HERE BE SPOILERS - Skyfall Codename Conspiracy

1568101118

Comments

  • Posts: 4,325
    'Bond,' M said with a stern look on his face, 'There are some people out there who think your not a real person, but multiple people called James Bond.'

    '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.'
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sometimes when I read thread such as these, I wonder if there there are different versions of Bond films circulating around.

    No, just different levels of cognitive ability. Functioning and malfunctioning.

    You know, people as narrow-minded as you only do themselves more harm in the long run. But if you want to berate and deride a fellow Bond fan for holding an opinion thats different from your own, that's your prerogative.

    I know, you're a visionary etc...

    "You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."

    There is a message there that I think you would benefit from absorbing.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Wow this is still going on. Thanks to all that tried to explain that the codename theory is just wrong.

    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...



  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Yeah, it's a pathetic showing here. Absolutely no argument whatsoever, just "you don't know, this might be the case" whilst making a fool of himself.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @tanaka123 - Can you imagine Bernard Lee killing Connery or Judi Dench killing Brosnan? Or Brown killing Moore? Good lord, lol.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2016 Posts: 8,400
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.
  • Posts: 4,325
    @tanaka123 - Can you imagine Bernard Lee killing Connery or Judi Dench killing Brosnan? Or Brown killing Moore? Good lord, lol.

    No.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    @tanaka123 - Can you imagine Bernard Lee killing Connery or Judi Dench killing Brosnan? Or Brown killing Moore? Good lord, lol.

    No.

    I can very much imagine Cubby Broccoli popping a few bullets in @Mendes4Lyfe if he mentioned this argumentation in his office.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 4,325
    The codename theory is ridiculous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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 really don't take all this that seriously. It's just a bit of good fun, and for all I know, @Mendes4Lyfe is taking the right Royal piss. In which case, the joke is on us.
    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.
    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"
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Points made anything to back those statements .....
    ........ we're all still waiting. :))
    From what I've read all your theories have been countered by
    various members.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I really don't take all this that seriously. It's just a bit of good fun, and for all I know, @Mendes4Lyfe is taking the right Royal piss. In which case, the joke is on us.

    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.
  • Posts: 4,325
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    hangon 'retrofit' isn't that what they did in Spectre?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    hangon 'retrofit' isn't that what they did in Spectre?

    Yes and look how that went down.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Noticing something that has gone unnoticed = retrofitting?
  • Posts: 4,325
    RC7 wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    hangon 'retrofit' isn't that what they did in Spectre?

    Yes and look how that went down.

    Exactly.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    By the way, in Tomorrow Never Dies it is explained that Bond actually doesn't speak Japanese and it is clearly stated that he had lied to Moneypenny only to impress her, which explains why he never actually speaks Japanese in You Only Live Twice.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Walecs wrote: »
    By the way, in Tomorrow Never Dies it is explained that Bond actually doesn't speak Japanese and it is clearly stated that he had lied to Moneypenny only to impress her, which explains why he never actually speaks Japanese in You Only Live Twice.

    You're thinking of Johnny English.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Noticing something that has gone unnoticed = retrofitting?

    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.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    That's it. I want to see a court trial, Ace Attorney style with @RC7 and @Mendes4Lyfe as the 2 attorneys.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Mendes4lyfe's theory is like a breath of fresh air .....
    ............ or rather gas from a lower body part :))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Since we're onto quotes, this discussion reminded me of Elliot Carver's:

    "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"

    You're now the forum equivalent of that BBC Producer that tried to defend Jimmy Savile.
    Oh come on. At least this is entertaining and gives us a bit of a laugh. Better than endless speculation about Craig/EON etc. etc. I'll stand up for anyone who has the balls to take a contrary opinion and argue it, no matter how ineffectively. If we can be asked to accept fanciful family connections between Blofeld and Bond in the official canon, I can understand why some fans have been relegated to accepting even more fantastical theories.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Noticing something that has gone unnoticed = retrofitting?

    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.

    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.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    On being awkward, are you talking about the phone or yourself ? :D
This discussion has been closed.