The way I always viewed it is each actor is a different continuity but all the stories that happened to the prior bonds still happened within their continuity
To his records, which explains why Roger Moore's Bond is at Tracy's grave. This also explains why Daniel Craig's Bond has access to the 1964 DB5. This is because the new Bond also has access to previous Bond's equipment. You would keep previous agent's identity secret to protect the identity of the new agent involved.
@@carlodonn8983 the Tracy references in That movie and in one of the Brosnan films can be attributed that in said universe bond was married and lost her, but we just didn’t see this iteration. It’s not canon that way but I see it the same way that some Spider-Man universes mention Gwen’s death but it’s not shown, we just know that’s a common event in the different Spider-Man’s lives, ya know?
In OHMSS when Bond give his resignation and went to his office to pack his things up, he gets the call from M and when he addressed himself he says "00" then quickly changes to James Bond. Indicating his name is indeed James Bond and it's not a code name.
Given the final shot of Live and Let Die pretty much establishes the supernatural exists in the Bond canon, sometimes I like to imagine Craig's "Resurrection" line in Skyfall can be taken literally...given Bond is a modern St. George-style cultural legend, it's not too much of a stretch. Could work in a one -off graphic novel story. Just an idea since NTTD I've liked to entertain; after all, whatever comes next for Bond, this time he will be LITERALLY resurrected. I think it's a fun musing anyway
That would be hilarious if when they finally decide to retire the franchise, they do drop a bat-god level supernatural element explaining why 007 never needs to dodge bullets or wear car seat belts. He's the patron saint of good luck and resurrection as a hobby comes in useful from time to time.
I’ve a lot of Doctor Who and my theory is that Bond is a Time Lord who can regenerate, but can’t time travel and he only thought of becoming younger with his regenerations in the late 80s
Your idea makes total sense, and it's something I've subscribed to myself. Bond is exactly like a comicbook character - like Superman. Who has also been around decades longer than any one man should live, and every time a new writer takes over the book, he makes the character his own with the big picture looking the same, but different details and tone. So, like a comicbook, a Bond story "happens" whenever you happen to be reading or watching it, and the character has a vague backstory that includes other adventures, things that only make sense if the details remain vague and you don't think about it too much. I can definitely imagine Brosnan's Bond having once defeated a villain called "Dr. No", but that adventure in Brosnan's universe won't look exactly the same as the Connery story we know. Similar in many ways, but different enough that it could happen in the career lifetime of someone Brosnan's age. Etcetera.
The most evidence of the continuity for me is Q. He often says the cars have the known features plus maybe some new. And in the 20th film saying he had already made 20 watches. Your six universe theory is great, but for me it's still a two universe thing. And of course three when they'll get the new Bond casted. Be happy you don't have to work out Jack Ryan, this might be a little more complicated😉
4 Universes: Classic 1962-1985 run, Connery's run without Thunderball plus Never Say Never Again and The Rock, The 1987-2002 run(with the events from the first 14 films being canon but moved up in time), and The Craig Era, which technically involves Goldeneye in between QOS and Skyfall.
I viewed the Daniel Craig films separately from the first 20 films kinda like how the Dark Knight Trilogy isn't connected to the Tim Burton Batman films. Great vid as always! Keep up the great work!
Your own theory of continuity does make sense and does fix the continuity problems, though I do have my own theories with it. With how aggressive Bond is in Diamonds Are Forever, it can be assumed that Connery’s Bond lost his Theresa (or a different name) to Blofeld and he goes to get revenge for his wife. For the first twenty films, I can see Lazenby’s Bond having went on the same adventures as Connery’s Bond, then with Moore’s Bond having went on the same adventures as the two previous Bonds before him, and vice versa with Dalton and Brosnan. All of their previous adventures took place in each of their own time. My continuity theory has always looked at Connery’s Bond to Brosnan’s Bond as being one character (despite the continuity problems) and looking at Craig’s Bond as being separate from the first twenty films.
Honestly the intention is meant to be that dr.no to die another day bond is the same dude, I never worried about the age of the actor. For instance, although roger Moore was 58 in a view to a kill, I don’t think he was meant to be in universe, considering he had facial work done and was dressed a bit younger. We just have to accept that the timeline is stretched out a bit. Awesome video man!
Totally agree. This way the shock of the ending in the last film is a wee bit less, since we will always have a notice saying: James Bond will be back.
Supposedly, they were going to address the issue of Bond and Blofeld not recognizing each other by adding a little subplot about Bond having undergone plastic surgery to escape detection. I imagine the film would have opened as it does in the finished product, only with Lazenby's face mummified in bandages. Then he pulls them off as he runs to save Tracy from her suicide attempt and then we get the big reveal. Obviously, this was cut and we are left with the continuity error.
I'm glad you brought this continuity theory to light because I always liked to think Connery and Moore's films were their own timelines based on the tone and direction the filmmakers were going for. And the same goes for Brosnan where it seemed like after teaming up with Chinese intelligence in Tomorrow Never Dies, it was Wai Lin's colleagues who got blown up in the helicopter at the beginning of Die Another Day's joint operation.
Never looked at it that way! Brilliant. I like to make fantasy connections in continuity myself. For example if you read the novels, Le Chiffre is killed in the first book by a SMERSH assassin. Later, in the FRWL novel, I like to think Grant was the assassin responsible for his death
@@DutchBondFanthat's really cool too! I can imagine a novella depicting Grant's perspective taking place at the same time as Casino Royale leading up to Le Chiffre's death titled The Man Who Ate Fish with Red Wine
Enjoyed your video very much Jeroen! I'm actually doing the video on the same Bond Timeline/Codename Theory subject. Supporting the idea of Pre Craig/Craig timelines. In the end I'm referencing the 2011 quote of John Logan (Skyfall/Spectre screenwriter) when he says: "I don’t think these films are standalone, I think they’re part of a legacy. When I was working on it I was deeply aware as much of Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale as I was of Thunderball, as I was of Ian Fleming in the 50’s writing it". This is long before Spectre came out. So all these references, callbacks, continuity easter eggs should be considered a part of a legacy. And I like it.
OK! Brosnan clearly is in a separate universe - he was 007 in *1986* (as stated at beginning of GoldenEye), and had been one _continuously_ through 2002 or 2004 🎥
Well you can add dalton's tenure in there. As he lost his mate 006 in 1986, and then had two more agents die in 1987(the living daylight). And then goes rogue in 1989(LTK) and then you have the reveal that 006 is still alive in 1995. Well they put 006's story in 1986 in largely to take a jab at dalton's tenure
The way I like to view it is: not viewing them in chronological order in the order they came out, but rather different missions and stories told to us at random. Meaning, just because Dr No was first and From Russia with love second, it does not mean that was the order in which the events in Bond's life took place
You definitely chose the right Bond for your Thumbnail 😎 I'm really curious how Bond will carry on in the future... nice video once again, keep up the great work
Amazing take. But I'd love to see you go into detail about Craig's continuity. In terms of the DB5 and what he did in the years that passed between quantum and Skyfall. As well as the 5 year jump in no time to die. A truly wonderful view into continuity Jeroen. Keep up your amazing work.
We can easily suppose he had 2 DB5s. The classic one and the American one. Actually 3, because one was destroyed in Skyfall and the one in Spectre and in No Time to Die is another car.
you have a very interesting take on the coninuity, wich indeed works very well. but for me personally, I just view them as pretty much stand alone films with Sean Connery - Pierce Brosnan as the same man.
The whole continuity trend is a result of the success of TV shows. Unfortunately. I liked it much better when Bond films were isolated adventures instead of hearing about Vesper Lynd for 15 years. 🙄
Even within the tenure of a particular actor there are discrepancies. In From Russia With Love Sean Connery's Bond tells Tania that he had been in Japan with M but in You Only Live Twice a later adventure, Connery's Bond tells Henderson that he has never been to Japan before and this is his first time. There has always been moments of carelessness in the Bond series whether in the scripts or the actual film-making process such as poor editing. I always find it best to just to ignore such mishaps and enjoy the many parts of a Bond movie that work and entertain. In reference to the couple of gaffs you mentioned in OHMSS. The fourth wall break. Well as he is holding onto Tracy's slippers as he says; "This never happened to the other fellow." You could argue that he is actually referencing Prince Charming from Cinderella and not Connery. And as far as Blofed and Bond not recognising each other, you could argue, that they do recognise each other but are deliberately playing a bizarre cat and mouse game with each other to see who drops his mask first. In this case, Bond lost because he couldn't resist introducing the Angels of Death to his gold balls. If I had gold balls, I'd want to show them off too. In my coat of arms. I did mean in my coat of arms. Honestly.🙄 The different universe theory works too but as there is little to no continuity in the series anyway, my personal way of compensating is that like the Sherlock Holmes movies, the various adventures are shown out of sequence. So that they show a Bond adventure when he is younger interspersed with adventures he had when he became much older and possibly toward the end of his career. Great video. It got me thinking.
You could argue that Dalton and Brosnan are in the same continuity. The pre-title scene in Goldeneye is set in 1986 (a year before Living Daylights) and Bond going rogue in License To Kill could explain female M’s lack of trust for him when they first meet. Also, Goldeneye was written as a sequel for Dalton whilst he was still under contract.
Dalton and Brosnan are both in the 'classic' continuity as Tracy is mentioned to both [LTK, TWINE] and both share Desmond's Q. While Dalton saw Michael France's first draft of Goldeneye, that draft didn't have the EMP or Trevelyan in it nor a female M. After Dalton left it was re-written by France [adding those elements] and 3 other writers [1, Kevin Wade, uncredited] so France only got a story credit so it was very much written for Pierce. M clearly objects to Bond as a person [hence why she calls him a 'sexist, misogynist dinosaur'] which fits into her 'new broom' personality and her character arc over the Brosnan films where she gains respect for him [to the extent of saying he's her best agent in TWINE]
@@jamesatkinsonja I totally agree with you in terms of a shared back story but I just don’t think Brosnan and Dalton follow the same timeline as the three before them simply because of their age. I consider Connery/Lazenby/Moore the same man though.
@@MarkyCMarkIt's probably a case when the backstory for Dalton/Brosnan happened but is supposed to have happened sooner than the films were released [i.e. Tracey died more recently than 1969 in the Dalton era] but it's confusing as Living Daylights retains a few Moore regulars [M, Minister of Defence, Q, Gogol] while Moneypenny and Bond are much younger! In fairness this wasn't a new problem as the age of Felix was never consistent [Rik van Nutter was 8 years younger than Cec Linder and within the Dalton era going from John Terry back to David Hedison who was 23 years older].
@@jamesatkinsonja yeah it’s all over the place but I don’t think the filmmakers were ever that concerned with continuity at all and didn’t expect fans to dissect it in this detail.
I havebnt watched yet but ill go ahead and say my view of it. I always saw it as 3 bonds in thier own universe. The first being Connery through Dalton, the second being Brosnan, and the third being Craig.
I saw Dalton/Brosnan as being in the same universe mainly because the pre title for Goldeneye took place in 1986. And that Dalton/Brosnan experienced all of the Connery/Lazenby/Moore missions but on their own timeline (Iike in the late 70s and 80s)
Great video. The 6 seperate universes is how i kinda maske sense of this all as well. Even though i appreciate that Pierce Brosnan is supposed to be same bond as Sean Connery, i like to view his films as its own thing. Same with Roger Moore era.
This works. Continuity just never bothered me with Bond, that much. Maybe because they were their own, distinct adventures in each film anyway until Craig.
I like this theory. A lot of fans of movies don't have much imagination. So many so called "goofs" in movies, as listed on imdb, aren't goofs if you consider the film could be set in a different universe on a planet that looks like Earth, but isn't.
My theory for the Bond-Blofeld meeting is as follows: they both do recognise each other, but they are playing along with the mutual deception. We even see Bond, whilst his host is going on a bit, becoming a bit uncomfortable with the pretence.
I think the so-called Classic Era (1962-1985) has reasonably good continuity and could be considered its own Universe. Bond ages just fine despite it being three different actors up until he's around retirement age in AVTAK. Also it helps that you have the same supporting cast of M, Q and Moneypenny. I pretty much give up after this trying to make sense of the continuity.
I've never really had an issue with the DB5 in Skyfall. I've always just assumed that Bond took the DB5 he got off Dimitros and got it kitted out by Wishaw's predecessor as Q.
Thats the most logical explanation. But when thinking about it, turning a steering wheel over to the other side, isnt an easy task! Still, I agree Im not to bothered by it either
Exactly, I've always kind of seen it this way. Similar to comics. Batman has multiple incarnations, but no matter the version there are still some "Core" moments that happen to each one. In the case of batman, he always witnesses his parent's murder in the alley behind the opera. Spiderman always loses Uncle Ben, etc. It may play out slightly differently in each incarnation - and if you don't see it happen - it's just assumed to have happened. For example, you don't see Tom Holland's Spiderman get his powers. We all know that "Core" story moment by now and can easily assume it. For Bond, a "Core" moment that happened to all of them is losing his parents in a climbing accident. It's referenced several times in several different Bond eras, including Daniel Craig's. Tracy's death is another "Core" moment, with Craig's Bond being the exception. It is possible for "Core" moments to NOT happen in one particular incarnation of a character as well. There is one Batman timeline in which Bruce Wayne himself is killed as child behind the opera & his parents go on to become Batman and the Joker. This is an instance in which they deliberately changed a "Core" moment and went out of their way to make an exception for one incarnation. For Craig's incarnation, they chose to omit a "Core" moment and replace it with a different moment from the novels that was previously ignored in the movies = Vesper and her betrayal and death.
It is a solid theory. I would have just strenghten it saying that, in Connery’s incarnation, Diamonds Are Forever takes please immediately after You Only Live Twice. This would explain why Bond is still in Japan in the pre-title sequence and also that he is looking for Blofeld because he fled from the vulcano, not because he was responsible for his wife’s death. Connery’s Bond is the only one who never got married, besides Craig’s one.
@@DutchBondFan That's how I see it, especially as John Glenn described the opening of For Your Eyes Only as a 'spiritual sequel' to OHMSS [with Blofeld looking like OHMSS appearance and Bond getting his revenge].
@@carlodonn8983 In 'The World is Not Enough' Elektra asks Bond if he's every lost anyone and he thinks of Tracy [as the theme of the film is that Bond think's he's found in Elektra someone similar to Tracy but instead has found a Blofeld type figure].
To me there are four timelines: -Connery timeline where we have all Sean Connery movies separated. -The OG 007 timeline that is all way up to Dr No to A View to a Kill, with the exception of YOLT and DAF. -The Modern 007 timeline that follows the same timeline as the OG but it stops in Octopussy and goes directly to the Living Daylights and ends in DAD -Daniel Craig timeline where we know the chronological order of the movies
My favorite rewatch experience is to follow the Tracy thread: OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, and LTK. Coincidentally, those are some of the best written and directed Bond movies too.
Diamonds Are Forever is a direct sequel to OHMSS, but it is the "runt of the litter," so to speak, and could be safely ignored. OHMSS was a great story, but is really hamstrung by Lazenby's wooden performance. He could have improved had he stayed with the role, he was still in his thirties when EON hired Roger Moore.
Interesting theory, although I never had a problem with the discrepancies in continuity. Strangely enough, I never figured the Craig movies to be taken place in as a separate universe. But I understand how you could see the movies in this light. The codename theory however sounds like bogus and doesn't hold up, just like you explained in the video. I do like the fact that all the actors give their own interpretation of the literary character. Sometimes I'm in a Roger Moore Bond mood, sometimes in a Dalton or Connery Bond mood. The series has quite the variety and that's one of its strengths.
I need to watch more of your videos man, especially the ones of you and your partner reacting to Bond movies. Your a great inspiration to the community. My Odd Job Hat off to you man :)
I always viewed it as one single continuity, meaning to me, James Bond had always been the same character from Connery all the way down to Craig. Who cares if he looked younger in certain movies, those movies simply preceded the ones where he looked older. I view Casino Royale as a prequel to the whole series, and yes he had Vesper before he married Tracy. In Dr. No, Honey Ryder asked him if he ever loved anyone, which Bond responded with a silence. Then Bond finds out that Blofeld is his step brother, and then it all ends in No Time to Die. There's even a Goldeneye reference in Skyfall when Q makes a quip about the exploding pen. Yes, there is the issue of modernity, like how can he be driving sports cars when he supposedly precedes the 60s? Well, to that I say who cares? Bond is timeless, this is what makes it a fantasy, an escapism, this is entertainment, not rocket science. We view it however we wish to view it and make of it, that is the beauty of 007.
It's a good way of looking at it because even though it's not an official bond film, bond is meant to be retired or retiring in never say never again so makes sence in that way.
I don't think it's six separate universes, but I do think it's more than two. I don't find the continuity issues in the pre-Dalton EON films to be significant enough to warrant alternate timelines to explain them away. I suppose that you could send off You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever into the Never Say Never Again timeline, where Thunderball never happened, but even that solution seems like a major reaction to a minor bit of confusion in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. (Both Bond and Blofeld are in disguise at Piz Gloria, after all.) With Dalton, we get strong indicators that the major arcs of the Connery and Moore films happened, albeit with changes to the minor details. Even if we simply took out every gap year in the EON release schedule, we would get a continuity that places Dalton's Bond at 27 years old in Dr. No: DN - 1973, FRWL - 1974, GF - 1975, TB - 1976, YOLT - 1977, OHMSS - 1978, DAF - 1979, LALD - 1980, TMWTGG - 1981, TSWLM - 1982, MR - 1983, FYEO - 1984, OP - 1985, AVTAK - 1986, TLD - 1987. And we can easily drop about four of them if we really need Dalton to start at age 31 instead. Such an adjustment to the Brosnan films would be less convincing, since it's essentially impossible for The Living Daylights to occur later than its release date due to the Soviet-Afghan conflict at its core. (At best, we could move it to 1988, but that's not particularly helpful to the problem.) Brosnan was only 20 years old in 1973, so he could not have been the seasoned, Beretta-toting 00 agent we met in Dr. No, even with the aforementioned Dalton timeline compression. The Brosnan era's continuity with previous versions is also nowhere near as tight as Dalton's was. There are no references to Felix Leiter or General Gogol. Bond's lost loved ones need not include his ill-fated wife, especially since he is explicitly stated to be an orphan. Even the array of old Q gadgets in Die Another Day could have been the arsenal of other 00s in this timeline. Even so, the films are playing off the nostalgia fans have with those previous films, so you could take it as a soft reboot that allows audiences to choose which films count and which ones don't. So I'd say there are four timelines: 1. Connery-Lazenby-Moore 2. Dalton (compressed timeline) 3. Brosnan (soft reboot) 4. Craig (hard reboot) If there must be a fifth, it would be the Casino Royale 1967 timeline, where Connery is indeed someone using a codename (since the real James Bond is David Niven). Every Connery film, including Never Say Never Again, is compatible with this timeline, but it doesn't work for the other Bonds (thanks to OHMSS, TWINE, and Skyfall establishing that they actually are named Bond).
I like the idea of each Bond being a separate universe, like a comic book character where continuity is assumed until contradicted. In short, Brosnan Bond has fought against his own Blofeld and lost his own Tracy, just like Connery Bond will eventually go through his own version of Goldeneye
Cheers Jeroen! 🍸 I dig this idea of viewing each Bond actor as a completely separate continuity, if only because it helps me to daydream about previous or future adventures specific to each actor (i.e. Goldfinger with Moore or Moonraker with Connery). I think the codename theory is kind of fun but obviously I don't quite buy it. In my headcannon Connery, Lazenby & Moore are one Bond (though doesn't quite explain the Blofeld inconsistency), then Dalton & Brosnan are another slightly more "modernized" Bond, then Craig is an altogether separate continuity from the first two. P.S. I actually enjoy the 4th wall break in OHMSS ("This never happened to the other fella!")... I get that it's in reference to Connery but more broadly "the other fella" could just be referring to your average Joe, or anyone other than James Bond. So with that in mind I don't find it all that distracting.
Great points on the code name theory. As far as the other continuity issues and the age thing, I don’t worry about them. They’re inconsequential for the most part.
Great breakdown, although I think many people get too trapped in the Bond timeline aligning with the release dates of the movies. While each new movie is kind of a build on the previous (such as the Craig Bond movies), I think you have to view each movie as its own entity, like Bond telling his life story but remembering different calendar events as the conversation evolves. This also easily covers the Bond actors changing over time, as when we think about our past, we often look back at ourselves as very different people at different times as we matured and experienced different parts of our life coming together.
Brilliant analysis! In fact I've watched this several times over and I'm actually on board with you 100% The Batman analogy is a perfect example. Very well done.
Also, in OHMSS, when Bond resigns, he answers the phone as "007", but then corrects himself and says "James Bond". Meaning that his real name must be James Bond separate from the 007 number assignement.
Great video. I remember watching Calvin Dyson's video on the codename theory and I thought . . . people actually think that? As far as continuity goes, most of the issues stem from books and movies not having the same sequence, but they tried to be true to the books where possible. I just let it slide, but your solution is an interesting one.
The way I like to think of all this: Connery/Lazenby/Moore: First continuity, with an aging Bond throughout de films. Ends in A View to a Kill. Dalton/Brosnan: Second continuity. Both actors are close in age and likeness. Also, putting together Living Daylights and License to Kill with the Brosnan films creates background for Bond being active during the Cold War, as told by M in Goldeneye. Ends in Die Another Day. Craig: Third continuity. Only the 5 Craig films.
This says more about how we watch films and media today as compared to the past, than I does of what the filmmakers intend. Because of the increased media landscape, due in part to the success of the Marvel cinematic universe, which was built upon how comic books themselves were created, we have come to expect continuity so much, to the extent that audiences will invent there own continuity ideas and theories, regardless of the filmmakers intentions. I'm 56 years old, so I remember a time when TV shows were all one off episodes, it was common practice to have individual stories with a TV series that showed little to no continuous story lines. Up until recently the only continuous stories were the domain of the afternoon soap opera, cheaply done romantic dramas aimed at housewives at the end of their domestic duties or during the children's time at school. This was considered a lower form of media content since they were written and recorded at record pace. At the same time the American comic book had a similar flow of continuity, where it could take weeks, months or even years to complete a storyline, since comics were published monthly. Comics were also considered a low form of media. It is only in recent years that TV shows regularly are continuous dramatic stories that flow through the entirety of their life span, so it makes sense that modern audiences will also look for this same continuity in film series, such as James Bond. Prior to the Craig era and even early in the Craig era the producers had absolutely no intention or thought to any type of continuity whatsoever. Their only thought was to tell a good self contained story but by Spectre they had shifted, seeing success of the MCU and shifting style of modern dramatic storytelling.
Personally, that's how I saw it from the start. Hell, I even used the same argument as why we all accept multiple Batmen or Spider-Men. However, I do still think that Connery, Lazenby and even Moore should be merged at some point. Unlike Dalton or Brosnan, who clearly live in a different world, those three's adventures are way too close to each other. Let me explain myself better. Isn't just weird that they had the same adventures at almost the same time? Let's not forget that Roger lost Tracy in '69 as well and that his last encounter with Blofeld had 10 years of difference (according to some scripts and the Marvel adaptation) from that other time they faced each other in '71. So, I think of it as 4 universes instead of 6. The first with the "classic" Bonds, the Dalton one, the Brosnan one and the Craig one. By the way, Dalton and Brosnan's incarnations do have different birthdates (I don't remember which ones, but you can always check the Bond Wiki's picture of their passport, though), that was what made me realize something was wrong regarding continuity issues.
When seeing OHMSS, I always thought that Blofeld knew Bond from the word go, but was pulling Bond's leg. Kinda like Hans Landa in The Inglorious Basterds recognizes that the Basterds aren't actually Italian at the movie theater, but plays along.
This was really lovley of you to do this man. I'd love it if all the Bonds came together to save the world like in the new spiderman movie :) certainly the connery films were trying there best to do a continuity for sure
Hey there fellow Dutch Bond fan, great vid! This is exactly the way I've always viewed the continuity of the films as well, or at least ever since I've actually thought about it. The Brosnan era for example is as much as a reboot as the Craig era is, it's just that the Craig era starts at a far earlier point in Bond's career. I'm actually kind of suprised how confused people always are about this, because it's the only way that actually explains everything, save for some more minor inconsistencies such as Felix Leiter changing personality throughout an actor's tenure. I guess it's because the filmmakers (or the people interviewing them for that matter) hardly paid attention to continuity before the Craig era, which leads to people coming up with all sorts of different (often ridiculous) theories about it. Also, this theory completely changes DAF as well. I've always been so frustrated that OHMSS never got the proper sequel it deserved, but when viewing DAF as a follow up to YOLT rather than OHMSS, it just works so much better.
The Craig films are definitely their own pocket universe to allow him to obtain his 007 status, his retro-fit connection to Blofeld and the relocation of Tracy's grave.
I agree. It makes no sense for the cinematic Bond being the same from Dr No to DAAD. It got rebooted AT THE LATEST with Dalton. Remember Octopussy and the Mrs Moneypenny and Penelope Smallbone - scene? Moneypenny´s age is clearly adressed ... but she is a young woman again in TLD (Q on the other hand did not went through the fountain of youth like Bond and Moneypenny) . Each Bond also has different charasteristics (the campy ones and the more serious, badass ones). If it was the same continuity then Bond would go through serious mood-swings. There are also the MINOR continutiy-problems like Connery´s Bond having mayored in oriental languages in (see YOLT) and Brosnan not being able to use a chinese keyboard (TND). It is also strange that a agent who worked through the cold war in the 60´s would also battle media-moguls and high-tech villains in the 90s an 2000´s. Yes, they all have the same backgrund (as you pointed out): Parents died in climbing accident, wife killed shortly after funeral, career in the Navy etc. That is the backstory of each Bond ... just like the Wayne´s getting shot in Crime alley is the backstory for each Batman. But that does not mean that Keaton´s Batman, Bale´s Batman, West´s Batman and Pattison´s Batman are the same Batman. As you pointed out: they are Batman in their own continuity. Same with all the different Godzilla, Halloween and Spiderman continuities/universes.. The Bond cinematic-contintuity outgrew itself with age. it is so popular that it could not die when the actors got too old and therefore Bond was not allowed to age and needed to be timeless. Bond will still be around in a hundred years, entertaining our grreat-grandchildren while we will be dust and ashes ... And I seriously hope noone claims that the Bond, who will fight the enemies of the 22nd century (aliens, robots, clones?) will be the same one who had to use phone-booth´s in the movies of the 60´s.
With the Batman films, there are different levels of continuity. Batman Forever is ostensibly a sequel to Batman and Batman Returns, even if Bruce Wayne suddenly grew eight years younger from Keaton to Kilmer. More recent depictions of the "Burtonverse" have suggested the existence of a universe that includes the first two films but not the Schumacher films; however, the Schumacher films clearly count the events of the Burton films in their own timeline, despite the dramatic changes in the overall aesthetic of Gotham City. This "Batman Motion Picture Anthology," as Warner Bros. calls it, may offer the solution for any of 007's continuity issues between 1962 and 1989. Connery's films are essentially part of the Moore canon, but Moore's films are not necessarily part of the Connery canon. And Dalton's timeline may suggest that Bond was younger and more serious than what we saw in previous films, but the major plot points still occurred in some fashion. Then Brosnan ruined everything, of course. But he's kinda like Affleck's Batman: he clearly experienced things similar to the events we saw in previous Batman films, but we can't definitively peg down what counts (if anything) and what doesn't. His burned-out Wayne Manor evokes memories of Bale's Batman Begins just as Brosnan's DB5 in Goldeneye suggests the possibility of something like Goldfinger being in this Bond's past.
Absolutely spot on, and I never knew Judi Dench was officially two separate M's. This was supported by the game 007 Legends and the Goldeneye remake; Craig's Bond gets to go through a bunch of the older stories updated for a modern era. Interestingly this potentially explains the DB5 getting gadgets, but also adds another universe as it features Blofeld about 3 years before Spectre came out lol.
I like the idea. That would explain how a movie like From Russia with Love, License to Kill or Casino Royale is in the same film series as You only live twice, The spy who loved me and Moonraker. As for Craigs universe though, I think with the advancement in spy-technology, partly influenced by Bonds missions, as he felt he needed new and better technology, everything became less grounded and sillier. Atleast that´s how I explain it to myself when we start with practically no gadgets and end up with EMP watches and a DB5 that has Miniguns for headlights.
Fun fact: "OHMSS" was to originally have Bond go through plastic surgery on his face which would have explained why Blofeld didn't recognized him when they met a-gain after "You Only Live Twice".
I just rewatched all the movies in order in quick succession last winter. I came up with this same idea, so I feel validated. I posted this as a suggestion of a way to enjoy the movies, and had some idiot jump all over me! Glad to see someone else felt the same way.
This is exactly how I view the movies. As you say, the major events all happen in each universe, but in different decades with different looking Bonds. Much better than the stupid codename theory.
Interesting idea. I always liked the dressing down M gives Brosnan's Bond in Goldeneye as being a relic of the cold war, even if Brosnan is probably too young for that
I wouldn't say Brosnan's Bond was too young to be considered a "Cold War relic" in 1995. A James Bond born in the early 1950s could by the mid 1990s have had spent at least 10 years on Her Majesty's Secret Service as a 007 agent fighting Cold war enemies. Think late 1970s through the early 1990s.
The way I used to make sense of it as a child is the last mission of each bond's tenure just happened to be so stressful for them it physically changed their appearance lol
Impeccably reasoned. I'd go even one further: each movie takes place in its own universe. This would explain why, say, Connery went from a more reality-grounded adventure like "From Russia with Love" to, later, an almost surreal sci-fi comic book adventure like "Diamonds are Forever".
If continuity isn't an issue then why did the writers establish a continuity related to his marriage to Tracy with Moore, Dalton and Brosnan? Or retain M from one film with Brosnan to Craig?
I agree with your thesis that all the Bonds are a separate universe, except for Lazenby/Moore eras, as it is impossible to ignore the continuity of Bond’s history with the graveside scene in FYEO. The fact that the actors looked similar also helps, & the 4 year gap between tenures.
Love your theory, personally I just think that you have to adapt every single adventure to each Bond, like they really happened for each Bond sort of the way 007 Legends played like Craig remembering Goldfinger etc, but your theory works as well! 👍🏻
I don't worry too much about it. I like my Bond films as standalone adventures anyway. But if I had to insert some kind of continuity, it would go like this: - The origin years (Casino + Quantum) - The Connery era (yes, including Diamonds, I regard that one as a sequel to You Only Live Twice, not to Majesty's; he starts searching for Blofeld in Japan after all) - On Her Majesty's Secret Service - The Dalton era (his more serious and cynical take on Bond fits the aftermath of Majesty's better than either Diamonds or any of the Moore films, plus he gets the most cathartic revenge plot, which gets only more powerful if you imagine his own loss is still fresh and he's projecting it onto Felix') - The Brosnan era (starts where Dalton left off, but gets gradually more silly and fantastical, thus offering a perfect segway into...) - The Moore era (where by the end of it he's clearly to old for the job, which is the main theme of: ) - Skyfall - The final years (Spectre + No Time to Die) Granted, you can't worry about Bond's place in history or the continuity in the supporting cast for even a second, but when it comes to Bond's development as a character, this order makes the most sense for me.
hey dutch...great video...i agree completely....your theory works great and is similar to the codename theory being that each of these agents are different...they are all james bond, but in their own line of continuity.....i'm curious to see what calvin thinks about this.....stay well...peace...rocky
That's an interesting take. I never went that far. I've always looked at it in this way: Connery and Moore are one universe. They are near in age. Moore could have been Bond in 1962. And therefore we watched him age. Looking at it this way didn't fix the Blofeld issue in OHMSS but that's always been an outlier. The second universe was Dalton-Brosnan. Dalton was originally thought to be coming back for GE. In this scenario, those actors had the same adventures as Connery-Moore just at a different times. Rather than occurring in the 60s, in my mind they happened in the 70s. And then the Craig universe happened.
I have a question for you all… My Bond was Pierce (I was born in ‘89). Then I went back to Roger, Sean, George and last Timothy (Casino Royale wasn’t out yet when I saw the first 20 movies). Nonetheless, every time I read a Bond novel, any of them, I have Connery in my mind as Bond. Does it happen to you?
My theory is that at certain points in the original movie timeline, aka when the actor changes, the original Bond's face has become too well known so it is altered.
I fully agree with your theory, in fact i always had this idea of every actor continuity being a soft reboot. Sure, all of them lost the wife, for Lazenby things happen close to Conerey (but not the same as he never met Blofelt) but it's always a soft reboot. Hell maybe even every single movie is a soft reboot.
About the Lazemby's joke, I always thought that it was a nod from the producers to the audience, since it was the first time they were replacing the actor after 5 movies with connery (and he was the 1st one, so he defined the character) and they knew the audience too would be making comparisons and complaining and saying that Sean Connery was much better.
0:51 this is personally the view that I hold on the matter only I go a step further to count Fleming’s novels and (most of) the continuations (as a separate universe to the 2 film continuities obviously). But again that is entirely my opinion, I think yours is quite clever as well. ❤️☮️
*25 missions.* That could very easily fit into 5 years. *Bond does not need to age!* Your solution, nevertheless (to the problem you created) is very comfortable and I go with it. My tip for the next Bond is Richard Madden.
The way I always viewed it is each actor is a different continuity but all the stories that happened to the prior bonds still happened within their continuity
Yes yes yes that’s exactly what I’ve been saying!
I want to add something to the code name theory for the Bonds and it is this, the next agents to take up the name Bond also gets access
To his records, which explains why Roger Moore's Bond is at Tracy's grave. This also explains why Daniel Craig's Bond has access to the 1964 DB5. This is because the new Bond also has access to previous Bond's equipment. You would keep previous agent's identity secret to protect the identity of the new agent involved.
I personally have no problem with the alias theory.
That's exactly the way I think too.
I also like the idea of seeing it as 3 universes
1: Connery - Moore
2: Dalton - Brosnan
3. Craig.
I think this works well, If you ignore the existence of either OHMSS or You Only Live Twice then basically all the issues with Blofeld also disappear.
But in license to kill lecter mentions about bond being married efore in reference OHMSS.
@@carlodonn8983 the Tracy references in That movie and in one of the Brosnan films can be attributed that in said universe bond was married and lost her, but we just didn’t see this iteration. It’s not canon that way but I see it the same way that some Spider-Man universes mention Gwen’s death but it’s not shown, we just know that’s a common event in the different Spider-Man’s lives, ya know?
@@jthvisuals__ The James Bond Metaverse
I honestly love that idea too.
In OHMSS when Bond give his resignation and went to his office to pack his things up, he gets the call from M and when he addressed himself he says "00" then quickly changes to James Bond. Indicating his name is indeed James Bond and it's not a code name.
I find it easier to not worry about continuity. They're films, not biographies or news bulletins.
“I suggest you don’t worry about this sort of thing and just enjoy yourself.”
@@nickporter9264 Basil Exposition !
Excellent point!
Exactly 😂
In MI5 they all just adopted the name and number and history. Like what they do in the British Secret Service 😜
The best thing you can do is just ignore continuity and just enjoy the films.
Spot on.
No why ignore it? It's fun to have your own theory's about the bond unervese. So the best thing to do is not ignore iff you don't want to.
@@carlodonn8983 Yeah, people try to make sense of things, no problem in that.
Given the final shot of Live and Let Die pretty much establishes the supernatural exists in the Bond canon, sometimes I like to imagine Craig's "Resurrection" line in Skyfall can be taken literally...given Bond is a modern St. George-style cultural legend, it's not too much of a stretch. Could work in a one -off graphic novel story. Just an idea since NTTD I've liked to entertain; after all, whatever comes next for Bond, this time he will be LITERALLY resurrected. I think it's a fun musing anyway
That would be hilarious if when they finally decide to retire the franchise, they do drop a bat-god level supernatural element explaining why 007 never needs to dodge bullets or wear car seat belts. He's the patron saint of good luck and resurrection as a hobby comes in useful from time to time.
I’ve a lot of Doctor Who and my theory is that Bond is a Time Lord who can regenerate, but can’t time travel and he only thought of becoming younger with his regenerations in the late 80s
Numpty 🤣
Your idea makes total sense, and it's something I've subscribed to myself. Bond is exactly like a comicbook character - like Superman. Who has also been around decades longer than any one man should live, and every time a new writer takes over the book, he makes the character his own with the big picture looking the same, but different details and tone.
So, like a comicbook, a Bond story "happens" whenever you happen to be reading or watching it, and the character has a vague backstory that includes other adventures, things that only make sense if the details remain vague and you don't think about it too much. I can definitely imagine Brosnan's Bond having once defeated a villain called "Dr. No", but that adventure in Brosnan's universe won't look exactly the same as the Connery story we know. Similar in many ways, but different enough that it could happen in the career lifetime of someone Brosnan's age. Etcetera.
The most evidence of the continuity for me is Q. He often says the cars have the known features plus maybe some new. And in the 20th film saying he had already made 20 watches. Your six universe theory is great, but for me it's still a two universe thing. And of course three when they'll get the new Bond casted.
Be happy you don't have to work out Jack Ryan, this might be a little more complicated😉
4 Universes: Classic 1962-1985 run, Connery's run without Thunderball plus Never Say Never Again and The Rock, The 1987-2002 run(with the events from the first 14 films being canon but moved up in time), and The Craig Era, which technically involves Goldeneye in between QOS and Skyfall.
I viewed the Daniel Craig films separately from the first 20 films kinda like how the Dark Knight Trilogy isn't connected to the Tim Burton Batman films. Great vid as always! Keep up the great work!
that's because it was regarded as a complete reboot of the franchise.
Your own theory of continuity does make sense and does fix the continuity problems, though I do have my own theories with it. With how aggressive Bond is in Diamonds Are Forever, it can be assumed that Connery’s Bond lost his Theresa (or a different name) to Blofeld and he goes to get revenge for his wife. For the first twenty films, I can see Lazenby’s Bond having went on the same adventures as Connery’s Bond, then with Moore’s Bond having went on the same adventures as the two previous Bonds before him, and vice versa with Dalton and Brosnan. All of their previous adventures took place in each of their own time.
My continuity theory has always looked at Connery’s Bond to Brosnan’s Bond as being one character (despite the continuity problems) and looking at Craig’s Bond as being separate from the first twenty films.
Honestly the intention is meant to be that dr.no to die another day bond is the same dude, I never worried about the age of the actor.
For instance, although roger Moore was 58 in a view to a kill, I don’t think he was meant to be in universe, considering he had facial work done and was dressed a bit younger.
We just have to accept that the timeline is stretched out a bit.
Awesome video man!
Totally agree. This way the shock of the ending in the last film is a wee bit less, since we will always have a notice saying: James Bond will be back.
Supposedly, they were going to address the issue of Bond and Blofeld not recognizing each other by adding a little subplot about Bond having undergone plastic surgery to escape detection. I imagine the film would have opened as it does in the finished product, only with Lazenby's face mummified in bandages. Then he pulls them off as he runs to save Tracy from her suicide attempt and then we get the big reveal. Obviously, this was cut and we are left with the continuity error.
Bond already went Japanese in You Only Live Twice, having his face done in OHMSS would sound plausible.
I actually always thought that Bond's Aston Martin from Skyfall isn't the one from Casino Royale. But a different one
I'm glad you brought this continuity theory to light because I always liked to think Connery and Moore's films were their own timelines based on the tone and direction the filmmakers were going for. And the same goes for Brosnan where it seemed like after teaming up with Chinese intelligence in Tomorrow Never Dies, it was Wai Lin's colleagues who got blown up in the helicopter at the beginning of Die Another Day's joint operation.
Never looked at it that way! Brilliant. I like to make fantasy connections in continuity myself. For example if you read the novels, Le Chiffre is killed in the first book by a SMERSH assassin. Later, in the FRWL novel, I like to think Grant was the assassin responsible for his death
@@DutchBondFanthat's really cool too! I can imagine a novella depicting Grant's perspective taking place at the same time as Casino Royale leading up to Le Chiffre's death titled The Man Who Ate Fish with Red Wine
Enjoyed your video very much Jeroen! I'm actually doing the video on the same Bond Timeline/Codename Theory subject. Supporting the idea of Pre Craig/Craig timelines.
In the end I'm referencing the 2011 quote of John Logan (Skyfall/Spectre screenwriter) when he says: "I don’t think these films are standalone, I think they’re part of a legacy. When I was working on it I was deeply aware as much of Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale as I was of Thunderball, as I was of Ian Fleming in the 50’s writing it".
This is long before Spectre came out.
So all these references, callbacks, continuity easter eggs should be considered a part of a legacy. And I like it.
OK! Brosnan clearly is in a separate universe - he was 007 in *1986* (as stated at beginning of GoldenEye), and had been one _continuously_ through 2002 or 2004 🎥
Well you can add dalton's tenure in there.
As he lost his mate 006 in 1986, and then had two more agents die in 1987(the living daylight). And then goes rogue in 1989(LTK) and then you have the reveal that 006 is still alive in 1995.
Well they put 006's story in 1986 in largely to take a jab at dalton's tenure
The way I like to view it is: not viewing them in chronological order in the order they came out, but rather different missions and stories told to us at random. Meaning, just because Dr No was first and From Russia with love second, it does not mean that was the order in which the events in Bond's life took place
Well, if we're being picky, *those* specific films pretty much have to be set in that order, since Dr. No's death is mentioned in FRWL.
You definitely chose the right Bond for your Thumbnail 😎
I'm really curious how Bond will carry on in the future... nice video once again, keep up the great work
I agree :) perfect choice
Amazing take. But I'd love to see you go into detail about Craig's continuity. In terms of the DB5 and what he did in the years that passed between quantum and Skyfall. As well as the 5 year jump in no time to die. A truly wonderful view into continuity Jeroen. Keep up your amazing work.
We can easily suppose he had 2 DB5s. The classic one and the American one. Actually 3, because one was destroyed in Skyfall and the one in Spectre and in No Time to Die is another car.
@@Ignoravo it was being repaired by Q in Spectre its the same one
@@thegoodmusicfactory3942 Yeah I forgot about that.
James Bond is half human, half Timelord from the planet Gallifrey. Hence, when he get older or dies, he regenerates into a new body.
How can the Bond films have any kind of connection with Dr Who, when Bond films started one year before Dr Who started ?
Ah yes, Rassilon is at it again 😉
you have a very interesting take on the coninuity, wich indeed works very well.
but for me personally, I just view them as pretty much stand alone films with Sean Connery - Pierce Brosnan as the same man.
Yep, you won me over. I officially subscribe to your continuity theory as well as your channel.
The whole continuity trend is a result of the success of TV shows. Unfortunately. I liked it much better when Bond films were isolated adventures instead of hearing about Vesper Lynd for 15 years. 🙄
I agree.
Absolutely.
Desmond Llewelyn's Q has stared in 17 bond films with 5 different James Bond
Even within the tenure of a particular actor there are discrepancies. In From Russia With Love Sean Connery's Bond tells Tania that he had been in Japan with M but in You Only Live Twice a later adventure, Connery's Bond tells Henderson that he has never been to Japan before and this is his first time. There has always been moments of carelessness in the Bond series whether in the scripts or the actual film-making process such as poor editing. I always find it best to just to ignore such mishaps and enjoy the many parts of a Bond movie that work and entertain.
In reference to the couple of gaffs you mentioned in OHMSS. The fourth wall break. Well as he is holding onto Tracy's slippers as he says; "This never happened to the other fellow." You could argue that he is actually referencing Prince Charming from Cinderella and not Connery. And as far as Blofed and Bond not recognising each other, you could argue, that they do recognise each other but are deliberately playing a bizarre cat and mouse game with each other to see who drops his mask first. In this case, Bond lost because he couldn't resist introducing the Angels of Death to his gold balls. If I had gold balls, I'd want to show them off too. In my coat of arms. I did mean in my coat of arms. Honestly.🙄
The different universe theory works too but as there is little to no continuity in the series anyway, my personal way of compensating is that like the Sherlock Holmes movies, the various adventures are shown out of sequence. So that they show a Bond adventure when he is younger interspersed with adventures he had when he became much older and possibly toward the end of his career. Great video. It got me thinking.
I always wondered that too, considering blofeld seems suspicious of bond in some of the conversations they have.
Great comment. Well thought out.
@@thejamesbondshow9754 Thank you.
For me theres 3 universes:
Sean, George and Roger play the same character
Timothy and Pearce play the same character
And Daniel on his own
they are just movies get a life
You could argue that Dalton and Brosnan are in the same continuity. The pre-title scene in Goldeneye is set in 1986 (a year before Living Daylights) and Bond going rogue in License To Kill could explain female M’s lack of trust for him when they first meet. Also, Goldeneye was written as a sequel for Dalton whilst he was still under contract.
Dalton and Brosnan are both in the 'classic' continuity as Tracy is mentioned to both [LTK, TWINE] and both share Desmond's Q.
While Dalton saw Michael France's first draft of Goldeneye, that draft didn't have the EMP or Trevelyan in it nor a female M. After Dalton left it was re-written by France [adding those elements] and 3 other writers [1, Kevin Wade, uncredited] so France only got a story credit so it was very much written for Pierce.
M clearly objects to Bond as a person [hence why she calls him a 'sexist, misogynist dinosaur'] which fits into her 'new broom' personality and her character arc over the Brosnan films where she gains respect for him [to the extent of saying he's her best agent in TWINE]
@@jamesatkinsonja I totally agree with you in terms of a shared back story but I just don’t think Brosnan and Dalton follow the same timeline as the three before them simply because of their age. I consider Connery/Lazenby/Moore the same man though.
@@MarkyCMarkIt's probably a case when the backstory for Dalton/Brosnan happened but is supposed to have happened sooner than the films were released [i.e. Tracey died more recently than 1969 in the Dalton era] but it's confusing as Living Daylights retains a few Moore regulars [M, Minister of Defence, Q, Gogol] while Moneypenny and Bond are much younger! In fairness this wasn't a new problem as the age of Felix was never consistent [Rik van Nutter was 8 years younger than Cec Linder and within the Dalton era going from John Terry back to David Hedison who was 23 years older].
@@jamesatkinsonja yeah it’s all over the place but I don’t think the filmmakers were ever that concerned with continuity at all and didn’t expect fans to dissect it in this detail.
I havebnt watched yet but ill go ahead and say my view of it. I always saw it as 3 bonds in thier own universe. The first being Connery through Dalton, the second being Brosnan, and the third being Craig.
Your close to what Im saying. You"ll see!
I saw Dalton/Brosnan as being in the same universe mainly because the pre title for Goldeneye took place in 1986. And that Dalton/Brosnan experienced all of the Connery/Lazenby/Moore missions but on their own timeline (Iike in the late 70s and 80s)
Great video.
The 6 seperate universes is how i kinda maske sense of this all as well. Even though i appreciate that Pierce Brosnan is supposed to be same bond as Sean Connery, i like to view his films as its own thing. Same with Roger Moore era.
This works. Continuity just never bothered me with Bond, that much. Maybe because they were their own, distinct adventures in each film anyway until Craig.
I like this theory. A lot of fans of movies don't have much imagination. So many so called "goofs" in movies, as listed on imdb, aren't goofs if you consider the film could be set in a different universe on a planet that looks like Earth, but isn't.
My theory for the Bond-Blofeld meeting is as follows: they both do recognise each other, but they are playing along with the mutual deception. We even see Bond, whilst his host is going on a bit, becoming a bit uncomfortable with the pretence.
I like to think Blofeld is just being a bit dim and just keeps going "I swear I recognise that bloke" to himself
@@saoirsedeltufo7436 There is that as well, sir.
@@mantabond not a sir pal :)
@@saoirsedeltufo7436 My utter apologies. I missed it: Saoirse is Irish, is it not? I am sorry.
@@mantabond No worries! And yep, Irish name
I think the so-called Classic Era (1962-1985) has reasonably good continuity and could be considered its own Universe. Bond ages just fine despite it being three different actors up until he's around retirement age in AVTAK. Also it helps that you have the same supporting cast of M, Q and Moneypenny. I pretty much give up after this trying to make sense of the continuity.
I've never really had an issue with the DB5 in Skyfall.
I've always just assumed that Bond took the DB5 he got off Dimitros and got it kitted out by Wishaw's predecessor as Q.
Thats the most logical explanation. But when thinking about it, turning a steering wheel over to the other side, isnt an easy task! Still, I agree Im not to bothered by it either
Exactly, I've always kind of seen it this way. Similar to comics. Batman has multiple incarnations, but no matter the version there are still some "Core" moments that happen to each one. In the case of batman, he always witnesses his parent's murder in the alley behind the opera. Spiderman always loses Uncle Ben, etc. It may play out slightly differently in each incarnation - and if you don't see it happen - it's just assumed to have happened. For example, you don't see Tom Holland's Spiderman get his powers. We all know that "Core" story moment by now and can easily assume it.
For Bond, a "Core" moment that happened to all of them is losing his parents in a climbing accident. It's referenced several times in several different Bond eras, including Daniel Craig's. Tracy's death is another "Core" moment, with Craig's Bond being the exception. It is possible for "Core" moments to NOT happen in one particular incarnation of a character as well. There is one Batman timeline in which Bruce Wayne himself is killed as child behind the opera & his parents go on to become Batman and the Joker. This is an instance in which they deliberately changed a "Core" moment and went out of their way to make an exception for one incarnation. For Craig's incarnation, they chose to omit a "Core" moment and replace it with a different moment from the novels that was previously ignored in the movies = Vesper and her betrayal and death.
It is a solid theory. I would have just strenghten it saying that, in Connery’s incarnation, Diamonds Are Forever takes please immediately after You Only Live Twice. This would explain why Bond is still in Japan in the pre-title sequence and also that he is looking for Blofeld because he fled from the vulcano, not because he was responsible for his wife’s death. Connery’s Bond is the only one who never got married, besides Craig’s one.
Exactly how I would take this theory too! Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all have refrences to having lost their wife. But Connery never had that
@@DutchBondFan That's how I see it, especially as John Glenn described the opening of For Your Eyes Only as a 'spiritual sequel' to OHMSS [with Blofeld looking like OHMSS appearance and Bond getting his revenge].
@@DutchBondFan what reference did bronson bond have to the death of his wife? ?
@@carlodonn8983 In 'The World is Not Enough' Elektra asks Bond if he's every lost anyone and he thinks of Tracy [as the theme of the film is that Bond think's he's found in Elektra someone similar to Tracy but instead has found a Blofeld type figure].
To me there are four timelines:
-Connery timeline where we have all Sean Connery movies separated.
-The OG 007 timeline that is all way up to Dr No to A View to a Kill, with the exception of YOLT and DAF.
-The Modern 007 timeline that follows the same timeline as the OG but it stops in Octopussy and goes directly to the Living Daylights and ends in DAD
-Daniel Craig timeline where we know the chronological order of the movies
I didn't quite understand that
Nah, I saw a video about this and it is not quite believable. I think that even the screenwrites don’t have such imagination.
Each film is its own continuity, with Bond shifting between subtly different universes between films, much like in the Mandela Effect idea.
My favorite rewatch experience is to follow the Tracy thread: OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, and LTK. Coincidentally, those are some of the best written and directed Bond movies too.
Diamonds Are Forever is a direct sequel to OHMSS, but it is the "runt of the litter," so to speak, and could be safely ignored. OHMSS was a great story, but is really hamstrung by Lazenby's wooden performance. He could have improved had he stayed with the role, he was still in his thirties when EON hired Roger Moore.
Interesting theory, although I never had a problem with the discrepancies in continuity. Strangely enough, I never figured the Craig movies to be taken place in as a separate universe. But I understand how you could see the movies in this light. The codename theory however sounds like bogus and doesn't hold up, just like you explained in the video.
I do like the fact that all the actors give their own interpretation of the literary character. Sometimes I'm in a Roger Moore Bond mood, sometimes in a Dalton or Connery Bond mood. The series has quite the variety and that's one of its strengths.
I need to watch more of your videos man, especially the ones of you and your partner reacting to Bond movies. Your a great inspiration to the community. My Odd Job Hat off to you man :)
I always viewed it as one single continuity, meaning to me, James Bond had always been the same character from Connery all the way down to Craig. Who cares if he looked younger in certain movies, those movies simply preceded the ones where he looked older. I view Casino Royale as a prequel to the whole series, and yes he had Vesper before he married Tracy. In Dr. No, Honey Ryder asked him if he ever loved anyone, which Bond responded with a silence. Then Bond finds out that Blofeld is his step brother, and then it all ends in No Time to Die. There's even a Goldeneye reference in Skyfall when Q makes a quip about the exploding pen. Yes, there is the issue of modernity, like how can he be driving sports cars when he supposedly precedes the 60s? Well, to that I say who cares? Bond is timeless, this is what makes it a fantasy, an escapism, this is entertainment, not rocket science. We view it however we wish to view it and make of it, that is the beauty of 007.
It's a good way of looking at it because even though it's not an official bond film, bond is meant to be retired or retiring in never say never again so makes sence in that way.
So how will you view the new bond now Craig's bound is dead???
@@nitramduorts what's that got to
i do with his comment?
@@carlodonn8983 different timeline
@@nitramduorts yes but the comment is saying that he considers bonds ti be same person so same time line?
This is the first time I’ve heard what I’ve had in my head since Casino Royale spoken out loud. Great stuff!
I don't think it's six separate universes, but I do think it's more than two. I don't find the continuity issues in the pre-Dalton EON films to be significant enough to warrant alternate timelines to explain them away. I suppose that you could send off You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever into the Never Say Never Again timeline, where Thunderball never happened, but even that solution seems like a major reaction to a minor bit of confusion in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. (Both Bond and Blofeld are in disguise at Piz Gloria, after all.)
With Dalton, we get strong indicators that the major arcs of the Connery and Moore films happened, albeit with changes to the minor details. Even if we simply took out every gap year in the EON release schedule, we would get a continuity that places Dalton's Bond at 27 years old in Dr. No: DN - 1973, FRWL - 1974, GF - 1975, TB - 1976, YOLT - 1977, OHMSS - 1978, DAF - 1979, LALD - 1980, TMWTGG - 1981, TSWLM - 1982, MR - 1983, FYEO - 1984, OP - 1985, AVTAK - 1986, TLD - 1987. And we can easily drop about four of them if we really need Dalton to start at age 31 instead.
Such an adjustment to the Brosnan films would be less convincing, since it's essentially impossible for The Living Daylights to occur later than its release date due to the Soviet-Afghan conflict at its core. (At best, we could move it to 1988, but that's not particularly helpful to the problem.) Brosnan was only 20 years old in 1973, so he could not have been the seasoned, Beretta-toting 00 agent we met in Dr. No, even with the aforementioned Dalton timeline compression.
The Brosnan era's continuity with previous versions is also nowhere near as tight as Dalton's was. There are no references to Felix Leiter or General Gogol. Bond's lost loved ones need not include his ill-fated wife, especially since he is explicitly stated to be an orphan. Even the array of old Q gadgets in Die Another Day could have been the arsenal of other 00s in this timeline. Even so, the films are playing off the nostalgia fans have with those previous films, so you could take it as a soft reboot that allows audiences to choose which films count and which ones don't.
So I'd say there are four timelines:
1. Connery-Lazenby-Moore
2. Dalton (compressed timeline)
3. Brosnan (soft reboot)
4. Craig (hard reboot)
If there must be a fifth, it would be the Casino Royale 1967 timeline, where Connery is indeed someone using a codename (since the real James Bond is David Niven). Every Connery film, including Never Say Never Again, is compatible with this timeline, but it doesn't work for the other Bonds (thanks to OHMSS, TWINE, and Skyfall establishing that they actually are named Bond).
I like the idea of each Bond being a separate universe, like a comic book character where continuity is assumed until contradicted.
In short, Brosnan Bond has fought against his own Blofeld and lost his own Tracy, just like Connery Bond will eventually go through his own version of Goldeneye
Cheers Jeroen! 🍸
I dig this idea of viewing each Bond actor as a completely separate continuity, if only because it helps me to daydream about previous or future adventures specific to each actor (i.e. Goldfinger with Moore or Moonraker with Connery). I think the codename theory is kind of fun but obviously I don't quite buy it. In my headcannon Connery, Lazenby & Moore are one Bond (though doesn't quite explain the Blofeld inconsistency), then Dalton & Brosnan are another slightly more "modernized" Bond, then Craig is an altogether separate continuity from the first two.
P.S. I actually enjoy the 4th wall break in OHMSS ("This never happened to the other fella!")... I get that it's in reference to Connery but more broadly "the other fella" could just be referring to your average Joe, or anyone other than James Bond. So with that in mind I don't find it all that distracting.
Great points on the code name theory. As far as the other continuity issues and the age thing, I don’t worry about them. They’re inconsequential for the most part.
Great breakdown, although I think many people get too trapped in the Bond timeline aligning with the release dates of the movies. While each new movie is kind of a build on the previous (such as the Craig Bond movies), I think you have to view each movie as its own entity, like Bond telling his life story but remembering different calendar events as the conversation evolves. This also easily covers the Bond actors changing over time, as when we think about our past, we often look back at ourselves as very different people at different times as we matured and experienced different parts of our life coming together.
Brilliant analysis! In fact I've watched this several times over and I'm actually on board with you 100% The Batman analogy is a perfect example. Very well done.
Also, in OHMSS, when Bond resigns, he answers the phone as "007", but then corrects himself and says "James Bond". Meaning that his real name must be James Bond separate from the 007 number assignement.
Great video. I remember watching Calvin Dyson's video on the codename theory and I thought . . . people actually think that? As far as continuity goes, most of the issues stem from books and movies not having the same sequence, but they tried to be true to the books where possible. I just let it slide, but your solution is an interesting one.
The way I like to think of all this:
Connery/Lazenby/Moore: First continuity, with an aging Bond throughout de films. Ends in A View to a Kill.
Dalton/Brosnan: Second continuity. Both actors are close in age and likeness. Also, putting together Living Daylights and License to Kill with the Brosnan films creates background for Bond being active during the Cold War, as told by M in Goldeneye. Ends in Die Another Day.
Craig: Third continuity. Only the 5 Craig films.
That actually makes perfect sense.
This says more about how we watch films and media today as compared to the past, than I does of what the filmmakers intend. Because of the increased media landscape, due in part to the success of the Marvel cinematic universe, which was built upon how comic books themselves were created, we have come to expect continuity so much, to the extent that audiences will invent there own continuity ideas and theories, regardless of the filmmakers intentions. I'm 56 years old, so I remember a time when TV shows were all one off episodes, it was common practice to have individual stories with a TV series that showed little to no continuous story lines. Up until recently the only continuous stories were the domain of the afternoon soap opera, cheaply done romantic dramas aimed at housewives at the end of their domestic duties or during the children's time at school. This was considered a lower form of media content since they were written and recorded at record pace. At the same time the American comic book had a similar flow of continuity, where it could take weeks, months or even years to complete a storyline, since comics were published monthly. Comics were also considered a low form of media. It is only in recent years that TV shows regularly are continuous dramatic stories that flow through the entirety of their life span, so it makes sense that modern audiences will also look for this same continuity in film series, such as James Bond. Prior to the Craig era and even early in the Craig era the producers had absolutely no intention or thought to any type of continuity whatsoever. Their only thought was to tell a good self contained story but by Spectre they had shifted, seeing success of the MCU and shifting style of modern dramatic storytelling.
Personally, that's how I saw it from the start. Hell, I even used the same argument as why we all accept multiple Batmen or Spider-Men.
However, I do still think that Connery, Lazenby and even Moore should be merged at some point.
Unlike Dalton or Brosnan, who clearly live in a different world, those three's adventures are way too close to each other.
Let me explain myself better.
Isn't just weird that they had the same adventures at almost the same time? Let's not forget that Roger lost Tracy in '69 as well and that his last encounter with Blofeld had 10 years of difference (according to some scripts and the Marvel adaptation) from that other time they faced each other in '71.
So, I think of it as 4 universes instead of 6. The first with the "classic" Bonds, the Dalton one, the Brosnan one and the Craig one.
By the way, Dalton and Brosnan's incarnations do have different birthdates (I don't remember which ones, but you can always check the Bond Wiki's picture of their passport, though), that was what made me realize something was wrong regarding continuity issues.
I just don't think about it too deeply, I sit back and watch another classy adventure.
5:40
Brosnan also loses his 00 agent status briefly in Die another day.
I agree with you. I always thought each actor was a different person but same character in a different universe (decade).
2:27 - You and Calvin need to do a crossover sometime!
Yeah, I think the 6 universes/timelines works. I never thought Craig's Bond as part of the original/Codename continuity.
Thanks Jeroen, that's exactly how I see it for years!
When seeing OHMSS, I always thought that Blofeld knew Bond from the word go, but was pulling Bond's leg. Kinda like Hans Landa in The Inglorious Basterds recognizes that the Basterds aren't actually Italian at the movie theater, but plays along.
Thanks so much for talking about other franchises too like turtles and batman :)
This was really lovley of you to do this man. I'd love it if all the Bonds came together to save the world like in the new spiderman movie :)
certainly the connery films were trying there best to do a continuity for sure
Gay.
a nice marvel "what if...?" idea 🙂
@@Anon282828 Keep any shitty Marvel ideas away from Bond!
An even better explanation: “I suggest you don’t worry about this sort of thing and, just enjoy enjoy yourself!”
Hey there fellow Dutch Bond fan, great vid! This is exactly the way I've always viewed the continuity of the films as well, or at least ever since I've actually thought about it. The Brosnan era for example is as much as a reboot as the Craig era is, it's just that the Craig era starts at a far earlier point in Bond's career.
I'm actually kind of suprised how confused people always are about this, because it's the only way that actually explains everything, save for some more minor inconsistencies such as Felix Leiter changing personality throughout an actor's tenure. I guess it's because the filmmakers (or the people interviewing them for that matter) hardly paid attention to continuity before the Craig era, which leads to people coming up with all sorts of different (often ridiculous) theories about it.
Also, this theory completely changes DAF as well. I've always been so frustrated that OHMSS never got the proper sequel it deserved, but when viewing DAF as a follow up to YOLT rather than OHMSS, it just works so much better.
The Craig films are definitely their own pocket universe to allow him to obtain his 007 status, his retro-fit connection to Blofeld and the relocation of Tracy's grave.
I agree. It makes no sense for the cinematic Bond being the same from Dr No to DAAD. It got rebooted AT THE LATEST with Dalton. Remember Octopussy and the Mrs Moneypenny and Penelope Smallbone - scene? Moneypenny´s age is clearly adressed ... but she is a young woman again in TLD (Q on the other hand did not went through the fountain of youth like Bond and Moneypenny) . Each Bond also has different charasteristics (the campy ones and the more serious, badass ones). If it was the same continuity then Bond would go through serious mood-swings. There are also the MINOR continutiy-problems like Connery´s Bond having mayored in oriental languages in (see YOLT) and Brosnan not being able to use a chinese keyboard (TND). It is also strange that a agent who worked through the cold war in the 60´s would also battle media-moguls and high-tech villains in the 90s an 2000´s. Yes, they all have the same backgrund (as you pointed out): Parents died in climbing accident, wife killed shortly after funeral, career in the Navy etc. That is the backstory of each Bond ... just like the Wayne´s getting shot in Crime alley is the backstory for each Batman. But that does not mean that Keaton´s Batman, Bale´s Batman, West´s Batman and Pattison´s Batman are the same Batman. As you pointed out: they are Batman in their own continuity. Same with all the different Godzilla, Halloween and Spiderman continuities/universes.. The Bond cinematic-contintuity outgrew itself with age. it is so popular that it could not die when the actors got too old and therefore Bond was not allowed to age and needed to be timeless. Bond will still be around in a hundred years, entertaining our grreat-grandchildren while we will be dust and ashes ... And I seriously hope noone claims that the Bond, who will fight the enemies of the 22nd century (aliens, robots, clones?) will be the same one who had to use phone-booth´s in the movies of the 60´s.
With the Batman films, there are different levels of continuity. Batman Forever is ostensibly a sequel to Batman and Batman Returns, even if Bruce Wayne suddenly grew eight years younger from Keaton to Kilmer. More recent depictions of the "Burtonverse" have suggested the existence of a universe that includes the first two films but not the Schumacher films; however, the Schumacher films clearly count the events of the Burton films in their own timeline, despite the dramatic changes in the overall aesthetic of Gotham City.
This "Batman Motion Picture Anthology," as Warner Bros. calls it, may offer the solution for any of 007's continuity issues between 1962 and 1989. Connery's films are essentially part of the Moore canon, but Moore's films are not necessarily part of the Connery canon. And Dalton's timeline may suggest that Bond was younger and more serious than what we saw in previous films, but the major plot points still occurred in some fashion.
Then Brosnan ruined everything, of course. But he's kinda like Affleck's Batman: he clearly experienced things similar to the events we saw in previous Batman films, but we can't definitively peg down what counts (if anything) and what doesn't. His burned-out Wayne Manor evokes memories of Bale's Batman Begins just as Brosnan's DB5 in Goldeneye suggests the possibility of something like Goldfinger being in this Bond's past.
Absolutely spot on, and I never knew Judi Dench was officially two separate M's.
This was supported by the game 007 Legends and the Goldeneye remake; Craig's Bond gets to go through a bunch of the older stories updated for a modern era. Interestingly this potentially explains the DB5 getting gadgets, but also adds another universe as it features Blofeld about 3 years before Spectre came out lol.
Basil Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes suddenly jumped from the 1890s to WW2
The M problem is larger than just Judi Dench. Every M had more than 1 bond, save for Ralph Fiennes.
And then there’s time lord Desmond Llewelyn
I like the idea. That would explain how a movie like From Russia with Love, License to Kill or Casino Royale is in the same film series as You only live twice, The spy who loved me and Moonraker.
As for Craigs universe though, I think with the advancement in spy-technology, partly influenced by Bonds missions, as he felt he needed new and better technology, everything became less grounded and sillier. Atleast that´s how I explain it to myself when we start with practically no gadgets and end up with EMP watches and a DB5 that has Miniguns for headlights.
Fun fact:
"OHMSS" was to originally have Bond go through plastic surgery on his face which would have explained why Blofeld didn't recognized him when they met a-gain after "You Only Live Twice".
So basically, you're subscribing to the Multiverse theory.
Yeah, I'll take it. XD
I just rewatched all the movies in order in quick succession last winter. I came up with this same idea, so I feel validated. I posted this as a suggestion of a way to enjoy the movies, and had some idiot jump all over me! Glad to see someone else felt the same way.
This is exactly how I view the movies. As you say, the major events all happen in each universe, but in different decades with different looking Bonds. Much better than the stupid codename theory.
Interesting idea. I always liked the dressing down M gives Brosnan's Bond in Goldeneye as being a relic of the cold war, even if Brosnan is probably too young for that
I wouldn't say Brosnan's Bond was too young to be considered a "Cold War relic" in 1995.
A James Bond born in the early 1950s could by the mid 1990s have had spent at least 10 years on Her Majesty's Secret Service as a 007 agent fighting Cold war enemies. Think late 1970s through the early 1990s.
Great to hear you're pronouncing Craig correctly. Thank you, absolutely perfect pronunciation.
I say Connery through Moore is one universe, then Dalton, then Brosnan
The way I used to make sense of it as a child is the last mission of each bond's tenure just happened to be so stressful for them it physically changed their appearance lol
Impeccably reasoned. I'd go even one further: each movie takes place in its own universe. This would explain why, say, Connery went from a more reality-grounded adventure like "From Russia with Love" to, later, an almost surreal sci-fi comic book adventure like "Diamonds are Forever".
And why Felix Leiter looks different everytime. Connery alone met 5 different Felix's
Ya know you’re at 9.82 million views on UA-cam. Pretty close to 10,000,000 views. That’s incredible and congrats!!!
If continuity isn't an issue then why did the writers establish a continuity related to his marriage to Tracy with Moore, Dalton and Brosnan? Or retain M from one film with Brosnan to Craig?
I agree with your thesis that all the Bonds are a separate universe, except for Lazenby/Moore eras, as it is impossible to ignore the continuity of Bond’s history with the graveside scene in FYEO. The fact that the actors looked similar also helps, & the 4 year gap between tenures.
"This never happened to the other guy" is perhaps the most brilliant line in the entire franchise.
This line is meant to be separate to the script. It is just a way to reassure the audience that Bond is different, but his adventures are not ending.
I like the line, but I would prefer Lazenby to say "This never happened to the other movies".
Not only do I think it's the most like, this theory is the only one that works at all. This was how I always assumed the series was intended.
Love your theory, personally I just think that you have to adapt every single adventure to each Bond, like they really happened for each Bond sort of the way 007 Legends played like Craig remembering Goldfinger etc, but your theory works as well! 👍🏻
I don't worry too much about it. I like my Bond films as standalone adventures anyway. But if I had to insert some kind of continuity, it would go like this:
- The origin years (Casino + Quantum)
- The Connery era (yes, including Diamonds, I regard that one as a sequel to You Only Live Twice, not to Majesty's; he starts searching for Blofeld in Japan after all)
- On Her Majesty's Secret Service
- The Dalton era (his more serious and cynical take on Bond fits the aftermath of Majesty's better than either Diamonds or any of the Moore films, plus he gets the most cathartic revenge plot, which gets only more powerful if you imagine his own loss is still fresh and he's projecting it onto Felix')
- The Brosnan era (starts where Dalton left off, but gets gradually more silly and fantastical, thus offering a perfect segway into...)
- The Moore era (where by the end of it he's clearly to old for the job, which is the main theme of: )
- Skyfall
- The final years (Spectre + No Time to Die)
Granted, you can't worry about Bond's place in history or the continuity in the supporting cast for even a second, but when it comes to Bond's development as a character, this order makes the most sense for me.
hey dutch...great video...i agree completely....your theory works great and is similar to the codename theory being that each of these agents are different...they are all james bond, but in their own line of continuity.....i'm curious to see what calvin thinks about this.....stay well...peace...rocky
One of your best because that is how I view them as 6 separate timelines or universes.
agree 100%. thats how i view it. Grew up with Moore, love his take, but Dalton and Brosnan are my faves
That's an interesting take. I never went that far. I've always looked at it in this way: Connery and Moore are one universe. They are near in age. Moore could have been Bond in 1962. And therefore we watched him age. Looking at it this way didn't fix the Blofeld issue in OHMSS but that's always been an outlier. The second universe was Dalton-Brosnan. Dalton was originally thought to be coming back for GE. In this scenario, those actors had the same adventures as Connery-Moore just at a different times. Rather than occurring in the 60s, in my mind they happened in the 70s. And then the Craig universe happened.
I have a question for you all… My Bond was Pierce (I was born in ‘89). Then I went back to Roger, Sean, George and last Timothy (Casino Royale wasn’t out yet when I saw the first 20 movies). Nonetheless, every time I read a Bond novel, any of them, I have Connery in my mind as Bond. Does it happen to you?
I always viewed each actor as a completely different version of James Bond because that’s how my uncle who introduced me to these films interpreted it
My theory is that at certain points in the original movie timeline, aka when the actor changes, the original Bond's face has become too well known so it is altered.
They just altered his face with missiles in NTTD...
@@frankb821 ...and legs and arms. Time for the first ever torso Bond.
I fully agree with your theory, in fact i always had this idea of every actor continuity being a soft reboot.
Sure, all of them lost the wife, for Lazenby things happen close to Conerey (but not the same as he never met Blofelt) but it's always a soft reboot.
Hell maybe even every single movie is a soft reboot.
About the Lazemby's joke, I always thought that it was a nod from the producers to the audience, since it was the first time they were replacing the actor after 5 movies with connery (and he was the 1st one, so he defined the character) and they knew the audience too would be making comparisons and complaining and saying that Sean Connery was much better.
0:51 this is personally the view that I hold on the matter only I go a step further to count Fleming’s novels and (most of) the continuations (as a separate universe to the 2 film continuities obviously).
But again that is entirely my opinion, I think yours is quite clever as well. ❤️☮️
*25 missions.*
That could very easily fit into 5 years. *Bond does not need to age!*
Your solution, nevertheless (to the problem you created) is very comfortable and I go with it.
My tip for the next Bond is Richard Madden.