Thwarted attempt at 007 continuity between Bonds

[slug]

The Wiki article on Die Another Day said:

 

The director, Lee Tamahori, wanted Sean Connery to film a cameo appearance in the movie, however, the producers rejected the idea because they didn't want to have two actors who were James Bond on screen at the same time. To explain how this occurrence is possible, Tamahori concocted a controversial theory that the name "James Bond" is a codename (like 007) which is given to the best and most accomplished secret agents.[3] It is also meant to explain Bond's ageless ability, his difference in appearance and radical changes between actors (e.g., Roger Moore vs Timothy Dalton). One and probably the only evidence to support this theory is George Lazenby's final line in the pre-title sequence of On Her Majesty's Secret Service where the Bond girl runs away after Bond is ambushed on a beach: "This never happened to the other fella." The theory is largely denounced by fans and usually discredited by the light continuity in subsequent films when Bond's wife, Tracy, or his marriage in general (from On Her Majesty's Secret Service) is mentioned. Nevertheless, the theory tends to be subject to much debate.

 

 

 

To be honest, I quite like the idea. I had always viewed the series from this kind of viewpoint, that each Bond is tro be seen as a different person with the same prefix name. I can see how it would annoy people though, given that there are passing references between Bonds, especially regarding the dead wife.

 

But an incongruous attempt at continuity is somehow more satisfying when looking at the franchise as a whole. Especially with the Brosnan films, they just leave you wondering what you're supposed to make of his backstory, he was active in the cold war, but what, not until the very late 70s?

 

What I think would have been good is to have had Connery cameo as an unnamed retired agent. hereby allowing the audience to decide, everyone'd happy and there's some nice debateable ambiguity.

 

What is wierd is how they've retconned/rebooted the franchise with the new film, but there's still Judy Dench there as M, so, Bond isn't at all supposed to be the same person, but she, is? Its not like when they switched Bond actors before and kept other roles the same, because the new Bond was at the time a continuation, here they're not claiming that. I'm not a continuity freak, its just one of the stranger examples of partial continuity.

 

I vote for an ambiguos cameo from Connery in a film in the next few years. It would also be good if they could do a trilogy set in the 60's under the original continuity, make a nod to the King Kong remake I think the 60s kitch feel would have a much stronger pull than the bloated attempt at modern technology feel, the whole things been done so many times that turning it into a period series could give it some recognition.

[Moonstalker]

In the end, what does it really matter? People are going to see a Bond movie not a cameo and it will live or die on its own.

[Tenebrae]

Let's just say he's a Timelord and regenerates off-screen.

 

I'd agree that - in the end, it's an irrelevancy. I think an essential part of the films is that you can be Billy Anyone, walk into a Bond film knowing nothing about it but still have an expectation of what you're going to get - girls, guns and gadgets. The notion of some pervasive continuity while not damaging the film would likely be somewhat off-putting.

[vyper]

Erm, yes this idea should've been drowned at birth. I'm glad someone euthanised it in time. Then again, the entire premise of Casino Royale makes me want to slap the producers.