31 replies to this topic

[tuttle300]

First off, let me tell you all that I am a big Bond fan and I love the films.
SECOND- I came back in here and edited this first post to try to avoid missles being hurled in my direction for daring to have a little fun. This is to be considered a little theory of my own to explain to my friends how the long running character known as James Bond can still be a very active hero a good 50 years after being introduced in Dr. NO.
(There are other examples like Batman, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, heck even Jack Ryan. Well, no actually Jack Ryan would take up a whole book trying to explain THAT franchise (grin)

So.......... what follows is my original post......


But I want to present a historic flub that - to my knowledge - has never been officially explained in the Bond world of the films- although Never Say Never Again DID -arguably- brush against the realities of time passing with the character

And to many of you, it probably doesn't even matter and that's cool.

But maybe some of you out there have wondered secretly (as you watched the passing of the baton from actor to actor over the last 50 years) how its possible for just one man to keep going after 50 years and never age?

If so, I thought it would be an interesting thing to throw on the table for discussion or argument

I want to discuss the truth behind the multiple Double-O agents. (At least, MY take on it)

****

With the films beginning in 1962 and with Bond AS a character (in DR. NO) being say, in his late twenties...the character, by rights, should be pushing eighty this year ( Same as a few of the real actors who've protrayed him)

Now as far as I am aware- the producers have never gone out of their way to explain within the world the character lives in how he has been able to survive all these years and still look so good. Let alone still be alive considering the line of work he is in.

Naturally, each new actor that slipped into the tux brought his own take and quirks to the role and over the past 50 years the fans have happily gone to the theater and sat down to watch each new film as it came out- accepting each new actor in the role

Still.... do you find yourself having to defend this flub (or the bending of reality) to friends who might not "get" Bond?

My take on it is this: MI6 has been in business quite a while and they know that the Double-O section is important to the defense of the world. And throughout many of the films we, as fans, have met some of the other Double-O's.

003, 006, 008 etc

But what if MI6 has all of those other Double-O's in the field as "back up" to the most cherished number designation in the department....007 ?

What if over time, an agent, posing as the agent known as James Bond, gets killed in the line of duty? (Or hell, maybe he gets worn out and decides to retire?)

What if MI6, after confirming the death, (or allowing the current , tired agent to leave the service), simply picks the
the next, most qualified guy within the Double-O pool..... AS James Bond?

Maybe he reports to M and gets a briefing on the last few adventures the last "Bond" had as well as reviewing all the known "facts" of the character- such as his one single marriage and current list of friends etc etc

This would easily explain the change of faces in the films over the past 50 years wouldn't it?

Or does it even matter and for a large majority of you its a non-issue?

Either way I thought it might make for an interesting run around the table.

Edited by tuttle300, 31 January 2012 - 12:44 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

That's one of the more logical issues fans have used to convert 'non-fans' for Bond.

It's a good idea, and one I could accept full on to embrace Bond going through the generations. It's a nice link as other characters stay the same, or M for example is always noted as clearly changing actors, thus changing the character itself, as is/was Q.

So for 'James Bond' to stay the same in everyones eyes, yes, I like that idea. It's one of the, as I said, logical ones. Nice topic for discussion!

[x007AceOfSpades]

So let me understand this after reading this.
So after Diamonds Are Forever, Moore takes over as Bond, but isn't a real James Bond, almost like the Double-O number and name is now a codename for agents who take on the task after the real Bond.
And it goes until The Living Daylights with Tim Dalton and ends with Licence To Kill.
And it begins again with Brosnan in GoldenEye and Ends with Die Another Day.
Once again this starts up again with Craig in Casino Royale and has gone through with it with Quantum Of Solace and now Skyfall.
BUT, if this is the case shouldn't Daniel Craig be the original REAL James Bond, Like Connery, and their predecessors take on the name and Double-O number?
I hope that's what's trying to be dished out unless I just stated something completely unrelated, but can be open for a new topic for disccussion.

[Captain Tightpants]

What if MI6, after confirming the death, (or allowing the current , tired agent to leave the service), simply picks the
the next, most qualified guy within the Double-O pool..... AS James Bond?

It was a stupid theory when Lee Tamahori suggested it for DIE ANTOHER DAY, and it's a stupid theory now.

[mttvolcano]

What if MI6, after confirming the death, (or allowing the current , tired agent to leave the service), simply picks the
the next, most qualified guy within the Double-O pool..... AS James Bond?

It was a stupid theory when Lee Tamahori suggested it for DIE ANTOHER DAY, and it's a stupid theory now.

I would tend to agree. I say just leave it at that Bond is an archetype. He's a never ageing character through all the international conflicts. He's meant to be the same person and will always be. I mean what's the point if Bond dies and there comes another 'Bond'?

[larrythefatcat]

James Bond 007 is not a codename... why in the hell would Roger Moore-Bond care about the death of Tracy, the wife of another man with the Bond codename?

The only film in which the codename angle is true is CR '67... do with that what you will.


James Bond is merely intended (by this point) to be a character who can transcend time and space... his aging doesn't matter and stops at a certain point (which would, atm, be AVTAK's 56-year-old Bond). He obviously can't be judged as a regular person, because who can smoke 100+ cigarettes a day (at least during the 50's and 60's) and live up to 80?


The other 00's are merely intended to be Bond's peers... the only one who has actually lived up to this notion was 006, but it sounds like 008 could more than handle one of 007's sticky situations. And I know I just mentioned 008, but please don't say "oh, 008 can replace you, that means that he'd turn into 007... *derrrrrrrr*"... no, that's stupid and you're stupid if you think that... *cough* LEE TAMAHORI *cough, cough*

Edited by larrythefatcat, 30 January 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[tuttle300]

To Acewofspades
Yes thats what I had in mind with my theory- and in fact since the producers themselves have said that Casino Royale literally starts the characters history over again, well, Craig is NOW the 'first Bond' until he decides to move on (and then if they keep making more films then the next new actor will be the next best available Double-O agent in the pool and HE will take over--- but again this is just my personal little way of accounting for the face changes in the past 50 years)
And to answer the few who hate this theory- you have every right to hate it but there's no need to call me stupid. But it's a free country.

IN fact I was going to go back in there and tweak what I said to clairfy that it IS in fact a theory of mine that I use since, while I have enjoyed the films since the 70's I don't take them TOO seriously as they are just films and not meant to cure cancer or anything. But it seems that you cannot go in there to edit your post if you want to change something. Oh well

And I do take into account the realities of life and the fact we have the passing of time for both the actors, the character and the unavoidable legalities that tend to pop up and interrupt the planned filming of new Bond films (which has happened more than once)

But in the end its JUST my personal theory and a few of my friends have thrown this theory back and forth as a fun way to pass the time

I mean no harm with this "What if" thread

We can keep going or if it gets out of hand I give the Moderators permission to lock it off or remove it if they wish
No harm no foul

[AMC Hornet]

Lee Tamahori gets too much credit/flak for inventing the 'codename theory' - at least from those who haven't seen CR '67.

Even in CR '67, the idea was to rename existing agents in order to keep the 007 legend alive.

I prefer the Louis Erskine maneouver used in Quinn Martin's series The FBI, wherein a single character was created as a composite of all the agents who actually worked on the cases presented. There was no superagent Louis Erskine - the persona exists to protect the identies and anonymity of the actual agents.

So...

Every time an MI6 agent saves the world, and SMERSH/SPECTRE/Quantum wants to know "who was that masked man, claiming to be John Bryce/David Somerset/James St. John-Smythe/Arlington Beech?", MI6 can leak that it was their superagent James Bond.

This doesn't mean that each subsequent agent has to be briefed on the original Bond's habits and backstory - it just means that, after the fact, there are conflicting descriptions of who the villains are sending their hit squads after: are we looking for a tall, muscular, brutally handsome dark-haired man, a tall, pudgy brown-haired matinee idol, or a medium-height, totally ripped blonde with a face like the inside of a catcher's mitt? And so the next agent goes into the field, secure in his own anonymity.

Or, rather, the next actor in the role appears, and like Louis Erskine, appears to have the same tastes, habits and characteristics, for the sake of film franchise continuity.

It was a bonkers idea when presented in CR '67, but it did set the stage for what was to come, when 007 amazingly survived the swinging 60s. So don't take it personally when someone says that the idea is stupid - it was stupid when it came up in CR '67, and some people who hate what Lee Tamahori did with DAD (yours truly excluded) will regard anything he says as stupid. It's as good a theory as any to explain how 007 can be an active agent for 50 years without aging.

As for editing posts, place your cursor over the 'multiquote' button, and the 'edit' button will appear to the left.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 31 January 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[glidrose]

What if MI6, after confirming the death, (or allowing the current , tired agent to leave the service), simply picks the
the next, most qualified guy within the Double-O pool..... AS James Bond?

It was a stupid theory when Lee Tamahori suggested it for DIE ANTOHER DAY, and it's a stupid theory now.

Bravo Captain Tightpants! +1

Larrythefatcat also makes some good points.

Bond is Bond. End of story. Hell, I think CR continues where DAD ended. Brosnan's Bond lost his 00 status and Craig's Bond regains it. The b&w CR prologue is the only thing that happens before Dr No.

Edited by glidrose, 31 January 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[tuttle300]

Thanks AMC
I tweaked it up there though I imagine I'll still get a few die hard fans who will disagree
Which is fine........... It's just a movie. But to some...more so.

I'm flexible.

[DamnCoffee]

Interesting theory. I just like to see each tenure being set in a parralel universe. I like to think that Connerys Bond settled down with Tiffany, Moores Bond retired and spent the rest of his life with Stacey, although Anya did say that Bonds wife was killed, and he did avenge her in For Your Eyes Only. So I would go as far to say that Lazenbys Bond and Moores Bond are completely the same character, only Live and Let Die is set a good few years after OHMSS, which allowed Bond to get over her.

Daltons Bond settled down with Pam, and Brosnans Bond quit, and went on the run with Jinx and the Diamonds.

Just a silly little theory, but I like to think like that.

[x007AceOfSpades]

To Acewofspades
Yes thats what I had in mind with my theory- and in fact since the producers themselves have said that Casino Royale literally starts the characters history over again, well, Craig is NOW the 'first Bond' until he decides to move on (and then if they keep making more films then the next new actor will be the next best available Double-O agent in the pool and HE will take over--- but again this is just my personal little way of accounting for the face changes in the past 50 years)
And to answer the few who hate this theory- you have every right to hate it but there's no need to call me stupid. But it's a free country.

IN fact I was going to go back in there and tweak what I said to clairfy that it IS in fact a theory of mine that I use since, while I have enjoyed the films since the 70's I don't take them TOO seriously as they are just films and not meant to cure cancer or anything. But it seems that you cannot go in there to edit your post if you want to change something. Oh well

And I do take into account the realities of life and the fact we have the passing of time for both the actors, the character and the unavoidable legalities that tend to pop up and interrupt the planned filming of new Bond films (which has happened more than once)

But in the end its JUST my personal theory and a few of my friends have thrown this theory back and forth as a fun way to pass the time

I mean no harm with this "What if" thread

We can keep going or if it gets out of hand I give the Moderators permission to lock it off or remove it if they wish
No harm no foul

I always envisioned Bond as a never aging, never dying character. Bond is timeless as it is. The theory you've proposed here is intriguing. But as Larrythefatcat stated, if Moore is the next person to take on Connery's name and number, then why in For Your Eye Only did he care about going to the cememtary visiting Tracy, when it was Connery/Lazenby's wife. It just seemed weird. Same in Licence To Kill when Dalton leaves Felix's house and Delia ask's what's wrong with him and Felix said that he once was married. Either saying that to Delia to make her beieve that Dalton is the REAL Bond or just because. Don't get me wrong, I like this theory, but those are the only two things that prove it's not true and that Bond is Bond. Dr. No shows a young Bond (Connery) and each actor that plays him in the 50 years it's been going on shows that 007 is a timeless character. Even with Craig of course. That's my way of picturing it. As for others saying stuff, keep it professional Gents.

[DamnCoffee]

[tuttle300]

LOL Mharkin Good stuff!

[x007AceOfSpades]

Mharkin, you just made night.

[Jaws0178]

I like Harkins Theory!! All the cars he drives are actually a TARDIS in disguise. But does that mean that Rasillon is the time lord we know as James Bond? Someone should do a video on this set to the episode of Dr Who with Eccleston and Rose is being shown pictures of the Doctor through history. Harkin, Make it So!

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't see why people feel the need to explain the way Bond has not aged when the films do not acknowledge it. Bond is like "The Simpsons" - he exists in a flaoting timeline where he does not age. Bart Simpson has been a nine-year-old boy for twenty-three years, just as Bond has been a middle-aged spy for fifty. There is no need to explain the differences between the actors, and do to so undermines the character,

[AMC Hornet]

...and for Heaven's sake stop with the "but Moore's Bond visits Tracy's grave and Dalton's Bond 'was married once - but that was a long time ago' argument. The dead wife is as much a part of the umbrella persona as the vodka martinis and penchant for Aston Martins (if one is willing to buy into my Louis Erskine theory - which even I don't buy, by the way).

Erskine was an enigma, with no actual taste in anything but off-the peg suits, because that's what an FBI agent was expected to be in the early 1970s. 007 is an enigma with conspicuous tastes and habits, which would not do for a real MI6 agent - although, what better way to throw your enemies off than to let them watch for the guy with the tuxedo and martini while your real agent mooches around in a rumpled mac and horn rims (or vice versa)?

Anyway, even messrs Broccoli and Saltzman didn't expect the Bond phenomenon to last beyond the decade in which it started, so I am happy to accept that Bond is always contemporary. I don't have to imagine that Dr. No actually happened in 1982 (which would have made it science fiction in 1962) or that Craig's intro in CR occured in 1961 (or before Dr. No, at any rate) - "I promote him to 00 status and he celebrates by shooting up an embassy" kills that idea for me.

EON doesn't have to explain anything to me - just keep the movies coming. Like the picture of Dorian Gray, I'll continue to do Bond's aging for him.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 31 January 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[OmarB]

Oh not this topic again. He's one guy, Ian wrote one guy.

Just like Superman and Batman are pretty much ageless contemporary literary characters so is Bond. Unfortunately, you can't find an actor tailor made to those roles that does not age and is willing to sign onto an infinite number of films contract.

[Dustin]

Is Tarzan always THE Tarzan? Sherlock Holmes THE Sherlock Holmes?

Is Peter Parker?

Moses?

God?


Whatever theory works for you. Personally I've never had problems to just watch the latest film - or read the latest book for that matter - as an adventure of James Bond (quality here is another question). The only tiny question marks come up when Fleming himself mentions the friend and former colleague from war days who penned the adventures of Bond and thus in all probability would have used a different name for his hero. But the character itself is always meant to be the same.

[Stainless Steel Teeth INC]

In this case there is only one car (and colour) that could be the TARDIS;

[Binyamin]

Alternately, he might be a CHARACTER in a MOVIE.

[stromberg]

Oh, codename theory, is it that time of the year again?

Yawn... someone please wake me we're at "Connery cameo in next Bond movie" rumours...

[Dustin]

Have to admit I'm quite fond of the Time Lord theory. Explains an awful lot...

[Miles Miservy]

There is a whole lot of time and energy being spent on a non-issue. Each film (with the exception being Craig's 2) is meant to be a stand alone mission. In fact there are only 4 that I can actually think of that date themselves. (TMWTGG for acknowleging the energy crisis... OP for being set in and around Checkpoint Charlie... TLD due to Soviet Occuption of Afghanistan... and Goldeneye for being set in a post Cold War Russia) Other than those, if you forgive the dated fashions & technology, the films become timeless (TSWLM is feesible today; as is FYEO, OHMSS, FRWL, AVTAK, LTK... you get the idea)

That having been said, I think the real mystery involves what's become of the OTHER 00 agents (Excluding of course the onse we know that are dead - OO2, OO3, OO4, OO6 and OO9 - twice) There are only 2 films in which we see the entire OO section being briefed (TB & TWINE) and it hadn't escaped my attention that in both of those films, at least one of the agents was female. I'm not sure how many agents make up the OO section. If memory serves me correctly, I think Fleming's book MOONRAKER mentions 12.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 31 January 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

I think there were only three active 00s in MR, one of them being 0012.

I don't know how often MI6 is supposed to recycle numbers, but we know there have been two 002s (GG & TLD), as Miles points out, so it's not like retiring a jersey number. Whether the 008 with whom M always threatens to replace Bond is the same man in GF and TLD remains a mystery, but if Bond is always the same, we can assume he is too.

EON seems to have an aversion to using double-digit 00 numbers, which is fine - the idea is a fiction anyway, so they can do what they want with it.

My question is, whay has there never been a 005 (maybe that is a retired number)?

Edited by AMC Hornet, 31 January 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[Dustin]

I'm not sure how many agents make up the OO section. If memory serves me correctly, I think Fleming's book MOONRAKER mentions 12.

Three it is. 008 just managed to infiltrate and escape Peenemunde (former pioneer rocket site of the Nazis and supposedly still active in some form, this time run by the Russians/East Germans) and 0011 went to ground in Singapore, supposedly on an unspecified undercover assignment. (all according to MR, chapter 1)

With 007 being the senior this would indicate the missing numbers are just that, missing.

The briefing scenes in TB and TWINE don't in fact indicate there are only 00 agents present. I suspect the entire section is only seen during TLD's pts. Probably the need for sanctioned SIS killings was at a seasonal low so M lend out the section to perform the Gibraltar inflitration drill.

[Vauxhall]

Alternately, he might be a CHARACTER in a MOVIE.

I think this argument is a particularly strong one.

[x007AceOfSpades]

^Agreed Vauxhall.

[Major Tallon]

I think there were only three active 00s in MR, one of them being 0012.

I don't know how often MI6 is supposed to recycle numbers, but we know there have been two 002s (GG & TLD), as Miles points out, so it's not like retiring a jersey number. Whether the 008 with whom M always threatens to replace Bond is the same man in GF and TLD remains a mystery, but if Bond is always the same, we can assume he is too.

EON seems to have an aversion to using double-digit 00 numbers, which is fine - the idea is a fiction anyway, so they can do what they want with it.

My question is, whay has there never been a 005 (maybe that is a retired number)?

Poor old 009 turns up a third time in the comic story Serpent's Tooth, where he's turned into a neanderthal creature. There's a 0013 named Briony Thorne in Fear Face, and Suzi Kew, an otherwise unidentified 00 agent, in several of the Titan comics.