The logic of the Aston: it is James Bond‘s car! Craig now is Bond! Hence, he owns it.
The logic of the small suits: Slim fit was in fashion. And it makes Craig‘s muscles look even bigger! 
1 Like
He’s not the same Bond, though. It’s arguable whether Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan are the same Bond, but Craig for sure isn’t.
But I know what you mean: certain characters are associated with certain trappings. But even Batman gets a new model Batmobile from time to time. If Affleck drove the '66 “Barris-mobile” in Justice League I think it would lead to some head-scratching. If anyone saw the movie, I mean.
2 Likes
Batman gets a new car every appearance if WB gets their way. Toys don’t sell themselves.
1 Like
Considering the last two Batmobiles looked liked piles of shrapnel with wheels, I’m not sure how the toys sell, at all.
1 Like
Connery, Lazenby and Moore are all the same Bond. Dalton and Brosnan are MKII. Craig and hopefully his successor are MKIII.
TLD was a ‘soft’ reboot for those determined to accept that this brooding cold-war assassin was the same agent who fought Drax in space and huffed and puffed his way through France and San Fransisco two years earlier.
2 Likes
It is arguable that Connery was the same Bond in DAF that he was in DR. NO.
Moore/Bond also underwent a transformation from TMWTGG to TSWLM.
1 Like
Every actor has his own continuity. All things referred to from previous actors´ eras are just used if needed.
I guess they learned that this would be the best solution to the ongoing recasting when they tried to force Lazenby into the ConneryBond-adventures.
Did anybody really suspend his disbelief when the audience were led to think that LazenbyBond actually had ConneryBond´s memories?
I believe each actor is introduced as ‘Ian Fleming’s James Bond’, so from the moment that pops up on the screen, I’m happy to suspend disbelief, including any concerns re continuity.
4 Likes
That’s a good point. Since we’re asked right away to accept that these guys – any of them – are the same character Fleming wrote about, anything else we’re asked to swallow should be easy.
1 Like
Little known fact: the film Being John Malkovich is actually inspired by Ian Fleming, who’s been inhabiting the skulls of every Bond since Thunderball went into production. That’s why it takes so long to cast bond; they need to wait for Fleming’s approval after giving each candidate a thorough test run.
So, yes in manner of speaking Lazenby did indeed have Connery’s Memories.
1 Like
The fact the pre-titles then makes a huge thing about it didn’t help (hiding his face, “This never happened to the other fella”)
I bought it more than I bought the events of CR, QOS and SF being orchestrated by Bond’s disgruntled evil genius? brother tbh haha…
OHMSS holds up very well in this respect because apart from the opening credits which are focused around a great opening fight sequence and a little joke for the audience, a few little nods to the past, they don’t waste their time EXPLAINING how everything connects or how Connery transformed to Lazenby, its just - This is James Bond, he’s the Bond you know and love but a little different, now lets move on with a good story - It doesn’t really dwell on the past. They do the same successfully with Dalton in TLD opening sequence
Craig’s plotholes (only once we get to Skyfall and Spectre, CR and QOS were fine) were more noticeable as a result of the current generation of “universe” storytelling demanding to explain every detail and reference, getting itself caught up in the process.
1 Like
Again, beware of the term “plothole”.
In the Craig era there are lot of “elipses”. But plot lines which are not logically connected are not so easily detected. Some things might struck one less believable than others. But that is another beast also.
1 Like
You mean it’s not “thing I don’t like”?
1 Like
This is a good comparison to the Aston Martin “problem” in SF and SP. (Although again, none of it qualifies as a “plot hole”).
There is no good explanation for why Bond would have those things in his desk in OHMSS. We would have seen it if he’d taken the garrote watch off Grant’s body. Surely Honey’s knife was confiscated by Dr No’s men and Bond would never have had a chance to pilfer it. The rebreather from Thunderball would more likely have been tossed away by Bond when he climbed aboard the hydrofoil (we may even see this, but I’m not bored enough to watch TB again). Similarly in DAD we see Rosa Klebb’s poison-toed shoes in Q’s workshop. Would Bond really have pulled them off her dead feet just as souvenir?
On the other hand, the OHMSS scene works in a way because those items seem to be ALL Bond has in his desk other than a flask of booze. That makes sense for a guy you could imagine would disdain paperwork and only really comes alive when he’s in the field, so if anything had “sentimental” value to him it’d be reminders of times of activity and adventure. Plus he’s rarely in the office anyway, so he wouldn’t have had time to fill the desk with anything.
Most likely all the double-Os are like this: they get a desk as a courtesy but leave it empty so the next guy doesn’t have much to clean up.
1 Like
It does work for me, too. But more as a nostalgic reminder - I have to believe that LazenbyBond is THE Bond (and forget that he looked and acted like Connery before). However, I do not believe it at all. I just force myself to do it. And it does not take me out of the film either.
Nor does the “This never happened…” line which was consciously used to wink at the audience as a “we know, and Lazenby knows that there was a certain someone before him!” At that point it was clear anyway that continuity cannot be achieved due to a second actor playing the same character now.
In a way, the DAD-scene (like so many of DAD-scenes) replayed the drawer-scene from OHMSS. Why did Q have all the gadgets still in storage? Well, for research purposes? For fun? Ah, who cares - it was a funny nod, a quick gag. On to the next.
Let´s not overthink it - we´re just goofing around here - seems to be the subtitle for every Bond film.
4 Likes
To me he absolutely is.
In my head, the Lazenby timeline includes DN-FRWL and GF, with OHMSS immediately following TB and completely ignoring YOLT. My Connery timeline ignores OHMSS, with DAF continuing after YOLT.
I went with Dr No - YOLT, DAF, Bond has plastic surgery to aid in his search, OHMSS, Live and Let Die - AVTAK than give up on continuity because, whilst Dalton and Brosnan work as being one bloke, Moore and Dalton being one person REALLY doesn’t, despite what TLD tries to push.
The Japan segment of DAF’s pre-title sequence works well immediately following YOLT.
I’m even happy to include NSNA in my Connery timeline. I like the full circle symmetry of him returning to Shrublands again, as an older man this time, because he refused to kick old habits. And retiring with 80s era Kim Basinger is a good end as any. I’d take it.
i only use it in the premise of the post not in a technical sense - and of course Spectre treated many “loose ends” or ellipses as you like to call them as plot holes that needed explaining - I would have preferred less explaining, “lore” and universe building in Spectre - which for its good parts was weighed down by its own need to explain and connect every detail