It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Then allow me repeat myself, because there is just one other issue I would like to be clear on.
I take it you are familiar with continuity errors in movies. Every movie has them - on IMDb, they're gathered under "goofs". Objects being moved between cuts, bottles filling/emptying miraculously ... I take it you accept this as an unavoidable consequence of the movie industry: movies are edited from many takes and retakes and some continuity errors may occur.
Now, it is equally unavoidable that a franchise on a fit secret agent running over several decades has to recast the major role. That's not even a continuity error - it's either that or stopping the franchise alltogether. Now, despite the best efforts of the franchise writers, producers and directors to enchance the continuity of the character as various actors play the part (visiting graves, referring to dead spouses ...), you'd rather pass that by and take the intentions of the film crew as actually meaning the opposite?
If so, then you aiming for consistency, makes your entire reasoning rather inconsistent.
Yeah, agree to disagree.
We get that it's a film mate. And don't call me a glove puppet or I might start talking about yours and @RC7's similar posts with strawmen and logic fails.
You are starting from the axiom that all Bonds are the same, and then dismissing anything which doesn't come with absolute proof as absurd and nonsense. Sounds like a creationist to me. Sorry old chap.
You're really on the money there. Good point.
+1
There is only one James Bond film.
When the Bond series started in 1962 with Doctor No, the films were released every year up till Thunderball. Four films in four years
Doctor No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball. During that time there was very little in the way of character continuity between the films. Sean Connery played Bond in them. Couple of different directors and the biggest problem you'll get with character continuity with a long running series is from the writing team.
Doctor No - Richard Maibaum , Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather. Plus uncredited for the treatment, Wolf Mankowitz
From Russia With Love - Richard Maibaum and Johanna Harwood with Berkely Mather taking an uncredited role.
Goldfinger - Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn
Thunderball -Richard Maibaum and John Hopkins
Five different writers working on the first four films alone. No wonder that the character continuity gets messed up.
So when we get little mentions of characters or events from other films in a different film then it is a link to that film. Kronsteen mentioning Doctor No in From Russia With Love.
Now with the first four films it was easier to keep a track of, at least in my mind. But as the films progressed and more and more writing teams came on board, it got harder and harder. And also let's not forget that EON and all the hard working people that are responsible for making the films aren't too concerned about a line in From Russia With Love explaining once when Bond was in Tokyo with M, but then having Mr.Henderson ask Bond if he's ever been to Japan in You Only Live Twice four years later to say no he hasn't is an oversight. A mistake. They happen.
For the general audience such lines wont even register, and that is who films are made for. Not obsessed fans like us, that go through the films in minute detail, combing for snippets of information. Watching the films over and over. They're made for everyone. And not everyone cares about continuity between films.
And then of course we have the various actors playing the part. First off we had George Lazenby take over from the immensely popular Sean Connery. Stepping into those shoes must've been near impossible.
So we have a few images of things from the past. Honey's knife. Grants watch and the re-breather from Thunderball. It's a little wink to the audience, saying we know it's not Sean Connery. But it is the same character. The character is still James Bond.
Having Blofeld not recognise Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service having met in You Only Live Twice is another example of overlooking the writers not looking at the series as fans who have time to go through everything with a fine tooth comb.
Make it appealing to the general audience, and occasionally through in a little bit of continuity to make sure we all know it's the same character.
Since Tracy died in On Her Majesty's Secret Service she has been either directly or indirectly referenced to my knowledge in The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill and possibly The World Is Not Enough. Though the latter although it does mention the loss of a loved one. I never took it to mean Tracy for some reason. Though that's not to say it doesn't.
The references to Bonds short lived marriage to Tracy are to establish that this is the same man. Yes the actor has changed, but the character is the same. The grave yard scene in, For Your Eyes Only being an example. This was an idea for a new James Bond to obtain continuity to the character, when it appeared that Roger Moore may not return for a fourth time.
Over the course of the series, there have been really quite few attempts to keep continuity with the other films. We've had various actors play, Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter would be a prime example of character continuity gone wrong. Sean Connery worked with four different actors playing Felix Leiter. They are however all the same character.
So when I see the mention of Bond being a codename, I don't actually agree with it. By all means have this theory. It's your right of a fan of the series. It's not to my mind what Cubby and Harry had in mind, I don't think when they started the series in order to keep it going for fifty plus years. Because they could never have imagined that the series would continue this long. And whilst it's easy to add such theory to the often over looked continuity flaws in the series, on Bond being a codename. I find it easier to suggest that with the arrival of VHS, DVD and Blu Ray it's much easier to view the films. Back in the sixties it wasn't possible to just pop on a Bond film to watch.
So when I sit down to enjoy this character who I so dearly love, I don't think how did Blofeld not recognise him. Or how can Felix Leiter explain to Della that Bond was married once. I think that was a great film. And I'm more than happy that I've got such a variety to choose from. We change over the courses of our lives. The Bond films do too. They adapt. By all means have a codename theory. But for most fans it's not something that they will likely agree with. As evidenced from the mind numbingly large amount of posts before this one.
Over the course of 24 films, to my knowledge there have been a total of 20 writers, be them credited or uncredited. That's an awful lot of reading to do for anyone who might dare take on writing Bond 25.
Most of the time it appears that the current actors films are within the boundaries of where the writers stop to look at the history of the films. Especially with the re-boot, as there is no need to include the references of Tracy or such, as the current films are a different time line to those of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan.
Forgive the over long post and waffle, but that's why too me, there is only one Bond film.
And how I can continue to appreciate the series. By not looking too deeply into it. Yet knowing more than the average man.
I actively encourage you to talk about the straw men we've constructed and the supposed lapses in our logic. Please lay them out here. I've also asked Mendes to lay down the basic tenets of his argument but neither you nor him seem capable of providing anything beyond meandering, cryptic guff that isn't even concerned with the topic, but about everyone else's inability to 'see'. I'm waiting to be enlightened. The floor is yours... I want to see the key points of your argument.
Coherent arguments against an illogical, load of old Boll*cks, trolling crap ! :D
Creationist is indeed a very good description to employ in this debate.
Creationists believe in a theory that has been laughed away by anyone with a shred of intelligence and the slightest grasp of facts.
My position is that the codename theory has very little going for it in empirical proof and as there's zero evidence for it in the books and nothing but a half baked series of continuity errors in the films it is not even worth entertaining.
However if someone presents some credible evidence (still waiting on that by the way @Mendes4lyfe. If you spent less time feeding @Oddjobs_hat his Winalot and patting him on the head perhaps you could trouble yourself to reveal it?) to the contrary I'm happy to look at it.
But you both seem to confuse something that doesn't make sense in the films as automatically vindicating the theory as shown in Mendes latest desperate flailing with his notion that both M's mention the Cold War so they are the same person but with different Bonds.
And I'm still waiting for you to address the schism in the church that threatens to split us into to two warring Shia and Sunni factions: the reality show theory.
I can point to irrefutable evidence that there is a camera crew following Bond around as I can see them in TMWTGG. I'm yet to see you or your master come up with anything approaching such cast iron proof.
Ball's in your court to deliver some evidence chaps - as it has been since page 1. That is why you have become figures of fun. Not that you give credence to the theory but that you continue to do so without a shred of solid evidence.
That's creationism and idiocy in a nutshell.
(As an amusing aside here it's interesting to note that if you replace 'the codename theory' with 'the existence of God' in this debate absolutely nothing changes. Except the Mods intervene around page 2 and give us all a slap for laughing at Mendes and Oddjob and say we should respect their beliefs. Strange how some people's crackpot beliefs are beyond ridicule and some aren't.)
My opinion but please read up on academic studies both apologists and atheists before comparing Creationists to codename theorists.
Besides believing in a codename theory will only get you damned on here. The other has far greater consequences.
They're just rattling our cages, gentlemen. Well, not mine.
Reading some reactions has been great fun - great sense of humour by many members of this community - but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over this (not that I ever have, actually).
I agree with previous reactions of some mods: if an ever so small minority truly wants to believe this codename-theory, dragging any and all half-washed arguments by the hairs against all logic, I conclude it's not worth any of my energy to try to convince them of the more logical approach. But I will peep in to amuse myself as a bystander - some comments almost had me rolling on the floor with laughter.
F**k me!! I feel like Farage having to defend a racist comment by a UKIP party member!
Actually now you come to mention it mate I think the codename theory has a lot going for it. Is it too late to repent and join you boys on the dark side?
Or I might just start my own 'Church of the reality show theory'.
This thread is turning into an amusing microcosm of religion itself! All you need it seems, are people with entrenched views who don't want to listen to reason and a ridiculous idea for them to rally behind!
The day can't be far away before we have the first codename theory suicide bomber!
Silly codename theories. :D stand by for some you tube videos from
The usual suspects, sitting in front of a codename flag making the
Same outrageous statements. :))
Still waiting on your codename manifesto, mate.
Utter bullshit mate.
Laz was talking to the camera crew which follows Bond on all his adventures.
Stop misinterpreting the sacred texts or the Reality Show Caliphate will bring the war to your doorstep!
Yeah, stop bringing facts into this @tanaka123. We're a couple of informed posts away from a forum atrocity.
Yes you're quite right darling.
Yes, sorry, I was trying to hide the fact that I'm the camerman that has followed him on all his adventures. But you've found me out.
Mr Summerset
Mr Sterling
James Stock
Sir Hilary Bray
...to name a few are names Bond uses to disguise his real name which is... Drum Roll... JAMES BOND
I would say that we are the ahmadiyya; peaceful and respectful, and you are the sunni because you are intolerant, get in a frenzy at different beliefs, and think that codename theorists are not 'true fans' .
Don't forget 'Jerzy Bondov'
You haven't told us what you believe yet. Once you get cracking on that manifesto we can have a discussion.
It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and leaves more questions, but no answers. Perhaps you can confirm for us the answers this 'credible' theory provides?
Well if that's all the proof you need you must also consider any theory anyone comes up with that cannot be contradicted as equally plausible?
Bond is actually a woman in drag? We never see his dick so therefore it cannot be contradicted. He's just lezzing it up with all those Bond girls.
Admittedly Dan in the speedos must have had a lot of testosterone injections to end up looking like that but nonetheless.