Thoughts about how to bring Bond back
Some people have been floating the idea that the name James Bond could be a cover name, one that can be assigned to anyone, and the the number 007 is permananetly paired with the name.
It makes sense because real spies are all assigned cover names.
It opens up alot of possibilities, allowing writer Steven Kinight to:
1) re-introduce Bond in a plausible way in Bond 26, as long as the 'cover name' scenario is explained - simply and clearly - at the very beginning of the movie, perhaps in a pre-credits sequence;
2) make Bond contemporary while retaining all of the 'essential elements' of Bond and the Bond universe.
It's interesting to consider the parallels between Bond 26 and Dr. No.
Bond 26 has a history, of course, but so did the Bond that Connery brought to the screen for the first time in Dr. No. Dr. No's Bond, though, had a history that was entirely literary - except for Barry Nelson's brief stint as Bond in a single TV production in the 1950s.
If James Bond's 'personal history' is, in actuality, the 'legend' that MI6 created for the James Bond cover name, then those aspects of the character can be carried seamlessly into Bond 26 too.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, everyone.
Comments
It's a fun thought, but so much of Bond is about his own personal foibles and obsessions, and his style in dealing with the situations he's thrown, and if it turned out that he's somehow not genuine in that I think it robs the character of a lot of his appeal. Also it would kind of become the most interesting thing about him: 007 isn't really James Bond at all, so the story would kind of have to prosecute that, who he was before etc. and I'm not sure the audience want a Bond film to be about that sort of thing. Maybe there's a way of making it work, but I'm pretty unsure about it, I must admit.
Hopefully we can come up with a few ideas about how he can come back though.
First of all: welcome to AJB! I apriciate you posting to give your opinion. Unfortunately I think your idea this time is terrible. If the cover name theory gets adopted I'll stop watching new "James Bond movies" in the cinema. This is because it means Bond isn't a character anymore.
The man we see on the screen will no longer be James Bond who's parents named Andrew and Monique died in a climbing accident. He probably won’t be a commander in the navy every time, because that would be quite the coincidence. Neither can we count on him being a gambler and womanizer since I can't see MI6 checking if the next 007 happens to have these "hobbies". Can you imagine the job interview if they did? 😂
Also remember that everyone, including M, called him James Bond when he had resigned or was "enjoying death". It's also worth remembering that when MI6 believed Bond was dead they didn't find a new agent and gave him that name and assigned the007 nyumber to him. They gave the 007 number to Nomi who kept her own name.
If the cover name theory gets adopted "James Bond" will just be a souless action star who we don't know. Amazon could've just call him something else and save the money they gave EON.
As far as we know only one Bond director has supported the code name theory. That's Lee Tamahori who directed DAD, by many seen as the worst Bond movie. Thankfully the producers did their job and stopped his plans.
There is no need for any cover name theory to make more Bond movies. The Bond we see in DN to DAD is the same man in the same timeline. You remember in CR that Bond got his 00 designation. This is a new timeline from what came before, a new version of the man James Bond. But he's still James Bond, son of Andrew and Monique. I can compare it to Robin Hood. Many movies has been made about the character and some of the events has been shown in several movies, but always in a different way. Robin even died in one, but no'one saw any need to say Robin Hood was just a code name. Each character playing Robin just played a different vetsion of the same man.
Daniel Craig played James Bond in a separate timeline ending with his death. All that's need is for Bond26 to be the start of a new timeline for James Bond, a new way to tell the story of the same person.
Just to make myself clear: you're very much welcome to the forum. If everyone agrees on everything all the time this would be a boring forum, so strong opinions give more life to AJB. But I'm sure we'll agree on many things in the future, and that's nice too. 🙂
One kind of short story idea I'd always had is to have Bond wandering about MI6 and London, going on to himself about his eggs and cold showers and gold-banded cigarettes and twenty press-ups and comma of black hair and all that as he always does, but thinking that everyone is acting funny around him. More and more of these little quirks that Fleming built into his life and routine, hating cups of tea, being fussy about wine, putting on his knitted tie, all of that. And eventually have it turn out that the 'Bond' we're following around is actually a Russian agent who was sent on a mission to Paris or wherever to pretend to be Bond, studied Bond's personality in way too much detail, had some kind of breakdown and actually started believing he is 007 and returned back to London, where obviously M and Moneypenny and everyone recognised straight away he's not Bond and are playing along and just biding their time to see what they can get out of him before they arrest him! 😁
So I guess in that way, the James Bond codename could sort of be something interesting: an enemy agent taking on the name!
Oy... the "cover name"... I've never liked the idea because, even in the fantasy world of James Bond, the LAST thing a spy agency would want is a name that the enemy could easily pin to them.
Anyway, my idea for the new film is to just have a Bond adventure. No need to explain what happened in the last film. We're all accustomed now to the idea of multiverses--it's easy to accept that the Craig films were in their own universe, and now we're in a different one.
Yeah I've always struggled with people saying that they can't work out how they can do another Bond film as he died in the last one: have these people never seen different Sherlock Holmes films, or Robin Hood, or Batman, or Hamlet, or, just... y'know, films?
I'd like this one to be the start of a new cycle in some way: I might have it show the Double 0 section being formed, M coming up with the idea for it. On-and-off the films have talked about the Double 0s being a rather old-fashioned thing, a bunch of relics etc. and I'd quite like them to feel new and up-to-date again.
Series characters die and are brought back all the time, as you say. I’ve seen no evidence moviegoers have problems when it happens. Bringing back Bond seems more a preoccupation of fans than the public. But I’d personally love seeing the formation of the 00 section as a way of splitting the difference.
And to add to what was said above, Bond isn’t interesting despite his quirks, he’s interesting because of his quirks. His profession (spy-assassin) is a cliche now, so many decades after Fleming published CASINO ROYALE. What aren’t cliches are the martini drinking, the card playing, the womanizing… Those are the signature qualities of the man, James Bond.
What about just good old standalone movies completely unrelated to the Craig arc, a la from Connery to Brosnan?
On the not-so-quiet, including in my Fan Fiction back in the day, I always enjoyed the code name theory, considering it could open the movie franchise to doing all things wierd and wonderful [black Bond, gay Bond, female Bond, fun Bond, short Bond, angry Bond, etc]. However your post here has been one of the best arguments I have ever read on why we should not go there and leave the theory to the auspices of Fan Fic.
Yes, character is all, and caring for that character, identifying with him and his plight is paramount to the series success. I wouldn't say I have banished the idea, it still twirls away like a forlorn windmill, but this post has made me decide, for certain, that all I want is a Bond film to remember, kind of how they used to be. No baggage. No history [just a little drip fed to us]. No origin. Let's meet him fully formed, or maybe almost fully, and run with the adventures for the sheer hell of it. That would be just dandy for me.😀😀😀
It would rob the character of his authority.
It reminds me of the 1967 Casino Royale where there are loads of 'James Bonds' - you don't care about any of them.
Anyone who doesn't much like the new actor in the role won't be obliged to 'come around' because, well, he's not James Bond. I mean, I could call myself James Bond - I don't imagine some of my fellow members on this site would come to heel.
Personally I felt a bit off even when GoldenEye was set 9 years later than the pre-credits, because it implied that Brosnan's Bond in his 30s never happened, including his adventures with Dr No, Red Grant, Klebb, Goldfinger etc... I felt the same about the Craig timeline, I mean, if he never encountered those characters, he's not really the same guy is he. I suppose were' in the nature or nurture debate.
Years ago I recall the father of a teenage boy who'd died in a terrorist attack suggesting alongside some ongoing scientific debate that it would be wonderful if could use his DNA to make another son, so his son could live again; be brought back to life. I wouldn't want to be mean, and wonder about the editor who allowed it to be published. But this new creation wouldn't be the same kid. It wouldn't be his son, his soul wouldn't be the same.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm curious why you think GE's PTS implied Brosnan's Bond never had his 30s? To me, if I ever thought about continuity (which I didn't much!) it could basically be the same person as Dalton's Bond, happening as it does the year before TLD, and having plenty of adventures in between. In fact you could even say the new M saw that he went rogue after Sanchez six years earlier and so sent an officer to Monaco to assess Bond.
Well, he could have had load of adventures in between - presumably all the ones he had in his 30s when he was Connery. That messes up the chronology a bit though. Until Moore's last hurrah you could argue it was the same bloke generally upgrading his adventures over the years. Dalton sort of shot that fox being younger I guess, and Brosnan was younger too. I think until that point it was implied that Bond's adventures after OHMSS and the demise (sort of) of Blofeld suggested his yarns are not tied to any particular era but occurred chronologically after that. The scene after the pts suggests Bond has just been hanging around mourning 006, almost like Maverick and Goose in Top Gun.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
In Monte Carlo? Must admit I don't get that vibe from it at all, I thought he'd just been out there being 007.
The PTS of Goldeneye happens in 1986 (in other words 9 years before 1995). The info flashes up onscreen when Bond is in his Aston Martin DB5. The PTS therefore happens before the events of the Dalton era. Bond loses Trevelyn his most likely closest friend in 1986. This explains Bond's subsequent "pissed off" attitude in the Dalton films:
The Brosnan era continues on from the Dalton one. Brosnan's Bond is the same as Dalton's. There are continuity references thanks to the Q briefing scene in Die Another Day 😅:
Here's a thought and has probably been mentioned before. Bring Brosnan back as James Bond, but he has a child named James Bond. Father has taught his son to appreciate the good things in life and has adapted the "cavalier attitude towards life." James Jr. takes the same path as his Dad. The pre-title sequence can begin with Brosnans Bond attending the graduation of James Bond Jr. from the naval academy. An old nemesis of Bonds attacks the graduation ceremony and fails. MI6 recruits James Jr to investigate the attack. James Jr also uses his Dads insight once he discovers an old nemesis has resurfaced. With Dads insight and the youth of Jr, James Jr. defeats the old enemy.
The old enemy doesn't have to be anyone from previous movies, it can be someone from an unseen mission. Personally, I'd like it to be a newly formed Janus group. Moving forward Janus can be the new enemy organization replacing SPECTRE as the enemy from Connery's era.
James Bond and Jr