MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Moving on to the next actor to play Bond...

Moving on to the next actor to play Bond. BIG SPOILERS...

posted 3 years ago by [deleted]
13 replies | jump to latest

Thanks to a stupid poster here, I learned that Craig's Bond dies in NTTD before I had a chance to see it. Yeah, yeah..."If you haven't seen the movie, why are you reading about it first in these forums?" My mistake.

Moving on...

A few posts here have asked how the series can continue with any sort of continuity if the main character of the series is dead?

The answer is: Multiverse!

The MCU has done it. DC has done it. Terminator movies/series have done it. Now it's Bond's turn. The producers can announce that the adventures of each Bond actor takes place in its own timeline. The new Bond is alive because he's in a different timeline.

This explanation neatly puts to rest that awkward "Bond/007 is a codename" nonsense to explain the different actors. It explains the odd discrepancies between movies such as how Bond doesn't recognize Blofeld even though he met him before in a previous movie.

Even more brilliantly, it explains how Judi Dench could appear with two separate Bonds (Brosnan, Craig). She's two separate versions of the same character who looks the same in both timelines. Same with David Hedison as Felix Leiter.

It explains Connery's outlier Never Say Never. That Connery/Bond version exists in a different timeline altogether, where the characters from the other Connery/Bond movies, e.g. M, Q, don't exist.

All it would take is a throwaway line about some past super-villain who was experimenting with quantum physics -- Hugo Drax is a good suggestion -- as a way to set up alternate timelines in the Bond universe(s).

Boom... done.

[–] pjl69 (2647) 3 years ago

Continuity is overrated, especially in a franchise like Bond.

[–] Boricanator (1471) 3 years ago

I always had the impression that every time a new actor is cast as Bond, we start a new continuity.

[–] Burk48917 (11536) 3 years ago

I think that's true.

[–] Hybrid66 (1516) 3 years ago

Good theory, I was thinking that they'd introduce many actors as ''00'''s in the same film?

[–] tom8 (3119) 3 years ago

The MCU has done it. DC has done it. Terminator movies/series have done it.

these are sci-fi movies, not 007

and secondly, Terminator movies were roasted for doing it. they bombed, hence no future movies are planned

[–] FFNogoodnik (778) 3 years ago

Or you do not explain it at all.

The next Bond film is just a mission like most missions in the series. Not every film franchise has to be a connected universe.

For years this franchise existed without such explanations being needed. Of course now, we *need* to explain these things without looking at the context in which they were done. For much of the Bond franchise's existence the idea of a continuous universe most likely occurred to the producers but was just not attenable. In the 60's, 70's and most of the 80's films had to be basically stand alone films as the audience did not have the luxury of re-watching all of the previous films on Netflix or on blu-ray. The audience was not expected to remember what they saw 3 years earlier once or twice on a movie screen.

[–] SteveG (1370) 3 years ago

YES!!! Bring back Timothy Dalton!!!

[–] Ripkens25 (2064) 3 years ago

Dalton: Too stiff and stuffy.

[–] SteveG (1370) 3 years ago

Lol, stop it! Who do you want Rip?

[–] Ripkens25 (2064) 3 years ago

Henry Cavill

[–] SteveG (1370) 3 years ago

How about Tom Cruise?

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

That sounds awful.

Here is it even simpler.

Cast a new bond and make a movie. Done.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

[deleted]