The "Blofeld Trilogy" and was Diamonds are Forever a dream?

245

Comments

  • Did he not have that naughty dream about Honor Blackman too? When he dreamt he was Sean Connery.

    No Goldfinger was one of the real life movies, although you are right, I think when he saw Honor Blackman he did say "I must be dreaming", but he wasn't, he was awake.

  • HASEROT wrote: »

    uh oh, look out now - i've met the alpha and the omega Bond fan - tryin' to put me in my place... lol... you're just as irrelevant as I am..
    I am only sticking up for myself. If you don't agree with me then fine, but why are you trying to make me look stupid?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »

    uh oh, look out now - i've met the alpha and the omega Bond fan - tryin' to put me in my place... lol... you're just as irrelevant as I am..
    I am only sticking up for myself. If you don't agree with me then fine, but why are you trying to make me look stupid?

    because if you honestly believe what you are saying - and it's not a fun little game you like to play or a joke...... then you are... sorry ^#(^
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited January 2015 Posts: 16,359
    Whenever I watch the Blofeld trilogy I watch it in the order of YOLT, DAF then OHMSS. Here's my theory.

    The Blofeld who Bond met in YOLT was a decoy. Someone who was running SPECTRE's Japan lair. That Blofeld's number 2 was Henderson who was a plant and had his death staged. Bond blows up the rocket followed by the decoy blowing up the Volcano. He dies by accident never to be seen again.

    Then we immediately go to DAF. It's PTS is right in Japan. (In my mind making it a Sequel to YOLT.) Bond is looking for "Blofeld" But finds "Henderson" instead. Bond might think that Henderson is Blofeld so when he boils him in mud he thinks the job is done. He later finds Henderson and his duplicate in Las Vegas. He kills the final duplicate leaving Henderson left. Bond slams him into the walls of the oil rig but his death is never known. It's assumed the real Blofeld killed him.

    Finally bringing us to OHMSS. Operation Bedlam has begun. Blofeld has shown up again and Bond is looking for him and after 2 years has come up with nothing. He soon finds him thanks to Draco and Bond and the real Blofeld finally meet. Which is why they don't recognize eachother. Bond breaks his neck, Blofeld kills Tracy and gets away for 12 years. In FYEO he reappears and tries to kill Bond one last time but finally meets his end.

    That's how I explain the Blofeld Fiasco. :))
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    whatthehell_zpsc516d1b0.jpg
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    Murdock wrote: »
    Whenever I watch the Blofeld trilogy I watch it in the order of YOLT, DAF then OHMSS. Here's my theory.

    The Blofeld who Bond met in YOLT was a decoy. Someone who was running SPECTRE's Japan lair. That Blofeld's number 2 was Henderson who was a plant and had his death staged. Bond blows up the rocket followed by the decoy blowing up the Volcano. He dies by accident never to be seen again.

    Then we immediately go to DAF. It's PTS is right in Japan. (In my mind making it a Sequel to YOLT.) Bond is looking for "Blofeld" But finds "Henderson" instead. Bond might think that Henderson is Blofeld so when he boils him in mud he thinks the job is done. He later finds Henderson and his duplicate in Las Vegas. He kills the final duplicate leaving Henderson left. Bond slams him into the walls of the oil rig but his death is never known. It's assumed the real Blofeld killed him.

    Finally bringing us to OHMSS. Operation Bedlam has begun. Blofeld has shown up again and Bond is looking for him and after 2 years has come up with nothing. He soon finds him thanks to Draco and Bond and the real Blofeld finally meet. Which is why they don't recognize eachother. Bond breaks his neck, Blofeld kills Tracy and gets away for 12 years. In FYEO he reappears and tries to kill Bond one last time but finally meets his end.

    That's how I explain the Blofeld Fiasco. :))

    That's quite an interesting theory. I might try watching them it that order :-) In terms of the Connery, Connery, Lazenby sequence, it makes sense. The only thing that throws it for me is that stylistically DAF is very 70' wheras YOLT and DIA are very 60's. This is where Moore's dream in LALD sits quite nicely.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    HASEROT wrote: »
    whatthehell_zpsc516d1b0.jpg
    I don't understand you're anger. I can only presume that you are upset by something? I have looked back to see where I might have offended but can't see at all? Maybe you feel hoodwinked by the Bond franchise, I don't know? Or maybe just a case of the Fridays?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    whatthehell_zpsc516d1b0.jpg
    I don't understand you're anger. I can only presume that you are upset by something? I have looked back to see where I might have offended but can't see at all? Maybe you feel hoodwinked by the Bond franchise, I don't know? Or maybe just a case of the Fridays?

    i am offended by your stupidity.........

    but i am done... can't take this anymore..

    57279360_zps4231c308.jpg
  • Posts: 5,767
    HASEROT wrote: »
    i read through all of what you posted... and i can't take it seriously because it's just too ridiculous...
    It clearly is a dream sequence.

    i asked on another thread for you to prove it that it is so... and all you came up with basket full of your own ideas, assumptions, and opinions... opinions aren't fact my friend... give me something tangible - an interview - a script - anything that says specifically it is what you say it is.... otherwise, its nothing but you saying "it is this, because I say so."

    i've been a Bond fan for the better part of my life, and been a member here on this site for a long time - and this by far one of the dumbest theories i've ever heard.
    I think with the dream sequence he means this thread ;-).

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    All I am saying is that DAF was Moore's Bond dreaming about when he was Connery's Bond. Connery, Lazenby and Dalton were also James Bond as well. To suggest otherwise would be to say that Roger Moore was the only Bond and that all of the films were dreams which would obviously be ridiculous.

    L7IFd7hanaoVO.gif

    I'm tripping balls.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited January 2015 Posts: 45,489
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    spicoli.jpg

    "Can you guys get back . on . thread? Puleeze?"

    ;-)
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    spicoli.jpg

    "Can you guys get back . on . thread? Puleeze?"

    ;-)
    That would be nice :-)
  • Posts: 15,229
    HASEROT wrote: »
    how about Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS after they met each other in YOLT
    continuity was just not important in the blofeld trilogy I guess.

    this has been brought up before, by myself and others... and the best explanation there is, is that they wanted to follow really close to the book - in which this was the first meeting between Bond and Blofeld - so they had no prior history of meeting... the other explanation, is that with the "disguise" and Bond putting on the phony voice, it was enough to throw Blofeld off - as unrealistic as that sounds...... we know they didn't reboot and break continuity because of Bond's mementos from the previous films... it's just something you kind of gotta suspend a little disbelief with.

    You can also say that Bond was disguised as a Japanese in YOLT... In the novel YOLT, Blofeld is not certain this Japanese fisherman is Bond in disguise.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    how about Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS after they met each other in YOLT
    continuity was just not important in the blofeld trilogy I guess.

    this has been brought up before, by myself and others... and the best explanation there is, is that they wanted to follow really close to the book - in which this was the first meeting between Bond and Blofeld - so they had no prior history of meeting... the other explanation, is that with the "disguise" and Bond putting on the phony voice, it was enough to throw Blofeld off - as unrealistic as that sounds...... we know they didn't reboot and break continuity because of Bond's mementos from the previous films... it's just something you kind of gotta suspend a little disbelief with.

    You can also say that Bond was disguised as a Japanese in YOLT... In the novel YOLT, Blofeld is not certain this Japanese fisherman is Bond in disguise.
    I like to think that all the characters are masters of disguise, Felix swaps his disguise regularly, and Bond himself disguises himself as different people throughoutthe series. As does Blofeld
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    how about Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS after they met each other in YOLT
    continuity was just not important in the blofeld trilogy I guess.

    this has been brought up before, by myself and others... and the best explanation there is, is that they wanted to follow really close to the book - in which this was the first meeting between Bond and Blofeld - so they had no prior history of meeting... the other explanation, is that with the "disguise" and Bond putting on the phony voice, it was enough to throw Blofeld off - as unrealistic as that sounds...... we know they didn't reboot and break continuity because of Bond's mementos from the previous films... it's just something you kind of gotta suspend a little disbelief with.

    You can also say that Bond was disguised as a Japanese in YOLT... In the novel YOLT, Blofeld is not certain this Japanese fisherman is Bond in disguise.
    I like to think that all the characters are masters of disguise, Felix swaps his disguise regularly, and Bond himself disguises himself as different people throughoutthe series. As does Blofeld

    I'm sure that attempting to retcon the series can be fun for some people, but it is ultimately futile. I would suggest you bury your head in many of the books relating to the films and their respective productions and you'll find all the answers you need to know. This thread has been answered already; take a look back at many of the posts.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 613
    martin do you really believe this dream stuff or are you just messing around ?
  • martin do you really believe this dream stuff or are you just messing around ?
    I am 100% serious, it answers a lot of questions and fits very well as an explanation. And as of yet, no one has been able to prove me wrong.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    martin do you really believe this dream stuff or are you just messing around ?
    I am 100% serious, it answers a lot of questions and fits very well as an explanation. And as of yet, no one has been able to prove me wrong.

    The crux of your theory is pinned to the flippant nod to Blofeld in FYEO. If you really want to give his appearance credence and canonical relevance then imagine that Blofeld is paralysed when his batho-sub is destroyed in the finale of DAF. Your theory doesn't answer any questions, merely questions you've invented. If you do some reading into your Bond history you'll know that the suits were keen to distance themselves from OHMSS in 1971. Bond doesn't work like the Marvel universe, it was always about the here and now and decisions were never made to support canonical continuity.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    martin do you really believe this dream stuff or are you just messing around ?
    I am 100% serious, it answers a lot of questions and fits very well as an explanation. And as of yet, no one has been able to prove me wrong.

    The crux of your theory is pinned to the flippant nod to Blofeld in FYEO. If you really want to give his appearance credence and canonical relevance then imagine that Blofeld is paralysed when his batho-sub is destroyed in the finale of DAF. Your theory doesn't answer any questions, merely questions you've invented. If you do some reading into your Bond history you'll know that the suits were keen to distance themselves from OHMSS in 1971. Bond doesn't work like the Marvel universe, it was always about the here and now and decisions were never made to support canonical continuity.

    Ok, so disregarding Blofelds paralysis. There is still the question of history. The idea that the suits wanted to distance themselves holds no water. Here is why:

    There is no movie that references earlier films more than OHMSS. The opening credits show flashbacks from previous movies, there is the "this didn't happen to the other fella" quip, the little man whistling Goldfinger, the office scene with all the props from previous movies and most importantly the reference to operation Bedlam. They literally went absolutely crazy to ensure that the audience knew that there was continuity.

    Now, the concept that the producers would then en masse and collectively do a 360 degree turn is highly unlikely, especially as they hired Connery at huge expense to keep the continuity. If they had really wanted to distance themselves, they would not have hired Connery and they would not have used Blofeld as a villain, they would have skipped straight to LALD.

    They wanted to keep continuity within the canon as you put it, but because they had put the films in the wrong order it made no sense for the reasons I have outlined. Thus using the movie as a movie within a movie (ie Moore's dream in LALT) is a far more plausible concept.


  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Thus using the movie as a movie within a movie (ie Moore's dream in LALT) is a far more plausible concept.

    But this isn't what happened. It's like the codename theory, you can debate it until the cows come home, but that isn't what happened. The narrative continuity of the Bond films is awry, and it always has been. FRWL states Bond and M visited Tokyo, yet YOLT is apparently Bond's first time in Japan. They just weren't that pedantic about such things back in the day. The priority was the here and now. They made OHMSS, Lazenby walked, Picker made sure they got Connery back to put bums in seats and normal service was resumed. They did their utmost to convince the audience that the Lazenby Bond was the same as the Connery Bond, but once Connery returned the narrative continuity was chucked out of the window again.
    Ok, so disregarding Blofelds paralysis.

    Your whole theory is pinned on this...
    The next time we see Blofeld is as the "man in wheelchair" in For Your Eyes only. Now, this definitely remembers the events of OHMSS as we see (Roger Moore's) Bond placing the flowers on Tracey's grave. He then confronts Blofeld, but wait, how did Blofeld end up in the wheelchair?

    This leads me to my theory. Diamonds are Forever MUST have been a dream sequence.

    So this leads me to my theory that DAF isn't a dream sequence. It's just a film that features a few narrative quirks, as the aim was to put out a Connery Bond film and make some money.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    RC7 wrote: »
    the aim was to put out a Connery Bond film and make some money.
    That I agree with. However, the producers were committed to continuity, from OHMSS right up to FYEO, with the exception of DAF, which is why a dream sequence is the only plausible explanation.

    Why else would LALD start with Moore being asleep? No other Bond movie has ever started with Bond asleep for goodness sake, its always an action scene or something. When people are asleep they are dreaming, and Moore must have been dreaming about when he was Connery, thus, DAF.

    Plus, and I put this to you "Diamonds Are Forever was a commercial success, but received criticism for its humorous camp tone." [Wikipedia] does this not set the tone nicely for the Moore movies that were to come?

    I also put this to you "The original plot had as a villain Auric Goldfinger's twin, seeking revenge for the death of his brother. The plot was later changed after Albert R. Broccoli had a dream" [Wikipedia] dreams were very much a part of the productions mind. A case of fiction imitating reality.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think you need to go back to bed yourself @MartinAston. As amusing as your theory is.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited January 2015 Posts: 7,314
    There is no movie that references earlier films more than OHMSS. The opening credits show flashbacks from previous movies, there is the "this didn't happen to the other fella" quip, the little man whistling Goldfinger, the office scene with all the props from previous movies and most importantly the reference to operation Bedlam. They literally went absolutely crazy to ensure that the audience knew that there was continuity.
    Yes but then Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond when they had just met face to face in the previous film. So it's all just a contradiction anyway.
    Now, the concept that the producers would then en masse and collectively do a 360 degree turn is highly unlikely, especially as they hired Connery at huge expense to keep the continuity. If they had really wanted to distance themselves, they would not have hired Connery and they would not have used Blofeld as a villain, they would have skipped straight to LALD.

    How does it not make sense that they hired Connery to distance themselves from OHMSS? It was the only Bond film to not have Connery as Bond. It was like saying, "Look, the real James Bond is back! Forget all that nonsense from two years ago!" Plus, they have had different actors playing Blofeld since FRWL so how is that anything new?
  • Its not a theory it simply must be the truth. There is so much evidence that it is simply overwhelming.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Its not a theory it simply must be the truth. There is so much evidence that it is simply overwhelming.

    IFM guys.
  • pachazo wrote: »
    There is no movie that references earlier films more than OHMSS. The opening credits show flashbacks from previous movies, there is the "this didn't happen to the other fella" quip, the little man whistling Goldfinger, the office scene with all the props from previous movies and most importantly the reference to operation Bedlam. They literally went absolutely crazy to ensure that the audience knew that there was continuity.
    Yes but then Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond when they had just met face to face in the previous film. So it's all just a contradiction anyway.
    Now, the concept that the producers would then en masse and collectively do a 360 degree turn is highly unlikely, especially as they hired Connery at huge expense to keep the continuity. If they had really wanted to distance themselves, they would not have hired Connery and they would not have used Blofeld as a villain, they would have skipped straight to LALD.

    How does it not make sense that they hired Connery to distance themselves from OHMSS? It was the only Bond film to not have Connery as Bond. It was like saying, "Look, the real James Bond is back! Forget all that nonsense from two years ago!" Plus, they have had different actors playing Blofeld since FRWL so how is that anything new?
    The point is that the producers made sure that the audience knew it was James Bond by using familiar characters, Blofeld isn't really a problem as he is the master of disguise. But the plot falls out of line with continuity (I point to Bond having seemingly forgot that Blofeld murdered his wife).

    So let me lay this out

    - Diamonds Are Forever - presented to the audience as an adventure starring Connery as James Bond.

    -Diamonds Are Forever - a dream that Moore has before waking up in LALD, whereby he is imagining an adventure that he might have had whilst he was Connery, but after he was Lazenby.

    It is possible for DAF to be both and stands very well to reason.
  • Posts: 15,229
    No it does not. There is no indication whatsoever within the movie that Bond is dreaming. It is merely a bad Bond movie. Not a dream, unfortunately. Blofeld could have been in a wheelchair because of injuries caused b Bond in the climax of DAF, or at a later date, for whatever reasons.

    Oh and the burden of proof is on your side, since you are making the claim.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    No it does not. There is no indication whatsoever within the movie that Bond is dreaming. It is merely a bad Bond movie. Not a dream, unfortunately. Blofeld could have been in a wheelchair because of injuries caused b Bond in the climax of DAF, or at a later date, for whatever reasons.

    Oh and the burden of proof is on your side, since you are making the claim.

    I have proved it, very conclusively.

    And by the way, explain why Moore is asleep at the start of LALD? There could have been a million and one other ways to start that movie, but he was specifically asleep. This was deliberately done to demonstrate the DAF dream.
  • Posts: 15,229
    Huh, because even James Bond needs to sleep sometimes?
Sign In or Register to comment.