›

The most ridiculous Bond theory you heard/read

12357

Comments

  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Dragonpol wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    Really, just as someone educated like many folks on this forum, I found it ridiculous when someone theorized that Blofeld's hair fell out after the wasted ending of DAF and that's why he's bald again in FYEO.

    What I find a better theory is that DAF used clone Blofelds and that they were based on the earlier pre-YOLT Blofeld while OHMSS and FYEO were related villains. Anyway, that's in the past along with the Pierce Brosnan series films, we'll let Sam Mendes and crew try to make true sequels or copies of those 20 movies.

    I share this theory as I share that "James Bond, 007" is actually a codename for different people. So different, so equal, Bond and Blofeld.

    Come on, you don't believe that crap do you?

    Not actually believing, just theorizing, as the thread points out. Bond's canon is complex...
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    'Kay :-\"
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    Yes, I agree. Why needlessly complicate it? I mean it's not in the Fleming source books and was mostly championed by Lee Tamahori. Tells you all that you need to know about that one, really.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    Yes, I agree. Why needlessly complicate it? I mean it's not in the Fleming source books and was mostly championed by Lee Tamahori. Tells you all that you need to know about that one, really.

    Back to really, really stupid theories: take this one I found in a book. Are you prepared? Larry Hagman, considered as Bond in AVTAK. [Dramatic orchestral hit].

    From El mundo de James Bond 007, by Luís Saavedra
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited February 2014 Posts: 3,157
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Gerard wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Gerard wrote:
    Not so much a theory than a misconception:

    "The pre-title scenes have nothing to do with the main plot of the movies"

    Well, way back in the old forum, I proved that the majority of the pre-title scenes had something to do with the plot of the movie, and that the ones that didn't could be counted on the fingers of one hand (GF, TB, FYEO, OP, CR '06).

    For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy don't, the other three link to the rest of the story.

    Your mileage may vary, but:

    a) The drug shipment Bond destroys in the PTS of GF doesn't have anything to do with his attempts to destroy Goldfinger in the rest of the movie.

    b) Even if Boitard works for SPECTRE, eliminating him doesn't give Bond any clue as to what SPECTRE will do next.

    c) Unless you can prove that the two men Bond Kills at the beginning of CR '06 are in any way linked to le Chiffre's plot, I still say that it's unrelated.

    Bond mentions he's on his way to Miami, or someone does. That's where he is after the PTS. Boitard's death ties into what SPECTRE do during the course of the film and is mentioned by Blofeld. Bond's two kills lead to him being promoted.

    For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy are the only two that are "completely unrelated" as you said in your quote. That is what I meant. They are the only two that have nothing to do with the main plot of the movie at all.

    That's interesting though, that both Bond in the PTS and Melina during the movie are seeking revenge.
    Ludovico wrote:
    Another one I read from time to time: Bond's parents have been murdered, or the plot of Bond 24, 25, etc. will explore this.

    It comes from Carte Blanche.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,521
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    Yes, I agree. Why needlessly complicate it? I mean it's not in the Fleming source books and was mostly championed by Lee Tamahori. Tells you all that you need to know about that one, really.

    Back to really, really stupid theories: take this one I found in a book. Are you prepared? Larry Hangman, considered as Bond in AVTAK.

    You mean Hagman? HAHA that would have been hilarious!

  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    FoxRox wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    Yes, I agree. Why needlessly complicate it? I mean it's not in the Fleming source books and was mostly championed by Lee Tamahori. Tells you all that you need to know about that one, really.

    Back to really, really stupid theories: take this one I found in a book. Are you prepared? Larry Hangman, considered as Bond in AVTAK.

    You mean Hagman? HAHA that would have been hilarious!

    Hagman, sorry. In a side note, I just edited in the name of the author and book back in the post.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Anybody who entertains the codename theory is a moron. As I had to tell my friend at dinner last night after he brought it up, and not for the first time.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    bigladiesman wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    Yes, I agree. Why needlessly complicate it? I mean it's not in the Fleming source books and was mostly championed by Lee Tamahori. Tells you all that you need to know about that one, really.

    Back to really, really stupid theories: take this one I found in a book. Are you prepared? Larry Hangman, considered as Bond in AVTAK.

    You mean Hagman? HAHA that would have been hilarious!

    Hagman, sorry. In a side note, I just edited in the name of the author and book back in the post.

    An American Bond is always a bad idea in my book.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 6,022
    Well, in the sixties, Barbara Eden would have been a great Bond Girl.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited February 2014 Posts: 3,157
    In the last 16 months, I heard/read thousand of times that Skyfall is going to be last James Bond film, and they all claimed it to be a fact, not a theory. I seriously don't get where it comes from, since:
    A) Skyfall feels more like a beginning, than an ending
    B) Craig has signed for two more movies
    C) There's nothing that would make you think that Skyfall is the last one.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    RC7 wrote:
    Anybody who entertains the codename theory is a moron. As I had to tell my friend at dinner last night after he brought it up, and not for the first time.

    Hey, no need to be so harsh! [-X
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Dragonpol wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    The thread is about ridiculous theories... Not giving credit to the most ridiculous theory out there. One aspect of Bond's canon is very simple: it is the same character.

    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    Yes, I agree. Why needlessly complicate it? I mean it's not in the Fleming source books and was mostly championed by Lee Tamahori. Tells you all that you need to know about that one, really.

    Back to really, really stupid theories: take this one I found in a book. Are you prepared? Larry Hangman, considered as Bond in AVTAK.

    You mean Hagman? HAHA that would have been hilarious!

    Hagman, sorry. In a side note, I just edited in the name of the author and book back in the post.

    An American Bond is always a bad idea in my book.

    Ditto
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bigladiesman wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Anybody who entertains the codename theory is a moron. As I had to tell my friend at dinner last night after he brought it up, and not for the first time.

    Hey, no need to be so harsh! [-X

    It's true, though. I genuinely believe that anyone who finds any credence in it to be a moron.

  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    RC7 wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Anybody who entertains the codename theory is a moron. As I had to tell my friend at dinner last night after he brought it up, and not for the first time.

    Hey, no need to be so harsh! [-X

    It's true, though. I genuinely believe that anyone who finds any credence in it to be a moron.

    Well, let's end the debate: I'll always be a moron in your book, and I'll be happy to oblige.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2014 Posts: 10,512
    bigladiesman wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Anybody who entertains the codename theory is a moron. As I had to tell my friend at dinner last night after he brought it up, and not for the first time.

    Hey, no need to be so harsh! [-X

    It's true, though. I genuinely believe that anyone who finds any credence in it to be a moron.

    Well, let's end the debate: I'll always be a moron in your book, and I'll be happy to oblige.

    What exactly is it, that is so satisfying about it as a theory? I'm being genuine. I just don't get it. It's the kind of thing I expect casual fans to pedal. Other than the fact it's patently wrong, it doesn't even work as a theory in and of itself.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Walecs wrote:
    In the last 16 months, I heard/read thousand of times that Skyfall is going to be last James Bond film, and they all claimed it to be a fact, not a theory. I seriously don't get where it comes from, since:
    A) Skyfall feels more like a beginning, than an ending
    B) Craig has signed for two more movies
    C) There's nothing that would make you think that Skyfall is the last one.

    I have heard this one, but about... GE. Which makes even less sense.

    but those are more rumors than theories.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Ludovico wrote:
    Walecs wrote:
    In the last 16 months, I heard/read thousand of times that Skyfall is going to be last James Bond film, and they all claimed it to be a fact, not a theory. I seriously don't get where it comes from, since:
    A) Skyfall feels more like a beginning, than an ending
    B) Craig has signed for two more movies
    C) There's nothing that would make you think that Skyfall is the last one.

    I have heard this one, but about... GE. Which makes even less sense.

    but those are more rumors than theories.

    I read that people actually took the winking fish on LTK as a symbolic end to the series. I think it's just... Random.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Walecs wrote:
    In the last 16 months, I heard/read thousand of times that Skyfall is going to be last James Bond film, and they all claimed it to be a fact, not a theory. I seriously don't get where it comes from, since:
    A) Skyfall feels more like a beginning, than an ending
    B) Craig has signed for two more movies
    C) There's nothing that would make you think that Skyfall is the last one.

    I have heard this one, but about... GE. Which makes even less sense.

    but those are more rumors than theories.

    I read that people actually took the winking fish on LTK as a symbolic end to the series. I think it's just... Random.

    Yeah, the fish knows best.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Gerard wrote:
    Well, in the sixties, Barbara Eden would have been a great Bond Girl.

    Joking or serious? L-) Just asking, because... I actually like the idea!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Regardless of what anyone thinks about LTK, it would have made for a poor swansong.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Ludovico wrote:
    Regardless of what anyone thinks about LTK, it would have made for a poor swansong.

    It's my fav film of all... But being objective, you're quite right.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I don't see how people can believe the codename theory as each Bond actor has referenced something that happened to another Bond.

    Connery: Original.

    Lazenby: Brings up items used in previous Bond movies. Honey's Knife Belt, Grant's watch and Thunderball rebreather.

    Moore: Mentions Tracy once when talking to Anya and even visit's Tracy's grave.

    Dalton: Felix mentions that he was married once.

    Brosnan: When Elektra asks him if he ever lost a loved one, he pauses momentarily and changes the subject. And in the Everything or Nothing game he mentions that he fought Max Zorin.

    So if James Bond is a codename, (Which it isn't.) Why would a different agent visit the grave of a previous agent's wife? (And lets not assume the previous Bonds would know each other because that would be a pretty big security risk if all the Bonds knew each other.)
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited February 2014 Posts: 14,680
    RC7 wrote:
    Anybody who entertains the codename theory is a moron. As I had to tell my friend at dinner last night after he brought it up, and not for the first time.
    @RC7 I hope you two are still friends after you backhanded him off his chair. ;)
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    Can we make up our own silly theories just for laughs?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Can we make up our own silly theories just for laughs?

    That would kind of defeat the purpose. Everyone can invent stupid theories, what is funny or enraging is the people who take them seriously.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    EoN won't hire specific people based on their fame. Silly theory to be honest.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Predominantly, the codename theory. I'm sick of how far that spread in so little a time. There was a downright absurd theory I heard many, many years ago (from a magazine, if I remember correctly), long before I knew of this website, or probably even before it existed (TWINE wasn't out yet, Desmond Llewelyn was still alive), that stated that M was the one behind SPECTRE.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Ludovico wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Can we make up our own silly theories just for laughs?

    That would kind of defeat the purpose. Everyone can invent stupid theories, what is funny or enraging is the people who take them seriously.

    Got the point.
Sign In or Register to comment.