The designation "007" has become as iconic as James Bond himself, but there's a debate over whether the famous code is made up of numbers or letters. Bond is about to enter a new age with the arrival of No Time To Die, as Daniel Craig steps down to make way for a new 007. Over almost 60 years of Bond film history the 007 code-name has become one of the most recognizable cultural symbols in the world.
Original Bond author Ian Fleming provided an explanation for how MI6 agents gain their "double-O" designation – which provides the famous licence to kill. In the first novel, Casino Royale, 007 himself explains he had to "kill a chap in cold blood in the course of some assignment" to become a "double-o". The film version of Casino Royale follows this rubric, with Craig's Bond earning the "00" status in the film's prologue by killing twice - all of which clearly establishes how Bond became 007, but there's still debate among die-hard fans about the 007 code-name itself.
Put simply, there's ongoing confusion about whether 007 is 'zero-zero-seven' or 'o-o-seven'. Are those zeros or actually two letter 'o's? For many, 007 has always represented numbers and the evidence seems to support this view. But most fans are also used to saying "double-oh seven" rather than "double-zero seven". And while this could be down to the former rolling off the tongue more easily, or the fact that zero is said as "oh" colloquially, this seemingly arcane issue masks a fascinating debate over what Fleming originally intended and whether every James Bond movie has got the iconic code-name wrong from the beginning.
There are certainly two sides to the debate, but there's strong evidence for the zeros being accurate. For the best example, fans need only turn to the source: the first printing of Fleming's inaugural Bond novel Casino Royale – scans of which can be found at Worthpoint. Printed back in 1953, the novel's third chapter is entitled "Number 007", suggesting the code is all numerals. Also, when compared with the letter 'o' in this original typeface it's clear the printers were using zeros and not letters for 007.
This is seemingly incontrovertible evidence that Fleming envisioned Bond's code-name as all-numerals from the outset. But the first print isn't Fleming's actual manuscript, which was reportedly retyped by his secretary before publication. What's more, Fleming is said to have re-drafted his first manuscript after buying a gold-plated Royal Quiet Deluxe typewriter – a move befitting of the man behind Bond villains such as Goldfinger and Scaramanga (the man with the golden gun). There's even an apocryphal story that his original typewriter didn't have a functioning zero key, so the author was forced to use the letter 'o' in place of zero for the original draft.
Fleming would provide more evidence for the numerals being correct in From Russia, With Love, where he wrote "the double 0 numerals signify an agent who has killed" – the key word being "numerals". Later, in The Man With The Golden Gun, the author refers to agents 267, 398, 943, 768, 742, and 098 – all members of the Secret Service, like Bond, and all with numeral code names. That said, none of these victims are double-o agents. Less convincing but equally intriguing is the rumor that Fleming based Bond's code on a 007 bus route that he would have been familiar with when living in London's Ebury Street behind the Victoria Coach Station.
It seems the numerals are the most likely alternative. But if Bond fan forums are any indication, the idea of the double letter 'o's persists. Many believe the double-o represents a double operative, while some point out that other branches of the Secret Service are referred to by letter – Q-Branch being the most obvious. Perhaps the confusion comes down to an un-cited line on the Wikipedia article for "00 Agent", which claims Fleming originally used the letter 'o'. The author wasn't always the most fastidious about the small details – Bond's signature weapon being one example – and doesn't seem to have put this issue to rest during his lifetime.
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/3h4ZtZA
0 Comments