179 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

If that doesn't make 'James Bond' a codename, what does?

Oh fibble- you may as well say Robin Hood's a codename because the details of his story keep changing- the latest coming this week. In fact the whole dench thing is comparable to the way the bloke who played Robin in 'Robin and Marion' turns up looking much older at the end of 'Prince of Thieves'.
Oh, then again- 'Robin Hood' actually was a codename that two different characters used in 'Robin of Sherwood'...hmm... well, just focus on the Sean Connery aspect!

[spynovelfan]

In fact, it hasn't made sense for a while (is Pierce Brosnan old enough to have served in WWII??).

Yes, he was in the infant-ry.

No, you're spot on. He looked a similar age to Alec Trevelyan, whose parents were killed in 1945. Trevelyan himself looked a bit young for that to have happened, of course. It didn't make sense in Fleming, either (whisper it).

But the trick to making it work is not to concentrate on it. By telling us he was born in West Berlin in 1968, they are really inviting us to consider the problem.

I can sort of see why they decided on a new date, but why West Berlin, I wonder.

[marktmurphy]

Isn't that exactly Daniel Craigs year of birth?

Same year, but different month and day - I think a fan figured out the significance of the chosen date a while back, but I forget what it was. Something along the lines of "same month and day DR. NO opened", perhaps.

The day the Casino Royale novel was published, I think.

[Tim007]

I think it's just one of those situations where you have to use the 'suspension of disbelief' facility, see the travelling timeline theory. However, this is one of the reasons I don't like to be given so much information about Bond's background, it puts a spoke in the wheel of such theories, so I don't tend to read that stuff. I just accept that Bond's age is static, he exists in whichever era I am watching/reading him in, and I'd rather there were no evidence to contradict it.

That's exactly the way I look at it - and yes, I have been follwing the filming of Casino Royale I just don't want things like this biography then, because those things are what destroy the image of the ageless Bond in my head. Sounds childish, but this is the way I feel. Thought I wouldn't be the only ohe who feels this way, this is why I have been wondering and shared this pierce of information.

[Jim]

Given the noises made about the Cold War being over, to have Bond born in a city that symbolises the Cold War leaves me a little confused about the meaning of this; and then I realise it's all a lot of silly old rubbish and I suddenly feel better.

[DLibrasnow]

That's exactly the way I look at it - and yes, I have been follwing the filming of Casino Royale I just don't want things like this biography then, because those things are what destroy the image of the ageless Bond in my head. Sounds childish, but this is the way I feel. Thought I wouldn't be the only ohe who feels this way, this is why I have been wondering and shared this pierce of information.

Well, I suspected you had been aware of the "restart" line from EON productions since EON have been stating this was a restart for sometime now.

It's of course ludicrous to suggest that Craig's 007 is the same character that answered to Margaret Thatcher in For Your Eyes Only or crossed into East Germany in Octopussy.

Similarly there is a reference to 1971 in The Man with the Golden Gun when Craig would have been 3 years old and NASA hasn't used the kind of rockets portrayed in Dr. No and You Only Live Twice since Craig was about 9 years old.

So, quite obviously this 007 has not met Tracy yet which leads one to wonder who they will cast as Tracy in a future 007 movie?

I really don't see where the confusion is

[MattofSteel]

This was found on the German official site, right?

Has anyone checked the other sites? Perhaps that was just to help identify 007 with the German audience?

To answer my own post, I just checked out the US site. The texting of that particular section is very vague....under the section 'Lineage' it says:

BORN: Glencoe, Scotland.
FATHER: Andrew Bond
BORN: West Berlin, Germany, April 13, 1968

below in the paragraph, its ays:

MOTHER: Monique Delacroix
BORN: Switzerland

My question is, to which Bond male is which "Born" referring to above?
We know Andrew Bond is Scottish, it makes the most sense therefore that the Glencoe location is Andrew's birthplace, and young James was, for some reason, born in West Berlin. I see no reason, given the
fact that his Scottish lineage has at least been preserved, that James
could not have been born in West Berlin.

I'm at work at the moment, anyone have the YOLT obit handy? Maybe it
mentions something.

[Mister Asterix]

Same year, but different month and day - I think a fan figured out the significance of the chosen date a while back, but I forget what it was. Something along the lines of "same month and day DR. NO opened", perhaps.

[mra]It

[Loomis]

Why isn't there an equivalent fuss about, say, Higson's Bond not chiming with Benson's?

In any case, does it really matter if James Bond is different people operating under a codename? I'm baffled by the constant fan hostility to this idea.

Even without buying the codename theory, though, I'm looking forward to seeing 007 complete his first major mission in November 2006. None of his other adventures has ever happened, and neither will they (unless they start remaking the earlier films, which they won't). As Bryce would say, bloody well right. And as The Beatles might have said, all you need is Dench.

Oh, and cheers for the date clarification, MTM and Asterix.

[Jim]

This was found on the German official site, right?

Has anyone checked the other sites? Perhaps that was just to help identify 007 with the German audience?

To answer my own post, I just checked out the US site. The texting of that particular section is very vague....under the section 'Lineage' it says:

BORN: Glencoe, Scotland.
FATHER: Andrew Bond
BORN: West Berlin, Germany, April 13, 1968

below in the paragraph, its ays:

MOTHER: Monique Delacroix
BORN: Switzerland

On the basis of that, Andrew Bond was born in 1968 in West Berlin, making James Bond (on a conservative estimate) born in Glencoe in (let's say) 1986.

This "means" he did that bungee jump off that (cough) Russian dam when he was a couple of months old. Brave kid.

Alternatively it means that no-one should really worry about this and just accept all this as something new from the people who could have given us something old instead.

[Vauxhall]

I believe both Dalton and Brosnan's Bond's had the actors birth year as that of Bonds. This is just the first time they have been so overt about it.

I think Pierce's Bond was born a few years after Pierce, from memory....

Yeah, that's correct - Pierce's Bond was born on 6th May 1961, thus making him just under 8 years younger than Brosnan himself.

[Harmsway]

In any case, does it really matter if James Bond is different people operating under a codename? I'm baffled by the constant fan hostility to this idea.

Yes, because it makes all the Bondisms (the wit, the martinis, the love of gambling and high life, all of it) an act. There's nothing genuine behind them in terms of the character - we're not looking at a man who *is* James Bond, we're looking at a man who adopts a persona to fool the world. Entirely different dynamic.

[K1Bond007]

This is just a retcon. BFD. It happens typically everytime a new actor comes into the picture.

This is nothing new.

[Santa]

It's of course ludicrous to suggest that Craig's 007 is the same character that answered to Margaret Thatcher in For Your Eyes Only or crossed into East Germany in Octopussy.

Similarly there is a reference to 1971 in The Man with the Golden Gun when Craig would have been 3 years old and NASA hasn't used the kind of rockets portrayed in Dr. No and You Only Live Twice since Craig was about 9 years old.

I really don't see where the confusion is

To me, Craig's 007 is exactly the same one as all the others, and it causes me no confusion whatsoever. Each film is just a different episode in Bond's life and the differences in politics, fashion and technology pass me by quite happily. It makes perfect sense to me. I have more confusion trying to decide which underwear to put on in the morning.

[DamnCoffee]

All the producers doing are keeping the character up to date if they kept Bonds origial birthdate whice was 1923 i belive you wouldnt see an old man jumping around as bond - would you? (Yes i know, we had DAD and AVTAK)

[Daddy Bond]

Frankly, all that matters is that Bond was born earlier than me - when Bond is younger than I am - then I'll feel old.

Being older than the current Bond makes you just plain old and ready for the retirement home.

Regards

[killkenny kid]

Frankly, all that matters is that Bond was born earlier than me - when Bond is younger than I am - then I'll feel old.

Being older than the current Bond makes you just plain old and ready for the retirement home.

Regards

Hey, who moved my rockin' chair?

[DamnCoffee]

and my false teeth

[Loomis]

In any case, does it really matter if James Bond is different people operating under a codename? I'm baffled by the constant fan hostility to this idea.

Yes, because it makes all the Bondisms (the wit, the martinis, the love of gambling and high life, all of it) an act. There's nothing genuine behind them in terms of the character - we're not looking at a man who *is* James Bond, we're looking at a man who adopts a persona to fool the world. Entirely different dynamic.

But isn't that essentially what happens in CASINO ROYALE (I'm talking about the film, of course, not the book)? A man (okay, he's already called James Bond) adopting those Bondian traits that become the stuff of legend?

[Santa]

In any case, does it really matter if James Bond is different people operating under a codename? I'm baffled by the constant fan hostility to this idea.

Yes, because it makes all the Bondisms (the wit, the martinis, the love of gambling and high life, all of it) an act. There's nothing genuine behind them in terms of the character - we're not looking at a man who *is* James Bond, we're looking at a man who adopts a persona to fool the world. Entirely different dynamic.

But isn't that essentially what happens in CASINO ROYALE (I'm talking about the film, of course, not the book)? A man (okay, he's already called James Bond) adopting those Bondian traits that become the stuff of legend?

No. You just like to play devil's advocate.

He's not learning the Bondian traits, he's Bond, he already knows them. Casino Royale is us learning about Bond, not Bond learning about Bond.

[kneelbeforezod]

In any case, does it really matter if James Bond is different people operating under a codename? I'm baffled by the constant fan hostility to this idea.

Yes, because it makes all the Bondisms (the wit, the martinis, the love of gambling and high life, all of it) an act. There's nothing genuine behind them in terms of the character - we're not looking at a man who *is* James Bond, we're looking at a man who adopts a persona to fool the world. Entirely different dynamic.

Exactly!

Every time someone brings up the "codename theory" a little part of me dies.

[Santa]

There are pills you can take for that nowadays.

[killkenny kid]

There are pills you can take for that nowadays.

[kneelbeforezod]

There are pills you can take for that nowadays.

[Publius]

Like someone else said, they were more blatant about it with Dalton and Brosnan, being that their birthdates were visible in actual movies. Websites aren't canon, so I'll wait and see if this makes its way into the film itself before worrying.

And even then, we're back to the point about Bond's timeline being shifted with our own to keep him contemporary without altering the character himself. Unless he's written differently in any given script, of course.

But isn't that essentially what happens in CASINO ROYALE (I'm talking about the film, of course, not the book)? A man (okay, he's already called James Bond) adopting those Bondian traits that become the stuff of legend?

I've been keeping clear of most spoilers, but from what I know he mostly already has those Bondian traits. And even if that wasn't the case, adopting certain traits because of your personal experiences is different than adopting them because it's part of landing a job. And then there's the question of why many of those traits would even be requirements of such an important job.

My problem with the codename theory is that you first have to be concerned enough about continuity to fit (or fanwank) 44 years of Bond into a single timeline. But why would you go through all that trouble when there are as many inconsistences as there are? And why would different men be "programmed" to have memories, tastes, and weaknesses that are all the same, when they could just as easily be "programmed" far more efficiently? And if you're not willing to shoehorn those 20 missions into one continuity, then why not just accept the much simpler and far more logical "alternate universe" theory?

Edited by Publius, 10 October 2006 - 07:08 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

There are pills you can take for that nowadays.

Just tell your doctor you suffer from necrosoubriquetitis.

[dinovelvet]

I believe both Dalton and Brosnan's Bond's had the actors birth year as that of Bonds. This is just the first time they have been so overt about it.

I think Pierce's Bond was born a few years after Pierce, from memory....

Yeah, that's correct - Pierce's Bond was born on 6th May 1961, thus making him just under 8 years younger than Brosnan himself.

Hmm...so in the PTS of Goldeneye, Brosnan's Bond is supposed to be 25 years old?

[Sir Charles]

my opinion: It's a mistake to date movie Bond's birth.

[Vauxhall]

I believe both Dalton and Brosnan's Bond's had the actors birth year as that of Bonds. This is just the first time they have been so overt about it.

I think Pierce's Bond was born a few years after Pierce, from memory....

Yeah, that's correct - Pierce's Bond was born on 6th May 1961, thus making him just under 8 years younger than Brosnan himself.

Hmm...so in the PTS of Goldeneye, Brosnan's Bond is supposed to be 25 years old?

Presumably yes! I too thought that was strange - but that was the date listed. Ooh now we can start up a whole new debate over when Brosnan's Bond should have been born... further complicate the situation!

[DLibrasnow]

None of his other adventures has ever happened, and neither will they (unless they start remaking the earlier films, which they won't).

It's my suspicion that they will remake the books.

After all, this is a restart and even before the "restart" idea emerged they were talking about remaking some of them.

[That'll put an end to the Codename theory which seem to be gathering steam.]