179 replies to this topic

[Mike00spy]

If you have to consider the books if you want to argue the codename theory.

[Publius]

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

If he was one of the writers and it made its way into the actual film, sure, the theory would finally be given credence. But it still wouldn't force it on the rest of the movies, and you could simply interpret it as a codename for just that one. Unless it proclaimed otherwise, and then you'd have a conflict within fandom over whether it had the "power" to do that.

But the off-record theories of a one-time Bond director are about as far from "canon" as you can get.

[Loomis]

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.

Oh. I didn't know that. Well, I guess the codename theory's been officially discredited, then.

[marktmurphy]

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?

Well it wouldn't reaslly make sense with Bond's dislike of using fake 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?

Because it's perverse in terms of drama. It would mean there's a huge interesting story we're not seeing. It's ridiculous to make a film which simply ignores it's biggest story trait. Imagine Dr Who where we didn't see or ever hear mention of the fact that the Doctor's regenerated.

[Thunderfinger]

James Bond is an actual guy.
It is my theory that Sean Connery , George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig are the codenames.

[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?

Well it wouldn't reaslly make sense with Bond's dislike of using fake 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?

Because it's perverse in terms of drama. It would mean there's a huge interesting story we're not seeing.

True, but, hey, there's still time - could be the major revelation of, say, BOND 25.

[Roebuck]

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.

Same reason people obsess over the numbers in 'Lost'.
Modern fandom has convinced itself that a form of intelligent design (rather than dramatic licence) is behind everything that happens in their favourite on-screen series. Somehow it all has to be built up into something more than a piece of diverting entertainment simply to justify all the hours they've devoted to it.

(Please note that I'm only talking about fans of OTHER series here. Not sane, rational, well balanced Bond fans.)

[Thunderfinger]

Every time they make a new entry, they should incinerate all the previous ones to spare us the confusion.

[Vodka Martino]

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.

I agree with you, Publius. The alternate universe idea holds the most water.
Besides, a lot of time has been spent on Bond's birthdate and place etc, and it's all gotten way out of hand. I remember when I first read "Licence Renewed" back in '81 and had to get my head around the notion that Bond had been 'transported to the Eighties'. That bugged me for a few weeks (anger) and I did not want to believe it (denial). And then I got over it (acceptance).
And the code name theory is a wank. It doesn't explain the 4 Blofelds (I'm including the faceless one from the PTS of FYEO)that we've seen over the years (5 if you include Max Von Sydow in NSNA). And don't give me the plastic surgery angle. It's easy to change Donald Pleasance's face to Telly Savalas', but no amount of plastic surgery will change the shape of your head (Charles Grey). And speaking of Charles Grey, how could he be Dikko Henderson in YOLT and Blofeld in DAF?
Answer? Alternate Universe.
Again folks, we're all spending too much time and trouble on this. To use an analogy, remember the immortal words of Homer J Simpson: "Meaning of life? There is no meaning of life. It's just a bunch of stuff that happens!"

Look at what you started, Tim007.
Ya happy now?

Vodka Martino

[Publius]

Very well said, Vodka Martino.

And the thought just occured to me, but the codename theory would at least go a long way to supporting the "Hargreaves as M" theory, which I've always found...interesting if nothing else.

[Moore Baby Moore]

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.

And yet those same people flat-out ignore the fact that if James Bond is a codename because he's been played by different actors, then the same applies to Felix Leiter and Moneypenny for the same reasons. Who's to say Felix Leiter isn't a code name? Or that Moneypenny isn't?

Sounds stupid, right? Well, that's the end result of the codename theory. The minute you tear James Bond's character apart like that, the rest of the mythos suffers the same damage because it, too, has to face the same scrutiny. That's why I won't tolerate the codename theory. It makes EVERYTHING we've seen a lie, rather than just tweaks made to help the character fit the era of the moment. (And it still doesn't explain why regardless of who's playing him, Bond's base personality and characterization is the same, his memories are the same, and why he still grieves for his wife. To buy into the codename theroy, you'd have to believe that each guy to take up the mantle has been brainwashed.)

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.

Bingo. Again, if the different actors who've played Bond are really different guys under code names, then that would mean we've had a bunch of guys codenamed Felix Leiter and three woemn named Moneypenny, all of whom would have to be brainwashed to have the same memories and personality traits. In other words, the whole theroy slashes its throat by its very nature.

Edited by Moore Baby Moore, 11 October 2006 - 04:07 AM.

[Moore Baby Moore]

Oh, and before I forget...

Tamahori's first broaching of the codename theory was shot down when he did an interview at the time of Die Another Day. When the interviewer told him that Tracy's death had been an underlying element in the subsequent Bond films (especially in For Your Eyes Only), his big suggestion, as I recall, was to re-edit the old films to fit his theory. This is like listening to Jon Peters arguing that Superman shouldn't fly or wear his costume because he's credited as a producer on one of the movies (and in fact, he lost any creative control he once had once Bryan Singer stepped up), or having Batman wear nipples on his costume forevermore because Joel Schumacher thought they were a cool design element. If somebody has a stupid idea or thinks his word should be the final say on a mythos that's bigger than him, there's no reason why he should be listened to.

[Vodka Martino]

Very well said, Vodka Martino.

And the thought just occured to me, but the codename theory would at least go a long way to supporting the "Hargreaves as M" theory, which I've always found...interesting if nothing else.

I always thought that Admiral Hargreaves had been promoted to Head of MI6. Personally, when Bernard Lee died back in the early '80s, they should have gotten somebody who resembled him and shown M getting assassinated (in longshot)outside MI6 Headquarters in the PTS so that Bond could go on some mad revenge streak for the rest of the film.
That woulda' been nice.

VM

Edited by Vodka Martino, 11 October 2006 - 04:55 AM.

[Moore Baby Moore]

Something else that bears mentioning...

Loomis thinks it's perfectly all right that MI6 would brainwash people in order to turn them into James Bond (while ignoring that the same would have to happen to the various Felixes and Moneypennys). I just have to ask, what would make MI6 any different from SPECTRE or Al Qaeda if they did this? Further, why wouldn't anyone at MI6 have moral issues with doing this and try to blow the whistle on it? And if there is no James Bond and everything we've seen is lies and false memories, then what is going on with these guys' pre-Bond lives? Are they being taken away from their families and loved ones? What is MI6 robbing these people of? It paints MI6 in a nasty light that it doesn't need, and it turns the James Bond series into a study of government corruption and immorality at its worst, and pretty much sets MI6 up for a major fall should someone decide enough is enough.

This is not something I want to see in the Bond universe, and I doubt 90% of the viewership would stand for it. The change of focus the codename theory would cause, and its nasty aftereffects on the series and on MI6, points out just how fundamentally wrong the theory is.

[JimmyBond]

While I'm sure Loomis does believe (somewhat) in the codename theory. I can't help but think he mostly brings it up so he can see everyone try to shoot it down, really people, it's not worth getting worked up over I know because I used to get upset over it when my parents would bring it up (theyd mention it just to get me worked up), I just came to the point of letting them think that, I know what I think, and that's what's important.

[Moore Baby Moore]

While I'm sure Loomis does believe (somewhat) in the codename theory. I can't help but think he mostly brings it up so he can see everyone try to shoot it down,

Then he should keep it to himself. In my neck of the woods, setting out to get people riled up is considered trolling. Especially when said riling doesn't have anything to back it up.

I've been on too many message boards where this kind of thing has gone on. My patience for it is nonexistent at this point.

[Vodka Martino]

Just to go slightly off-topic here, gang, but I posted a thread a few weeks ago regarding who exactly was it that wrote the Bond Dossier on Sony's CR website and didn't get any 'worthy' responses. Anybody out there have any idea as to who may have written it. I thought it might have been the work of Purvis & Wade, but it's actually pretty well written. Or do y'all think it was written by a number of writers?

Vodka Martino

[Vauxhall]

I expect that the factual content for the dossier was probably put together by Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, with input from Purvis, Wade and perhaps Campbell.

[Loomis]

Something else that bears mentioning...

Loomis thinks it's perfectly all right that MI6 would brainwash people in order to turn them into James Bond (while ignoring that the same would have to happen to the various Felixes and Moneypennys). I just have to ask, what would make MI6 any different from SPECTRE or Al Qaeda if they did this? Further, why wouldn't anyone at MI6 have moral issues with doing this and try to blow the whistle on it? And if there is no James Bond and everything we've seen is lies and false memories, then what is going on with these guys' pre-Bond lives? Are they being taken away from their families and loved ones? What is MI6 robbing these people of? It paints MI6 in a nasty light that it doesn't need, and it turns the James Bond series into a study of government corruption and immorality at its worst, and pretty much sets MI6 up for a major fall should someone decide enough is enough.

This is not something I want to see in the Bond universe, and I doubt 90% of the viewership would stand for it. The change of focus the codename theory would cause, and its nasty aftereffects on the series and on MI6, points out just how fundamentally wrong the theory is.

The world of James Bond is more than strong enough to withstand any theory - everyone has his own take on the character, and plenty of writers, directors, etc. have over the decades floated various interpretations of the character and his universe (whether as story pitches to Eon or working "unofficially") that are far more bizarre than the codename theory. I gather that the idea of making Lazenby's Bond Connery's Bond after plastic surgery was seriously considered by the makers of OHMSS, and personally I'd rather Bond was someone operating under a codename than someone with a totally manufactured appearance. Heck, there's even a novel in which 007 is killed off!

Back in 1988, I guess there would have been many Bond fans screaming for blood at reports of 007 quitting the British secret service and turning rogue agent in a private quest to avenge Felix Leiter. Granted, the codename theory is rather more "extreme" than the plot of LICENCE TO KILL, but I can't help feeling that there were plenty of people whose first reaction was "But Bond would never run out on the secret service and go off on a private vendetta!".

Why is it wrong to discuss the codename theory? (Or for that matter any other theory about the character or potential direction for the franchise.) It's not as though any of us have the power to impose it on the film series, and judging by what Harmsway said a few posts back it's already been officially vetoed by Broccoli and Wilson (this does, of course, mean that it was under consideration at one point, so by discussing the codename theory we're discussing something that's already been looked at by Eon). In other words: relax, it ain't gonna happen. It's just a message board discussion.

As for MI6 being a nasty, corrupt organisation, I'll just say this: the CIA doesn't come out of the Bourne films very well, does it? (Cue a string of posts complaining that Bond isn't supposed to be Bourne.)

[spynovelfan]

But Bond isn't supposed to be Bourne, Loomis! (Betcha couldn't see that one coming. )

That said, in GOLDENEYE, he does effectively admit Britain committed a war crime in deporting the Lienz Cossacks, something that the British government has yet to do. So can it be said that he is on the side of the angels, always? That film, at least, introduces a small element of ambiguity.

The codename theory only works *once it is referenced in the canon*. By which I don't mean an off-the-cuff comment from Tamahori. The idea that MI6 is brainwashing agents takes rather a lot of backstory. As it stands, there are no clear references to the fact that this is going on (in the Quiller series, for example, we are told that 'Quiller' is a codename). There may be in the future, but at the moment all we have is an inconsistent timeline.

And that is something that plagues all long-running series. I think it could have been handled better, but some apparent 'errors' were always going to be there considering the first novel was published over half a century ago and they are always set in the modern era. I've just this morning interviewed Henri Vern

[sharpshooter]

It is retcon people!

[Loomis]

The codename theory only works *once it is referenced in the canon*.

Agreed. But Bond fans' extraordinarily hostile reaction to it does baffle me - I mean, it has the largest number of votes against it in the "What would be the least welcome development?" thread, among 18 scenarios, even outranking "Homosexual Bond"! Is it really worse than, say, "Bond on other planets, a la Green Lantern", or "The XXX cross over" (that's XXX as in Vin Diesel, one presumes, rather than the resurrection of Anya Amasova that I suspect many of us would greatly welcome).

Well, yes, apparently it is. It seems to be the ultimate heresy as far as Bond fans are concerned, the ultimate line that must never, ever be crossed or else all is ruined. And, while I'd never expect it to be universally welcomed (heck, I don't even really buy it myself, despite possible appearances), I do rather wonder why it's hated so much.

Relax, it's just a theory. If people are happy to accept "alternate universes" in which Higson's Bond and Benson's Bond and Daniel Craig can happily co-exist with Fleming's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (YOLT being a novel that slyly suggests that - oh, the horror of it! - none of the other Fleming adventures Really Happened™) and, oh, I don't know, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.... why won't they tolerate at least the theoretical possibility of yet another alternate universe in which MI6 is a less-than-angelic organisation that brainwashes its agents and makes them go about under codenames?

I mean, the whole Bond universe's just a load of bollocks anyway, so why not?

[Santa]

Don't want to.

[Loomis]

Spoilsport.

[Santa]

Spoilsport.

[David Schofield]

Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (YOLT being a novel that slyly suggests that - oh, the horror of it! - none of the other Fleming adventures Really Happened™)

Does it?

[Loomis]

Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (YOLT being a novel that slyly suggests that - oh, the horror of it! - none of the other Fleming adventures Really Happened™)

Does it?

Yes. Read the obit.

[Publius]

The codename theory only works *once it is referenced in the canon*.

Agreed. But Bond fans' extraordinarily hostile reaction to it does baffle me - I mean, it has the largest number of votes against it in the "What would be the least welcome development?" thread, among 18 scenarios, even outranking "Homosexual Bond"!

Vote-splitting. Ask people to rate each individual "development" or rank them, and though I think the codename theory could still be on top, I think you'd find the female Bond, gay Bond, non-British Bond, and non-Caucasian Bond possibilities near the top of the most hated list.

I do rather wonder why it's hated so much.

Because it's not needed, has no basis in anything, complicates matters further, and dilutes the importance of the character for those enjoy him as more than camp or self-parody (and probably dilutes it for some of those too).

[Santa]

[quote name='David Schofield' post='624348' date='11 October 2006 - 19:08'] [quote name='Loomis' post='624338' date='11 October 2006 - 15:47']
Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (YOLT being a novel that slyly suggests that - oh, the horror of it! - none of the other Fleming adventures Really Happened

[spynovelfan]

Loomis, the reason it got more votes than Bond in other universes and so on in that thread is because the others have never been contemplated before and never will be. The codename theory derives from a natural desire to have everything fit, whereas Bond being a Martian doesn't. The reason it's so hated is because it doesn't make anything fit, and it's a theory that strips the character of any individuality or humanity. Bond is a replicant, pretty much, complete with implanted memories.

I think in the next film they should have Bond watch all the previous Bond films on some sort of virtual reality DVD player.