268 replies to this topic

[1q2w3e4r]

Fleming's Bond never served at Sea.  He saw action as a Commando. 

I have read many times here from members quotes form the books that say Bond was in the Pacific Ocean, Hong Kong, Indian Ocean during the last years of the war although he could also be territorial in Europe after 1941.

Not in any book Ian Fleming wrote that I remember.

I found one reference "Bond had always disliked pyjamas and had slept naked until in Hong Kong at the end of the war"

True. But what major naval battle took place at the end of WWII in or around HK?

I haven't seen any reference to Bond serving strictly as a Chocolate sailor anywhere in Fleming's novels. More so that he was a man of action. I'd like to believe that he was in HK doing OO type stuff. Makes more sense with his Commando background and then going straight into MI6 and doing assasinations than him standing around on a ship.

My 2c.

Speculation is fun

[SteveKingCool]

[quote name='1q2w3e4r' date='22 January 2006 - 11:15'][quote name='SteveKingCool' date='22 January 2006 - 11:11'][quote name='1q2w3e4r' date='22 January 2006 - 11:08'][quote name='SteveKingCool' date='22 January 2006 - 10:58'][quote name='1q2w3e4r' date='22 January 2006 - 10:39']
Fleming's Bond never served at Sea.

[1q2w3e4r]

You must know that the British Empire extended as far as Hong Kong and China and was under occupation and attack by the Japanese.

Right you are! You also know that there was no major Naval battle after The Battle of Hong Kong in December 1941, and that Japan surrendered without further Naval conflict at the end of 1945 and that Hong Kong was then liberated though right?

[SteveKingCool]

You must know that the British Empire extended as far as Hong Kong and China and was under occupation and attack by the Japanese.

Right you are! You also know that there was no major Naval battle after The Battle of Hong Kong in December 1941, and that Japan surrendered without further Naval conflict at the end of 1945 and that Hong Kong was then liberated though right?

Now you know where Bond was. He could have been fighting in Europe from 41-43/44 and then in Asia in 43/44-45. Stationed in Asia does not mean he was actively fighting. He was in intelligence which means preventing fighting and keeping an eye for trouble and more such as reporting back to the government about any situations economical, political and military.

Let's keep it in mind that secret service people are not about killing or fighting wars. They are information specıalısts primarily and whatever comes next is incidental. I have never heard of real secret agents training as elite soldiers and would hate to think of Bond as one. The classic image of Bond as a rich man who serves his country in some military operations but whose interests are in global business is the most important thing that must not be destroyed otherwise he's just another Rambo. The realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

Edited by SteveKingCool, 22 January 2006 - 01:21 PM.

[1q2w3e4r]

Now you know where Bond was. He could have been fighting in Europe from 41-43/44 and then in Asia in 43/44-45. Stationed in Asia does not mean he was actively fighting. He was in intelligence which means preventing fighting and keeping an eye for trouble and more such as reporting back to the government about any
situations economical, political and military.

What are you saying? I'm not quite following? Bond was a Commando. Fleming put that on the page. He never served in Naval Intelligence as your suggesting. He worked for the Commando's.

Let's keep it in mind that secret service people are not about killing or fighting wars. They are information specıalısts primarily and whatever comes next is incidental. I have never heard of real secret agents training as elite soldiers and would hate to think of Bond as one. The classic image of Bond as a rich man who serves his country in some military operations but whose interests are in global business is the most important thing that must not be destroyed otherwise he's just another Rambo. The realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

Every major Western intelligence power employs deniable operations officers, for real. Most of them come from military backgrounds. And specifically from Special Forces.

99% of the employees of say MI6 (SIS) probably sit at a desk all day and go home and that's it. However they still employ people who are denible operators to go and do the dirty jobs. And assasination is apart of that.

I'm failing to see the relevance of this? In one post your saying that you think Bond is a military type. But then not as a Commando? And in intelligence. And then you don't think of him as a guy who kills people for a living.

But that's exactly what Fleming put on paper? I'm having trouble trying to deduct what your saying? It seems as though your disagreeing with me just to disagree? Even if I mention a reason as to why I think what i do?

But. Makes for good convo

[SecretAgentFan]

Now you know where Bond was. He could have been fighting in Europe from 41-43/44 and then in Asia in 43/44-45. Stationed in Asia does not mean he was actively fighting. He was in intelligence which means preventing fighting and keeping an eye for trouble and more such as reporting back to the government about any
situations economical, political and military.

What are you saying? I'm not quite following? Bond was a Commando. Fleming put that on the page. He never served in Naval Intelligence as your suggesting. He worked for the Commando's.

Let's keep it in mind that secret service people are not about killing or fighting wars. They are information specıalısts primarily and whatever comes next is incidental. I have never heard of real secret agents training as elite soldiers and would hate to think of Bond as one. The classic image of Bond as a rich man who serves his country in some military operations but whose interests are in global business is the most important thing that must not be destroyed otherwise he's just another Rambo. The realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

Every major Western intelligence power employs deniable operations officers, for real. Most of them come from military backgrounds. And specifically from Special Forces.

99% of the employees of say MI6 (SIS) probably sit at a desk all day and go home and that's it. However they still employ people who are denible operators to go and do the dirty jobs. And assasination is apart of that.

I'm failing to see the relevance of this? In one post your saying that you think Bond is a military type. But then not as a Commando? And in intelligence. And then you don't think of him as a guy who kills people for a living.

But that's exactly what Fleming put on paper? I'm having trouble trying to deduct what your saying? It seems as though your disagreeing with me just to disagree? Even if I mention a reason as to why I think what i do?

But. Makes for good convo

Bond is and always has been a field agent, not a desk jockey. If our friend SteveKingCool thinks otherwise he is just plain wrong. Maybe he also overlooks the fact that James Bond is a fictitious character and therefore never was meant to be a secret agent who acts and thinks like a real secret agent.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Let's keep it in mind that secret service people are not about killing or fighting wars. They are information specıalısts primarily and whatever comes next is incidental. I have never heard of real secret agents training as elite soldiers and would hate to think of Bond as one. The classic image of Bond as a rich man who serves his country in some military operations but whose interests are in global business is the most important thing that must not be destroyed otherwise he's just another Rambo. The realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

It seems you just don't quite understand what EON means by a real and Gritty spy triller. First and formost Bond is "fictional", not real, make belive. You keep on bringing up things about how the stories are so unrealistic, which they are to a certain extent. They were a kind of fantasy fulfilment for Fleming. EON keeps mentioning Batman Begins as a inspiration for the new CR. Batman is a very unrealistic character, as is Bond but yet Christopher Nolan and David Goyer gave the story a gritty and realistic feel. They took a "comic" character and gave him a real world feel. CR will be more down to earth(no more out of this world doomsday weapons or invisible cars) and have modern relevence and context yet still be larger than life.

From your reasonings and opinions it seems you don't really like the Bond character from the novels or films since you find so much wrong with it and are so closed minded to anything otherwise. I don't see what your business is on these boardss other than to stir up trouble and seek attention.

[Lounge Lizard]

I liked what I read in the IGN report, liked it a lot, I'm looking forward to things like the train sequence; it seems they've really found a way to make Vesper a more integral part of the plot, with Bond being dependent on her against his will. 'The Girl from Headquarters' indeed. It seems CR is not about the mythic gleam of gold, or the enchanting sparkle of diamonds, it's about money, plain and simple. That's the gritty part, I guess. I hope they do it justice.

It's a safe bet that Karlovy Vary will double for the mountainside Montenegro casino town, and perhaps the Italian Adriatic coast will double for the Montenegro coast. The Bahamas could then be the backdrop for Bond's tragic holiday with Vesper, if it is not used for the PTS.

I don't see the point of elaborating on the whole 'SAS-or-not' business. Bond's war record has always been a shady one, I think it's satisfactory to know that he has the proper expertise to become a 00, and that he has been on board a naval vessel long enough to have reached the rank of Commander at some point in his life.

[blueman]

Beautiful locations, a plot that doesn't involve a villian who wants to be Bond or control an orbiting satellite weapon, a train, the Adraitic, actual dialogue...just keeps sounding better and better.

Good point about the money, LL, hadn't thought of it that way.

[SteveKingCool]

A realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

I don't see what your business is on these boardss other than to stir up trouble and seek attention.

I don't care about your insulting opinion except that I refer to you that I made an example outline of a realistic plot for Casino Royale that would be realistic. What have you done? Make it personal or stick to the subject. This can sound rude but I will say it: nobody is saying they slept with your mother so please don't insult anyone or make things personal.

Edited by SteveKingCool, 22 January 2006 - 04:48 PM.

[Jim]

Thread hanging by a thread now. Calm down. Everyone.

Thank you.

[spynovelfan]

As I've pointed out before, there are a couple of passages where Fleming starts talking about how when Bond was in the RNVR (Navy) he was off behind enemy lines shooting a bazooka in the middle of the Ardennes. Now, admittingly, I'm not too knowledgeable of the British military etc, but a guy in the RNVR in the middle of the Ardennes sounds like rubbish to me. The point here is that one could probably contend that Bond was in some sort of special forces (given Fleming -- SOE) from day 1. If you update that for today, it probably would be the SAS. Doesn't that make more sense? I don't really see a guy making a jump from the RNVR to the 00 Section, but joining as RNVR, becoming SOE, and then a 00. That's logical. To me anyway.

Could easily have been the SAS - it was founded in 1941. In June, I interviewed a couple of SAS veterans who took part in major operations in the Ardennes and elsewhere in WW2 (including the guy who caught von Ribbentrop after the war).

[Leon]

In the book it says he was given the rank of Lieutenant as a cover for work he did during the war in the special branch of the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve (he shouldn't actually wear a uniform like in the films, and the braids are wrong in them anyway ).

He rose to the rank of Commander by the end of the war and then became associated with "certain aspects of the ministry's work". So basically he was a covert operative for a special branch of Naval Intelligence which during the war worked with groups such as SOE (special operations executive) and carried out covert tasks which the SAS/SBS would do today.

So it's perfectly right that a modern James Bond has a history in special forces. He will still have served in the Royal Navy for a number of years before applying for special forces selection, spent 3 years as an SAS/SBS officer then joined SIS and earned his double o number. Still a commander of the RN. Some people have been fussing about this but it's perfectly correct, and a good/accurate modern translation of the career Fleming gave James Bond during WWII.

Edited by Leon, 22 January 2006 - 05:15 PM.

[spynovelfan]

So basically he was a covert operative for a special branch of Naval Intelligence which during the war worked with groups such as SOE (special operations executive) and carried out covert tasks which the SAS/SBS would do today.

And in WW2 - see above. SAS and SBS were both formed in 1941, and active in that war, along with SOE and numerous other intelligence outfits. Ie it doesn't even have to be a modern translation - it can work with Fleming. People were seconded all over the place - it depended what your skills were. This especially applied to intelligence. While it's more likely that someone in Naval Intelligence would be working with SBS, Fleming mentions action in the Ardennes. That would be SOE or SAS. The SAS had a *lot* of operations in the Ardennes towards the end of the war.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

A realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

I don't see what your business is on these boardss other than to stir up trouble and seek attention.

I don't care about your insulting opinion except that I refer to you that I made an example outline of a realistic plot for Casino Royale that would be realistic. What have you done? Make it personal or stick to the subject. This can sound rude but I will say it: nobody is saying they slept with your mother so please don't insult anyone or make things personal.

My insulting opinion!? Are you forgeting about that whole "Dude how original
not". Yes Mr High and Mighty SteveKingcool. Please Don't insult anyone?! My opinion of you is that you are are attenion seeking whore. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb you say? Well the stop being dumb and get out of here if you hate things so much. And yes I AM being rude to you. Have a nice day!

Edited by Agent_Spriggan_Ominae, 22 January 2006 - 05:28 PM.

[Leon]

So basically he was a covert operative for a special branch of Naval Intelligence which during the war worked with groups such as SOE (special operations executive) and carried out covert tasks which the SAS/SBS would do today.

And in WW2 - see above. SAS and SBS were both formed in 1941, and active in that war, along with SOE and numerous other intelligence outfits. Ie it doesn't even have to be a modern translation - it can work with Fleming.

Not quite, the SAS were just a small hit and run raiding group when they were developed in the war, designed to be dumped behind enemy lines and cause maximum damage and then shove off.

The secret covert operations were specıalıst to SOE, Naval intelligence and Army intelligence task forces (which Ian Fleming planned missions for, but gave Bond the job he wishes he had...carrying out ops).

The SOE were dissbanded after the war and the SAS and SBS took up the role of covert operations as wel as their specıalıst hit and run ops etc, then also, of course, developed the original counter-terrorist teams in the 1970's. Today it's the SAS/SBS who undertake the actual operations planned by naval and army intell (as well as pathfinders and some others, but they are the big boys of them all) and work closely with SIS (MI6).

A second short career in special forces would be the modern equivalent of James Bond's covert Naval Intelligence ops. I mean there are one or two other covert groups he could be in but the SAS has that well known fame for toughness so they naturally go with the most popular. It would also explain why James Bond is such a good shot, tough and resourceful, ruthless etc. It also takes away the image of only having been a Naval officer which is a bit toffee nosed by itself, add in a stint in special forces and you have a more accurate modern background to Bond as Fleming gave him.

Edited by Leon, 22 January 2006 - 05:39 PM.

[trumanlodge89]

stevekingcool doesnt understand the concept of "suspension of disbelief." of course its not realistic! its a movie! nobody in their right mind would want to see the bond film he is describing. but at the same time, a bond movie can still be a bond movie without being moonraker redux. sometimes they strech the suspension of disbelief too far, and it seems the producers are trying to reel it in, is that so wrong? (and if anyone honestly thinks the series is in the toilet after reading these spoilers is either crazy or just being arguementative.)

[spynovelfan]

Not quite, the SAS were just a small hit and run raiding group when they were developed in the war, designed to be dumped behind enemy lines and cause maximum damage and then shove off.

The secret covert operations were specıalıst to SOE, Naval intelligence and Army intelligence task forces (which Ian Fleming planned missions for, but gave Bond the job he wishes he had...carrying out ops).

The SOE were dissbanded after the war and the SAS and SBS took up the role of covert operations as wel as their specıalıst hit and run ops etc, then also, of course, developed the original counter-terrorist teams in the 1970's. Today it's the SAS/SBS who undertake the actual operations planned by naval and army intell (as well as pathfinders and some others, but they are the big boys of them all) and work closely with SIS (MI6).

Hmmm.

Yes, you could call the wartime SAS a small hit and run raiding group. You could also call their missions secret covert operations. They were secret. They were covert (same thing!). They were operations. They would still have been shot under Hitler's Kommandobefehl. I know what you mean by using that term, but even that wasn't always the case. For example, one SAS cell was in Arnhem between September 1944 and March 1945 collecting intelligence and trying to find V2 rocket launch sites (Operation FABIAN). That's not a hit and run raid!

The SAS took orders from lots of different groups, and its men from lots of divisions. Fleming mentions that Bond saw action in the Ardennes during the war - the SAS were more active there than any other group.

I think you're dick's enormous, by the way - but I am sitting next to a bookshelf packed with books about British special forces and have interviewed several SAS veterans about their operations during and after World War Two. Do you really disagree that Bond could easily have served in the SAS during World War Two?

[SteveKingCool]

A realistic spy thriller would still show secret agents acting as employees of export companies that are fronts for intelligence.

I don't see what your business is on these boardss other than to stir up trouble and seek attention.

I don't care about your insulting opinion except that I refer to you that I made an example outline of a realistic plot for Casino Royale that would be realistic. What have you done? Make it personal or stick to the subject. This can sound rude but I will say it: nobody is saying they slept with your mother so please don't insult anyone or make things personal.

My insulting opinion!? Are you forgeting about that whole "Dude how original
not".

Then I will be humble enough to apoligise and tell you that when I said that it was about the idea as used in movies and not an attack on you. I don't read the names of the authors when I make replies.

[Leon]

Not quite, the SAS were just a small hit and run raiding group when they were developed in the war, designed to be dumped behind enemy lines and cause maximum damage and then shove off.

The secret covert operations were specıalıst to SOE, Naval intelligence and Army intelligence task forces (which Ian Fleming planned missions for, but gave Bond the job he wishes he had...carrying out ops).

The SOE were dissbanded after the war and the SAS and SBS took up the role of covert operations as wel as their specıalıst hit and run ops etc, then also, of course, developed the original counter-terrorist teams in the 1970's. Today it's the SAS/SBS who undertake the actual operations planned by naval and army intell (as well as pathfinders and some others, but they are the big boys of them all) and work closely with SIS (MI6).

Hmmm.

Yes, you could call the wartime SAS a small hit and run raiding group. You could also call their missions secret covert operations. They were secret. They were covert (same thing!). They were operations. They would still have been shot under Hitler's Kommandobefehl. I know what you mean by using that term, but even that wasn't always the case. For example, one SAS cell was in Arnhem between September 1944 and March 1945 collecting intelligence and trying to find V2 rocket launch sites (Operation FABIAN). That's not a hit and run raid!

The SAS took orders from lots of different groups, and its men from lots of divisions. Fleming mentions that Bond saw action in the Ardennes during the war - the SAS were more active there than any other group.

I think you're dick's enormous, by the way - but I am sitting next to a bookshelf packed with books about British special forces and have interviewed several SAS veterans about their operations during and after World War Two. Do you really disagree that Bond could easily have served in the SAS during World War Two?

That is not the point however, the point is the covert operations group James Bond worked for (Ian Fleming planned ops for) doesn't exist any more, and it's the SAS and SBS who are the main groups who carry out these tasks today.

It's the perfect modern interpretation.

[spynovelfan]

That is not the point however, the point is the covert operations group James Bond worked for (Ian Fleming planned ops for) doesn't exist any more, and it's the SAS and SBS who are the main groups who carry out these tasks today.

It's the perfect modern interpretation.

Sorry, you've lost me.

How do you know what group Bond worked for in WW2? Fleming doesn't say. It could have been SAS, couldn't it? I think, as Fleming mentions the Ardennes, the SAS is the most likely. They were the first Allied troops to set foot in Belgium, and they had more operations there than any other Allied force, partly because they had a unit of Belgian paratroopers (SAS 5). Bond is also half-Swiss, remember. He could have been involved in any of the following SAS operations in the Ardennes during World War Two: FRANKLIN, NOAH, REGENT, BRUTUS.

I don't really see why it's a *modern* interpretation that Bond was in SOE and that today's equivalent of that is the SAS. I think it fits in fine with Fleming that he was in SAS during WW2. It's a likely explanation for him having been in the Ardennes. Of course, it's unlikely Fleming thought about this, or that Purvis, Wade and Haggis are thinking about it now.

But I don't see where I've gone wrong.

[SteveKingCool]

If Fleming said he was in the Navy and not the SAS then that is the end of the story.

[Leon]

No, I think I said, it's well known that Ian Fleming often spoke in interviews that James Bond was loosely based on himself, mostly in his job working for Naval Intelligence. Fleming said he always wanted to go on missions which he planned but was always dissallowed due to being too important to them. He based Bond's early career on this, in particular on one or two guys he knew who went on these missions, one of which was called Operation Goldeneye of course hence the house he named after it.

That is what he is refering to by the clandestine nature of his work in "the special branch of the RNVR", basically, as with Fleming, officially an officer in the royal navy reserve, unofficially an officer in the royal navy intelligence corps. This group carried out similar missions to that of SOE and Ian Fleming was an operations planner for them. Of course some of the operations and things he came across whilst working there were used in his books like SMERSH snd the description of their HQ and personnel etc.

Edited by Leon, 22 January 2006 - 08:34 PM.

[Seannery]

If one segment of Bond fans don't want a serious or important Bond film but they also don't want an over-the-top cartoon like DAD either then what the heck do they want? Just name the past Bond film you think most epitomizes what a Bond film should be.

How can we be fanboys without whining about everything?

Edited out since only part of my post came out--full post below.

[Harmsway]

Stax I for one AM NOT whining--I reserve the right NOT to be a cheerleader.  As I said i'm rather neutral about CR.  I'll see when it comes out.

I have no problem with your posts or how you've presented your views on CASINO ROYALE. While I am unabashedly pumped and excited for it, it's fine for others to be more ambivalent.

But there are users here who are terribly whiny and negative, sometimes even without basis for being so, and I do have a problem with them.

[Seannery]

If one segment of Bond fans don't want a serious or important Bond film but they also don't want an over-the-top cartoon like DAD either then what the heck do they want? Just name the past Bond film you think most epitomizes what a Bond film should be.

How can we be fanboys without whining about everything?

Stax I for one AM NOT whining--I reserve the right NOT to be a cheerleader. As I said i'm rather neutral about CR. I'll see when it comes out.


To answer your question directly--Goldfinger is THE Bond film for me as an example. It's combo of serious and the unique brand of cheeky Bond fun. I don't mind a move from time to time into a more serious mode though I don't prefer it--it's easy to make that dreary if they aren't careful.

And again I see little need to know how Bond became Bond and to have Vesper psychoanalyze him as covering for insecurity. Yuck.

And I respectfully question your split between a Bond that has to be either "serious or important" OR an "over the top cartoon". That's too wide a split. A Bond doesn't have to be an over the top cartoon if it's not SERIOUS. The best Bonds IMO have a mixture of serious and fun elements.

And finally it's just common sense to expect a large group of fans to have differing opinions on things. For everyone to be positive about a specific move would be extremely unrealistic and dull to boot.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='22 January 2006 - 22:24'][quote name='Seannery' date='22 January 2006 - 15:13']Stax I for one AM NOT whining--I reserve the right NOT to be a cheerleader.

[Harmsway]

I have a question, Seannery, purely out of my own curiosity - do you care for the Fleming novels? (And contrary to common "Bond fan" thought, I don't find it heretical if you don't!)

[Seannery]

I have a question, Seannery, purely out of my own curiosity - do you care for the Fleming novels? (And contrary to common "Bond fan" thought, I don't find it heretical if you don't!)

Yes I like the books but prefer the films. I don't think Fleming a great one but he is IMO good solid genre writer. I enjoy a number of other writers before Fleming but Bond films are close to the top for me in expectation. So yes I like Fleming but I don't go gaga over his writing.

[Harmsway]

I have a question, Seannery, purely out of my own curiosity - do you care for the Fleming novels? (And contrary to common "Bond fan" thought, I don't find it heretical if you don't!)

Yes I like the books but prefer the films. I don't think Fleming a great one but he is IMO good solid genre writer. I enjoy a number of other writers before Fleming but Bond films are close to the top for me in expectation. So yes I like Fleming but I don't go gaga over his writing.

Gotcha. Different strokes for different folks. Unlike you, who cited your favorite Bond film as GOLDFINGER, I have no "ultimate" Bond interpretation. I love both Fleming and Roger Moore's MOONRAKER deeply. I can appreciate the fun, over-the-top cartoon Bond as well as the gritty, human Bond, and feel no need to choose between the two (though forced to choose, I'd probably take Fleming over any other interpretation).

I'm excited that we're getting a very human Bond here with a grittier coating. I think it's cool, and exploring Bond's origins will turn out interesting, even if unsuccessful. If anybody can make it work, Daniel Craig can, and that gives me a lot of hope for this entry.