• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

James Bond: Multiple 007s

Norrin Radd

Vice Admiral
Does anyone else think of "James Bond" as a secondary code name akin to 007?

So, the characters played by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig are all called "James Bond", but it's not their real name.

This way, the continuity between all the Bond movies can remain mostly intact because these guys are all actually playing different characters that are given the same "James Bond" name by MI6.

It would make sense...after they retire from duty, all these guys can go back to their real names and not worry as much about being hunted down by enemies.
 
I think such a thing would be a pretty big hole in the protection of MI6's actions and personell.

It's probably best to just assume there's no "real" contnuity between the Bond films and that with each new actor we're in a new contnuity -despite Judy Dench's M being a thread through out most of them.
 
Multiple Bonds = Dumbest fan-wank theory ever.

I think you're too harsh here. I think it's reasonable to think of James Bond and 007 being a "title" - sort of a mythical figure filled in by different people. Obviously this is not what they intended but I don't think the idea is as dumb as you suggest.
 
there are 2 James Bonds. the first one played by Connery thru Brosnan and the wannabe who's trying to be Jason Bourne played by Craig David.
 
Does anyone else think of "James Bond" as a secondary code name akin to 007?

I don't recall what did it, but I remember thinking when the new Casino Royale came out that the way the dialogue had been worded, it did give the impression that "James Bond" was a title, not his actual name. I'd have to go back and watch again to see what set that up in my mind. But, yeah, that would complicate the "lost wife" scenario ...
 
There were originally plans for Connery to appear in Die Another Day to confirm this exact theory.
 
I think you're too harsh here. I think it's reasonable to think of James Bond and 007 being a "title" - sort of a mythical figure filled in by different people.

The problem with this theory is that it is not only unsupported by the films, it's outright refuted.

In On Her Majesty's Secret Service, after Bond tenders his resignation from MI6, he begins removing his personal effects from his desk drawers. The items include Honey Rider's knife (Dr. No), Red Grant's watch (From Russia With Love), and a rebreather (Thunderball). As he pulls each from his desk, theme music from the appropriate film plays, and Bond clearly recognizes each item and attaches some personal meaning to them. If he is not the same character from previous films, this scene makes no sense.

In The Spy Who Loved Me and License to Kill, other characters (Anya and Felix, respectively) refer to Bond's deceased wife, who is explicitly identified as Tracy in For Your Eyes Only. Again, the obvious indication is that the Moore and Dalton versions are the same character as the Connery and Lazenby versions.

In The World Is Not Enough, Bond says "The World Is Not Enough" is the Bond family motto. This is a reference to OHMSS, where the Bond family crest is emblazoned with the motto "Orbis Non Sufficit." This indicates Brosnan is the same character as those previous.

(As a side note, if "James Bond" was only a title, how could the College of Arms have traced Bond's lineage to a specific coat of arms in OHMSS?)

One might as well argue that "Bruce Wayne" is a title that is passed from Batman to Batman to explain the differences in the West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney and Bale interpretations through the various films in that series.
 
Of course some minor things are going to be inconsistent. But to me it's not much worse than, say, replacing actors for subsequent movies, as the Bond series has continually done. That by itself requires a MAJOR suspension of disbelief that these guys are all supposed to be the same character.

Yeah, one can just assume that each "series" of Bond films takes place in an alternate universe of sorts. But, to me that's just no fun. :borg:
 
I prefer to imagine James Bond as a codename, too, even though I know there are plenty of examples that disprove it.
 
It's always the same guy. Consistency has always been a stronger force in Bond that rigid continuity.

Do he drive fast cars, shag birds and kill Johnny Foreigner in lots of nice looking places? yes - audience comes home happy.
 
There were originally plans for Connery to appear in Die Another Day to confirm this exact theory.

No, there weren't. But it's a popular myth.

OTOH, there *were* plans to get Connery and Honor Blackman (Pussy Galore) to play Austin Powers' parents at one point...
 
I think such a thing would be a pretty big hole in the protection of MI6's actions and personell.

It's probably best to just assume there's no "real" contnuity between the Bond films and that with each new actor we're in a new contnuity -despite Judy Dench's M being a thread through out most of them.
Hunh? Most?
 
I think such a thing would be a pretty big hole in the protection of MI6's actions and personell.

It's probably best to just assume there's no "real" contnuity between the Bond films and that with each new actor we're in a new contnuity -despite Judy Dench's M being a thread through out most of them.
Hunh? Most?

Yeah, I had a weird brain-fart there. Who knows what I was thinking.

Disregard.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top