This is an insane James Bond watch order we made for IGN several months ago, but it's a silly blast! Also, we wanted to share it here because we've got a very cool Watch From Home Theater coming up next week, Goldeneye with Famke Janssen and director Martin Campbell! So in the meantime, happy holidays and enjoy this super convoluted fan theory!
Well thought out, greatly enjoyed this. Small nick-pick the video's title threw me off though.. Maybe change it to: "Our Jame Bond Watch-Order" because before I selected this video, I knew these films weren't specifically were set in the same universe. Edit: nevermind, read the title too fast, you did state it's your list. My apologies
Too bad one bit of planned dialog didn't make it into OHMSS. Perhaps contrary to his quip about "the other fellow," I understand they were going to exposit how MI6 looked out for Bond between films. They sought to renew their secret agent's efficacy around enemies who'd seen his face. That is; the filmmakers were going to account for the different faces of Connery and Lazenby with a cosmetic surgery premise.
@@gr8darklord604 The notion of chronological order is cool, and I approve though haven’t done this yet. Further, I like your explanation of sequence-tie-in backstory as I have a soft-spot for ‘Royale - the film truly does belong in the list and such a dream is something “we” wouldn’t see on our own. Very insightful concept, and I suspect from an avid JB007 fan. Part of that is because my FIRST James Bond film was a TV broadcast of Casino Royale… in color 🤓. I knew it was old, but now know that one was made in 1967. Sadly I don’t recall all of that 1967 campy version but specifically no death of ANY “Vesper” role in that flick but DO remember such listening to a Audio book read of Casino Royale. 🫣 I also know now that “by accident” I could just skip to this guy’s #2 then watch through his researched/rationalized sequence. 😂😂 Sadly, the only mention of any Austin Powers homage is NOT during the 67 Casino Royale spot, which clearly could have been an easy lead-in sequence for first Austin Powers movie. Maybe Meyers did, but dropped the section to the cutting room floor because of time restrictions or a copyright charge to keep it. 😢
The fact Tracy's death is brought up a number of times in films where bond is not played by George Lazenby is all the proof that is needed to dispel that stupid theory that "james bond" is a codename. Why would a guy visit some other guys dead wife's grave?
Having Moonraker precede The Spy Who Loved Me by several films makes Jaws' story totally incoherent, though. He's one of the few villains who gets a redemptive story arc in the whole series.
As a nerd who likes James Bond, and is obsessed with chronology, this is exactly what I was looking for. While technically, I didn't search for this, I have in the past.
@@ThorneyedWT Ah, alright. Moore's movies are too campy for my taste (except the Man with the Golden Gun) and therefore even the most outlanndish stunts are just cartoony and forgettable. On the other hand, I did like TDKR and sort of enjoyed T3, despite their flaws.
I recall watching a video that made this same point earlier this year. Glad to see more people catching on to this fact. Watched the entire series the past 2 years and I love all the continuity this series has mixed in over the past several decades. Throwing the hat on the hat rack is one of my favorites. Wish Craig would do that in this last movie
Here is the thing, men in their 30s dont wear hats like that in a long time. Remember Ian Fleming created Bond in the 50s and it was common for men to wear those kind of hats.
I like to think after every few missions he gets reeeeally convincing facial reconstructive surgery paid for by the British government to make sure he is never recognized by his enemies
@@aaronduvalin he always has an alias when he goes on missions. Plus, just because he has a name doesn't mean they'd still be able to find him. They won't have a face to the name
If you watch everything up until SkyFall with the codename theory in mind, especially On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Living Daylights, then you will see that it is intentionally part of the narrative, but meant to be subtly subtextual, or blatantly metatextual. It's kinda like a more subtle version of how Total Recall (1990) was made. You can watch it believing one possibility or another, and both work within the narrative. Basically you can choose what to believe and it works without really having to add head cannon. Obviously this becomes patchy once you get to Casino Royale, but even then the theme's lyric "I will replace you" is an obvious nod to this theory. I''m not saying the codename theory is cannon or correct, but you can clearly tell the film makers had it in mind to one degree or another when making the movies, if you watch them with an open mind.
Precisely. James Bond has a definite back story and history. James Bond us a distinct individual, he us who he is. Anyone can be 007, not just anyone can be Bond.
The codename theory is just a theory. Meaning people aren't saying it's fact. The thing is there are elements of the movies that hint towards the codename theory and if you are fan who likes to think into finer details then they can't be ignored. That being said there are lots of moments that suggest he is the same character. The way I see it the question is up in the air and no writer/director has officially answered it. Some writers play into the theory more then others but no one has officially stated (within Canon) that James bond is the same person or its a codename This is very similar to Doctor who. There had been episodes that hinted to the doctor having had more lives before William Hartnell, there had also been episodes that hint to him being the first and original doctor. It's only until recently that the question has been answered and we know for sure that the doctor has had more lives. No one will probably ever officially answer the codename or same person question because then it limits the writing and look at us now we are talking about James bond we are keeping it relevant.
@@perfecthollywood yes because Christopher Nolan's Batman had different looks, personality, and technology from Adam West's Batman that means they were two different Bruce Waynes..or maybe it's that movies aren't made to be 100% match up to our reality just because millennials need to have a fictional universe have an uber realistic timeline.
I'unno, seems like it makes more sense to just watch them in the order they came out. 1) Early Bond definitely is firmly established to be working in the Cold War - and distinctly in the early 60's. Hell, the opening sequence of Goldeneye contained all sorts of imagery about the fall of the Soviet Union, and he'd been working for awhile then. But in Casino Royale, when Bond is new, "M" very specifically mentions, after Bond blows up the embassy, that she longs for the days of the Cold War, when spies that mess up that royally would at least have the "common decency to defect." 2) There's definitely some distinct continuity going on here - but it's like there's multiple continuities. Up until Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond uses his "signature" pistol - but in a scene with Wai Lin, he picks up a different, more modern pistol and says something to the effect of wanting one. From that scene and, chronologically, the rest of the Pierce Brosnan films after all had him using that particular gun. I thiiiink the Daniel Craig Bond was using the same pistol, but I couldn't be sure. 3) The newer Bond films definitely have better writing and acting. As fun as it is to watch something like Goldfinger, with Auric going and talking without moving his lips, you can't go from a Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan film and get the same level of enjoyment, I feel. The older Bonds are mostly decent films in their own rights, but they're also distinctly influenced by the era they came out in. This one is slightly subjective, but it's what I noticed while going through them all myself.
Absolutely! but honestly i'd stop at Thunderball being the last really cool Bond flick, although Casino Royale wasn't a bad movie ... By the way this movie order is 🐎 💩... this guy has too much time on his hands
I've always considered him to be immortal, even joking that they couldn't show us the dates on his parents grave in Skyfall because they didn't want to give the secret away.
I grew up in the Roger More era, and some of his movies are the most fun to watch in the series, but to me, the man who most perfectly represent the suave presence of James Bond is Pierce Brosnan. Though intellectually I understand that a good spy is someone who blends in the crowd and is easily forgettable, that's not how I want James to be :-)
Yeah Dalton was great. To me it's Connery, Brosnan, Dalton (but if he had had more movies, who knows) Lazenby, Moore, Niven, whoever was Bond in his drama class, anyone who ever dressed as Bond for Halloween... then Craig. No, seriously, Craig can act, but they just rebooted Bond in action movies, dot, and these aren't James Bond movies anymore, they lost what made them unique. He's got the lines of the character and whatever piece of nostalgia they want to use, but it's not the same anymore.
Craig is absolutely the WORST Bond ever! He's not romantic at all, not charming at all... to me he looks more like a villain than Bond... they couldn't have picked a worse bond. I loved Bond movies up untill Craig came in and ruined it all
@@vasm650 there was only 6 actors to play bond, so top 3 is not much, but anyways, here's my list: 1) Sean Connery (just awesome) 2) Pierce Brosnan (almost a tie with Connery) 3) Roger Moore (he was very good, but not as good as the top 2) all of these 3 have far more charm (which is what Bond is really about) than Craig, that looks Russian villain like to me 4) Timothy Dalton (about 5% better than Craig) 5) Daniel Craig 6) George Lazenby (ok, there you have it, Craig is not the worst) he definetely portraid the worst Bond movie, where Bond actually gets married alright, maybe Craig is better than Dalton, that was a bit more dark and less charming... but definetely, he is not top 3
@@denisonunglaub Okay I get what you mean but tbh now that I think of it, it is just down to preference. It's clear that you like the more charming and charismatic bonds while I prefer the more dark and broody ones (I'd argue Lazenby and Dalton are actually better than both Moore and Brosnan). I feel like I can't compare Bonds like Brosnan and Moore to Bonds like Craig and Dalton because of the tonal difference. Also I disagree that Bond is all about charm. Bond can be many things and if we're trying to be super accurate and true to the original(the books) Bond is more like Craig's bond than any others
@@vasm650 you have three very fair points: a) preference (no one can argue there, because it's personal); b) you're right about the duos Moore-Brosnan and Dalton-Craig, it's pretty hard to compare them, since there are stark differences; c) I didn't read the books, so my point of reference are just the movies, which start with Connery so, in the end, maybe I was unfair to Craig... no, I probably was and I do think charming and charismatic Bonds are better than dark and broody ones, because I feel stories of good guys v bad guys are better than stories where you don't really see a big difference between the two sides it's almost like you can pick any side, even the evil side to cheer which, in my opinion is not good for society, we should always root for the good and not the evil... but in terms of entertainment, then I think everyone is free to cherish whatever, even if it's the evil side I feel though, Bond movies are all about defeating evil... but anyways, you've convinved me on some points there
Release order is the correct order as there’s 2 mainline Bond continuities, the original one from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan and then the reboot with Daniel Craig
What a terrific list! Have seen all of these movies many times and never considered that there would be a chronological order like this. Very convincing. Well done!
I was thinking that too, but if you don't know that he's getting revenge for Tracy's death it can play that he's just fed up with Blofeld's shit from _Twice_ and is out to kill him for more professional reasons. They don't reference Tracy or her death explicitly.
@@1A157 that is why I said ten or eleven. I agree with you on putting it before Diamonds are Forever. I always found it weird that they knew each other but didn’t recognize each other immediately.
It's never explicitly stated that he's seeking revenge for Tracy. It may just be Bond trying to finish the job from YOLT. His search for Blofeld incidentally starts in Japan, which probably wouldn't the first place to look at after OHMSS but makes a lot of sense following the events of YOLT.
@@simonbrunner3062 It makes too much sense for him not to be seeking revenge for Tracey though. In OHMSS, M reprimands Bond for having (I think he said) two years to track him down and failing and then taking him off the case. In the beginning of Diamonds are Forever, Bond is so much more motivated to find Blofeld, that it makes sense that Tracey's death was the cause.
I was born in 1962 and I have seen all the James Bond actors. My uncle used to own all the novels written by Ian Flemming and I knew from a very early age that James bond was the same agent all the time. It was fun to see it portrayed by so many actors throughout the years.
Right, chronological order...despite of the anachronisms or knowing Felix Leiter before he’s met him? Dr No to Die Another Day is the original continuous run, Casino Royale to No Time to Die is a reset series (alternative history).
Yeah Felix's omission is pretty glaring. Especially for me since he's my favorite character in the series. But I can see why they excluded him as he completely ruins the chronology, changing actors in nearly every appearance. And the changes are not slight. Sometimes he's young and suave. Sometimes he's old, portly, and comic relief. And sometimes he's Jeffrey Wright.
im on board for the most part but putting moonrakerr before the spy who loves me is continutiy breaking with jaws... and putting the two roger moore films at the end is kinda silly
What's even more continuity breaking is putting On her majesty's secret service after diamonds are forever. If you watch diamonds, it starts off as a direct continuation of majesty's.
I love this chronology! You’ve solved all our codename problems. Especially given that I’m not so fond of ‘Octopussy’ or ‘A View to a Kill’, it’s funny to imagine that they are part-hallucinations, and I love your ‘Spectre’ explanation that Oberhauser took the name of Blofeld to dig deeper. A very entertaining fan theory - great job.
I love James Bond. I’m very sad the new movie hasn’t come out yet, I’ll always remember watching all the movies with my dad, in the order of release. It became our thing and i miss that
Very clever although I think it falls apart somewhat with the idea that Bond is hallucinating in the last two Moore films.... A couple of other possible flaws with the chronology: 1)In Goldfinger, Bond is told that his Bentley has "had its day", but it's briefly seen in FRWL, so that must come first. 2)Putting TSWLM after Moonraker means that Jaws, having come good in Moonraker, turns back to villainy again. So TSWLM (and by extension, OHMSS) must come before Moonraker. 3) The white Lotus (ostensibly the submersible Lotus from TSWLM) is destroyed in FYEO, so the implication is that (most of) this film comes after TSWLM, though the opening scene with 'Blofeld' could happen any time as it is not connected to the main film. Personally my preferred chronology is to watch all the films in order but to skip all the Craig films except Skyfall (and possibly Spectre).
It's the same with: Ouuh, there is a female James Bond because of Lashana Lynch in NTTD. She cannot be James Bond and she won't be. 007 - yes, but James is a male name for god's sake 😂 I think it's much more fun to research why all the "plotholes" exist than somehow trying to put a sense into it. It's part of the history of these movies, we should just accept that not everything makes sense and enjoy the movie :)
dave101t - no dude. She's in the position of 007, she's not James Bond Casual viewers think 007 and James Bond are one in the same, but they aren't. 007 is a job title. James Bond is his name.
As a Bond fan this blew me away.... all the explanations could make sense... even where bond is starting to go senile at the end. Good piece of You Tubing fun!
I dont see a way any film involving SPECTRE can come before the actual film SPECTRE as that is when Blofeld receives his signature scar. The problem then lies in the fact that in the film, Skyfall is mentioned. So Skyfall and SPECTRE must come before any other film with even a mention of the organisation
Too bad that different Time Periods makes this watch a bit jarring. Also, after Skyfall, and the order of the Jaws appearances, the order just seems weird. Still, really impressive!
@@Fasa4Gaming I misremembered the film. I looked it up and it saws those two were in an escape pod, but it still doesn’t make sense to have the film where he changes allegiances before the film where he is chasing Bond.
“Which Bond was your dad’s favorite” brought a tear to my eye, because Lazenby and OHMSS are high on my top Bond and Bond movies lists just because they were my father’s favorites :’(
The novel, Forever and a Day is set in a time before Casino Royale and introduces Bond to the 00 Section after the former 007 is killed. I have concluded that Bond can be anybody, recruited by the 00 Section and given the name and number James Bond 007.
I reckon we're talking movies here, but since you have another series called ''What's the difference?'' that digs into books vs film adaptation, I think you should first consider if Ian Flemming's books had a chronology. The books were not written to have a series-wide arc , but their order is still important for introduction of characters like Felix Liter that come back here and there in the series, or as to why Bond change his gun at some point, etc.
The first three are in order. The other two were stand alone reboots. If you insist on pretending they are in the same universe you still watch them in order, you'll just have inaccurate plot holes. The movies are also deliberately not trying to be in the same order as the books, they were inspired from. So there's nothing to adapt, they are in order, they just weren't all made to be the same universe.
Great, just finished all the Brosnan and Craig flix and was moving onto Connery. Guess I’ll have to watch them again...again. This was a great vid! Thanks!
I think when they rebooted the franchise in 2006, some fans did actually joke about Eon Productions wanting to CGI Daniel Craig's face onto past Bond films, which did come partially true with the 007 Legends video game.
ua-cam.com/video/SLiQQpYoz5Q/v-deo.html subscribe to this channel. He has put the James Bonds in films they don't belong to. It's not deepfake bit quite good edite what gives you the vibe of an old Bond in a new film!
I’ll look forward to that “Watch From Home Theatre ,” because Goldeneye is actually one of my favourite Bond episodes; mainly because they got everything so right with it ! Famake Jansen is one of the best “Bond Girls gone bad too . It’s funny how debut Bond movies for each of the different actors to play Bond have usually been such barnstorming successes. Both in box office takings and how they rate in the scale of the better entries in the franchise. I’m betting the guy who takes over from Daniel Craig will have a similar experience.
I would not have so much of an issue with the idea of people crapping on that "Bond is a code name and not a person." if he wasn't shown to be a widow who lost a woman he loved and from time to time is pain is shown to be present all throughout. It bothers me to ignore a character arch that important for a person who is "A man on a mission." when it adds so much to what drives this character.
Your missing the point. The film's are not in chronological order, it even in any particular time or era (with the exception of the Craig films, but even then, do you really think he's gone from getting his 00 status to retiring in 5 films? No). They are always filmed in a contemporary setting though, which confuses people.
@@TheSpudlyMcgudly I know they are not chronological. My list of order is different than this one. I saw Skyfall where M dies and Fines takes over should have been followed up by Dr No and Connery. I am just saying people wanna start changing stuff to be PC and say "Why not make him a woman or a person of colour or a trans or this and that." He is an established character. His gender, race and sexual orientation are a strong part of his character and his personal history plays a part in his motivation.
This is awesome. I plan on getting the entire library at some point in the near future and now I have a roadmap on how I'll watch them again. Many thanks.
I feel like theres a simpler version of this which is just: - Casino Royale - Quantum of Solace - Every not Daniel Craig bond movie in release order - Skyfall - Spectre - No Time To Die You definitely get things that don’t make sense doing it this way but its a little simpler to follow and you don’t have so many logic leaps like “he’s hallucinating older cast members because he’s old”. Still, not putting this list down, this does seem like a fun way to do it, just an alternate suggestion.
Naaah screw that - Watch it in the order it was released. Your head will hurt less 😂 It’s enough to wonder why M is a lady at first and then a man and then a lady again and don’t even get me started with Q! 🤣
The only way the series works in a solid narrative order is for the codename theory to be correct. Anything else is adaptive head cannon like in this vid, or retcons and reboots every time the actor is replaced.
So he starts driving a DBS in Cassino Royale, then he mgically founds a AMC Hornet just sitting in a showroom in the man with the golden gun? Not so sure he would stop driving a DB11 in Spectre to pick up a Renault Taxi in a View to a Kill... But besides that i really liked this theory and the effort put in making it
This such a great thought experiment, at the beginning of the pandemic I watched all the Bond films in Book order, very similar idea but with a few tweaks: Casino Royale (Craig) Live and Let Die (Moore) Moonraker (Moore) Diamonds are Forever (Connery) From Russia With Love (Connery) Dr. No (Connery) Goldfinger (Connery) For Your Eyes Only (Moore) View to A Kill (Moore) Quantum of Solace(Craig) Thunderball (Connery) The Spy Who Loved Me (Moore) OHMSS (Lazenby) You Only Live Twice (Connery) Man With the Golden Gun (Moore) Octopussy (Moore) Living Daylights (Dalton) Then: The World is Not Enough (Brosnan) & Die Another Day (Brosnan) These two are a stretch since they’re both based loosely on elements from a post Fleming book “Colonel Sun” Then go back and fill in the rest with the non book films in order maybe? License to Kill (Dalton) Goldeneye (Brosnan) Tomorrow Never Dies (Brosnan) Skyfall (Craig) Spectre (Craig) I know this order throws the continuity out a little (spectre at the end?) but it was interesting to bounce around the different actors. Dalton is still the best.
@@HarryBuddhaPalm YEP!!! You can have the same actor in a reboot, what makes it a reboot is that the previous STORY LINES are ignored. The Daniel Craig Bond movies are a reboot as Judy Dench's M never mentions the Brosnan Bond.
My head canon - Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, OHMSS, for your eyes only, Spy who loved me, Moonraker, live and let die, golden gun, octopussy, AVTAK, living daylights, license to kill. Reboot - brosnan era 2nd reboot - Craig era Other continuity - YOLT, Diamonds are Forever, Never say never again
Back with Brosnan it wasn't called a reboot. And I don'T think it was. Reboot is when they try to bring the thing up to speed with new FX (and most of the time feed you a script that already has been used, with some adjustments) Casino Royale is an axample... or anything JJ Abrams does is an example. The way I understand reboots, their excuse not to be called remakes are the ''bringing the visuals up to speed with new sfx''
@@FrenchAccentsChannel AFAIK, a "reboot" isn't about the FX, it's about restarting the storyline. (Ie "forget everything that happened before, _this_ is now the official story and timeline").
As a Chinese, I watched my first Bond film in the early 1990's on a VHS cassette. It was Roger Moore. Can't remember which one it was. But Sean and Pierce are the best Bonds of mine.
No, its just a younger Bond, the youngest of the bunch. Casino Royale establishes the beginning of the Bond we know. There is no other universe or alias.
@@Super_Broly Thanks for the reply, but I have to disagree. If Daniel Craig's Bond is a younger Sean Connery/Roger Moore Bond then why is it set in the 21st century?
It's simple. The James Bond universe works like say the Marvel and DC universe where the same character exists in parallel worlds and on a sliding time line. Connery, Moore and Lazenby's Bonds were active from the early 60's to the mid 80's. Connery and Lazenby's Bonds had roughly the same adventures and gave up the spy game in the 70's even though an alternative Connery was active into the early 80's like Moore's Bond. Dalton's Bond is the first soft reboot of the series. If he was in his early 40's by Licence to Kill I'd say that his version of Bond was born after WW2, became an agent in the 70's. Brosnan's Bond slides that time scale up to being born in the 1950's while Craig's was born in the late 60's. While the first three Bonds in their respective timelines has similar adventures the last three had wildly different ones with Dalton's maybe living a version of OHMSS and having his version of Tracy murdered. But with Brosnan and Craig they lived radically different lives than the others--way different adventures and events. I'd wager that Brosnan's Bond was never married and the closest character to Tracy was Paris Carver while Craig's it was Vesper. So to sum it up--same character, different universes and timelines and with that each Bond could've lived different lives.
Has nobody read the books ? James bond is James bond its a rolling timeline each movie is just set in the time its made otherwise they would all be set in the sixties
The opening scene of Diamonds are Forever is James Bond tempestuously and relentlessly hunting down Blofeld for revenge in Tracy's death at the end of OHMSS. It makes far more sense to swap the order of those two films. I would also prefer putting Octopussy and A View To A Kill in the main timeline, perhaps before Spectre (or possibly No Time To Die), otherwise a great viewing order!
Thanks to you and the rest of the good people mentioning Calvin Dyson in response to this here video I got a new favorite UA-cam channel. Much appreciated!
I watched them all once and tried to count how many days each one takes based on travel time and plot points. With the exception of the 9 year jump at the beginning of Goldeneye, the average was around 9 days. That's 216 days, so Bond's career could easily fit in that 9 years span. Just under 3 missions a year.
I'm very much a Sean Connery guy, but my very favorite 'Bond' movie is the last one on your listed (indicated as "optional"). The Henry Mancini soundtrack alone makes the viewing worthwhile. Also, Peter Sellars playing his part absolutely straight, much to the frustration of the director. You can just never top Orson Welles as Le Chiffre.
The only way that bond chronology ever made sense to me was that Connery to brosnan is the same guy and Craig is in a new timeline, apart from Craig you can connect all the bond via teases like in Qs lab in die another day you see loads of gadgets from past movies and he even points out the thunderball jet pack, as well roger Moore’s bond goes to Tracy’s grave at the start of for your eyes only, bond can’t be codename because why would the separate bonds A remember gadgets they’ve never seen before and B go to one bonds wife’s grave and leave flowers
Jaws isn't in FYEO. Also he didn't die in Moonraker - it's mentioned that one of the American shuttles picked up an escape pod containing a tall man and a blonde woman.
This was a fun thought experiment although personally I only think watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed by For Your Eyes Only are the only 2 that work really well and that are not part of the same generation.
I had a theory. As we know James Bond, known as 007, is a secret agent. The different actors who play Bond are actually different people. The different people abandon their past lives and change their name to James Bond, 007. But, this video may of changed my mind. Also my favourite Bond is Roger Moore and my favourite Bond movie is Live Or Let Die.
This is an insane James Bond watch order we made for IGN several months ago, but it's a silly blast! Also, we wanted to share it here because we've got a very cool Watch From Home Theater coming up next week, Goldeneye with Famke Janssen and director Martin Campbell! So in the meantime, happy holidays and enjoy this super convoluted fan theory!
You need The spy who loved me before moonraker as Bond knows Who Jaws is in moonraker
this is absolutely excellent haha
In dr.no James hind mentions that he has been in the binus for 10 years why would it be is 4th
Well thought out, greatly enjoyed this. Small nick-pick the video's title threw me off though.. Maybe change it to: "Our Jame Bond Watch-Order" because before I selected this video, I knew these films weren't specifically were set in the same universe.
Edit: nevermind, read the title too fast, you did state it's your list. My apologies
Too bad one bit of planned dialog didn't make it into OHMSS. Perhaps contrary to his quip about "the other fellow," I understand they were going to exposit how MI6 looked out for Bond between films. They sought to renew their secret agent's efficacy around enemies who'd seen his face.
That is; the filmmakers were going to account for the different faces of Connery and Lazenby with a cosmetic surgery premise.
Some how this chronology leaves me shaken, but not stirred.
God....dammit.... I like this comment.
It's a lot easier once you incorporate the fact that James Bond is a Time Lord.
So I’m not the only one who thought that
All us brits are timelords!
I was thinking if you have octopussy at the end he must be jumping in time because it happens in East Germany
Timothy Dalton is a time lord as well as a double 0.
@@catthomas3097 I knew it
Without spoilers, "No Time to Die" has to be the final movie for this style of watchthrough.
I still haven't seen it yet; so you'd put it after View to a Kill still?
@@andrewraebig9271
Yeah, for reasons that'll become pretty obvious when you do get around to watching it!
It’s been 2 years now so I’m just gonna say it bond fucking dies
And 1967 Casino Royale can be him reimagining his first adventure as he drifts off
@@gr8darklord604
The notion of chronological order is cool, and I approve though haven’t done this yet. Further, I like your explanation of sequence-tie-in backstory as I have a soft-spot for ‘Royale - the film truly does belong in the list and such a dream is something “we” wouldn’t see on our own. Very insightful concept, and I suspect from an avid JB007 fan.
Part of that is because my FIRST James Bond film was a TV broadcast of Casino Royale… in color 🤓.
I knew it was old, but now know that one was made in 1967. Sadly I don’t recall all of that 1967 campy version but specifically no death of ANY “Vesper” role in that flick but DO remember such listening to a Audio book read of Casino Royale. 🫣
I also know now that “by accident” I could just skip to this guy’s #2 then watch through his researched/rationalized sequence. 😂😂
Sadly, the only mention of any Austin Powers homage is NOT during the 67 Casino Royale spot, which clearly could have been an easy lead-in sequence for first Austin Powers movie. Maybe Meyers did, but dropped the section to the cutting room floor because of time restrictions or a copyright charge to keep it. 😢
Me: Wait, so there's only one James Bond?
Cinefix: *gets behind me, points pistol at my head* Always has been.
The fact Tracy's death is brought up a number of times in films where bond is not played by George Lazenby is all the proof that is needed to dispel that stupid theory that "james bond" is a codename. Why would a guy visit some other guys dead wife's grave?
Because Tracy is a code name for a dead wife
@@perfecthollywood 😂😂😂
I always thought it was obvious all the bonds up to Craig were in the same universe and Casino Royale was a reboot
@@wmascolin yes but Craig has the weaponized aston Martin in skyfall
The “code name” theory was invented and perpetuated by casual normies who clearly hadn’t seen all the Bond movies.
Having Moonraker precede The Spy Who Loved Me by several films makes Jaws' story totally incoherent, though. He's one of the few villains who gets a redemptive story arc in the whole series.
totally agreed.
maybe they were clones🤣🤣🤣🤣
As a nerd who likes James Bond, and is obsessed with chronology, this is exactly what I was looking for. While technically, I didn't search for this, I have in the past.
Suddenly now I know where "Dark Knight Rises" and "Terminator 3" stole their best action scenes, lol.
Wait, TDKR had good action scenes? Well, that's new.
Which ones do you mean? I've seen all those movies a long time ago...
@@vaclav_fejt DKR opening scene with one plane dragging another plane mid-air. T3 had great scene with Arnie on a moving crane.
@@ThorneyedWT Ah, alright. Moore's movies are too campy for my taste (except the Man with the Golden Gun) and therefore even the most outlanndish stunts are just cartoony and forgettable. On the other hand, I did like TDKR and sort of enjoyed T3, despite their flaws.
@@vaclav_fejt I didn't watch most of Moore's era movies too. As I said, I noticed those scenes in this video that we are commenting.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is an underrated gem in the Bond series, one of my favorites
It explains bonds drive to catch the man and organisations responsible for his wife’s murder
Preach. OHMSS is great and absolutely heartbreaking
@@ReverendMeat51 I feel it's too bad Lazenby didn't get another outing
It could have been a good movie, the plot and the ending was on point, but Lazenby's terrible acting absolutely ruined it for me. :/
@@kendehegedus2372 agree
Beginning and ending with the Casinos Royale is brilliant. James Bond was secretly an Ouroboros the whole time.
Skipping out the Dalton and Brosnan films would improve it.
@@caribstu I kind of think
that Dalton is underrated as
007. Just watch out how he
takes out his " old buddy "
Killifer in LTK .
I recall watching a video that made this same point earlier this year. Glad to see more people catching on to this fact. Watched the entire series the past 2 years and I love all the continuity this series has mixed in over the past several decades.
Throwing the hat on the hat rack is one of my favorites. Wish Craig would do that in this last movie
Here is the thing, men in their 30s dont wear hats like that in a long time. Remember Ian Fleming created Bond in the 50s and it was common for men to wear those kind of hats.
@@greatwuta
I guess Bond could toss his beanie on the hat rack to make it more contemporary. 🤔
*"NUFF SAID"™*
Huge fan of your channel nick!
@@greatwuta oh I get that. But it's still such a signature bond moment, and it was phased out entirely because of the change in fashion
This is far from a new idea
If for no other reason than being an excuse to re-watch the entire Bond series, this is going in a playlist ASAP!
I love how angry Timothy Dalton's Bond was.
Pure definition of spite
Closest to the books
Best bond
Dalton's Bond was just awesome. Shame he didn't stick around for more films.
Most boring Bond. Sorry
I like to think after every few missions he gets reeeeally convincing facial reconstructive surgery paid for by the British government to make sure he is never recognized by his enemies
I like to think that he’s the same species as Doctor Who
"please stop telling everyone your name. We can't keep giving you plastic surgery!"
The body structures are different as well though
is stupid to keep his name
@@aaronduvalin he always has an alias when he goes on missions. Plus, just because he has a name doesn't mean they'd still be able to find him. They won't have a face to the name
Here's something interesting:
My Dad's Bond: Daniel Craig
My Bond: Sean Connery
*The People's Bond : Roger Moore 🤔*
*"NUFF SAID"™*
So true
The thinkin man's Bond: George Lazenby
O.G. Bond: Connery
Intellectual Bond: Lazenby
Humourous Bond: Moore
Edgy Bond: Dalton
Quintessential Bond: Brosnan
Action-Hero Bond: Craig
@@ReverendMeat51 The Ascended man's Bond: Dalton
If you're a Bond fan this codename rubbish shouldn't even be given the time of day. His 'codename' is 007, the man is James Bond.
If you watch everything up until SkyFall with the codename theory in mind, especially On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Living Daylights, then you will see that it is intentionally part of the narrative, but meant to be subtly subtextual, or blatantly metatextual. It's kinda like a more subtle version of how Total Recall (1990) was made. You can watch it believing one possibility or another, and both work within the narrative. Basically you can choose what to believe and it works without really having to add head cannon. Obviously this becomes patchy once you get to Casino Royale, but even then the theme's lyric "I will replace you" is an obvious nod to this theory. I''m not saying the codename theory is cannon or correct, but you can clearly tell the film makers had it in mind to one degree or another when making the movies, if you watch them with an open mind.
Precisely. James Bond has a definite back story and history. James Bond us a distinct individual, he us who he is. Anyone can be 007, not just anyone can be Bond.
I agree. A detail that's overlooked is the reference to Tracy Bond in a Moore film and a Dalton film.
The codename theory is just a theory. Meaning people aren't saying it's fact. The thing is there are elements of the movies that hint towards the codename theory and if you are fan who likes to think into finer details then they can't be ignored.
That being said there are lots of moments that suggest he is the same character.
The way I see it the question is up in the air and no writer/director has officially answered it. Some writers play into the theory more then others but no one has officially stated (within Canon) that James bond is the same person or its a codename
This is very similar to Doctor who. There had been episodes that hinted to the doctor having had more lives before William Hartnell, there had also been episodes that hint to him being the first and original doctor. It's only until recently that the question has been answered and we know for sure that the doctor has had more lives.
No one will probably ever officially answer the codename or same person question because then it limits the writing and look at us now we are talking about James bond we are keeping it relevant.
@@gingergreeney I mean there is a different 007 than James in No Time To Die, so while there can be multiple 007s there is only one Bond.
You’re probably the only person who has successfully retconned the Blofeld-brother angle in a tasteful way.
So basically there’s no chronology for these movies that makes sense
The Daniel Craig's ones do have a chronology of sorts.
Yeah, this video confirmed codename theory
@@perfecthollywood codename theory makes no sense if you've seen the movies
@@alwaysOPEN4business when you consider the different looks, personality and technological advantages of the different Bonds...it makes perfect sense.
@@perfecthollywood yes because Christopher Nolan's Batman had different looks, personality, and technology from Adam West's Batman that means they were two different Bruce Waynes..or maybe it's that movies aren't made to be 100% match up to our reality just because millennials need to have a fictional universe have an uber realistic timeline.
I'unno, seems like it makes more sense to just watch them in the order they came out.
1) Early Bond definitely is firmly established to be working in the Cold War - and distinctly in the early 60's. Hell, the opening sequence of Goldeneye contained all sorts of imagery about the fall of the Soviet Union, and he'd been working for awhile then. But in Casino Royale, when Bond is new, "M" very specifically mentions, after Bond blows up the embassy, that she longs for the days of the Cold War, when spies that mess up that royally would at least have the "common decency to defect."
2) There's definitely some distinct continuity going on here - but it's like there's multiple continuities. Up until Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond uses his "signature" pistol - but in a scene with Wai Lin, he picks up a different, more modern pistol and says something to the effect of wanting one. From that scene and, chronologically, the rest of the Pierce Brosnan films after all had him using that particular gun. I thiiiink the Daniel Craig Bond was using the same pistol, but I couldn't be sure.
3) The newer Bond films definitely have better writing and acting. As fun as it is to watch something like Goldfinger, with Auric going and talking without moving his lips, you can't go from a Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan film and get the same level of enjoyment, I feel. The older Bonds are mostly decent films in their own rights, but they're also distinctly influenced by the era they came out in. This one is slightly subjective, but it's what I noticed while going through them all myself.
"This never would have happened to the other guy."
(In Sean Connery voice) “Of course.”
Uv Corsh
I farted after breakfast (in Sean Connery voice) "Of course." 🤔...🥞😋...😖🍑💨💩😳
*"NUFF SAID"™*
Ovh coursh
(In m.bison voice) "OF COURSE!"
RIP, Sean Connery. He'll always be my James Bond.
Absolutely!
but honestly i'd stop at Thunderball being the last really cool Bond flick, although Casino Royale wasn't a bad movie ...
By the way this movie order is 🐎 💩... this guy has too much time on his hands
Sean Connery is the quintessential James Bond...both suave, tough and quick witted
@William Guzman Who said anything about love?
@William Guzman Oh, ok...I don't agree with your perspective of Sean Connery's performance's as JB, but I get your point
I've always considered him to be immortal, even joking that they couldn't show us the dates on his parents grave in Skyfall because they didn't want to give the secret away.
There can be only one
I grew up in the Roger More era, and some of his movies are the most fun to watch in the series, but to me, the man who most perfectly represent the suave presence of James Bond is Pierce Brosnan. Though intellectually I understand that a good spy is someone who blends in the crowd and is easily forgettable, that's not how I want James to be :-)
Brosnan was great. If you haven't yet, check out "the matador". I like to think it's a Brosnan Bond coping with retirement
Brosnan sucks, all he does is prance around like a panzi
Calvin Dyson: "Ah shit, here we go again..."
😂😂😂
I just thought: "Hmm, I've seen this bullocks before 🧐" :D
The dislikes are from people who used a Smith and Wesson and they've had their six.
Certified Bond Fan
@@dereklewis4321 always and forever, my friend.
100% best comment👌🏼
I would say Sean Connery is the best but my favorite is Timothy Dalton.
I wish Dalton had more
@@Richard_Nickerson me too
Dalton was great tbh, License to Kill is one of my favorites
Yeah Dalton was great. To me it's Connery, Brosnan, Dalton (but if he had had more movies, who knows) Lazenby, Moore, Niven, whoever was Bond in his drama class, anyone who ever dressed as Bond for Halloween... then Craig.
No, seriously, Craig can act, but they just rebooted Bond in action movies, dot, and these aren't James Bond movies anymore, they lost what made them unique. He's got the lines of the character and whatever piece of nostalgia they want to use, but it's not the same anymore.
@@FrenchAccentsChannel
You put Lazenby above Moore and you put Craig at the end?
Terrible taste.
Of course, the only catch-all theory might be the one I saw on a bumper sticker a long time ago:
James Bond is a Timelord.
How I miss the days of TNT's annual holiday Bond-a-thon.
Watch them on UA-cam
It's not the same. There need to be all the old Christmas commercials every 5 minutes.
CraveTV has them now
Daniel Craig's Bond is amazing. He's such a romantic and emotional person but such a psychopath when he needs to be.
Craig is absolutely the WORST Bond ever! He's not romantic at all, not charming at all... to me he looks more like a villain than Bond... they couldn't have picked a worse bond. I loved Bond movies up untill Craig came in and ruined it all
@@denisonunglaub Damn Craig rly rubbed you the wrong way. Even if you don't like him he's literally at least top 3 bonds and it's not even a debate
@@vasm650 there was only 6 actors to play bond, so top 3 is not much, but anyways, here's my list:
1) Sean Connery (just awesome)
2) Pierce Brosnan (almost a tie with Connery)
3) Roger Moore (he was very good, but not as good as the top 2)
all of these 3 have far more charm (which is what Bond is really about) than Craig, that looks Russian villain like to me
4) Timothy Dalton (about 5% better than Craig)
5) Daniel Craig
6) George Lazenby (ok, there you have it, Craig is not the worst) he definetely portraid the worst Bond movie, where Bond actually gets married
alright, maybe Craig is better than Dalton, that was a bit more dark and less charming... but definetely, he is not top 3
@@denisonunglaub Okay I get what you mean but tbh now that I think of it, it is just down to preference. It's clear that you like the more charming and charismatic bonds while I prefer the more dark and broody ones (I'd argue Lazenby and Dalton are actually better than both Moore and Brosnan). I feel like I can't compare Bonds like Brosnan and Moore to Bonds like Craig and Dalton because of the tonal difference. Also I disagree that Bond is all about charm. Bond can be many things and if we're trying to be super accurate and true to the original(the books) Bond is more like Craig's bond than any others
@@vasm650 you have three very fair points: a) preference (no one can argue there, because it's personal); b) you're right about the duos Moore-Brosnan and Dalton-Craig, it's pretty hard to compare them, since there are stark differences; c) I didn't read the books, so my point of reference are just the movies, which start with Connery
so, in the end, maybe I was unfair to Craig... no, I probably was
and I do think charming and charismatic Bonds are better than dark and broody ones, because I feel stories of good guys v bad guys are better than stories where you don't really see a big difference between the two sides
it's almost like you can pick any side, even the evil side to cheer
which, in my opinion is not good for society, we should always root for the good and not the evil... but in terms of entertainment, then I think everyone is free to cherish whatever, even if it's the evil side
I feel though, Bond movies are all about defeating evil... but anyways, you've convinved me on some points there
This must have taken sooooooo much work, thought and creativity to piece together. Mad Respect.
Release order is the correct order as there’s 2 mainline Bond continuities, the original one from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan and then the reboot with Daniel Craig
You sound like a lot of fun 🙄
@@Ineddiblehulk he does
@@Ineddiblehulk Just don’t want people to be too confused, that’s all
Glad I'm not the only one who gets it.
What a terrific list!
Have seen all of these movies many times and never considered that there would be a chronological order like this.
Very convincing. Well done!
I would have put On Her Majesty’s Secret Service at ten or eleven since he is trying to get revenge at the beginning Diamonds are Forever.
I was thinking that too, but if you don't know that he's getting revenge for Tracy's death it can play that he's just fed up with Blofeld's shit from _Twice_ and is out to kill him for more professional reasons. They don't reference Tracy or her death explicitly.
You should put OHMSS before You Only Live Twice as blofled doesn’t recognise bond in that film
@@1A157 that is why I said ten or eleven. I agree with you on putting it before Diamonds are Forever. I always found it weird that they knew each other but didn’t recognize each other immediately.
It's never explicitly stated that he's seeking revenge for Tracy. It may just be Bond trying to finish the job from YOLT. His search for Blofeld incidentally starts in Japan, which probably wouldn't the first place to look at after OHMSS but makes a lot of sense following the events of YOLT.
@@simonbrunner3062 It makes too much sense for him not to be seeking revenge for Tracey though. In OHMSS, M reprimands Bond for having (I think he said) two years to track him down and failing and then taking him off the case. In the beginning of Diamonds are Forever, Bond is so much more motivated to find Blofeld, that it makes sense that Tracey's death was the cause.
I was born in 1962 and I have seen all the James Bond actors. My uncle used to own all the novels written by Ian Flemming and I knew from a very early age that James bond was the same agent all the time. It was fun to see it portrayed by so many actors throughout the years.
Right, chronological order...despite of the anachronisms or knowing Felix Leiter before he’s met him?
Dr No to Die Another Day is the original continuous run, Casino Royale to No Time to Die is a reset series (alternative history).
Yeah Felix's omission is pretty glaring. Especially for me since he's my favorite character in the series. But I can see why they excluded him as he completely ruins the chronology, changing actors in nearly every appearance. And the changes are not slight. Sometimes he's young and suave. Sometimes he's old, portly, and comic relief. And sometimes he's Jeffrey Wright.
One of the few omissions. This really doesn't make sense
Maybe "Felix Leiter" is another code name! Nah, just kidding. ;-)
@@macsnafu ahh but I tried that, it doesnt make sense with this order unless Wright left the postition than rejoined later.
Bond was introduced to Leiter in Casino Royale. So it works
And I thought the X-Men film franchise chronology was a nightmare... Great video, Thanx!!!
Goldeneye was "the bond" when I was a kid... well at least it was first time I saw Bond and Tina Turner's song is fucking amazing
Dude GoldenEye is my fav together with casino royale
im on board for the most part but putting moonrakerr before the spy who loves me is continutiy breaking with jaws... and putting the two roger moore films at the end is kinda silly
The whole stupid thing is continuing breaking!
What's even more continuity breaking is putting On her majesty's secret service after diamonds are forever. If you watch diamonds, it starts off as a direct continuation of majesty's.
But why doesn't Blofeld recognize Bond anymore in “On Her Majesty's Secret Service” if they met before several times??
Because Bond has a different face ;-)
I love this chronology! You’ve solved all our codename problems. Especially given that I’m not so fond of ‘Octopussy’ or ‘A View to a Kill’, it’s funny to imagine that they are part-hallucinations, and I love your ‘Spectre’ explanation that Oberhauser took the name of Blofeld to dig deeper. A very entertaining fan theory - great job.
Think about it this way, In spectre bond has hole drilled into his head in the part that makes him forget faces.
I love James Bond. I’m very sad the new movie hasn’t come out yet, I’ll always remember watching all the movies with my dad, in the order of release. It became our thing and i miss that
Very clever although I think it falls apart somewhat with the idea that Bond is hallucinating in the last two Moore films....
A couple of other possible flaws with the chronology:
1)In Goldfinger, Bond is told that his Bentley has "had its day", but it's briefly seen in FRWL, so that must come first.
2)Putting TSWLM after Moonraker means that Jaws, having come good in Moonraker, turns back to villainy again. So TSWLM (and by extension, OHMSS) must come before Moonraker.
3) The white Lotus (ostensibly the submersible Lotus from TSWLM) is destroyed in FYEO, so the implication is that (most of) this film comes after TSWLM, though the opening scene with 'Blofeld' could happen any time as it is not connected to the main film.
Personally my preferred chronology is to watch all the films in order but to skip all the Craig films except Skyfall (and possibly Spectre).
Cubby Broccoli would laugh at this theory while smoking his cigar
Thanks for posting this. After you’ve seen these movie so many times it’s fun to watch them in a different order.
Well no shit! His name is James Bond that’s not a title it’s a name!
Now 007 is his title. There could be other 007’s but there is only 1 James Bond!
It's the same with: Ouuh, there is a female James Bond because of Lashana Lynch in NTTD. She cannot be James Bond and she won't be. 007 - yes, but James is a male name for god's sake 😂
I think it's much more fun to research why all the "plotholes" exist than somehow trying to put a sense into it. It's part of the history of these movies, we should just accept that not everything makes sense and enjoy the movie :)
so he is about to transgender into a black woman? must be all the hate he has seen over the decades.
@@dave101t that's almost the exact opposite of what the person was saying
dave101t - no dude. She's in the position of 007, she's not James Bond
Casual viewers think 007 and James Bond are one in the same, but they aren't. 007 is a job title. James Bond is his name.
As a Bond fan this blew me away.... all the explanations could make sense... even where bond is starting to go senile at the end. Good piece of You Tubing fun!
I'm guessing that No time to die is the last movie because spoilers
He kinda dies
I saw GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day, Casino Royale, Quantim Of Solace, Skyfall, & Spectre .
I dont see a way any film involving SPECTRE can come before the actual film SPECTRE as that is when Blofeld receives his signature scar. The problem then lies in the fact that in the film, Skyfall is mentioned. So Skyfall and SPECTRE must come before any other film with even a mention of the organisation
Why isn’t this higher up
Exactly, the Craig movies created a lot of problems for the "timeline" so I just imagine them as a separate universe to all the others
@@Pulsarnix yeah it kinda fucked it all up
Too bad that different Time Periods makes this watch a bit jarring. Also, after Skyfall, and the order of the Jaws appearances, the order just seems weird.
Still, really impressive!
I noticed that too since it makes it confusing if you watch Moonraker and see Jaws die only to see him appear a few films later.
@@jamesmoyner7499 I think I remember Bond saying they will wake it.
@@Fasa4Gaming I misremembered the film. I looked it up and it saws those two were in an escape pod, but it still doesn’t make sense to have the film where he changes allegiances before the film where he is chasing Bond.
“Which Bond was your dad’s favorite” brought a tear to my eye, because Lazenby and OHMSS are high on my top Bond and Bond movies lists just because they were my father’s favorites :’(
Your dad had good taste and so do you
The novel, Forever and a Day is set in a time before Casino Royale and introduces Bond to the 00 Section after the former 007 is killed. I have concluded that Bond can be anybody, recruited by the 00 Section and given the name and number James Bond 007.
My father’s Bond: Sean Connery
My era’s Bond: Pierce Brosnan
My favourite Bond: Daniel Craig, with Timothy Dalton a close 2nd
Dalton is much better than Craig.
I agree. Dalton is underrated in the series.
@@ellipsis-007 i don’t think he’s underrated. I think he’s just lacks some movies (1/2 more would be perfect)
@@blackappleslo Yes I totally agree.
@@ellipsis-007 to bad, because he’s one of my favorite Bond actors. Only behind Connery.
Ok I’m 18 so fairly young, I just realized all the Austin powers movies are just wacky and funny versions of James bomd
I reckon we're talking movies here, but since you have another series called ''What's the difference?'' that digs into books vs film adaptation, I think you should first consider if Ian Flemming's books had a chronology.
The books were not written to have a series-wide arc , but their order is still important for introduction of characters like Felix Liter that come back here and there in the series, or as to why Bond change his gun at some point, etc.
Well well well... I just got myself the Bond blu-ray collection for Christmas and this shows up in my feed. Impeccable timing 007
I'd like to see you apply this logic to the mess of movies that is the Jack Ryan franchise...
The first three are in order. The other two were stand alone reboots. If you insist on pretending they are in the same universe you still watch them in order, you'll just have inaccurate plot holes. The movies are also deliberately not trying to be in the same order as the books, they were inspired from.
So there's nothing to adapt, they are in order, they just weren't all made to be the same universe.
Great, just finished all the Brosnan and Craig flix and was moving onto Connery. Guess I’ll have to watch them again...again. This was a great vid! Thanks!
Somebody should deepfake a single bond to all the movies!! 😆
I think when they rebooted the franchise in 2006, some fans did actually joke about Eon Productions wanting to CGI Daniel Craig's face onto past Bond films, which did come partially true with the 007 Legends video game.
No
Cool idea.
and should use Rowan Atkinson's face.
ua-cam.com/video/SLiQQpYoz5Q/v-deo.html subscribe to this channel. He has put the James Bonds in films they don't belong to. It's not deepfake bit quite good edite what gives you the vibe of an old Bond in a new film!
I’ll look forward to that “Watch From Home Theatre ,” because Goldeneye is actually one of my favourite Bond episodes; mainly because they got everything so right with it ! Famake Jansen is one of the best “Bond Girls gone bad too . It’s funny how debut Bond movies for each of the different actors to play Bond have usually been such barnstorming successes. Both in box office takings and how they rate in the scale of the better entries in the franchise. I’m betting the guy who takes over from Daniel Craig will have a similar experience.
I would not have so much of an issue with the idea of people crapping on that "Bond is a code name and not a person." if he wasn't shown to be a widow who lost a woman he loved and from time to time is pain is shown to be present all throughout. It bothers me to ignore a character arch that important for a person who is "A man on a mission." when it adds so much to what drives this character.
Your missing the point. The film's are not in chronological order, it even in any particular time or era (with the exception of the Craig films, but even then, do you really think he's gone from getting his 00 status to retiring in 5 films? No). They are always filmed in a contemporary setting though, which confuses people.
@@TheSpudlyMcgudly I know they are not chronological. My list of order is different than this one. I saw Skyfall where M dies and Fines takes over should have been followed up by Dr No and Connery. I am just saying people wanna start changing stuff to be PC and say "Why not make him a woman or a person of colour or a trans or this and that." He is an established character. His gender, race and sexual orientation are a strong part of his character and his personal history plays a part in his motivation.
This is awesome. I plan on getting the entire library at some point in the near future and now I have a roadmap on how I'll watch them again. Many thanks.
My Dad's Bond: Sean Connery
My Bond: Pierce Brosnan.
My bond was $2,500
@@0mnicide Oh so what's the 10% ? 250 to get out?
@@uscovenant2350 I jest.
I’ve never had to pay jail bond.
Lil bros Bond: Daniel Craig
My dads:rojer
Mine:craig
I feel like theres a simpler version of this which is just:
- Casino Royale
- Quantum of Solace
- Every not Daniel Craig bond movie in release order
- Skyfall
- Spectre
- No Time To Die
You definitely get things that don’t make sense doing it this way but its a little simpler to follow and you don’t have so many logic leaps like “he’s hallucinating older cast members because he’s old”. Still, not putting this list down, this does seem like a fun way to do it, just an alternate suggestion.
I'm pretty sure no time to die comes last. Just a hunch.
lol
watching James Bond is like watching sitcom, there's no chronology.
Naaah screw that - Watch it in the order it was released. Your head will hurt less 😂
It’s enough to wonder why M is a lady at first and then a man and then a lady again and don’t even get me started with Q! 🤣
Dont forget Miss moneypenny she had a "Sunbath" I think🤔🤔🤭🤭
The only way the series works in a solid narrative order is for the codename theory to be correct. Anything else is adaptive head cannon like in this vid, or retcons and reboots every time the actor is replaced.
@@WallKenshiro i like to think that is it actually a film adaptation of a book and it isnt really true.
M, Q AND moneypenny are all code names
@@ron87SBP exactly. Codenames all round is the only way the Bond series can possibly work as a continuity.
Moonraker takes place before The Spy Who Loved Me? But you didn't offer any explanation for how the continuity regarding Jaws is meant to work.
So he starts driving a DBS in Cassino Royale, then he mgically founds a AMC Hornet just sitting in a showroom in the man with the golden gun? Not so sure he would stop driving a DB11 in Spectre to pick up a Renault Taxi in a View to a Kill...
But besides that i really liked this theory and the effort put in making it
Let's not forget The Rock, which is the secret last Bond movie that Sean Connery made.
This such a great thought experiment, at the beginning of the pandemic I watched all the Bond films in Book order, very similar idea but with a few tweaks:
Casino Royale (Craig)
Live and Let Die (Moore)
Moonraker (Moore)
Diamonds are Forever (Connery)
From Russia With Love (Connery)
Dr. No (Connery)
Goldfinger (Connery)
For Your Eyes Only (Moore)
View to A Kill (Moore)
Quantum of Solace(Craig)
Thunderball (Connery)
The Spy Who Loved Me (Moore)
OHMSS (Lazenby)
You Only Live Twice (Connery)
Man With the Golden Gun (Moore)
Octopussy (Moore)
Living Daylights (Dalton)
Then:
The World is Not Enough (Brosnan) &
Die Another Day (Brosnan) These two are a stretch since they’re both based loosely on elements from a post Fleming book “Colonel Sun”
Then go back and fill in the rest with the non book films in order maybe?
License to Kill (Dalton)
Goldeneye (Brosnan)
Tomorrow Never Dies (Brosnan)
Skyfall (Craig)
Spectre (Craig)
I know this order throws the continuity out a little (spectre at the end?) but it was interesting to bounce around the different actors.
Dalton is still the best.
I’ve always watched it in terms of release dates but this is a really interesting tale. I’ll give it a try next time on my watch through.
the question is: who thought there were different James Bond?
I mean there are 2 imho. There is Connery to Brosnan and then a reboot with Craig.
@@Macca-95 Nope! Judy Dench is M in the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies and the Daniel Craig Bond movies, so the Craig movies are not "reboots".
Harry BuddhaPalm And? One character can exist in 2 seperate universes.
@@HarryBuddhaPalm Brosnan’s M and Craig’s M are two different characters. Brosnan M’s real name is Barbara Mawdsley and Craig’s M is Olivia Mansfield
@@HarryBuddhaPalm YEP!!! You can have the same actor in a reboot, what makes it a reboot is that the previous STORY LINES are ignored. The Daniel Craig Bond movies are a reboot as Judy Dench's M never mentions the Brosnan Bond.
I must admit, at the start I was looking to pffft this XD but jesus good job dude that was fun, and the effort shows you care (I guess) :D
My head canon - Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, OHMSS, for your eyes only, Spy who loved me, Moonraker, live and let die, golden gun, octopussy, AVTAK, living daylights, license to kill.
Reboot - brosnan era
2nd reboot - Craig era
Other continuity - YOLT, Diamonds are Forever, Never say never again
Back with Brosnan it wasn't called a reboot. And I don'T think it was. Reboot is when they try to bring the thing up to speed with new FX (and most of the time feed you a script that already has been used, with some adjustments) Casino Royale is an axample... or anything JJ Abrams does is an example. The way I understand reboots, their excuse not to be called remakes are the ''bringing the visuals up to speed with new sfx''
@@FrenchAccentsChannel as i said, its "head canon"
Judi Dench was M in the Brosnan movies and the Craig movies, so the Daniel Craig movies are not "reboots".
@@HarryBuddhaPalm technically yes and maybe the events of Goldeneye to DAD happened between QoS and Skyfall.
@@FrenchAccentsChannel AFAIK, a "reboot" isn't about the FX, it's about restarting the storyline. (Ie "forget everything that happened before, _this_ is now the official story and timeline").
Alright. Now I have my binge project for next month.
My problem with the codename theory is always if James Bond is a codename then Blofeld must also be a codetheory.
Also the grave stones of his parents in Skyfall
@@strathmore5267 and Tracey
And Kincade calls him James Bond in Skyfall too
As a Chinese, I watched my first Bond film in the early 1990's on a VHS cassette. It was Roger Moore. Can't remember which one it was.
But Sean and Pierce are the best Bonds of mine.
Bond from dr.no to die another day is could be the same person, but daniel craig's bond films are in a different universe.
No, its just a younger Bond, the youngest of the bunch. Casino Royale establishes the beginning of the Bond we know. There is no other universe or alias.
@@Super_Broly Thanks for the reply, but I have to disagree. If Daniel Craig's Bond is a younger Sean Connery/Roger Moore Bond then why is it set in the 21st century?
@@Junichi-cinema because we as fans think more about correct lore than blockbuster movie makers
It's simple. The James Bond universe works like say the Marvel and DC universe where the same character exists in parallel worlds and on a sliding time line. Connery, Moore and Lazenby's Bonds were active from the early 60's to the mid 80's. Connery and Lazenby's Bonds had roughly the same adventures and gave up the spy game in the 70's even though an alternative Connery was active into the early 80's like Moore's Bond. Dalton's Bond is the first soft reboot of the series. If he was in his early 40's by Licence to Kill I'd say that his version of Bond was born after WW2, became an agent in the 70's. Brosnan's Bond slides that time scale up to being born in the 1950's while Craig's was born in the late 60's. While the first three Bonds in their respective timelines has similar adventures the last three had wildly different ones with Dalton's maybe living a version of OHMSS and having his version of Tracy murdered. But with Brosnan and Craig they lived radically different lives than the others--way different adventures and events. I'd wager that Brosnan's Bond was never married and the closest character to Tracy was Paris Carver while Craig's it was Vesper. So to sum it up--same character, different universes and timelines and with that each Bond could've lived different lives.
Has nobody read the books ? James bond is James bond its a rolling timeline each movie is just set in the time its made otherwise they would all be set in the sixties
It's kinda like Marvel's comic timeline. Everything was "Just a couple years ago" even if a reference was a story from 40 years ago
@@ranwolf76 Marvel feels like 1 year in continuity, for every 3 to 4 years in real time.
X-Men and Spiderman works really well with it.
@@MaxIronsThird going by info given in the comics, Spider-man is somewhere between 28-30 years old in the comics.
@@ranwolf76 Makes sense, 15 years old in the 60's.
@@MaxIronsThird also confirmed if you put Peter outing himself during Civil War and Silk's origin story together.
Thanks to Skyfall the theory of the revolving door of cast being agents who assume the mantle batman style was shot to hell
The opening scene of Diamonds are Forever is James Bond tempestuously and relentlessly hunting down Blofeld for revenge in Tracy's death at the end of OHMSS. It makes far more sense to swap the order of those two films. I would also prefer putting Octopussy and A View To A Kill in the main timeline, perhaps before Spectre (or possibly No Time To Die), otherwise a great viewing order!
Everything has to come before NTTD!
This is BRILLIANT. And I'm going to definitely rewatch this in order to prepare for the new film!
Now go watch the Calvin Dyson rebuttal to this video so you watch something that really makes sense on this front.
Could you please provide a link?
@@santos8468 ua-cam.com/video/naU6ph1881A/v-deo.html
Thanks to you and the rest of the good people mentioning Calvin Dyson in response to this here video I got a new favorite UA-cam channel. Much appreciated!
I watched them all once and tried to count how many days each one takes based on travel time and plot points. With the exception of the 9 year jump at the beginning of Goldeneye, the average was around 9 days. That's 216 days, so Bond's career could easily fit in that 9 years span. Just under 3 missions a year.
Yay more code name theory, every bond fan loves to see that.
Put ‘The Rock’ as the final film and I’m there
Calvin Dyson *I N T E N S I F I E S*
I'm very much a Sean Connery guy, but my very favorite 'Bond' movie is the last one on your listed (indicated as "optional"). The Henry Mancini soundtrack alone makes the viewing worthwhile. Also, Peter Sellars playing his part absolutely straight, much to the frustration of the director. You can just never top Orson Welles as Le Chiffre.
The only way that bond chronology ever made sense to me was that Connery to brosnan is the same guy and Craig is in a new timeline, apart from Craig you can connect all the bond via teases like in Qs lab in die another day you see loads of gadgets from past movies and he even points out the thunderball jet pack, as well roger Moore’s bond goes to Tracy’s grave at the start of for your eyes only, bond can’t be codename because why would the separate bonds A remember gadgets they’ve never seen before and B go to one bonds wife’s grave and leave flowers
Craig’s Bond is definitely a reboot
That codename theory is just BS 😅
Trying to make that theory work is just a Mission: Impossible 😂
The Craig movies are NOT reboots. Judi Dench is M in them and the Brosnan movies.
@@HarryBuddhaPalm Yeah, so they feel and look like a reboot whenever I watch them.
What about "Happy and Glorious" featuring Her Majesty? How should it be put in the chronology? (also the Barry Nelson's version of Casino Royale)
How could Jaws be alive in For Your Eyes Only if it happened AFTER he died in Moonraker?
Before they die the screen writers must clear that plot hole up with an acceptable answer or homage in a sequal
What will really blow your mind is, "How is Jaws in Silver Streak"?
Jaws isn't in FYEO. Also he didn't die in Moonraker - it's mentioned that one of the American shuttles picked up an escape pod containing a tall man and a blonde woman.
Fantastic vid! Thank you for putting together something I've tried to do many, many times!
This was a fun thought experiment although personally I only think watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed by For Your Eyes Only are the only 2 that work really well and that are not part of the same generation.
I just watched the whole bond universe in 16 minutes.
I had a theory. As we know James Bond, known as 007, is a secret agent. The different actors who play Bond are actually different people. The different people abandon their past lives and change their name to James Bond, 007. But, this video may of changed my mind.
Also my favourite Bond is Roger Moore and my favourite Bond movie is Live Or Let Die.
Sweet list! Thank you! Now I have to watch all the movies....again...
In this order.