James Bond: Not a Cyborg

Well then, what is he?  If it's supposed to be one continuous series of films, shouldn't Bond be in his 80's or 90's by now?  Surely he must be some sort of robot/alien/clone/time traveller/immortal, right?  Is "James Bond 007" merely a title passed down to different spies over time?

Of course not.  The Daniel Craig movies are clear cut reboots.  But what about the other Bonds?  And what about the supporting casts?  Are Miss Moneypenny, M, and Q immortal as well?  Heck, Felix Leiter looks completely different almost every time he appears - sometimes he's even a whole new ethnicity!  Just what in blazes is going on here?

Friends, in honor of the home format release of the most excellent 50th anniversary Bondstravaganza known as "Skyfall", I would like to present to you my interpretation of the James Bond film legacy.  It is, in fact (okay, my opinion), not one long series, but four separate storylines, all unconnected to each other.  Despite the fact that some actors are portraying the same characters in different timelines, and despite the many in-joke references to Bond movies past, I advise you to think of each series as a fresh start.  It will save your sanity.  It didn't save mine, but that's another story. . .

Also, this list is strictly for the Albert R. Broccoli/EON Productions James Bond movies, often called the "official series".  It will not include the 1954 American T.V. movie version of "Casino Royale" (with "Jimmy" Bond - don't be silly), nor the 1967 version of "Casino Royale" (a spoof of Bond movies), nor 1983's "Never Say Never Again" - yes, I know it stars Sean Connery, but it's really just a remake of 1965's "Thunderball" and should be considered separate from all the rest of them.  If you want to know why that movie even exists at all, look it up.  There's a lawsuit and a settlement and all sorts of filmmaking kung fu that led to its inception in the first place.  But I digress.  Back to the "official" list.

So here they are, Series by Series with some of my arguments/excuses to back up my decisions -


Series 1 - The Connery Years

-

Dr. No (1962)

From Russia with Love (1963)

Goldfinger (1964)

Thunderball (1965)

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Diamonds are Forever (1971)

-

All of the Sean Connery Bonds.  There is a hiccup here - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" was released in 1969, starring George Lazenby.  Unsatisfied with the box office performance of that one, the producers dumped Lazenby and managed to get Connery back to do "Diamonds", before he bugged out as well.  I'll clarify later why exactly "OHMSS" is better placed in a separate timeline, but "Diamonds" fits perfectly here, both for reasons of tone (it fits well with the others) and reasons of character continuity (Lazenby is a younger actor than Connery).  "Diamonds" isn't very satisfying as the end of a series (it's the least best of all the movies in Series 1), but it's okay.


The Lazenby/Moore Years

-

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Live and Let Die (1973)

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Moonraker (1979)

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Octopussy (1983)

A View to a Kill (1985)

-

George Lazenby and Roger Moore always seemed, to me, like they were playing the same version of the character.  They're both have very flippant, easygoing attitudes and even kind of look like each other.  This is the longest of the four series, giving Bond the opportunity to go from young (Lazenby in "OHMSS") to old (Moore, "Live and Let Die" onward and the oldest actor to play Bond, unless you count Connery in "Never Say Never Again").  The tragic cliffhanger ending of "OHMSS" pays off spectacularly when you get to the opening scene of "For Your Eyes Only".  If you watch the movies in the order of their release, "Diamonds are Forever" gets in the way, making the opening of "FYEO" less satisfying.  And, once again, "A View to a Kill" isn't the best example of a final chapter, but it's not my least favorite movie in Series 2 (that would be "The Man with the Golden Gun").

Series 3 - The Dalton/Brosnan Years

-

The Living Daylights (1987)

Licence to Kill (1989)

Goldeneye (1995)

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

The World is Not Enough (1999)

Die Another Day (2002)

-

Timothy Dalton ("Daylights" and "Licence") and Pierce Brosnan ("Goldeneye" and onward) seem to be a good fit.  They both fought to bring back the edginess of the character from the original novels by Ian Fleming, and succeeded - to a certain degree.  Longtime C.I.A. ally Felix Leiter, who gets half-eaten by a shark in "Licence", is replaced by agent Jack Wade for the Brosnan films, and the opening scene of "Goldeneye" takes place in 1986 when Bond was just a noob agent, one year before "The Living Daylights".  Plus Brosnan seems to be playing an older, more world-weary version of Dalton.  As for the climax, "Die Another Day" has its problems, but it's a decent enough ending - after all, it was the big 40th anniversary Bond movie, so the producers went all-out to make it an "event".  Personally, I think they went too far (robotic control armor, anyone?), but that's a debate for another time.  It's a decent end point for Series 3.

Series 4 - The Daniel Craig Years

-

Casino Royale (2006)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Skyfall (2012)

Font of Kickassery - or whatever they're going to call it - (2014)

-

No, they're not prequels.  It's obviously a whole new beginning this time, from Bond earning his 00 status at the start of "Casino" to the fresh introductions of his supporting buddies, it's a series that clearly stands on its own.  And it stands tall, since I consider "Casino" and "Skyfall" not only two of my favorite James Bond movies, but two of my favorite movies, period.  And it's official - Craig has replaced Connery as my favorite Bond actor.  Sacrilege!  But true.

So there are my thoughts on Bond continuity (Bondinuity, if you will) - four distinct storylines.  Where Series 4 will end, who knows?  Will it be a solely Craig series, or will some other guy carry the story torch to the finish line?  We'll see.