Not A Skyfall Review

A word on Skyfall before I get into it.  I liked it a lot.  I seem not to be blown away as most others were.  It was really good, but best James Bond movie yet? . . . I'm not so sure about.  Casino Royale - THAT was a great Bond movie.  Quantum of Solace was underwhelming at best (though I adamantly maintain that it was by no means a bad movie - just forgettable).  And Skyfall was really, really good.  But I left feeling . . . like I had missed something.

Nonetheless, I still support Daniel Craig as the best James Bond - note, I do not say he has the best movies, simply that he does the best job at playing the character.  I know, I know: blasphemy, but I sometimes suspect that those who blindly worship Connery as the best Bond (note the word "blindly") are also the same kind of people who see Mad Men as a how-to guide to life.

But on to my main point after the jump:


Just assume everything from here on out contains spoilers.

Every time a new Bond movie comes out, I hear a lot of talk about the James Bond mythology.  Where does the new movie fit in?  When does it take place?  Is Bond a single person or is it a code name or are these alternate timelines or on and on and on.

Please.  Stop.

I love continuity.  I am still astonished at the Avengers experiment that Marvel managed to pull off this past summer.  I scour Stephen King books for Dark Tower references and connections, even attaching undue significance to the phrase "Bango Skank."  The idea of an Archer/Bob's Burgers crossover has me giddy.

Continuity between works and the concept of a shared universe can really strengthen character, plot, theme and add depth to a movie, book, television show, etc.

But it is not an applicable concept to everything.  And the absurd lengths to which people go to fit the Craig Bond movies in with the previous entries in the series are starting to grate on my nerves.  The movies don't need to make sense like that.  Maybe at one time they could, but no longer, and coming up with silly fan theories as to how this series can make logical sense won't work.

Bond has surpassed this level of character and has become something closer to the mythical.  Think Anansi in Neil Gaiman's American Gods and Anansi Boys.  Sometimes Anansi is a person, sometimes he is a spider.  The stories don't necessarily need to gel together for one to get enjoyment out of them.  Anansi is a timeless character and you hear about him for the individual episodes of his life.  The same goes for James Bond.  There don't need to be rules.  The stories don't need to be codified into some sort of convoluted timeline to make sense.  They are stories individual of each other, except in the rare case where they very explicitly call back to one another (think Quantum of Solace being a direct sequel to Casino Royale or the call-backs as Bond packs up his desk in On Her Majesty's Secret Service . . . actually . . . )

Let's talk about On Her Majesty's Secret Service: in the beginning of the movie, George Lazenby, having replaced the sacred Connery as the lead character, turns to the camera and says "This never happened to the other fellow."  Some people point to this as an acknowledgement of the Bond-code-name theory.  Really, all it is is the movie doing the equivalent of Colin Quinn's "new bartender speech" on his first night of Weekend Update.  Yes, the usual guy has changed.  Things will be different now.  Deal with it.

At absolute best, you could say that from Dr. No to A View To A Kill, there is a shared continuity, but once Timothy Dalton takes the reins of the character, all bets are off.  Some names and details may stay the same, but the stories no longer need to fit past Roger Moore.

TL:DR version: Stop overthinking it.  It's James Bond.  Just enjoy.

I sound like a wet blanket.  I actually admire these fan-theories in concept.  They prove to be interesting thought experiments, little pop-culture puzzles, and were they to remain mere ideas to be played with, as simple brain exercises, I'd have no problem.  But people start to treat them as legitimate concepts worthy of debate, of consideration for canon.

I imagine that religion started much the same way.  One minute, you're telling stories to explain stuff you don't understand.  The next, anyone who doesn't believe in the holy law as put forth by some nut overthinking things needs to be shunned and ostracized.

It makes me think of the whole Legend of Zelda timeline discussion.  And it's almost amusing because every time the creators come out with something new that throws all the fan theories into question (much like George Lucas fucks with the expanded universe - and I hope Disney continues to do the same), the fans go rabid and start reshuffling their scriptures.  The main difference: the Zelda games give lip service to the idea of a shared universe, of continuity.  They tease the player with connections and recurring characters/locations/etc.  Bond movies stopped doing that a long time ago.

In the end, there's only one rule you can count on if you're desperate for James Bond continuity: If it's the same actor playing Bond, then expect the movie to be connected to other Bond movies starring that actor.  Otherwise, all bets are off.

And if anyone ever includes Never Say Never Again in their discussion of Bond films, then they are an idiot, and you should ignore them.