James Bond - General questions

[Mladen]

Since my question isn't really about the new Quantum of Solace movie, I thought I'd ask it in a separate thread.

Is it suggested that 007 and "James Bond" are just names given to the agent who takes over the position (something like the original Casino Royale film where there were dozens of James Bonds)? In this way I suppose it explains how Bond can be having adventures which clearly take place in the 60s through to modern day...

Or should I just not look at it this carefully?

 

[Episode29]

I would say not to look so carefully...t:

However, in regards to your question, there is only one James Bond. He does live in a flexible timeline/reality though. Watching James Bond flicks, you have to sort of ignore the continuity/timeline of the series.

The 00 numbers are curious, as they are definitely assigned to agents in something of an order, at least in the beginning. So, yes, I would argue that originally it was intended that Bond was the seventh member of MI6. That said, various agents have died throughout the series and been replaced in subsequent films as different characters. For example, in Octopussy 006 (dressed as a clown) is murdered, but in GoldenEye 006 is Trevelyan who, apparently, joined around the same time as Bond.

I would argue that the continuity errors are almost more intended as being humorous than ironclad. The only conistencies are what is required by the individual film to a certain degree. Hence how Judi Dench is M is the head of M16 both at the beginning of Bond's career (Casino Royale), and yet referred to as a new replacement in the job in GoldenEye.

If you were to try and intellectually piece together a sensible timeline your head would explode.

 

[Mladen]

Well, Judi IS present at the start of Daniel Craig Bond career... If the Pierce Bond is a different person to the Craig Bond, then it certainly begins to make sense.

Its probably not worth going into depth about, just wondered if it was ever suggested in the books (or the movies or whatever), since the Sellers/Niven/Allen Casino Royale definately presented it that way... It certainly would explain a lot, but then again these films are supposed to be able to stand alone without having seen any other Bond film (although isn't Quantum supposed to be a direct sequel?.. thats new)

 

[deathshead2]

I just go with the way I watch my Godzilla movies. Everytime theres a new guy its set during an alternate universe. Everything that happened to the old actor as he was bond happened to the new one, except he now looks different and theres a time shift.

 

[deathshead2]

Well, Judi IS present at the start of Daniel Craig Bond career... If the Pierce Bond is a different person to the Craig Bond, then it certainly begins to make sense.

Its probably not worth going into depth about, just wondered if it was ever suggested in the books (or the movies or whatever), since the Sellers/Niven/Allen Casino Royale definately presented it that way... It certainly would explain a lot, but then again these films are supposed to be able to stand alone without having seen any other Bond film (although isn't Quantum supposed to be a direct sequel?.. thats new)

Takes place 1 our after the first. So yeah its a direct sequel for once, and new rumors say the third one will be as well.

 

[xwolverine2]

they happened to keep hiring people called james bond with similar peronalities and tastes lol

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

James Bond is definitely the same man at least up until Casino Royale. One would have to ignore the numerous references to his past throughout the series to conclude otherwise. Ex. What is Roger Moore doing at Tracy's grave in FYEO if he's not the same guy as George Lazenby's Bond?

 

[Mladen]

James Bond is definitely the same man at least up until Casino Royale. One would have to ignore the numerous references to his past throughout the series to conclude otherwise. Ex. What is Roger Moore doing at Tracy's grave in FYEO if he's not the same guy as George Lazenby's Bond?

interesting point. That would make "Die Another Day" Bond about 70... British Intelligence has some great plastic surgeons

 

[StrainedEyes]

This is like saying that if Batman comics are chronological, he is now 69 years older than he was in the first Batman comic. Or that Bart Simpson should be almost 30 years old.

It's silly to look into such things.

 

[Joker]

Well, Judi IS present at the start of Daniel Craig Bond career... If the Pierce Bond is a different person to the Craig Bond, then it certainly begins to make

In this case, it IS a different person, as the movies arent in continuity with each other. Casino Royale was a Batman Begins style reboot.

 

[DoctorJones]

The Bond film continuity:

The first five Bond films, starring Connery, followed on from one another, building to a battle with SPECTRE and Blofeld. But the following On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which in its attempt to be faithful to the novel (which preceeded You Only Live Twice) ignored the previous film by having Bond meet Blofeld for the first time, while still keeping continuity with the first four films (a scene where Lazenby's Bond looks back at props from them).

OHMSS's reception was lukewarm at the time, so EON backpeddled and ignored history with Diamonds Are Forever (in which Connery's Bond acts like Blofeld never did something as atrocious as widowing him). Yet during Moore's period, OHMSS was back in continuity, with For Your Eyes Only (and its two follow-ups) depicting an aging Bond mourning his dead wife and finally getting his revenge on Blofeld.

The casting of Timothy Dalton naturally retcons Moore's aging of the character, but the classic 60s Bond films are still in continuity. This continues to the Brosnan era, where the character's backstory still has him as a "relic of the Cold War".

I've need to mention the aging of other characters too: Bond and Moneypenny were roughly the same age, while Bernard Lee's M dies after Moonraker and is succeeded by two Ms, including Judi Dench. Q either retired or died (depending on your view of Desmond Llewelyn's death being incorporated into canon) and was replaced by John Cleese's "R".

This is all void thanks to Casino Royale, a full reboot with a Bond born in 1968, although the details Fleming set out for his character are still there, just modernised. Bond's M is Dench, and he's yet to meet Q or his most famous villains. He has just become a 007 and is edging closer to Connery's brute gentlemen tactics instead of the older Moore or Brosnan.

Ultimately, the belief Bond is a codename is an insult created by those who do not understand the Bond saga or the depth of Fleming's character.

 

[Tojo]

Since my question isn't really about the new Quantum of Solace movie, I thought I'd ask it in a separate thread.

Is it suggested that 007 and "James Bond" are just names given to the agent who takes over the position (something like the original Casino Royale film where there were dozens of James Bonds)? In this way I suppose it explains how Bond can be having adventures which clearly take place in the 60s through to modern day...

Or should I just not look at it this carefully?

Oh my god. No it's just a movie dude. A successful franchise which has lasted 50yrs. Some of the Bond films are in continuity but largley this is thrown out the window. James Bond is a character, not a codename. The 60's bears no resemblance on now. Casino Royale is not a 'prequel' either. It does not serve as a backstory to Brosnans Bond or connery's Bond or anyone else's Bond. It just happens to be based(very vaguely) on Flemings novel of the same name which cover Bond on his first 'real' mission as a 00 agent(although he had been working for the secret service for a lot longer). Quantum of Solace si a direct sequel to Casino Royale.

 

[Mladen]

The Bond film continuity:

The first five Bond films, starring Connery, followed on from one another, building to a battle with SPECTRE and Blofeld. But the following On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which in its attempt to be faithful to the novel (which preceeded You Only Live Twice) ignored the previous film by having Bond meet Blofeld for the first time, while still keeping continuity with the first four films (a scene where Lazenby's Bond looks back at props from them).

OHMSS's reception was lukewarm at the time, so EON backpeddled and ignored history with Diamonds Are Forever (in which Connery's Bond acts like Blofeld never did something as atrocious as widowing him). Yet during Moore's period, OHMSS was back in continuity, with For Your Eyes Only (and its two follow-ups) depicting an aging Bond mourning his dead wife and finally getting his revenge on Blofeld.

The casting of Timothy Dalton naturally retcons Moore's aging of the character, but the classic 60s Bond films are still in continuity. This continues to the Brosnan era, where the character's backstory still has him as a "relic of the Cold War".

I've need to mention the aging of other characters too: Bond and Moneypenny were roughly the same age, while Bernard Lee's M dies after Moonraker and is succeeded by two Ms, including Judi Dench. Q either retired or died (depending on your view of Desmond Llewelyn's death being incorporated into canon) and was replaced by John Cleese's "R".

This is all void thanks to Casino Royale, a full reboot with a Bond born in 1968, although the details Fleming set out for his character are still there, just modernised. Bond's M is Dench, and he's yet to meet Q or his most famous villains. He has just become a 007 and is edging closer to Connery's brute gentlemen tactics instead of the older Moore or Brosnan.

Ultimately, the belief Bond is a codename is an insult created by those who do not understand the Bond saga or the depth of Fleming's character.

Not an intentional insult, I promise you.
Anyway, thats a pretty comprehensive answer, I thank you

 

[Sebastos]

If you guys did your research, you'd be surprised what "007" was used for back in the day.