27 replies to this topic

[Alex]

There's probably been a thread about this somewhere, and this may have been done to death already, but I'm curious, just how old is Bond supposed to be? He's been around from at least 1969 to the end of the Cold War and beyond...he was obviously not born in 1921 (which is said in Ian Fleming's novels), so what's going on? Is he ageless? Or is James Bond just some code name or identity that people assume?

[Jim]

Alex (10 Feb, 2002 05:30 p.m.):
He's been around from at least 1969

This is very true

[Jacko]

which also means that he was born in 1934, at least.

[Alex]

Jacko (10 Feb, 2002 06:10 p.m.):
which also means that he was born in 1934, at least.

Yet he doesn't exhibit any signs of aging, and he doesn't look older than 40...

[Mister Asterix]

Bond is in his mid thirties to early forties. And always has been and always will be. How does he not grow older? He does it by maintaining his fictionality.

[mccartney007]

According to the prop passport that Brosnan's Bond carries, Bond was born in 1953.

[Alex]

Perhaps "James Bond" is a codename, like M, Q, and Moneypenny...

[Blue Eyes]

Jim (11 Feb, 2002 01:21 p.m.):
we haven't found intelligent life on other planets.

Funnily enough, we haven't found any on this planet either

[ShockTroop22]

Isn't the character supposed to be aged 35? I can remember hearing that somewhere, but im not sure where, if you look at Agent Under Fire (PS2), their version of Bond looks about this age, how old is the literary 007 supposed to be?

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

James Bond is eternal. My theory is that it is the smae James Bond and we just have to suspend our belief everytime the actor is replaced. It seems that the age of Bond factor is going to be hindered by the addition of Robinson and Tanner who will still age when the next Bond comes in. Will they change MI6 staff everytime Bond changes? I think they should eventually but it'd be sad to say goodbye to Robinson and Micheal Kitchen's Tanner.

[Felix]

{Sorry; double post}

[Felix]

Well, I generally just separate the Bond films into two different, self-contained "eras," each with their own internal continuity. The first 14 films comprise the career of one version of Bond, played by three different actors. He was active for a period of about 25 years, probably from his late 20s to his early 50s. With the advent of The Living Daylights, we are seeing the adventures of a different Bond, one who probably has been active for about 20 years at this point and has been played by two different actors. The "new" Bond has a similar past to the one of the first 14 films (for example, he was once married), but I simply consider his career before TLD to be unchronicled. I suppose this is one of those subjects that is generally best left up to the individual to come up with their own solution.

[Alex]

Jim (11 Feb, 2002 01:21 p.m.):
It's a fictional character. You might as well query how Chewbacca can possibly exisit, when we haven't found intelligent life on other planets. And little enough on this one.

I am well aware of that, but I like fiction better when I can make some sense of it.

Chewie is from another planet, in another galaxy, and furthermore, he's in a sci-fi movie.

James Bond is a human being from Earth in a semi-realistic (except for movies like Moonraker) string of spy movies. And his failure to age like any other human being (even Q, for God's sake) is unexplained, leaving probably the biggest hole in the entire Bond series.

[Mister Asterix]

Chewbacca isn't real?

(Did I really need to say that twice? Apparently my index finger thought so.)

[Mister Asterix]

Chewbacca isn't real?

[Xenobia]

....which does or does not include the novels as it suits me.

Andrew Bond was a lot more than a salesman for Vickers. He was an agent, and when he died, everyone felt he should be duly honored. So, the code name for 007 was supposed to be Andrew Bond.

One problem, 007 number one didn't like the name Andrew. He wanted James. After much hang wringing (they really like this guy they want to put in as 007), M. gives the go ahead.

So, 007 number 1 goes about his merry way until YOLT. Then, he attempts to retire.

007 number 2 is a nice fellow, except he goes a bit off his rocker after his wife is murderered, so he retires very early.

007 number 1 comes back in a pinch, and to do right by number 2, kills Blofeld, or so he thinks.

Then comes 007 number 3, who was already older to begin with, and then stays far longer than he should.

Now, in the middle of this, lo and behold Andrew Bond's son turns out to be a talented little boy. And so of course, when some suggests James join the MI6, he is welcomed with open arms. When the real James bond proves his worth, he becomes 007, thus 007 number four is not just James Bond by code name, but by birth as well.

All the 007's are bonded together, (sorry, I had to go there) by the fact that have fought the good fight under the same name. And the active three feel bad for the one who lost his wife, so yes, they visit her grave. They all might also contribute to Aunt Charmain's retirement fund as they see fit.

Does that make any sense?

-- Xen

[Jim]

It's a fictional character. You might as well query how Chewbacca can possibly exisit, when we haven't found intelligent life on other planets. And little enough on this one.

[Alex]

zerozeroseven (11 Feb, 2002 05:52 a.m.):

Alex (10 Feb, 2002 11:47 p.m.):
Perhaps "James Bond" is a codename, like M, Q, and Moneypenny...

I suggested this theory to friends once, and nobody thought it was a good one. First they told me to watch 1967's Casino Royale. I guess the main argument against the theory is the fact that Bond visited Tracy's grave at the beginning of FYEO, and only one Bond would visit his dead wife's grave. I defended it by saying that James Bond/007 is a legend whose position is passed from agent to agent as they retire to maintain fear in enemy agents, etc...much like the situation with the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride. So if that was the case, to maintain the role he's playing, the current Bond would visit Tracy Bond's grave. I think it makes as much sense as Bond never getting older from decade to decade. And it's more believable than Bond being currently in his seventies but looking like Brosnan. I think it's a losing battle, though, Alex. I've never been able to get anybody to even consider the theory. But I find it thought-provoking.

Hmm....well, there are a few ways to make this theory work....

First, let's assume Diamonds Are Forever takes place before OHMSS, which explains a) the fact that Blofeld has no neck brace but has it in FYEO, the fact that Bond is still Sean Connery in DAF, and c) the fact that Bond never once mentioned getting revenge for Tracy in DAF.

Then let's assume that the second Bond took over just after Diamonds Are Forever, and that DAF happened in either 1967 or very early 1968 (making M's 2-years statement true). And let's say the third Bond didn't take over until, oh, Goldeneye or thereabouts. That explains why Bond is at Tracy's grave in FYEO, why Felix said Bond has been married before in LTK, and why there as been a change of appearence in a couple of Bonds. Oh, and it also explains Lazenby's comment "This never happened to the other fella."

As for Goldeneye and the 1986 teaser sequence, either a) the 3rd Bond had temporarily assumed the role for some reason, or the rest of the movie occurred somehwat later than 1995, this making the Arkangel'sk scene after Dalton's time.

[Alex]

I like the chronicle idea best.

[Tedley King]

Right let me get this idea over and done with. Few of you know aout my fanatical Bond knowledge - Dont let the name fool you! - i've been called obsessed at school and even more, with thanks to sites like CBN and MI6 for the addition to my knowledge. About Bond's age................ HE IS 35 FOREVER, although in GE it does say "nine years later" this is because the trouble with the former USSR has now finished, and the pre-creds in GE were about USSR, the Soviet Union. That is why they look for actors from about 29-40 to play Bond. Although Brosnan his nearly reached his half century (near enough a 1st for a Brit . . . cheap humour - cricket?). Anyway, Bond i, and will always remain 35. however with the nine year passing and also the thought of Bond being catured for months, maybe even a year or two, does and will make people think he is atleast 45 if not older! He is 35 FOREVER. The films only mke time sem to pass because it is part of the plot. Do not get mixed up with ourtime, normal 365 days = a year, Bond films = 1 day, technically.

[Jacko]

i dont know the requirement age for MI6, but if it is 18 years he must have been at least 28 in Dr No (he says he has used the beretta for ten years) and that was 40 years ago.

28+40=68

so, by the time of Bond 20, commander James Bond will be 3 years over retirement age (i dont know about britain, but in sweden you retire at 65).

Long live 007

[zerozeroseven]

Alex (10 Feb, 2002 11:47 p.m.):
Perhaps "James Bond" is a codename, like M, Q, and Moneypenny...

I suggested this theory to friends once, and nobody thought it was a good one. First they told me to watch 1967's Casino Royale. I guess the main argument against the theory is the fact that Bond visited Tracy's grave at the beginning of FYEO, and only one Bond would visit his dead wife's grave. I defended it by saying that James Bond/007 is a legend whose position is passed from agent to agent as they retire to maintain fear in enemy agents, etc...much like the situation with the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride. So if that was the case, to maintain the role he's playing, the current Bond would visit Tracy Bond's grave. I think it makes as much sense as Bond never getting older from decade to decade. And it's more believable than Bond being currently in his seventies but looking like Brosnan. I think it's a losing battle, though, Alex. I've never been able to get anybody to even consider the theory. But I find it thought-provoking.

[Blofeld's Cat]

In my mind the Bond movies are a celluloid account of his memoirs, in which the twenty "assignments" so far had taken forty years to depict. There are many more still to be chronicled on film.

For convenience sakes it is easier to set the movie at the time of production.

He is a super spy who would not just get one assignment every two years on average.

As a whole, the film series should have a title.

"The Career Of A Servant Of Her Majesty's Secret Service"

[Alex]

Harmsway (15 Feb, 2002 03:29 a.m.):That's why references to past events are always so vague in the books and films.

"Teresa Bond
1943 - 1969
We have all the time in the world"

I don't think that's very vague. But I do like Blofeld's Cat's explanation of the whole thing more than an "assuming an identity" sort of thing.

[Harmsway]

James Bond is outside of space and time. He is not real, he is fantasy. You can't put an age on James Bond, and the assuming identity theory is one of the worst theories I've every heard. Though provoking, but terrible to think about. Ruins the whole Bond character. Bond will still be here in 2010. He'll probably still be here in 2020. So, he's eternal pretty much. That's why references to past events are always so vague in the books and films.

[freemo]

Oh, poor unenlightened ones.

The REAL James Bond (of "Birds of the West Indies" fame) was born in 1900. Obviously he has since passed on, but if James Bond was alive he would be 102.

That's my answer.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Ah, the foibles of artistic licence.

I suggested that, for convenience sakes, each adventure was set at the time of production. Therefore current historical events may have crept into the plot.

Fictionalised accounts from the fictionalised diary of a fictional hero can easily be explained.

Besides, that's what John Pearson tried to do with his James Bond: The Authorised Biography of 007.

[Alex]

Blofeld's Cat (12 Feb, 2002 04:52 a.m.):
In my mind the Bond movies are a celluloid account of his memoirs, in which the twenty "assignments" so far had taken forty years to depict. There are many more still to be chronicled on film.

For convenience sakes it is easier to set the movie at the time of production.

He is a super spy who would not just get one assignment every two years on average.

As a whole, the film series should have a title.

"The Career Of A Servant Of Her Majesty's Secret Service"

I actually like that idea, Blofeld's Cat, except that there are a lot of things spoken about in the films which do set a certain range of dates, such as the collapse of the USSR (Goldeneye), the USSR itself (pick one), the Mujahadin movement against the Soviets (The Living Daylights), the 70's energy crisis (The Man With The Golden Gun), etc.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain this to my satisfaction.