That is exactly what I feel about it. It’s actors making interpretations of one character, the code name theory cheapens it.
It also would rely on many, MANY, people just playing along from multiple governments and terrorist groups.
4 Likes
I understand and agree - to a degree.
Sure, the movies work because we are supposed to be invested in Bond being Bond.
But aren’t we making a mistake by immediately connecting the movie Bond to the Fleming prose Bond?
When OHMSS insisted on Lazenby being the same Bond who had the adventures of Connery it already was a huge leap of faith. We lept back to Connery being Bond again - and then Moore becoming Bond who did marry Tracy and had experience with Blofeld. Dalton also had those memories. Brosnan did not. Craig did not either.
I know, there is no real continuity with Bond films, nor do I need it.
But to believe that every actor slips into the role of James Bond is easier than maintaining that it always is the same character, at least for me.
2 Likes
April 7: The only way forward now for the Bond series is to adopt the Codename Theory.
Absolutely not. The Codename Theory was always stupid, but if anything, the Craig era makes it harder to justify, not easier. During his run for the first time, we actually saw Bond’s childhood home and the graves of his parents, neither of which would mean anything to a guy who wasn’t born “James Bond.” Further, NTTD shows MI-6’s response to losing their star agent is not to pull in another white male to assume the name “James Bond” but rather to pass along the double-0 number to someone else entirely.
So yes, there IS a codename in play, and it’s Double-Oh Seven.
The only logical argument in favor of MI-6 keeping Bond’s actual name going is to intimidate his enemies, but thanks to Oberhauser’s 11th-hour “retro-splaining,” we know that the only adversaries Craig-Bond ever battled were associated in some way with SPECTRE, and everyone in that organization is now dead. So the name “James Bond” would mean absolutely nothing to any bad guy out there. And even if it did, no one would be stupid enough to believe the same man could have been on active duty since 1962.
“Q” and “M” are titles, but how do we explain multiple “Moneypenny’s”? Is that a “Codename,” too? Is “Felix Leiter” such a fearsome name in the espionage world that more than a half-dozen of those have rolled off the assembly line, too?
Absolutely no one “needs” the Codename Theory to “move forward.” Audiences have accepted multiple Jack Ryans, multiple Tarzans, multiple Batmen and multiple Spider-Men. Lately they’re even used to multiple versions of a character in the same film. I would argue that today, more than ever, audiences are ready to accept the idea of rebooting Bond with each new actor. Craig may have been loved by many, but he is in NO WAY irreplaceable.
5 Likes
There has always been at least the pretense that the movie Bond is somehow connected to Fleming’s.
If we establish that “James Bond” is just a job title, then we’ve created a world that is at its very foundation different from Fleming’s. Any link whatsoever is gone.
IMHO, the greatest (but far from only) misstep of the Craig era was trying, in the eleventh hour and with great cluminess, to retroactively tie everything together in one “big story.” The Codename Theory would be that on steroids.
4 Likes
At this point, cinematic Bond and Fleming’s Bond are essentially two different things. That’s true, but cinematic Bond still very much has his roots in Fleming’s creation. Once they change the character to be someone else entirely, it ceases to be anything even remotely related to either Fleming’s creation or to what they’ve spent the past 60 years creating.
Let’s say they cast Henry Cavill in the next film. But, it’s a code name theory film now. So Henry Cavill is playing “John Smith”, some completely random guy that M decides is next in line to become a Double-oh. But instead of just elevating this chap to Double-oh status and giving him a license to kill, we’re instead getting this guy to pretend to be James Bond. So now we’re getting Henry Cavill’s take on how John Smith would pretend to be James Bond. We’d be getting an actor to play a character who is essentially himself an actor playing another character, all while trying to stop the bad guy and save the world from whatever new threat is upon us.
Essentially, the code name theory makes the films more about the world that Bond operates in and less about Bond himself. We’re already moving too far in that direction by making Bond a part of a team that operates out in the field with him, instead of a more singular figure like he used to be. This would essentially take the periphery characters and make them the stars of the film, since Bond wouldn’t be there anymore. If that’s what some people want with the franchise, then that’s fine, but they can absolutely count me out on that and, I would imagine, a not insignificant number of people who watch and enjoy the films.
4 Likes
If “James Bond” really were an MI-6 codename, wouldn’t it make sense for each new holder to be given better instructions on how to “stay in character”? Wouldn’t it be more than simply, “Here’s your new name, now do everything else as you normally would”?
Because if MI-6 did include more intensive training in how to “be” Bond, then most of the guys they’ve assigned have botched it. They’ve all been their own man. Okay, arguably Laz did a passable Connery impression, but otherwise they’ve all gone their own way. Would it be as simple as saying, “Okay, listen up: you need to sleep around a lot and…um…be really anal about how your martinis are prepared. And…well, that’s pretty much it. Think you can handle it?” Then again, at least it would explain why Dalton gave such a grudging delivery of the one-liners, and Brosnan was so weak at it: they must’ve scored low in that part of training.
Anyway, I would think the goal in spy work would be to keep changing your cover name as often as possible from job to job to prevent exposure. Keeping the same name in play for decades…let alone one that’s on the “red alert” list of agencies worldwide…would seem to be the opposite of common sense. Why, for instance, freak out about losing the list of agent cover names in Skyfall if you’re in the habit of putting all your best ones in the newspaper, anyway?
5 Likes
Don’t forget to destroy all of Q’s gadgets. And Q will get really upset about it, because he’s been instructed to act just like the original Q, who was genuinely upset when the real Bond broke his toys.
And I suppose that we’d get some comedy out of the martini situation at some point. Surely, somewhere along the way, they’d hire a guy to be James Bond who absolutely hates drinking vodka martinis. Or maybe one of them will like them stirred rather than shaken.
3 Likes
I hate to make this comparison, but the Spider-Man multiverse is what comes closest to James Bond. Each Bond has his own universe of times, places, people and environment, into which we as the spectators get a glimpse for a certain span of time. The Craig-verse happens to be the first one which covers the full arc from 00-promotion until his death. Blofeld existed - in one way or another - in Connery’s, Lazenby’s and Dalton’s (and a little bit in Moore’s). He was married to Tracy in Lazenby’s and Moore’s (not in Connery’s: the motivation for his quest for Blofeld in the DAF-PTS remains unclear, and Tracy is never mentioned). Each of them liked Vodka Martinis, some of them drove Astons. And apparently, many things from previous universes somehow took place in the Brosnan universe (the DAD references). Sometimes, the same Ms, Qs and Monnypennys in various of those universes etc etc. And the literary Bond has his own universe, as well.
But unlike the Marvel stuff, there’s no chance that by means of some gee whiz magic stuff or finger snipping, everything gets mixed up and we get to see different versions of the same character in one movie (or book). These are true parallel universes, and per definition, parallels never intercut.
5 Likes
What’s actually fascinating is that other franchises have their own version of the code-name theory. When Doctor Who returned in 2005 there were some who speculated that Eccleston was not the ‘real’ Doctor and his presence would be a surprise reveal. Similarly there were those who didn’t think Tom Hardy was the ‘real’ Max in Fury Road and that Gibson’s character would reappear at some point.
But other than Bond the most persistent seems to be the Joker. Starting with the Dark Knight there always seems to be speculation that we’re not seeing the ‘real’ Joker. With Ledger I believe it was because of the make-up, people thought Leto’s charterer would turn out to be Jason Todd and Phoenix would be the one who inspires the real Joker.
3 Likes
One man,one agent from Dr. No to DAD on a sliding timeline. The reboot occurs with Casino Royale.
Next actor should be portrayed as an experienced,already established 007(Like Sir Sean in Dr. No)
5 Likes
I think that would be for the best - perhaps two or three years into his career. We’ve already had a film which explicitly emphasised Bond had just been promoted. I don’t see the need to go over that ground again. Another reboot doesn’t mean we have to go straight back to the start.
4 Likes
Of film, probably - some of the 1980s Bonds feel a bit cheap. Better quality of Bond film - hmm. And considering that’s all one requires of her, it remains - hmm.
3 Likes
The Brosnan era seems to refute this statement, the Craig era seems to partly validate it.
But then again, is CR a better film than FRWL?
Is it „better“ than MR?
I had more fun watching MR. But I am conditioned to feel that a tortured and conflicted Bond is „better“ than a smiling and shrug off-tragedy Bond.
Let’s switch the statement around: BB could make MR and Cubby could make CR.
If both had been given the circumstances?
Cubby was a fantastic producer. BB is a fantastic producer. Both can/could zoom in on the marketplace in order to tailor their brand accordingly.
I say we’re lucky that BB and MGW took over and not someone outside the family.
5 Likes
Agreed that the posited position assumes a false proposal of a black and white, either/or situation.
3 Likes
April 8th-
As fans of James Bond, we have been extremely lucky to have such fantastic producers producing the series. Better quality is subjective but what is perhaps a truer statement is that BB is a less sentimental producer than her Dad. Plainly Moore was too old, in the 80s and that’s perhaps what cheapens the film, because seeing the joins betwixt stuntman and Sir Roger cheapens the experience. It’s why the first 30 minutes of TLD are so effective and feel fresh and exciting.
4 Likes
The trailer looks absolutely spectacular
2 Likes
Interesting one this. It’s easy for me to say, the daughter, obviously. The series is older than me - LALD my 7-yr old eye opening trip to the cinema. SC/OHMSS caught first-time on (black and white!) TV or re-release (DN still the only one not seen on a big screen!!). Therefore the now, with it’s internet hype and forums such as this, a different way for an older, perhaps more critical self, to enjoy this whole Bond thing. The present does feel very good.
But like each day in April (with the exception of the codename thing, again, absolutely no capital letters), there’s more than one way to look at it.
So, I’ll say that father and daughter have inverse career arcs, and without wanting to spoil the Saltzman conversation later in the month, it’s an impossible task topping the first two films and OHMSS. But, those peaks are followed with a series that seemed happy to just emulate the previous installment, without looking too far into the past for a bar to top, with the result that it feels that there are a large number of films that seem content to have moments, without ever reaching a “whole.”
Daughter on the other hand, started her tenure that way, just trying to outdo the one before, while also clearly mining that one for good bits to repackage. And then, only in the second act, realizing that there is still room in this whole Bond thing to do something, if not completely new, but new for its time.
CR is as good as FRWL and OHMSS, both in acknowledging the source material, without being limited by “just” bringing the source to the screen. And while I agree that while SF went down very well, it is not the Bond to end all Bonds as the uneducated masses might argue (tip of the forelock to our friend Dalton who had his feet on the ground through all that), I think it is safe to say that it is GF to a later generation (I’m not that film’s greatest fan, but I do realise how BIG it is to everyone outside the fan circle). So father and daughter do have both critical and financial smashes on their palmares.
While the sample size is still uneven (Dad was involved in how many again? The daughter half that amount), I will start with this assertion - daughter has matched father in reaching the heights; I’d offer that (yes, I know how you all feel about TWINE), she hasn’t dropped as deep as dad did when the assembly line was exactly just that.
4 Likes
April 8: Barbara Broccoli can produce a better quality of film than her father ever could.
If this is true, I look forward to viewing whatever film that turns out to be.
Barbara certainly knows her onions (and why are we so seldom mentioning Michael in these discussions?) but Cubby was the architect of the franchise and assembled a team for the ages. Thanks to him (and Harry of course), we got the likes of Terrence Young, Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, Peter Hunt, John Barry, John Stears, Derek Meddings, Maurice Binder, Bob Simmons and so many other greats who built something unlike anything that had gone before, fashioned the blueprint for an entire sub-genre of adventure film and ushered in the era of the modern “blockbuster.” Certainly Cubby’s kids learned a great deal under his tutelage and importantly, they’ve kept alive two of the traditions crucial to his (and the franchise’s) success: (1) assemble the best team you can get and give them a reason to stay on and (2) make sure every cent of the budget shows up on screen. You’d think those would both be no-brainers for any “producer,” but it’s remarkable how few of them “get” it.
Anyway, Cubby doubtless left his legacy in the best possible hands, but I would never go so far as to say he’s been eclipsed by his offspring. As far as the criticism upthread that Cubby could let “sentiment” get in the way, I’d say Barbara and Michael have their on weakness, and that’s the obvious, sometimes fairly desperate appeals for awards and “legitimacy” in the eyes of those (twits) who give them out. For understanding Bond is entertainment first and “art” only as an occasional bonus IF it doesn’t get in the way of the entertainment, my vote will always go to Cubby.
5 Likes
April 8th
My feeling is that Cubby refined the formula while Barbara was more willing to experiment with and break it. Both approaches brought highs and lows to the series. Hopefully the next era of Bond will bring more change and experimentation.
5 Likes
accidentally messed up posting somehow, so sorry for the double post.
Barbara’s only success, as far as I’m concerned, came when she was actively trying to break the formula. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, at least from a creative standpoint, are her greatest achievements by a margin so wide you couldn’t measure the distance with the Hubble telescope. It’s when she tries to bring things to the films that are more in line with the way the films used to be done that she really does quite poorly with it. Her three Brosnan era efforts are, at their very best (TND), mediocre and it’s been a steady downhill march since Bond dropped that Algerian love knot in the snow at the end of QOS.
Cubby had his ups and downs, true, but he proved that he could rebound on multiple occasions. The one time that Barbara has bucked the trend for herself was when she made two high quality films. They are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
3 Likes