Do you consider all the Bond movies from Dr. No to Die Another Day one continuity?

[Bn43]

Because I'm being told most people do.

[Michael11]

No.

I view them in terms of the actor playing Bond. Every time the actor changes i see it as a new start.

[SilverFox84]

Originally Posted by Michael11

No.

I view them in terms of the actor playing Bond. Every time the actor changes i see it as a new start.

This, absolutely spot on.

[Jezza]

No, the emphasis some place on Casino Royale as a complete reboot of the series is heavily overstated. CR is no more a reboot than say GoldenEye is for Brosnan.

I'm in the middle of a Bond marathon at the moment and although the change from actor to actor early on feels more subtle than it does later on (OHMSS definitely continues on from YOLT for instance despite a new actor), it's ultimately just a series of films that retains core regular cast members and occasionally acknowledges its past to make it feel connected. It's not really one big continuity though. I don't watch The Living Daylights and think this is the same Bond I watched in Thunderball some 11 films earlier.

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

I just finished another run through them also and I think Casino Royale definitely feels more like a reboot than any others, despite Judy Dench continuing to portray "M". But it's still tough to consider the previous films as "continuous" when the actor portraying Bond changes.

BTW, I skipped Die Another Day this time and it was fine.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by Michael11

No.

I view them in terms of the actor playing Bond. Every time the actor changes i see it as a new start.

That's how I view them.

That is with the exception of George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I consider that film to be within the same continuity as Sean Connery's Bond films.

[L.J.]

Think of it as a reboot every time we get a new Bond. Each actor has put their own spin on the character.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Because I'm being told most people do.

No.

Who is telling you most people do? Most people will tell you differently.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by Martoto

No.

Who is telling you most people do? Most people will tell you differently.

Some people on a gaming forum.

[CreasyBear]

No. I could give a shit about continuity in Bond films and would prefer they not bother. In fact, I would extend that to a lot of series. Just make a good movie and stop worrying about canon.

[CyberpunkCentral]

There is a theory that each version of James Bond are actually different agents from one another and that "James Bond" is just a code name they go by. I'm sure some fans don't like this theory, but it actually makes sense unless I'm missing something.

[Gizz]

No not really like most when a new actor plays Bond I see it as a restart to the series.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

There is a theory that each version of James Bond are actually different agents from one another and that "James Bond" is just a code name they go by. I'm sure some fans don't like this theory, but it actually makes sense unless I'm missing something.

That's just stupid. The entire point of the series until the Craig era is that you didn't need to see the Bond film before it, or any Bond film at all, when a new 007 movie was released. You could just walk in and enjoy it. Audiences back then didn't need to have a "canon" and running narrative threads. When a new Bond was introduced there was no need to "reboot" and start over with tedious "origin stories". They felt audiences didn't care and they were right.

There are some light narrative elements involving Blofeld being used here and there that dispel this theory also (like Moore being at Tracy's grave in For Your Eyes Only) but they're more like easter eggs that don't impact the main story line.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

There is a theory that each version of James Bond are actually different agents from one another and that "James Bond" is just a code name they go by. I'm sure some fans don't like this theory, but it actually makes sense unless I'm missing something.

That's just a theory that the obsessive types made up because they can't deal with the fact that different actors played the character. But somehow they deal with the fact that the movies were made out-of-sequence with the original novels and after the first few films either weren't based on the novels at all or completely changed the plots.

I do remember at the beginning of one of the films, probably Live & Let Die, the first Roger Moore film, where you hear M saying something to the effect of, "too many people know what you look like. We have to change your face" and Moore, probably in the same film, breaking the third wall and saying, "this never happened to the other guy."

[CyberpunkCentral]

Casino Royale feels like a reboot because it's based on the very first James Bond novel (which MGM didn't had the rights to before).

[Foggy]

Almost all the Bond films are standalone anyway so it doesn’t really matter. I guess the waters muddied a bit by the likes of actors playing M, Q and Moneypenny carrying over from different Bond generations. But it’s kinda like a Poirot or Doctor Who, where there’s some call backs to old adventures or and overall developing story, but each individual part is it’s own separate entry.

To be fair I don’t rate continuity very highly anyway, stuff like Terminator are constantly ruined by the excessive need to bend over backwards to justify each new instalment within the overall series completely fractured timeline.

[ArchiTech]

It used to be that each movie was about a coresponding book Ian Fleming wrote (and later his short stories). So, Bond would be the same character had time not existed and one actor could keep reprising the role. But since we live in a world where time doesn’t stop, new actors taking on the role are effectively reboots of the franchise. Although, it must be noted, as others have mentioned OHMSS is a continuation despite the actor change, but only because the franchise hadn’t figured out it’s rhythm at that time. After so many decades, now we know that a new actor represents a new beginning.

[ditcin]

Even with actor changes there are too many plot, characters, and mention of events that say "yes" they are, in a weird way, connected.

Far down the line there is Roger Moore, in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, going to the grave of his wife last seen in the George Lazenby film, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.
Also in the same Moore film we see Bofelt dropped down a chimney stack.

Later in series we have Timothy Dalton going to the wedding of Felix Leiter who is first seen on the Sean Connery films.

Too much is carried over and references made not to connect them as either past or previous efforts in a series with continuity.
Also one of the Connery films actually shows past scenes from the previous films connecting them.

[biglou114]

I've always thought that there is a continuity through the movies, they are just all out of order (I ignore any dated technology).

A prime example for this is the Craig movies; Casino is obviously first, with Quantum following where Bond is a newly minted 00. After which there is a massive time jump as in Skyfall Bond is someone who is getting too old for the job, so after this point you can get creative with the timeline of the movies. I have never done that, but it would probably mirror the books pretty closely (with exceptions).

[Bond84]

-In OHMSS, George Lazenby has mementos from Connery's previous missions in his desk. Also, M states that Lazenby has been searching for Blofeld for two years since the events of the Connery film YOLT.
-At the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever, Connery is seeking revenge for the murder of his wife, even though that wife was actually married to Lazenby in the previous film, OHMSS.
-In Live and Let Die, Roger Moore works with Quarrel Jr, the son of Quarrel, who worked with Connery in Dr. No
-In The Spy Who Loved Me, Agent XXX rattles off a brief dossier of Bond's life and career, in which she states that he was married only once and that his wife was killed, at which point Moore cuts her off with obvious hurt in his voice.
-At the beginning of For Your Eyes Only, Moore is visiting the grave of his dead wife, again from the Lazenby film OHMSS
-In Licence to Kill, Felix mentions to his new wife that Bond (Timothy Dalton) was married once "but it was a long time ago."
-The World Is Not Enough is stated to be Bond's family motto in OHMSS, which Brosnan's Bond later confirms in the film of the same name. Also earlier in the movie, Elektra King asks Brosnan if he's ever lost a loved one. There's a fat pause before he goes on to ignore the question.
-In Die Another Day, take a look at all the old junk in Q's lab. Tons of stuff from all the old films.

Its pretty clear that Connery through Brosnan are intended to all be the same person. Funny how most of the continuity goes back to OHMSS.