> > Yuck! That's far dumber than just ignoring the time issue completely, like they do with James Bond.
>
> Really? I'm not a big James Bond fan, but I was under the impression that "James Bond" wasn't a real name, but a code name of some sort for the character. The "007" code number went with it, or so I thought. That would explain why are so many different Bonds (Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, etc.) I guess I was wrong, though.

That's a theory that's spread around alt.fan.james-bond way back when I participated in that newsgroup, or any newsgroup, but it's not correct. It would explain why Bond is played by a number of different actors but a better explanation is that the various actors got too old to play the role.

Brunnen-G mentions the books. I won't, because it's not so controversial that they are all about the same character. But as far as the movies go, there is still evidence that ties them all together as being the same person. The most conspicuous common thread is his marriage to Teresa in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Blofeld nails her, and in the next movie (Connery, returning for One More Outing [which he did twice]) he was on a mission of revenge to find Blofeld and kill him. Roger Moore's Bond brings flowers to Teresa's grave in For Your Eyes Only. Another of Moore's Bond outings mentions her also. In both Licence To Kill and Goldeneye this tragic marriage is referenced, tying in Dalton and Brosnan.

Even so, it's unlikely all these different agents would share the same personality traits just by coincidence. Granted, the Bond role was tailored to suit the strengths of each individual actor, but they all had several basic things in common: a grim resentment of his job yet with the understanding that it must be done; worldly indulgences to ease the pain of executing it; a casual disregard for Q's gadgetry; and so forth.