Bond 23 is now "Skyfall"

[Ktrek]

I don't like to think of 'alternate universes or re-boots or the horrific suggestion that there are different Bonds. I do think having Judi Dench as M in Casino really screwed things up if you wanted to do a Bond time line.

But Dame Judi has been one of the highlights of the four Brosnan films so why would you get rid of one of the greatest British actresses just to keep a time line? I love her as M and I'm sad to see her go from the franchise but I certainly understand why. At 78 she still looks good and does a tremendous job but she may not have lived to see another Bond film. I'm glad that she went out with some closure instead of just replacing her.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

Agree with Kevin! She was terrific every film.

[ChrisMC]

Yes, I really liked her. Just had all the timeline stuff rattling in my head. Was anyone else giddy at the end in that office??

[Bromptonboy]

What about a 15 year old as Q...?

[Bryancd]

What about a 15 year old as Q...?

Better then John Cleese and I love John Cleese.

[Bromptonboy]

What about a 15 year old as Q...?

Better then John Cleese and I love John Cleese.

I can't argue with you about John Cleese - just imagine Med's reaction if it had been Eric Idle...  ;)

Still, that Kid-Q - 'Qid' - was too young to sit well with me. I can only suspend my disbelief so far. 

[Meds]

But Dame Judi has been one of the highlights of the four Brosnan films so why would you get rid of one of the greatest British actresses just to keep a time line? I love her as M and I'm sad to see her go from the franchise but I certainly understand why. At 78 she still looks good and does a tremendous job but she may not have lived to see another Bond film. I'm glad that she went out with some closure instead of just replacing her.

Kevin

For the obvious reason regarding teh question that was asked earlier. Having Dame Judi as M in Casino was the main reason for the confusion as to where the film lies in the Bond canon. I have been a fan of hers long before Bond so i'm not knocking her i'm being realistic in saying that she was cast as a back up in case Craig didnt pull it off.

Also considering how bad the Brosnan films were (bar Goldeneye) she could have just slept in a scene and she would have stole it.

[Bryancd]

I often wonder how Bond can really have any meaningful canon considering the vast number of years it covers at this point. I never look at Daniel Craig and wonder if he ever looks back on that crazy bald dude from Specter with the cat he used to fight. :)

[Meds]

I know what you mean but when you think that he has only done 23 missions thats not a lot, say 4 a year. What about Dr No and his metal hands, all very well crushing a bronze buddha but imagine going for a pee and forgetting to not squeeze :0

[Bryancd]

I know what you mean but when you think that he has only done 23 missions thats not a lot, say 4 a year. What about Dr No and his metal hands, all very well crushing a bronze buddha but imagine going for a pee and forgetting to not squeeze :0

That's a good point...the bit about the missions not the peeing..;) but the missions are so of their time it's hard to imagine them all occurring to one man! I kind of look at it like each Bond is informed by the previous adventures but didn't have to actually do them.

[Meds]

Trouble is quite a few times the past missions are mentioned, Bond visiting is wifes grave is a classic example. The dcene f Bond seeing past gadgets etc.

[Ktrek]

I personally don't care about "canon" because as far as I'm concerned there is really one one "canon" for Bond and that is entirely in the Ian Fleming novels. The movies do not follow the books they are based on nor even the continuity that Fleming incorporated into his books. The movies I think need to be taken with a grain of salt and each film stands or falls on it's own merits and not on what other actors have done and what little continuity there is between the movies. Since Casino Royale was supposed be an official "reboot" whatever little continuity and cohesiveness the previous films had was now moot. And looking at it from that perspective I think the new film does the most damage to the franchise not the fact that Dame Judi played M in two different continuities.

Kevin

[Jobydrone]

Well the worst thing that can happen to a franchise is to kill its future and this movie has done far from that.  I thought I saw that Craig has signed on for two more films and this movie has been wildly popular.  I don't see where any damage has been done at all, care to elaborate KTrek?  If you were talking about Quantum of Solace I might agree more.

[Ktrek]

Well the worst thing that can happen to a franchise is to kill its future and this movie has done far from that.  I thought I saw that Craig has signed on for two more films and this movie has been wildly popular.  I don't see where any damage has been done at all, care to elaborate KTrek?  If you were talking about Quantum of Solace I might agree more.

Sorry if you misunderstood me to mean damage to the continuance or success of the series. I know the film itself was successful and I don't minimize that in the least and am extremely happy it is because if it had been a failure the assurance of future films would have been more questionable.

No what I am referring to is the original dialog with Meds about internal "continuity" and "canon". I think Skyfall does a lot to deconstruct what they worked so hard to build in the last two films. At the very least I think this film should have brought closure to the storyline started in Casino Royale and Mr. White. I think most Bond fans assumed we would see the start of Spectre and the next film would be the "reveals" so to speak and bring some closure to the storyline of the last two films. I just think a lot of fans thought the story would be a trilogy and then pick up on something new but Skyfall really doesn't even follow the last two Craig films at all except in that it has Craig as Bond and Dench as M. Oustide of that?...nada!

Kevin

[Jobydrone]

Ah thanks for explaining.  Well it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that future films will involve Spectre or the continuation of plot threads from the first two films.  My guess though is that Quantum was such a disappointment to so many (though it made good money at the box office) that they felt a fresh take on the story was needed for this third film.  I like the new/old direction we're seeing take seed in Skyfall.  I'm excited to see where it leads.