There are references to certain events in Bond movies with different actors portraying Bond, so I like to believe its all the same character on a variety of missions throughout time. You do have to suspend some belief, but in Bond's world all these missions haven't taken place over 50 + years in actual time.
In For Your Eyes Only we see a bald man who looks like Blofeld in a wheelchair. This ties Moore's Bond to Connery's and Lazenby's.
Bond was married in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, she is later killed in the end of movie. His wife dying is reference in (3) movies: The Spy Who Loved Me. XXX was talking to Bond and said something along the lines of "Wife killed". Bond (Moore) looks upset after XXX says "are you sensitive some things commander?" Bond replies, some more than others.
In For Your Eyes Only, Bond (Moore) visits Tracy Bond's grave. In License to Kill, Bond (Dalton) catches the garter from Felix Liter's wife, she says. "Oh James, you know the one who catches this is the next [to be married]" Bond says no. Felix tells his wife that Bond was married once, but it was a long time ago.
Its the same person throughout the Bond history.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
It is the same character. I'm not saying otherwise. The major events and certain elements have been carried over through the various incarnations to various degrees.
Otherwise I just look at each actor as a re-boot that simply updates the character to the most recent times, technology, trends... It's just a way of helping intellectually challenged fans from obsessing over this pointless conundrum.
Nobody tries to make connections between Adam West's Batman, Keaton's Batman, Bale's Batman and Affleck's Batman. It's understood that the broad strokes of each character are the same but each is a different interpretation.
Why Bond movies produce this weird mental affliction is bizarre.
Another example of this is the the people who somehow try to tie in all the Planet of the Apes movies into one consistent universe. They can't wrap their heads around the idea that there is no connection behind the various interpretations beyond the basic theme and similar characters. Whole threads have raged on for days and months over this.
You are able to envision one consistent character operating over fifty years in the same universe I guess, and just accept it's a different actor filling in the role.
Years ago, there was talk of Tarantino doing a movie that would return the character to the 60s for at least that one movie. That would have been a more obvious kind of re-boot. Would have been cool to see, but probably would driven the Internet insane trying to figure out how it tied into the Connery movies.
reply
share
LordBAElish (2015)
5 years ago
I enjoy Bond films as standalone movies. You don't have to see the other ones to understand and enjoy the one you are watching. If they want to throw something in that references a past movie, that is fine, but I don't like the connections between the Craig era Bond films.
reply
share