Idris Elba strongly considered to be next James Bond by producers

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Meh. Not hate. Just confusion. Like: how could anyone possibly take continuity of genre fiction seriously at this point? Since when has anyone taken Bond continuity seriously? Hasn't it already been established in the Bond films that different men assume the role? I thought it was Dalton who said something about "the last guy" in one of his films? Anyway, you're clearly trolling, so have fun with it.

Nope. It was Lazenby who said that line. It was meant to be an in joke wink wink joke. The implication was that he had Tracy's shoe and she ran off, so it was supposed to be him making a Cinderella joke, but to the audience it was supposed to be implied to be Connery. However, it was NEVER meant to be taken seriously. In that exact same film Bond has a scene clearing out his office and he's removing all the old memorabilia he has from the previous films (under Connery) reminiscing over them. Then the plot of that film is that he's hunting Blofeld, who he just met for the first time in the last film. Also there's little things like Bond and Moneypenny having a moment at the end of that film that's clearly playing off the history established by the prior actor.

[AJBopp]

I’m sorry I think you just aren’t familiar enough with the series or character to make that assessment.

The fact that you would say that gives me confidence to say that I probably read all the books several times before you were born, possibly many of the movies. There was a definite continuity to the books that never existed in the movies. Occasional references or easter eggs do not a continuity make. It was episodic with no character development at all (even within the same film for the most part). Bond was always a franchise, never a continuity.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The fact that you would say that gives me confidence to say that I probably read all the books several times before you were born, possibly many of the movies. There was a definite continuity to the books that never existed in the movies. Occasional references or easter eggs do not a continuity make. It was episodic with no character development at all (even within the same film for the most part). Bond was always a franchise, never a continuity.

Own all the books, own all the movies, pretty much watch read every Fleming biography I can find.

Yes the books had a continuity, but aside from a few key ones (mainly FRWL and the Blofeld trilogy) you didn’t get much beyond Felix and Bond recounting that Casino case. The only reference to anything in Goldfinger was Bond wondering if stilly would meet all his ex girlfriends in heaven like Vespar if they died. Even FRWL which is one of the earliest books to be continuity heavy only references that Bond thwarted Hugo Drax, Mr Bigs and Le Chiffe’s plans as to why he was suitable to target. Which isn’t too different than SPECTRE referencing Dr. No in the films.

Something being episodic does not mean it lacks continuity. There was a definite continuity. 3 films referencing the death of the same wife, the same relationships with all the characters, Lazenby reminiscing off past missions, SPECTRE and Bond maintaining and adversarial relationship that led to them targeting Bond in one film, Bond taking hisvdeath in another, and Bond meeting their leader and hinting him down in subsequent films. That’s continuity.

Also again you are way off base with NASA. It’s too much of a retelling of Thunderball to work in any official EON continuity

[AJBopp]

Own all the books, own all the movies, pretty much watch read every Fleming biography I can find.

Yes the books had a continuity, but aside from a few key ones (mainly FRWL and the Blofeld trilogy) you didn’t get much beyond Felix and Bond recounting that Casino case. The only reference to anything in Goldfinger was Bond wondering if stilly would meet all his ex girlfriends in heaven like Vespar if they died. Even FRWL which is one of the earliest books to be continuity heavy only references that Bond thwarted Hugo Drax, Mr Bigs and Le Chiffe’s plans as to why he was suitable to target. Which isn’t too different than SPECTRE referencing Dr. No in the films.

Something being episodic does not mean it lacks continuity. There was a definite continuity. 3 films referencing the death of the same wife, the same relationships with all the characters, Lazenby reminiscing off past missions, SPECTRE and Bond maintaining and adversarial relationship that led to them targeting Bond in one film, Bond taking hisvdeath in another, and Bond meeting their leader and hinting him down in subsequent films. That’s continuity.

Also again you are way off base with NASA. It’s too much of a retelling of Thunderball to work in any official EON continuity

I get the feeling we are not discussing this from the same point of reference. When I think of "continuity," I think of "We are continuing the story from last time, keeping in mind all the events and character development that came before, and using those things to influence how to tell the current story." To me, it's the only definition of "continuity" that makes any sense.

Under that definition, every Bond film until Casino Royale was a do-over. Here's this character, with this name and this job, and with this general supporting cast. But nothing that you've seen an any previous film with this character has any influence on the story we are going to tell this time. You can watch these films in any order and not feel you have missed anything. The characters are identical to a fault between all films - nothing they do in one film influences them in any other. They are as episodic as Wild Wild West. Yes, you see Dr. Loveless reappear from time to time, and he and West reference they have tangled before, but there is nothing about their previous encounters that influences their current encounter. Bond is the same.

Until the Craig movies rebooted everything, started from scratch, and actually created a defined and logical continuity. What Bond does in any given Craig film is heavily influenced by what has happened in the previous Craig films, and the same is true of the supporting cast.

But if there is nothing identifiable to continue on or from between films, in the sense that understanding the films only truly comes if you watch them in a given order, then there cannot, in my view, be said to be a "continuity."

I never said that Never Say Never again was in continuity. I said it is a Bond film. At the time, there was no continuity in any reasonable sense for it to be, or not be, a part of.

[keeen]

Nope. It was Lazenby who said that line. It was meant to be an in joke wink wink joke. The implication was that he had Tracy's shoe and she ran off, so it was supposed to be him making a Cinderella joke, but to the audience it was supposed to be implied to be Connery. However, it was NEVER meant to be taken seriously. In that exact same film Bond has a scene clearing out his office and he's removing all the old memorabilia he has from the previous films (under Connery) reminiscing over them. Then the plot of that film is that he's hunting Blofeld, who he just met for the first time in the last film. Also there's little things like Bond and Moneypenny having a moment at the end of that film that's clearly playing off the history established by the prior actor.

Right on. Thanks for the correction...I knew my memory was spotty on that. I'm not a huge fan of the series, honestly, and I definitely didn't give the Lazenby film my full attention.

[ChrisIII]

I know NSNA is not continuity, I was kind of just stating it dealt in part with an aging Bond, despite being outside the continuity of the other films.

In a few ways it's actually a bit closer to the novel version; Bond is sent to Shrublands not because of his injuries during fight with the SPECTRE colonel, but for the same reason, as a sort of 'detox' for his lifestyle.

Domino and her brother are also the Petaccis instead of the Duval, and instead of the body double plotline it's the real brother being bribed/blackmailed like in the novel.

The novel's climax also involves a submarine.


BTW you did missed a few other continuity references, KNIGHT OF THE LAKE. Sylvia Trench, the Bond girl who he meets in the Casino and the prompt for his catchphrase, appears in "From Russia With Love" and references Bond leaving for Jamacia-in "Goldfinger" Bond references the Dr.No mission to Felix, although in a kind of strange way. Bond refers to Dink getting "close" to Bond as "The opposition getting close to you"(Meaning Women), and Bond says "They got a lot closer to you in Jamacia". Which is a bit of an odd phrase, as it doesn't really reference any part in Dr.No apart from Jamacia, unless Bond and Felix hung out with some ladies in Jamacia (The only one we see really interact with Felix at all was "Freelance" and Honey, but hardly) after the mission was over or on a seperate occasion.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I get the feeling we are not discussing this from the same point of reference. When I think of "continuity," I think of "We are continuing the story from last time, keeping in mind all the events and character development that came before, and using those things to influence how to tell the current story." To me, it's the only definition of "continuity" that makes any sense.

Under that definition, every Bond film until Casino Royale was a do-over. Here's this character, with this name and this job, and with this general supporting cast. But nothing that you've seen an any previous film with this character has any influence on the story we are going to tell this time. You can watch these films in any order and not feel you have missed anything. The characters are identical to a fault between all films - nothing they do in one film influences them in any other. They are as episodic as Wild Wild West. Yes, you see Dr. Loveless reappear from time to time, and he and West reference they have tangled before, but there is nothing about their previous encounters that influences their current encounter. Bond is the same.

Until the Craig movies rebooted everything, started from scratch, and actually created a defined and logical continuity. What Bond does in any given Craig film is heavily influenced by what has happened in the previous Craig films, and the same is true of the supporting cast.

But if there is nothing identifiable to continue on or from between films, in the sense that understanding the films only truly comes if you watch them in a given order, then there cannot, in my view, be said to be a "continuity."

I never said that Never Say Never again was in continuity. I said it is a Bond film. At the time, there was no continuity in any reasonable sense for it to be, or not be, a part of.

Again that’s just not how it happens though. Even going back to the first and second film the entire implication is that SPECTRE choose Bond as a target for the events of the first film. Then he faces them again in Thunderballin a high profile case after which they fake his death in the next film. Until YOLT literally every encounter Bond has with SPECTRE is reactive. Then he meets Blofeld. Then in the very next two films he is hunting Blofeld and Blofeld is a known criminal who needs to resort to black mailing the
World to get a full pardon. Then the entire opening of For Your Eyes Only makes no sense if OHMSS and virtually every SPECTRE film before it didn’t happen. Then it’s kinda no mistake that certain characters come in and out of the series. M retired and a new M takes his place who was a high ranking admiral in a previous film. A retired a.m. his replacement introduced is the new Q in the next film. Felix is attacked in License to Kill and then doesn’t make an in series appearance again until the series reboots.

Again just because he doesn’t have a character arc (which I and others would disagree with, he’s a far more closed off and colder person with more obvious pathos post OHMSS than he is in the early Connery films, even with Moore being more light hearted you get the sense that he’s a more haunted man with regrets) and the series itself is episodic does not mean continuity doesn’t exist.

Nobody would every say Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have continuity despite most of his adventures being one offs. The only reason people have a problem with it with Bond is because actors had to get recast. That’s literally the only issue people have. That and they kept him perpetually 30-40 from the 60’s to the 90’s because they wanted to keep the series present. The dude is the same guy.

In fact, until Craig, it was pretty indisputable that Connery to Dalton was absolutely the same man who lived the same life. Brosnan was the only one who you could argue they didn’t get too reverential with and tried to keep a bit more isolated from the rest of the series. And even then, same relationship with Q, has a totally different relationship with the new M, same pathos as the previous Bonds, **** they still even manage to tie everything back to OHMSS like all the other Bonds by giving him the same family motto.

And tbh with you, a lot of fans have argued that Craig’s films all being interconnected were unrealistic and more of a flaw because it’s highly unlikely a government agent would just end up in all these personal missions that conveniently tie together as opposed to getting assigned on one offs.

But that’s besides the point. There is a continuity. You can’t just set up an arbitrary standard of coninuity to ignore clear tells of a continuity. Bond getting something in one film and then having it in the next film is continuity. It shows something occurring to the character that causes a change in the next film. Just because it’s not a massive character change and let’s be honest, no character is going to have 20 different character arcs or the plots don’t overlap (accept for all the times they did from Dr. No, FRWL, Thunderball, YOLT, OHMSS, Diamonds, For Your Eyes Only and then all the references in between) doesn’t remove continuity.

Like you wouldn’t say a stand-alone three issue Batman arc lacks continuity in the series.

Like yeah they are filmed in a way so that you can watch any one of them and not need the others, but it’s a much better and more full experience starting from the first one and knowing the progressions so that you can get where the characters been, what got him here, what pathos inform him, and how his relationships with mainstays like the various M’s Q and Moneypenny unfolded.thays just good structure in an episodic series where you might not want to force some ten year old to watch 20 movies. Like tbh even with Craig, you could totally watch Skyfall without needing the other films, it’s only SPECTRE that retroactively screws with it, to its detriment I might add.

But yeah, continuity, it has it. If NASA occurrdnin tje EON series, everyone would bitch nonstop that Bond was fighting an organization led by two villainsnhe already killed and that they were doing the same thing that they did years before at the same locations with the same characters.

[AJBopp]

Again just because he doesn’t have a character arc (which I and others would disagree with, he’s a far more closed off and colder person with more obvious pathos post OHMSS than he is in the early Connery films, even with Moore being more light hearted you get the sense that he’s a more haunted man with regrets) and the series itself is episodic does not mean continuity doesn’t exist.

Here is where I think our fundamental disagreement exists.

The Rocky films have a continuity. Each film informs and influences the next film (even if there are occasional inconsistencies). Each can be enjoyed on its own, but taken as a whole there is a larger arc, a greater story told across all films. Characters grow not just within the film, but within the series of films. Events are dependent entirely upon the events of previous films.

That's simply not the case with pre-Craig Bond films. If you watch the whole of the series, there is no greater story to be discerned. There is no continuing arc or anything of the sort beyond shared characters and occupations. Continuity not only does not exist, it wasn't even a concept in those days (Connery and Moore days).

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Here is where I think our fundamental disagreement exists.

The Rocky films have a continuity. Each film informs and influences the next film (even if there are occasional inconsistencies). Each can be enjoyed on its own, but taken as a whole there is a larger arc, a greater story told across all films. Characters grow not just within the film, but within the series of films. Events are dependent entirely upon the events of previous films.

That's simply not the case with pre-Craig Bond films. If you watch the whole of the series, there is no greater story to be discerned. There is no continuing arc or anything of the sort beyond shared characters and occupations. Continuity not only does not exist, it wasn't even a concept in those days.

And here's where our disagreement also is.

First, it's not entirely true that certain films didn't inform later films. That was happening as early as the first sequel. FRWL's entire plot is SPECTRE getting revenge at Bond for Dr. No. There are multiple instances of previous films having impacts on the next film even if the majority of the plot isn't reliant on it.

Second that is not what continuity is. There does not need to be an overarching plot to create continuity. If I give you a pen, and tomorrow you have that pen, that is continuity in your own life. If James Bond gets a weaponized attache case in one film and then in the next film Goldfinger's flight attendant tells him they destroyed it so that you know Bond's previous lifeline from the last film is no longer their to bail him out of trouble again to convey more drama and hopelessness to his situation, that is continuity. Even if the plot of Goldfinger doesn't have anything to do with the last film because Bond's occupation is mission based and not based on each agent going on a series of dramatic personal missions. If Bond meets a characters in one film and he dies and later on enlists his son to help him in a following film, that is continuity, even if it doesn't have anything to do with creating an overarching plot. It is saying this guy is the same man and his relationships have carry over.

Tbh with you, the books pretty much treat it very similarly. Obviously because you get an internal dialogue he might make more references to previous missions, but that's really all they are except for several instances.

-Bond mentions he dated Tiffany Case awhile in FRWL after the Diamond Smuggling case, but it didn't work out. Is that really a whole lot different than Bond meeting Sylvia in Dr. No and dating her at the start of FRWL before running off again?
-FRWL has SMERSH mentioning all of Bond's previous defeats of their agents to justify his selection in their scheme. Is that very different than Kronstein in a similar situation mentioning how they can get a personal measure of revenge for Dr. No because the agent they will most likely come up against will be James Bond? No not really.
-A vague reference to Vespar at the start of OHMSS and in a scene in Goldfinger. Is that really a whole hell of alot different than all the Tracy references from TSWLM, FYEO, and License to Kill?
-The Blofeld and SPECTRE stuff. Again... happened in the films.

You can't compare Bond to Rocky. Rocky is a film series about the life of one character and the events of the film change his life. Bond is a series about a guy whose life is a job where the job is exciting and leads to interesting and compelling scenarios. Every movie for Rocky is advancement in his life. Every film for Bond is another day at the job. Sherlock Holmes is a better comparison because he is a similar character. He retains most of the same character traits from story to story and each of his cases are episodic, HOWEVER there is a clear continuity at play.

Sherlock Holmes readers would never accept a case with the same plot as the Hound of Baskervilles occurring all over again without it being extremely relevant that it is the same thing and how none of that makes sense. Just like Bond film fans of the EON series would never accept that Bond going through the exact same plot as Thunderball with all the villains he killed and it not being a situation where everyone is saying "this is exactly like that time years ago they did this exact same thing".

You're describing character arcs and plot arcs and defining it as continuity. That's not continuity. Continuity is just merely that it is a continuation. Example

1. Dr. No. Bond gets his Walther PPK after years of using a Baretta. Has it for the rest of the series. Meets Sylvia Trench. Meets Felix Lighter. Meets Quirrel. Comes up against Dr. No who is the first agent of SPECTRE he ever meets.
2. From Russia With Love. Bond is still dating Sylvia trench. SPECTRE wants revenge against him for the death of Dr. No and enacts a plot to kill him. Bond meets Q who gives him an attache case.
3. Goldfinger: Bond meets Felix Lighter for a second time in America and they reference the Jamaica case. Bond's attache case is destroyed by Goldfinger leaving him defensless. Bond gets his Astin Martin DB5.
4. Thunderball. Bond still has his DB5 at the start of the film. Largo repeatedly references that James Bond is an enemy of SPECTRE (because he thwarted SPECTRE twice before), Bond and Felix meet for a third time where they clearly know each other from previous missions. Bond is well aware of SPECTRE cues enough to taugnt Largo over it and recognize their ring and symbol.
5. You Only Live Twice. Bond coming off the biggest mission of his career now has to fake his death to get old enemies off his trail. Bond after dealing with SPECTRE on 3 seperate occassions finally meets the mastermind who lurked in the shadows of FRWL and Thunderball. Blofeld based off prior experience even references that they know who Bond is because of past missions.
6. OHMSS. After finally meeting Blofeld for the first time Bond's primary mission is called Operation Bedhlam. The focus is hunting down Blofeld. Prior to the last film, nobody knew who Blofeld was. It was literally impossible for this plot to occur without YOLT. Bond and Blofeld spend the entire film in disguise until the third act when Blofeld reveals he knew who Bond was all along and they start talking like they are familiar with each other. Bond quits the service in this film and reminisces on his missions in Dr. No, FRWL, and Thunderball. Bond meets Tracy and they get married and she is kiled by Blofeld's hnechmen.
7. Diamonds are Forever. After the death of his wife, Bond is furiously and ruthlessly hunting Blofeld down. Blofeld is now resorting to plastic surgery to evade Bond.
8. Live and Let Die. Bond meets Quirrel Jr whose father he dealt with in Dr. No. Bond meets Sheriff JW Pepper. Also a Felix Leiter appearance again, because obviously Bond is going to his turf, which would be the second time since Goldfinger.
9. Man With the Golden Gun. Bond meets Sheriff JW Pepper again (I'll admit the first two Moore films are the absolute lightest on tying each other to the rest of the series).
10. The Spy Who Love Me. Agent Triple X clearly references Tracy's death from OHMSS and it is a very evident soft spot for Bond who tries to change the conversation. Bond also meets Jaws for the first time. Bond meets the Navy Admiral who would go on to be M. Gogol is established as the head of the KGB
11. Moonraker. Bond meets Jaws for a second time, clearly knows who he is after the last film. Jaws changes allegiances and Bond doesn't need to deal with him again. This is also the final film of the M from Dr. No on.
12. For Your Eyes Only. Bond goes to Tracy's grave. She's clearly noted to have the same name as the wife from OHMSS. Her grave has the "We have all the time in the world" motiff of OHMSS on it. Bond then travels from there to face Blofeld for a final time. It's clearly meant to be Blofeld. Bond kills him and that puts the entire SPECTRE/Blofeld saga in this series to rest. Bond also meets Gogol who is still the head of the KGB
13. Octopussy. The Admiral from TSWLM is the new M he remains M until the Brosnan films.
14. A View To a Kill. Not much here to tie it to other films.
15. The Living Daylights. Not a whole lot either again aside from Bond maintaining the same relationships with the recurring cast and another Felix appearance.
16. License to Kill. Another Tracy reference. This is the last film to feature Felix Leiter because his leg gets chewed off by a shark in it. This means at the very least this film has to take place after Dr. No, Goldfinger, Thuderball, Live and Let Die, and Living Daylights. Conveniently after that, Felix never appears in this continuity again. Oh Bond goes rogue in this one.
17. Goldeneye. After being rogue, Bond starts the film with an evaluation to rejoin MI6. In the interim, the previous M was replaced by a new M. Bond meets Jack Wade. Bond meets Russian Mafia boss Valentin. Trevelyan throws in Bond's face all the women he failed to protect. Hmmmmm wonder who those could be? Bond still has his Astin Martin DB5 apparently too.
18. Tomorrow Never Dies. Bond reengages with Jack Wade on this mission.
19. The World Is Not Enough. Bond reengages with Valentin and he dies this time. Bond's family motto is referenced as the same one that was discovered in OHMSS. Q retires and Bond is introduced to his replacement.
20. Die Another Day. The new Q from the last film has assumed the mantle. Literally all of Bond's old weapons are in a Q scene.

Like I'll even grant you that they are a lot lighter with the continuity as the series ages. But that's a clear continuity. Especially with the first 12 or so films. Then it becomes a lot more one off references and more segmented where groups of films have references to each other etc. But that's precisely what continuity is. A continuous thread that shows an ongoing succession that does not contradict itself.

[AJBopp]

I describe continuity as continuing the story, as opposed to largely resetting the stage to tell a new story. If you are going to insist that the pre-Craig Bond films in any substantive or influential manner are drawn from previous Bond films, then we can have no common frame of reference to discuss from. Our concepts of continuity are just too different.

[AJBopp]

In any case Never Say Never Again is a Bond film, whether you want too say it's in or out of continuity. It's still a Bond film.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I describe continuity as continuing the story, as opposed to largely resetting the stage to tell a new story. If you are going to insist that the pre-Craig Bond films in any substantive or influential manner are drawn from previous Bond films, then we can have no common frame of reference to discuss from. Our concepts of continuity are just too different.

I mean you can describe it however you want to describe it, that's just not what it is. Continuity is merely the fact of a series having a timeline of events that inform each other are consistent. I still defy you to explain how the series you say has no continuity in it's second film has Bond facing enemies trying to get revenge on him from the first film. Let alone everything else in the series I went through.

You are conflating a story arc with continuity. If the next Batman arc in DC was a total standalone, nonbody on this board would say it's an out of continuity story unless it were presented as an Elseworld or something. Nobody would say every Sherlock Holmes case is a totally new continuity divorced from the main series. Nobody would say that the original Star Trek series had no continuity until the movies. Things can be episodic and light in references and still have continuity.

Again I gave you a clear outline film to film of the continuity of the series. There's maybe 4 films in the entire 20 film series that are impossible to roughly figure out the timeline for. Pretty much every Brosnan film needs to take place when it does and after Licence to Kill. Pretty much every Connery and Lazenby film NEEDS to happen in the order it happened. There's like 3 Moore films that you could technically reaaragnge within 3-4 films of each other and it still kind of works even if it's far more logical to keep them in their release order

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

In any case Never Say Never Again is a Bond film, whether you want too say it's in or out of continuity. It's still a Bond film.

Yeah it's an unofficial Bond film that is not part of the continuity and the most commonly accepted line of the series. Which was the point people made when they made that delineation. The 1967 Casino Royale is also a Bond film. It's just also not accepted as part of the official series. Which is fine.

[Toreador]

Meh. Not hate. Just confusion. Like: how could anyone possibly take continuity of genre fiction seriously at this point? Since when has anyone taken Bond continuity seriously? Hasn't it already been established in the Bond films that different men assume the role? I thought it was Dalton who said something about "the last guy" in one of his films? Anyway, you're clearly trolling, so have fun with it.

I'm not trolling and it wasn't Dalton it was George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service as an inside joke in his first and only outing as James Bond. I just think it's silly and too PC changing established characters for some quota diversity. Changing straight to gay, white to non-white, male to female. If they (whoever 'they' are, fans/studios) then make original characters who are female, gay, non-white. Elba is a great actor and if he wants to play a Bond world MI6 agent then go for it. The movies have already established that there are other '00' agents and he could play one of them or if Craig's Bond retires/dies in the next film Elba could be the next 007, just not named James Bond.

[ChrisIII]

Funny thing about the book and movie continuity, a few times the movies tried to have it both ways. When M mentions that his baretta jammed on a previous mission that had Bond hospitalized for a few months, in the novel this was referring to "From Russia With Love", where Bond actually was stabbed by the poison shoes and nearly died (In the novels, The Dr.No mission is recommended to Bond as an "easy assignment" to help get him back into the swing of things, because M just assumes Strangways eloped with his secretary). Of course given the next movie this obviously wasn't the case

It's also the reason Bond and Blofeld don't recognize each other right away in OHMSS-the writer wanted it to be "true to the novel" (although the film still deviates quite a bit-Tracy is never captured by Blofeld).