skitzor wrote:(sorry, but freezing him between movies doesn't explain it).diamondd wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH
skitzor wrote:what amazes me is that you think each Bond knowing everything about the past Bond is so totally out of the realm of possibility, but an immortal Bond that changes looks every few years is more believable.
skitzor wrote:also, I have more people agreeing with me. how you like them apples?
I have this theory that I don't like to share because, well, it's a little nuts and paranoid. So if you're ever telling it to someone else, don't use my name. My theory is that new actors are brought in to replace the older ones so more movies can be made. Or more specifically, when one of the actors (or 4 out of 5) say that they don't want to be James Bond anymore, they find a new one, usually a younger one. (Although Roger Moore is 2 years older than Sean Connery)
diamondd wrote: [EDIT: also, this guy says it wellI have this theory that I don't like to share because, well, it's a little nuts and paranoid. So if you're ever telling it to someone else, don't use my name. My theory is that new actors are brought in to replace the older ones so more movies can be made. Or more specifically, when one of the actors (or 4 out of 5) say that they don't want to be James Bond anymore, they find a new one, usually a younger one. (Although Roger Moore is 2 years older than Sean Connery)
Ralph Wiggum wrote:This. Which is why this thread is so funny.
diamondd wrote:more stuff that still doesn't address the main issue.
skitzor wrote:diamondd wrote:more stuff that still doesn't address the main issue.
oh yeah, nice work.
Create a world where the main character makes sense. The James Bond movies really do take place in their own alternate reality, where everybody is sexy and mysterious and fast cars and casinos are everywhere. This reality is updated all the time, and you get the sense that James Bond is constantly going on missions and fighting random bad guys - unlike in superhero movies, which don't really carry over the sense from the comics that there's a whole superheroic world out there. We had a long discussion in the comments last week about how great the pre-credits action scenes in Bond movies are, for re-establishing Bond as well as just showing that he fights random baddies all the time.
The Codename Theory proposes that “James Bond” is not a real person but a codename given by MI6, and that every actor to play James Bond has been playing a different agent using the “James Bond” codename. The intention of this theory is to explain why James Bond never ages, and why he changes his appearance every, well, every time there is a change in actors. I suppose it’s also open the door for a black or female or black female James Bond to be cast sometime in the future. This idea has generated a little bit of support among fans, but I personally have always despised it because it totally ruins the mystique of James Bond. “There’s only one man” after all. This Codename theory is gimmicky and pointless. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and like I said, the theory does have some supporters, but I don’t buy it. It’s sort of like saying that Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney were playing different Batmans (or should that be Batmen?), or that Alan Reed and Henry Cordon were voicing different Fred Flintstones. But what the hey, we’ll play along.
So, every Bond actor played a different character who was assuming the codename “James Bond”? This would mean that there have been five James Bonds: Connery/Bond, Lazenby/Bond, Moore/Bond, Dalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond. With Connery/Bond being the first, right? A bit odd then that Connery/Bond is replaced by Lazenby/Bond only to later on return. Perhaps Lazenby/Bond got compassionate leave after his wife died (his wife died, remember that for later)?. But Lazenby recognises gadgets from Connery missions (recognises, he’s not just clearing out his predecessors desk, hey, what’s that there in the bottom draw? Oooh, very kinky), so that’s not going to quite work. Perhaps Connery and Lazenby were playing the same character, while Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were playing different ones. This would mean that there have been four James Bond – ConneryLazenby/Bond, Moore/Bond, Dalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond.
But in The Spy Who Loved Me Sheikh Hosein remembers Moore/Bond from Cambridge, which would mean Moore/Bond was using the Bond Codename during his University years, before ConneryLazenby/Bond. Did Moore/Bond possibly have a brief stint using the Codename before passing it on to ConneryLazenby/Bond, only to get it back 11 years later? Not likely. Maybe Moore was playing the same character as Connery and Lazenby, while Dalton and Brosnan were playing different ones. This would mean that there have been three James Bond – ConneryLazenbyMoore/Bond, Dalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond.
The Dalton Era is the one that’s the most damaging for supporters of The Codename Theory, primarily because Dalton/Bond resigns from the Secret Service in Licence to Kill. Why did he get to keep the codename? According to the theory, shouldn’t he have relinquished the codename and gone back to whatever his name was before he replaced ConneryLazenbyMoore/Bond as James Bond. We’ll ignore this fact and assume that MI6 are slow with paperwork (M’s still waiting on that mini refrigerator she ordered for the office last September), but he was lucky that they didn’t give the James Bond codename to someone else while he was off hunting down Sanchez. The other thing about Licence to Kill is that Felix Lieter acknowledges Dalton/Bond as the one who “was married, a long time ago”. Perhaps Dalton/Bond was also married, perhaps to a hairy-knuckled Scotswoman named Gladys. Or Perhaps Dalton was playing the same character as Connery, Lazenby and Moore, while Brosnan was playing a different one. This would mean that there has been two James Bonds – ConneryLazenbyMooreDalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond.
As we move along to Brosnan, I think you can see where I’m heading. There’s no dead wife references to save me this time though, but there is something else; Doesn’t the pre-title scene of the first Brosnan/Bond film, GoldenEye take place nine years earlier? Before The Living Daylights? Before Brosnan/Bond took over the codename. Is Brosnan playing ConneryLazenbyMooreDalton/Bond for this one scene ? Does Brosnan join the ranks of Charles Grey and Joe Don Baker with the honour of playing two different characters in the Bond series ? Probably not, since later on Brosnan/Bond clearly remembers the events of the pre-title scene. It’s also unlikely that Trevelyn (shouldn’t that be a codename as well?) would want to take revenge on “some else who just happens to be assuming the code name once used by the person who betrayed me”. Unlikely but not impossible I suppose, but it definitely seems that Brosnan was playing the same character as Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton. This would mean that there has been one James Bond – ConneryLazenbyMooreDaltonBrosnan/Bond, James Bond, the one and only. Nobody does it better.
I think that’s sufficient evidence showing that they are all most probably playing the same James Bond, but I can’t prove it beyond all doubt I suppose. What I can prove beyond all doubt though, is that Robert Brown and Judi Dench were playing the same M. But that will have to wait for another day.
Until next time,
diamondd wrote:even more stuff that doesn't address the main issue
diamondd wrote:if you need to believe in this codename idea to sit through a Bond film without your brain melting than go for it, the fact of the matter is and always will be that its wrong.
all I said was if you didn't have codename or alternate reality theory, the series just plain doesn't make sense. Bond is changing appearances every few years. to me that is a bigger issue than the issues that guy came up with.
skitzor wrote:diamondd wrote:if you need to believe in this codename idea to sit through a Bond film without your brain melting than go for it, the fact of the matter is and always will be that its wrong.
I don't. I just find it more believable, and it's something interesting to think/talk about.
$had0w wrote:this is just like skitz is just putting his hands over his ears and yelling 'NO!' and ignoring everything.
What diamondd just posted pretty much ruins the idea of the codename, but you chose to just ignore it to try to stubbornly prove your 'point'..
Edit:all I said was if you didn't have codename or alternate reality theory, the series just plain doesn't make sense. Bond is changing appearances every few years. to me that is a bigger issue than the issues that guy came up with.
Thats called progression. The same character (connery) cannot have played bond for all these years, so they swapped him out when they wanted to and kept the main character (bond)
you dont need an 'alternate universe' for this, as its cinema, and not meant to be a factual timeline.
ITS ALL JUST A CODE NAME SHUTUP IN NOT LISTENING AND IM INSULTING YOUR INTELLIGENCE IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERING OPINION
$had0w wrote:which, in diamondd's second last post, he provided enough information and evidence to destroy that theory, and you were just like 'nope, not listening'
skitzor wrote:I might reply later, but for now all I'll say is it's so extremely clear that you aren't reading what I'm writing diamondd (or shadow), so I'm not sure there's much point in replying. maybe do a few more years at school and get those reading skills up.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests