-
2nd December 06, 10:37 PM
#1
Well, in the more recent ones, starring Pierce Brosnan, there is some continuity. The actually replace Q but in one of them, Q is training his replacement. In the next movie released, Q is now the new person whose name currently escapes me. In that sense, there is some continuity but that's probably the extent of it.
-Nate
-
-
2nd December 06, 11:14 PM
#2
Bond has been replaced by another actor.
Q has been replaced by another actor.
M has been replaced by another actor.
Doctor Who has been replaced how many times?
Dracula has been played by Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, Jack Palance, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman...just to name a few.
There has even been two Willie Wonkas.
Best
AA
-
-
3rd December 06, 01:53 AM
#3
 Originally Posted by auld argonian
M has been replaced by another actor.
Correction: by another actress
[B][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="1"]Reverend Earl Trefor the Sublunary of Kesslington under Ox, Venerable Lord Trefor the Unhyphenated of Much Bottom, Sir Trefor the Corpulent of Leighton in the Bucket, Viscount Mcclef the Portable of Kirkby Overblow.
Cymru, Yr Alban, Iwerddon, Cernyw, Ynys Manau a Lydaw am byth! Yng Nghiltiau Ynghyd!
(Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, Isle of Man and Brittany forever - united in the Kilts!)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
-
-
3rd December 06, 07:54 AM
#4
 Originally Posted by auld argonian
Doctor Who has been replaced how many times?
But in Doctor Who they explained the new actor by working it into the storyline and having the character regenerate into a new body.
Bond, like many fictional heroes, is still going strong in the prime of his life for almost 50 years now.
Never Say Never Again, although outside the main Bond continuity, was an interesting way to insert a little realism to the story - even superspies get older.
We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance. - Japanese Proverb
-
-
3rd December 06, 08:13 AM
#5
For me there is only one Bond.
They actually alluded to the change in M in Goldeneye so to me that's not a replacement actor but a new character. One of the problems I could foresee with Casino Royale.
In Scotland, there is no such thing as bad weather - only the wrong clothes. - Billy Connolly
-
-
4th December 06, 07:55 AM
#6
 Originally Posted by auld argonian
Bond has been replaced by another actor.
Q has been replaced by another actor.
M has been replaced by another actor.
Q and M are titles (head of Q Branch).
Adam
-
-
5th December 06, 07:28 AM
#7
 Originally Posted by arrogcow
Q and M are titles (head of Q Branch).
Adam
In the new one, Bond tells M that he always thought it was just a randomly assigned consonant, but it's actually her initial. Then she tells him he better not tell anyone what her name is. Or something along those lines.
Sapienter si sincere Clan Davidson (USA)
Bydand Do well and let them say...GORDON! My Blog
" I'll have a scotch on the rocks. Any scotch will do as long as it's not a blend of course. Single malt Glenlivet, Glenfiddich perhaps maybe a Glen... any Glen." -Swingers
-
-
5th December 06, 07:46 AM
#8
Q-> Quatermaster
M-> based on term for head of Brit intelligence during WW2. He was known by a letter, which actually was his initial. I forgot what it was, or his name. However, I'm sure someone here will know it and relate it.
My own idea->is supposed to be one Bond, though the character has changed and developed several times over during the decades. Thus, I could understand the ideas of several Bonds. The movie references are intended for the audience, as a tongue-in-cheek reference to a change in the "continuity."
Always a Bond fan,
-
-
5th December 06, 08:10 AM
#9
Never Say Never Again was just Thunderball with an older Connery and a different supporting cast.
Virtus Ad Aethera Tendit
-
-
3rd December 06, 08:26 AM
#10
 Originally Posted by souzaphone711
Well, in the more recent ones, starring Pierce Brosnan, there is some continuity. The actually replace Q but in one of them, Q is training his replacement. In the next movie released, Q is now the new person whose name currently escapes me. In that sense, there is some continuity but that's probably the extent of it.
Correct long running features such as the Bond franchise, IMHO, should be viewed as serials whose length is defined by the tenure of the lead actor. Within those finite serials, there should be some continuity, as it expands character development and makes the ongoing experience rewarding for those fans who have an emotional investment in the characters. However, collectively, the serials all tell the story of the same man in service to his country. This allows both the movie makers and fans to share a collective experience, to establish character and film content, and that familiarity and knowledge ensures both fan base and movie makers a satisfying entertainment experience.
NSNA is a great film, and a nice view of an aging superspy, a rare bird in American movie fiction. The nature of the story - while refreshing - still serves as a reminder of the audience's mortality.
For storytelling purposes in print fiction, it's a good idea to establish post-film continuity: in print, characters rarely age except by editorial decree, creators can 'unhinge' the characters from a fixed point in time, and taking the films as in-continuity along side the Fleming books expands the canon and allows for a greater scope of stories to be told. All Bond movie changes have been driven by two factors - Lead changes and a filmmaker failure to evolve the films 'look' naturally. In print, fiction is created in the moment by the author, and should reflect the environment around him/her as well as the world he/she is building, thus evolving naturally.
Oh, it was John Cleese as the new Q, Careful, Monty Python fans are a rabid bunch. 
Will
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks