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
The bit you are missing is the NUANCE. Neither I nor the original poster ever ever ever claimed that the codename theory was correct. You keep mischaracterising us that way. What he said, and I found to be valid was that the current arguments used to dismiss it were insufficent. That is all that was claimed. Everything else, you've made up. You have allocated us a position that we never agreed to and then used our hesitance and refusal to defend such a position as grounds, once again, to dismiss the theory wholesale.
You can reply to my previous post any time you like. I'll post again below.
These are the arguments that you suggest cannot be disproved.
1) The LTK 'he was married once'. This one's easy, lots of people have been married once - no suggestion of Tracy.
It's a reference to Tracy. The film makers are very explicit about that and if @ColonelSun is around, I'm sure he won't mind backing that up. (He worked on LTK FYI)
2) FYEO PTS. Actually I think this bolsters the codename theory. Many have remarked how jovial Bond is when turning the tables on Blofeld. Would the 'Tracy' Bond be so flippant about taking revenge? I don't think so.
Laying flowers at the grave of the wife of an old colleague is not so unusual.
It's Tracy's grave. It's yet another instance of reiterating the link between eras, see. TSWLM beforehand.
OHMSS reminiscing over past trophies. Again no contradiction - these are mementos left by his predecessor. Perhaps he even told the new 007 of his past adventures, or these trophies simply evoke imaginings of the adventures his predecessor had.
Again, specifically inserted to show that Connery and Lazenby are the very same character. An active decision by Hunt and the producers.
These are all proactive decisions by the writers/producers/directors to establish there is one James Bond.
That's all three debunked, so you can rest easy in the knowledge that in this case the facts outweigh the theory 3-0.
In which case, the codename theory is just a fan theory. Whether it can be dismissed or not, it isn't what they ever intended. Bond has always been one man.
Instead of waving your white feather, just listen to me. I was asking you to reiterate or at least paraphrase what the other guy said. I didn't tell you to prove the codename theory, I didn't tell you to do anything except tell me what the other person is.
At the moment, the only thing I've allocated you is the title "huge, spectacular waste of time". You keep telling me that I'm not listening to you, yet you refuse to listen to me. You haven't even heard anything I've said, as I can tell from you repeating yourself over and over again.
Fair enough but you were the one who stated this:
That statement says quite explicitly that you consider that there is more than sufficient evidence out there to have convinced you that the theory has some credibility.
There have been numerous requests from members for you to set out the 'evidence' that led you to this position and we are still waiting.
If you can show me a smoking gun of a memo between Cubby and Harry outlining it then present it and I'm prepared to admit I was wrong.
But if the points @RC7 outlines above are the spine of your case then I think you are somewhat misguided/mad.
As far as I am aware this idiotic notion was utilised in CR67, possibly briefly entertained as an explanation for the change from Sean to Laz (as was plastic surgery - why are you not propogating this as just as credible a theory for why each Bond changes his face? Theres as much evidence as after all they never say Bond hasnt had plastic surgery) then dismissed as bullshit. It was resurrected by clown Tamahori (with the notion of an old Sean popping up to talk to Broz) but was shut down by EON as clearly being utter shite. And thats it. Thats all the evidence! A shit film with no link to EON, possibly a brainstorming session in 1968 and the insane spewings of a man who had no clue what he was talking about and nearly sank the series.
If you call that substantial I'd hate to be a suspect for a trial you're on the jury for as you'd send down anyone who happened to be within 100 square miles of the murder scene 30 years before the crime was committed.
We arent dismissing this out of hand merely because we dont want it to be true. We're not the religious pretending to ignore facts to preserve our fairy tale.
None of us are denying the slide whistle, the double take pigeon, the CGI tsunami and stepbrothergate because they are incontrovertibly true. They are shit and I'd like them all not to be true but we admit it because we cant do anything but admit it. So why would we not admit the same about the codename theory? Yes its true but we all think its a shit idea? Why would there be a big conspiracy to deny it? To protect EON's reputation for making shit calls from time to time?
The reason no one entertains the idea is that there is no EVIDENCE for it.
Well I say that. According to you there is so as I already said: we're all on tenterhooks waiting for you to reveal your scoop.
Or is there a superinjunction out that stops you?
If you would have taken the time to actual read the above posts, nowhere did I posit or even suggest that these arguments "cannot be disproved". What I actually said was that the poster had brought up points that should not be disregarded offhand. This is what's known as a false equivalence.
Having said that, I will do my best to play devils advocate, if you insist I must.
1) Where IN THE FILM , does it explicitly state that they are taking about Tracy? You merely stating it's a reference to Tracy means nothing.
2) Again, you merely stating that It's Tracy's Grave and therefore this Bond and the Bond that Tracy married are one of the same is just your assumption. If Moore had said "my wife" at any point, then it would be definitive.
3) If you want to talk about "proactive decisions by the writers", then surely you must also concede that Blofeld not recognizing Lazenby's Bond is also a proactive decision by the writers? What about Bond being fluent in Japanese in YOLT, then not comprehending the figures on Wai Lin's computer keyboard in TND? You can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid. Either you accept the choices the writers make, or you don't. You can't keep the ones you like and ignore the ones you don't.
Does anyone really think EoN decided to cook up some codename plan to alienate fans and destroy their livelihood?
EoN hasn't seemed to even have a clear plan for Craig's Bond reboot much less any absurd codename plan.
But does he mention her name? At all? No? Not conclusive then.
Moreover, I think 'Teresa' (not even Tracy...but the more formal and original name) is on the grave tombstone in FYEO.
I think 'codename' has been soundly debunked.
Perfect. Thank you.
....unless "Tracy" is a codename for a bunch of dead wives. :-?
The idea of multiple Bonds having dead wives and being sensitive whenever that subject is brought up is more than a coincidence, lol.
Also, in OHMSS, it says "Teresa Bond" and mentions her death date is 1969, with the caption "We have all the time in the world". Are you now telling me that there's another Teresa Bond that Roger Moore married and then died in the same year as Lazenby's? And that he magically also used those same words "we have all the time in the world"?
And if it wasn't Moore's wife, why would he pay respects to her? You can't really say they're colleagues, since Lazenby's version left the "James Bond" codename in 1969, and Moore's version didn't become "James Bond" until 1973.
Also, Brosnan's Bond was around nine years before GE, which would've been 1986 (between Moore and Dalton's time). Are you saying that there's multiple Bonds floating around at the same time?
Another 'coincidence'. Unless one argues that this is also part of his cover (like Universal Exports), but then I wouldn't think he would be so nonchalant or even care about staying 'in cover' when his neck was about to be snapped, as it was in TWINE.
What @Mendes4lyfe is advocating is the notion that Roger Moore 'Bond' is visiting the grave of his predecessor, Lazenby 'Bond's' wife. Don't know about you, but whenever I'm hired for a job the first thing I do is acquaint myself with the personal life of my predecessor and proceed to leave flowers for their deceased relatives and spouses.
Either way, I always leave flowers.
That was Alexander the Great's family motto - maybe his code name was James Bond?
We all would. It makes too much sense. The current arguments provide insufficient evidence imo.
so you will have a similar story to all the other James Bonds :D
Code name dismisses and destroys two very important Bond characteristics...
1. The introduction of "Bond...James Bond"
2. The preference for a martini, shaken not stirred.
It simply doesn't work.
For it as the codename ! :D
Thing is its not even reserved to a change of actor. FRWL Bond who has been to Tokyo is obviously different to YOLT Bond who hasnt (and incidentally prefers his martinis stirred not shaken).
I guess that explains why Sean's first two are very Fleming-esque portrayals and from GF on he plays more movie Bond.And now the comment in DAF about Sean being on holiday makes sense too. He took a few years out to go backpacking so they brought Laz in on secondment.
Its all coming together now. Thanks @Mendes4lyfe for opening my eyes.
Anyway I can t spend all day here I've got to call HR at the office and get a list of every person who has ever worked for my company that I never met and then spend the rest of my life driving up and down the country visiting the graves of their dead relatives.