People always talk about the continuity of the Bond movies, and how they fit together. Over the years fans have come up with a lot of explanations as to why the actor keeps changing and how the character has stayed youthful into the 2000s despite seeming to acknowledge the events of previous movies from the 1960s. Some people have even theorized that James Bond is actually just a code name, and each actor really is a new character taking on the mantle, but there are too many connections between movies with different Bonds for that to really work. Of course, the real answer is shut up jerk, they’re just movies. Stop being a dick. Who cares. Idiot. But today I got real high and watched Dr. No and my insane obsessive list making brain made me think about it. And basically the only way that it makes any sense to me is if it operates under the same logic as the pre-crisis DC continuity. If you’re not a huge comic nerd, it goes like this; back in the day DC found themselves with this same problem, with characters like Batman and Superman having not aged in 30 years, and multiple versions of character like the Flash and Green Lantern. In order to fix all the continuity errors, they established that there were 2 parallel earths, one in which Batman and Superman started fighting crime in the late 30s, and one where they existed in the modern day. The assumption was that all the events that happened to them in the older comics still roughly happened in the continuity of the later issues, just later on. And as more time passed since the characters original debuts, the gap between the two timelines grew. Eventually this got too confusing, and so DC smashed all the alternate universe together and made a single streamlined continuity, and then couldn’t leave that well enough alone, and now basically they reboot the whole thing every 10 years or so. Anyway, not the point. If the Bond movies operate under the same logic, then perhaps each different actor is actually just a parallel universe version of the character, in which he was born later and looks different, but wherein all the events of the previous however many movies happened roughly the same, maybe with minor geo-political details changed. Like this, if you’ll follow me;
James Bond is born sometime around the 30s, looking like Sean Connery. The events of Dr. No through Diamonds are Forever take place when they were made, from the early 60s to early 70s.
Everything happens around the same time, but this time Bond is born looking like George Lazenby,
Everything happens around the same time, but this time Bond is born looking like Roger Moore. The events of Live and Let Die through A View To A Kill take place when they were made, the mid 70s to mid 80s.
James Bond is born significantly later. looking like Timothy Dalton. The events of Dr. No through A View To A Kill take place over a much more compacted timeline, roughly the late 70s to mid 80s.
Everything happens around the same time as Universe D, but Bond is born looking like Pierce Brosnan. The events of Goldeneye through Die Another Day take place when they were made, mid 90s to early 2000s.
Now, Casino Royale actually doesn’t seem to acknowledge the events of any of the previous movies, with Bond just starting out as a double 0 agent. I’ve heard the theory that the other 20 Bond movies actually take place in between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, and while it’s definitely possible that all of those missions happened during that three-year gap, I think things like the re-introduction of Q and Ms. Moneypenny reinforce the idea that this is a reboot. So we’ll call the Daniel Craig movies a totally new timeline in which none of the events of the other movies happened.
James Bond is born around whenever Daniel Craig was born, looking like Daniel Craig. Casino Royale through Skyfall and I guess Spectre too take place when they were made, like the last ten years and also still currently.
Does that make any sense? I’m ranting, but that’s what the internet is for, right?