It would've been a great twist if it was revealed that Mason was the original 007, who was inprisoned by the US Government.
share... best way to do it?... something subtle, an easter egg type thing, maybe a file thrown on a desk and you can barely read, ""007"?
Not a bad idea.
It’s beyond impossible, there is a zero percent chance they are the same person.
shareWhen I first few times I watched the film, I thought about the idea that Mason is Bond -- in The Rock film.
I tried to explain it to a school friend of mine back in 99, and he just laughed. But, I still like and prefer the idea that Mason is Bond to this very day.
Why? Bond is a faithful servant of his government, and, while hard-edged, a heroic character who fights for queen and country against not just the communist bloc during the Cold War, but international terrorist organizations as well. Being abandoned by his government to rot for thirty years in a maximum security prison, locked up with the scum of the earth is a pretty goddamn shitty reward for decades of loyal service.
shareBond was abandoned by the British in Die Another Day and yet he still stayed loyal.
shareAnd Die Another Day was one of the very worst movies in the entire franchise. Is that the movie you really want to go cribbing plot points from?
shareSounds like you're just dismissing facts because you dont like them
nooneimportant provided the perfect example of how that could AND DID happen to Bond. In a bond film! what more do you want?
Besides the whole "If you get caught , we cant back you up , we will deny all knowledge" happens more often than not in spy/espionage/black ops movies.
Governments are apparently ready to abandon people at the drop of a hat to avoid embarrassment . or war.
What "facts" am I dismissing? That Mason is Bond? Sorry, he's not. Different character, different movies, different copyrights, different intellectual properties.
And you've been watching too many movies and too much TV. Real spies aren't much like their fictional counterparts. That line that "should you or any member of your IMF team be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions," served to up the dramatic stakes for every episode of "Mission: Impossible," but I hope you don't think real espionage work looks like that.
James Bond and Jason Bourne are not realistic portrayals of spies. There is no lone covert agent in a tuxedo, working in hostile countries under "your existence will be denied" government betrayal.
What real espionage organizations run are cadres of operations officers who perform HUMINT collections, primarily by recruiting foreign nationals to spy on their country (or on a target). If such "native" spies are caught, it's a lot less diplomatically embarrassing, not to mention they are usually better placed to get sensitive information than foreigners would ever be in the first place.
And on occasions where an agency runs one of its own citizens as an operative... Well, see the Raymond Allen Davis incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
Short version: the U.S. government contended that Davis was protected by diplomatic immunity, and negotiated his release, after paying $2.4 million to the families of the men he killed. There was no "we will deny all knowledge..." nonsense.
The idea that spy organizations would "disavow" their agents like in the movies is sort of like the myth of gunfighters in the Old West calling each other out in the street to outdraw each other: an invention of the movies.
Sorry, but if anyone here is dismissing facts, it's not me.
sigh , lets go over it again (note: the below is paraphrased for clarity)
RoboReCop said "Mason could be Bond"
You said "No he couldnt, bond would not be abandoned "
nooneimportant said: "Bond *was* abandoned - in a bond movie."
You said "I didnt like that movie so it dosent count"
so....
What "facts" am I dismissing? That Mason is Bond?
No , you are dismissing the fact that Bond WAS abandoned , which refutes your claim that mason cant be bond on the grounds that bond would bot be abandoned .. because bond was in fact abandoned .
Nobody is saying this is proof that Mason is Bond , becasue it isnt , just that employer loyalty , or lack of , is not proof mason isnt bond.
No, that's not what I wrote. Go back and read it again.
I am asking why anyone would want that fate for Bond, because it's a shitty, shitty end for a heroic character. RoboReCop said he prefers to believe Mason is Bond, and I am asking why he would have wanted Bond to spend three decades fending off gangbangers in the prison shower.
I don't care if Bond was abandoned in a Bond movie, especially when it's my personal pick for the worst film of the entire franchise.
The central point, which you seem to have missed, is that I am scratching my head trying to figure out why anyone would want to see a beloved, heroic character get such a rotten reward for his heroism.
But I will agree that Mason couldn't be Bond -- not because Bond wouldn't be abandoned though; it's because Bond is a different character, from a totally different intellectual property, with a different creator, a different life history, totally separate from Mason's, existing under totally separate copyrights, etc. etc. The two characters just happen to have been played by the same actor, who, of course, brings his unique personality to both roles, thereby imbuing them with a superficial similarity. The idea of Bond and Mason being the same belongs entirely to the realm of fan fiction, and has no other standing whatever.
Fair enough.
I guess you cold prove they arnt the same person (sorta parallel to your "different intellectual property" point ) , by looking at all the adventures Bond has been on during the 30years that Mason had been locked up .
That is just your preference, you don't like it does not mean the director was not flirting with the idea.
Of course they could not say it outright, because they did not want to pay for copyrights, but it was heavily hinted.
How was it heavily hinted? And you needn't bother pointing me toward that YouTube video where the guy asserts that they were. One such "proof" was that General Hummell addresses Mason as "sailor" when he first meets him, and Bond was a commander in the Royal Navy. Well, Mason had nothing on his person which would have even hinted that to Hummell, but he did arrive at Alcatraz in the company of a U.S. Navy SEAL Team, so assuming he was also navy was simply a natural assumption for Hummel to make. I don't find that video convincing.
The movie version of Bond that Connery played is not Mason. He was a different character, and the Eon film series goes out of its way to make it clear that George Lazenby, and then Roger Moore are playing the same character. The opening credits of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" features a montage of clips from the Connery films to make it clear to the viewer that it's meant to the the same Bond, despite the recasting. When Connery returned for the next film, the opening scenes show him hunting Blofeld down (and killing his doubles) to avenge the death of his murdered wife. The opening scene of "For Your Eyes Only" shows Moore's Bond visiting her grave.
The movie James Bond was still active and working for MI6 during the years when Mason was locked up. They're different characters.
James Bond is not a real name, no spy uses real name in the field, not even in 007 movies. 007 is also just a place holder for a double O agent, that was made clear in recent movies.
shareYeah, that's totally what Ian Fleming intended when he created the character.
NOT.
You're constructing your own, totally personal, utterly non-canon version of James Bond. You want to hold onto that? Fine. No one's stopping you. But there's nothing about it that is supported from the Bond movies or books.
This movie is not a part of Bond franchise, of course it is not going to be bound by what Ian Fleming wrote.
Also the what Ian Fleming wrote was that 007 was a WW2 era agent, how old is he going to be today without replacement?
In Fleming's stories, Bond is in his mid-to-late thirties, but does not age.[29] In Moonraker, he admits to being eight years shy of mandatory retirement age from the 00 section—45—which would mean he was 37 at the time.[30] Fleming did not provide Bond's date of birth, but John Pearson's fictional biography of Bond, James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007, gives him a birth date of 11 November 1920,[31] while a study by Bond scholar John Griswold puts the date at 11 November 1921.[32] According to Griswold, the Fleming novels take place between around May 1951,[33] to February 1964, by which time Bond was aged 42
Also that was what Ian Fleming envisioned:
When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, [James Bond] is the dullest name I ever heard.
You don't know what I was thinking. I've read that exact quote before. So what?
Mason is still not Bond.
This is just another version of something I see on YouTube comments, all the time -- take any clip from any movie that features actors who were famous in different roles; the comments section will be filled with statements made as if the actors were playing characters from other movies for which the actors are famous playing. Take a scene from, for example, "The Count of Monte Cristo," and you find comments like: "Dumbledore taught Jesus, Jesus fathered Superman, and Superman was raised by Robin Hood, prince of thieves! How awesome is that?"
As if people can't look past the actors' physical appearance and compartmentalize the different characters they play.
This is just another version of that. You see Connery playing Mason, who was caught spying, and, well... well... Connery is most famous for Bond, who was a spy... Yeah! Mason IS Bond! It's really James Bond! That one superficial similarity is enough, and then you're off to the races. With a vengeance.
Then you start cherry picking things in the movie to support this "theory," and rationalizing away everything that doesn't -- exactly like you're doing now. And you say I'm the one lacking imagination?
Yeah, I think you've got that backward. Actors spend their whole careers playing an array of different characters. Learn to accept it.
None said he was, just it was possible.
But you were saying it was impossible, and you could not prove your case, other than your dislike of the theory, now that is narrow minded, and lack imagination.
I dislike the theory because IT is stupid and lacking imagination. James Bond and John Mason were both played by Sean Connery and both were spying for the British government, so they must be the same person, never mind all the contradictions that show that no, they aren't.
If Connery hadn't played the role, if it had been Michael Caine or Richard Harris or Oliver Reed or literally any other British movie star of that generation, it wouldn't even occur to anyone to try and crowbar James Bond into this movie. But because Mason is played by Connery, they start trying to do just that, because they can't look past superficial appearances.
THAT is lacking in imagination.
Sorry, but no, James Bond did not spend 30 years locked up in American maximum security prisons. He also didn't command a Russian missile submarine, teach Eliot Ness how to be a lawman, Father Indiana Jones, train Connor MacLeod in swordsmanship, or many other things, just because he was played by Sean Connery. Actors, it may shock you to learn, play different characters in different movies.
Like what I said before you are simply in denial, you can't disapprove the theory.
But anyway it looks like you have nothing new to say, other than keep repeating yourself.
Once again, you have it exactly backward. This theory is non-canon in absolutely every sense of the word. It has no official standing whatever. It is a total fantasy concocted by a subset of fans. How am I "in denial" for not buying into some completely fabricated nonsense that has no legitimacy to it?
The people who are in denial are the ones who cherry pick facts and rationalize away others to support an untenable theory. Intellectual rigor demands you look at all the facts, not just the ones that seem to support your theory. If there are facts which contradict your theory, then your theory is wrong. Period.
It wasn’t even hinted at, this is totally made up and there is zero proof to back it up. James Bond and John Mason are two completely different characters. Mason was locked up when Bond was in outer space, Bond is Scottish, Mason is English, and they act nothing like each other.
Are Bond and Stu from Mrs. Doubtfire also the same character?
You 2 are clearly just in denial.
shareAlso it was mentioned in the movie, that Mason was born in Glasgow UK, which is in Scotland.
shareI bet Bond wasnt born in Glasgow though.
That was not what I was saying, I merely pointed out his mistake.
The birth place and birth date of Bond were never really disclosed.
Fleming gave Bond a more complete sense of family background, using a fictional obituary, purportedly from The Times.[37] The novel reveals Bond’s parents were Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud.[38] The book was the first to be written after the release of Dr. No in cinemas and Connery's depiction of Bond affected Fleming's interpretation of the character, to give Bond a sense of humour that was not present in the previous stories.[39] Bond spends much of his early life abroad, becoming multilingual in German and French because of his father's work as a Vickers armaments company representative. Bond is orphaned at age 11 after his parents are killed in a mountain climbing accident in the Aiguilles Rouges near Chamonix.
That's a bingo!
shareYou’re deflecting and changing the subject. I never said anything about the quality of DAD. I said that he was abandoned in that film and he stayed loyal. Also DAD was nowhere near as bad as No Time To Die.
shareAnd if you have read my several other posts on this topic, that isn't the issue. It goes back to the original statement to which I was replying, that RoboReCop prefers Bond to be Mason, and my question was why in the world would anyone want Bond to be shit on by his own government, and condemned to spend most of his adult life locked up with the scum of the earth? Really, why would anyone want that fate for a heroic character whose movies he enjoys? I don't care if Bond was written off by MI6 in what I think is the worst Bond movie ever made. It's peripheral at best.
The issue is A) why would anyone prefer that fate for Bond, and B) even if you do, it doesn't matter, because Bond is not Mason. Bond is a different character. Mason, it's stated in the film, was locked up in Alcatraz in 1962. That's the same year that Dr. No came out. So Mason is in Alcatraz (and after its closure, in other prisons) the entire time Bond was facing Dr. No, Donald Grant, Auric Goldfinger, Emilio Largo, Blofeld (in 3 different movies), Dr. Kananga/Mr. Big, Fransisco Scaramanga, Karl Stromberg, Hugo Drax, Aristotle Kristatos, Kamal Khan, Max Zorin...
So... I trust you see the real problem I have with this frankly silly fan theory.
It’s not even a fan “theory”, it’s not even a “hypothesis”, it’s a random make up your own fan fiction assertion. The only thing Bond and Mason have in common is they were both played by Sean Connery.
I mean what next is Dr. Loomis from Halloween really Blofeld?
Regardless Die Another Day is far from the worst Bond film, in fact I ranked it 12th. It’s silly but it’s also fun and they did something new and creative with it by having Bond getting blacklisted. It’s a heck of a lot better than No Time To Die which IMO is the actual worst Bond film ever and it’s not even close.
I could have stated any of this better [all your post]. Well said and thank you!
sharewait , so all 3 of you are arguing that Bond is not Mason ?
so who are you arguing against?
Thank you, this baseless assertion that John Mason is James Bond is really infuriating to anyone who even has the slightest idea who James Bond is as a character and who actually pays attention to the series.
shareI think you're preaching to the converted , Darren has agued at some length , the exact same point you just made.
If you really think politicians and bureaucrats care about the loyal service of a nameless agent, then I think you are more than naive.
The whole point of secret agents is deniability.
And the no.1 ability of politicians or bureaucrats is arse covering.
Yeah, I get all that. Governments are shitty, politicians are sleazebags, nations have no friends, only interests. Thanks. Tell me something new Captain Obvious.
And why does this apply to James Bond? Bond is not anything close to what a real spy is like in anything remotely resembling the real world. You want to see something close to what a real MI6 agent is like, look at John le Carré's unglamourous George Smiley.
That's not what James Bond is. Bond is an idealized alpha male. More specifically, he is a mid-twentieth century, posh Englishman's ideal of what a tough, capable, courageous, resourceful hero is. He is two-fisted, straight shooting and honorable, fighting for what he believes is the right and the good -- and also a sophisticated bon vivant with expensive tastes, who enjoys all the finer things civilization has to offer. He's a bit of an antihero: he'll make moral sacrifices, but not abandon his honor for what he believes is right. He is a man of action, solving problems with courage and resourcefulness. He's daring, he's bold, he's commanding, he's someone every man wants to be, and every woman wants to be with.
In short, he's nothing whatever like what real spies are.
He's an idealized hero. Is this the character you want to subject to ultra-realism? Really?
Bond is a fantasy hero of escapist adventure fiction. He is the very epitome of the character who is supposed to ride of heroically into the sunset. You want gritty realism, let George Smiley get thrown under the bus and sent to rot in prison. That's not what's supposed to happen to an ideal hero like Bond. A character like Bond is supposed to WIN, not get steamrolled, which is what happened to Mason.
In the last 007 movie Bond died, so yeah, it happens, even in the movie world.
shareObviously we're supposed to think about that, and to suspect that "Mason" isn't the guy's real name.
But since the production didn't fork out for any of the rights to the Bond character, it's all hints and pure speculation. There is absolutely nothing in this film that the Bond franchise lawyers could oobject to.
Barry Sullivan was the 1st 007
shareThe first James/Jimmy Bond was Barry Nelson. That Bond was an American agent. I don't think he was referred to as 007.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(Climax!)