Originally Posted by
AJBopp
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.