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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Gizz]

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

[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).

[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.

[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.

[imsounoriginal]

Yes, they're all the same guy. Craig was a reboot of the same guy. No codenames or anything.

Always amuses me how people overthink the continuity of a series that never cared about continuity.

[xbs2034]

Yes, I consider them all one continuity- perhaps with a sliding timeline (like The Simpsons, which explains why Bond wouldn’t have fully aged with the films). Loose connections between films until the Craig movies, but the connections were certainly there (even Die Another Day specifically references some of the earlier movies in the Q scene), and don’t really see anything that majorly contradicts them being one continuity.

[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).

[Lee A Stewart]

Yes:

The format is the same: Extensive Opening Credits with famous singer crooning title song, then a cut to an exotic location. Has a "Bond Girl."

and No:

Each movie stands on it's own. The only supporting thread is James Bond himself.

[Winslow Leach]

Nope.