I saw Skyfall last night, and after breaking it down, I can come to only one conclusion: this is the Bond film in which it is revealed that James Bond is a Time Lord.
Bear with me here.
In high school, my friends and I had a pet theory that James Bond wasn’t one man, but many. “James Bond” was a secret agent “work name” that was assigned to someone new whenever the old agent bearing the name was retired. (Dead or alive.) This theory is nothing revolutionary—I’ve come across a number of people over the years who came up with a similar idea to retcon some sense of continuity to a series that spans now fifty years and six different actors in the role. (And far more writers.) Each generation has its own Bond, we decided, but it’s a different person fulfilling the role each time—not just on screen, but in the world of the movie.
SPOILERS for Skyfall ahead.
The one instance in Bond film lore that puts this theory to the test is the Lazenby Bond’s marriage to Diana Rigg and her accompanying death in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. A number of later Bond films—with different actors playing Bond—reference this incident directly or indirectly. (See the Wikipedia article on Tracy Bond for a comprehensive list.) Each time, it’s played off as though the death of Tracy Bond happened to that Bond actor at some point in his past, as though all of them are the same Bond. In that sense, our little theory falls apart, and we’re asked to believe the strange fiction that we’re watching the same Bond each time—a man who, incredibly, changes faces and remains relatively the same age no matter what the decade.
Okay. Fine. I’m a grown man. I can suspend my disbelief. But of course, in the best crazy fanboy tradition, my friends and I tried to shoehorn even this glaring discrepancy into our retcon. It could still work that each Bond is a new man with the codename “James Bond,” we argued, if upon inheriting the mantle each new agent gets to read through the old Bond’s files. After all, in becoming “James Bond,” the new agent gets not only the kick-ass reputation the work name brings with it, but also all his predecessors’ surviving villains and baggage. So all the references to Tracy Bond throughout the series could just be the later agents’ acknowledgement of and respect for a tragedy that once occurred to one of their extraordinarily exclusive fraternity. (It also pretty nicely explains why we only get one Lazenby Bond: he was too distraught to carry on being Bond!)
All well and good. Until Skyfall. (Warning: spoilers follow.)
In Skyfall, we have the very first definitive proof that the man we’re watching on screen is James Bond. As in, James Bond was his given name at birth, not an assumed alias. Despite evidence in this film that other agents carry work names (Silva insists M call him by his “real” name, Tiago Rodriguez) we’re made to understand pretty pointedly that James Bond really is James Bond. We see the initials on his father’s gun. The old caretaker of his family’s estate calls him James Bond. We see his parents’ grave marker. In what would have been a marvelous opportunity to show us that his real name is not James Bond, that’s he just a wayward soul who ended up taking on the work name “James Bond” when the opportunity arose, the writers decided to go the opposite direction.
Fine. So my precious pet theory was officially undone in canon. Again, I’m a grown-up. I can laugh at my own pretensions and breathe and just relax, as MST3K advised. The writers of popular fiction make decisions like this all the time that subvert our fanboy conceits, and we are forced to either accept them as canon or walk away from that fandom. (Midichlorians, anyone?) Craig’s James Bond is the James Bond. Forget all the others who came before him.
So where did that Aston Martin come from?
Bond and M are on the run. He makes a pit stop to change cars. He opens a storage garage, and there, in all its glory, is a pristine 1964 Aston Martin DB5. Sweet! I thought. It’s the Aston Martin Craig’s Bond won in a card game in Casino Royale, which of course was an homage to Goldfinger. We’re maintaining some continuity between the new Craig films! Off they go in the DB5, the banter continues, and Bond flips up the cover on the gear shift and jokingly threatens to use the ejector seat on M.
Wait, do what with the what now?
This isn’t just an Aston Martin DB5 Bond won in a card game. It is the Aston Martin DB5 from the Goldfinger adventure. As if Craig’s Bond lived through that mission, and then, for nostalgia’s sake, rented a storage unit and put the tricked out Aston Martin on ice for almost 50 years. In one breath, the writers want us to believe that this Bond is every Bond—the same man who battled Dr. No in 1962, Mr. Big in 1973, Max Zorin in 1985, and Janus in 1995—and in the next breath believe that Daniel Craig is the only James Bond there ever was, because his parents named him James Bond.
But you can’t have it both ways. Daniel Craig can’t have an Aston Martin he used in 1964, because Daniel Craig wasn’t born until 1968. This would work great if “James Bond” was a code name, and this Bond was going old school and using the tools of one of his predecessors. (If only they had asked me!) But they didn’t do that. They made this Bond the only Bond.
There’s no way this can work. Unless, of course, James Bond is a Time Lord.
It’s the only logical answer. James Bond is the James Bond—born sometime around 1930. He grows up, not realizing he’s a Time Lord, and joins MI6 as a secret agent. No “work name” necessary: “James Bond” is pretty bad-ass already. He battles Dr. No, and Ernst Blofeld, and Auric Goldfinger, and Ernst Blofeld a few more times. Then he dies.
We don’t see it, but Bond dies, and then, surprise surprise, he regenerates. He fights Blofeld again. Marries. Loses his wife. Leaves the service. Eventually dies again. (From a broken heart?) Regenerates and fights Mr. Big, and Scaramanga, and Stromberg, and a host of other villains, hanging around a lot longer this time than any of his other incarnations and, frankly, overstaying his welcome. After some down time, he comes back in a new incarnation and has some rather forgettable adventures, then regenerates again looking all slick and debonair to battle double agents, industry moguls, and somebody else I’m still not really clear about.
And then, at last, we reach Bond’s sixth incarnation. Daniel Craig’s James Bond. The James Bond, just like all the others, but different. He’s lived it all, done it all, and yet he looks like a man born in 1968. He still has all his predecessors’ skills and knowledge though, and some of their toys. And they all share a single dark past: raised on a dire Scottish moor, orphaned at a young age, pressed into service as a licensed government hit man, married to Mrs. Peel and lost Mrs. Peel, only to later find a surrogate mother in M and lose her too.
One Bond. Many incarnations. James Bond is a Time Lord.
I think we can all agree this is the only logical analysis.
Alan Gratz is the author of a number of books for young readers, including Starfleet Academy: The Assassination Game. He has a great idea for a James Bond movie called “The Five Bonds,” if anyone at Eon Productions is interested.
Dang, I missed the clues.
The Aston-Martin is pretty roomy on the inside, isn’t it?
He has companions, some of whom are present in multiple adventures (some changing age and gender), right?
And when you get right down to it, Amy Pond is a Bond girl…
Going with the analogy, Bond and Moneypenny are both Time Lords. Maybe Q is too. The three of them, displaced on Earth in the early 21st century. The Aston Martin is his TARDIS.
These aren’t later regenerations; these are the very earliest (thus far) incarnations. Maybe at some point later on in the Craig era, they travel back to the 60s in that Aston Martin. Early on, Bond and Moneypenny die but Q does not. Bond regenerates into Connery; Moneypenny regenerates into redhead Moneypenny (and, for whatever reason, all further regenerations look similar to one another, as is the case with pre-Craig Bond). Q keeps aging and using his knowledge of 21st century technology to create extraneously crazy devices (explaining why the tech is so simple in Skyfall).
My favorite part – Silva/Rodriguez is 006. After all, he really is Trevelyan with new clothes, a new look, and a more flamboyant personality.
I don’t buy into this theory, but it sure is fun.
Hehe, nice conclusion. Only problem is that the caretaker of the Skyfall manor would be like 150 years old. Or maybe all of the residents of Skyfall manor are actually ghosts that haven’t moved on to the next life. Would certainly explain how Bond could have survived some of this stuff
@MrRune – Unless Connery-Bond is a later Bond (in terms of lifeline-chronology) than Craig-Bond.
Brilliant! It explains Bond’s “hobby” of resurection as well.
You only live Twice :P
To poke a few holes:
The Bond after Lazenby was Connery again. How did he change back? He then returned (non-canon) for a third time in Never Say Never Again.
Also, if he’s regenerated as a young man, how did the caretaker recognize him? How is caretaker even still alive if Bond was born in the 30’s?
It makes sense, I like it. But what about Felix Leiter? I always thought that was a “work name” too.
It’s time lords all the way down.
Is it not the fact that all the Daniel Craig bond films ate pre films before all the other adventures ! Showing how he became an agent so this would explain all ! Including in the last part of skyfall it leads us back to the beginning meeting money penny and the M that we grew up with in the old office ??
You’re not exactly the first to have this theory. The Doctor Who fan comic “A Time to Kill” is based on both Bond and Blofeld being time lords. (Makes sense when you remember how they didn’t recognize each other at first in OHMSS despite having met in a prior movie when they were both played by different actors.)
But consider that Moneypenny has to be a time lady too if the previous movies happened but “Eve” is just becoming a secretary…
Alternate theory:
“James Bond” is a template imprinted on new agents as needed with the super-secret PersonalityTemplateImprinter that the British government developed back in the day.
How about this as a theory:
– Casino Royale 2006 was a reboot of the entire series; all the previous films are not applicable to the storyline except as references to the *types* of adventures Craig Bond had in his employment.
– Skyfall happens a long time after Casino Royale, and in between these two are a lot more adventures than just Quantum of Solace, many adventures are in there (each of which, realistically take a few months to happen – Bond could have had 30+ missions since 2006)
In this universe, the Aston Martin in Casino Royale wasn’t a “nod” to Goldfinger from the 60’s, but that’s actually HOW Bond gets that car in the first place… he wins it in Casino Royale, and then at some point between the 2006 Casino Royale and Skyfall (presumably the “Goldfinger” adventure in this universe that hasn’t been filmed), they trick out the Aston Martin (remember in Skyfall Q specifically says “we don’t do that anymore”; implying that this Bond had a lot of tricked out toys in his day). Then when he’s “killed” in Skyfall they put it in storage and he retrieves it. He didn’t get the car in 1965, he got it in 2006. In other words, this is a full reboot and retelling of the storyline, completely consistent unto itself.P
Bond isn’t just any Time Lord though. He is Rasilon the founder of Time Lord society on Gallifrey. Its pretty clear just by looking at them that Rasilon of the Doctor Who episode “The End of Time” and Bond of The Living Daylights and License to Kill are the same person. Trapped inside the time lock around the time war and foiled in an escape attempt by The Doctor, he has somehow managed to find his way to earth as Bond. This implies that Timothy Dalton’s Bond is the original regeneration of the Earth bound Rasilon. He doesn’t seem to be evil like Rasilon so he probably lost his memory in the trip or alternatively has his Time Lord memories held in some sort of object like has been done twice on Doctor Who.
How about the old Casino Royale where everyone is named Bond, even the seal.
Weevilkris is the only one in this thread, who got it right.
Interesting post :).
@14 Nate B . . . Hmm . . . maybe Bond/Rasilon spent some time moonlighting as “Rochester” in the 1983 BBC production of Jane Eyre :) . . . may be the white point star diamond and the presence of the other Gallifreyans in the time lock were not sufficient company for him . . . . :)
Make that “white point star diamonds aren’t forever . . .” :)
Continuity with Bond is really just to give us warm fuzzies, it’s not necessary to enjoy the films. Skyfall was by far the best Craig-Bond yet…and I hope they make more like it! Quantum was a disappointment, Skyfall brought it back together.
The other issue is that we witness Craig-Bond’s first and second kill (which becomes significantly easier than the first) which happens post M becoming a woman. The only possible answer is ressurection like you’ve said. of course I’m just dissapointed that the writers couldnt just say that “James Bond” was a title, which was my working theory (that actually works)
I find this hilarious because up to the manor, this movie was making a good case for a James Bond name legacy. I was thinking it the whole time and then the monogrammed shotgun came up.
Okay, I thought, he’s got the same initials. And then the gravestone. WTF? I like the “different” Bonds theory.
I tottaly agree with Weevilkris, I think that’s pretty clear and obvious isn’t it? This is an ‘old’ Bond (in skyfall), while he was a rookie on Casino Royale, AND Casino Royale was the first book, so everything makes sense, the other Bonds are the same, just with a different actor filmed on a different year, period.
I like the solution the 007 Legends and GoldenEye games provide. The Daniel Craig has experienced updated versions of the previous Bond movies – so he did fight Doctor No, marry Tracey, stop Zorin, just in the 21st Century.
They all happened between Quantum and Skyfall. Simple.
Weevilkris may have the most logical explanation … but IT’S BORING.
I reject your reality and substitute my own. :)
In other words, James Bond is Dr.Who.
This is what ruined it for me too ~ the ‘name’ James Bond is supposed to be sacred and reserved only for the next super agent coming up through the ranks. This made sense to me logically. My first fopah ~ gleaning logic from fiction.
Why did they tie the name to the man? It’s almost like the franchise wants to recreate the JB story for the next generation up to and including an introduction to the new Money Penny. I was, to say the least ~ bummed.
Interesting theory but, obviously, way off the mark.
Commenter weevilkris gets it.
Haven’t you ever read “All You Zombies”, by Heinlein? Obviously M, Q, MoneyPenny, and the Bonds are all one Time Lord going through the Möbius motions. (He is also probably the caretaker, taking a short vacation.)
I’m sorry if I miss the point, but in my humble opinion, Moneypenny, the old Aston Martin etc. are just there for some kind of meta humour. It’s funny for the conaisseur and not worth construction big theories around it. See also: stirred vs. shaken.
So by this theory there are lots of other Time Lords
In the Bond Series (some of these have been mentioned, the first hasn’t I think)
* M
* Moneypenny
* Felix Leiter
Also
* Albus Dumbledore (well we already knew he was magical)
* James T. Kirk
* Spock and various other Star Trek characters
* Alfie Elkins
* Sherlock Holmes
…
> But you can’t have it both ways.
You can in fact have it both ways. They are writing the movie and it doesnt have to make sense. You just watch it and enjoy. You will learn the more you dig into a movie the less sense it makes, until you go crazy. Forget about it and sleep well.
What if James Bond is an alias, like your theory states. And this avatar of James Bond just happens to have his real name as “James Bond” as if his parents named him after meeting the great Spy after 1964?
Interesting article… And when Silva asks Bond if he has any hobbies, what does Bond answer? ‘Resurrection’! QED
The “007” tag and “James Bond” name are much like a title in that anyone who becomes 007 uses the James Bond cover identity. This explains it better… http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories-that-actually-make-great-movies-better/
I actually was waiting for the grave of James Bond to be shown. I kinda expected that he was adopted by the Bond’s because they had lost their son James and that he started using that name after those same adoptive parents died.
If the theory of skyfall being set way after quantum of solice, then i guess some of you are saying it continues after die another day and catches the series up. This would explain why he has the Aston martin from goldfinger and the new Q is introduced and speaks about past gadgets such as ” an exploding pen” from Goldeneye, “We dont do that anymore” BUT!!! if this is the case then they shouldn’t of introduced the new money penny because she already exsisted, also i personnally feel the writers spoiled the bond story by introducing Judi Dench as M in casino Royale (as she is introduced in Goldeneye, which is set after Casino Royale) and also Felix Leiter (as he is again introduced in Dr No, also after casino Royale).
Actually, the entire Bond series is undeniable proof that each Bond is from a distinct parallel universe; that the timeframes in those parallel universes exist simultaneously but overlap chaotically; and that the elements of each universe, like Schrodinger’s cat, coalesce from random elements into coherent elements when observed directly. Oh, and Felix Leiter is a figment of Bond’s imagination.
I think it’s fairly obvious that Bond throughout from Connery to Bronson was the same person. The Craig films are all new, with no ties to the originals. It is a reboot. Skyfall was released this year, 2012, 50 years of Bond (Dr. No being released in 1962). That is why, to pay homage to 50 years of excellence, Skyfall is filled with many references to the old movies. For example, when Q says ‘And do bring it back in one piece, 007’, this is a direct homage to Desmond Llewynn’s (sorry if I got it wrong) Q. Don’t over thing. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan. All of them are the same man. Craig is also the same man, but we’re going back to the beginning. Starting fresh. I don’t believe that an unfolded Goldfinger took place between Casino Royale and Skyfall, merely that the ejector seat and so were implemented to pay homage to Goldfinger. It’s as simple as that. If you are familiar with the originals, you will pick up on plenty of references to the original. The entire last 5 minutes being one big reference!
Either that or mi6 is extremely thorough when they give an officer a new legend, and not only retrospectively update personal documentation, but grave stones too. Imagine a family home for the Smythes becoming inconvenient if little Smythe IX junior takes on a role as an mi6 officer, his new role posing great danger to his family. The family home would need to appear as though it had changed hands and the papert-rail terminated . Retrospectively updating certainrecords might feasibly involve elecronic, paper, and masonary records (especially if those records had previously been kept private).
Great read. What were the writers thinking? I could have ignored the plot holes of the villain and the fact that the ending was like watching a grown up Home Alone movie, but making Daniel Graig the ‘only’ bond was a huge error; just goes to show that good scriptwriters are as rare as hens teeth!
The Daniel Craig movies are a reboot of the entire franchise. Your theory still works because this is the FIRST Bond. Bond is his name because he began the line of Bonds that will come in the future. That is his car because he bought it with his huge salary.
James Bond is not a Time Lord. James Bond is a family title. It is obvious that during the second world war a man named James Bond did something so absolutely amazing in his service to the crown that he was awarded a special boon by the monarch. This boon was that his first born sons or an heir of his choosing would always take on the name of James Bond after the death or retirement of their father/title giver. These children would have been trained from birth in the original James Bond’s history and taught to live it as their own when these title and lands and resposibility are transferred upon them. It would be no surprise that this person may have been orphaned young as his parents were spies for the crown on the most dangerous assignments. Butlers, tutors, special protection would have served and trained the child from a young age to take up the sacred skills needed for this job, which explains how they all have the same abilities as the last Bond and any new skills showed in each movie. He would also inherit any possessions of his forebears, explaining how he had the original Astin Martin., house.,etc…
Upon the retirement of a James Bond, the father/ title presenter would revert back to his birth name as is seen on the tombstone. The fact that this Bond’s mother was named Tracy could be that she was given that name by her parents and it was just a coincidence that his real mother was also named that. Her name could also have been Patricia, but she preferred her nickname and asked to be buried as Tracy as her contribution to the family legacy.
Ooops. Meant wife…not mom.
Right on! The only possible explanation. The “one Bond” theory holds up well until the deliberate justaposition of vehicles made 50 years apart. Time Lord or “many Bonds.” There is no other possibility.
What if Andrew Bond is a covername for Andrei… Suppose he is not a Scotsman but a former KGB agent, hidden away by MI6 in Scotland which explains the pointing out, by using the Aston Martin towards the second Bond (Sean Connery) Suppose Andrei and his wife were erased by KGB leaving their son to M. That explains the almost motherly love for James. And the grief when she dies (sorry spoiler). So conclusively: your story is still valid, and I like it.
Don’t actually care for this whole Time Lord theory, but just to contribute I DO have an idea for why Lazenby-Bond reverted into the Connery-Bond of Diamonds Are Forever. When Lazenby-Bond was so crushed and unable to function after the loss of Tracy, he took the radical step of “reverting” into his former self as a temporary solution to get back into the routine of plain solid work (and getting revenge on Blofeld) before a full regeneration was possible. The downside is that this last Connery-Bond lost all of his vitality and enthusiasm which accounts for his rather wretched physical appearance and couldn’t-give-a-$#!+ attitude (hence his not being thorough in dealing with Blofeld on the oil-rig). It was only after this tired old Connery-Bond completed this last mission that he could regenerate for real as Moore-Bond with a whole new laid-back, charm-boy attitude that enabled him to last the longest. And why he could treat the final disposal of the pathetic, wheelchair-bound Blofeld at the start of For Your Eyes Only as a total lark.
Is Skyfall erroneous of Bond elements? Or, maybe not. Meticulously examining the picture Bond (of Craig) with the 1964 Aston Martin beside him, himself relating to the car as the time spans between them. Skyfall tells me that Craig’s first two movies are just reboots – tells me if only bond began in 2006, the head of mi6 is the lady M, and then this M cannot say bond is a relic of the cold war. SO I THINK…there are a lot should be ignored in the reboots. So…how about…Eve. Is Eve’s surname really Moneypenny when said “eve, eve moneypenny”? Or the predecessor of Moneypenny?? There was Moneypenny when the brand new 1964 aston martin in 1964 gave to bond by Q.
To be honest they did say that the new age casino royal would reboot the whole bond series. You can also remember that the whole emphasis on casino royal is that “James bond” actually settled down with a partner and resigned from active duty.
Emma “M” did say that it was too early to promote him during the 1st 20 minutes of the film and the theme of the quantum of solace script was revenge for him to find who was behind his “partner’s death/betrayal”.
What I’m trying to get as is that as much as the previous bonds have been mediocre as such to just a beginning – middle – end for each film with the minor reoccurring characters. Casino royal was essentially the 1st book written by Fleming but the producers have decided to reset the entire series. But I’m not sure if they have tried to reset the series with Daniel Craig as THE James Bond or Casino Royal being the new foundation of future James Bond films. Due to all the hints of there being a persona of Mr James Bond with a dead family I would say that the 1st of Daniel Craig’s set of movies was him being the James Bond and the base for the code name and that the ones after him (Previous actors) were just his replacements under the code name. They have made it more interesting to look forward to the future films for more hints about his character to make sense of it all.
I do like the Time Lord theory, but it can still work the old way: James Bond has always been just a code name that each new agent took on, until by a massive coincidence, the latest man in the job actually happened to really be called James Bond. So his Skyfall childhood is just the back story of this particular man, and the old theory still holds.
How ridiculous can this get? Do you really think James Bond is a codename? Are Sherlock Holmes, Hannibal Lector, Peter Parker or Alex Cross codenames because different actors played the character? Was Bruce Wayne a codename in Batman Forever since Michael Keaton was no longer the actor? How do you explain the continutiy in the Bond films such as the mementos inthe office in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service or visiting Tracy Bond’s grave in For Your Eyes Only? As for the age, the films clearly ignore the issue as the films would have ended in the 1980s if that were the case. As for the different look between YOLT to OHMSS, DAF to LALD, etc., they are different actors! Just like Clarice looking different in Hannibal than in Silence of the Lambs. As for Casino Royale, it was a reboot.
Go read the novels and watch the films and say with a straight face that James Bond is his codename. Of course, James Bond is the character’s name! If it wasn’t, why was it never mentioned in Fleming’s novels which includes the Bond family history? Why is it that whenever Bond is out of service, he loses his OO-status and licence to kill but he is still called James, Bond and James Bond? Look up Calvin Dyson’s video “James Bond Code Name Theory Debunked”
Regarding Nate B’s insightful comment (14) on Bond from The Living Daylights/License to Kill:
“He doesn’t seem to be evil like Rasilon so he probably lost his memory in the trip or alternatively has his Time Lord memories held in some sort of object like has been done twice on Doctor Who.”
I think that Rasilon was being squeezed out of our Universe in The End of Time and escaped to a normally inaccessible parallel universe – Mongo, to be specific. He went undercover as Prince Barin, perhaps using the ‘pocketwatch’ technology and a dose of Lazarus tech to become much younger, most likely a child, as this dimension already had a powerful ruler (who seems suspiciously like an incarnation of Time Lord Omega). After growing up on Mongo he learns about Good vs. Evil from three Earth visitors – Flash Gordon, Dale Arden, and Hans Zarkov, the last of whom broke the dimensional barrier somehow. More time passes and Rasilon gets his memory back at some point, returns to Earth in some dimension, and becomes Bond, who is ambiguous – evil by nature perhaps but puts himself under an authority he believes good. He might do the watch trick again.
Eventually he restores his memory, figures out that there is /another/ way to cross the dimensional barriers, through Acting and Imagination. He crosses over to Universe Zero and re-youthens himself and resets his memory to live out his life as Timothy Dalton, with some side trips to universes where he fights Shaun of the Dead and so on.
After mastering the Craft he goes back to Gallifrey and youthens himself /again/ , founding Time Lord society, which is based on physical realization of the passage between universe, places, times, and timelines – the same trick that we see in drama or fiction all the time, but the scientists of Gallifrey analyze Timothy Dalton/Rasilon’s brain and finely honed craft and figure out how to do in external reality what actors and audiences do internally: travel to any imaginable location.
Does Skyfall follows 2006 reboot? It seems it’s not as well. So if Skyfall is not anymore a reboot, previous villains which assumed by fans to be brought back to future Craig’s films ‘shall’ not reappear, e.g. Blofeld, Max Zorin, Elliot Carver. Then Skyfall follows the original timeline. Skyfall has element continuity from the original timeline where Connery’s bond belonged. This element continuity is the 1964 Aston Martin DB5. Nope, he didn’t won it from the 2006 reboot. Therefore Skyfall is does not follow the reboot but follows Die Another Day, with a 10 year span. If so Skyfall’s M who died and told bond “a relic of the cold war”, this M is from Die Another Day, not the one who promoted him in 2006.
James Bond assumed by fans as like of being a time lord from Doctor Who universe because he didn’t aged up to Skyfall as part of the entire timeline where bond started in 1962. If so Craig’s bond originally owned Aston Martin DB5 shown in Skyfall, bond from 1964 = Craig’s bond in Skyfall, and not = Craig’s bond in Quantum of Solace. This means, Craig’s bond married Tracy in 1969, fought Max Zorin in 1985, etc. But there’s no nature whatsoever James Bond is actually a time lord in his universe.
Conclusion: Craig’s bond in 2012 = Connery’s bond in 1964. Can another person have James Bond as his name when the original James Bond is out? It can’t be. Plus, why not including Skyfall as part of 2006 and 2008 reboot since they all have the same female M? These 2 films are an assumption if James Bond began in MI6 in 2006 and working with an M related to time. This makes the 1st M of MI6 didn’t met James Bond of the reboot. Skyfall is a detachment from the reboot. Skyfall commits to the original timeline. James Bond in 2012 returns from Die Another Day, with a 10 year span. Because, the 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall could not be considered as part of the 2 films that the car logically ‘cannot’ have any relation to bond in the 2 films. 1964 Aston Martin in Skyfall means bond first used it in 1964. And based on Skyfall, Bond went to his childhood home. This home can’t be another’s. James Bond didn’t replaced by another person to be also called as James Bond.
The films from 1962 to 2012 shows the continuity, except for 2006 and 2008 to be not included. If the 1962-2012 timeline is consistent, then FYEO’s bond (Moore) and Goldeneye’s bond (Brosnan) are the same person in proving Connery’s bond in Goldfinger = Craig’s bond in Skyfall, including its time has spanned included in the films. In FYEO, bond visited his wife Tracy in 1981 while the grave says Tracy died 1969. This makes 1981-1969=11 years have passed. In Goldeneye, 1995-1986=9 years have passed. But these 11 and 9 years cannot be plotted in a coordinate system of the timeline that seen overlaps with each other, but they are disjoint sets.
Is there any proof Skyfall is a reboot as well that somehow follows Quantum of Solace in some amount of time in years since both have the same female M? There’s no proof whatsoever. The 1964 Aston Martin in Skyfall is not designed by Q branch to be first used by Bond in any time except 1964. The M died in Skyfall is the one in 1995 Goldeneye who called him ” a relic of the cold war”, not from 2006 Casino Royale.
Not to mention that they mentioned 9/11 in casino Royale and how the cold war was over when the new movies were supposed to take place prior to the old ones. Blasphemy.
James Bond’s 1962-2012, except for 2006 & 2008 films should not be included, is unidirectional. Not any single film in the 50-year timeline is a reboot except for the 2 films. There were no substitutes of James Bond himself, so Craig’s bond married Teresa Draco in 1969. Skyfall is the next stage of James Bond’s life on film after Die Another Day, with a 10 year span. 2006 & 2008 are not to be included for they are the James Bond reboot in showing to us if only Bond began in 2006 (post 9/11), and his superior relative to time will the 3rd M. This 2006 bond didn’t encountered Cold War in his career, also didn’t met 1st M of MI6 in the 1960s. The M in 2006 said “I miss the Cold War” therefore ‘shall’ not say to bond “a relic of the Cold War” in any future time because Cold War is an irrelevant entity about bond. Skyfall returns to the timeline. This Craig’s bond is not from 2006 & 2008 but Connery’s bond. And, the Q in Skyfall is not the first Q, but it’s the third. Felix Leiter if to reappear, he is caucasian and he has lost a leg because he was bitten by a shark in 1989 and ‘shall’ not be the Felix Leiter from Quantum of Solace.
CR, QOS and then Skyfall in some amount of time in years, is wrong. Never assume the Q branch modified a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 seen from Skyfall to be used by James Bond not in 1964. The Aston Martin in Skyfall is originally used in 1964 for a mission by no other than James Bond himself. Skyfall does not establish a new universe about Bond, but reconnects to the most recent end of the original timeline. Imagine, James Bond who used Aston Martin the Vanish in 2002 is the one who married Teresa Draco back in 1969.
Moneypenny of the original timeline has a ranking that is not a field agent. Moneypenny of the original timeline was present up to Die Another Day. As for Moneypenny in Skyfall because Eve said “Eve, Eve Moneypenny”, some have thought Eve is the first Moneypenny of the MI6 because they thought Eve reveals her surname. Then, they thought Q of Skyfall is the first Q. They thought the M in 2006 is the first M of MI6 and Gareth Mallory is the 2nd M. They thought Skyfall establishes a new universe about James Bond rooting from 2006. Therefore, CR-QOS-SF. If 2006 is the first end of timeline for SF, then Cold War will not be any connection to the 2006 James Bond. So, those who think CR-QOS-SF have much to expect for Felix Leiter from QOS to reappear and any villain in the original timeline (1962-2002) possibly reappear.
Unfortunately, the 1964 Aston Martin in Casino Royale is not in Skyfall.
What about, can Connery’s bond be trained by MI6 and turned into Craig’s Jason-Bourne type of bond? Why not. Of course yes.
Since the timeline is ‘consistent’, there should be no confusion about Craig’s bond to mingle with previous James Bond. For example, if Dalton is 2012 bond, it would be definitely agile and fight like Jason Bourne and run, jump, dodge like Craig. Craig’s (2012 only) bond is Connery’s (1962-1971) bond as it is. But some fans left assumed Craig’s bond is a reboot of the character to be a.k.a Jason-Bourne type that for them, Skyfall cannot be merged with the original timeline’s bond and so which lead them to insist for themselves the Casino Royale-Quantum of Solace-Skyfall timeline.
Eon have chosen the right actor relative to up-to-date super spy combat skills to act as the new bond, matching those of Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne for future installments of James Bond. Aside from James Bond as licenced to kill suave, sophisticated super spy, also means he haven’t been left behind when it comes to up-to-date combat skills for a super spy can have as training maintained by the MI6.
Skyfall tells me to never stray away from the original timeline even when including Craig’s Jason-Bourne type of Bond, that is, James Bond, who killed Scaramanga in 1974, made a bungee jump in Arkhangelsk, Russia in 1986, and made an 18-wheeler truck tilt onto its side in 1989 is just one person who killed Raoul Silva in 2012.
Again, Daniel Craig is the right actor for the James Bond with abilities matching those of Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne, means James Bond has up-to-date super spy combat skills as training maintained by the MI6. If Timothy Dalton is 2012 James Bond, it would be equally agile and can fight, run, jump and dodge like Jason Bourne.
Skyfall as a tribute to the 5o years of James Bond, Eon has decided to destroy the most important continuity vehicle, the Q branch 1964 Aston Martin used in Goldfinger, which has appeared many times in many films in the timeline, but not in Casino Royale. This continuity element is literally despised by some. This particular car certainly doesn’t mean anything at all but it was from 1964 only, so it can’t be a coincidence for the Q branch to choose a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 and modify it for James Bond in 2008-2012.
James Bond who first used a 1964 Aston Martin in 1964 is the same person who killed Raoul Silva in 2012. Eon chose Daniel Craig to mirror Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne. So in Skyfall, 2012, the 2002 bond returns who appears has been trained by the MI6 like of the Jason Bourne’s Blackbriar program that has being implemented somewhere after the time of Die Another Day.
As for criticizing bond’s age, there is in our eyes that Daniel Craig cannot have the Skyfall’s 1964 car in 1964 for the reason that he hasn’t born yet until 1968. But in Goldeneye, Sean Bean’s Alec Trevelyan said bond’s parents died in climbing accident while his parents has survived Stalin executioners. Sean Bean’s character can’t be an orphan from this past when he was born 1959. Pierce Brosnan’s bond can’t be having Skyfall’s Aston Martin in Tomorrow Never Dies if he was born 1953. But in 2002, old Q branch gadgets from Connery to Moore’s bond are intact and Brosnan’s bond shows to the 2nd Q that he knew them all.
If Skyfall follows the timeline of QOS in establishing a new universe with new characters and discrediting the consistency of 1962-2002 as if all it’s elements has never come to exist, the Q branch won’t be choosing a 1964 Aston Martin to be modified for bond’s use.
Still, some fans have been persisting for not to consider some elements to be continuities from previous bond films, such that, according to them, it is ‘ridiculous’ to consider the whole 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline is totally consistent, that some elements don’t mean anything exactly at all from the past and some films are meant to reset/reinterpret something about the character and his entire universe, like Batman, Hannibal Lecter, Alex Cross, DC heroes, Marvel heroes, etc. They find this proven James Bond 50-year timeline consistency unacceptable.
But 1962-2012 timeline, except 2006 & 2008, is proven consistent. Connery’s bond in 1964 is Craig’s bond in 2012. This means Skyfall’s bond has handled all Pierce Brosnan’s Q branch BMW cars in the 90s.
If following the timeline, who could be the next actor?
+1. Sean Connery
–2. George Lazenby
–3. Roger Moore
+4. Timothy Dalton
–5. Pierce Brosnan
–6. Daniel Craig
+7. _
Then, I guess, like all actors in this timeline, the next would inherit Connery’s age as well, but younger than Daniel Craig.
Your ‘James Bond’ being a ‘work name’ theory still holds water because the Daniel Craig character actually being called James Bond is just a massive coincidence. So his real name just happens to be James Bond as well. All the other ‘James Bonds’ would have given up their real names to take on the ‘work name’ it just happens that this James Bond’ was actually called James Bond!!!!. Maybe in these austerity times MI6 actually recruited someone called James Bond to be ‘James Bond’ so they could save money on passports and driving licences etc as they wouldn’t need to change the name.
The three Daniel Craig Bond films are part of a new continuity which began with Craig’s “Casino Royale.” If you’re a comic book fan, think of the Craig run as Ultimate Universe Bond. It’s similar, but clearly started much later and with different events unfolding.
The Bond in this continuity won the 1964 Astin Martin when he beat Alex Dimitrious, who stupidly put his car in the pot, in Casino Royale. Why is it tricked out? Because Skyfall takes place a while later, and Bond had MI6 modify the vehicle into a suitable spy car. Doesn’t that make more sense than this other-universe Bond being the same as the one in Thunderball?
Your timelord theory falls apart when you also throw in the fact that this reboot of the Bond series doesn’t introduce any Q until Skyfall, and doesn’t introduce Moneypenny until the end of this same film. So for it to work, Moneypenny at least would also have to be a timelord because she clearly regenerated too!
But of course, this is not the case. This is a NEW James Bond, whose first adventure as a double-0 agent was seen in 2006 Casino Royale (when he got the car), led into Quantum of Solace (during which we didn’t see the Astin Martin, so we can safely assume he was having the modifications added by MI6 during this time), and then finally coming to Skyfall (where the Astin Martin was once again seen, but with the new modifications as befits MI6’s top super-spy).
The only M Bond worked for (as 007) was the one we saw in these movies up until she dies. The only Q he really interacted with was the young one who introduced himself in Skyfall. The only Moneypenny who ever appeared in his universe was the former agent he worked with in the beginning of Skyfall.
This is not the same Bond as from the previous series. It was ALWAYS sold as a reboot. A new continuity that fits in ideas from the old series as a nod to long-time fans.
In fact, simply, Goldfinger’s Aston Martin will never come back to continue the timeline because it’s destroyed. So that’s it for the particular car that it will never come back.
And, simply, there should be no theory “James Bond” was not a real name after all per se. Therefore, there should be no assuming Connery’s James Bond is not Brosnan’s bond.
Believe this truth: Craig’s bond didn’t get the 2012 Skyfall’s 1964 Aston Martin from 2006 Casino Royale. Many loved to think the 1964 Aston Martin in Skyfall was modified by Q branch somewhere in time 2006-2012 or 2008-2012. But, sad to say for them, the 1964 car isn’t the one in Skyfall. And, every film from 1962 to 2012, except 2006 & 2008, shows continuity.
It is much evident from many fans that they have to not consider continuity elements from pre-Craig’s bond films but consider them as coincidences, so those elements should not be regarded as continuities if I just find them in following Craig’s films. For them, it is ‘ridiculous’ to consider thewhole 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline is totally consistent.
And, logically, Craig’s bond is NOT THE NEW James Bond in Skyfall. It doesn’t necessarily mean to reboot James Bond if the actor stays in it. Again, 1964 Aston Martin in Skyfall is neither a coincidence nor it was modified by Q branch not in 1964.
The theory Connery to Brosnan ‘James Bonds’ who given up their real names to take the work name James Bond where Craig’s bond is the real James Bond IS WRONG.
Craig’s bond in Skyfall is “a relic of the Cold War” who have lived from 1962, while the Craig’s 2006 bond is not the one who worked as 007 during Cold War. So, Skyfall doesn’t not belong in the 2006 bond universe. Skyfall’s bond is Die Another Day’s bond. It follows Die Another Day, whether like it or not, because it was the only logic there is. The continuity element should not be treated as coincidences. Skyfall doesn’t not follow 2006 bond universe and timeline.
Skyfall’s bond already killed Blofeld in 1981. Also, Skyfall’s bond once had his licence revoked in 1989. QOS’s Felix Leiter will not reappear to a following Craig’s bond film if and only if it follows the timeline of Skyfall.
Connery’s bond is Craig’s 2012 bond. Unlike all other fictional movies e.g. Batman, Spider-man, and so on, the exception is James Bond, for, really, there were no loops and/or re-interpretations of bond universe in every film from Connery’s bond to Brosnan’s bond. Then, there is Skyfall, which detached from the reboot/2006 bond universe to return to the most recent end of the original timeline.
The 2006 bond isn’t a relic of the Cold War. Skyfall doesn’t mean to follow Quantum of Solace because of Jason-Bourne type of bond. 2002 bond can be trained to be Jason-Bourne type of bond which leads to Craig’s bond in Skyfall. And, the 1964 Aston Martin was not seen in QOS, therefore I can assume the car was modified by Q branch somewhere in time have spanned during it was not seen until Skyfall. But in Skyfall, the 1964 Aston Martin is not the one in 2006 Casino Royale.
Never have a thought of a second theory that one James Bond never happened to the other James Bond, in order to never have the so-wrong in thinking from that theory to say that each new actor is a re-interpretation of the character. The re-interpretation of bond universe only happened for Daniel Craig in 2 films.
But all bond films (1962-2002 + 2012), not including the 2 reboot films and non-Eon films, are just literally totally consistent of elements that connect each other, to prove that Craig’s James Bond has lived from 1962 where Goldfinger have already passed.
Only to think that Skyfall’s 1964 Aston Martin is only from Connery’s bond in his mission to Goldfinger, nothing else. The car cannot be from another way.
Some have been bewildered according to their wish because they are pro CR-QOS-SF timeline, their refusal to accept the truth of true connection between 2 entities. How many times they should be reminded that 2006 Casino Royal’s 1964 Aston Martin won from Alex Dimitrios is not in 2012 Skyfall.
Also, most CR-QOS-SF timeline supporters say there are indefinite references to elsewhere in the pre-Craig films. To oppose them, in the entire 1962-2002 + 2012 James Bond timeline, regardless of new bond actors in transition, there are absolutely no loops, and there are no returns of the died, killed, destroyed and disintegrated, e.g. first M, second M, first Q, second Q, first Moneypenny, (Eon-film and non-2006/2008) Felix Leiter, and Q branch gadgets from small to large. Lastly, the third M dies in Skyfall. The Q in Skyfall is not the first Q.
Skyfall’s liner “resurrection” doesn’t mean a reboot or establishing a timeline of its own. An example of an evidence that is not a continuity is James Bond’s liner in Skyfall “Don’t touch your ear” which doesn’t prove he’s the same James Bond from 2006 who said “Stop touching your ear”.
Skyfall’s Q branch 1964 Aston Martin DB5 is way distant from Craig’s 2006 bond age when it was released for Goldfinger mission. Even if Casino Royale is filmed for Pierce Brosnan in 1995 as a James Bond reboot, also, he cannot be using 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in the following film also because his age doesn’t fit. The 2006 bond has never been existed when Q branch modified it for the mission to Goldfinger. To prove that Craig’s bond is a 007 when Goldfinger has passed. Remember the car cannot be another instance of Q branch for it only originated from Connery’s bond in 1964.
In some cases of pro CR-QOS-SF supporters in making sense out of James Bond films for their use, such as assuming non-linearity of the timeline, continuity elements shouldn’t be considered to mean from previous actor’s film(s), every new actor resets the character’s story in some point of his life, Ben Whishaw’s Q is the first Q, and Craig’s bond is the new bond with the new universe where Gareth Mallory is only the 2nd M, mess up to prevent from validating as truth and for 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall.
But, to oppose the solutions of CR-QOS-SF supporter, the 1964 Aston Martin won by James Bond (the newly promoted in 2006 as 007) in Casino Royale is not in Skyfall.
Now I am sure that this theory has been tested and tried by a few on this string, but think about. Bond is an elitest status. You have double 00 agents, but only one can be called Bond. I am sure that once you get your license to kill, you become a double 00 agent. Double 00 ten just wouldn’t sound right, nor would double 00 12. At any rate, just as the world elected and waited for a new pope, I am sure with many cardinals and bishops have the qualifications aspired to be the Pope, but only one can be the one and only pope of the Roman Catholic Faith. There can be the one and only status of 007, James Bond. What’s going to happen with your Time Lord theory if or when Idris Elba becomes the new Bond in the Devil May Care? He is Black and I guess that would really through that theory out of whack.
It’s just too evident that many wouldn’t listen that Connery’s bond and Lazenby’s bond is the same person, and Lazenby’s bond is Moore’s bond is the same person, and so on, even from a clear explanation. And even by a mathematical property x=y, y=z then x=z, still, if there is CR-QOS-SF supporter, it wouldn’t think for such math.
James Bond is actually promoted by the 1st M (and not the 3rd M in 2006) in MI6 to a 00 status known as 007. First mission was Casino Royale that is actually not happened in 2006 but before Dr. No. And, basing on the reboot from 2008, he went to avenge the death of Vesper. After Quantum of Solace, then there is bond’s mission to Dr. No in 1962. Eon rebooted James Bond to film a Casino Royale to happen in 2006 in a way if James Bond began in MI6 in 2006 and promoted by the 3rd M of MI6. So, this James Bond is the new James Bond who didn’t encountered any entity of Cold War in his career.
1962-2002 timeline is proven consistent, not to include any non-Eon bond film. In 2006 reboot, Eon chose Felix Leiter to be black instead of white. Black Felix Leiter reappeared in Quantum of Solace, the next part of the Casino Royale story. If I were to assume if James Bond is black in a following film, then it will be Eon has decided to make a reboot in style again, detaching from the original timeline again, like 2006 Casino Royale. Only way to continue the original timeline 1962-2002 + 2012, James Bond and Felix Leiter should not be black, and Felix Leiter should have lost a leg.
1962-2002 has no elements of re-interpretation, such that if Felix Leiter in this timeline is white, he ends white, or if he doesn’t die yet, then he shall reappear white, and if he lost a limb, he permanently lost a limb in reappearance.
Another proof of the timeline 1962-2002 + 2012 consistency, the Q branch alligator gadget used in 1983 Octopussy, if to reappear, it should be the same as it was, and so it happened in Die Another Day. Connery’s breathing gadget in Thunderball used by Brosnan’s bond also in Die Another Day. This gadget is the same as it was in 1965. So, same way it goes for the 1964 Aston Martin in Goldfinger, it’s destroyed in Skyfall. 1964 Aston Martin it will never come back if continuing the 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline.
Is the 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall come from 2006 Casino Royale then Q branch added the gadgets? The answer is NO. It cannot be a coincidence for a choice of vehicle by either Bond or Q branch to be modified to befit Bond or befit the vehicle in 2006-2012 time. This is the fact that has been always ignored by Casino Royale->Quantum of Solace->Skyfall fans.
CR-QOS-SF fans thought Daniel Craig’s James Bond would reboot the series permanently and never come back to the timeline. They also thought pre-Craig James Bond films has been rebooted when new actors taken the role. Actually, there were no reboots until 2006. There were no re-interpretations of bond character and universe in 1962-2002 timeline. One of the proofs Daniel Craig’s James Bond came back to the original timeline is the 1964 Aston Martin DB5.
And, did I agree with the Doctor Who’s Time Lord theory? In fact, James Bond never belonged to a Doctor Who universe for being a time lord. But this old 007 in Skyfall is literally from 1962 time.
As for continuity elements to prove the 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline is consistent, CR-QOS-SF fans say these continuity elements absolutely doesn’t mean anything at all. According to them, Raoul Silva’s “old 007” in “is there nothing of the old 007 left” shouldn’t mean anything at all exactly but a vague sentiment. For they refuse that this James Bond is the connection to other pre-Craig James Bond films. The “old 007” actually only means this James Bond in Skyfall is definitely not the one in 2006 CR & 2008 QOS, but the 007 of the original timeline. Remember, Trevelyan discussed with Bond that they have been orphans in 1930s in 1995 Goldeneye. But, again, CR-QOS-SF fans ignores this as well.
Craig’s bond and Brosnan’s bond is the same person. Then Craig’s bond is Connery’s bond who has first used the Q branch 1964 Aston Martin in 1964. This Craig’s James Bond in Skyfall has a past when he has thrown himself off the cliff in Russia on motorcycle in 1986, so he knew this ballistic effect when he did it again, throwing himself again with a motorcycle over a bridge to catch a train.
Brento6611 – no, Q is a code name. as with M.
Weevill – you have it spot on. exactly on the money.
Your head would’ve really been spinning if they’d gone with their first instinct and cast Sean Connery in Albert Finney’s role.
In Casino Royale. The elevator that takes Dryden to his office in Prague stops at the 6th floor meaning that he was about to meet the 6th actor to portray James Bond for EON productions. This means that Craig’s Bond is the 6th MI6 agent to carry the code name James Bond 007.
In “Skyfall” we see no evidence that Craig’s Bond is the real one. No photo albums and no flashbacks were we see Bond’s parents fall to their death (a la Bruce Wayne where were shown his parents ultimate demise)
As for Tracy and other continuity links? There is something that every agent has to go through. It’s called…Indoctrination!! (we saw this in the Bourne series) I’m not suggesting that each Bond is suffering from memory loss. It just means that all who take this mantle must surrender their own identity to asume the role of James Bond.
I’m FromSeanToCraig. Just prefixing it with an underscore (_).
Casino Royale is a REBOOT TO MERELY PORTRAY Bond’s beginning in post-9/11 era to become a 007 and his age is equally to Daniel Craig (1968) and not of Sean Connery, where his M relative to time is the lady M. In Goldeneye, Alec Trevelyan addressed James Bond who became an orphan in the 1930s, this makes Pierce Brosnan = Sean Connery. But Daniel Craig’s Bond in Casino Royale is not it. So, if he began in post 9/11 era, he cannot be the James Bond of the original timeline. Craig’s Casino Royale Bond is not a relic of the Cold War because anything from the Cold War era has nothing to be related with him. Then, Craig’s Bond IS NOT the 6th MI6 agent because there are no other MI6 agent who is James Bond who became MI6 agent but only him. James Bond 007 IS NOT a code name. 007 is a code name minus James Bond. Pierce Brosnan’s Bond’s age is equal to Sean Connery, but not of Daniel Craig’s Bond in 2006 & 2008 films.
Again, my original Q&A: Is the 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall come from 2006 Casino Royale then Q branch added the gadgets? Nope; Therefore, CR-QOS-SF timeline is invalid. Skyfall’s Aston Martin came from Goldfinger in 1964, ONLY.
Skyfall is continuation of the original timeline, connecting to the most recent end if it (Die Another Day) and has been 10 years have passed. Skyfall’s Bond used his BELOVED 1964 Aston Martin and got destroyed. Then, Skyfall’s Bond is playing with scorpions, because he got used to it and have overcome its terror, knowing that he has been tortured with a lot of it in Die Another Day when he was in North Korea.
Among Craig’s Bond films, Skyfall is the only one continued the timeline of the relic-of-the-Cold-War Bond. Just obviously noticed Bond being “saved by the bell” in North Korea in the prologue of Die Another Day, preventing him to DIE from freefalling to the water down below. In ANOTHER time (10 years later),
he was shot and freefell to the water (fell from the bridge as high as the height of the supposed to be fall from Die Another Day), and presumed DEAD, in the prologue of Skyfall.
Another proof, Skyfall’s 1964 Aston Martin is the sign that Bond is a relic of the Cold War, that he’s from 1964 Goldfinger.
I realise the picture of Timothy Dalton is a gag, but it got me thinking that the theory could also bring some other roles played by the James Bond actors into the timelord storyline. Dalton’s Bond could also have been Heathcliffe, Prince Barin, Lord President, and died in Hot Fuzz as Simon Skinner (his regeneration). Connery’s Bond could have been Professor Henry Jones (miraculous healing), as well as Ramius from Red October and Mason from The Rock (who probably is James Bond), before dieing in Highlander II.
I suppose the list could go on, but I’m shaky on the other actors’ careers. The key to this expansion on the time lord theory is knowing the identity of the Time Lord Bond. A name like The Rogue gives precident for these sort of cloak and dagger, anti-hero/villain roles.
Never have any thought that EON Bond films are like other films of franchise that if the actor changed then the series of films with that actor are rebooted.
In spite of some persist to ridicule the 1962-2002 + 2012 timeline, i.e., most commonly the Doctor Who’s Timelord jokers. But, whether like it or not, the ONLY truth is, e.g., in the span of 1962-2002, Sean Connery’s Bond = Pierce Brosnan’s Bond. The jokers wouldn’t nullify such truth.
My another Q&A: Will the Goldfinger’s 1964 Aston Martin destroyed in Skyfall reappear in one of the future EON Bond films if the actor changed? The answer is NO.
Again, my first Q&A remains true: Is the 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall come from 2006 Casino Royale then Q branch added the gadgets? The answer is NO. This makes CR-QOS-SF timeline to be invalid, because Skyfall’s 1964 Aston Martin is the one from Goldfinger in 1964. Never it came from 2006 from the Bahamas because 2006 Casino Royale is a reboot, meaning, TO ASSUME if Bond was born in 1968, then he began as 007 in 2006.
Skyfall’s Bond played with scorpions, because he was tortured in North Korea with scorpions last 2002. The same in Die Another Day, the old relics are intact, which they all came from where they were invented by Q in particular years, e.g. the underwater breathing device came from 1965 (Thunderball). The underwater breathing device was never created not in 1965. And Skyfall’s 1964 Aston Martin is the sign that Bond is a relic of the Cold War, that he’s from 1964 Goldfinger.
For now, I have a strong thought that the next Bond actor (7th Bond actor), after when Daniel Craig in the future finished his two more Bond films, will be a very good looking Bond. Then I think his would be first Bond title is The Property of a Lady, connecting to the most recent end of the latest relic-of-the-Cold-War Bond timeline.
I’ve said this for years. (In fact I may have originated the idea, though I’m not sure – I certainly established it within Dr Who!)
It’s actually slightly more complex though- since Casino Royale is the one where he becomes a double-0, he actually starts his career in 2006, then travels back in time at some point to have all those adventures in the 60s/70s/80s/90s…
Oh, and there’s also an even more baffling related issue – Judi Dench’s M in the Craig movies is *not* the same as Judi Dench’s M in the Brosnan movies – Silva tells us in Skyfall that she was still only head of Station H in 1997, the year in which Tomorrow Never Dies is set, yet there was already a Judi Dench M in Goldeneye, in 1995…
I’m adding additional ‘_’ because my previous username _FromSeanToCraig was banned.
Anyway, first of all, it’s absolutely clear that the 2006 Casino Royale is JUST A 007 James Bond reboot. A portrayal of James Bond if he became 007 in 2006 where his M is Judi Dench’s M relative to time, then followed by 2008 Quantum of Solace. CR and QOS are a reboot, and CR-QOS doesn’t mean Skyfall follows via after many missions. The Bond in 2006 Casino Royale is NOT the relic-of-the-Cold-War Bond.
And then in Skyfall, connects to the most recent end of the relic of the Cold War Bond timeline, Die Another Day. Noticed how he played with scorpions in Skyfall, it’s because he was tortured in North Korea with scorpions in 2002. Also, 2002 James Bond who drove the Aston Martin the Vanish is the same James Bond from 1964. The old relics
shown in Die Another Day are obviously intact, which shows that this Bond has originally used them, then Bond has just reused his underwater breathing device that was made by his first Q in 1965.
Most importantly, the HARD FACT. The Aston Martin in Skyfall specifically means Daniel Craig’s Bond in Skyfall is the one from 1964. It isn’t from 2006 Casino Royale.
Take note of Skyfall dialogue:
Silva: The two survivors, this is what she made us. James Bond: I made my own choices.
Silva: Hmm. You think you did. That’s her genius.
James Bond: Station H. Am I right? Hong Kong? Silva: Um-hmm. ’86 to ’97. Back then, I was her favorite. And you’re not nearly the agent I was, I can tell you that.
It doesn’t mean Bond in ’97 is when Bond is not 007 yet. It doesn’t mean Judi Dench’s M in ’97 is not M of Mi6 yet. It doesn’t mean
Judi Dench’s M in ’97 is the head of section H. And these are baffling thoughts from CR-QOS-SF supporters.
Again, Skyfall, connects to the most recent end of the original timeline (2002 Die Another Day). He played with scorpions in Skyfall because he was tortured in North Korea with scorpions in 2002. Also in 2002, the Q-branch relics since Sean Connery’s Bond are intact. The 1965 Thunderball’s underwater breathing device is used again in 2002, which means Bond who drove Aston Martin the Vanish was from 1964, Connery’s Bond.
And the moment of HARD FACT. Is the 1964 Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall come from 2006 Casino Royale then Q branch added the gadgets? The answer is NO. This makes CR-QOS-SF timeline invalid. Skyfall’s 1964 Aston Martin is the one from Goldfinger in 1964.
@_FromSeanToCraig: I’m assuming your earlier comments were flagged as spam by other users. As a moderator, I think you’ve made your points in the last 30-something comments–there’s no need to continue to monopolize the discussion thread.
We already know there is a succession of Bonds. In the 1967 version of Casino Royale, the original James Bond (David Niven) came out of retirement for one last mission. And he was both chaste and a teetotaler.
One of his funny lines,
“It’s depressing that the words ‘secret agent’ have become synonymous with ‘sex maniac.'”
IMHO, no one should consider 1967 Casino Royale as one of its official parts.
Maybe the MI6 only hires people named “James Bond” so that they don’t mess it up and reveal their real name, since the character these spies have to play always says his real name even when told to use a fake one.
About the car, maybe he got it modded by the old Q to be more suited to his job.
Or maybe it is a generic hi-tech vehicle with a camouflage device that makes it look like a regular car, but for some reason it got stuck in a 60s model. Also it’s always looked to me like it’s bigger on the inside.
And I’m pretty sure the previous Q was a centurion in another movie… maybe he was the last centurion?
Completely agree to your idea of 007 being a time-lord. However, I have 2 other things I’d like to get clear. Lazenby was inbetween Connerys run as bond, so is it possible he had a time machine? also, in goldeneye, there is a 9 year gap with Brosnans 007 (and he doesnt age. Like a time lord!) but as the film was supposedly set in 1995, 9 years before would have been Daltons era. Unless the film was set in some time like 1998-2001 (meaning Brosnans later ones would also be set in later times). Did Bond have a TARDIS?
I think you’re missing the bigger point the movie is trying to make. It doesn’t actually matter, you see if the chronological time actually makes sense. It doesn’t matter if you can watch each movie back to back to back, and get a coherent narrative. That’s not the point of a Bond movie. The point is that it’s fun. That you still watch Bond with the same childhood ferver you did the first time you watched Bond. The point is that Bond is just as big, and grand, and extravagant now as he has ever been. Sure, you can stitch in pieces of other mythologies as much as you like. That’s what a myth is. But I think the minute you actually do that, you begin to lose what’s important.
Your stupid
I too am a James Bond fan. I have all the movies except Skyfall. I like your analogy on James Bond. My take is that the very first JB was so good at his job that his name and number (007) became, as you say, the work name for all the Bonds that followed. I will use this analogy. When Xerox first came out it was the only descent copier on the market. When other copiers came out people still said “please make me a Xerox copy of this.”This being the case, it can explain the number of JB there have been over the years. The first was often imitated but never duplicated.
That is nothing new. I theorized he was a timelord for nearly 10 years, and even read of some others making the same theory, even including James Bond as a Timelord in some fanfictions. The movies easier to watch with the understand that he is a frakking Timelord raised on Earth, and likely a human one and not Gallefreying as River Song has proven.
I think James Bond in Dread Pirate Robert’s twin brother.
He is not a time lord. But here is the truth. James Bond’s father is the Bond from the previous generation. He changes his first name but keeps his last name. He knows that his time as a double 0 agent is coming to an end so he has a child with some of the many Bond girls he has had. He then trains his children to be him and when they are old enough he kills their mother and fakes his death. Then after James Bond moves out of his skyfall residence he starts a new cycle. Thats why the gamekeeper is still there.
How about this – the first five Bonds are a single Timelord, Daniel Craig’s Bond is a totally different Bond in a separate universe. The car in Skyfall is not the car in Goldfinger. End of discussion.
Or it could just mean that since none of the movies was shot in chronological order of the books that were written, MGM decided to start Bond over from the beginning when they shot Casino Royal (aka the first book of the series). If you have not read the books then you wouldn’t really understand. Also not all the movies are book. Most were added by MGM.
Well, except for the fact that Craig’s “Casino Royale” is clearly meant to be a PREQUEL to the other Bond films, somehow (as it shows how he gets his OO status). Which is yet another reason why I was completely baffled by the appearence of the tricked-out DB5 in “Skyfall”. I’m convinced they just shoehorned that car in there to remind the audience that they were actually watching an alleged Bond movie, since goodness knows they removed ANY other indication of that fact.
There is another possibility: The multiple agents theory is correct, but Danial Craig’s James Bond also happened to be named James Bond.
This is the equivilent of Agent Smith in the Matrix taking over the boy o someone who also was named Smith.
Hahaha – I love this post!
As it is, almost 2 years to the day after it was created, and I am only just now watching Skyfall on cable, so it gives me an extra giggle. My question after watching 12 minutes of the film was so pressing that I had to hit pause and ask Google: “Does the current james bond maintain memories of past 007 missions.” This is the first answer to pop up, and I feel like we share a thought process by how sccinctly you’ve broken it down.
Strange that this question never persisted in my head before now, but something about his standard Walther PPK/S in the the first seconds and the “This is the end” opening song made me question whether the idea of continuity is something the audience has strained to believe, or whether it’s possible that this is the same agent.
Thank you.
More food for thought, but a hearty sampling, it is.
Interesting theory(ries)!
(I’ve read the op and some of the comments)
Two thoughts:
1: Mr. Worf, I cannot explain my whole senior staff as Timelords; BBC beat you to it! :-)
2: James Bond could be a Timelord, yes, but that does not have to mean that he is Doctor Who (Or as I like to think of
the Timelord of the BBC television series: the Doctor).
—
sayonara
Martin Mose Larsen
mamoladk on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter
The thing is the continuity that they were “all the same Bond” worked up till Casino Royale when they decided to “retcon” him. Before that he existed on what is known as a “floating timeline”
With Connery, Lazenby and Moore it was just possible to believe that they were the all meant to be the same person with a different face but if Connery’s Bond is meant to be 30 in 1962 then by 2002 he’d be retired. There are some in jokes in Goldeneye about this. The weird one is Judy Dench’s M who’s timeline seems to go both forwards and backwards. So are we meant to believe that Pierce Brosnan’s adventures somehow slot into Daniel Craig’s?
It isn’t just Bond who changes face either. So does Moneypenny, Felix Leiter (played by David Hedison twice 16 years apart before he turned black) and that most overlooked and boring of Bond’s comrades Bill Tanner. And let us not forget Peter Burton’s much forgotten interpretation of Q. There’s also an interesting collection of other actors and recast who span the films in small recurring parts such as General Gogol of the KGB …
If you think about it too much it does your head in but basically the original James Bond would be retired by now or dead and as time moves on the world he came from too is slowly slipping into the past. The real fun will start when like Sherlock Holmes he comes out of copyright…
Except SPECTRE just torpedoed this theory as well. With the “introduction” of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, we have actually looped the series at this point.
And the argument to the DB5 being outfitted just like the one in Goldfinger, with access to MI6’s gadget lab, do you think he wouldn’t get it outfitted? This gets a nod when “Q” shows his people putting the poor thing back together. This is not something they would do for an agent’s personal vehicle, even a top agent, which at this point, James isn’t. It’s likely that his DB5 was turned in as a recovered item in the field and, after being outfitted for field use. It was stored in his personal property locker after his “death” in Skyfall because, despite the overhaul, it is still technically his car.
He’s been in and out of trouble repeatedly at this point since gaining his “00” status. He was in trouble in Casino Royale, which lead to him getting “tagged” by “M”. In Quantum, he was still going off book a lot, skating the rogue agent line like it’s a hobby. After “dying” at the beginning of Skyfall, and the events of both it and the time between that and SPECTRE, he’s pushing his damn luck with the new “M”. Hell, certain parts of the plot are related to his borderline rogue behavior.