Current Events > "James Bond is a code name."

(+) Yeah! (+)

• The plot of Goldfinger was that the Chinese government was seeking to disrupt the US economy.
• In Dr. No, you had a Black man who believed that dragons existed in the 20th century.
• The eponymous Dr. No himself was a Chinese man played by a White man with his eyes taped at his side.
• In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond battled two homosexual stereotypes.
• In Goldfinger, Bond turned a lesbian straight by forcing himself on her.
• In You Only Live Twice, Bond asked why Chinese girls taste different from other girls. Later, he's told that -- in Japan -- men always come first.

If EON ever decides, "You know what? It is a code name," all of that becomes canon in the modern era. That's how you know the code name theory will never be adopted.

code name is a stupid theory but everything from the old movies is still canon
---

Skyfall disproved this.

---

We see his parents in Skyfall lol
---

His real name is Albert Einstein.

im not a bond fan. i've only ever seen the first two Brosnan movies. can someone explain to me how the bullet points lead to the conclusion drawn? because that seems like a complete non sequitur to me. at the absolute worst, it just seems like two different canons using a similar plot device.

---

This is a stupid ass topic

---

James Bond is a real name and a code name in the 1967 Casino Royale. James Bond himself is named James Bond, and then other spies are also given the name James Bond to confuse the enemy! A few of these James Bonds are even women! Which means we've already had a female James Bond in the franchise! I think three, if memory serves.
---

TheOnionKnight posted...

James Bond is a real name and a code name in the 1967 Casino Royale. James Bond himself is named James Bond, and then other spies are also given the name James Bond to confuse the enemy! A few of these James Bonds are even women! Which means we've already had a female James Bond in the franchise! I think three, if memory serves.

I am good with this.

I thought 007 was the code name

Another bullshit make it up as you go along universe. Just like Harry Potter and star wars.

---

Medussa posted...

im not a bond fan. i've only ever seen the first two Brosnan movies. can someone explain to me how the bullet points lead to the conclusion drawn? because that seems like a complete non sequitur to me. at the absolute worst, it just seems like two different canons using a similar plot device.

The first three Bond actors -- Sean Connery, George Lazenby, and Roger Moore -- are all playing the same character in the same continuity. The main connecting issue is the death of Bond's wife which is brought up throughout the series. With Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, continuity became vague. They would reference things indirectly, like saying that Bond had lost someone he cared about, but there were no direct references to the events of earlier films. The Daniel Craig series is a direct reboot and does not tie in to any of the previous films.

The thing that allowed this theory to take place is that Bond has virtually no supporting cast from film to film.

Cobra1010 posted...

Another bullshit make it up as you go along universe. Just like Harry Potter and star wars.

You mean every series ever. What's the alternative to making up something as you go? It's all fake you buffoon.

And I'm not even a Bond fan. But this argument sucks monkey dick.

Are you supposed to instantaneously summon a world all together? Everything is made up as you go... Because people are making it up. Duh.

---

...ok. but how does the Craig canon using the "code name" plot device mean it's bringing in the old movies in? even if the old canon also used that plot device, there is no reason they both can't use it but still stay separate canons.

---

FortuneCookie posted...

In Goldfinger, Bond turned a lesbian straight by forcing himself on her.

In the novel, yeah. In the movie, they don't seem to commit to making her a lesbian, and just make her a straight woman that hates or is cold/indifferent towards Bond.

---

coh posted...

I thought 007 was the code name

That's what I thought.

---

Medussa posted...

...ok. but how does the Craig canon using the "code name" plot device mean it's bringing in the old movies in? even if the old canon also used that plot device, there is no reason they both can't use it but still stay separate canons.

The code name theory is not canon. We see the Craig Bond's family home and see definitively that his name has been James Bond since birth.

That poster was saying that the Craig movies contradicts the theory.

i'm confused. i've posted about nothing except your posts.

how does the code name theory becoming canon lead to the old stuff becoming canon (again)?

---

Kisai posted...

In the novel, yeah. In the movie, they don't seem to commit to making her a lesbian, and just make her a straight woman that hates or is cold/indifferent towards Bond.

It comes down to one line. "You can turn the charm off. I'm immune."

Also, and this part is super antiquated, Bond turns around after Pussy Galore trips him from behind and is shocked to see that his attacker is a woman and that she's dressed in masculine attire.

It's still there in the subtext.

It never made sense and just was a dumb fan theory about making the films having the one continuity without realizing that movies back then just didn't care about continuity.

---

Medussa posted...

i'm confused. i've posted about nothing except your posts.

how does the code name theory becoming canon lead to the old stuff becoming canon (again)?

The code name theory is that all of the James Bond movies take place in the same universe with the different actors representing different agents who have taken on the "James Bond" code name.

got it. i was mixing it up with complaints i had heard about Lashana Lynch's character.

---

Darmik posted...

It never made sense and just was a dumb fan theory about making the films having the one continuity without realizing that movies back then just didn't care about continuity.

The earlier films actually did care about continuity. That's why Live and Let Die introduced Quarrel Jr. He was originally going to be Quarrel, but they realized that Quarrel couldn't return since he was killed off in Dr. No. They also made sure to have Bond visit Tracy's grave and settle the score with Blofeld in the opening scene of For Your Eyes Only. Roger Moore was considering leaving the series and they wanted to make sure the audience knew he, Connery, and Lazenby were all playing the same character.

I agree with you about the fan theory being dumb. It's not a bad idea if you've only seen one or two Bond movies, but there are just too many incompatibilities for it to make sense. Also, what are the odds that all of the really good agents would happen to be classy ladies' men who liked to drink martinis and gamble?

FortuneCookie posted...

The earlier films actually did care about continuity. That's why Live and Let Die introduced Quarrel Jr. He was originally going to be Quarrel, but they realized that Quarrel couldn't return since he was killed off in Dr. No. They also made sure to have Bond visit Tracy's grave and settle the score with Blofeld in the opening scene of For Your Eyes Only. Roger Moore was considering leaving the series and they wanted to make sure the audience knew he, Connery, and Lazenby were all playing the same character.

I agree with you about the fan theory being dumb. It's not a bad idea if you've only seen one or two Bond movies, but there are just too many incompatibilities for it to make sense. Also, what are the odds that all of the really good agents would happen to be classy ladies' men who liked to drink martinis and gamble?

They referenced and followed up on certain elements but they didn't really care about having a consistent continuity for the most part. A lot of sequels with recast actors sort of worked with that logic. Batman Forever is another example. Hell even Indiana Jones messes up continuity in the second movie. It just wasn't really a priority for a lot of movies back then. A sequel is just another adventure with this new character and that's about all you need to know.

They're kinda like episodes of a cartoon I guess? Like it's not going to retread plots because they're not reboots. But they're not really intended to be a big overarching saga either. It's different to these days when sequels directly follow up on the previous movie and plot points.

---

That continuity error in Temple of Doom is a big one for me. Like, it could've easily been avoided if they'd simply set the movie after Raiders of the Lost Ark.

whats the error in temple of doom?
---

Philoktetes posted...

whats the error in temple of doom?

Indiana Jones doesn't believe in the supernatural in Raiders of the Lost Ark despite seeing very supernatural stuff a few years earlier in Temple of Doom.

---

Is just a code name is such a stupid cop out.

isn't 007 the code name, not James Bond?

---

Ricemills posted...

isn't 007 the code name, not James Bond?

Yes.

Darmik posted...

Indiana Jones doesn't believe in the supernatural in Raiders of the Lost Ark despite seeing very supernatural stuff a few years earlier in Temple of Doom.

Wait Temple of Doom was a prequel?

coh posted...

Wait Temple of Doom was a prequel?

Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place in 1936, Temple of Doom in 1934.

Who cares, all I want is Bond brooding over Vesper for the 5th movie in a row

---