179 replies to this topic

[Santa]

now we can start up a whole new debate over when Brosnan's Bond should have been born

Some would say "Never".

[killkenny kid]

Some would say "Never".

Hey be nice, santa.

[Moore Baby Moore]

Just came across the official Sony German website for Casino Royale, but can't find the information on the English website.

Translation of what it says:

JAMES BOND

Born: West Berlin, 1968

...

Education: Until he turned 12 James Bond visited private schools in Germany and Switzerland, where his father was based as a commanding officer of "Vickers". After the tragig death of his parents, he was educated by his aunt Miss Charmain Bond in Pett Bottom, Kent.

12-13: Eton. (Expulsion because of a story with a maid)

13-17: Fettes. Won a lot of athletic competitions. Was a boxer. Founder of the first intermural judo league for public schools.

17-30: Royal Navy.

30-: MI6.

...

Relationships: Has never been married. A lot of relationships with girls and women but never had some deep relationship so far.

Huh???

Born in West Berlin in 1968? Why again a German place (after Wattenscheid)? 1968? Isn't that exactly Daniel Craigs year of birth?

Does that speak for Lee Tamahori's codename theory?

Absolutley not. That theory is inherently and intrinsically faulty for a number of reasons:

1. It doesn't explain the multitude of different Felix Leiters or the three Moneypennys. Are we supposed to believe those are all codenames as well, and there's some massive conspiracy going on the Bond universe? If you're going to assert that James Bond is a codename, then you have to take everything that implies--that NOBODY in this universe is going by their real names. And that's fan-wanking at its worst.

2. It doesn't explain why all of the Bonds up to now have had the same basic personalities, the same backstory, the same memories, and the same emotional wounds (all of them being affected by Tracy's murder, for starters). Are we to believe that brainwashing is being implemented? And would that also apply to the different Moneypennys and Felixes?

3. The changing of birthdates is something ALL long-running franchises have done. Superman and Batman's birthdates are constantly changing, and nobody pulls a codename theory around them. What's gone on with the Bond series is in the same vein, adjusting Bond's age for the era.

The theory fails on too many levels for it to ever be taken seriously. James Bond is just one man, always has been and always will be. All that's been done is hitting the reset buttton, just like other franchises do. The codename theory is just plain stupid, and I cannot take it or its proponents seriously in any way, shape, or form.

[Santa]

The changing of birthdates is something ALL long-running franchises have done

And all women.

Good post, MBM.

[Publius]

The theory fails on too many levels for it to ever be taken seriously. James Bond is just one man, always has been and always will be. All that's been done is hitting the reset buttton, just like other franchises do. The codename theory is just plain stupid, and I cannot take it or its proponents seriously in any way, shape, or form.

This man (woman?) gets it. You get a standing ovation from me.

[Loomis]

That theory is inherently and intrinsically faulty for a number of reasons:

1. It doesn't explain the multitude of different Felix Leiters or the three Moneypennys. Are we supposed to believe those are all codenames as well, and there's some massive conspiracy going on the Bond universe? If you're going to assert that James Bond is a codename, then you have to take everything that implies--that NOBODY in this universe is going by their real names. And that's fan-wanking at its worst.

Well, they're all secret agents - why wouldn't they be going by assumed names?

2. It doesn't explain why all of the Bonds up to now have had the same basic personalities, the same backstory, the same memories, and the same emotional wounds (all of them being affected by Tracy's murder, for starters). Are we to believe that brainwashing is being implemented?

Sure, why not?

And would that also apply to the different Moneypennys and Felixes?

Possibly.

[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.

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?

Not quite. Bond doesn't adopt his Bondian traits - he has them from the beginning of the film. Nice try, though.

Furthermore, Loomis:

Spoiler

M gets mad at Bond for telling people his *real* name rather than sticking to the assumed cover names he's been given (in this case, the cover of Sandy Bizet, fashion buyer).

And why have you dedicated yourself to vindicating this shabby theory? I mean, I understand you yourself don't mind it at all, but let's face it - as a solution for continuity, it has as many or more holes than any of the other more acceptable theories, and in doing so undermines the franchise.

Fans hate it because they don't like the idea of James Bond being a fake name, because they like Bond's behavior to be his own, because it adds an entire subtext to the whole Bond series that has never once been indicated by the series itself.

[Loomis]

Fans hate it because they don't like the idea of James Bond being a fake name, because they like Bond's behavior to be his own, because it adds an entire subtext to the whole Bond series that has never once been indicated by the series itself.

Speak for yourself. This particular fan would welcome the twist that would be the official introduction of the codename theory.

Seriously, though, if people are going to say that Craig's Bond is not the same guy who went up against Dr. No in 1962 (or Carver in 1997) - which he isn't, isn't that essentially an admission that they're different characters? Once you get to that point, is the codename theory really such a leap?

[DLibrasnow]

IT'S A RESTART

They are all the Ian Fleming character, but this is a separate series from the 1962 to 2002 series.

I fully expect that we will be seeing remakes in the future.

[kneelbeforezod]

Seriously, though, if people are going to say that Craig's Bond is not the same guy who went up against Dr. No in 1962 (or Carver in 1997) - which he isn't, isn't that essentially an admission that they're different characters?

It is the same guy. He went up against Dr. No, and he went up against Carver. Exact. Same. Guy.

[Harmsway]

Fans hate it because they don't like the idea of James Bond being a fake name, because they like Bond's behavior to be his own, because it adds an entire subtext to the whole Bond series that has never once been indicated by the series itself.

Speak for yourself. This particular fan would welcome the twist that would be the official introduction of the codename theory.

But why? What makes it so appealing to you?

Seriously, though, if people are going to say that Craig's Bond is not the same guy who went up against Dr. No in 1962 (or Carver in 1997) - which he isn't, isn't that essentially an admission that they're different characters?

Well, sure, I guess. If that's how you want to look at it. It's pretty much how I look at it - I don't really see any of the Bonds we've had to this point as the same character.

It's just like stating that Bale's Batman and Keaton's Batman were not the same character, and they weren't.

Once you get to that point, is the codename theory really such a leap?

Sure it is. Because it's one thing to say there are two separate characters, it's an entirely other thing to suggest that the characters exist in the same universe/continuity.

[Loomis]

IT'S A RESTART

They are all the Ian Fleming character, but this is a separate series from the 1962 to 2002 series.

It's not a separate series. The next film was officially announced (on a Sony site back when it was still scheduled for a May 2008 release) as the 22nd Bond adventure, and I'm pretty sure that Broccoli and Wilson have referred publicly to CASINO ROYALE as the 21st outing.

So it's the same series. Just not the same character.

[Mister Asterix]

Fans hate it because they don't like the idea of James Bond being a fake name, because they like Bond's behavior to be his own, because it adds an entire subtext to the whole Bond series that has never once been indicated by the series itself.

Speak for yourself. This particular fan would welcome the twist that would be the official introduction of the codename theory.

Seriously, though, if people are going to say that Craig's Bond is not the same guy who went up against Dr. No in 1962 (or Carver in 1997) - which he isn't, isn't that essentially an admission that they're different characters? Once you get to that point, is the codename theory really such a leap?

Same man. Same character. Different continutity.

It is not the difficult.

Superman has no codename theory. Sherlock Holmes has no codename theory. Tarzan has no codename theory. Yet no one has problems with them the same characters being played in different ways by different men and (sometimes) set in different times.

[kneelbeforezod]

People that subscribe to the "codename theory", in order to force a bizarre logic onto a series that doesn't need it, can also be found shouting "Qantas never crash!" at airports.

[Loomis]

People that subscribe to the "codename theory", in order to force a bizarre logic onto a series that doesn't need it, can also be found shouting "Qantas never crash!" at airports.

Just off to Heathrow, then.

One might as well say that insisting on a continuous 40-year timeline with a hero who can mysteriously defy the ageing process is a bit Rain Manish, no?

[DLibrasnow]

Same man. Same character. Different continutity.

It is not the difficult.

Precisely what I have been saying.
I'm not sure why fans are getting so stirred up about it.

[Publius]

Well, they're all secret agents - why wouldn't they be going by assumed names?

If you're going to give an agent a codename, why would you use one that has been in use for 44 years and is widely known in the criminal world he'll be operating in?

2. It doesn't explain why all of the Bonds up to now have had the same basic personalities, the same backstory, the same memories, and the same emotional wounds (all of them being affected by Tracy's murder, for starters). Are we to believe that brainwashing is being implemented?

Sure, why not?

Because it's ridiculous to assume that the British Secret Service would implant memories and a personality that make their agents less reliable rather than more.

[Harmsway]

One might as well say that insisting on a continuous 40-year timeline with a hero who can mysteriously defy the ageing process is a bit Rain Manish, no?

True. Both the codename theory and the "Bond never ages" theory are both equally nonsensical. Which brings me back to point #1: continuity does not exist.

[Loomis]

Fans hate it because they don't like the idea of James Bond being a fake name, because they like Bond's behavior to be his own, because it adds an entire subtext to the whole Bond series that has never once been indicated by the series itself.

Speak for yourself. This particular fan would welcome the twist that would be the official introduction of the codename theory.

But why? What makes it so appealing to you?

Well, for one thing it makes more sense than the idea of Bond as a HIGHLANDER-style immortal. And the "same man, but different continuity" explanation is every bit as much of a case of fanwanking as the codename theory is. The simplest, and surely the most realistic, explanation (for those who crave explanations) is that codenames are in use. What's so stunning about that? Like I say, they're secret agents!

Seriously, though, if people are going to say that Craig's Bond is not the same guy who went up against Dr. No in 1962 (or Carver in 1997) - which he isn't, isn't that essentially an admission that they're different characters?

Well, sure, I guess. If that's how you want to look at it. It's pretty much how I look at it - I don't really see any of the Bonds we've had to this point as the same character.

It's just like stating that Bale's Batman and Keaton's Batman were not the same character, and they weren't.

Exactly.

[kneelbeforezod]

Just off to Heathrow, then.

One might as well say that insisting on a continuous 40-year timeline with a hero who can mysteriously defy the ageing process is a bit Rain Manish, no?

Its the need to work it all out in your head that is Rain-manish (my this thread has taken a turn for the bizarre lol).

Of course if you analyse it it doesn't make sense really, and it doesn't have to, just don't worry about it.

[Thunderfinger]

But Superman IS a codename.As is Krypton.They were really different planets being destroyed at different times,but the guy called Jor-El on each respective Krypton sent his son (all codenamed Kal-El) to Earth,where they were adopted by people codenamed Jonathan and Martha Kent for some reason.
I could go on, but you see, codenaming seems to be a universal force.

This is my first post here. Thunderfinger is just a codename, too.
I mean, look at Loomis. Do you think one guy can post nearly 13600 posts here all by himself? Don

[Publius]

One might as well say that insisting on a continuous 40-year timeline with a hero who can mysteriously defy the ageing process is a bit Rain Manish, no?

At this point (but only since 1995, and maybe 1987), I'll give you that the codename theory trumps the "same man, single continuity" theory.

But the most logical one is still the "same man, different continuities" theory, as Mr * put it. It's no surprise that's what people presume of other cinematic icons. Codename theory is fanwanking, "alternate universe" theory (despite the geeky name) is not. The simplest explanation, and the only one devoid of holes.

Edited by Publius, 10 October 2006 - 09:04 PM.

[kneelbeforezod]

One might as well say that insisting on a continuous 40-year timeline with a hero who can mysteriously defy the ageing process is a bit Rain Manish, no?

At this point (but only since 1995, and maybe 1987), I'll give you that the codename theory trumps the "same man, single continuity" theory.

But the most logical one is still the "same man, different continuities" theory, as Mr * put it. It's no surprise that's what people presume of other cinematic icons. Codename theory is fanwanking, "alternate universe" theory (despite the geeky name) is not. The simplest explanation, and the only one devoid of holes.

That's if you need a theory at all. The most logical approach, taken by 99% of people, is to chuck all this rubbish out the window and take each film for what it is: A James Bond flick.

[Harmsway]

Fans hate it because they don't like the idea of James Bond being a fake name, because they like Bond's behavior to be his own, because it adds an entire subtext to the whole Bond series that has never once been indicated by the series itself.

Speak for yourself. This particular fan would welcome the twist that would be the official introduction of the codename theory.

But why? What makes it so appealing to you?

Well, for one thing it makes more sense than the idea of Bond as a HIGHLANDER-style immortal.

Actually, I don't think it makes any more sense, really - it's just as implausible and worthy of ridicule as Bond never aging.

And the "same man, but different continuity" explanation is every bit as much of a case of fanwanking as the codename theory is.

Not really, when that's been told to us by the production crew and all. Fanwanking means that the fans have particularly worked hard to make sense of something, but in no case is that here.

But it all depends on what you really consider the "same man" or "same character" - in no way are ConneryBond, MooreBond, DaltonBond, and BrosnanBond *really* the same character, for they have different looks and personalities. But in a sense, they are a play off of the same basic archetype, so I guess you could call them the same character from that standpoint (just as the many different takes on Superman or Batman or Sherlock Holmes could all be referred to as the "same character" or "different characters" - it's all semantics).

Seriously, though, if people are going to say that Craig's Bond is not the same guy who went up against Dr. No in 1962 (or Carver in 1997) - which he isn't, isn't that essentially an admission that they're different characters?

Well, sure, I guess. If that's how you want to look at it. It's pretty much how I look at it - I don't really see any of the Bonds we've had to this point as the same character.

It's just like stating that Bale's Batman and Keaton's Batman were not the same character, and they weren't.

Exactly.

Yes. But as some have pointed out, nobody's suggested (as of yet) that Keaton's Batman and Bale's Batman were actually one and the same or that they even existed in the same continuity/universe.

[Thunderfinger]

No one is allowed to log off until you all reach an agreement.

[Loomis]

Reach an agreement? But we're Bond fans!

[Mike00spy]

More reason why the codename theory should not be considered.


How does it fit in with the books?

James Bond married Tracy in 1963... around the same time another James Bond went to "From Russia, With Love" ???? So Sean Connery's Bond isn't even the original Bond? MI6 had 2 James Bonds running around at the same time??

Sacaramanga- he died in 65, and then again in 74 ???

Dr. No, Largo, Goldinger, Drax, Mr Big -- they all have to be codenames as well, for all of them died twice.

Shoudln't M have briefed "Bond" in Thunderball (movie) thus: Look, last time SPECTRE did this they hid the bombs in the Bahamas... so why not just go there???

Can anyone who seriously likes to ponder and accept the codename theory fit this into their grand master plan??

[Loomis]

More reason why the codename theory should not be considered.


How does it fit in with the books?

James Bond married Tracy in 1963... around the same time another James Bond went to "From Russia, With Love" ???? So Sean Connery's Bond isn't even the original Bond? MI6 had 2 James Bonds running around at the same time??

Sacaramanga- he died in 65, and then again in 74 ???

Dr. No, Largo, Goldinger, Drax, Mr Big -- they all have to be codenames as well, for all of them died twice.

Shoudln't M have briefed "Bond" in Thunderball (movie) thus: Look, last time SPECTRE did this they hid the bombs in the Bahamas... so why not just go there???

Can anyone who seriously likes to ponder and accept the codename theory fit this into their grand master plan??

Well, the codename theory really only applies to the films (no less a figure than Mr Lee Tamahori, who actually directed one of the flippin' things, has stated that the Bond of DIE ANOTHER DAY is not the same guy as some of the other Bonds; as someone who's helped create the canon, surely Tamahori should be listened to), although I suppose there's no good reason why it shouldn't be incorporated into the literary series as well.

[Mister Asterix]

So April 13th, huh?

[Harmsway]

Well, the codename theory really only applies to the films (no less a figure than Mr Lee Tamahori, who actually directed one of the flippin' things, has stated that the Bond of DIE ANOTHER DAY is not the same guy as some of the other Bonds; as someone who's helped create the canon, surely Tamahori should be listened to), although I suppose there's no good reason why it shouldn't be incorporated into the literary series as well.

Well let's not misconstrue Tamahori's influence. He suggested the idea to MGW and BB, who subsequently shot it down. So no, the official party line of the *real* creators of Bond is not the codename theory.