Quote: Gavin @ November 30 2012, 6:22 PM GMTIt's not that I didn't understand it. It just made no sense in it's own world, when was it meant to be set?
I have't seen anyone else ask that. (It was set now!)
I've just seen... Page 322
What, right now?
Quote: Lee @ November 30 2012, 6:52 PM GMTWhat, right now?
He's behind you.
I wondered why I could smell fish and Martini.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 30 2012, 6:45 PM GMTI have't seen anyone else ask that. (It was set now!)
That doesn't make sense with the things they set up.
And being setup in the past doesn't make sense either.
Quote: Gavin @ November 30 2012, 7:17 PM GMTThat doesn't make sense with the things they set up.
Which things? You mean the end, where it's getting back into the classic setup of Moneypenny, and so on..?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 30 2012, 8:14 PM GMTWhich things? You mean the end, where it's getting back into the classic setup of Moneypenny, and so on..?
spoiler alert! some of us haven't seen it yet 
Quote: Pingl @ November 30 2012, 8:21 PM GMTspoiler alert! some of us haven't seen it yet
Ach, that's not really a spoiler. Moneypenny is in most Bond films! It has no bearing on the story or anything, don't worry. Just that I don't think she features in the other Daniel Craig Bonds.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 30 2012, 8:29 PM GMTAch, that's not really a spoiler. Moneypenny is in most Bond films! It has no bearing on the story or anything, don't worry. Just that I don't think she features in the other Daniel Craig Bonds.
OK I let you off, no she has not been in any of the Craig ones 
Anyway you have to suspend disbelief with Bond, we have the same M as in the Brosnan version, but everything else is different, we have to pretend that Britain is important enough internationally as to have a Bond with a licence to kill etc etc It's nonsense but its great escapist nonsense.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 30 2012, 8:14 PM GMTWhich things? You mean the end, where it's getting back into the classic setup of Moneypenny, and so on..?
Yes. Plus Dench is M still so this means it's after, Bronan's. But Brosnan had Money Penny.
There are other bits but spolier spoiler spoilers
Quote: Gavin @ November 30 2012, 8:54 PM GMTYes. Plus Dench is M still so this means it's after, Bronan's. But Brosnan had Money Penny.
There are other bits but spolier spoiler spoilers
I think with every new Bond, you have to take it as a new start. Attempts to keep a timeline going have always failed, Roger Moore putting flowers on the grave of Tracy and then killing Blofeld, Lazenby looking through his drawer and picking items from previous films. Because they never followed the line of the books, ran out of books and were generally haphazardly put together you need to say each Bond is the first Bond and take it from there.
Quote: Pingl @ November 30 2012, 9:05 PM GMTI think with every new Bond, you have to take it as a new start. Attempts to keep a timeline going have always failed, Roger Moore putting flowers on the grave of Tracy and then killing Blofeld, Lazenby looking through his drawer and picking items from previous films. Because they never followed the line of the books, ran out of books and were generally haphazardly put together you need to say each Bond is the first Bond and take it from there.
Well M in Broson's Bond said she took over from the old guy and it wasn't a boys club any more which to me links that to the one before.
So if they were resetting in this why call stuff from the previous films? I just took me out a little.
Quote: Gavin @ November 30 2012, 9:09 PM GMTWell M in Broson's Bond said she took over from the old guy and it wasn't a boys club any more which to me links that to the one before.
So if they were resetting in this why call stuff from the previous films? I just took me out a little.
That's the problem, they try to join it together and because its such a jumble they cant. OHMS is a favourite because it stuck to the book, and the plan was, if Lazenby stayed, to remain faithful to the books. But then Connery came back and Diamonds are forever was used to wind up the Blofeld films even though he wasn't in the book. Then Moore took over and they went much lighter and comic. Then Dalton tried to get back to the spirit of the books, then Brosnan back to the Moore idea with a bit more grit. No masterplan so its stitched together. I took it as it was the first book Casino Royal it was a new start. Bond does reinvent itself according to the times or according to public reaction. Because Moonraker was so silly, with an obvious nod to star wars, they went back to basics with For Your Eyes Only. Because of Bourne and the silliness of Die another day we had Casino Royale. I must say I thought it was a mistake to cast dench as M again, but I can see why, she a fine actress.
Stake Land. Pretty nifty indie vampire road movie. And contains a great scene where religious fundamentalists drop vampires on a town they don't like.
Quote: Gavin @ November 30 2012, 9:09 PM GMTWell M in Broson's Bond said she took over from the old guy and it wasn't a boys club any more which to me links that to the one before.
So if they were resetting in this why call stuff from the previous films? I just took me out a little.
Now that you've gone through it, I suppose it doesn't make much chronological sense, but I think you're perhaps looking too deep.