I kind of think that's how it was always intended to be-each version of Bond exists in their own parallel universe separate from the others. There's certainly no way Sean Connery's version of Bond could exist alongside Daniel Craig's version.
I don't think that's how it goes, the James Bond character is an idea-a concept that could be inserted into an infinite number of scenarios. The 60's version or the current version are variations on the theme but are different takes-the alternate universe (or parallel). A lot of movie franchises are like that-Batman, Super Man etc.Nothing 'parallel universe' about it. Sean Connery was Bond in the 60s. Craig was Bond in the 00s-present.
I don't think that's how it goes, the James Bond character is an idea-a concept that could be inserted into an infinite number of scenarios. The 60's version or the current version are variations on the theme but are different takes-the alternate universe (or parallel). A lot of movie franchises are like that-Batman, Super Man etc.
Well, that's hinted in the current movie where Bond has been retired for a few years and the current 007 is a black women. So yes, it seems that 007 is a job title and anybody with the right qualifications could be inserted into that role-hence my original assertion, disavowing the name that is 007 but James Bond himself is a concept but 007 is a job title.The reason your point stands with those franchises is that the characters are given back story that's designed to be based on an original template; Bond has, over the years, largely been a blank canvas - a character defined by his job rather than his own history. Fleming's books might be the same character, but it has long been hinted at (On Her Majesty's Secret Service: "this never happened to the other fellow") that Bond is a role taken on by different people chronologically and I don't think there's any in-universe reason that this couldn't be.
It's not **** but I liked No Time To Die because it was ENTERTAINING. Isn't that why people see movies, read books, etc.?
The Seventh Curse (1986)
Mad as a box of frogs
You dont get get it and have misunderstood what I said - oh wellIt's not **** but I liked No Time To Die because it was ENTERTAINING. Isn't that why people see movies, read books, etc.?