Does Casino Royale indicate that each bond is a different agent?

[Iceburgeruk]

The new bond film is meant to be about james bond starting out. But it features a modern day setting and judi dench once again as m. Some say this means it is a restart and others that each film of the bond series is a restart, with none of them being connected to each other.

In my opinion, surely the most logical answer is that bond is a name given to the agents who are 007.

This would explain the why bond is so quick to tell everyone his name and it would explain the dead bond wife bit from the end of on her majesty`s secret service and the begining of for your eyes only.

In On her majesty`s secret service George Lazenby`s Bond gets married and his blushing bride gets murdered by Blowfelt. At the begining of For Your Eyes only Roger Moore`s bond visits the grave of the deceased bond wife.

To me this ties it together perfectly as it explains the continuity reason why lazenby`s bond is in only one film. He cannot take the grief and quits the british secret service. Sean Connery`s Bond is hastily brought back in to replace Lazenby`s Bond while they screen for suitable permenant replacements. (Explaining the Connery bond`s return in Diamond are forever) Roger Moore`s bond character then we can assume was a close friend of Lazenby`s bond and thereby that is why he tends the deceased wife`s grave.

On wikipedia it also states that there is a continuity error in On her majesty`s secret service. Blowfelt doesn`t recognize James Bond even though he met him in the previous film You only live twice. The only disguise James Bond has is his ridiculous scottish attire. How then was Blowfelt unable to realise the man was James Bond?

This makes no sense if Lazenby and Connery`s James Bonds are the same man. He would recognize Bond instantly (Reguardless of impenetrable highland Kilt disguise.lol.).

This of course would not be a continuuity discrepancy if Connery`s bond and lazenby`s bond were seperate people. Blowfelt then would literally not have ever met him before. Blowfelt`s subsequent helicopter attack on roger moore then must have been for some grievance between moore`s bond and blowfelt.

I therefore believe taht each bond is a different agent, explaining how judi dench can be in it and how it can be bond`s origin in this new film.

[Kal-El Reeve]

Originally Posted by Iceburgeruk

The new bond film is meant to be about james bond starting out. But it features a modern day setting and judi dench once again as m. Some say this means it is a restart and others that each film of the bond series is a restart, with none of them being connected to each other.

In my opinion, surely the most logical answer is that bond is a name given to the agents who are 007.

This would explain the why bond is so quick to tell everyone his name and it would explain the dead bond wife bit from the end of on her majesty`s secret service and the begining of for your eyes only.

In On her majesty`s secret service George Lazenby`s Bond gets married and his blushing bride gets murdered by Blowfelt. At the begining of For Your Eyes only Roger Moore`s bond visits the grave of the deceased bond wife.

To me this ties it together perfectly as it explains the continuity reason why lazenby`s bond is in only one film. He cannot take the grief and quits the british secret service. Sean Connery`s Bond is hastily brought back in to replace Lazenby`s Bond while they screen for suitable permenant replacements. (Explaining the Connery bond`s return in Diamond are forever) Roger Moore`s bond character then we can assume was a close friend of Lazenby`s bond and thereby that is why he tends the deceased wife`s grave.

On wikipedia it also states that there is a continuity error in On her majesty`s secret service. Blowfelt doesn`t recognize James Bond even though he met him in the previous film You only live twice. The only disguise James Bond has is his ridiculous scottish attire. How then was Blowfelt unable to realise the man was James Bond?

This makes no sense if Lazenby and Connery`s James Bonds are the same man. He would recognize Bond instantly (Reguardless of impenetrable highland Kilt disguise.lol.).

This of course would not be a continuuity discrepancy if Connery`s bond and lazenby`s bond were seperate people. Blowfelt then would literally not have ever met him before. Blowfelt`s subsequent helicopter attack on roger moore then must have been for some grievance between moore`s bond and blowfelt.

I therefore believe taht each bond is a different agent, explaining how judi dench can be in it and how it can be bond`s origin in this new film.

In OHMSS, 007 is in his office looking at stuff from the missions that took place before that movie. Honey's knife, Red's watch, the device from Thunderball. Which ties that Bond into the previous character. Then when you look at Die another Day, you have Bond messing with the rocket pack asking if it still worked. Or his Aston Martin from Goldfinger still present in Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies, Plus the mention of Bond's family motto "The World is Not Enough" from the movie of the same name.

Connery's Bond went to kill Blofeld for the fact that Tracy was gunned down in the beginning of DAF. If Hunt and Lazenby stayed for that movie I think that it would have resonated some more. In TSWLM; Tracy was mentioned by Anya when she was talking about his dossier, In FYEO he was there to pay respects, In LTK Felix mentioned Tracy to his wife, and in TWINE there was a slight reaction from Bond when asked had he ever loved someone. So that one staple from OHMSS has been revisited in each of the Bond's since. So each actor is playing the same 007 up until this reboot.

[Iceburgeruk]

Originally Posted by Kal-El Reeve

In OHMSS, 007 is in his office looking at stuff from the missions that took place before that movie. Honey's knife, Red's watch, the device from Thunderball. Which ties that Bond into the previous character. Then when you look at Die another Day, you have Bond messing with the rocket pack asking if it still worked. Or his Aston Martin from Goldfinger still present in Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies, Plus the mention of Bond's family motto "The World is Not Enough" from the movie of the same name.

Connery's Bond went to kill Blofeld for the fact that Tracy was gunned down in the beginning of DAF. If Hunt and Lazenby stayed for that movie I think that it would have resonated some more. In TSWLM; Tracy was mentioned by Anya when she was talking about his dossier, In FYEO he was there to pay respects, In LTK Felix mentioned Tracy to his wife, and in TWINE there was a slight reaction from Bond when asked had he ever loved someone. So that one staple from OHMSS has been revisited in each of the Bond's since. So each actor is playing the same 007 up until this reboot.

Hmm I suppose there could be reasons for all that.

The gadgets could have been reused by several agents in the field explaining Brosnan`s remark about the Jet pack.

Double-0 bit being a close knit group (explaining Connery`s and Moore`s Bonds reactions and anger to Tracy Bond`s death.).

Perhaps the records are kept to make it seem as if all 007s are the same person. So all subsequent bonds are listed as having been married to Tracy Bond. Could come across as cruel but it could possibly be useful to protecting the 007 agent`s identity and family.

What are the other options though?

That bond is a very spry 80 year old who is somehow rejoining the service as a rookie again in Casino Royale?

Or

That the first 20 bond films are now old news and will never be mentioned or spoken of again.

I`d prefer to believe the bits you mentioned were discrepancies and that all the films can loosely be part of the same universe.

That way they won`t start remmaking the clasic bond films as well. If this new bond truly is a restart then they just might remake Goldfinger or Dr. No just to boost box office sales.

[StrainedEyes]

Originally Posted by Iceburgeruk

Hmm I suppose there could be reasons for all that.

The gadgets could have been reused by several agents in the field explaining Brosnan`s remark about the Jet pack.

Double-0 bit being a close knit group (explaining Connery`s and Moore`s Bonds reactions and anger to Tracy Bond`s death.).

Perhaps the records are kept to make it seem as if all 007s are the same person. So all subsequent bonds are listed as having been married to Tracy Bond. Could come across as cruel but it could possibly be useful to protecting the 007 agent`s identity and family.

What are the other options though?

That bond is a very spry 80 year old who is somehow rejoining the service as a rookie again in Casino Royale?

Or

That the first 20 bond films are now old news and will never be mentioned or spoken of again.

I`d prefer to believe the bits you mentioned were discrepancies and that all the films can loosely be part of the same universe.

That way they won`t start remmaking the clasic bond films as well. If this new bond truly is a restart then they just might remake Goldfinger or Dr. No just to boost box office sales.

Or that Bond movies have little to no continuity, and each film is meant to be a story unto-itself. Take it as that, they are just different stories with the same characters. Much like a sitcom where everything comes back to normal at the end.

NO Bond is not a code name, that is rediculous and completely destroys any continuity the films have. You're saying that in TSWLM when Bond's wife is mentioned, and Moore gets all defensive, that he was getting angry about someone elses wife? It's completely upsurd.

[Gold Samurai]

i've always thought that each bond has had all 20 adventures


moore's bond at one time in his life had a "goldeneye" type situation

connery's bond had a view to a kill mission

brosnan's bond went through a "thunderball" mission

if you think about it 20 missions for a spy like bond can happen 2 to 3 times a year

[Tojo]

Originally Posted by Iceburgeruk

The new bond film is meant to be about james bond starting out. But it features a modern day setting and judi dench once again as m. Some say this means it is a restart and others that each film of the bond series is a restart, with none of them being connected to each other.

In my opinion, surely the most logical answer is that bond is a name given to the agents who are 007.

I therefore believe taht each bond is a different agent, explaining how judi dench can be in it and how it can be bond`s origin in this new film.

No, no, NO.

This horrible theory is without a doubt, 100% NOT ACCURATE. Flemign did not intend this stupid theory, and nore have any of the producers, writers, actors, directors. Bond changes because the actor get's too old. End of story. It is the same James Bond, not a different person under a codename. The movie Bond has a little continuity, but it not supposed to be take so literally that people come up with this **** just to justify something which needs no justification. It is just a film franchise.

Dench is M in Casino Royale becauyse she was contracted for a 5th film, because Eon needs a person of warmth and familiarity to soften the introduction of Craig, because she is damn good in the role and because no-one who has half a brain or more takes this continuity/code-name bulls**t seriously. I don't understand why people can't get all this into their dumbass heads.

[Tojo]

Originally Posted by Geo7877

Or that Bond movies have little to no continuity, and each film is meant to be a story unto-itself. Take it as that, they are just different stories with the same characters. Much like a sitcom where everything comes back to normal at the end.

NO Bond is not a code name, that is rediculous and completely destroys any continuity the films have. You're saying that in TSWLM when Bond's wife is mentioned, and Moore gets all defensive, that he was getting angry about someone elses wife? It's completely upsurd.

Those lines in your sig are some of the best lines written on Bond

[Kevin Roegele]

Continuity does not apply to the Bond films. Attempts to apply any comicbook or TV series style timeline or continuity fixes are pointless.

[Tempest19]

Think of it like a comic book (kind of). Take Spider-Man for example and now trace all of the continuity problems and so on... because each couple of years the characters get 'renewed' to stay with the times. Same thing with Bond.

So, no, they are not all different agents.

Just like Spider-Man isn't alot of teenagers who just take on the name Peter Parker because the last Spider-Man was Peter Parker. That sounds ridiculous, now that I typed that...

Anyways, it's like comics- same character, different takes to update with the times.

[Kevin Roegele]

The whole 'Bond is a codename' thing higlights something about fanboys.

The fact that the actor playing Bond changes obviously indicates that the whole thing is a film and not reality, thus making it slightly harder to suspend disbelief. Fans like their fictional worlds to be completely logical and make sense, so if they believe all Bonds are a codenamed agent, then all the films can fit together as one reality.

[Furious Styles]

I never understood the fascination with the "different agent" theory.

Half the mystique of Bond has to do with the different actors who have portrayed him. I remember my mom talking about how she was young when Sean Connery and Roger Moore played Bond, and God willing, when I have children, I hope to say, "you know son, when I was your age I remember when Pierce Brosnan was in Goldeneye and Daniel Craig was in Casino Royale."

That's what makes Bond work, he is eternal inspite of different actors and different eras.

[Catman]

Originally Posted by Geo7877

Or that Bond movies have little to no continuity, and each film is meant to be a story unto-itself.

That's EXACTLY what I said in my other thread. From Russia With Love is the ONLY real sequel. Each Bond film is it's own film with only loose references to the past ones.

That's why I don't get the whole "restart" thing in Casino Royale. There is nothing to restart. Each Bond film is its own film. End of story.

If Cubby were still alive he would prove me right. By Goldfinger they realized that the only way they could turn this into an on-going series that had to kill continuity.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Tojo

No, no, NO.

This horrible theory is without a doubt, 100% NOT ACCURATE. Flemign did not intend this stupid theory, and nore have any of the producers, writers, actors, directors. Bond changes because the actor get's too old. End of story. It is the same James Bond, not a different person under a codename. The movie Bond has a little continuity, but it not supposed to be take so literally that people come up with this **** just to justify something which needs no justification. It is just a film franchise.

Dench is M in Casino Royale becauyse she was contracted for a 5th film, because Eon needs a person of warmth and familiarity to soften the introduction of Craig, because she is damn good in the role and because no-one who has half a brain or more takes this continuity/code-name bulls**t seriously. I don't understand why people can't get all this into their dumbass heads.

Agreed. The actors get older, time goes on and society changes. We cant have a Bond film still stuck in the cold war era. The FACT is every actor to officially play Bond are playing the same character, they're just rolling and fitting in with the time period they're in. Its simple and not something one should be scratching their heads about.

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

for the codename to work the badguys need to be in on it and they aren't. unless there have been 3 blofelds that fought 3 diffent bonds?

oh my head where is superboy when you need him?

[Iceburgeruk]

Fair enough guys.

I just felt it was a shame them doing a restart when James Bond was (with the occasional continuity glitch) pretty much the longest running character in film history (superman has only had 5 films, batman only goit to 4 before they did a restart). It seems a shame to stop at twenty and restart it who knows how long the loose continuity of bond could have continued to.

I was just trying to figure out some way in which the new film could work without being a restart.

The othe rproblem with the restart thing is that if they fell on hard times during moore or brosnan`s runs then they would try and do something different. If a bond film doesn`t do well under the new restart bond the studio bosses might demand they remake a popular old bond film. So we`d get a shoddy remake of Goldfinger with us all getting bored because we know exactly how the plot will progress.

[Tojo]

I dont like to think of Casino Royale as a re-start, because that would suggest something was wrong in the first place, as with Batman and Hulk.

I just look at it as them wanting to tell another story from a different perspective. Bond would have gotten stale imo if they carried on the Brosnan route. Yeah i'd be curious how they would have done a 5th with Pierce, but they wanted to shake things up. With each new actor, a new type of film emerges and it has been that way for 50yrs now. I don't see it as a re-start. I think the producers were wrong to say that it was.

They shoulda just said,'We want to do something different and tell the story of Fleming's first novel etc etc'...

[Catman]

Originally Posted by Tojo

I dont like to think of Casino Royale as a re-start, because that would suggest something was wrong in the first place, as with Batman and Hulk.

I just look at it as them wanting to tell another story from a different perspective. Bond would have gotten stale imo if they carried on the Brosnan route. Yeah i'd be curious how they would have done a 5th with Pierce, but they wanted to shake things up. With each new actor, a new type of film emerges and it has been that way for 50yrs now. I don't see it as a re-start. I think the producers were wrong to say that it was.

They shoulda just said,'We want to do something different and tell the story of Fleming's first novel etc etc'...

I agree 100%

[Secret_Riddle]

i tend to think of each new bond as a restart (like batman begins). brosnans was one take, craigs is another. this may not be accurate but its how i always think of it.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Secret_Riddle

i tend to think of each new bond as a restart (like batman begins). brosnans was one take, craigs is another. this may not be accurate but its how i always think of it.

How can you think that? Look at lazenby, his Bond acknowldged the adventures Connery's Bond went on, indicating that although the actor has changed, the character is still the same. What about Moore, he acknowledges His wife's death by visiting her grave, even Connery when he returns is running around like a lunatic trying to find blofeld for killing his wife amongst other things.
A new actor isn't a restart, its a continuation of the franchise to keep things moving foward. You cant expect Connery, hell even Brosnan to still be playing Bond. Moore made the mistake of being Bond well into his 50s and he looked terrible, how old is Brosnan? Surely he's over 50, there's no need for him to still be playing Bond at his age, he even looked bad in DAD.

CR could have easily been made to work as a movie that didn't give us a bond acquiring his 00 license but thats the route the studio went with. What was needed was a freash approach where the Bond movies could be taken seriously ala the early connery movies instead of relying on the name james bond to sell tickets. Why should films like the Bourne movies even that Alex Rider movie be rouncing Bond who started it all. Bond has now rightfully reclaimed his place.

[Kevin Roegele]

Debating the continuity of Casino Royale is nothing.

What I find interesting is Never Say Never Again. It's an unofficial film, but with the proper Bond (in most people's eyes). Clearly it shows Connery's Bond is still in action in the early 80's, and looking his age. It seems to be a follow up to his previous films. Yet how can it be, when it's a remake of Thunderball? Thinking about that will drive you crazy.

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally Posted by Tojo

I dont like to think of Casino Royale as a re-start, because that would suggest something was wrong in the first place, as with Batman and Hulk.

Something was very wrong....it was called Die Another Day.

Look back at the history of the franchise, and it always reaches a peek of ludicrous extravagance (You Only Live Twice, Moonraker, DAD) before going back to earth (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, CR).

[Catman]

Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele

Look back at the history of the franchise, and it always reaches a peek of ludicrous extravagance (You Only Live Twice, Moonraker, DAD) before going back to earth (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, CR).

Yeah, but those movies weren't called a restart. Secondly, don't be a YOLT-hater. That movie was awesome.

[BloodyWolverine]

The last M did it until he died i think and well Dench is the new M. My guess is they don't change M's or Q's unless the actor dies. However in this case there in no Q for i am told he wans't in the book. I hope he is introduced in 22nd film.

[Tojo]

Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele

Something was very wrong....it was called Die Another Day.

Look back at the history of the franchise, and it always reaches a peek of ludicrous extravagance (You Only Live Twice, Moonraker, DAD) before going back to earth (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, CR).

Yes but there was nothing wrong with doing that. And it doesn't need to be labelled a re-start, just a different direction. I mean, i hated DAD, it was utter garbage, but it was still a fun film in the mould of MR. I'm sure we will once again see Bond in these sorts of films. All the Bond films have their own merits, unlike Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, which are just nasty

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally Posted by Catman

Yeah, but those movies weren't called a restart. Secondly, don't be a YOLT-hater. That movie was awesome.

When did I say I hate YOLT?