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
'Ridiculous, Sir.'
'Yes, ahem ... of course 007,' M replied like he was hiding something.
'I'm afraid it's true, sorry old boy, but you said you'd rather slash your wrists or something ... time for Aidan or Tom to become the next bearer of the James Bond code.'
And with that M, took out his pistol, and shot James Bond ... ahem, previously Daniel Craig, but now most definitely James Bond, in the eye.
'The code continues.'
A little like your 'Great innovators sometimes puzzle normal brains' tag line. Ah, the wistful prose of our resident philosophical heavyweight. Not quite as poetic as the OHMSS line you're riffing on, but you gave it your best.
"The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success."
Keep at it @Mendes4Lyfe. Your persistence in the face of increasing odds is admirable. Having said that, someone else once said (and I'm paraphrasing):
"The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
There is no codename. The Earth is not flat.
Please you can't defend a theory by making it up then using bits and pieces that could fit.
Read interviews do research do something...
You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
Good god. These feeble comparisons are getting really desperate.
No.
I can very much imagine Cubby Broccoli popping a few bullets in @Mendes4Lyfe if he mentioned this argumentation in his office.
It was said tongue in each, obviously.
I have no problem with this argument, hence why it's still ongoing. However. I maintain that pedalling it as valid is a disgrace to fandom. If the hardcore aren't duty bound to maintain some semblance of order, who is? If random film goers and internet noobs want to embrace these theories, that's cool, but you forfeit entry to the club when you start granting these things credence. Discuss them all you want, but apportioning validity to them is for the internet nutters. And no I don't want to get into a semantic or philosophical debate on what constitutes a 'fan', it's my opinion. I care that people know the facts and the history. I don't care for pissing on the legacy.
I don't see how my points are ineffective when no one has been able to refute a single one. The reason they jump straight to mockery is because it's the only option they have. The truth is that no one wants the theory to be true, including me. The difference is that almost everyone else seems to have adopted a "if you don't look at it, it isn't there" attitude. It's like how some Star Wars fans prefer to pretend like the prequels don't exist.
Ah ha! I see what's happening now. You think that by pointing out the bad decision making of the filmmakers, that I am somehow responsible. If anyone is pissing on the legacy, its those who put this stuff in the films to begin with, not me for pointing it out.
Before I joined this site, I never noticed anything lazy about Connery's performance in YOLT. Then someone pointed it out and suddenly I couldn't under it. But my reaction wasn't to blame and mock the fan that pointed it out, but to feel disappointed in Connery that he didn't give us another classic performance.
I'm not mocking you. I think your theory is interesting, in a parallel universe. If you have the inclination, you should consider a continuation novel that retcons this and see what happens. Either you'll be laughed out of town, or you'll have a best seller on your hands. After all, your appropriately worded monicker is "Great innovators sometimes puzzle normal brains"
........ we're all still waiting. :))
From what I've read all your theories have been countered by
various members.
No, what I'm pointing out is that as hardcore fans we are duty bound to be aware of the history of these films in as much detail as possible (both production and narrative) and yes, that includes as you call it 'the bad decisions' of the film makers, as well as the 'good ones'. What you're doing with the codename theory is trying to retrofit an idea that rewrites that history. Hence you are pissing on the legacy, by abandoning the logical, factual narrative for a fantasy one.
Of course he's taking the piss. That's the fun, is it not?
P.S. I do take Bond pretty seriously when it calls for it. I care about it.
hangon 'retrofit' isn't that what they did in Spectre?
Yes and look how that went down.
Noticing something that has gone unnoticed = retrofitting?
Exactly.
You're thinking of Johnny English.
For the sake of everyone's mental health perhaps you should outline the key bits of evidence that back up your theory, I'm pretty sure among the bluster there were about 3-5 instances amongst the 54 year canon so it won't take you too long. I'll happily attempt to rebuttal them.
............ or rather gas from a lower body part :))
Alright, I'll come back later and replace this post with a comprehensive guide for you. I'm using my phone ATM, so it's a bit awkward now.