› ›

HERE BE SPOILERS - Skyfall Codename Conspiracy

1…34689…18

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Not bad @Mendes4Lyfe. No matter how apparently far fetched these postulations are, at the very least they could serve as a parallel universe film Bond mythology for those so inclined, like yourself, if you choose to expand on it. A sort of 'Super Retcon' if you will.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    I think the nail in the coffin is that codename supporters inevitably have to end up making up information to glue their theories together. Given the pitifully lacking evidence in favor of the codename theory, we might just have to go out on a stretch and say that it's not true?
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,843
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    @RC7 That's an out of film explanation. An in film explanation is codename.

    @Risico He's at work, if he said his former name it would mean nothing to the person calling him.
    And when he is rogue in Portugal talking to Draco or the fact that again in licence to kill and die another day for most if not all of the film he IS NOT 007!!!!! Yet he is still James Bond.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I want to see this Earth shattering evidence that codename theory is legit too! Spill the beans!

    Then why don't you ask Wizard over there, he's put more words in my mouth than I have.

    I refer you to my post of 1.45pm on page 3.

    I'm not saying you agree with or like the theory just that you give it credence so I ask again for you to outline your reasoning that led you to this (increasingly untenable it seems to the rest of us) position.

    And I refer you to your post of 09:05PM.

    "I'm still waiting for his earth shattering evidence that is going to make fools of us all."

    I never said any of that and you know it. Go find someone else to try and get a rise out of, you've failed here.

    That was clearly just hyperbole for comic effect while we all wait for you to offer anything.

    I'm quite sure there is no earth shattering evidence. At this stage I'd settle for a mild tremble that makes a leaf quiver slightly.

    I don't have the slightest interest in getting a rise out of you merely a scrap of anything that justifies this comment:

    Codename theory is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there.

    I don't understand why you claiming to be misrepresented. If the evidence is right there why can't you tell the rest of us about it so we can see it too?

    OK then. Since you are so persistent, I have always viewed the theory like this:

    whoever is the current James Bond is brainwashed and doesn't actually remember their true identity. 00's have a very short life expectancy, as we know, so each James Bond doesn't have many missions before they are killed in the line of duty. So what happened to the current James Bond simply gets incorporated into the profile. The next guy that comes along will remember having a wife that he was never married to. This explains why Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, and why Bond forgets Japanese by the time of TND when he knew it YOLT. And it also explains why Judi Dench says Bond is a relic of the cold war in GE, but says she misses the cold war in CR. She has aged, and Peirce Brosnan died.

    Is that it?

    You seem to have mistaken a request for evidence of the theory existing for some cobbled together notion of how how it might work.

    What you say is as credible a theory as Bond has plastic surgery between YOLT and OHMSS or is abducted by aliens and has his face swapped but they are all just theories not supported in the least by anything presented to us in the films.

    You telling me you believe God created the universe in seven days is not in itself proof of the existence of God.


  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    :)) Loving this thread, it like reading the workings of a mental break down.
    As someone desperately tries to connect random dots to make a cohesive
    picture. Great fun.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    I've been wrong all this time the codename theory is TRUE. Just it's for M and Q, not James Bond. M and Q are jobs in MI6 - head of SIS and Quatermaster and new people get those jobs in the films - but they don't have the same name just the moniker of either Q or M.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Also Paul is not wearing shoes on the album cover, even more evidence ! ;)
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    Also Paul is not wearing shoes on the album cover, even more evidence ! ;)

    Don't you know that the walrus was Paul? His face is also facing a different direction to the other Beatles on the Revolver album cover.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The evidence is undeniable! :)
    if you play "Another way to die" backwards it confirms the codename theory
    and also sounds better. ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    For anyone who believes the codename theory, or the very loose continuity between films. Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS for example. How on earth do any of you enjoy many of the Bond films. Must be a nightmare.

    The Blofeld thing supports the codename theory no?

    No. It supports the film they wanted to make at that particular time in the series. They don't worry about pedants like yourself when they develop and produce these pictures. Make OHMSS as per the book, or completely alter it to satisfy continuity pedants? The near masterpiece suggests they knew what they were doing.

    I see, so anything in the films that supports the theory is coincidence, but the stuff against it is concrete. Seems like you're being awfully selective to me.

    If you have a working knowledge of the books and films the theory is kiboshed. Only someone with a passing interest and a low level mental illness would entertain the notion. If you chart the productions from film to film and take into account the impact that creative/production decisions have/had on the series, ie. shooting YOLT pre-OHMSS, or Connery coming back for DAF because Picker knew it was the only option, the inconsistencies are all put firmly into context. Even the concept of Bond looking through his old possessions in OHMSS, one of the (exceedingly limited) tenets of your argument, is verbally confirmed by Hunt as being a conscious decision to say to the audience, this is still the same James Bond you all know and love. But this time seen through a different lens.

    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    =D> Absolutely! @RC7
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    What other decrees do you have for us, almighty ruler?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Absolutely @RC7
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    What other decrees do you have for us, almighty ruler?

    Come on, give up the ghost now, hey?
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    It was an Opinion, obviously. Although I think there may be a code hidden in it ! :D
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    It was an Opinion, obviously. Although I think there may be a code hidden in it ! :D

    Be careful @Thunderpussy we will have the guy who was seeing all sorts of illuminati code in the Bond films piping up next.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    =)) Too late !

    I was thinking perhaps all these codename theories depend on how you're watching the films ?
    Either with family, or Friends, a girlfriend or boyfriend all enjoying the exploits of the world's
    greatest spy or .......
    Sitting in a crappy bedsit alone and with your hand down your underpants, talking to
    Yourself ? :D
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2016 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    For anyone who believes the codename theory, or the very loose continuity between films. Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS for example. How on earth do any of you enjoy many of the Bond films. Must be a nightmare.

    The Blofeld thing supports the codename theory no?

    No. It supports the film they wanted to make at that particular time in the series. They don't worry about pedants like yourself when they develop and produce these pictures. Make OHMSS as per the book, or completely alter it to satisfy continuity pedants? The near masterpiece suggests they knew what they were doing.

    I see, so anything in the films that supports the theory is coincidence, but the stuff against it is concrete. Seems like you're being awfully selective to me.

    If you have a working knowledge of the books and films the theory is kiboshed. Only someone with a passing interest and a low level mental illness would entertain the notion. If you chart the productions from film to film and take into account the impact that creative/production decisions have/had on the series, ie. shooting YOLT pre-OHMSS, or Connery coming back for DAF because Picker knew it was the only option, the inconsistencies are all put firmly into context. Even the concept of Bond looking through his old possessions in OHMSS, one of the (exceedingly limited) tenets of your argument, is verbally confirmed by Hunt as being a conscious decision to say to the audience, this is still the same James Bond you all know and love. But this time seen through a different lens.

    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    Only low level mental illness @RC7? That's a pretty generous diagnosis. I would have thought the full Broadmoor in the cell next to Peter Sutcliffe would be closer to the mark.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    What other decrees do you have for us, almighty ruler?

    Any sign of that evidence yet old chap?

    I just checked the odds on Paddy Power:

    Likelihood of turning up by 2020

    P&W's writing talent - 500/1
    Madeline McCann - 1000/1
    Lord Lucan - 5000/1
    @Mendes4lyfe's evidence - 1,000,000/1

    Might venture a cheeky £1 on you delivering though as, however improbable that is, the guy who bet on Leicester is laughing now isn't he and everyone told him he was mental at the start of the season.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    For anyone who believes the codename theory, or the very loose continuity between films. Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS for example. How on earth do any of you enjoy many of the Bond films. Must be a nightmare.

    The Blofeld thing supports the codename theory no?

    No. It supports the film they wanted to make at that particular time in the series. They don't worry about pedants like yourself when they develop and produce these pictures. Make OHMSS as per the book, or completely alter it to satisfy continuity pedants? The near masterpiece suggests they knew what they were doing.

    I see, so anything in the films that supports the theory is coincidence, but the stuff against it is concrete. Seems like you're being awfully selective to me.

    If you have a working knowledge of the books and films the theory is kiboshed. Only someone with a passing interest and a low level mental illness would entertain the notion. If you chart the productions from film to film and take into account the impact that creative/production decisions have/had on the series, ie. shooting YOLT pre-OHMSS, or Connery coming back for DAF because Picker knew it was the only option, the inconsistencies are all put firmly into context. Even the concept of Bond looking through his old possessions in OHMSS, one of the (exceedingly limited) tenets of your argument, is verbally confirmed by Hunt as being a conscious decision to say to the audience, this is still the same James Bond you all know and love. But this time seen through a different lens.

    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    Only low level mental illness @RC7? That's a pretty generous diagnosis. I would have thought the full Broadmoor in the cell next to Peter Sutcliffe would be closer to the mark.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    What other decrees do you have for us, almighty ruler?

    Any sign of that evidence yet old chap?

    I just checked the odds on Paddy Power:

    Likelihood of turning up by 2020

    P&W's writing talent - 500/1
    Madeline McCann - 1000/1
    Lord Lucan - 5000/1
    @Mendes4lyfe's evidence - 1,000,000/1

    Might venture a cheeky £1 on you delivering though as, however improbable that is, the guy who bet on Leicester is laughing now isn't he and everyone told him he was mental at the start of the season.

    That's quite generous odds for P&W's writing talent :)
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Well, at this rate, we accept the concession of the codename theorists who couldn't bring anything solid to the table except witless fantasies and rather disgusting perversions of all pieces of filmic evidence that they felt was a threat to their theory. Good riddance.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Also the increase in sales of Japanese cars over the Bond yeas has to be taken
    into account. :)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    For anyone who believes the codename theory, or the very loose continuity between films. Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS for example. How on earth do any of you enjoy many of the Bond films. Must be a nightmare.

    The Blofeld thing supports the codename theory no?

    No. It supports the film they wanted to make at that particular time in the series. They don't worry about pedants like yourself when they develop and produce these pictures. Make OHMSS as per the book, or completely alter it to satisfy continuity pedants? The near masterpiece suggests they knew what they were doing.

    I see, so anything in the films that supports the theory is coincidence, but the stuff against it is concrete. Seems like you're being awfully selective to me.

    If you have a working knowledge of the books and films the theory is kiboshed. Only someone with a passing interest and a low level mental illness would entertain the notion. If you chart the productions from film to film and take into account the impact that creative/production decisions have/had on the series, ie. shooting YOLT pre-OHMSS, or Connery coming back for DAF because Picker knew it was the only option, the inconsistencies are all put firmly into context. Even the concept of Bond looking through his old possessions in OHMSS, one of the (exceedingly limited) tenets of your argument, is verbally confirmed by Hunt as being a conscious decision to say to the audience, this is still the same James Bond you all know and love. But this time seen through a different lens.

    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    Only low level mental illness @RC7? That's a pretty generous diagnosis. I would have thought the full Broadmoor in the cell next to Peter Sutcliffe would be closer to the mark.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Anyone who entertains this theory is a disgrace to Bond fandom.

    What other decrees do you have for us, almighty ruler?

    Any sign of that evidence yet old chap?

    I just checked the odds on Paddy Power:

    Likelihood of turning up by 2020

    P&W's writing talent - 500/1
    Madeline McCann - 1000/1
    Lord Lucan - 5000/1
    @Mendes4lyfe's evidence - 1,000,000/1

    Might venture a cheeky £1 on you delivering though as, however improbable that is, the guy who bet on Leicester is laughing now isn't he and everyone told him he was mental at the start of the season.

    Whenever you gamble my friend, eventually lose you.
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    edited April 2016 Posts: 337
    Sounds quite far-fetched. I arrived a bit late to the Bond game (1973), but I was always of the thought that each actor portrayed the same character, just in their own different way.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    So No progress on the Evidence gathering then ?
    I was hoping for some daily updates. :(
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2016 Posts: 8,392
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    So No progress on the Evidence gathering then ?
    I was hoping for some daily updates. :(

    If I have to keep listening to this Wizard guy try and be funny I'll never get anything done.
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    Posts: 337
    I think creator intent leaves absolutely no argument to be had - both Fleming and Broccoli were clearly setting out the adventure of one man, not a series of men under one persona.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    stun_harvesting wrote: »
    I think creator intent leaves absolutely no argument to be had - both Fleming and Broccoli were clearly setting out the adventure of one man, not a series of men under one persona.

    Exactly, case closed, hopefully ...
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    stun_harvesting wrote: »
    I think creator intent leaves absolutely no argument to be had - both Fleming and Broccoli were clearly setting out the adventure of one man, not a series of men under one persona.

    Exactly, case closed, hopefully ...

    No, don't worry, I'm sure Wizard's got another zinger lined up. He's probably just got to consult with Tim Vine first.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,128
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

    OK then. Since you are so persistent, I have always viewed the theory like this:

    whoever is the current James Bond is brainwashed and doesn't actually remember their true identity. 00's have a very short life expectancy, as we know, so each James Bond doesn't have many missions before they are killed in the line of duty. So what happened to the current James Bond simply gets incorporated into the profile. The next guy that comes along will remember having a wife that he was never married to. This explains why Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, and why Bond forgets Japanese by the time of TND when he knew it YOLT. And it also explains why Judi Dench says Bond is a relic of the cold war in GE, but says she misses the cold war in CR. She has aged, and Peirce Brosnan died.

    Can you explain then how Bond went from Connery - Lazenby -Connery using this theory please. If Connery Bond dies or is replaced after the events of YOLT, then how is he back again for DAF.
    Also in TND it wasn't Japanese that Bond forgot. Pretty sure it's Chinese or a Chinese dialect.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    stun_harvesting wrote: »
    I think creator intent leaves absolutely no argument to be had - both Fleming and Broccoli were clearly setting out the adventure of one man, not a series of men under one persona.

    Exactly, case closed, hopefully ...

    No, don't worry, I'm sure Wizard's got another zinger lined up. He's probably just got to consult with Tim Vine first.

    He doesn't actually know Tim. Wizard took over from Tim's successor, not actually Tim, although I do recall him saying he was obliged to leave flowers at Tim's deceased wife's grave.
This discussion has been closed.