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
=))
Genius.
Well there you go then. Laz talking directly to them and the fact you actually see them in TMWTGG proves it for for me. The Bond films are actually some sort of Bear Gryls reality show.
As a wise man once said: 'I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there.'
The irony being there's actually more direct evidence for this ridiculous hypothesis than there is for the codename theory!
"Sean Connery, this is Davina. You're live on channel Mi6; please do not swear."
Except the producers didn't ever intend for Bond to be a codename. It's just a dumbass theory with no basis.
I think Indiana Jones is a codename because the young Indy doesn't look like the old Indy and neither look like the dad.
I believe the real Indy wasn't even an archeologist but a spy posing as an orthologist. That spy that original Indy is of course the real James Bond.
See how stupid your codename sounds.
Given the overwhelming evidence of the camera crew in TMWTGG and Laz talking directly to them at the end of the OHMSS PTS (can we also include Sean winking at them at the end of NSNA? Not official but still...) are you happy to admit that the reality show theory 'is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there.' ???
Note I am not saying that you agree that the theory is true (as I have never said that you think that the codenam theory is true) merely that you surely believe the evidence is sufficient to point to the theory having some credibility.
The evidence is thin and tenuous in both instances so I don't see how you can pick and choose which one you accept and which one you refute. If you are happy to accept feeble evidence in one case then you are surely duty bound to accept it in the other.
I love that show :).
Maybe The Big Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Theory?? Nah yours is better.
May I ask a stupid question? Why would any Bond fan want the codename theory to be true... or even entertain the idea?
except the REALLY Crazy ones from Mendes and Oddjob ! :))
Celebrity couple smuggling a couple of dogs into Australia. ;)
This is explained in TND novelization, he had lied to Moneypenny to impress her.
Every time I read a post of your's I can't help but think of Anders Behring Breivik.
You're wasting your time. I'm sure there were many people who inadvertently conversed with Josef Fritzl about the merits of a happy home life.
That's called a filmmaker error.
As others have mentioned before, Chinese and Japanese are very different.
A Brevik and a Fritzl reference in consecutive posts. Rip snorting stuff. I salute you Sir!!
This has to be the most fun thread of all time!
'Presumably'? A whelk would be embarrassed to have your grasp of logic.
How about they are two totally separate characters who have worked in intelligence for 30 years and thus have both experienced the Cold War separately.
Or is this another new theory you're throwing out there? That anyone who remembers the Cold War must be M?
Presumably your little glove puppet Oddjobs_hat will be along in a minute to back up your claims on the basis that you can't contradict it so it must be true.
Just a quick query - is that you finally delivering on your evidence because if it is I think someone sold you a pup. What you've been left with there my friend is a bucket of horse semen. I think they saw you coming. Still if you plant those beans they also sold you I'm sure they will turn into a giant beanstalk.
Very true. Maybe I should further up before responding.
I'm just so anxious to respond to stupidity.
@Mendes4Lyfe Please clarify: do you see "the other guy" line as a comment from Lazenby on Connery, or as a comment from the character James Bond in 1969 on a James Bond prior 1969? It can't be both.
If you choose the former, you debunk the code-theory, because then you accept that an actor steps out of character and refers to his predessessor actor colleague.
If you choose the latter, then you're actually saying James Bond is part of some sort of reality-show, being followed by a camera crew, because he is clearly speaking towards the camera, adressing "someone". In this case your code-theory may still stand, but then there's some news we may have to break to you ... gently.
Neither. The character isn't addressing any one, I don't think. He's talking to himself.