179 replies to this topic

[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?

Yes. Read the obit.

Well, it suggests books came to be written about Bond's adventures, sure...

... but in my version of the Bond universe, that means books based on his adventures by Bloggs and starring a character called Jones existed (just as Fleming himself may have used a real British agent and his wartime adventures as inspiration for Bond).

Otherwise, Fleming's Bond could actually have gone to the cinema to see Sean Connery playing him... which makes this thread even more taxing on the brain and twisted....

But to suggest the previous adventures would did not exist...

[Loomis]

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.

I take it that you haven't heard the story about the alien that almost made it into MOONRAKER as a visual gag, then? Never, ever assume that Eon is above considering any given "ridiculous" idea.

The reason it's so hated is because it doesn't make anything fit

Well, I think it does, but, as ever, it's me against the world on this issue. (With maybe Tamahori in my corner. )

and it's a theory that strips the character of any individuality or humanity. Bond is a replicant, pretty much, complete with implanted memories.

Nah, he's merely a slightly more fancy version of Jason Bourne. Oh no, I said it.

[Harmsway]

The reason it's so hated is because it doesn't make anything fit

Well, I think it does, but, as ever, it's me against the world on this issue. (With maybe Tamahori in my corner. )

I don't even think Tamahori really supports it at this point, because the very interviewer he was talking to essentially rebuked his theory by asking him, "Then why does Roger Moore visit Tracy's grave?" And he just said, "Oh. I didn't know that."

[Skudor]

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.

Ooooh... I like that idea. It could be a DVD player in the back of his invisble Prius.

[spynovelfan]

Well, it suggests books came to be written about Bond's adventures, sure...

... but in my version of the Bond universe, that means books based on his adventures by Bloggs and starring a character called Jones existed (just as Fleming himself may have used a real British agent and his wartime adventures as inspiration for Bond).

Otherwise, Fleming's Bond could actually have gone to the cinema to see Sean Connery playing him... which makes this thread even more taxing on the brain and twisted....

But to suggest the previous adventures would did not exist...

No, I think Fleming does suggest the previous adventures never happened in real life:

'The inevitable publicity, particularly in the foreign press, accorded some of these adventures, made him, much against his will, something of a public figure, with the inevitable result that a series of popular books came to be written around him by a personal friend and former colleague of James Bond. If the quality of these books, or their degree of veracity, had been any higher, the author would certainly have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It is a measure of the disdain in which these fictions are held at the Ministry, that action has not yet -- I emphasize the qualification -- been taken against the author and publisher of these high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of a outstanding public servant.'

It specifically calls the books 'fictions'.

[Publius]

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.

Good point. It's definitely that too.

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

Sounds like something out of Battlefield Earth.

[MattofSteel]

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.

Amen. Just let the character move through time. Assume his life is shaped by people and encounters, not necessarily by politics and technology.

It's the theory I'v always been comfortable. Yes, Brosan's Bond battled SPECTRE, married Tracy, and took revenge on Blofeld - but not necessarily in 1967-71. I just don't care that much. Who does?

With Craig, it's something of a different story. That's the concept of a reboot. The character is the same, identical, if you will. But he's just in a different time.

[Loomis]

Well, it suggests books came to be written about Bond's adventures, sure...

... but in my version of the Bond universe, that means books based on his adventures by Bloggs and starring a character called Jones existed (just as Fleming himself may have used a real British agent and his wartime adventures as inspiration for Bond).

Otherwise, Fleming's Bond could actually have gone to the cinema to see Sean Connery playing him... which makes this thread even more taxing on the brain and twisted....

But to suggest the previous adventures would did not exist...

No, I think Fleming does suggest the previous adventures never happened in real life:

'The inevitable publicity, particularly in the foreign press, accorded some of these adventures, made him, much against his will, something of a public figure, with the inevitable result that a series of popular books came to be written around him by a personal friend and former colleague of James Bond. If the quality of these books, or their degree of veracity, had been any higher, the author would certainly have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It is a measure of the disdain in which these fictions are held at the Ministry, that action has not yet -- I emphasize the qualification -- been taken against the author and publisher of these high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of a outstanding public servant.'

It specifically calls the books 'fictions'.

Yeah. It doesn't state explicitly that the adventures "Dr. No"----sorry, we're talking the books here, "Casino Royale" - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" Never Happened™, but, come on, it's perfectly obvious that that's what Fleming intends us to think. Of course, Schofield's "Bloggs and Jones" hypothesis could still stand, but, equally, there's another, obvious, possibility....

Personally, I take Fleming's YOLT as the only true piece of "Bond canon", since A. it's Fleming, and B. it's the only Fleming outing over which there's no dispute as to whether it Really Happened™.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

I agree with the last couple of posts. Didn't EON once say something to the effect that Bond is always contemporary? Therefore Pierce's Bond is the same as the Connery Bond that encountered Dr No and the Lazenby Bond that married Tracy. We just have to accept that Pierce didn't do these things in 1962 and 1969 respectively but in a timeline prior to his present of "1995 - 2002".

Daniel Craig is an obvious exception because this is a rebooted Bond (or in comic book terms he's the silver age James Bond). Without the reboot I'd have assumed that Daniel's Bond had also married Tracy etc.

I just take it that each film is always set in the present day and refuse to worry about the length of time that passes between those films.

[spynovelfan]

Yeah. It doesn't state explicitly that the adventures "Dr. No"----sorry, we're talking the books here, "Casino Royale" - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" Never Happened™, but, come on, it's perfectly obvious that that's what Fleming intends us to think. Of course, Schofield's "Bloggs and Jones" hypothesis could still stand, but, equally, there's another, obvious, possibility....

I can't really see the difference between those two (and remained baffled as to why posters periodically call David 'Schofield' - it's been a while since anyone referred to me by my surname in that way!)

Personally, I take Fleming's YOLT as the only true piece of "Bond canon", since A. it's Fleming, and B. it's the only Fleming outing over which there's no dispute as to whether it Really Happened™.

Ah, but I've got a theory about that. The man who turns up at the start of TMWTGG is actually the real James Bond. The chap going by that name in the previous novels was a SMERSH agent who had been brainwashed into thinking he was Bond.

Lee Tamahori mentioned the idea to me once, so I think you'll find it's worth discussing.

[Santa]

Daniel Craig is an obvious exception because this is a rebooted Bond (or in comic book terms he's the silver age James Bond). Without the reboot I'd have assumed that Daniel's Bond had also married Tracy etc.

But that only matters if you watch all the films in the order in which they were made. As most people don't, it's really just the fanwankers who do that, so CR can fit quite easily into the floating timeline.

[Simon]

I think they're just starting again so all the fanwankers have to look for some other non-point to discuss.

No point trying to fit it all together, no point trying to say this Bond Jnr/Son/Nephew rubbish.

Ignore all that went before other than for social commentary, here's Jim (Bond) for a new generation.

[David Schofield]

Well, it suggests books came to be written about Bond's adventures, sure...

... but in my version of the Bond universe, that means books based on his adventures by Bloggs and starring a character called Jones existed (just as Fleming himself may have used a real British agent and his wartime adventures as inspiration for Bond).

Otherwise, Fleming's Bond could actually have gone to the cinema to see Sean Connery playing him... which makes this thread even more taxing on the brain and twisted....

But to suggest the previous adventures would did not exist...

No, I think Fleming does suggest the previous adventures never happened in real life:

'The inevitable publicity, particularly in the foreign press, accorded some of these adventures, made him, much against his will, something of a public figure, with the inevitable result that a series of popular books came to be written around him by a personal friend and former colleague of James Bond. If the quality of these books, or their degree of veracity, had been any higher, the author would certainly have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It is a measure of the disdain in which these fictions are held at the Ministry, that action has not yet -- I emphasize the qualification -- been taken against the author and publisher of these high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of a outstanding public servant.'

It specifically calls the books 'fictions'.

...though YOLT starts with the Bond of the "real", "only" story, YOLT, recalling the events of the "fiction" of OHMSS and suffering the emotions of that...

... or did OHMSS also "really" happen? You know, the Bond "novel" where Bond comes across Ursula Andress who had just appeared in a film about...Bond?

[Bon-san]

Personally, I take Fleming's YOLT as the only true piece of "Bond canon", since A. it's Fleming, and B. it's the only Fleming outing over which there's no dispute as to whether it Really Happened™.

OK. The fanwank gauge on Dr. No's control panel has just passed well into the red danger level. Therefore, although extremely alarmed and agitated, I can't stick around to exchange pleasantries. I've got to hurry and find some guano so I can return in time for the fight in the reactor core.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

But that only matters if you watch all the films in the order in which they were made. As most people don't, it's really just the fanwankers who do that, so CR can fit quite easily into the floating timeline.

Charming! Well this fan watches the Bond films in order of preference - I usually get LALD and AVTAK out of the way first during any marathon sessions.

I think there's fanwank in equal measures for wishing to exclude or include CR into the lucid continuity of the previous Bond films. You can put me down as one of the don't cares really. There wasn't any obsession about this when I first became a hardcore fan.

I always look at Bond as the same age as well - Roger Moore may be visibly older in AVTAK than LALD but there's nothing to suggest the actual character is older. That's why I never buy into the "Bond in his twilight years" comments re FYEO.

[Loomis]

Well, it suggests books came to be written about Bond's adventures, sure...

... but in my version of the Bond universe, that means books based on his adventures by Bloggs and starring a character called Jones existed (just as Fleming himself may have used a real British agent and his wartime adventures as inspiration for Bond).

Otherwise, Fleming's Bond could actually have gone to the cinema to see Sean Connery playing him... which makes this thread even more taxing on the brain and twisted....

But to suggest the previous adventures would did not exist...

No, I think Fleming does suggest the previous adventures never happened in real life:

'The inevitable publicity, particularly in the foreign press, accorded some of these adventures, made him, much against his will, something of a public figure, with the inevitable result that a series of popular books came to be written around him by a personal friend and former colleague of James Bond. If the quality of these books, or their degree of veracity, had been any higher, the author would certainly have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It is a measure of the disdain in which these fictions are held at the Ministry, that action has not yet -- I emphasize the qualification -- been taken against the author and publisher of these high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of a outstanding public servant.'

It specifically calls the books 'fictions'.

...though YOLT starts with the Bond of the "real", "only" story, YOLT, recalling the events of the "fiction" of OHMSS and suffering the emotions of that...

... or did OHMSS also "really" happen? You know, the Bond "novel" where Bond comes across Ursula Andress who had just appeared in a film about...Bond?

Oh, it happened - as you point out, the start of YOLT is proof enough of that, but it happened in a different way to the way it's described in the novel ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, because, as YOLT indicates, OHMSS and its predecessors were fictions.

[Publius]

Daniel Craig is an obvious exception because this is a rebooted Bond (or in comic book terms he's the silver age James Bond). Without the reboot I'd have assumed that Daniel's Bond had also married Tracy etc.

As santajosep mentioned, it's a floating timeline, so you could interpret CR as a prequel to the other Bond adventures, since they've been implicitly adjusted for Craig's era (as they will be for future Bonds, unless we're told otherwise). It's a natural assumption, I think, and certainly one reached just as easily the codename theory (if not easier).

[Mister Asterix]

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

[Santa]

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

[Dr. Noah]

Guys.... you're getting worked up about something written on a GERMAN website. The guys who work on the website didn't work on the movie. They're hired to make German Internet users interested in James Bond.

[Santa]

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

I subscribe to the Loomis-is-just-stirring- theory.

Sounds logical to me.

Whoops! At least I got my point across

[Mister Asterix]

Guys.... you're getting worked up about something written on a GERMAN website. The guys who work on the website didn't work on the movie. They're hired to make German Internet users interested in James Bond.

Actually, it says it on the US and UK sites also. But the point is still valid.

[Red Barchetta]

I always take Bonds background with a huge grain of salt- it shifts every few years or so. I don't give much credence in West Berlin as a birthplace for Bond, other than Craig's Bond.

[Loomis]

Guys.... you're getting worked up about something written on a GERMAN website. The guys who work on the website didn't work on the movie. They're hired to make German Internet users interested in James Bond.

Actually, it says it on the US and UK sites also. But the point is still valid.

So I wonder whether Sony's Pakistani site claims that Bond was born in Islamabad.

[JimmyBond]

I havent had a check yet, but perhaps the US site mentions Bond being born in Queens?

[00Twelve]

And who is Lee Tamahori in the long history of the Bond legacy? In no way an authority on James Bond, IMO.

Edited by 00Twelve, 11 October 2006 - 05:17 PM.

[Dr. Noah]

Now we're arguing continuity between the film and a web site promotion. PLEASE OPEN THE MOVIE SOON.

[Bon-san]

Now we're arguing continuity between the film and a web site promotion. PLEASE OPEN THE MOVIE SOON.

Yes, then we can all go back to arguing about whether Craig is one ugly, charmless s.o.b. or just the baddest dude that's ever come down the pike.

[Santa]

But isn't he blond? Bond can't be blond...

[Bon-san]

But isn't he blond? Bond can't be blond...

Yes, he can. They took a bionic pørn star and cross-bred it with Jason Bourne. The result: the new Bond. I'm pumped, man. So much friggin' testosterone in there. There'll be none of that sissy English crap with this guy. Bring it on!