Exactly. Fleming wrote novels and stories that chronicled his vision of a post-WWII world,and his disillusionment with/disgust at it. I would argue that the best of the films (I have not read the continuation novels, and the many erudite discussions here have not inspired me to change my mind), or, maybe, what I like best in the films, is when the narratives and whichever Bond it is, capture and comment on the zeitgeist of the moment of production.
When I use this metaphor (which I will–it is too good not to have life beyond our community), I will properly acknowledge you dalton.
But isn’t the greatness of Bond as a literary and cinematic character the fact that he is an empty signifier–even in the Fleming fictions? Poirot and Miss Marple do not change. Their characters may undergo refinement, but Bond changed as Fleming did. A fixed notion of James Bond goes against the character as presented by Fleming.
I was saying exactly this to my partner, the Bond in the final books is a very different creature than those in the early ones as, horrific as ‘53 Fleming would’ve found it, he did change from a family life.
All true, but at the same time, I think the Bond of the novels is still one that wouldn’t really fly on the big screen, or the page, today. And that’s perfectly fine, because he shouldn’t. That would be the continued refinement of the character, one to fit the current sensibilities of the time. Just as I’m perfectly fine to never watch a Bond film again that treats its female characters as badly as some of the earlier films in the franchise have.
This is why Bond should always remain a character that operates in the present day. Unless there’s some really cracking idea to extend the Fleming timeline (i.e. filling in the blanks as to what happened between YOLT and TMWTGG, for example), then, quite honestly, any of the novels that set Bond in the past are largely a waste of time.
Now, that is a film I want to see. I know the Director‘s Cut that was released on DVD decades ago. This new one seems to be tinkered with again, right?
I’m jumping the gun a little but I think I have a good answer for this one.
April 7:
I wholeheartedly disagree. Craig’s tenure set a new precedent, the idea that each actor is their own closed off era then rebooting to allow the next fella to take over. As far as I’m concerned this negates any need for continuity between between actors as each new Bond represents a new start.
While on the whole I’m not a fan of the reboot cycle I’m a fan of the codename theory even less.
As already stated by Vanya: it‘s all about eras and tenures. It probably was not a good idea to stick with the same Mi6 actors when a Bond actor stopped. Then again, that kind of familiarity helped to ease in the new guy.
As for the codename theory: I don’t have a problem with it. The original Bond was Connery. The next Bonds weren’t him. So, why not? Would help to solve the problem that a secret agent is known everywhere by his „name“.
Not a fan of the Codename Theory one bit, and for various reasons over the passage of the series it is ultimately an unnecessary move. Little bubble series may be the way to go, even if it isn’t always going to lead to Bond Dies.
One idea that crossed my noddle during my elevenses Zinfandel was that the next Bond is introduced as a reasonably seasoned but overly-well-known-to-be-a secret-agent, who is injured and loses his memory/mind (one could do the balloon bit from YOLT as a pre-titles), and then the rest of the film has both allies and villains (and one could include the M assassination attempt) rebuilding him as their “perception” of “James Bond” (a meta comment on how many different audience takes there are, and what competing interests want him to be), despite his protestations to the contrary (albeit with the twist revealed at the end that halfway through he possibly does remember who he is (there still needs to be a grey area) but uses his amnesia as cover to smoke out the Big Bad), and at the end, explosions having occurred and a life raft inflated, he is asked his name by his comely companion, and the screen goes blank before he answers with the “The name’s… etc”. You Know My Name, But I Don’t, Ectually - is a working title.
But still, no Codename Theory. Does cheapen it a bit, and that’s despite concerted effort to cheapen it already.
I’m going to read Benson after I’m done with Gardner, but I do think The Union Trilogy would be the basis for a solid film arc. First and foremost it’s not a reheating of SPECTRE but a brand new threat. High Time To Kill could provide the customary emotional component by directly or indirectly referencing Bond’s parents with the mountain climb. DoubleShot could be the opportunity for a Bond actor to really sink his teeth into Bond’s sense of anxiety and insanity. I see the potential.
Fantastic! I’ve been rewatching the Trek films with the kids and have avoided this one as it has always felt exactly that, incomplete… But had a great central premise and I have very fond memories of those particular action figures.
April 7th -
Maybe it’s just me but I’ve never understood why continuation and / or codename theories are important to people except to make order of the cosmos and therefore their place in the world because of a fear or malaise? No judgement, Live And Let Live ( fnar) but each movie is basically a re imagining of the last one with costume changes and hopefully a kind of tap into the current of Vox Pop.
So EVERY James Bond is different because the actors are older/ bored/ invigorated/ pissed off. In order to truly establish a codename theory each actors performance is a separate James Bond. Head hurts now🤔.
I feel the same way. The Codename Theory is an absolute no go for me. Each Bond has to be Bond, otherwise it’s just successive agents imitating general traits of previous 007 title holders like a weird performance.
The Code Name Theory is a major red line for the franchise. If EON ever ends up entertaining this absolutely rubbish idea, they might as well pack it in and call it a day for Bond, because they will have fundamentally destroyed the franchise.
Ahh, the codename theory (intentional omission of capital letters)…when I saw this on the list, I’m like, no I’m staying a country mile away from that one. IMHO, beyond idiotic.
Instead, I ask my friends on these here boards…where on earth did it come from? Is it all really from a press junket Lee Tamahori quote? Is there anything else in the entire history of the character (from CR '67 to Young Bond to Moneypenny Diaries to whatever) to point towards the codename theory (again, no caps). Or is it the equivalent of fan theory, fan fiction, fan w*&^ , birthed in (wonderful) places like these here boards?
Seriously, when and why did the codename theory (no caps) become a thing? Please enlighten me!
I heart of it for the first time after the DAD press junket.
As I said it does not need to be applied. But I don’t get the feverish feeling of being deeply offended by it.
We´re talking about a fictional character who has been re-interpreted for movies and is being recast every now and then. If at some point EON should decide to go into another strand of this multiverse and declare Bond a code name for the guy who is getting the 007-number, I would go along with it.
Right now, there just is no need for it.
But since I absolutely loved Jim’s idea for the next actor to step in, we should get that idea going here and carry it out into the real world… until it is just as famous as the code-name theory.
Because the franchise becomes a generic spy franchise at that point. It’s no longer about James Bond, but rather different men playing at being “James Bond”. Even though we’ve had six different people portray the character, it’s always been the same character with each of them accenting varying aspects of the same base character. The code name nonsense essentially turns it into a more serious version of Casino Royale '67.
If they go with the code name theory, it’s not about James Bond anymore. It’s about a guy named, let’s say, John Smith, who just happens to call himself James Bond. What’s the point in that?