n well believe it! He looks unpredictable, intimidating even (something that I imagined from the Fleming novels).

Well, being ruthless and having a killer eyes is not enough to be a true Flemingesque Bond. He was ruthless yes, but on the other side, he was refined; He has killer eyes, but he has good looks. That's why Bond in CR is not a true Flemingesque Bond, just a dumbed-down, too violent Bond incarnation. I'm not saying here that the other Bonds are the true Fleming Bonds: in fact no one has been a true Fleming Bond. The Bond in CR don't know whether it wants to be a Fleminguesque Bond or the Cinematic Bond.

What have they done in CR is they gave Bond a total makeover. I thought that they were just going to discard the campy element, but in CR, they've trashed everything.

[The Sweeney]

You're point there is correct, however, the films are made that in each incarnation, what happened to one incarnation happens to every single one of them, despite the different setting and different portrayals. It is established in Dr. No that Bond is a veteran Cold war agent, all of the other incarnations are the same; Bond marries Tracy in OHMSS, so does the other Bonds; Bond has a male as his first M, so does the others, even Brosnan.

This is something that I really was not put off with in CR. I never, for one second, during the film wondered if this Bond had been through the same as the other Bonds. In fact, I don't think I've really ever thought this in any of the films. I just watch each one as a stand-alone (like I said earlier). If you analyse a Bond film too much, then it will ruin it for you, because the timeline and continuity has never made any sense. Artistic license has played a massive part with the Bond franchise, and CR is no different whatsoever.

What have they done in CR is they gave Bond a total makeover. I thought that they were just going to discard the campy element, but in CR, they've trashed everything.

They haven't trashed everything. To me, the essential Bond elements are still there -

PTS (check)
Bond song (check)
Fleming story (check)
Nasty villain (check)
Bond girls (check)
Bond car (check)
Exotic locations (check)
Superb stunts/action (check)
Bond in casino/tux (check)
One-liners (check)

The only thing that has been trashed is the camp humour, OTT CGI effects and Bond yet to become traditional Bond, with perhaps not being as refined as he will end up (something we will see the completed journey of in Bond 22).

If it is a choice between invisible cars and CGI icebergs, or Bond not appearing as refined as he should, I'll live with the unrefined Bond any day of the week.