167 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Born: West Germany, 13 April 1968.

Educated at the London School of Economics (presumably on the Royal Navy's dime, since we're told he was in the Navy between the ages of 17 and 31).

Much more interesting stuff here, although I'm not sure whether it all hangs together in any remotely plausible way. Anything in particular jumping out at anyone? Anyway, let the discussion of Bond's background begin!

[David Schofield]

Born: West Germany, 13 April 1968.

Educated at the London School of Economics (presumably on the Royal Navy's dime, since we're told he was in the Navy between the ages of 17 and 31).

Much more interesting stuff here, although I'm not sure whether it all hangs together in any remotely plausible way. Anything in particular jumping out at anyone? Anyway, let the discussion of Bond's background begin!

With regard to attendance at the LSE, I read it that way at first BUT I think it refers to Bond's father if you listen to the commentary; I think the entries on the bio are listed in the wrong order.

[Santa]

Yes, I wish they hadn't given a year for his birth, it brings up all sorts of continuity issues for the trolls to lose their knickers over. In fact I'd rather not know too much about his background at all, I prefer a bit of mystery.

[Shrublands]

Educated at the London School of Economics (

They say that about Bond

[Fro]

Yeah, the line with the birthdate and the part about being born in Scotland should be interverted.

- Eton (12-13) (kicked out)
- Fettes (13-17) (goes to University of Geneva at some point thru exchange program), boxes, forms Judo Club
- Britannia Royal Navy College (?)
- Sea Service (1 year)
- Early Naval Intelligence Service (1 year)
- SBS Training
- Placed in 030 Special Forces Unit (parallels Fleming's 030 Assault Unit during WW II). This seems to function more like a SAS unit, but this fictional unit is in SBS. Serves in Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Libya covertly and actively in Bosnia.
- RNR Defense Intelligence Group (he takes specialized courses at Oxford [first in oriental languages] and Cambridge during this period). Works in Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afganistan, Cyprus, Indonesia, China.

MI6 (30-38)

- Serves in British Embassy, Jamaica
- Serves in British Embassy, Rome
- Serves at MI6 HQ

Speaks fluent French, German, Italian
Writes/Reads passable Spanish, Greek, Mandarian, Cantonese, Japanese

Edited by Fro, 20 May 2006 - 01:24 PM.

[Andrew]

So much for the to-do about SAS, it's SBS.

[boeserzwilling]

Although it was based on Fleming that dossier gave away too much information. Nobody asked for another origin story.

BTW What's wrong with Wattenscheid?

[Andrew]

Although it was based on Fleming that dossier gave away too much information. Nobody asked for another origin story.

It's not like it will all be included into the film, it's just something REALLY fun for the fans.

[k13oharts]

April 13, 1968.

38 Years old. Aries.

Giving him a birthday kills the mystery of his origin.

[Andrew]

Bond's origin isn't one which requires mystery to the audience, in my opinion. He's not the Phantom of the Opera or anything.

[marktmurphy]

So, is anybody finding it slightly easier to believe Craig's Bond served in the Special Forces and did service in Iraq, Bosnia etc. than Brosnan's Bond doing it?

[I Like Sharks]

Daniel Craig was born in 1968 so mabye thats where it comes from. I doubt it'll make it into the film anyway. They're hardly going to openly contradict the previous films to that extent.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Fleming give Bond a date of birth in one of his novels? I think it was Casino Royale, Moonraker or From Russia With Love theres a whole dossier on Bond. How is giving Bond a date of birth on the website any different?

[Harmsway]

April 13, 1968.

38 Years old. Aries.

Giving him a birthday kills the mystery of his origin.

I think Fleming gave Bond a birthday.

[Pussfeller]

Fleming's Bond was born sometime in April, 1924, if memory serves.

[marktmurphy]

Fleming's Bond was born sometime in April, 1924, if memory serves.

Although it did move about a bit in the books- he didn't age much over the course of the novels and Fleming contradicted Bond's age a fair bit.

[David Schofield]

Fleming never gave Bond a birthdate.

A year can be worked outfrom Moonraker - he is 38 in that - if you can establish satisfactorily the year it was set in. In YOLT, he says Bond was born in 1924. No date, though. That year is different from that suggested by Moonrake, regardless of when it took place.

Pearson gives a date, 11 November 1920.

Higson can be interpreted to 1920 or 1921.

So many realities.

[zencat]

Fleming never gave Bond a birthdate.

A year can be worked outfrom Moonraker - he is 38 in that - if you can establish satisfactorily the year it was set in. In YOLT, he says Bond was born in 1924. No date, though. That year is different from that suggested by Moonrake, regardless of when it took place.

Pearson gives a date, 11 November 1920.

Higson can be interpreted to 1920 or 1921.

So many realities.

Higson says 1920. Bond is 13 in the first 3 Young Bond books which are all set in 1933 (although he never outright says this in the books themselves).

You know, they changed Bond from a Scorpio to a Pisces. No freakin' way. Bond is pure Scorpio.

[JCRendle]

Dont follow the signs Zencat - what are the Bond qualities in each?

[zencat]

Well, I'm not an expert on this, but Scorpios are known to be deadly, devious, and HIGHLY sexual (they also project predatory sexual energy). They are scorpions. Pisces are fish, intelligent introverts, emotional, who like to stay home in their dark caves (you will notice Pisces will always turn off lights).

Obviously, they've used Craig’s birthday as Bonds...but that is not correct. Pisces make very good actors (they can go into themselves in very deep way), but they are not killers. That's the job of Scorpions.

Of course, I might be wrong and April 13 is not Pisces, but the next sign. Still, I always though Pearson making Bond a Scorpio was exactly right. Bond is practically the definition of a Scorpio. I believe Fleming was also a Scorpio, wasn't he?

[Dunph]

Nyah, astrology and star signs are all rubbish anyway, what really matters is that they haven't fundamentally changed Bond's education or career. They have merely fleshed it out and brought them in to the contemporary. Personally, I can cope with birthdates.

[JCRendle]

Ian Fleming's Bond Dossier

BOND, JAMES
HEIGHT: 183 CENTIMETRES
WEIGHT: 76 KILOS
SCAR ON RIGHT SHOULDER
SIGNS OF PLASTIC SURGERY ON BACK OF RIGHT HAND
EXPERT PISTOL SHOT, BOXER, KNIFE THROWER
DOES NOT USE DISGUISES
LANGUAGES: FRENCH, GERMAN
VICES: DRINK, BUT NOT TO EXCESS, AND WOMEN

NOT THOUGHT TO ACCEPT BRIBESTHIS MAN IS A DANGEROUS PROFESSIONAL SPY WHO HOLDS A SECRET SERVICE NUMBER WITH THE

[David Schofield]

Fleming never gave Bond a birthdate.

A year can be worked outfrom Moonraker - he is 38 in that - if you can establish satisfactorily the year it was set in. In YOLT, he says Bond was born in 1924. No date, though. That year is different from that suggested by Moonrake, regardless of when it took place.

Pearson gives a date, 11 November 1920.

Higson can be interpreted to 1920 or 1921.

So many realities.

Higson says 1920. Bond is 13 in the first 3 Young Bond books which are all set in 1933 (although he never outright says this in the books themselves).

I think the 1933 allusion comes from the mention of Hitler as the new Chancellor in Germany in Silverfin. This of course occured in 1933. Depends on your interpretation of new.

Then again, Bond is indeed already 13 when he arrives a Eton in January of either 1933 or 1934. Which means, of course, his thirteenth birthday was most likely in the year before.

And Higson states in Silverfin Andrew Bond did not meet Monique until 1920...

Conclusion: ANY date of birth given to Bond is, erm, subjective.

[zencat]

Fleming never gave Bond a birthdate.

A year can be worked outfrom Moonraker - he is 38 in that - if you can establish satisfactorily the year it was set in. In YOLT, he says Bond was born in 1924. No date, though. That year is different from that suggested by Moonrake, regardless of when it took place.

Pearson gives a date, 11 November 1920.

Higson can be interpreted to 1920 or 1921.

So many realities.

Higson says 1920. Bond is 13 in the first 3 Young Bond books which are all set in 1933 (although he never outright says this in the books themselves).

I think the 1933 allusion comes from the mention of Hitler as the new Chancellor in Germany in Silverfin. This of course occured in 1933. Depends on your interpretation of new.

Then again, Bond is indeed already 13 when he arrives a Eton in January of either 1933 or 1934. Which means, of course, his thirteenth birthday was most likely in the year before.

And Higson states in Silverfin Andrew Bond did not meet Monique until 1920...

Conclusion: ANY date of birth given to Bond is, erm, subjective.

I'm actually going by what Higson says in person. I think he's purposely not giving hard and fast dates in the books, but he'll tell you it's 1933 and Bond is 13. He seems to appreciate the difficulty of finding a true continuity for Bond, especially as Fleming himself wasn't too careful. Higson talks about this in an interview on the official Young Bond site:

...The timescale we chose is somewhere roughly in middle of what Fleming created. The dates and details of Bond’s early life change as Fleming’s books and short stories progress, because he was trying to keep Bond roughly the same age through his books. We chose 1920 as a birth date, because we thought that the early thirties were an interesting time for these books to be set. Though it’s never stated in the books, SilverFin starts at the beginning of 1933 when James is 13. Book 5 will take place in the summer of 1934.

You can treat the Pearson autobiography and the Benson and Gardner books as an alternative universe, perhaps, but I would go mad trying to include everything. I particularly avoided reading the Pearson book, as I didn't want to steal anything that he had made up.

John Griswold has done a great job on unravelling the timeline, but the truth is, Fleming really didn’t give a stuff about this sort of thing, he was fairly lackadaisical in his approach. I'm in the business of writing fiction and although I try to stick as closely as possible to Fleming it isn't always possible – he changed things and made mistakes as he went along so I feel I have a but of leeway.

[Dr. Tynan]

Don't get us wrong, I'm not being obnoxious to anyone but I mean....well, so Bond is 38.

I hate all this stuff about Bond never getting older. It is ammo for Bond criticizers.

Then again I suppose we don't want him getting older and unable to carry out his duties, so we don't.

[David Schofield]

[quote name='zencat' post='558123' date='20 May 2006 - 18:41']
[quote name='David Schofield' post='558120' date='20 May 2006 - 10:30']
[quote name='zencat' post='558092' date='20 May 2006 - 17:52']
[quote name='David Schofield' post='558091' date='20 May 2006 - 09:48']
Fleming never gave Bond a birthdate.

A year can be worked outfrom Moonraker - he is 38 in that - if you can establish satisfactorily the year it was set in. In YOLT, he says Bond was born in 1924. No date, though. That year is different from that suggested by Moonrake, regardless of when it took place.

Pearson gives a date, 11 November 1920.

Higson can be interpreted to 1920 or 1921.

So many realities.
[/quote]
Higson says 1920. Bond is 13 in the first 3 Young Bond books which are all set in 1933 (although he never outright says this in the books themselves).
[/quote]

I think the 1933 allusion comes from the mention of Hitler as the new Chancellor in Germany in Silverfin. This of course occured in 1933. Depends on your interpretation of new.

Then again, Bond is indeed already 13 when he arrives a Eton in January of either 1933 or 1934. Which means, of course, his thirteenth birthday was most likely in the year before.

And Higson states in Silverfin Andrew Bond did not meet Monique until 1920...

Conclusion: ANY date of birth given to Bond is, erm, subjective.
[/quote]
I'm actually going by what Higson says in person. I think he's purposely not giving hard and fast dates in the books, but he'll tell you it's 1933 and Bond is 13. He seems to appreciate the difficulty of finding a true continuity for Bond, especially as Fleming himself wasn't too careful. Higson talks about this in an interview on the official Young Bond site:

[box]...The timescale we chose is somewhere roughly in middle of what Fleming created. The dates and details of Bond

[K1Bond007]

I think it's worth noting that the information on the website is not-canon. The website is typically created by marketers.

I.e., don't take it all at face value. Also, I think it's based on Pearson's biography, not specifically Fleming. To my knowledge Fleming's Bond never admits to going to the University of Geneva. There is a hint at it (but it's very ambiguous). Pearson outright says he went there. Also, it would appear they added in a bit of trivia to Fleming's 30 AU unit. Interesting bio though.

[Loomis]

I think it's worth noting that the information on the website is not-canon. The website is typically created by marketers.

I don't care who created it - I think it is canon (albeit Eon canon, not IFP canon), insofar as it's officially released stuff. It strikes me as a mixture of Fleming, Eon's Bond (the bit about a First in Oriental Languages is an obvious nod to Eon's past, and the use of music from THUNDERBALL [at least, I think it's from THUNDERBALL] is another nice little touch tying things in with the original film series), and new stuff.

I don't think we need to worry about whether or not it conflicts with Fleming, Higson, Brosnan or whoever. For me, the Bond canon contains a lot of wildly contradictory material - but (if it comes to us courtesy of IFP or Eon) it's still canon.

Mind you, some of the CraigBond bio doesn't make sense. So he boxed for Fettes? Were any schools in the UK, public schools or otherwise, still organising boxing matches in the '70s/'80s? I doubt it.

[Fro]

I think it's worth noting that the information on the website is not-canon. The website is typically created by marketers.

I.e., don't take it all at face value. Also, I think it's based on Pearson's biography, not specifically Fleming. To my knowledge Fleming's Bond never admits to going to the University of Geneva. There is a hint at it (but it's very ambiguous). Pearson outright says he went there. Also, it would appear they added in a bit of trivia to Fleming's 30 AU unit. Interesting bio though.

It's not literary canon or previous canon, but it is certainly canon for the new timeline(especially since they went to the trouble of having Tobias Menzies read the thing in-character as Villiers).

There's been way too much care put into it that I highly doubt it's the work of marketers or web designers. I think it's probable that Babs/Wilson/Purvis/Wade/Haggis put that together to document Bond's backstory to aid in writing the Casino Royale and Bond 22 scripts (as well as future ones). By settling on the back story it makes keeping the contunity in future films much, much easier, especially if they hire new writers in the future.

[marktmurphy]

Fleming never gave Bond a birthdate.

A year can be worked outfrom Moonraker - he is 38 in that - if you can establish satisfactorily the year it was set in. In YOLT, he says Bond was born in 1924. No date, though. That year is different from that suggested by Moonrake, regardless of when it took place.

Which would make him 47 in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. When he got married to Tracy- who was in her mid twenties. Ugh. Dirty old man!

[K1Bond007]

It's not literary canon or previous canon, but it is certainly canon for the new timeline(especially since they went to the trouble of having Tobias Menzies read the thing in-character as Villiers).

For Casino Royale, perhaps. The date of birth can't be canon because at some point they're gonna have to fudge it unless of course they either plan to kill off Bond at some point then reboot or just plain reboot the series when the next actor comes in. Just consider something like this for Dr. No.

Maybe they might plan to do just that. I mean double-Os have a very short life expectancy, eh. A couple films from now he fights mandatory retirement at age 45 then possibly killed off, reboot. A couple angles to the films we've never seen anyway.

The year just kills it all for me. Everything else is fine. Oh well. I just think it's going to be rather silly in a few years. Then again you can clearly see Tracy's DOB and DOD in FYEO.

Oh well.