Could 007 Legends Prove an Old James Bond Fan Theory Right?
If you missed the announcement, 007 Legends is a first-of-its-kind video game that’s just been announced by Activision. Developed by Eurocom (the studio behind the Wii remake of GoldenEye, and the subsequent HD 360 and PS3 port) and timed to coincide with the 50th Anniversary of the British super-spy, 007 Legends will boast an original storyline that will stitch together six Bond films, concluding with this year’s Daniel Craig instalment, Skyfall.
The prospect of revisiting classic Bond stories of old may prove difficult to resist for ardent Bond buffs, but could Eurocom be onto something even bigger here?
You see, there’s been a pretty divisive fan theory about the James Bond film franchise for years that seems to have this game written all over it. It’s not a watertight theory, but it’s quite a practical one. The theory is James Bond isn’t one man; it’s a code-name that comes with one’s double-0 status (specifically as 007). It’s a theory that explains why Bond hasn’t aged a day from the moment he buried Dr. No in guano in 1962 to when he left that whiny sissy in the desert to die in Quantum of Solace.
It’s an elegant explanation; after all, M and Q are names that have been inherited by several different actors over five decades. In fact, it’s such a neat solution even Lee Tamahori, the director of Die Another Day, wanted to take a crack at it. Tamahori even wanted Sean Connery to cameo in Die Another Day to lend weight to his theory, but the idea was rejected.
Of course, it’s not without holes. Some fans point to the Sean Connery-led Never Say Never Again as instant disproof of the theory (although Never Say Never Again wasn’t an official Bond film, so it shouldn’t count). However, Roger Moore’s James Bond visiting the grave of the murdered wife of George Lazenby’s Bond complicates things. Also, the fact that the opening sequence of GoldenEye, starring Pierce Brosnan, takes place in 1986 (which is a year before Timothy Dalton’s The Living Daylights and three years before 1989′s License to Kill) derails things even further.
Of course, Eurocom simply installed Daniel Craig in the Pierce Brosnan role for GoldenEye – but replacing 50 years of Bonds with Craig is going to look pretty absurd. Perhaps the clue is in the name; after all, it’s not 007 Legend – it’s 007 Legends. Does the plural imply more than one of them?
What do you think of this fan theory, anyway? Let us know below, and feel free to elaborate in the comments.
What do you think of the Bond “codename” theory?
Luke is Games Editor at IGN AU. You can chat to him about games, cars and Die Hard on IGN here or find him and the rest of the Australian team by joining the IGN Australia Facebook community.