James Bond / 007

HarveyMushman

I have a question for all you know-it-alls.....

I seem to recall years ago someone somewhere saying James Bond / 007 was simply a name and number assigned to that position in MI6.

This makes sense from a franchise point of view as it allows for new actors to take over the Bond mantle and slot in to the position known as James Bond, however the last few films have made that theory somewhat confusing as a viewer by making it abundantly clear James Bond is the given name to the person currently otherwise known as 007 especially going back to Skyfall being referenced with the name James Bond from his childhood by Kincade etc. This makes the actor changes therefore less believable.

Craig also used an Aston Martin with the same number plate as the original Sean Connery used. Implying it is effectively the same person simply re-invented in a different era.

Finally adding to the complexity is that M interchanged within the same film timeline, so one character changes openly in the film and picks up a new actor for the codename the other implies its the same person in all films.....I find this odd.

So what actually is the theory behind the name James Bond and assigned number of 007?

HarveyMushman

Apologies if this has been covered. I couldn't find anything.

Dutchfinger

Most (if not all) diehard Bond fans resent the code name theory. The first timeline (From Dr. No to Die Another day, aka from 1962 to 2002, is seen as one timeline where Bond essentially is the same character.

When Bond is played by a different actor for the first time (George Lazenby) they deliberately inserted a scene where he has passed memories from previous missions in his office. (He is browsing through items of all the previous movies that Sean Connery starred in.) In that same film, Bond gets married and his wife gets killed. Then later the torch is passed to the third actor: Roger Moore. The death of his wife is mentioned and he's even seen outside of the grave of his wife in For Your Eyes Only, again showing that we're still dealing with the same character, despite his changes in appearance.

Then Dalton came into the part, and for the first time, Bond grew younger. So that does complicates things. But in Licence to Kill the death of his wife is once again mentioned, still showing he's the same character. Then finally when Brosnan took over, it is stated that his family motto is "The World is not enough", which is also mentioned in the older movie "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", thus confirming that Brosnan is still the same character.

It makes no sense that Bond doesn't really age, yes. But no self respecting Bond fan is a supporter of the code name theory. (At least not that I am aware of.) So it's just a "deal with the aging thing, he is the same guy' kind of thing.

With Craig, the series got a true first reboot. Making him a new Bond in an alternate universe, who receives his "00" status at modern day, and wins the Aston Martin DB5 from a villian, instead of getting it from Q. Craig's movies still have tons of nods to the older movies, but none of the stuff prior to CR has happened in that universe.

I find it quite easy to live with that

Hope this cleared things up!

HarveyMushman

Thanks, appreciate your comment.

Thunderpussy

Yes!, the code name theory usually has many Bond fans ( I won't say all) Rolling their eyes 8-)

superado

Thunderpussy wrote:

Yes!, the code name theory usually has many Bond fans ( I won't say all) Rolling their eyes 8-)

I don't know about your eyes, TP, but I'm still trying to unbunch my panties!

Thunderpussy

) I always go Commando.

ThunderRaker

I would elaborate why it's wrong but it seems my job was done for me -{

Yup, it's the Codename theory. Way too much evidence against it, to me, there's only 3 canon Bonds. Ian Fleming Bond, Connery though Brosnan Bond, and Craig Bond :007)

chrisisall

ThunderRaker wrote:

to me, there's only 3 canon Bonds. Ian Fleming Bond, Connery though Brosnan Bond, and Craig Bond :007)

To me, there is only Tim.
) :v

TheWorldIsEnough

So..... I'm a casual fan, not a die hard. And the code name theory appeals to me for one important reason: it makes the films more enjoyable for ME, no one else. Basically, I can't deal with the aging. And I want to live in a world where James Bond was strapped to a table with a laser about to melt off his fellas in 1964, yet where James Bond also tore up an ice palace without the aid of a walker in 2002. I mean Connery was already starting to look like a pervy old man in the train wreck of a film that was Diamonds Are Forever, so I'm not gonna believe he could somehow keep seducing beautiful women, let alone finish any sort of mission without extensive bouts with irritable bowel syndrome, hearing loss or senility 30 years later.

I have no problem with Connery through Moore as one 'Bond'. It's the Dalton/Brosnan films that just don't fit the timeline. But from Living Daylights to Die Another Day, it felt more like a continuation rather than a reboot. Desmond Llewelyn's portrayal of Q for almost four decades also makes it feel like one continuous timeline.

Then, there's Daniel Craig-- Which even I can't make the code name theory fit after 2006. But I'm quite happy with the Craig reboot.

So, there you go. I guess I'm not a 'true' Bond fan. ) )
But like I said, I do so for my own entertainment.
After all, watching a Bond film is suspending your disbelief for two hours already. Gotta go. My flight just departed pilot-less over a cliff. Gonna steal a motorcycle, leap off a mountain, board the plane, then fly away to England.

superado

I'm sure it's been put forward many times before, but if the overriding purpose of the Codename Theory is to neatly reconcile and unify every nuance of every difference throughout the films so there's a logical mainframe that grounds the whole shebang into the "real world," ...then in such a "real world" why hasn't there been any mention or slightest hint within the movies about the "changing of the guards"? One could argue that you just need to squint your eyes so to speak and overlook this loose thread, but isn't that why the theory arose in the first place, because of nagging loose threads in continuity?