54 replies to this topic

[Janus Assassin]

 

DrMirakle32 kindly hid the scene details under a spoiler tag in the OP.

 

tdalton is quite right that it's Mathis' death scene, in which Mathis reveals that his name is in fact not his real name.

 

It's because Bond asks Mathis about his name that suggests Bond has reason to think it's not real, ergo it suggests a common practise of using a fake name.

 

Therefore there's the subsequent suggestion that 'Bond' may well be such a name - one given to him by MI6, rather than his late parents.

 

So, could 'Bond' be an MI6 'hand-me-down' name?

 

One sincerely hopes not.

 

ETA:

In Skyfall is the family home referred to as the 'Bond' family home? I'm sure albert finney called him James, but did he use the word 'Bond'. If so, then it seems Eon has decided not to make Bond a 'codename'. I'd have to watch it again, but it seems odd to have the Bond ancestral home in the story, along with an old family employee who calls him James, if Eon are intending to make 'James Bond' a codename when it's time to replace Craig.

Well, actually, you even see Bond's parents' grave in SF... So, unless one assumes that MI6 also give codenames for dead people, we can safely say that the "codename theory" is once and for all pretty well burried (no pun intended, of course!).

 

 

Finney does say Bond as I recall.

 

Finney- "James? James Bond

Bond- "You're still alive?"

[Major Tallon]

The code name theory is absurd on its face.  It presumes that the legend of the "original" James Bond has run so deep in the Secret Service that the British intelligence community will become demoralized to the point of virtual uselessness if he has retired or been killed.  Of course, everyone will know that this new "Bond" character isn't the "Bond" that had so many accomplishments, but they won't care.  They'll once more be inspired to great heights just by knowing that someone with the name is back on the scene.

 

Does anybody believe that such nonsense would produce anything more than embarrassed derision on the part of the intelligence community?  Can anyone imagine another walk of life where such a tactic could even be contemplated?  Yes, the acting community is demoralized by the death of a legend, so RADA will pick somebody new to be known as Laurence Olivier.  The British armed forces, deeply demoralized by budget cuts, will select a couple of promising officers to be known as "H. Jones" and "Horatio Nelson."  The scientific community will pick a new Alexander Fleming, and the racing world will put a new Stirling Moss behind the wheel.  The new prime minister will be Winston Churchill. 

 

The wonderful thing will be that the respective communities will accept all of these new poseurs as worthy successors of the originals and will be inspired to great achievements by knowing that a new classic hero is on the scene.  The very notion is bizarre. I could expound further, but I'm off to design a bridge -- (and you can call me Brunel).

[plankattack]

  The very notion is bizarre. I could expound further, but I'm off to design a bridge -- (and you can call me Brunel).

 

And how much can I offer you, for said bridge?!?!?!  

 

Ah, the codename theory, coming around every year like April's Food Day. I always assume it's a wind-up because it makes no sense on either a logical, or even artistic level. Of all the things in Bond fandom that we discuss (and I confess, I find myself engrossed by topics on which all of us should know better!), I always surprised that this one has the life it does.

 

Then again, I'm convinced the CIA killed Kennedy, so there you go.......!

[SecretAgentFan]

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

[tdalton]

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

[DavidJones]

Skyfall etc is part of a reboot so this could be the original James Bond.

 

AMCHornet, what do you mean about Bond changing after the end of FRWL?

[Odd Jobbies]

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

[AMC Hornet]

AMCHornet, what do you mean about Bond changing after the end of FRWL?

Jaques (Jim) Stewart looks at the idea in depth in his 007th chapter of Dr. No. In short, Bond seems to transform from an indestructible superman into a vulnerable human being.

 

I'm not saying that Jim supports the codename theory (jump in here, Mr. S) - more the idea that as Fleming aged and evolved, so did his literary alter ego.

 

Major Tallon makes a good point about how public figures cannot be replaced with imposters in order to boost morale, but keep in mind - Bond was not a public figure. Of course MI6 would not recruit an agent and say (as David Niven more or less did in CR '67) "Right, from now on your name is James Bond, you like martinis and are mourning a murdered bride."

 

Rather, by the time MI6 declassifies some of its past successes, they have attributed them to the non-existent agent 007 for the purpose of confusing the enemy and protecting the anonymity of their active and retired agents.

 

That is, if this were an actual former agent we were discussing and not a fictional character.

[tdalton]

 

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

 

 

I think the point was for it to be that Mathis simply uses his real name in the field, much like Bond does.  It's not a good cover name because it's not a cover, it's the real name of the character.

 

I also think that it's a call back to Casino Royale, when we see Bond recklessly shed his cover name of "Arlington Beech" to go forward under his real name.  That doesn't really end up working all that well for him, which would be another reason for Bond to tell Mathis that his "cover name" isn't really a good one.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

 

 

I think the point was for it to be that Mathis simply uses his real name in the field, much like Bond does.  It's not a good cover name because it's not a cover, it's the real name of the character.

 

I also think that it's a call back to Casino Royale, when we see Bond recklessly shed his cover name of "Arlington Beech" to go forward under his real name.  That doesn't really end up working all that well for him, which would be another reason for Bond to tell Mathis that his "cover name" isn't really a good one.

 

 

Perfect answer.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

 

 

I think the point was for it to be that Mathis simply uses his real name in the field, much like Bond does.

 

 

I'm afraid that's wrong. If you watch the scene (embedded below), you'll see that Mathis tells Bond that it is indeed a cover name:

 

youtu.be/xPKtvNzFdg0

 

If he'd said that Mathis was his real name, as you suggested, this would reinforce that Bond was real also. But since Mathis in fact reveals that it's a cover name this does no such thing. In fact it simply calls into question the authenticity of Bond's name.

 

Logan's a good writer and i don't think he would've done this by accident, or without realising the question it raises.

 

 

ETA: just to remove any confusion:

 

Bond:     "Is Mathis your cover name?"

Mathis:   "Yes."

Bond:      "Not a very good one, is it?"

Edited by Jim, 29 April 2014 - 10:02 AM.
Sorry, can't show Eon stuff - please follow Youtube link

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

 

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

 

 

I think the point was for it to be that Mathis simply uses his real name in the field, much like Bond does.

 

 

I'm afraid that's wrong. If you watch the scene (embedded below), you'll see that Mathis tells Bond that it is indeed a cover name:

 

youtu.be/xPKtvNzFdg0

 

If he'd said that Mathis was his real name, as you suggested, this would reinforce that Bond was real also. But since Mathis in fact reveals that it's a cover name this does no such thing. In fact it simply calls into question the authenticity of Bond's name.

 

Logan's a good writer and i don't think he would've done this by accident, or without realising the question it raises.

 

 

ETA: just to remove any confusion:

 

Bond:     "Is Mathis your cover name?"

Mathis:   "Yes."

Bond:      "Not a very good one, is it?"

 

 

Two things:

 

1) It does not reinforce that Bond´s name was real or a cover name or whatever. 

 

2) John Logan had nothing to do with the script of QOS.

[Messervy]

 

  The very notion is bizarre. I could expound further, but I'm off to design a bridge -- (and you can call me Brunel).

 

And how much can I offer you, for said bridge?!?!?!  

 

Ah, the codename theory, coming around every year like April's Food Day. I always assume it's a wind-up because it makes no sense on either a logical, or even artistic level. Of all the things in Bond fandom that we discuss (and I confess, I find myself engrossed by topics on which all of us should know better!), I always surprised that this one has the life it does.

 

Then again, I'm convinced the CIA killed Kennedy, so there you go.......!

 

But was Kennedy his real name?

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

 

 

I think the point was for it to be that Mathis simply uses his real name in the field, much like Bond does.

 

 

I'm afraid that's wrong. If you watch the scene (embedded below), you'll see that Mathis tells Bond that it is indeed a cover name:

 

youtu.be/xPKtvNzFdg0

 

If he'd said that Mathis was his real name, as you suggested, this would reinforce that Bond was real also. But since Mathis in fact reveals that it's a cover name this does no such thing. In fact it simply calls into question the authenticity of Bond's name.

 

Logan's a good writer and i don't think he would've done this by accident, or without realising the question it raises.

 

 

ETA: just to remove any confusion:

 

Bond:     "Is Mathis your cover name?"

Mathis:   "Yes."

Bond:      "Not a very good one, is it?"

 

 

Two things:

 

1) It does not reinforce that Bond´s name was real or a cover name or whatever. 

 

2) John Logan had nothing to do with the script of QOS.

 

1) I never said it reinforced it - i said it suggested it; it opens the door to the idea that these guys use cover names and that this could well include Bond.

 

2) Sorry, i meant Haggis. I've been writing in the thread about abandoning the 2-film script for Bond 24 which Logan wrote and obviously had a senior moment there.

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

I do not think the Mathis scene was hinting at something the series never brought up.

 

Agreed.  It doesn't.

 

Then why does Bond ask Mathis if his name is real and is not surprised to hear it isn't?

 

More to the point, why have that in the script if it means nothing?

 

 

I think the point was for it to be that Mathis simply uses his real name in the field, much like Bond does.

 

 

I'm afraid that's wrong. If you watch the scene (embedded below), you'll see that Mathis tells Bond that it is indeed a cover name:

 

youtu.be/xPKtvNzFdg0

 

If he'd said that Mathis was his real name, as you suggested, this would reinforce that Bond was real also. But since Mathis in fact reveals that it's a cover name this does no such thing. In fact it simply calls into question the authenticity of Bond's name.

 

Logan's a good writer and i don't think he would've done this by accident, or without realising the question it raises.

 

 

ETA: just to remove any confusion:

 

Bond:     "Is Mathis your cover name?"

Mathis:   "Yes."

Bond:      "Not a very good one, is it?"

 

 

The reason that it's "not a very good one" is that it's also Mathis' real name.  That's what makes it a terrible cover name, because in reality it isn't one.  The important line isn't "yes", but rather "Not a very good one, is it?".

 

And if we're to think that this suggests that "Bond" is a cover name, then that means that "Bond" has two cover names:  Arlington Beech and James Bond.  Bond discarded the Arlington Beech cover when he arrived in Montenegro.  I doubt that he did that in favor of another cover name, as that would be absolutely pointless. 

[AMC Hornet]

Like this thread.

[tdalton]

Like this thread.

 

Very much agreed.

[The*SPY*]

All this talk of code names and only one reference to Mathis in QOS.  Has everyone forgotten Raoul Silva?  As M says "His real name is Tiago Rodriguez."    

 

Hmmm......
 

The code name debate continues.......

[Guy Haines]

As an aside from the codename theory, I wonder how many of us have read John Pearson's "authorised biography" of James Bond? In it, he comes up with an interesting and amusing reason why Ian Fleming wrote the novels, and was "allowed to" by MI6. I don't want to spoil it too much for those who haven't read this book - suffice to say "disinformation" is involved. Re-reading this thread suddenly reminded me of Pearson's book and whether "Bond" is a code name.

 

It doesn't alter my view of the codename theory, though. 

[SecretAgentFan]

All this talk of code names and only one reference to Mathis in QOS.  Has everyone forgotten Raoul Silva?  As M says "His real name is Tiago Rodriguez."    

 

Hmmm......
 

The code name debate continues.......

 

... and it stops again - since Tiago Rodriguez was the name of the agent.  When he assumed a new identity outside of the service he called himself Raoul Silva.  So...

[Odd Jobbies]

As an aside from the codename theory, I wonder how many of us have read John Pearson's "authorised biography" of James Bond? In it, he comes up with an interesting and amusing reason why Ian Fleming wrote the novels, and was "allowed to" by MI6. I don't want to spoil it too much for those who haven't read this book - suffice to say "disinformation" is involved. Re-reading this thread suddenly reminded me of Pearson's book and whether "Bond" is a code name.

 

It doesn't alter my view of the codename theory, though. 

I read the book several years ago and had forgotten that part. Thanks for reminding me - it was IMO the best Bond read since Fleming. Personally i don't think 'Bond' should be a code name - it devalues the brand too much. But it's a good debate to come back too now and then, even if it does appear to annoy some people

[Guy Haines]

Yes, I read the John Pearson Bond book not long after I'd read his biography of Ian Fleming, so it was a nice follow on - this was decades ago in the mid 1970s. He treats Bond "as if" he existed in real life and his explanation of the Bond novels co-existing with the real Bond is  amusing. A hint of why the books were allowed is to be found in M's obituary of Bond in You Only Live Twice. Basically, as I say, disinformation, with at least one of Bond's adventures completely made up by Fleming. I'll leave members to guess which. I still have the Pearson books at home in hardback and paperback.

[AMC Hornet]

Me too, and if we're still going to bang on about a code-name theory, then Pearson's biography of Bond could likewise have been a bit of 'disinformation' a la Moonraker. Perhaps Pearson never met a 'James Bond', but either interviewed a number of former agents or just made the whole thing up (which of course he did, but we're still imagining that 007 is real, right?).

[Odd Jobbies]

Well this thread has taken a rather interesting turn. I was just speculating that the 'code-name' thing may have been something that Haggis/Eon toyed with in QoS, laying a seed which they could harvest if desired, with Skyfall's events putting pay to that.

 

But crossing to Pearson's interpretation of the code name theory is mighty fascinating!

[Guy Haines]

It's not really John Pearson interpreting this code name stuff, or interviewing a number of agents who used the code name "Bond" He wrote the "authorised biography" as if he was writing the biography of a real person, and had to explain how Ian Fleming got away with writing about the exploits of a serving British special agent. As I say, the books were "allowed" by 007's masters as a type of disinformation - you'll have to read the book as to how and why.

 

(Incidentally, I liked how he had Bond going off on another mission at the end, pursuing a certain acolyte of Blofeld who had fled to Australia and was taking the biological warfare ideas from OHMSS a few stages further. Also, John Pearson wrote another "authorised biography" of a certain John Steed, in which Bond is mentioned.)