It's a timeline, but it's not set in any particular era. Craig went through Goldfinger, even if it wasn't the exact same Goldfinger as Connery due to era. Timothy Dalton's Bond was married to Tracy even though OHMSS pre-dated Licence to Kill by twenty years.

So you believe Craig's Bond was married before as well? And went to space?

Craig has a car that fires rockets and has an ejector seat. He obviously battled Goldfinger. So why not?

In my mind, there is no overall timeline. There are smaller timelines within the franchise (On Her Majesty's Secret Service to Diamonds Are Forever to For Your Eyes Only, for instance, or Casino Royale to Quantum of Solace), but I don't derive any fascination or pleasure from trying to, say, connect Moore's A View to a Kill Bond to Craig's Quantum of Solace Bond. I just can't feel it.

Can you feel Moonraker connecting to On Her Majesty's Secret Service? Because Moore visits Tracy's grave in For Your Eyes Only.

I know there are references to past films throughout the series, and you have noted an overt one, but I'm just never going to believe, to use the same example, Moore's A View to a Kill Bond and Craig's Quantum of Solace are the exact same man in the exact same continuity. Nor do I believe the code name theory, though. It's more ambiguous. Bond is an idea defined by the actor and the era.

Most references have much more to do with the franchise's history than the actual character's history. I doubt we will ever see Craig's Bond recalling his fling with Mary Goodnight or recounting his time with the rebels in Afghanistan.

Of course not. Like I said, the films themselves are the products of their era. Craig didn't exist in 1962. Connery can't run around in 2012. But Craig could still have faced Dr. No, and Connery could still have lost Vesper Lynd. It's continuity, but it's not strict continuity.

The best example is the GoldenEye Wii game with Craig as Bond. Same story, same villains, but in Craig's terms.

I see where you are coming from. It is fun to consider, but also headache inducing.

I see this tonight at long last. I am so excited.

At the screening last night, an exchange with Should-Be-Sean-Connery really got to me. Dammit, why isn't Connery in this?



Imagine that line from Connery at a packed house showtime.

Welcome to Scotland, still beats it.

As for the timeline discussion...I repeat: Do you believe Craig's Bond went to space? I'm afraid you're putting mroe into it than the series' actual producers. The car with the rockets is nothing, but a nice gag and a nostalgic reference.

It's not just a reference -- it's the exact same car as Goldfinger down to the license plate.

Do I think Daniel Craig's Bond went to space? No. But I'm pretty sure he took down Hugo Drax.

But Moonraker is built all around the space premise. No space, no continuity/timeline. I realy think you're overthinking this.

License plate? Sure, why not. It's nothing but a big *wink wink*

Actually, you are. I think Bond exists in a loose continuity. You think every event has to line up.

But that basically means you just pick and choose what you like so it fits your theory.

Question regarding the IMAX version: does it alternate between different aspect ratios the way it does in this clip?

Not noticeably, for me at least, though my proximity to the screen could've affected that.

Hence a loose continuity.

But except for some (what I call) *sight gags* nothing really supports your theory, right

As for the aspect ratio - not that I have noticed.

The aspect ratio doesn't shift in IMAX. As for supporting my theory, the GoldenEye and 007 Legends games do, but that's about all I got.

B+. Good but not amazing, better than POS, more enjoyable than CR, though not as clever. My favorite of the craig bonds, but due to the universal acclaim, i am kind of disappointed.

The only reason people are comparing this to 'The Dark Knight' is because it is a clear, blatant rip off in many areas. Bardems character pretty much is the Joker. His whole plan involves himself "getting caught" so he can get on the inside and screw things up. His whole plan revolves around messing with M, while Jokers was Batman. But it frankly has half the emotion of TDK on it's own, half the action, and is half as memorable. The Dark Knight, moreso than any other movie in the 2000s, was a film that everybody remembers. Nobody shut up about it. SKYFALL is not quite like that. When Joker says "you're going to have to play my little game if you want to save one of them"...there is that "Ah HAH!" moment that is also full of dread. There are no such moments like that in this movie. Given the wide spread acclaim and constant TDK comparisons, I was slightly let down. There really, in many ways, just isn't much to this movie.

Its a good, engaging movie. It is a massive step up from POS. As a film, in terms of story telling, it is a step below Casino Royale just because the plot in this one is extremely simple. There is no 'Bond heartbreak' or elaborate Le Chife being a terrorist banker & gambling their money scheme going on. Some ex double-0 agent is randomly very rich & very upset with M. But, at the same time, being so simple makes a tad easier to follow & more enjoyable. Had this film not been so well acted and directed, this same script could have resulted in a very bad movie. It is, however, well acted and well directed. It is an enjoyable movie that I recommend seeing, but I dont think its a top 5 Bond. There just frankly is not a whole lot to it. It moves fast for being so long, but it weirdly feels like there is not a whole lot going on.



I enjoyed seeing it, but also feel the mass praise is overrated. Nothing from this movie should merrit any attention from the academy, for example.

I love that the whole thing is about trying to kill one person. Megalomaniacal Bond villains are boring.

but the question at some point has to become....seriously? thats the best you got? goldfinger devises to vastly increase the worth of his gold by destroying 10% of the worlds supply. brilliant. this is the best they got? what mission is bond even on - protecting m? how exciting.

dont get me wrong, i liked the movie. but its no goldfinger, ohmss, spy who loved me, or even goldeneye.

Skyfall is massively better than The Spy Who Loved Me and GoldenEye. It's not even close. I mean, you actually cared more about boring villain guy destroying the world to create his Atlantis society more than whether Silva killed M or not?

If so, we just have massively different interests in this franchise. If I'm not engaged by the characters, I tend to be piss-bored by Bond.

Loved it.

Acting was top-notch. Bardem was terrific as the villain, definitely one of the best Bond villains that I can remember. The rest of the cast was also great in this.

I loved the action sequences. The train scene was obviously awesome. Sam Mendes did a great job here with so many scenes. The intro. of Silva (with the long walk to Bond, all in one shot) and the short fight in the dark in Hong Kong were good examples of this.

I need to see it again before ranking it above Casino Royale, but it's definitely really close, if not better. And I also don't want to compare to the other Bonds because they're so different.

Very different types of films. For obvious reasons, Silva is a more memorable and enjoyable villain. This just didnt even really feel like a story. I gave it B+, dont get me wrong, I enjoyed it. But more of Silva, and a plot beyond "Kill M" would have earned it far higher marks from me.

I understand people liking the simplicity of it, but so little going on & so litte REALLY at stake made it feel kind of weak imo.