I was just discussing Casino Royale with Bass of BassBlog fame, which encouraged me to discuss my pet theories on a more open forum.James Bond has now been played by 6 actors. It's something you can expect in a long-running film franchise, but I don't see it as the kind of replacement you see in soap operas ("The part of Stafano will now be played by..."), but rather as an actual replacement, within the Bond world.
Let me explain. When there's a change of actor in tv or movies, but an implied or explicit status quo of the show/film's WORLD, it tends to distract me. The Batman and Superman franchises are good examples. The TimBurtoniverse Batman becomes progressively less interesting in part because he's played by a number of actors (and stuntmen). Batman Begins however, is ste in a different world, so we more easily accept the new face on Bruce Wayne et al. Or look at 
the entirely unsatisfying Superman Returns. Had it been a Begins-style cold restart, I might have been able to accept the casting. Instead, it's meant to continue from the (overrated) Richard Donner films. So this Superman and Lois are 5 years older than Reeve and Kidder, but look a lot younger. Immediate comparisons crop up, similarities look like impressions, and bam, the whole thing leaves you cold.Now back to Bond. 6 actors over 22 films, all apparently in the same world of M.I.6. Is there a cold restart at the start of each actor's tenure? Well, that could be argued. Moore ordering bourbon in Live and Let Die. Bronson palling with the previously unknown 006. Seeing Daniel Craig's first murders
and first meeting with (a different) Felix Leiter. But no, I prefer to believe that "James Bond" is just as much a code name as "007" is.We've seen 6 James Bonds, all different men, and though we've never seen them die onscreen, they must have and been replaced by a successor who takes on the number AND the name. That's how a James Bond could be fighting Russians during the cold war, but still be something of a rookie post-9/11. Casino Royale "proves" this idea in a number of ways:
For one thing, this isn't a cold restart. We've plainly got the same "M" as in the Bronson films. So we're in the same world. And Casino Royale is really the story of MAKING a Bond. We see the first men he ever killed. We see him able to give up the life, but then accept the mantle completely (in the last scene, he's in a tux for a reason, he has truly BECOME Bond). And I love M's line about "when I knew you were you". That's key here. I think she means, when I knew you were a James Bond, when I knew you had all the elements to be 007. It's like the mantle of the Flash, or being a Green Lantern.
Discussions on what kind of men are recruited, and the supposed short lifespan of a 00agent cement the deal. The almost-Scottish Connery, the takes-nothing-seriously Moore, the flawed Dalton, the cocksure Bronson, the haunted Craig, and umm... Lazenby if you can to count him in, all had names and identities before being recruited by M.I.6, but at some point, they were given the famous number and name. Possibly because they were all of the same "type" (cold womanizers who love the upper-class lifestyle). Obviously, M, Q, Felix Leiter and even Moneypenny are similar handles, used to protect you and anyone connected with you.But what do you think?
Comments
I think you give too much credit to the Bond writers if you think they would actually let a detail like that slip out of the obvious and hide in the subtle for so many years.
The creator's and the reader's.
Writers of the franchise over the years didn't think of this, no. But Casino Royale's might... it's actually a theme running through, and a much smarter script. We're also more hypertextually/pop culturally savvy today, so we can "get it".
Technically, they don't all like martinis. Moore likes Bourbon, for example, and Dalton orders a Budweizer of all things in License to Kill.
I think it's part of the persona, and they take on that aspect, but they don't all like that drink at first.
In Casino Royale, Bond starts by ordering a martini, but switches gears and creates a totally new drink that everyone then orders, thereby positioning him as Mr. Cool at the poker table and rattling Le Chiffre. Later, he does order a martini and when asked if he wants it shaken or stirred, responds with "Do I look like someone who gives a damn?"
So maybe the martini is part of an image designed to create the illusion in the intelligence community that there are invicible agents out there, a James Bond that has been active for decades, a total killer with a huge reputation. Maybe it's just a kind of code between agents (004 might spot 007 by the drink order, for example).
But Royale definitely plays with this idea.
Connery's Bond was in the "50s and '60s, Moore's in the '70s ans '80s, and they were... not the same guy!
It's so brillant... it might just work. Glad I was part of that little chat.
And to say that the whole James Bond discutions started because I called the cute receptionniste Moneypenny.
When I came up with the idea, I thought it would be beautiful if the opening action scene used the previous Bond and shows him getting killed. The next scene is the new actor being shown into M's office and being handed a file labeled "Bond, James - 007 - For Your Eyes Only" and then the credit sequence rolls.
Oh...and the martini is part of the "Bond" persona in the file, along with things like a past in the British Royal Navy and one wife, deceased.
I think Brosnan's Bond is asked in TWINE whether he's ever lost anyone close to him, and he avoids answering. You could take that to be Tracy, but you don't have to.
On the other hand, if you accept that you can reboot a universe and have new actors, can't it also be true that you can have a universe reboot without the actor's changing? Bale's Batman is not Kilmer's Batman, and Judi Dench (Brosnan's) M is not Judi Dench (Craig's) M.
Of course, an alternate possibility is that Blofeld himself is a Time Lord- and Felix Lieter almost undoubtedly is- however his chronology- and apparent unlucky life (considering the number of regenerations) are too complex to even attempt transcribing.