Greatest misconceptions about James Bond

George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
in Bond Movies Posts: 685
Inspired somewhat by Calvin Dyson's 'Myths of James Bond' videos, what do you feel are the biggest/most common misconceptions held by those outside of the Bond fandom?

One that springs to my mind is the perception that the Fleming novels are all downbeat, no-nonsense spy thrillers in the vein of CR, with none of the more fantastical elements that the films are known for, despite there being numerous examples of such outlandish fare, particularly as the books went on.
«1

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,409
    It’s not quite the same, but you remind me I was listening to the very fun Rest is Entertainment podcast last week, and Richard Osman was talking about rights of properties in cinema, and got talking about Bond and how Eon have the film rights etc. and he said that Blofeld and spectre didn’t appear in the novels but were an invention of the films.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,275
    mtm wrote: »
    It’s not quite the same, but you remind me I was listening to the very fun Rest is Entertainment podcast last week, and Richard Osman was talking about rights of properties in cinema, and got talking about Bond and how Eon have the film rights etc. and he said that Blofeld and spectre didn’t appear in the novels but were an invention of the films.

    So he doesn't know everything then. 🙄
  • edited November 3 Posts: 4,157
    Mostly it's pretty generalised stuff - the Connery, Moore and Brosnan films are all lighthearted, and the Dalton and Craig ones are all completely dark and serious etc. I've also noticed some people who are under the impression that the Fleming novels are grounded spy novels as well and I'd say it's a relatively common one.

    Another one I sometimes hear is the idea that Q came from the Fleming novels and the tradition of Bond getting specific gadgets started there. It's kinda understandable if they haven't read them or know anything about Bond beyond the films to be fair.

    I suppose a big one seen a bit more nowadays among certain types of younger men are those who like the superficial idea of James Bond (the clothes, the womanising, the lifestyle) without actually understanding the character's deeper values (his bravery, sense of selfless duty etc).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 3 Posts: 16,409
    007HallY wrote: »
    Another one I sometimes hear is the idea that Q came from the Fleming novels and the tradition of Bond getting specific gadgets started there. It's kinda understandable if they haven't read them or know anything about Bond beyond the films to be fair.

    I guess there’s a bit of a misconception there which I suffered from until recently that Fleming only talks about Q Branch and there is no Q: although the character of Q isn’t in the books as he is in the films, it was pointed out to me recently that Q does actually get a namecheck in CR: M tells Bond to have a chat to Q (it’s not specified if that’s a man or woman, or even a person really, but as M is a person I guess it’s reasonable for the reader to assume). So there’s a slight basis for a character called Q, and Q and Q Branch do give Bond special equipment throughout the novels.

    Another popular misconception which I often spot: Timothy Dalton is Welsh. He isn’t :)
  • edited November 3 Posts: 4,157
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Another one I sometimes hear is the idea that Q came from the Fleming novels and the tradition of Bond getting specific gadgets started there. It's kinda understandable if they haven't read them or know anything about Bond beyond the films to be fair.

    I guess there’s a bit of a misconception there which I suffered from until recently that Fleming only talks about Q Branch and there is no Q: although the character of Q isn’t in the books as he is in the films, it was pointed out to me recently that Q does actually get a namecheck in CR: M tells Bond to have a chat to Q (it’s not specified if that’s a man or woman, or even a person really, but as M is a person I guess it’s reasonable for the reader to assume). So there’s a slight basis for a character called Q, and Q and Q Branch do give Bond special equipment throughout the novels.

    Ah, it's this bit isn't it?
    'He can have a bad run too,' said M. 'You'll have
    plenty of capital. Up to twenty-five million, the same as
    him. We'll start you on ten and send you another ten
    when you've had a look round. You can make the extra
    five yourself.' He smiled. 'Go over a few days before
    the big game starts and get your hand in. Have a talk to
    Q. about rooms and trains, and any equipment you
    want. The Paymaster will fix the funds.

    Yes you're right, although as you said it's a bit unclear what Q is referring to exactly in that moment. I reckon I've probably read that in the past and presumed it was referring to the department. But true, it's there.

    Would make a good James Bond pub quiz night question with that technicality in mind, or some sort of question on QI!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 3 Posts: 16,409
    Oh gosh, I was once on a pub quiz team where the teams took it in turns to host the quiz and set the questions, and one week our team asked what the first Bond film was (nothing to do with me! My mate came up with the questions), and you wouldn’t believe the number of people who came up saying that, no, actually the first Bond film was Casino Royale with David Niven. It seems to be quite an odd misconception! But maybe more amongst the type of people who do pub quizzes: where they know bits of trivia about things but not actual proper knowledge. It sounds like a good bit of trivia, doesn’t it?
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ah, it's this bit isn't it?
    'He can have a bad run too,' said M. 'You'll have
    plenty of capital. Up to twenty-five million, the same as
    him. We'll start you on ten and send you another ten
    when you've had a look round. You can make the extra
    five yourself.' He smiled. 'Go over a few days before
    the big game starts and get your hand in. Have a talk to
    Q. about rooms and trains, and any equipment you
    want. The Paymaster will fix the funds.

    Yes you're right, although as you said it's a bit unclear what Q is referring to exactly in that moment. I reckon I've probably read that in the past and presumed it was referring to the department. But true, it's there.

    Yeah I don’t think ‘Q Branch’ gets a mention in CR, so really the reader at the time has almost no reason to assume Q is anything other than a person, since they know M is a man.

    Here’s one related possible misconception: that Q is short for Quartermaster. Most fans know that, but when is that actually established? It’s kind of official since Skyfall I think where M calls him Quartermaster, but before then was it just fan theory with no actual basis in the fiction?
  • K2WIK2WI Europe
    Posts: 5
    mtm wrote: »
    Here’s one related possible misconception: that Q is short for Quartermaster. Most fans know that, but when is that actually established? It’s kind of official since Skyfall I think where M calls him Quartermaster, but before then was it just fan theory with no actual basis in the fiction?

    Brosnan briefly calls Cleese "Quartermaster" in Die Another Day.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,409
    Thanks, that’s still pretty late though.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Similarly, Moneypenny was a very small part of the novels and became a consistent in the film series. Bond and the other OOs even had their own secretary, Goodnight was one and the other was Loelia Ponsonby, although I likely butchered that name.
  • Probably the idea that most characteristics of the movies did not show up in the novels. Humour, multiple woman (except for TMWTGG, Bond has two per book from GF onwards), gadgets, etc. The only thing from the movies that had no basis in the books is the stunts I think.

    Probably another misconception is that Bond drinks the "Vesper" martini very often. He drinks it once in CR, but I think Fleming himself disliked it after first trying it and decided to scrub it. It probably has stayed around with the cool specificity which Bond orders it.

    In fact, a misconception pushed by the films a little bit, but I remember reading somewhere that Bond's first drink of choice is not a vodka martini. There's a lot more whiskey and sodas and bourbons. I do think there's also more vodkas taken straight than vodka martinis.
  • edited November 4 Posts: 4,157
    As a former cocktail bartender another one I've heard way too often (often told by other bartenders chatting to customers) is the reasoning behind Bond shaking his martinis. The one I used to hear a lot was: 'it's so he can taste if someone's poisoned his martini like in CR'. I suppose it was slightly more interesting than my little asides about the quality of vodka in Fleming Bond's time, or the ins and outs of the Vesper.

    The one I've heard more by the average person is along the lines of 'by shaking the martini the alcohol and water are separated so he gets less drunk while being able to drink lots, which is why he's efficient at his job' (not how that works incidentally).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 4 Posts: 16,409
    The one I often hear is that shaking it 'bruises the alcohol'. Is that right/does it actually mean anything or is just a popular misconception which people repeat?

    Another thing people repeat, and this is a bit more in the realm of trivia and I appreciate not everyone will care, is that Connery wore a Gruen wristwatch in some scenes in Dr. No. This is something some guy decided by looking at some screencaps a few years back and you now see it repeated all over the internet and in various YouTube videos about 007's watches, but there's no actual basis for it and actually no one knows what the watch is he's wearing. It could be a Gruen, but it's more likely be one a lot of other watches which were more popular in Europe than an American watchmaker like Gruen. It's actually not impossible it's an Omega, funnily enough.

    Probably the idea that most characteristics of the movies did not show up in the novels. Humour, multiple woman (except for TMWTGG, Bond has two per book from GF onwards), gadgets, etc. The only thing from the movies that had no basis in the books is the stunts I think..

    A bit OT, but speaking of TMWTGG and things which come from the book, I was surprised recently to spot that the gag about Goodnight's dress with the tracking device and suicide pill in the buttons actually comes from the book! There it's a gag about her necklace containing the pill, but she's not sure which one it's in so she'd have to swallow the whole thing!
  • edited November 4 Posts: 4,157
    mtm wrote: »
    The one I often hear is that shaking it 'bruises the alcohol'. Is that right/does it actually mean anything or is just a popular misconception which people repeat?

    I don't think you can bruise spirits (or make them more bitter by shaking them in layman's terms). If it were fully true bottles of booze would be impacted in some way when they're transported from factory to shop/bar. The texture of the drink is affected when you shake it with ice and results in more aeration. For a traditional martini or old fashioned type drink I think it's just a case where it wouldn't be as nice compared to stirring it, which makes sense as those are drinks with pretty much only spirits and no citrus to combine etc.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,409
    Thank you, very interesting!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,431
    The following from ChatGPT:

    The classic wisdom for not shaking a martini—especially a gin martini—comes down to texture and flavor.

    1. **Dilution and Texture**: Shaking a martini breaks up the ice, which dilutes the drink faster and gives it a cloudier appearance due to tiny ice shards. This is seen as less elegant than the clean, silky texture of a stirred martini.

    2. **Flavor Balance**: Shaking introduces more air and can “bruise” delicate flavors, particularly in gin. Gin has subtle botanicals that can become muddled if shaken vigorously, while stirring gently incorporates the ingredients and preserves these nuanced notes.

    3. **Aesthetic**: A stirred martini maintains a crystal-clear, smooth look, while a shaken one appears frothy and opaque due to aeration. This visual clarity is traditionally associated with martinis.

    However, shaking is acceptable if that’s your preference—especially in a vodka martini, where the spirit’s flavor is less affected. The James Bond-style “shaken, not stirred” approach is an exception many enjoy.

    I then asked "Is shaking a vodka martini acceptable?"

    Yes, shaking a vodka martini is generally considered acceptable, and it even has a certain appeal, popularized by James Bond's "shaken, not stirred" preference.

    Here’s why shaking works well for vodka martinis:

    1. **Minimal Flavor Disruption**: Unlike gin, which has delicate botanical flavors, vodka is relatively neutral in taste. Shaking won’t compromise the flavor profile in the same way, so any subtle changes are less noticeable.

    2. **Enhanced Chill**: Shaking with ice chills the vodka quickly and creates a refreshing, icy texture. Vodka martini fans often enjoy the extra-cold, slightly frothy result.

    3. **Slight Dilution**: Shaking dilutes the drink more than stirring, which can smooth out the vodka’s edge, making it easier to sip.

    Ultimately, it’s up to personal preference. If you like your vodka martini cold with a bit of aeration and don’t mind the slight cloudiness, go for the shake!
  • Posts: 4,157
    Ah yeah, dilution was the word I forgot. But yeah, that's pretty much it. Not a big martini fan myself though!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    That Bond girls are airheads or damsels, very seldom actually the case. Most are quite intelligent and capable.
  • One that goes back and forth is that Bond is snobbish/Bond came from nothing. Probably a bit of truth in both, but less so in the snobbery. Supposedly a Rolex was cheaper/less luxurious back in the 50s, and more useful than anything. And Bond gets his car secondhand, and sometimes wears "battered" suits. But of course he went to Eton and makes 2/3 of his salary from a trust.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,803
    Sitting in a movie theater during the release of FYEO, my friend next to me commented "they get a new one every time" when Geoffrey Keen as Sir Frederick Gray appeared on screen at MI6.

    So I quickly explained Bernard Lee appeared as M in ALL the previous eleven Eon films. And M actually isn't in this one. Then we focused on the movie.

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 5 Posts: 422
    mtm wrote: »
    Another popular misconception which I often spot: Timothy Dalton is Welsh. He isn’t :)

    Wikipedia says

    Timothy Leonard Dalton Leggett was born in Colwyn Bay, Wales, to an English father, Peter Dalton Leggett, who was a captain in the Special Operations Executive (SOE) during the Second World War and an American mother, Dorothy Scholes, of Italian and Irish descent. Before Dalton's fourth birthday, the family moved back to England to Belper in Derbyshire,

    So he is Welsh, in that he was born there
    Not very Welsh, we can all agree, but undoubtedly it was the land of his birth
    He also has English heritage on both sides (the internet suggests "Scholes" is an English name) Plus American heritage, with splashes of Italian and Irish.




  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    If Dalton's not Welsh, I'll eat my cat...umm, hat.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 5 Posts: 16,409
    Timothy Dalton:
    “ I’m not really Welsh other than being born there”

    https://www.greatbritishlife.co.uk/magazines/derbyshire/22567533.james-bond-actor-timothy-dalton-proud-belper-roots/
    Seve wrote: »
    So he is Welsh, in that he was born there

    Boris Johnson was born in New York. James Bond 007 (according to John Pearson) was born in Berlin. Are these people not British?
  • Posts: 1,365
    Fleming's Bond as a gentleman spy.

    Russians as the main villains in the movies.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited November 5 Posts: 685
    In 2008, Sergey Malinkovich, current Chairman of the Communists of Russia, wrote this in an open-letter to Olga Kurylenko, protesting her role in QOS: "In the name of all communists we appeal to you ... deserter of Slavic world. The Soviet Union gave you free education, free medical care but nobody knew you would commit an act of intellectual and moral betrayal and become a movie girl of Bond, who in his movies kills hundreds of Soviet people and citizens of other socialist countries."

    I'm not sure if there's any way of proving this given the number of nameless henchmen Bond has killed, either directly or indirectly, but it sounds like a load of rubbish.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,582
    General misconceptions:

    - James Bond is a codename (despite gravestones, Kincade and childhood personal documents)
    - James Bond can be a woman (despite being a male character with a male given name and traits)
    - Bond is using a PPK throughout DN (it's a PP and later, other brands - no PPK is present)
    - Ian Fleming can be seen beside the train tracks in FRWL (despite difference in looks and posture)
    - Characters call M 'mum' (it's 'marm', short for marmalade, which, like Paddington Bear, she has a liking for)
    - Excavator in SF is often called a JCB (despite being a Caterpillar and CAT branding present)
    - Bond and Blofeld are brothers (despite not being connected through blood, marriage or fostering)
    - Bond can't return if he's dead (Bond has already returned in various media since NTTD and will return in film 26)

    Collector misconceptions:

    - Bond wears a Gruen Precision wristwatch in DN (this has never been confirmed - there's no evidence)
    - Bond's GF snorkel has a pigeon on top (this has been confirmed by birders as a type of seagull)
    - Moonraker camera is not disguised as a cigarette lighter (there are many clues on screen plus confirmation in the magazine that it is a lighter)
    - The less common black laser 'rifle' from MR publicity photos is not seen in the film (despite being seen at least twice in said film)

    On the fence:

    - Dolly had braces (Yes she did. Wait- No! Well, I think... Argh I don't know what I remember!)
  • Posts: 5,994
    - Dolly had braces (Yes she did. Wait- No! Well, I think... Argh I don't know what I remember!)
    Quote

    On the same subject : In TLD, Pushkin's girlfriend's breast can be seen in full (No, we only see one sideboob, albeit with a nipple showing, but not both, and not in full frontal view). BTW, here, Bond used a trick often used by Modesty Blaise in the novels. Maybe both compared notes, I don't know.

    One that infuriates me is the notion, amond the general public, that the pre-title scenes have nothing to do with the main plot of the movies themselves. Extensive research (watching the movies) prove that it's not the truth : most of the scenes have something to do with the movies themselves.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,409
    QBranch wrote: »
    Collector misconceptions:

    - Moonraker camera is not disguised as a cigarette lighter (there are many clues on screen plus confirmation in the magazine that it is a lighter)

    I'm tempted to say another misconception is that it's black rather than shiny metal finish, but to be honest I don't think we can really completely tell either way!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,582
    @Gerard I only remember the sideboob, and would not expect full open shot of both breasts in a Bond film. It doesn't sound right to me. Maybe for those who remember that, it's just wishful thinking or perhaps there's a behind-the-scenes photo out there.

    Yeah, I think it was established that only FYEO/OP pre-titles have zero connections to the main story.
  • Posts: 5,994
    Also GF, TB and CR '06. Of course, YMMV.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,131
    Gerard wrote: »
    Also GF, TB and CR '06. Of course, YMMV.

    And I suppose TND. Sure, we see Gupta and the red box, but it's not vital to the pts and it basically is a few second cameo.
Sign In or Register to comment.