Literally the only way! I will never understand this whole different ways to view something, makes sense if you have already watched or want to shake things a bit. But fitst viewing of anything should always be by release date.
James Bond begins his career gambling at the casino royale in an independent Montenegro but later fights Red Grant on a train traveling through a united Yugoslavia. Also, Le Chiffre is bankrolling the Lord's Resistance Army in a post colonial Uganda, but later Bond travels to the crown colony of Jamaica (the fact that Jamaica is a colony even plays a major role in the plot of Dr No, with the government house assisting Bond).
"I thought Soviet Union was kaputnik." *"AHA! THAT'S WHAT--"* _"Keep it down, Boris, or they hear you!"_ "Oh, right. (Ahem.) _That's what we want you to think!"_
Not far from the truth! The Russians are always out for Russia, and are “friends” with no one! Much like China, it is the basic Communist mentality! Even if the Soviet Union collapsed, the mentality of the leadership has changed very little!
I'd given up by the over written opening statement. "Has James Bond being the different over the years". The different what? Judi Dench as Q! "How do you account for Bond getting married and then immediately widowed". Because it was in the book! That's not a continuity error! "to work out to make sense of" !
There's a lot of things in life that don't make sense: I'm sheventy two yearsh old, and I ... I don't care anymore. Started smoking weed in 1970, at the very tail end of being a cop, out of the evidence locker
I always loved quoting the line that comes immediately prior, "Oh no I've gone cross-eyed". Perfect quote to use when discussing a convoluted movie plot.
In Raymond Benson's books he is a continuation of John Gardner who is a continuation of Ian Fleming. In addition, the novelizations of the films are part of the continuity.
Here’s another thing that I noticed Bond meets Felix Leiter for the first time in Dr No, but he seems to know who Felix Leiter is in Goldfinger. So there’s no way that Goldfinger can take place before Dr No.
The trouble is all this need to put it on a linear timeline comes from a post-marvel audience. They try so hard to link all those films up dropping hints there and it's tight. That kind of storytelling didn't exist or at least wasn't as popular when they made Bondos so it wasn't a worry.
Indeed! Trying to retroactively apply a Marvel-style continuity to the series just doesn’t work. It felt like the video started out by trying to fill in gaps and by the end it just got lazy and instead resorted to “ehh it’s all in his imagination” which is obviously stretching it considerably...
It's ironic because the James Bond timeline is based on a comic book-style chronology. For instance, while Spider-Man stories written in the 60s are canon with modern Spider-Man comics, the stories themselves don't take place 50 years ago within canon itself, nor are the characters 50 years older now. I think it works much the same with the Bond films.
@@calvindyson "Trying to apply a Marvel-style continuity to the series just doesn’t work"... Does someone want to try telling that to Craig era Bond? :P
The biggest flaw of this timeline is casino Royale coz of Denchs sentence "God, I miss the cold War" and then every cold war bond movie is coming after it? Huh?
Also what about Felix Leiter? they first meet in Dr. No. But this timeline has Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Goldfinger before Dr. No. That is another big reason this timeline makes little to no sense.
Brosnan was in the talks to do casino royale. Would've been a good tie into judi dench as M had he done it. I think brosnan was a reboot and Craig was a2nd reboot
IGN was definitely having a slow day with news when this came out. I see it as Dr. No through Die Another Day is the same Bond. Then Casino Royale is a reboot of it all (and just keeps the same previous M because Judi Dench is awesome)
Q in DAD confirms it. Case closed. The get-out for Judi Dench is that she plays Barbara Maudsley in Brosnan's. And Olivia Mansfield in Craig's. Two different women who were M.
I think brosnan was a reboot. And Craig was a 2nd reboot. Brosnan was in the talks about casino royale, had he done that it would've tied in well with judi dench as M.
@@randomhuman97 I quite like the theory Dr No to A View To A Kill are one timeline as Bond ages appropriately. Then Dalton to Brosnan is another timeline.
@@randomhuman97 That's correct. Lois Maxwell had said to Cubby Broccoli in 1985 that she should be promoted to M in the next one, but he laughed and said no one would accept Bond taking orders from a woman. On GoldenEye, Martin Campbell said M should be a woman, because of as you say Stella Rimington being made head of MI5. Campbell says the head of MGM said it was a great idea, but get someone bloody good, like Judi Dench.
Stephen McNiff Just like every other website in the "Gaming Press", they're nothing more than a cog in the PR arm of the corporations like EA and worse.
I think my favorite part of this video is how polite Calvin is. Even if he think it's all nonsense, he still doesn't resort to calling them names or undermining them.
I feel like there are three Bonds: Connery, Lazenby and Moore depicted the character in his first continuity (a campy, over the top universe of Cold War clichés and Sci-Fi), while Dalton and Brosnan played a darker and slightly more realistic, albeit still pun-producing version and Craig, then, a realistic and tough version. I understand that the only "real" cut between universes occurred when the series was rebooted with Craig, but that's the type of head Canon that I came up with due to the "age issue" of the character from Dr. No until Die Another Day.
Mr Kevora This works organically as The Living Daylights was first written as an origin story for Bond. But Cubby rejected it after one draft, and Maibaum and Wilson retrofitted it into more of a soft reboot (younger Bond, younger Moneypenny, change in tone).
@@jd892 I guess your saying that because Judi Dench is M during that time but not only does she have a different name [Barbara in Brosnan's films, Olivia in Craigs] but the character is different too [Brosnan-antagonistic then respect, Craig-parental figure].
Personally, I introduced my girlfriend to the series with the Brosnan films, went through to Spectre and then went back to Dr. No through License to Kill. I feel that Goldeneye is the best film to introduce someone who hasn't seen a Bond film since it is modern enough for contemporary audiences but still has all the best Bond tropes.
From the perspective that this video is NOT tongue-in-cheek...A TON of thoughts to get out of the way in this comment: - I had to pause the video, I was laughing so hard when he suggested Blofeld had plastic surgery to look like one of Bond's old allies and then again when he said "chronologically perfect". - 20:56 Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not 100% familiar with British Naval ranks but isn't M of the novels (or any Section Chief) a Vice Admiral? If that's the case, Hargraves would be taking a DEmotion to become M wouldn't he? Or am I reading too much into this and he would simply keep his rank with the new job? - I could see, in a stretch, Moneypenny being a codename pre-Craig as we are never given a full name for her until Skyfall. Q is DEFINITELY a title as it's short for Quartermaster. And it's up for debate if M is a title as in Goldeneye, Zukovsky references a "new M" being a lady BUT I'm sure you already know Fleming based the character off his own Section Chief from his time serving, who would sign official documents with only an initial rather than his full name. This is backed up when we learn Lee's M is named Miles Messervy, Dench's M is Olivia Mansfield and Finnes' M is Garreth Mallory. - Die Another Day has aged like milk. - This video somehow made Chrisopth Waltz's Blofeld make LESS sense than it already does. - I laughed again when he basically suggested old-man-Rog is more or less locked in a padded room somewhere having fantasies about saving the world. - 29:10 "And hopefully No Time to Die isn't just a big remake of Dr. No because that might make me rethink this whole thing"...Yeah, you might want to start on that now. ... Really though, it is absolutely impossible for a 60-year old franchise to make any kind of chronological sense. The only thing you need to know is James Bond is ONE man who holds the code-number 007 and Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are all the SAME man regardless of how outlandish it is. Once a fan can accept that, have fun with the rest!
LOVED THIS!! Thanks so much. Yeah, I only touched on overview stuff really but you’re totally right. It makes even less sense when you dig into details. Zukovsky’s “new M” comment being a prime example. Great analysis!
@@calvindyson "New M" is explained away as She's been Away in another department for years... she is New as who holds a job for multiple years certsinly not zukovsky
@@calvindyson if you really wanted to stretch it, you could say Dench is playing two different Ms in the same timeline. Olivia Mansfield in CR, QOS, and SF (which would obviously have to be moved here if they're not the same character) and then the actually new M, Barbara Mawdesley, in GE. But yeah, this timeline makes absolutely no sense. Edit: I'd be very interested to see you attempt a chronological timeline yourself!
Regarding M, that might be true in the novels, but don't think it is true in the movies. But you could also argue that he was, indeed demoted- after all, a nuclear submarine was stolen on his watch and almost used to destroy the whole world, and a good chunk of the crew slaughtered, so maybe someone upstairs thought "yeah...gonna need to punish you for that."
I first saw the IGN video in my recommended, but decided I didn't want to use 17 minutes of my time watching it. 35 minutes of Calvin talking about it though, sign me up!
MASSIVE HOLE!!! How come 'Spectre' is where it is and Bond hasn't heard of SPECTRE or Blofeld yet in the events of said film yet has encountered it in previous films in THIS order?
James Bond is played by different actors from film to film: "Behold the rich tapestry of the James Bond franchise!" Blofeld is played by different actors from film to film: "Okay, so stay with me..."
Calvin and every other rational person: "The Bond movies don't follow a chronology in the way that you would expect with a Marvel movie, for example, and, while they could be viewed as such it is not the original intention of the filmmakers in the same way it was for the Marvel filmmakers. Therefore, ascribing them a similar mindset would be disingenuous." IGN: "LOL old Roger Moore Bond has dementia and paranoid delusions!"
Goodness. I love to ignore fan theories. These guys need to see some Tarzan, Godzilla, Hammer and Universal horror movies. Sometimes continuity takes a back seat. He is the same character. GOLDENEYE is a soft reboot. It neither confirms nor denies the previous movies. CASINO ROYALE is a hard reboot. No that hard to figure out. It may help to watch OHMSS between THUNDERBALL and YOLT, then DAF. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is a semi sequel to OHMSS. That is about it. Remember that the continuity of the books is a contrast to the movies. Felix Leiter was a Texan for example.
I almost was about to totally disagree with you about Goldeneye being a soft reboot that neither confirms nor denies previous installments, then got to thinking of Jack Wade in place of Felix (in that it can confirm that Felix was injured in License to Kill, but can be seen as just another CIA contact) as well as Bond referring to M's predecessors drink of choice early on in the film (this could refer to any of the guys filling the role, or simply because she's his new boss and he's been around for a while). So yeah, I like that. Though, the World is Not Enough DOES confirm the previous films by referring to his family motto.
@@callawolf531 It's a 'soft reboot' in the sense that the old continuity is still applicable, but the cast is new [except for Q] and references are more subtle so it can be stand alone for new audiences [for example when Electra asks Bond if he lost someone in World is not enough, we assume he's thinking about Tracy but he doesn't say it out loud].
Trying to craft a cohesive and coherent plot-line around a series that wasn’t concerned with one is like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. Yes, there is a vague through-line through the first 20 films (e.g. Tracy’s death) but they weren’t made with any concern for ‘canon’ (which is really more of a 21st century concern, which could only become a thing once people were able to catch up on the ones they hadn’t seen on VHS/DVD/Netflix at home) so it all boils down to a futile attempt to try and make the Bond films be something they’re not, and were never made to do. It’s all making something out of nothing, from a thing that was never there to begin with. So, whilst this video was a bit of daft fun (I do rather like Clint Gage - at least, I like his work with Cinefix, which is a great channel) I think as a Bond timeline it holds water as well as a paper bag.
I appreciate the IGN video pointing out that the (actual) first "Bond... James Bond" is delivered in response to "Trench, Sylvia Trench", I feel like that gets passed over a lot.
Which is itself set off by Bond addressing her as Miss....... And her not wanting to be so formal, but needing to answer his question first. I wonder if in Bond's head at that moment he thought I like the sound of that, I'll always say that. Even though it doesn't make sense outside the context.
Presumably, these guys also believe the Joker killed Batman's parents, fell off a cathedral before getting a grill, tattoos and a moustache to disguise himself before reintroducing himself to society in 2008.
Biggest flaw in this is the first 4 choices, Felix completely botches this. Bond meets him for the first time in Casino Royal in the reboot timeline and in Dr. No in the original timeline, so this is trying to say that Felix turned white and old as soon as Goldfinger happened and then suddenly turned young again in time for Dr. No where suddenly Bond doesn’t know who the guy he worked with on 3 previous missions is anymore
They clearly meet for the 1st time in Dr. No too so him showing up in Goldfinger first doesn't make sense, not to mention literally meeting him for the first time in Casino Royale as well. This means the IGN Bond would be introduced to Felix, then see him again (even acting like a friend) in Quantum of Solace and Goldfinger and then meet him again in Dr. No. Lol
I see Connery, Lazenby and Moore as the same person. Early adventures in his late 20s/early 30s in 1962 and he is in his 50s in 1985. OHMSS makes call backs to Connery's films as Moore's make reference to Tracy. Dalton is a soft reboot with a younger actor in the late 1980s. What happened in the other films has happened to him, but not necessarily in the same way (e.g. Tracy) Brosnan could be a continuation of Dalton or could be another soft reboot in the 1990s/2000s. I personally would say a soft reboot as I feel like their portrayals of the character as well as the tone of the films is too different. Craig is a complete reboot of the character.
I see it pretty much the same, but subscribe the code name theory to it: Connery, Lazenby and Moore are the same guy (the original James Bond). That bond retires due to old age. Dalton plays another guy who adopts the Bond ‘codename’ and is fired for going rogue after LTK. Brosnan is another guy who adopts the name, and takes over from the disgraced Dalton character. Craig is a different guy altogether. It’s not perfect, but continuity wise it pretty holds up.
TVTropes describes it as 'Broadstrokes' ie. everything that happened with the first 3 Bond's happened to Dalton and Brosnan, but more recently than the 60's-70's. Then again they also say 'Casino Royale' keeps the same political situation as the classic Bonds...which is called Real Life!
@@wazztvproductions If Dalton/Brosnan are agents that have James Bond as a code name, then how come we get a reference to Tracy in Licence To Kill? In LTK, Felix Leiter said that Bond “was married once, but that was a long time ago”. The World Is Not Enough has the villain of Elektra King, who is clearly made for Bond to have a reminiscent of Tracy, due to how Bond easily falls for her and why it pained him to kill her at the end. Plus, its title is a reference to Bond’s family motto in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In Die Another Day, Bond gets his 20th Rolex and in Q’s lab, we are shown artifacts of Bond’s previous 19 adventures. I’m sorry, but for me, Dalton and Brosnan are the same character as played by Connery, Lazenby, and Moore.
Here is mine 1 dr no 2 from russia with love 3 goldfinger 4 thunderball 5 You only live twice 6 diamonds are forever 7 on her majests secret service 8 for your eyes only 9 live and let die 10 the man with the Golden gun 11 the spy who loved me 12 moonraker 13 a view to a kill 14 octopussy 15 the living dayligths 16 licence to kill 17 goldeneye 18 tomorrow never dies 19 the world is not enough 20 die another day 1 never say never again 1 casino royale 1954 1 casino royale 1967 1 casino royale 2 quantum of solace 3 skyfall 4 spectre 5 no time to die
When I was very very young I used to believe James Bond must be a Time Lord hence being the same guy but different faces. I definitely come a hell of a long way since. I call the first 20 films the "Classic Era" as it has its own subtle continuity.
@@reginaldfromnigeria5206 It was only a amusing thought of mine, wonder what cause of death for each incarnations was? But this IGN video is total garbage.
They lost me at making Goldfinger 3rd. It was such a weird choice, among many. Sometimes I wonder if they deliberately make stupid mistakes in these articles so fans tear them apart and drive views.
In the reference book "The James Bond Encyclopedia" Blofeld did take inspiration from Henderson for his appearance in DAF. And that is a official book!
Honestly, I'll give the IGN short credit because that was my genuine issue with Skyfall. I understood thematically where the filmmakers wanted to do with it but it didn't line up with the Craig movies whatsoever and it was like with the references they made, it was more to do with the audiences knowledge of the film series as a whole vs what the character had actually gone through.
Yes, it works as on a meta-textual level of the Bond series celebrating its 50th anniversary, but not on the textual level of Bond as a character in the film. It does feel like there’s a missing film between QoS and Skyfall - I guess the Blood Stone and GoldenEye Reloaded video games can fill that spot.
I think we can take it that some time passes between Quantum and Skyfall [like 5 years] while Quantum/Spectre went quite to build up there powerbase. By that time Craig's Bond will have done a few missions off screen. The idea that his branch of spying is out of date also accoutns for it-it's the profession not the man that is often questioned.
I ... didn't hate it, but the theory of how 'Spectre' (the movie) fits in was non-sensical dribble. Not saying the rest made perfect sense by any means, but at least you can kinda, sorta, almost see how they were cutting the jigsaw pieces to form something resembling vague-but-not-quite-there coherence. An interesting effort sans 'Spectre'.
I find it interesting that Fleming did try to link the books together (where they frequently mentioned what had happened to Bond since last we saw him) and the films weren’t too concerned. I suppose it would’ve been quite limiting to the filmmakers to always open the films with Bond eating breakfast in his flat reflecting on his recent past (and, for audiences in the 60s and 70s, re-reading an old book would’ve been far easier than re-watching an old film) but I still like the little mentions they did make, like Sylvia Trench in FRWL and Felix in Goldfinger mentioning the events of Dr. No. Either way, when is May going to appear in a Bond film?
Yeah it’s funny how they never felt a need to wrap up what happened with the Bond girls from previous adventures like Fleming would occasionally do. Would love for May to eventually appear in a film. Might have been fun to have had her in Skyfall instead of Kincade
I don't think having a little more continuity between the films is necessarily a bad idea, I just think it was executed abysmally in Spectre. Spectre being formed by Blofeld and other members of Quantum that evaded capture would've worked much better than what they did.
SolarDragon007 That’s a neat idea. And I’m not opposed to there being more continuity - I do quite like the fact that they’ve tried to tell a more overarching story in the Craig era, I just think they should’ve planned out what the story was back in 2005/6 as opposed to making it up as they go along in such a piecemeal way. I think ‘Spectre’ suffered as a film because of the inclusion of SPECTRE - EON didn’t have the rights to use SPECTRE until 2013, and the film really feels like a massive course correction. It’s strange - EON got the rights to ‘Casino Royale’ in 1999, yet were restrained enough to hold off making the film until the time was right, but with SPECTRE they couldn’t wait to make a whole film about them even though it didn’t fit in with the story they had been telling so far.
BenCol Might be because of the fact Specter is so tied up in Bond’s history. Where Casino was just an origin story that at the time didn’t need to be told from their perspective.
You can look at my long list in the comments and I didn't touch on that one...I missed that one...Great Eye my friend. I shall give your comment a thumbs up
I honestly appreciate the effort this video puts in, and it offers an interesting order to re-watch the movies, but you’re totally right about continuity being pretty much irrelevant. In the end, it’s the same as the code name theory, which retroactively tries to ascribe continuity to a franchise which has almost none. You have to sort of view each film as it’s own thing, and sometimes treat different eras as different continuities. I personally like to think of the first 16 movies as being one franchise, which had absolutely zero continuity between films, and which must be appreciated individually. The Brosnan films are a sort of soft reboot, with reasonable continuity between themselves, and of course the Craig films are a hard reboot with a more modern conception of continuity.
Don't you just hate fake fans? You can tell they never pay attention to the scripts or mainly the older scripts because of their attention span.. annoying. Damn IGN trying to get marvel fans to like bond.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Right, I have to say that Craig is my favourite Bond by quite a long shot. However, I also enjoy the Connery, Lazenby and Dalton films as well, as well as A View to a Kill. We're not all of the opinion that he's the only good Bond.
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer I am guessing that Moonraker is one of your least favorites....I tend to like the ones closest to Fleming myself and though Fleming was never trying to write realism, his tone was far more serious than a lot of the movies.
There are 2 TIMELINES in the James Bond universe. The 1st TIMELINE From Dr. No (1962) TO Die Another Day (2002). And then the 2nd TIMELINE Casino Royale (2006) TO No Time To Die (2021).
I do find it amazing how many Bond fans seem confused by that [I saw a comment asking why Felix had lost his shark injuries from Licence to Kill in NTTD]. There are two separate time lines, plain and simple.
In Ian Fleming's books, James Bond first meets Blofeld in On Her Majesty's Service, which is why he disguised himself. It's a gross error in the film that he doesn't recognize him.
...and then Bond finds his long lost brother also named James. 'brother-James' was so glad to meet his long lost brother '007-James' that he renamed his son ''James Bond Junior'' 'James-Junior' was a bit annoyed with this, considering he was already 16 years old at the time. and he was fine with his original name ''Larry Bond'' but he grew to like it when his uncle '007-James' gave him his aston martin. he then earned the game from his uncle James, now hes heir to the name, James Bond.
Personally I would put a bit more thought in the orders of Goldfinger, Moonraker, the Spy Who Loved Me , but overall I actually quite liked this fan theory. As a Diamonds fan though I like to think about that as a post-Majesty’s scenario (i.e. the quip “I tend to notice little things like that, whether a girl is a blonde, or a...brunette (referring to Tracy)) and the hallucination comes here instead of Octopussy and AVTAK. Surprisingly it’s not too bad for my taste. I praise their efforts though!
A simpler timeline could be: 1. Casino Royale/Quantum Of Solace 2. Dr. No To Die Another Day 3. Skyfall To No Time To Die Maybe swap DAF and OHMSS Though the whole thing is ludicrous anyways
This video left me wondering how would these IGN guys would've rationalized multiple Walter Gotell or Shane Rimmer's appearances. But going back to the whole Bond Continuity subject, I really like what John Logan said about DB5's appearance in Skyfall. He said that it's the part of the Bond Legacy and in context of the series it makes sense for the creators to use certain things (Goldfinger-style DB5 in Skyfall, garrote-watch in AVTAK deleted scene, appearance of Jaws in EON videogame, etc) as a part of the big Bond Legacy. And for example when I watch Skyfall and see Bond as a physical wreck, I shouldn't think about the context of the previous two films. I should think about the 50-years-long history of the series. Very good video, Calvin! Looking forward to join the Operation Phoenix 👍
I made my own chronology where James Bond starts in 1962 at the age of 26 and retires in 1986 after a 24-year career. He died in 1991 at the end of the Cold War at the age of 55. 1. Casino Royale (1962/ 1st Semester) 2. Quantun Of Solace (1962/2st Semester ) 3. Tomorow Never Dies (1963) 4.The World Is Not Enought (1964) 5. Die Another Day (1967) 6. Goldeneye (1970) 7. Skyfall (1971) 8. Dr. No (1972/1st Semester) 9. From Russia With Love (1972/2st Semester) 10. Live And Let Die (1973/1st Semester ) 11. The Man With The Golden Gun (1973/2st Semester) 12. Thunderball (1974) 13. Goldifinger (1975) 14. On Her Majestic Secret Service (1976) 15. Diamonds Are Forever (1977) 16. The Only Live Twaice (1978) 17. For Your Eyes Only (1980/ 1st Semester) 18. The Spy Who Loved Me (1980/ 2st Semester) 19. Moonraker (1981) 20. Octopussy (1982) 21. A View To A Kill (1983) 22. The Living Daylights (1984) 23. License To Kill (1985) 24. Spectre (1986) 25. No Time To Die (1991)
the only definitive timeline in the james bond universe is this OHMSS happens BEFORE FYEO. The first 5 films, or at least the Terence Young ones are BEFORE Majesty's
I take James Bond, for what it is. I have no problem with Bond being the same person, even when I was 12, I never questioned it. And, that is why I love your videos Calvin. You make so much sense, and every one is a treat to watch. And that's from someone, whose the same age, as Roger Moore was in a view to a kill.
Every actor who came in for the role, you have to assume that James Bond started 10 years earlier. Except Daniel Graig who was a rebound. Sean Conery/George Lanzeby, 1950s; Roger More, 60s; Timothy Dalton, 70s; Pierce Brosnan, 80s.
31:36 I 100% agree with that. When there is continuity between the films it makes the most sense that way. All the same this explanation isn't to crazy compared to the "Official" Zelda timeline. I cannot imagine linking bond movies with the idea that maybe he failed one of the missions prompting this movie or if he succeeded it would prompt this movie. At the end of the day they are just great movies that can be enjoyed by themselves or in a row, if you accept that all the pieces don't line up completely.
In the Miami Beach scene in Goldfinger, Bond and Leiter mention 2 recent cases, one in Jamaica, where the "opposition got close". Those are obviously the cases in the first two movies so Goldfinger cannot be placed ahead of them.
The first space shuttle was launched in 1981. So Mooraker couldn't have been set in 1979. They made a miniature with salt instead of the rocket's fire syrup in the film.
I just want to say that this video wasn't made by IGN but rather a channel called CineFix who only recently partnered with them. Cinefix produces great film analysis videos and some of the best top 10 movie lists and it's clear that they put a lot of thought and effort into their videos. This just seemed like a fun not-to-be-taken-seriously list they were probably commissioned to do by IGN. Anyway Cinefix is definitely worth checking out.
I don’t think any attempt to organise the Bond movies like this would gel well, but I appreciate that they attempted to do so in a way that gave Bond a clear character arc. It’s funny. I first saw that video before I began my rewatch of the Bond movies (from Dr. No to Spectre), and even though I’m only one movie in I already spotted a problem with this order I didn’t spot before, that Dr. No has Bond only recently having become a 00 agent, so it should probably be third in the list at the least.
It is possible that we can categorize the films into four separate timelines of the same character. 1. Sean's films 2. OHMSS - LTK which has the Tracy reference. 3. Pierce's films which have the same background but no real callback to Tracy. 4. Daniel's films
RMS Queen Elizabeth was sunk on January 9, 1972 and was dismantled for scrap between 1974 and 1975. So The Man With The Golden Gun cannot be set in 1975 as in the official chronology. They probably recorded it 1 year before.
I love these videos. I saw your ranking of the Bond villains recently and you convinced me to take advantage of the quarantine by rewatching all the Bond movies from the start, one a day. I saw them all almost ten years ago and my tastes have changed so much that I found films I really disliked back then have greatly grown on me (Like From Russia with Love) and ones I held in high regard have fallen a bit (Like You Only Live Twice). Thanks so much for getting me back into these films.
1:54 My favorite Bond movie, it even beats GoldenEye. It's "The Spy with Her Majesty's Quantum Finger". With Q (Judi Dench) telling Bond (Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Daniel Craig, Sean Connery), that she never jokes about her work
I thought it was a Fun enough way of making it work on the timeline... and the idea of Old Man Roger telling Madeline he's going on a business trip and doing His later movies was incredible. The chase in Paris thinking of madaline in a hotel somewhere thinking they're having a dirty weekend whilst Rog is running up the eiffel tower
That bit in Diamonds: "Where are you going?" "Oh, I'm just popping out". As he climbs out the window to look for bad guys, or the opening of Spectre is like a vision of that concept. They could re-name it the Don't Tell Madeleine series.
Yeah, that IGN video description should discredit the rest of the video entirely. IGN should stick to video games, tv & movies they actually know something about. This...this was dumb. Thanks for making this video, Calvin! You’re the real fan! IGN should have had you consult on it.
Calvin, I have a really BAD feeling that at the end of No Time To Die, Daniel Craig will walk into a room to meet his replacement. We all think it's a female - but with updated CGI technology, it's Sean Connery.
Yeah, I just can't get behind this recent preoccupation with timelines, continuity, and lore. There are similar attempts with the Zelda games, which seem much more interesting to me as a myth with different retellings rather than some sort of continuous story where Link keeps getting reborn. Would love to see somebody try to make the definitive Charlie Brown chronology in this way
That's why I'm a big fan of multiverses. Like both Dave Filoni's Clone Wars and Genndy Tartakovsky's Clone Wars? Well, pretend there are multiple Star Wars timelines...one in which 2003's Clone Wars happened, one in which 2008's Clone Wars happened and so on. Like both Dragon Ball Super and GT? Well, just think of Dragon Ball as a multiverse.
Saying bond is imagining M and Q and moneypenny just because of how old Roger, an actor is, is probably the most stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. I'm laughing my ass off, of how stupid was that sentence
Its just different actors playing the role. Things do change up a bit to fit the times. And at times they added elements from other big film ideas at the time ie: Blaxploitation in LALD, 70s kung fu films on MWTGG, Star Wars in Moonraker. Aids epidemic taking foot during Daltons run. Mujarhadeen, and using an Arms dealer as villian in LD. At times there is moments in films alluding to others. Spy, FYEO, TWINE making nods to Bond married. Octopussy. Moore was showing his age, but tarzan yell aside, this film was brilliant. It has a few hiccups like the yell, but it never detracts from a well written story. Louis Jordan plays, i feel the best villian opposite Moore, aside Kananga. The auction scene, The awesome casino Backgammon scene. Magdas stunning spiral down from the balcony. Maud Adams Octopussy. India so beautiful, when Bond arrives there. Gobinda tipping a nod to Oddjob crushing the dice. A grand pre title sequence where Bond must use clever ingenuity to blow up the hanger. A Great villian scheme, in using Octopussys circus to smuggle jewels. Only to reveal the villians real scheme, in detonating a nuclear device on an US military base in Germany, that would cause Europe to unalateral dissarmament. Allowing Orluv to make Russia great again. And Kan reaps all the wealth. The film played out as a mystery. Why 009 was dressd as a clown stumbling into the home, and with the egg.
Doesn't Bond meet Leiter (in the films) in Doctor No? So in this chronology he gets introduced twice, having known him for three adventures (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solice and Goldfinger) before he meets him again for the first time?
Judi Dench’s M immediately throws this theory out the window: Dench’s M is clearly introduced to Bond in Goldeneye, with special emphasis put on Bond’s chauvinistic lifestyle vs a new female boss. Yet there she is, right at the beginning in Casino Royale. All the while IGN try to explain every other M Bond has had with this nonsense timeline..
Hey Calvin, I would really like to see a video of you ranking the original movie posters (the ones showing in the background in your videos). Wouldn’t that be a nice list? My favorite posters are Diamonds are forever and For your eyes only, Keep up the good work.
Blofeld is always a problem when it comes to continuity. Though in my headcanon of the official Eon series up until 2002, the Charles Gray and Donald Pleasence Blofelds are clones, while the Eric Pohlmann, Telly Savalas and Robert Rietti versions are the real Blofeld (hence why Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond in OHMSS). I think the cloning idea from Diamonds actually saves a lot of headache trouble for me, since I like to think that Blofeld had been involved with cloning and genetics for a long time. However, the whole Blofeld in Spectre part of the video confused me as much as it did you, Calvin. So yeah, this video is really kinda baffling.
I watched this video. I found it entertaining, but like you, I had some issues with some of the stretches they made. A few issues I had 1) Bond Hallucinating in A View to a Kill...Though I am not British, I would assume that the British have a battery of tests for agents which would keep senile agents in the field. 2) One underlying theme in most all of the movies until The Living Daylights is the Cold War. It is obviously absent from License to Kill on 3) Calvin, your facial expressions are priceless when they do major factoid Gymnastics 4) I knew when I saw this you would hit on the Jaws chronology 5) You only live Twice, On her Majesty's Secret Service and You only Live Twice are best viewed in that order. I always interpreted the more intense search for Blofeld in You only live Twice as a reaction to Tracy's death 6) Outside of the previously mentioned movies and the Craig films, there is not a whole lot of Continuity. Yes Dr. No is where Bond learns of SPECTRE and Dr. No is referenced in Russia with Love, but outside of Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE you really need no prior Bond knowledge to enjoy these films.
TV tropes' entry on 'Broadstrokes': When Timothy Dalton took over the role of Bond: as he was about twenty years younger than Roger Moore, the events of the previous films (which had all been quite consistent up to then) were acknowledged to be canon in Broad Strokes but assumed to have occurred more recently than the 1960s.
I hope you make your own version of this. While I absolutely agree that Bond in Dr. No through Die Another Day is the same Bond and then a reboot with Craig’s Bond, I do think you could do what IGN did and make it almost work
This is my way of doing a Bondathon;
I start with Dr No and go through all the films in release order until Spectre
Like any normal person would, that's good.
That's interesting, so do I Hahahaha
Great minds think alike 😉
the only correct way to marathon is alphabetical, cunting articles when they are the first word.
Literally the only way! I will never understand this whole different ways to view something, makes sense if you have already watched or want to shake things a bit. But fitst viewing of anything should always be by release date.
And no one mentions the fact that IGN’s timeline has the Soviet Union appear, collapse and then return without explanation.
Alternate history?
Maybe it takes place in Tenet's reality and is simultaneously collapsing and rising.
James Bond begins his career gambling at the casino royale in an independent Montenegro but later fights Red Grant on a train traveling through a united Yugoslavia. Also, Le Chiffre is bankrolling the Lord's Resistance Army in a post colonial Uganda, but later Bond travels to the crown colony of Jamaica (the fact that Jamaica is a colony even plays a major role in the plot of Dr No, with the government house assisting Bond).
"I thought Soviet Union was kaputnik."
*"AHA! THAT'S WHAT--"*
_"Keep it down, Boris, or they hear you!"_
"Oh, right. (Ahem.) _That's what we want you to think!"_
Not far from the truth! The Russians are always out for Russia, and are “friends” with no one! Much like China, it is the basic Communist mentality! Even if the Soviet Union collapsed, the mentality of the leadership has changed very little!
You know what they say, you can't spell ignorant without IGN.
You got that right, Darkman.
I'd given up by the over written opening statement. "Has James Bond being the different over the years". The different what? Judi Dench as Q! "How do you account for Bond getting married and then immediately widowed". Because it was in the book! That's not a continuity error! "to work out to make sense of" !
There's a lot of things in life that don't make sense: I'm sheventy two yearsh old, and I ... I don't care anymore.
Started smoking weed in 1970, at the very tail end of being a cop, out of the evidence locker
Sounds like something Darkman would say, oh wait
You cant spell terrorizing-malign without T.M.Z.
And this is why I have the Austin Powers view on the chronology: "I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself."
“That goes for you all too”
I always loved quoting the line that comes immediately prior, "Oh no I've gone cross-eyed". Perfect quote to use when discussing a convoluted movie plot.
Otherwise you’ll go cross eyed.
@@l555mat8 Yes! :)
If you’re wondering why he doesn’t age,
And other timeline facts (la la la)
Just repeat to yourself: “it’s just a film,
I should really just relax.”
Hear hear! It's just entertainment! I love all Bond movies, because they are entertaining! Nothing to get worked up about. Relax & have fun!
I love the MST3K reference!
Why don't The Simpsons age? Oh I can't handle it.
Well there is a theory wear homer died and this is all his memories 🤷♂️
In Raymond Benson's books he is a continuation of John Gardner who is a continuation of Ian Fleming. In addition, the novelizations of the films are part of the continuity.
Here’s another thing that I noticed Bond meets Felix Leiter for the first time in Dr No, but he seems to know who Felix Leiter is in Goldfinger. So there’s no way that Goldfinger can take place before Dr No.
As a wise prophet once said, "STOP GETTING BOND WRONG"
At that point, you might just have to settle for America’s Strongest Man.
@@TeatimeTanker Calvin was London's Maddest Man after this video.
GLANG-A-LANG...GLANG-A-LANG-A-LANG
All do that with your finger round your eye
“He means his cock”
The trouble is all this need to put it on a linear timeline comes from a post-marvel audience. They try so hard to link all those films up dropping hints there and it's tight. That kind of storytelling didn't exist or at least wasn't as popular when they made Bondos so it wasn't a worry.
Indeed! Trying to retroactively apply a Marvel-style continuity to the series just doesn’t work. It felt like the video started out by trying to fill in gaps and by the end it just got lazy and instead resorted to “ehh it’s all in his imagination” which is obviously stretching it considerably...
Hey they tried to make continuity!
It's ironic because the James Bond timeline is based on a comic book-style chronology. For instance, while Spider-Man stories written in the 60s are canon with modern Spider-Man comics, the stories themselves don't take place 50 years ago within canon itself, nor are the characters 50 years older now. I think it works much the same with the Bond films.
@@calvindyson "Trying to apply a Marvel-style continuity to the series just doesn’t work"... Does someone want to try telling that to Craig era Bond? :P
Greg Rientjes that’s a good point. But it was poor writing when they retrospectively did it in Spectre. A mistake on the filmmakers part there.
The biggest flaw of this timeline is casino Royale coz of Denchs sentence "God, I miss the cold War" and then every cold war bond movie is coming after it? Huh?
HA!! xD xD xD
Also what about Felix Leiter? they first meet in Dr. No. But this timeline has Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Goldfinger before Dr. No. That is another big reason this timeline makes little to no sense.
Cut to the "OH SNAP" video
Also black Felix.
Brosnan was in the talks to do casino royale. Would've been a good tie into judi dench as M had he done it.
I think brosnan was a reboot and Craig was a2nd reboot
IGN was definitely having a slow day with news when this came out. I see it as Dr. No through Die Another Day is the same Bond. Then Casino Royale is a reboot of it all (and just keeps the same previous M because Judi Dench is awesome)
Q in DAD confirms it. Case closed. The get-out for Judi Dench is that she plays Barbara Maudsley in Brosnan's. And Olivia Mansfield in Craig's. Two different women who were M.
I think brosnan was a reboot. And Craig was a 2nd reboot.
Brosnan was in the talks about casino royale, had he done that it would've tied in well with judi dench as M.
@@davidjames579 I always thought M was replaced by dench because the real M15 head became a woman
@@randomhuman97 I quite like the theory Dr No to A View To A Kill are one timeline as Bond ages appropriately. Then Dalton to Brosnan is another timeline.
@@randomhuman97 That's correct. Lois Maxwell had said to Cubby Broccoli in 1985 that she should be promoted to M in the next one, but he laughed and said no one would accept Bond taking orders from a woman. On GoldenEye, Martin Campbell said M should be a woman, because of as you say Stella Rimington being made head of MI5. Campbell says the head of MGM said it was a great idea, but get someone bloody good, like Judi Dench.
I immediately wondered what Calvin would think after watching the IGN video
Yes!! Thankfully he did this video!
They also forgot about General Gogol stepping down in Living Daylights for Pushkin to takeover.
Clearly Gogal went on vacation... or something.
Daniel Craig is hallucinating that he is Roger Moore, seems legit.
And the woman he likes to whack off to in his free time is Grace Jones, apparently.
So Daniel Craig is hallucinating that he’s a better James Bond than he really is… Yeah that seems legit… I’m all for that…
"My name is Roger Moore. I must be dreaming".
Spectre felt like a Roger Moore movie though.
Spectre has kind of a senile feel to it
Does this mean that Jack Wade got plastic surgery so he could look like Brad Whitaker? No wonder Bond didn't trust him at first.
Great point. I didn't even catch that one. I shall give your comment a thumbs up
Excellent point
No he is his long lost twin brother
IGN’s video really proves why they should stick to gaming content
Actually gamers don't want them to go anywhere near that either.
They can't even make good gaming content.
You know George. I was about to say the same thing.
Stephen McNiff Just like every other website in the "Gaming Press", they're nothing more than a cog in the PR arm of the corporations like EA and worse.
Yeah, IGN has very little credibility left, in my book anyways.
With this theory IGN could add that movie The Rock somewhere in the end as well
I think my favorite part of this video is how polite Calvin is. Even if he think it's all nonsense, he still doesn't resort to calling them names or undermining them.
I feel like there are three Bonds: Connery, Lazenby and Moore depicted the character in his first continuity (a campy, over the top universe of Cold War clichés and Sci-Fi), while Dalton and Brosnan played a darker and slightly more realistic, albeit still pun-producing version and Craig, then, a realistic and tough version.
I understand that the only "real" cut between universes occurred when the series was rebooted with Craig, but that's the type of head Canon that I came up with due to the "age issue" of the character from Dr. No until Die Another Day.
That's how I like to think of it. Multiverse theory works for everyone.
Mr Kevora This works organically as The Living Daylights was first written as an origin story for Bond. But Cubby rejected it after one draft, and Maibaum and Wilson retrofitted it into more of a soft reboot (younger Bond, younger Moneypenny, change in tone).
This is what makes the most sense
If you exclude Skyfall you could combine Brosnan and Craig in one bond. But not sure how it would fit together
@@jd892 I guess your saying that because Judi Dench is M during that time but not only does she have a different name [Barbara in Brosnan's films, Olivia in Craigs] but the character is different too [Brosnan-antagonistic then respect, Craig-parental figure].
I think this too.
Personally, I introduced my girlfriend to the series with the Brosnan films, went through to Spectre and then went back to Dr. No through License to Kill. I feel that Goldeneye is the best film to introduce someone who hasn't seen a Bond film since it is modern enough for contemporary audiences but still has all the best Bond tropes.
From the perspective that this video is NOT tongue-in-cheek...A TON of thoughts to get out of the way in this comment:
- I had to pause the video, I was laughing so hard when he suggested Blofeld had plastic surgery to look like one of Bond's old allies and then again when he said "chronologically perfect".
- 20:56 Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not 100% familiar with British Naval ranks but isn't M of the novels (or any Section Chief) a Vice Admiral? If that's the case, Hargraves would be taking a DEmotion to become M wouldn't he? Or am I reading too much into this and he would simply keep his rank with the new job?
- I could see, in a stretch, Moneypenny being a codename pre-Craig as we are never given a full name for her until Skyfall. Q is DEFINITELY a title as it's short for Quartermaster. And it's up for debate if M is a title as in Goldeneye, Zukovsky references a "new M" being a lady BUT I'm sure you already know Fleming based the character off his own Section Chief from his time serving, who would sign official documents with only an initial rather than his full name. This is backed up when we learn Lee's M is named Miles Messervy, Dench's M is Olivia Mansfield and Finnes' M is Garreth Mallory.
- Die Another Day has aged like milk.
- This video somehow made Chrisopth Waltz's Blofeld make LESS sense than it already does.
- I laughed again when he basically suggested old-man-Rog is more or less locked in a padded room somewhere having fantasies about saving the world.
- 29:10 "And hopefully No Time to Die isn't just a big remake of Dr. No because that might make me rethink this whole thing"...Yeah, you might want to start on that now.
...
Really though, it is absolutely impossible for a 60-year old franchise to make any kind of chronological sense. The only thing you need to know is James Bond is ONE man who holds the code-number 007 and Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are all the SAME man regardless of how outlandish it is. Once a fan can accept that, have fun with the rest!
LOVED THIS!! Thanks so much. Yeah, I only touched on overview stuff really but you’re totally right. It makes even less sense when you dig into details. Zukovsky’s “new M” comment being a prime example. Great analysis!
@@calvindyson "New M" is explained away as She's been Away in another department for years... she is New as who holds a job for multiple years certsinly not zukovsky
@@calvindyson if you really wanted to stretch it, you could say Dench is playing two different Ms in the same timeline. Olivia Mansfield in CR, QOS, and SF (which would obviously have to be moved here if they're not the same character) and then the actually new M, Barbara Mawdesley, in GE. But yeah, this timeline makes absolutely no sense.
Edit: I'd be very interested to see you attempt a chronological timeline yourself!
Regarding M, that might be true in the novels, but don't think it is true in the movies. But you could also argue that he was, indeed demoted- after all, a nuclear submarine was stolen on his watch and almost used to destroy the whole world, and a good chunk of the crew slaughtered, so maybe someone upstairs thought "yeah...gonna need to punish you for that."
Oh, it’s definitely tongue in cheek. He (the IGN guy) doesn’t really think all this stuff. It’s more like a “just go with me here” kind of thing.
I first saw the IGN video in my recommended, but decided I didn't want to use 17 minutes of my time watching it. 35 minutes of Calvin talking about it though, sign me up!
I legit chocked on my water laughing, when he said that Moore was imagining his old MI6 crew.
Can't wait for them to try and explain Felix Leiter changing his appearance so many times. He's probably a Time Lord.
" he's just Michael Jackson's brother, he can change races" ( probably IGN when trying to explain Felix)
MASSIVE HOLE!!!
How come 'Spectre' is where it is and Bond hasn't heard of SPECTRE or Blofeld yet in the events of said film yet has encountered it in previous films in THIS order?
This list is like the let’s try and pick a fight with fans by connecting them in the most random order and ignore literally ever recurring detail.
James Bond is played by different actors from film to film: "Behold the rich tapestry of the James Bond franchise!"
Blofeld is played by different actors from film to film: "Okay, so stay with me..."
Calvin and every other rational person: "The Bond movies don't follow a chronology in the way that you would expect with a Marvel movie, for example, and, while they could be viewed as such it is not the original intention of the filmmakers in the same way it was for the Marvel filmmakers. Therefore, ascribing them a similar mindset would be disingenuous."
IGN: "LOL old Roger Moore Bond has dementia and paranoid delusions!"
I always thought that each James Bond actor has their own continuity
Yeah I agree with that. Each time they change actor they kind of reboot it minus a couple of little references here and there
I feel like one of Franz Blofeldhauser's drills is making its way through my skull
Goodness. I love to ignore fan theories. These guys need to see some Tarzan, Godzilla, Hammer and Universal horror movies. Sometimes continuity takes a back seat. He is the same character. GOLDENEYE is a soft reboot. It neither confirms nor denies the previous movies. CASINO ROYALE is a hard reboot. No that hard to figure out.
It may help to watch OHMSS between THUNDERBALL and YOLT, then DAF. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is a semi sequel to OHMSS. That is about it. Remember that the continuity of the books is a contrast to the movies. Felix Leiter was a Texan for example.
I almost was about to totally disagree with you about Goldeneye being a soft reboot that neither confirms nor denies previous installments, then got to thinking of Jack Wade in place of Felix (in that it can confirm that Felix was injured in License to Kill, but can be seen as just another CIA contact) as well as Bond referring to M's predecessors drink of choice early on in the film (this could refer to any of the guys filling the role, or simply because she's his new boss and he's been around for a while).
So yeah, I like that. Though, the World is Not Enough DOES confirm the previous films by referring to his family motto.
Tarzan was largely the same actors for decades. So different than Bond, plus way more movies.
@@callawolf531 It's a 'soft reboot' in the sense that the old continuity is still applicable, but the cast is new [except for Q] and references are more subtle so it can be stand alone for new audiences [for example when Electra asks Bond if he lost someone in World is not enough, we assume he's thinking about Tracy but he doesn't say it out loud].
Trying to craft a cohesive and coherent plot-line around a series that wasn’t concerned with one is like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. Yes, there is a vague through-line through the first 20 films (e.g. Tracy’s death) but they weren’t made with any concern for ‘canon’ (which is really more of a 21st century concern, which could only become a thing once people were able to catch up on the ones they hadn’t seen on VHS/DVD/Netflix at home) so it all boils down to a futile attempt to try and make the Bond films be something they’re not, and were never made to do. It’s all making something out of nothing, from a thing that was never there to begin with.
So, whilst this video was a bit of daft fun (I do rather like Clint Gage - at least, I like his work with Cinefix, which is a great channel) I think as a Bond timeline it holds water as well as a paper bag.
I’ll just make the hole bigger
I appreciate the IGN video pointing out that the (actual) first "Bond... James Bond" is delivered in response to "Trench, Sylvia Trench", I feel like that gets passed over a lot.
Which is itself set off by Bond addressing her as Miss....... And her not wanting to be so formal, but needing to answer his question first. I wonder if in Bond's head at that moment he thought I like the sound of that, I'll always say that. Even though it doesn't make sense outside the context.
"Fans will say it has aged quite well".... "it has not".... haha loved this!!
Presumably, these guys also believe the Joker killed Batman's parents, fell off a cathedral before getting a grill, tattoos and a moustache to disguise himself before reintroducing himself to society in 2008.
Biggest flaw in this is the first 4 choices, Felix completely botches this. Bond meets him for the first time in Casino Royal in the reboot timeline and in Dr. No in the original timeline, so this is trying to say that Felix turned white and old as soon as Goldfinger happened and then suddenly turned young again in time for Dr. No where suddenly Bond doesn’t know who the guy he worked with on 3 previous missions is anymore
maYbE iT's BEcaUse Felix lEiter Is ALSo A Codename
9:43, not only that but Felix and James refer to a previous mission together that took place in Jamaica, an obvious reference to Dr No
They clearly meet for the 1st time in Dr. No too so him showing up in Goldfinger first doesn't make sense, not to mention literally meeting him for the first time in Casino Royale as well. This means the IGN Bond would be introduced to Felix, then see him again (even acting like a friend) in Quantum of Solace and Goldfinger and then meet him again in Dr. No. Lol
I see Connery, Lazenby and Moore as the same person. Early adventures in his late 20s/early 30s in 1962 and he is in his 50s in 1985. OHMSS makes call backs to Connery's films as Moore's make reference to Tracy.
Dalton is a soft reboot with a younger actor in the late 1980s. What happened in the other films has happened to him, but not necessarily in the same way (e.g. Tracy)
Brosnan could be a continuation of Dalton or could be another soft reboot in the 1990s/2000s. I personally would say a soft reboot as I feel like their portrayals of the character as well as the tone of the films is too different.
Craig is a complete reboot of the character.
The same way I see it
I see it pretty much the same, but subscribe the code name theory to it: Connery, Lazenby and Moore are the same guy (the original James Bond). That bond retires due to old age. Dalton plays another guy who adopts the Bond ‘codename’ and is fired for going rogue after LTK. Brosnan is another guy who adopts the name, and takes over from the disgraced Dalton character.
Craig is a different guy altogether.
It’s not perfect, but continuity wise it pretty holds up.
Seems like a reasonable to rationalize it.
TVTropes describes it as 'Broadstrokes' ie. everything that happened with the first 3 Bond's happened to Dalton and Brosnan, but more recently than the 60's-70's.
Then again they also say 'Casino Royale' keeps the same political situation as the classic Bonds...which is called Real Life!
@@wazztvproductions If Dalton/Brosnan are agents that have James Bond as a code name, then how come we get a reference to Tracy in Licence To Kill? In LTK, Felix Leiter said that Bond “was married once, but that was a long time ago”. The World Is Not Enough has the villain of Elektra King, who is clearly made for Bond to have a reminiscent of Tracy, due to how Bond easily falls for her and why it pained him to kill her at the end. Plus, its title is a reference to Bond’s family motto in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In Die Another Day, Bond gets his 20th Rolex and in Q’s lab, we are shown artifacts of Bond’s previous 19 adventures.
I’m sorry, but for me, Dalton and Brosnan are the same character as played by Connery, Lazenby, and Moore.
This attempt is so infuriating it makes me want to put together my own timeline just to show them how it's done. Blargh. Fun, but argh.
Here is mine
1 dr no
2 from russia with love
3 goldfinger
4 thunderball
5 You only live twice
6 diamonds are forever
7 on her majests secret service
8 for your eyes only
9 live and let die
10 the man with the Golden gun
11 the spy who loved me
12 moonraker
13 a view to a kill
14 octopussy
15 the living dayligths
16 licence to kill
17 goldeneye
18 tomorrow never dies
19 the world is not enough
20 die another day
1 never say never again
1 casino royale 1954
1 casino royale 1967
1 casino royale
2 quantum of solace
3 skyfall
4 spectre
5 no time to die
"We suggest you don't think about that sort of thing and just enjoy yourself....and that goes for you all too."
"Yes."
When I was very very young I used to believe James Bond must be a Time Lord hence being the same guy but different faces. I definitely come a hell of a long way since.
I call the first 20 films the "Classic Era" as it has its own subtle continuity.
Him being a Time Lord would actually make a lot of sense.
@@reginaldfromnigeria5206 It was only a amusing thought of mine, wonder what cause of death for each incarnations was?
But this IGN video is total garbage.
@@EthanKnight97 most of their videos are.
William Southall would love a multi-bond story.
@@paddystrongjaw9995 Yeah, George Lazenby is the equivalent of War Doctor
They lost me at making Goldfinger 3rd. It was such a weird choice, among many. Sometimes I wonder if they deliberately make stupid mistakes in these articles so fans tear them apart and drive views.
In the reference book "The James Bond Encyclopedia" Blofeld did take inspiration from Henderson for his appearance in DAF. And that is a official book!
Yes, but it was kinda presented tongue-in-cheekly in that book as well.
"Make me look a man Bond knew for 5 minutes and he knows is dead, and not M, the boss he loyally follows".
My theory is that Daniel Craig is an older version of James Bond Jr from the cartoon series.
Honestly, I'll give the IGN short credit because that was my genuine issue with Skyfall. I understood thematically where the filmmakers wanted to do with it but it didn't line up with the Craig movies whatsoever and it was like with the references they made, it was more to do with the audiences knowledge of the film series as a whole vs what the character had actually gone through.
Yes, it works as on a meta-textual level of the Bond series celebrating its 50th anniversary, but not on the textual level of Bond as a character in the film.
It does feel like there’s a missing film between QoS and Skyfall - I guess the Blood Stone and GoldenEye Reloaded video games can fill that spot.
I think we can take it that some time passes between Quantum and Skyfall [like 5 years] while Quantum/Spectre went quite to build up there powerbase. By that time Craig's Bond will have done a few missions off screen. The idea that his branch of spying is out of date also accoutns for it-it's the profession not the man that is often questioned.
I hate it when normies try to rationalize Bond.
reeeee
Isn't that called gatekeeping or something?
Bond is already quite normie, but never before have I seen such ignorance.
@@57yearoldjamesbond Bond is a normie ? How many world domination plots have you foiled ?
@@gocsa I wouldn't call it gatekeeping, just a bit of fan snobbery. There ain't nothing wrong with a healthy level of fan snobbery.
The flaw is Jaws turns good than bad again yet bond knows him in Moonraker but not in Spy who loved me
And it’s just a jump to the left...
Well, if "Everything or Nothing" is canon, that sort of happened with Jaws anyway...just, not so drastically.
if you really want to do some mental gymnastics here imagine the moonraker novel plot instead of the movie plot.
At so many points in this video: Calvin.exe has stopped working.
I ... didn't hate it, but the theory of how 'Spectre' (the movie) fits in was non-sensical dribble. Not saying the rest made perfect sense by any means, but at least you can kinda, sorta, almost see how they were cutting the jigsaw pieces to form something resembling vague-but-not-quite-there coherence. An interesting effort sans 'Spectre'.
I find it interesting that Fleming did try to link the books together (where they frequently mentioned what had happened to Bond since last we saw him) and the films weren’t too concerned. I suppose it would’ve been quite limiting to the filmmakers to always open the films with Bond eating breakfast in his flat reflecting on his recent past (and, for audiences in the 60s and 70s, re-reading an old book would’ve been far easier than re-watching an old film) but I still like the little mentions they did make, like Sylvia Trench in FRWL and Felix in Goldfinger mentioning the events of Dr. No.
Either way, when is May going to appear in a Bond film?
Yeah it’s funny how they never felt a need to wrap up what happened with the Bond girls from previous adventures like Fleming would occasionally do. Would love for May to eventually appear in a film. Might have been fun to have had her in Skyfall instead of Kincade
Calvin Dyson Now that would’ve been a radical reinterpretation of the character! I think it could’ve worked.
I don't think having a little more continuity between the films is necessarily a bad idea, I just think it was executed abysmally in Spectre. Spectre being formed by Blofeld and other members of Quantum that evaded capture would've worked much better than what they did.
SolarDragon007 That’s a neat idea. And I’m not opposed to there being more continuity - I do quite like the fact that they’ve tried to tell a more overarching story in the Craig era, I just think they should’ve planned out what the story was back in 2005/6 as opposed to making it up as they go along in such a piecemeal way. I think ‘Spectre’ suffered as a film because of the inclusion of SPECTRE - EON didn’t have the rights to use SPECTRE until 2013, and the film really feels like a massive course correction. It’s strange - EON got the rights to ‘Casino Royale’ in 1999, yet were restrained enough to hold off making the film until the time was right, but with SPECTRE they couldn’t wait to make a whole film about them even though it didn’t fit in with the story they had been telling so far.
BenCol Might be because of the fact Specter is so tied up in Bond’s history. Where Casino was just an origin story that at the time didn’t need to be told from their perspective.
Their Spectre/Blofeld theory reads like a John Gardner Bond novel....
Even John Gardner wouldn't sink this low.
The octopussy/ View to a Kill idea works best if the reason for the old characters is the brain drill from Spectre
There's also the issue that in FYEO that Bond's Lotus gets blown up but then he's given it in TSWLE.
You can look at my long list in the comments and I didn't touch on that one...I missed that one...Great Eye my friend. I shall give your comment a thumbs up
It doesn't make sense on any level and its embarrassing that the guy who made that video thought it was worth putting out.
Not the same Lotus presumably.
They're different versions of the Esprit. The one in FYEO is newer. Also Bond gets a replacement after his blows up.
I honestly appreciate the effort this video puts in, and it offers an interesting order to re-watch the movies, but you’re totally right about continuity being pretty much irrelevant. In the end, it’s the same as the code name theory, which retroactively tries to ascribe continuity to a franchise which has almost none. You have to sort of view each film as it’s own thing, and sometimes treat different eras as different continuities.
I personally like to think of the first 16 movies as being one franchise, which had absolutely zero continuity between films, and which must be appreciated individually. The Brosnan films are a sort of soft reboot, with reasonable continuity between themselves, and of course the Craig films are a hard reboot with a more modern conception of continuity.
Don't you just hate fake fans? You can tell they never pay attention to the scripts or mainly the older scripts because of their attention span.. annoying. Damn IGN trying to get marvel fans to like bond.
They are part of that "Bond wasn't good until Daniel Craig" party. Ugh, go fuck yourselves.
Thank you Johnny👍
@@ricardocantoral7672 Right, I have to say that Craig is my favourite Bond by quite a long shot. However, I also enjoy the Connery, Lazenby and Dalton films as well, as well as A View to a Kill. We're not all of the opinion that he's the only good Bond.
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer I am guessing that Moonraker is one of your least favorites....I tend to like the ones closest to Fleming myself and though Fleming was never trying to write realism, his tone was far more serious than a lot of the movies.
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer Pierce Brosnan is the REASON I like James Bond in the first place.
There are 2 TIMELINES in the James Bond universe. The 1st TIMELINE From Dr. No (1962) TO Die Another Day (2002). And then the 2nd TIMELINE Casino Royale (2006) TO No Time To Die (2021).
I do find it amazing how many Bond fans seem confused by that [I saw a comment asking why Felix had lost his shark injuries from Licence to Kill in NTTD]. There are two separate time lines, plain and simple.
Watching Bond movies is like watching a classic 60s TV show, self contained episodic format.
4:56 actually that’s incorrect. The first Sean Connery bond films all had a continuous story, as did On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
In Ian Fleming's books, James Bond first meets Blofeld in On Her Majesty's Service,
which is why he disguised himself. It's a gross error in the film that he doesn't recognize him.
Chronologically perfect watch order. Excuse me while I go hit my head against hard objects.
When I saw IGN & Calvin on my video feed, I thought Calvin was on IGN haha. Great video as always.
...and then Bond finds his long lost brother also named James. 'brother-James' was so glad to meet his long lost brother '007-James' that he renamed his son ''James Bond Junior'' 'James-Junior' was a bit annoyed with this, considering he was already 16 years old at the time. and he was fine with his original name ''Larry Bond'' but he grew to like it when his uncle '007-James' gave him his aston martin. he then earned the game from his uncle James, now hes heir to the name, James Bond.
Priceless watching your face when they suggest Moore's last 2 missions were in his head haha.
Personally I would put a bit more thought in the orders of Goldfinger, Moonraker, the Spy Who Loved Me , but overall I actually quite liked this fan theory. As a Diamonds fan though I like to think about that as a post-Majesty’s scenario (i.e. the quip “I tend to notice little things like that, whether a girl is a blonde, or a...brunette (referring to Tracy)) and the hallucination comes here instead of Octopussy and AVTAK. Surprisingly it’s not too bad for my taste. I praise their efforts though!
In John Gardner's books, the Specter had two other leaders. In the 2015 film Blofeld is a codename.
A simpler timeline could be:
1. Casino Royale/Quantum Of Solace
2. Dr. No To Die Another Day
3. Skyfall To No Time To Die
Maybe swap DAF and OHMSS
Though the whole thing is ludicrous anyways
Dr. No to Die Another Day is like the "Classic Timeline." While the Daniel Craig Bond is a HARD REBOOT.
This video left me wondering how would these IGN guys would've rationalized multiple Walter Gotell or Shane Rimmer's appearances.
But going back to the whole Bond Continuity subject, I really like what John Logan said about DB5's appearance in Skyfall. He said that it's the part of the Bond Legacy and in context of the series it makes sense for the creators to use certain things (Goldfinger-style DB5 in Skyfall, garrote-watch in AVTAK deleted scene, appearance of Jaws in EON videogame, etc) as a part of the big Bond Legacy.
And for example when I watch Skyfall and see Bond as a physical wreck, I shouldn't think about the context of the previous two films. I should think about the 50-years-long history of the series.
Very good video, Calvin! Looking forward to join the Operation Phoenix 👍
Really enjoyed your review of The Spy Who Loved Me, I watched it recently so the film was fresh in my memory.
I made my own chronology where James Bond starts in 1962 at the age of 26 and retires in 1986 after a 24-year career.
He died in 1991 at the end of the Cold War at the age of 55.
1. Casino Royale (1962/ 1st Semester)
2. Quantun Of Solace (1962/2st Semester )
3. Tomorow Never Dies (1963)
4.The World Is Not Enought (1964)
5. Die Another Day (1967)
6. Goldeneye (1970)
7. Skyfall (1971)
8. Dr. No (1972/1st Semester)
9. From Russia With Love (1972/2st Semester)
10. Live And Let Die (1973/1st Semester )
11. The Man With The Golden Gun (1973/2st Semester)
12. Thunderball (1974)
13. Goldifinger (1975)
14. On Her Majestic Secret Service (1976)
15. Diamonds Are Forever (1977)
16. The Only Live Twaice (1978)
17. For Your Eyes Only (1980/ 1st Semester)
18. The Spy Who Loved Me (1980/ 2st Semester)
19. Moonraker (1981)
20. Octopussy (1982)
21. A View To A Kill (1983)
22. The Living Daylights (1984)
23. License To Kill (1985)
24. Spectre (1986)
25. No Time To Die (1991)
Calvin, your running commentary helped make the IGN video somewhat bearable. On its own the IGN piece is a complete clusterfork.
I showed you this video on Twitter, and now you're doing a video reaction to it? I LOVE YOU! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
the only definitive timeline in the james bond universe is this
OHMSS happens BEFORE FYEO.
The first 5 films, or at least the Terence Young ones are BEFORE Majesty's
I take James Bond, for what it is. I have no problem with Bond being the same person, even when I was 12, I never questioned it. And, that is why I love your videos Calvin. You make so much sense, and every one is a treat to watch. And that's from someone, whose the same age, as Roger Moore was in a view to a kill.
Every actor who came in for the role, you have to assume that James Bond started 10 years earlier. Except Daniel Graig who was a rebound.
Sean Conery/George Lanzeby, 1950s;
Roger More, 60s;
Timothy Dalton, 70s;
Pierce Brosnan, 80s.
31:36 I 100% agree with that. When there is continuity between the films it makes the most sense that way. All the same this explanation isn't to crazy compared to the "Official" Zelda timeline. I cannot imagine linking bond movies with the idea that maybe he failed one of the missions prompting this movie or if he succeeded it would prompt this movie. At the end of the day they are just great movies that can be enjoyed by themselves or in a row, if you accept that all the pieces don't line up completely.
In the Miami Beach scene in Goldfinger, Bond and Leiter mention 2 recent cases, one in Jamaica, where the "opposition got
close". Those are obviously the cases in the first two movies so Goldfinger cannot be placed ahead of them.
The first space shuttle was launched in 1981. So Mooraker couldn't have been set in 1979. They made a miniature with salt instead of the rocket's fire syrup in the film.
I just want to say that this video wasn't made by IGN but rather a channel called CineFix who only recently partnered with them. Cinefix produces great film analysis videos and some of the best top 10 movie lists and it's clear that they put a lot of thought and effort into their videos. This just seemed like a fun not-to-be-taken-seriously list they were probably commissioned to do by IGN.
Anyway Cinefix is definitely worth checking out.
I don’t think any attempt to organise the Bond movies like this would gel well, but I appreciate that they attempted to do so in a way that gave Bond a clear character arc.
It’s funny. I first saw that video before I began my rewatch of the Bond movies (from Dr. No to Spectre), and even though I’m only one movie in I already spotted a problem with this order I didn’t spot before, that Dr. No has Bond only recently having become a 00 agent, so it should probably be third in the list at the least.
It is possible that we can categorize the films into four separate timelines of the same character.
1. Sean's films
2. OHMSS - LTK which has the Tracy reference.
3. Pierce's films which have the same background but no real callback to Tracy.
4. Daniel's films
RMS Queen Elizabeth was sunk on January 9, 1972 and was dismantled for scrap between 1974 and 1975.
So The Man With The Golden Gun cannot be set in 1975 as in the official chronology. They probably recorded it 1 year before.
I love these videos. I saw your ranking of the Bond villains recently and you convinced me to take advantage of the quarantine by rewatching all the Bond movies from the start, one a day. I saw them all almost ten years ago and my tastes have changed so much that I found films I really disliked back then have greatly grown on me (Like From Russia with Love) and ones I held in high regard have fallen a bit (Like You Only Live Twice). Thanks so much for getting me back into these films.
1:54 My favorite Bond movie, it even beats GoldenEye. It's "The Spy with Her Majesty's Quantum Finger". With Q (Judi Dench) telling Bond (Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Daniel Craig, Sean Connery),
that she never jokes about her work
I thought it was a Fun enough way of making it work on the timeline... and the idea of Old Man Roger telling Madeline he's going on a business trip and doing His later movies was incredible. The chase in Paris thinking of madaline in a hotel somewhere thinking they're having a dirty weekend whilst Rog is running up the eiffel tower
That bit in Diamonds: "Where are you going?" "Oh, I'm just popping out". As he climbs out the window to look for bad guys, or the opening of Spectre is like a vision of that concept. They could re-name it the Don't Tell Madeleine series.
Yeah, that IGN video description should discredit the rest of the video entirely. IGN should stick to video games, tv & movies they actually know something about. This...this was dumb. Thanks for making this video, Calvin! You’re the real fan! IGN should have had you consult on it.
Calvin, I have a really BAD feeling that at the end of No Time To Die, Daniel Craig will walk into a room to meet his replacement. We all think it's a female - but with updated CGI technology, it's Sean Connery.
Hope you have been well and safe, Calvin! And I look forward to future bond game reviews. ❤️
Yeah, I just can't get behind this recent preoccupation with timelines, continuity, and lore. There are similar attempts with the Zelda games, which seem much more interesting to me as a myth with different retellings rather than some sort of continuous story where Link keeps getting reborn. Would love to see somebody try to make the definitive Charlie Brown chronology in this way
That's why I'm a big fan of multiverses. Like both Dave Filoni's Clone Wars and Genndy Tartakovsky's Clone Wars? Well, pretend there are multiple Star Wars timelines...one in which 2003's Clone Wars happened, one in which 2008's Clone Wars happened and so on. Like both Dragon Ball Super and GT? Well, just think of Dragon Ball as a multiverse.
You know, the video started off well enough, but then by the end... well I don’t think I’ve ever uttered ‘huh?’ more watching anything.
Saying bond is imagining M and Q and moneypenny just because of how old Roger, an actor is, is probably the most stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say.
I'm laughing my ass off, of how stupid was that sentence
For the Bond experienced other stuff I just say "Bloodstone" and "Goldeneye:Reloaded" happened
Its just different actors playing the role. Things do change up a bit to fit the times. And at times they added elements from other big film ideas at the time ie: Blaxploitation in LALD, 70s kung fu films on MWTGG, Star Wars in Moonraker. Aids epidemic taking foot during Daltons run. Mujarhadeen, and using an Arms dealer as villian in LD. At times there is moments in films alluding to others. Spy, FYEO, TWINE making nods to Bond married.
Octopussy. Moore was showing his age, but tarzan yell aside, this film was brilliant. It has a few hiccups like the yell, but it never detracts from a well written story. Louis Jordan plays, i feel the best villian opposite Moore, aside Kananga. The auction scene, The awesome casino Backgammon scene. Magdas stunning spiral down from the balcony. Maud Adams Octopussy. India so beautiful, when Bond arrives there. Gobinda tipping a nod to Oddjob crushing the dice. A grand pre title sequence where Bond must use clever ingenuity to blow up the hanger. A Great villian scheme, in using Octopussys circus to smuggle jewels. Only to reveal the villians real scheme, in detonating a nuclear device on an US military base in Germany, that would cause Europe to unalateral dissarmament. Allowing Orluv to make Russia great again. And Kan reaps all the wealth. The film played out as a mystery. Why 009 was dressd as a clown stumbling into the home, and with the egg.
Doesn't Bond meet Leiter (in the films) in Doctor No? So in this chronology he gets introduced twice, having known him for three adventures (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solice and Goldfinger) before he meets him again for the first time?
Judi Dench’s M immediately throws this theory out the window:
Dench’s M is clearly introduced to Bond in Goldeneye, with special emphasis put on Bond’s chauvinistic lifestyle vs a new female boss.
Yet there she is, right at the beginning in Casino Royale. All the while IGN try to explain every other M Bond has had with this nonsense timeline..
yes considerable nonsense
Literally thought of your video when I saw their thumbnail lol.
Hey Calvin, I would really like to see a video of you ranking the original movie posters (the ones showing in the background in your videos). Wouldn’t that be a nice list?
My favorite posters are Diamonds are forever and For your eyes only, Keep up the good work.
I'd love to see that.
Blofeld is always a problem when it comes to continuity. Though in my headcanon of the official Eon series up until 2002, the Charles Gray and Donald Pleasence Blofelds are clones, while the Eric Pohlmann, Telly Savalas and Robert Rietti versions are the real Blofeld (hence why Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond in OHMSS). I think the cloning idea from Diamonds actually saves a lot of headache trouble for me, since I like to think that Blofeld had been involved with cloning and genetics for a long time.
However, the whole Blofeld in Spectre part of the video confused me as much as it did you, Calvin. So yeah, this video is really kinda baffling.
Why is there a huge emphasis on making a timeline for it? Just watch it in order of release
I watched this video. I found it entertaining, but like you, I had some issues with some of the stretches they made. A few issues I had
1) Bond Hallucinating in A View to a Kill...Though I am not British, I would assume that the British have a battery of tests for agents which would keep senile agents in the field.
2) One underlying theme in most all of the movies until The Living Daylights is the Cold War. It is obviously absent from License to Kill on
3) Calvin, your facial expressions are priceless when they do major factoid Gymnastics
4) I knew when I saw this you would hit on the Jaws chronology
5) You only live Twice, On her Majesty's Secret Service and You only Live Twice are best viewed in that order. I always interpreted the more intense search for Blofeld in You only live Twice as a reaction to Tracy's death
6) Outside of the previously mentioned movies and the Craig films, there is not a whole lot of Continuity. Yes Dr. No is where Bond learns of SPECTRE and Dr. No is referenced in Russia with Love, but outside of Quantum of Solace and SPECTRE you really need no prior Bond knowledge to enjoy these films.
YOLT, OHMSS, then YOLT again?
I love timelines and viewing orders, however, IGN's chronology feels much like a rushed first draft.
This was clearly rushed out to be in time for NTTD's release, which was delayed anyway, so it was fruitless.
TV tropes' entry on 'Broadstrokes': When Timothy Dalton took over the role of Bond: as he was about twenty years younger than Roger Moore, the events of the previous films (which had all been quite consistent up to then) were acknowledged to be canon in Broad Strokes but assumed to have occurred more recently than the 1960s.
I hope you make your own version of this. While I absolutely agree that Bond in Dr. No through Die Another Day is the same Bond and then a reboot with Craig’s Bond, I do think you could do what IGN did and make it almost work