007 Chronological Viewing Order

[Dallas Kinard]

Yeah, I agree with Megatron. Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove.

Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old. Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi shit. Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever. I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active. The "why" doesn't matter as much.

Anyway, the original James Bond film series is canon to Earth-66 and you can't convince me otherwise!!!/s

Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. Vol 1

Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. was a six-issue limited series published in 2016. It was an crossover between Batman (as he appeared on the 1966 TV series) and the characters from the TV show The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (who DC had licensed at the time). Batman '66 Meets the Man from...

dc.fandom.com

Technically has more proof than the codename theory and any explanation for him not aging much, lol. I wonder if they ever considered a crossover comic...

Wow, that's a lot to unpack. I'll reply point by point.

"Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue."

What you may refer to as "shoehorning", others call theories intended to help explain plot holes and logical inconsistencies within the universe of said franchise. I'm not "ignoring" anything. I'm taking what the films give us and trying to piece together the information and make as much sense of it as possible. This entire debate boils down to what you are willing to accept. Is there a right or wrong answer? I don't believe so. But am going to do my best to try to explain everything as logically as possible with the info the films themselves provide. Also, I disagree that they are intended to be the same person. OHMSS dis-proves that idea within the opening minutes with the line "this never happened to the other fellow". Now of course you could dismiss this line and pretend it's a meta, Deadpool level 4th wall breaker if you want OR you could take it seriously and go from there (which is what I'm doing). And calling it a "simple issue" is simply your own opinion. Fans like to think about this stuff and make sense of it all. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's part of the fun of FICTION. Emphasis added to that last word.

"The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove."

Wow, this one is full of problems. So the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, sure I agree with that. And I'm going to provide the evidence week to week as I work my way through the films. Personally, I think OHMSS is the strongest evidence we have so far of the alias/code-name theory. Now, I reject the idea that I'm just "coming up with theories to explain all the things that 'clearly contradict' that interpretation". Again, what you may personally believe "clearly contradicts" this idea may actually be perfectly explainable. You are also making baseless assertions here and now the burden shifts to YOU to provide the evidence that "clearly contradicts" my interpretation. I also don't like your last line about "adding things that I absolutely can't prove." I absolutely disagree. If the evidence literally disproves your claim, which I believe it does (I'll keep referring you to OHMSS), then you would need to agree you're wrong here.

"Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old."

How old? If Bond is as old as the actor portraying him, then he ages and de-ages throughout the series. If you believe Connery through Brosnan are "the same guy" from 1962 - 2002, then you must believe that Pierce is playing a 70+ year old Bond. Do you really believe this? If not, then you must adhere to the completely nonsensical "sliding timeline" theory which the films themselves also "absolutely" do NOT prove. Either view requires leaps and theorizing you see. What makes yours more valid than mine?

"Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi shit."

I'm personally only counting the films for this timeline. Again, Connery is 32 in "Dr. No" and Brosnan is in his 40s by the 90s era. So you would have to believe that Bond looks like a 40+ year old when he's really in his 70s. Again, this requires theorizing that the films themselves absolutely do NOT prove. And you've actually defeated your entire argument with that "well, sci-fi shit" line. Why can't I say the same exact thing regarding the code-name idea? Oh you don't like it? Well too bad, because "sci-fi shit". I think you get the point.

"Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever."

Are these theories that can be proven by simply watching the films? Sounds like you're completely fine with coming up with whatever you need to in order to make YOUR interpretation work, yet completely deny mine which is FAR more logical and fits in with super secret spy organization stuff than all of these out-landish ideas.

"I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active."

Good, because you'll be hard-pressed to prove ANY of those ridiculous claims. And no, we don't KNOW that he's the same man. Again, OHMSS can be interpreted a couple of different ways. It's up to the viewer to decide how he or she wants to take that "other fellow" line. I'm going with the literal interpretation and can defend anything up to "The Man With The Golden Gun" as that's as far as I've seen. So far, nothing I've watched has come close to dis-proving my idea. For example, in OHMSS Lazenby Bond goes through Connery Bond's desk and checks out some of the items from that 007's past cases. Easy. References come in all kinds of ways, so just saying "this movie referenced a previous movie therefore Bond is the same guy despite all the differences in physical appearance and personality" just doesn't add up. We need to get into the specific details of each and every reference.

"The "why" doesn't matter as much."

To you perhaps, but not to me. This is again just your personal opinion.

 

[Jozaca]

Anyway, the original James Bond film series is canon to Earth-66 and you can't convince me otherwise!!!/s

Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. Vol 1

Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. was a six-issue limited series published in 2016. It was an crossover between Batman (as he appeared on the 1966 TV series) and the characters from the TV show The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (who DC had licensed at the time). Batman '66 Meets the Man from...

dc.fandom.com

Technically has more proof than the codename theory and any explanation for him not aging much, lol. I wonder if they ever considered a crossover comic...

It would actually be very cool if Earth-66 would be the Spyverse

 

[Jamesctl]

In the Batman 66 timeline conversation, I talked about a connected timeline, and someone rewrote my timeline.
Earth-66
Batman Season 1-3
I think this one's obvious
Legends of the Superheroes Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Green Hornet Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Felony Squad Season 1-3
Sam Stone has a Window Cameo in 2x21
Judd, for the Defense Season 1-2
Crossover with The Felony Squad
Hogan's Heroes Season 1-6
Colonel Klink has a Window Cameo in 2x26
The Addams Family Season 1-2
Lurch has a Window Cameo in 2x27; THRUSH is mentioned by Uncle Fester
The Monkees Season 1-2
Penguin from Batman '66 appears
Lost in Space Season 1-3
Window Cameo in one of the Comics, this one could be argued about
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1-4
Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (James Bond)
The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1
Spin-off of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Please Don't Eat the Daisies Season 1-2
THRUSH appears
Get Smart Season 1-5
THRUSH appears I think (?)
The Avengers Season 1-6
Batman '66 Meets Steed and Mrs. Peel
The New Avengers Season 1-2
The Avengers Spin-Off

 

[Pro Bot]

Wow, that's a lot to unpack. I'll reply point by point.

"Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue."

What you may refer to as "shoehorning", others call theories intended to help explain plot holes and logical inconsistencies within the universe of said franchise. I'm not "ignoring" anything. I'm taking what the films give us and trying to piece together the information and make as much sense of it as possible. This entire debate boils down to what you are willing to accept. Is there a right or wrong answer? I don't believe so. But am going to do my best to try to explain everything as logically as possible with the info the films themselves provide. Also, I disagree that they are intended to be the same person. OHMSS dis-proves that idea within the opening minutes with the line "this never happened to the other fellow". Now of course you could dismiss this line and pretend it's a meta, Deadpool level 4th wall breaker if you want OR you could take it seriously and go from there (which is what I'm doing). And calling it a "simple issue" is simply your own opinion. Fans like to think about this stuff and make sense of it all. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's part of the fun of FICTION. Emphasis added to that last word.

Do you believe that the writers intended Bond to be a codename and all the Bonds are brainwashed into thinking they're the same person? Personally, I think it's much more likely that James Bond is not a codename as this has never been suggested once in all his literary and film appearances, and this extends to the film franchise.

"The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove."

Wow, this one is full of problems. So the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, sure I agree with that. And I'm going to provide the evidence week to week as I work my way through the films. Personally, I think OHMSS is the strongest evidence we have so far of the alias/code-name theory. Now, I reject the idea that I'm just "coming up with theories to explain all the things that 'clearly contradict' that interpretation". Again, what you may personally believe "clearly contradicts" this idea may actually be perfectly explainable. You are also making baseless assertions here and now the burden shifts to YOU to provide the evidence that "clearly contradicts" my interpretation. I also don't like your last line about "adding things that I absolutely can't prove." I absolutely disagree. If the evidence literally disproves your claim, which I believe it does (I'll keep referring you to OHMSS), then you would need to agree you're wrong here.

James Bond having the exact same dead wife is clear intent for it to be the same character. "This other fella" line doesn't necessarily have to refer to another James Bond in-universe. It's an out-of-universe joke for that, yes, but in-universe it makes more sense for it to refer to someone else. As for meeting Blofield twice, was Bond not disguised during that encounter?

"Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old."

How old? If Bond is as old as the actor portraying him, then he ages and de-ages throughout the series. If you believe Connery through Brosnan are "the same guy" from 1962 - 2002, then you must believe that Pierce is playing a 70+ year old Bond. Do you really believe this? If not, then you must adhere to the completely nonsensical "sliding timeline" theory which the films themselves also "absolutely" do NOT prove. Either view requires leaps and theorizing you see. What makes yours more valid than mine?

Why are you convinced that James Bond is in his 30s in the first film? Connery's age doesn't need to reflect the character. Do you think X-Men: Dark Phoenix is a different universe to X-Men: First Class because the actor's ages don't match the character's age, or do you accept that they're the same universe despite that? I'm not employing a sliding timeline one bit here either, I'm arguing that actor's age isn't a factor.

"Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi shit."

I'm personally only counting the films for this timeline. Again, Connery is 32 in "Dr. No" and Brosnan is in his 40s by the 90s era. So you would have to believe that Bond looks like a 40+ year old when he's really in his 70s. Again, this requires theorizing that the films themselves absolutely do NOT prove. And you've actually defeated your entire argument with that "well, sci-fi shit" line. Why can't I say the same exact thing regarding the code-name idea? Oh you don't like it? Well too bad, because "sci-fi shit". I think you get the point.

"Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever."

Are these theories that can be proven by simply watching the films? Sounds like you're completely fine with coming up with whatever you need to in order to make YOUR interpretation work, yet completely deny mine which is FAR more logical and fits in with super secret spy organization stuff than all of these out-landish ideas.

"I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active."

Good, because you'll be hard-pressed to prove ANY of those ridiculous claims. And no, we don't KNOW that he's the same man. Again, OHMSS can be interpreted a couple of different ways. It's up to the viewer to decide how he or she wants to take that "other fellow" line. I'm going with the literal interpretation and can defend anything up to "The Man With The Golden Gun" as that's as far as I've seen. So far, nothing I've watched has come close to dis-proving my idea. For example, in OHMSS Lazenby Bond goes through Connery Bond's desk and checks out some of the items from that 007's past cases. Easy. References come in all kinds of ways, so just saying "this movie referenced a previous movie therefore Bond is the same guy despite all the differences in physical appearance and personality" just doesn't add up. We need to get into the specific details of each and every reference.

"The "why" doesn't matter as much."

To you perhaps, but not to me. This is again just your personal opinion.

All of this focus on me adding details that aren't intended in any way appears to ignore the part where I explicitly say that none of that can be proven or taken as canon, but it at least works within the confines of what we know. It is certainly less of a stretch than James Bond was brainwashed into thinking that he's the same person as someone else and has the same dead wife. I simply mentioned it to posit that, in a spy-based universe, it's not really that weird or out-of-place.

It would actually be very cool if Earth-66 would be the Spyverse

I'm glad you think so!

In the Batman 66 timeline conversation, I talked about a connected timeline, and someone rewrote my timeline.
Earth-66
Batman Season 1-3
I think this one's obvious
Legends of the Superheroes Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Green Hornet Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Felony Squad Season 1-3
Sam Stone has a Window Cameo in 2x21
Judd, for the Defense Season 1-2
Crossover with The Felony Squad
Hogan's Heroes Season 1-6
Colonel Klink has a Window Cameo in 2x26
The Addams Family Season 1-2
Lurch has a Window Cameo in 2x27; THRUSH is mentioned by Uncle Fester
The Monkees Season 1-2
Penguin from Batman '66 appears
Lost in Space Season 1-3
Window Cameo in one of the Comics, this one could be argued about
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1-4
Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (James Bond)
The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1
Spin-off of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Please Don't Eat the Daisies Season 1-2
THRUSH appears
Get Smart Season 1-5
THRUSH appears I think (?)
The Avengers Season 1-6
Batman '66 Meets Steed and Mrs. Peel
The New Avengers Season 1-2
The Avengers Spin-Off

This is great! Unfortunately, unless everyone wants to chip in, I wouldn't be able to add any of that. It is fun though. Batman '66 Meets Steed and Mrs. Peel actually has a flashback to an episode of The Avengers. Oh, and if you go with the idea that the real Earth-76 is post-crisis Earth-66, that adds Wonder Woman, The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman... and all of their sequel comic books. Add on Adventures of Superman and James Bond for the lols, and you've got potentially one of the biggest live-action shared DC universes.

Is there a good explanation for Lost in Space's timeline though?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"Do you believe that the writers intended Bond to be a codename and all the Bonds are brainwashed into thinking they're the same person?"

For one, it doesn't matter what I believe the writers intended. What ultimately matters is the on-screen evidence. Intentions can vary from writer to writer which makes it far too subjective. I have not settled on the brainwashed theory yet myself. The only thing I am convinced of is that in-universe, 007/James Bond is an alias used by multiple different men working for this universes fictional version of MI6 where "M" and "Q" code-names exist. And OHMMS only further cements that idea.

"Personally, I think it's much more likely that James Bond is not a codename as this has never been suggested once in all his literary and film appearances, and this extends to the film franchise.""

Now you're talking. I like how you prefaced with "personally". That's more like it. You are free to personally feel however you'd like to, as am I. This is all fiction after all. Now, I disagree that it has never been suggested once. I will continually lean on OHMSS as evidence that there are at least two men who go by James Bond if we are to take the line literally.

"James Bond having the exact same dead wife is clear intent for it to be the same character."

So you can come up with all sorts of fictional reasons to explain away the various physical differences and ages between actors, but believing that Tracy Bond was only ever married to the Lazenby Bond is too much a stretch? It may be "clear" to YOU, but I don't believe it's clear to the audience. If you are referring to the upcoming film where Roger Moore visits the grave of Tracy, I've seen it posited that he was visiting the grave of an old colleague's dead wife. For all we know, Moore's Bond was active around the same time Lazenby's was (I think this is pretty clear seeing how experienced Moore's Bond is right away) and knew Tracy personally. Heck, he could have been in attendance at their wedding off-screen for all we know.


"This other fella" line doesn't necessarily have to refer to another James Bond in-universe."

"Doesn't necessarily" means it's possible. I believe it absolutely was referring to Connery and I think the writers did actually intend for the audience to understand that.

"It's an out-of-universe joke for that, yes, but in-universe it makes more sense for it to refer to someone else."

Why? I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense he's referring to his 007 work colleague. Why am I wrong?

"As for meeting Blofield twice, was Bond not disguised during that encounter?""

Yes, but Blofield is also a code-name and I think the films 100% prove that with the various different actors and decoys introduced in DAF. Neither Bond or Blofield in OHMSS recognize each other because those two specific men never met.

"Why are you convinced that James Bond is in his 30s in the first film?"

Am I convinced that Bond is the exact same age as his actor? No. Am I convinced that the assumption is they are close in age, yes. I have no reason not to make this assumption. Why don't you?

"Connery's age doesn't need to reflect the character."

Says who? And where is your threshold? Are you fine with Bond being in his 70s while looking to be in his 40s? And if someone disagrees, are they "wrong"?

"Do you think X-Men: Dark Phoenix is a different universe to X-Men: First Class because the actor's ages don't match the character's age, or do you accept that they're the same universe despite that?"

Bringing another franchise into the mix isn't fair. The rules all depend on the universe in which you are in. X-Men is messy and some things can be chalked up to bad writing and continuity mishaps. But we aren't talking X-Men. We are talking 007, which plays by different rules. One of which is the fact it's more based in reality than comic book movies.

"I'm not employing a sliding timeline one bit here either, I'm arguing that actor's age isn't a factor."

Good, I'm glad we agree that the sliding timeline idea is just plain silly and is used as a last ditch effort to explain away all of the many inconsistencies perceived by the franchise. It's insane to me that some people think a sliding timeline makes more sense than a code-name. Absolutely bonkers to me. I'm arguing that an actors age MUST be a factor. You don't cast a 40 year old to play a 70 year old unless heavy makeup is applied (like Palpatine in ROTJ).

"All of this focus on me adding details that aren't intended in any way appears to ignore the part where I explicitly say that none of that can be proven or taken as canon, but it at least works within the confines of what we know."

Yes and what we know is on-screen evidence. Which is why the OHMSS line is so important to this discussion. One's interpretation of said line is really the crux of this entire debate.

"It is certainly less of a stretch than James Bond was brainwashed into thinking that he's the same person as someone else and has the same dead wife."

This is your opinion once again. So super soldier serums and "sci-fi shit" is less of a stretch than a top secret super spy organization brainwashing it's agents to be trained killers by giving them a fake name and back-story? I totally disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in a super spy world.

"I simply mentioned it to posit that, in a spy-based universe, it's not really that weird or out-of-place."

Thanks for sharing your opinion once again. And that's what this entire thing boils down to. It's all about what you personally think is "weird" or "out of place". You think Bond being different men is weird and out of place in this fictional reality. I don't. Cool.

 

[Megatron]

For one, it doesn't matter what I believe the writers intended. What ultimately matters is the on-screen evidence. Intentions can vary from writer to writer which makes it far too subjective. I have not settled on the brainwashed theory yet myself. The only thing I am convinced of is that in-universe, 007/James Bond is an alias used by multiple different men working for this universes fictional version of MI6 where "M" and "Q" code-names exist. And OHMMS only further cements that idea.

that line in-universe 100% refers to the other OO agents, (there are more than 7).

Now you're talking. I like how you prefaced with "personally". That's more like it. You are free to personally feel however you'd like to, as am I. This is all fiction after all. Now, I disagree that it has never been suggested once. I will continually lean on OHMSS as evidence that there are at least two men who go by James Bond if we are to take the line literally.

same thing as 1st one.

So you can come up with all sorts of fictional reasons to explain away the various physical differences and ages between actors, but believing that Tracy Bond was only ever married to the Lazenby Bond is too much a stretch? It may be "clear" to YOU, but I don't believe it's clear to the audience. If you are referring to the upcoming film where Roger Moore visits the grave of Tracy, I've seen it posited that he was visiting the grave of an old colleague's dead wife. For all we know, Moore's Bond was active around the same time Lazenby's was (I think this is pretty clear seeing how experienced Moore's Bond is right away) and knew Tracy personally. Heck, he could have been in attendance at their wedding off-screen for all we know.

tbh My parents are casual viewers and they think that Bond is the same one pleyed by different actors.... When they talk about the actors they debated on who played Bond the best, but as matter of fact they believe he is the same man.

"Doesn't necessarily" means it's possible. I believe it absolutely was referring to Connery and I think the writers did actually intend for the audience to understand that.

1st answer again.

Yes, but Blofield is also a code-name and I think the films 100% prove that with the various different actors and decoys introduced in DAF. Neither Bond or Blofield in OHMSS recognize each other because those two specific men never met.

they wanted to made an 1:1 adaptation of the novel and that novel showed their first meeting. Tho yeah he was disguised.

Am I convinced that Bond is the exact same age as his actor? No. Am I convinced that the assumption is they are close in age, yes. I have no reason not to make this assumption. Why don't you?

tbh if you apply his age from the novels it works. (oh and the continuation novels are canon and go up to the 2000, so yeah the novel do the same thing as the movies, and no codenames or actors this time, and this bond is out from the 1950s).

Says who? And where is your threshold? Are you fine with Bond being in his 70s while looking to be in his 40s? And if someone disagrees, are they "wrong"?

Odin's actor in the MCU isn't 2000+ years old lol.

Bringing another franchise into the mix isn't fair. The rules all depend on the universe in which you are in. X-Men is messy and some things can be chalked up to bad writing and continuity mishaps. But we aren't talking X-Men. We are talking 007, which plays by different rules. One of which is the fact it's more based in reality than comic book movies.

tecnically nope, all franchaises have basic rules that follows, so make examples is fine.

Good, I'm glad we agree that the sliding timeline idea is just plain silly and is used as a last ditch effort to explain away all of the many inconsistencies perceived by the franchise. It's insane to me that some people think a sliding timeline makes more sense than a code-name. Absolutely bonkers to me. I'm arguing that an actors age MUST be a factor. You don't cast a 40 year old to play a 70 year old unless heavy makeup is applied (like Palpatine in ROTJ).

again, there is no need for both.... it works as explained before.

Yes and what we know is on-screen evidence. Which is why the OHMSS line is so important to this discussion. One's interpretation of said line is really the crux of this entire debate.

again, 1st aswer.

This is your opinion once again. So super soldier serums and "sci-fi shit" is less of a stretch than a top secret super spy organization brainwashing it's agents to be trained killers by giving them a fake name and back-story? I totally disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in a super spy world.

both can work, but the super soldier serum are way more plausible than brainwashing, and also if u brainwash someone u make him walk away like that? Like Connery's Bond said I'm out and they just let him?

Thanks for sharing your opinion once again. And that's what this entire thing boils down to. It's all about what you personally think is "weird" or "out of place". You think Bond being different men is weird and out of place in this fictional reality. I don't. Cool.

GoldenEye will make everything more complicated, as there will be 2 Bond Active at the same time, going with your theory.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"that line in-universe 100% refers to the other OO agents, (there are more than 7)."

How do you know with 100% certainty? This could just be your own interpretation. And what do you think audiences were supposed to think when they first heard this? I think it's obvious he's referring to the previous 007 agent who happens to be on holiday in Japan during the events of the film.

"tbh My parents are casual viewers and they think that Bond is the same one pleyed by different actors.... When they talk about the actors they debated on who played Bond the best, but as matter of fact they believe he is the same man."

What your parents, or any casual viewers think is up to them of course. On-screen evidence is what I'm going by. Not what anyone "thinks" because that's all subjective.

"they wanted to made an 1:1 adaptation of the novel and that novel showed their first meeting. Tho yeah he was disguised."

That actually introduces even more continuity issues you'll have to figure out then. I think it makes more sense to believe Blofeld is also different men.

"tbh if you apply his age from the novels it works. (oh and the continuation novels are canon and go up to the 2000, so yeah the novel do the same thing as the movies, and no codenames or actors this time, and this bond is out from the 1950s)."

The novels aren't the same continuity as the films though.

"Odin's actor in the MCU isn't 2000+ years old lol."

Is this a serious argument? Odin, a fictional Norse God is not equivalent to a mere mortal spy. Again, different universe, different rules.

"tecnically nope, all franchaises have basic rules that follows, so make examples is fine."

Oh really? And what exactly are these "basic rules"? Are they written down in some Bible that everyone must reference when figuring out this stuff? Who is the arbiter of these supposedly objective rules of yours? Can I say that Captain America may exist in the 007 timeline because both are technically fiction?

"again, there is no need for both.... it works as explained before."

No actually, it doesn't, as I have already explained.

"again, 1st aswer."

You can keep saying this on repeat but it does nothing to refute my points or further your own subjective interpretation of OHMSS. I'll just say the same thing again, I believe the line is referring to the previous 007 the audience is familiar with. Whether it's 4th wall breaking or in-universe is for the viewer to decide.

"both can work, but the super soldier serum are way more plausible than brainwashing, and also if u brainwash someone u make him walk away like that? Like Connery's Bond said I'm out and they just let him?"

Gosh there is so much wrong with this. First of all, if you really believe Bond using a completely un-proven super soldier serum that alters his physical appearance/personality and gives him longevity is "way more plausible" than a super top secret super spy organization making their 007 agents the ultimate killing machines by turning them into cold killers with brainwashing techniques, then this debate can end right now because nothing I say will make you even consider my points on this. What an INSANE leap to make, and you think I'm the one making crazy logical leaps. This is total absurdity. Brainwashing does NOT eliminate freedom of choice. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

If anyone reading is at least open minded enough to consider the "code-name theory", this Reddit thread does a great job of breaking it all down.

 

[Megatron]

How do you know with 100% certainty? This could just be your own interpretation. And what do you think audiences were supposed to think when they first heard this? I think it's obvious he's referring to the previous 007 agent who happens to be on holiday in Japan during the events of the film.

cos it's the most logical one....

What your parents, or any casual viewers think is up to them of course. On-screen evidence is what I'm going by. Not what anyone "thinks" because that's all subjective.

didn't you contraddict what you said on asnwer 1?

That actually introduces even more continuity issues you'll have to figure out then. I think it makes more sense to believe Blofeld is also different men.

cos that's what they are, "continuity errors".

The novels aren't the same continuity as the films though.

yup, but they're based upon that world.

Is this a serious argument? Odin, a fictional Norse God is not equivalent to a mere mortal spy. Again, different universe, different rules.

ok, I could say the same for Bond who is fictional, but if you want another example, In Buffy Season 1, Buffy was 15-16 years old, tho the actress was born in 1977, she was 20-21 at the time.... and she isn't a god.

Oh really? And what exactly are these "basic rules"? Are they written down in some Bible that everyone must reference when figuring out this stuff? Who is the arbiter of these supposedly objective rules of yours? Can I say that Captain America may exist in the 007 timeline because both are technically fiction?

1) Everything is canon until proven otherwise.
2) Producers and props or line in media can be wrong. (Young Justice 2011 date)
3) Whole scenes > statements when contraddicted. (Invincible's Viltrumite weapons arc)
4) design contraddictions can be overlooked if faced with continuity errors. (War and Fall of Cybertron)
i can keep going.

No actually, it doesn't, as I have already explained.

still nothing tells us both his exact age, the novels (the work which the movies are based off gave us a fitting age for him). Tho he could be in his 20s if you don't wanna use the novel's age.

You can keep saying this on repeat but it does nothing to refute my points or further your own subjective interpretation of OHMSS. I'll just say the same thing again, I believe the line is referring to the previous 007 the audience is familiar with. Whether it's 4th wall breaking or in-universe is for the viewer to decide.

bro you're confusing me, 1st you say that what he thinks the audience is subjective, now it's a factor, like take a decision lol.

Gosh there is so much wrong with this. First of all, if you really believe Bond using a completely un-proven super soldier serum that alters his physical appearance/personality and gives him longevity is "way more plausible" than a super top secret super spy organization making their 007 agents the ultimate killing machines by turning them into cold killers with brainwashing techniques, then this debate can end right now because nothing I say will make you even consider my points on this. What an INSANE leap to make, and you think I'm the one making crazy logical leaps. This is total absurdity. Brainwashing does NOT eliminate freedom of choice. The two are not mutually exclusive.

yeah but if i'm the boss of MI6 and do smt so ethically wrong, why would I not force my subject to leave? If I'm going too far what's blocking me?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"cos it's the most logical one...."

I disagree. Am I wrong?

"didn't you contraddict what you said on asnwer 1?"

How so?

"cos that's what they are, "continuity errors"."

Why the quotes? And what if they aren't though? Who's to say?

"yup, but they're based upon that world."

And? How does this refute my point?

"ok, I could say the same for Bond who is fictional, but if you want another example, In Buffy Season 1, Buffy was 15-16 years old, tho the actress was born in 1977, she was 20-21 at the time.... and she isn't a god."

I never made the claim that the actor's age must line up 100% with the character's age. I'm saying that in general, characters are usually in the same ball-park when we are talking about human characters and not Gods or Aliens.

"1) Everything is canon until proven otherwise."

What does this mean exactly?

"2) Producers and props or line in media can be wrong. (Young Justice 2011 date)"

I never said they couldn't. In fact I've argued this with my "Superman: Brainiac Attacks" essay on this site. I actually dispute that 2011 date in YJ as well. Nothing contradicts it to my knowledge in the episodes themselves. But that can be debated in that thread please.

"3) Whole scenes > statements when contraddicted. (Invincible's Viltrumite weapons arc)"

Is this always true or sometimes true?

"4) design contraddictions can be overlooked if faced with continuity errors. (War and Fall of Cybertron)"

Animation isn't live action and vice versa. Bond actors aren't "designs", they are different humans with different eye color, hair color and personalities. Apples to oranges my friend.

"i can keep going.""

I don't doubt you one bit. However, did you come up with these "rules" and if so, why should anyone care?