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
That's what I was saying: him being a professor of law at Yale doesn't add any credibility to his statement whatsoever.
Exactly. This article is a huge appeal to authority. That is, if the guy really wrote it. I can easily write something ludicrous and say it comes from some respected scholar, that does not mean it is true. He might really have said it, but so far I remain skeptical.
On the contrary, however, I will say that the professor's theory is a stretch in that if Silva was a former MI6 agent, it would seem to be quite a conflict of interest to have a her son working for her. But it's all fictional, so anythings possible.
The thing is though that with the exception of perhaps Kerim none of the above have any sort of story arcs like M does in SF.
She has to deal with making the call to leave Ronson to die, killing Bond, facing the setting of the sun on her career, realising that shit was going down that she was responsible for somewhere in her past, going with instinct against her better judgement in sending Bond back into the field again, facing Silva and the fact that her betrayal of him caused all this, facing the select committee and defending her and the services actions and ultimately facing death to stop the killing of more innocents.
To equate her role as being somehow no different to Lieutenant Hip is nonsensical (although I'm sure he harbours a fair bit of guilt for leaving Bond and driving off, being generally shite and introducing a pair of kung fu kicking schoolgirls into the series).
M in SF is one of the main characters, and there is surely a case that could be argued that she is the main character.
The characters above are mere sidekicks and very few of them have any serious impact on the plot (Felix in LTK is the obvious exception but even then he is pretty much a passive Macguffin that generates the plot rather than playing any active role in it).
In SF M is the plot.
And? It was still an entertaining flick.
...
...
M doesn't stand for mother.
I'm sorry but it is not interesting in the slightest. It's complete crap and rivals the "codename" for the title of most ludicrous theory ever.
It really is worrying when people actually believe this kind of total rubbish. No doubt the Professor can tell us who really was behind the JFK hit, how the Moon landing was faked and why there are aliens living in my airing cupboard(!)
As Charles Spurgeon said, “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”
Just like Bond refusing to drink vodka martinis anymore because he was going to have Heineken in SF. Remember when he totally didn't drink a single martini whatsoever throughout the whole movie, and at the end, he looks at M and states "With pleasure...as long as there aren't martinis involved."
Well, he already abandoned "Shaken, not stirred," for good in Casino Royale, so it's not much of leap from there.
Anyway, a movie written by John Logan, about someone somehow an "agent", somehow betrayed by his mother, who wants to come back in town to destroy everything, there was at least one in 2012. There even was Ralph Fiennes in it too :) [Coriolanus]
Yes, the other "blond Bond" too, kind of. "Shaken, not stirred" wasn't used very much in the novels by Fleming anyhow though it did first feature in Dr. No (1958), the first novel to be filmed by Eon Productions. The Bond films therefore made it a catchphrase from Dr. No on.
My initial reactions where, hmm, interesting, then I wondered why they would make this such a secret... then wondering why I hadn't heard this before until now... then coming to the conclusion that he was stretching quite a bit of facts to prove his theory. So I posted here, and I'm glad I did.
I think it holds up as a theory in a few ways, but just seems like something a Bond film wouldn't do. Perhaps this Yale professor is in need of some much needed therapy himself to be connecting the dots in such a way... or maybe he just wanted to be internet famous for a few days.
And especially given that if it was true they might have mentioned such a twist in the film. I think an Oscar winning director knows more about filmmaking than some alleged professor who, as Jolearon said, just wanted to get his name trending on Twitter for a few days. Probably has a book out, although if this SF theory is indicative of how he writes then what a load of garbage it must be.
I suggest this utterly bollocks thread be closed as just because this moron went to Harvard doesn't make him not a troll. Lets cease giving him the oxygen of publicity. If a new poster had come up with this sack of toss he would have been IFMed to buggery by now.
I still think it is a case of "picture of the doctor": he may never have uttered it, someone just used his name to back up a stupid claim. Even if he did, it is still a "picture of the doctor" as his title does not make his claim more valuable.
Well said. Wise words from the Wizard, as always. Time to get the padlock out, methinks. Enough of this crap theory.
But I think @Suivez_ce_parachute has a good point though. A good screenplay writer knows how to be subversive and offer little clues in the story that can be interpreted in different ways. Who knows if the theory actually is true, but it's all just for fun. I think that's all that is being suggested here. This professor is just having a little "what if" fun. There have been many fan theories made about the films on threads on this very site: "Is Charles Gray's Blofeld a parody of Ian Fleming" for example. There's not explicit evidence to make the case, but I don't think any one here should be locked up for indulging in any Bond "what if" theories.
Well I can't disagree with any of that.
True. Still wont be a tragedy if it gets locked though.