As the video I sent you said, the only 2 real things in OHMSS that are in favor of the theory is the opening with the line (tho as the video said he looks at the camera smiling) and the blofeld situation (tho it was done cos they wanted to be close to the novels with this movie).
As for the one bond theory we have the Connery's cast reactions and relationships with Lazenby's bond are the exact same as connery, M's crying at his wedding, the end saying that Bond will come back in "Diamonds are Forever" (i'm not counting the one from "You only Live Twice" as at the time Connery wasn't expected to go away). Lazenby's Bond does the same exact things as Connery's Bond does, plus the one liners puns are the same. Too many references and too less time between movies in-universe to be a different person and people to care so much about him (the same ones that apparently brainwashed him). Also as
@barryh said there will be problems with the characters treating him the same and also Judi Dench 2 Ms lol (she plays Olivia Mansfield in the Craig Era, while she plays Barbara Mawdsley in the Brosnam Era), so continuing with this you'll get into problems.
Also it's important to note the Casino Royale was advertised as to be a reboot, so even talking in a meta-way this theory is meh... Cos why should they say it's a reboot if the past actors were different Bonds? Cos even if they're set in the same universe, the fact that it's not the same guy is a reboot, damn, even God of War 4 is a reboot, and was advertised as such (and we're talking in a meta and out of universe way so the comparison is valid).
It's not like I don't like the theory it's that it doesn't make sense, it's that more and more i read of it and more and more it makes less sense, damn the guys who made the time lord theory makes more sense than the multiple guys one, lol.
"While Judy Dench is retained her timeline is reset. In Skyfall she is stated to have been in Hong Kong from 1986 to 1997 and she missed the Cold War when talking about a newly minted 007. In Brosnans films she was already M in 1995, she inherited Bond and viewed him dismissively as a Cold War relic. They are the same person but from different timelines." - from one of the comments on the video you sent.
Also for the age, Moore is older than Connery (1927 (RM) - 1930 (SC)) so even the ages are correct, so again no problems with them.
"Richard Thayer but Felix and Tanner as well? The only times that it's made clear Bond and Felix are meeting for the first time are in Dr No and Casino Royale. Felix changed actor every single time he appeared yet he and Bond always acted like old acquaintances (Connery's Bond even mentions the events of Dr No in Goldfinger). Not only that but David Hedison player Felix in Live and Let die, was briefly replaced with another actor for the Living Daylights and then Hedison was brought back for Licence to Kill. Does that mean they gave the codename back to Hedison? Also Timothy Dalton's Bond is attending Felix's wedding despite the fact that Hedison only met Moore's Bond previously, not only that but the entire reason Bond goes after Sanchez is to avenge what happened to Felix which makes no sense if he barely knows him.
Licence to Kill is also Felix's last appearance until the Daniel Craig reboot because of the fact that his leg got bitten off, suggesting that Felix is meant to be just one guy, and so they introduced a new character to act as the CIA informant for the Brosnan films, why would they bring in a new name if they could just reuse the codename?" - Another comment from the video you sent me.
"Are you seriously try to twist it in an impossible way?
The man just dictated a letter of resignation to Moneypenny. He takes out an empty suitcase to clean out his desk.
As he takes the watch and the knife out of the drawer, you hear the song that Ursula Andres sang in
dr.No. And he smiles... That's clearly reminiscing.
He wanna put those items in the suitcase. Why would he take those items with him if they weren't his in the first place?
And why o why does none of the so called different "James Bonds" never ever ever ever ever ever mention their predecessor???
But yet they put flowers on the grave from the wife of a predecessor that they never met???
Are you really that delusional?
Where o where in the James Bond novels does Ian Fleming write that James Bond is a codename???" - another comment.
I mean, he went to far (don't approve his behaivor) but he does have a point.
Finishing with this made by a James Bond megafan (he has the novels, comics and games too), so tbh I trust him more than myself or other fans on James Bond.
"
already read most of them (not all of them) and still nothing,"
Then it seems your mind is made up. And that's OK, nothing I or anyone else may tell you will change your mind because you don't WANT it to be true. You're ignoring every bit of evidence that goes against what you personally want to adhere to.
"
that shot of M crying for Bond as he gets a wedding is what breaks it that he is the same guy,"
M works very closely with each Bond and knows them all quite well. Him being sentimental for a guy he has known for years being happy does literally nothing to refute the idea that Bond is an alias.
"(also the "other fella"line with bond looking at the camera, mmmmm..... and also the exact same personality of Connery."
Looking towards the camera does nothing to refute the line itself. And they absolutely do NOT have the same personality.
"
As for the one bond theory we have the Connery's cast reactions and relationships with Lazenby's bond are the exact same as connery,"
Again, if all of these people know each of the different Bonds and have developed relationships with all of them, I see no problem here. They are the "exact same" in the sense of a working relationship with co-workers and fellow employees. Moneypenny is a flirt herself so it makes sense she flirts with each man in the same way Bond flirts with tons of different women in each film.
"
M's crying at his wedding"
See my first point. This refutes nothing.
"the end saying that Bond will come back in "Diamonds are Forever" (i'm not counting the one from "You only Live Twice" as at the time Connery wasn't expected to go away)."
Yes, James Bond - the character - will return. It doesn't say WHICH 007 agent, just the fact that the alias will be back in the next installment. Again, refutes nothing. Also, what you personally choose to count is completely irrelevant and arbitrary on your part.
"Lazenby's Bond does the same exact things as Connery's Bond does"
Examples please. All of the Bonds have similar likes, dislikes and personality traits. If James Bond is a facade and 007 is the real killer, then that makes sense they would all have a similar front they put up.
"
plus the one liners puns are the same."
So two different guys can't have similar one-liners and puns? You have refuted nothing again.
"
Too many references and too less time between movies in-universe to be a different person"
All of the references can be explained though and not sure why time has anything to do with it.
"
and people to care so much about him (the same ones that apparently brainwashed him)."
So the fact that people care about 007 as a person and co-worker somehow disproves that there are different guys using the alias? And what makes you think we actually see anyone who was part of the brainwashing? MI6 is a large organization and M, Q and Moneypenny could all be under the same treatment.
"Also as @barryh said there will be problems with the characters treating him the same"
You mean treating the 007 alias "the same" (whatever that means). Too vague and not specific enough.
"and also Judi Dench 2 Ms lol (she plays Olivia Mansfield in the Craig Era, while she plays Barbara Mawdsley in the Brosnam Era), so continuing with this you'll get into problems."
Such as? She can't go by different aliases/code-names? Why not?
"
Also it's important to note the Casino Royale was advertised as to be a reboot, so even talking in a meta-way this theory is meh..."
Was it though? I'll have more to say about the Craig era next year when I get into it, but from what I've read, there is evidence in those films that place them firmly in the established timeline. Some of those articles I sent explain this quite well. Also, you calling the theory "meh" is your opinion and refutes nothing. I like the color blue, but I think yellow is kinda "meh".
"Cos why should they say it's a reboot if the past actors were different Bonds"
Did they ever actually come out and say it was intended to be a reboot? And even if it IS a reboot, that still does nothing to refute the Connery - Brosnan era being different men.
"
Cos even if they're set in the same universe, the fact that it's not the same guy is a reboot,"
No it's not, nothing about it being a different person must make it a reboot. Are you even paying attention at this point?
"
damn, even God of War 4 is a reboot, and was advertised as such (and we're talking in a meta and out of universe way so the comparison is valid)."
I don't care about God Of War as it has nothing to do with the 007 film franchise.
"It's not like I don't like the theory it's that it doesn't make sense,"
To YOU it doesn't make sense. But to ME it absolutely does. You have to decide what makes MORE sense, the various explanations as to why Bond never seems to age, looks drastically different between actors, has different personalities, etc. OR you can try to make logical sense of it and going by OHMSS - and taking it seriously - try to explain things the way I am.
"
it's that more and more i read of it and more and more it makes less sense, damn the guys who made the time lord theory makes more sense than the multiple guys one, lol."
Funny, the more and more excuses, wild sci-fi stretches and leaps I hear from the other side of the debate, the MORE I think the code-name theory makes the most sense. It's wild to me that Bond being a time lord somehow makes MORE sense to you than it just being different men. Like, we aren't even in the same ball-park anymore and it makes me question why I'm even having this discussion with you.
"
While Judy Dench is retained her timeline is reset. In Skyfall she is stated to have been in Hong Kong from 1986 to 1997 and she missed the Cold War when talking about a newly minted 007. In Brosnans films she was already M in 1995, she inherited Bond and viewed him dismissively as a Cold War relic. They are the same person but from different timelines." - from one of the comments on the video you sent."
I have not gotten that far yet, but I see not problems with her backstory being amended and changed in-universe as time goes by. Ya know, "super top secret spy organization stuff". It's amazing that you go to the comments to validate your own POV while ignoring the actual video itself.
"
Also for the age, Moore is older than Connery (1927 (RM) - 1930 (SC)) so even the ages are correct"
What do you mean they are "correct"? According to what exactly? And Dalton and Brosnan are younger than Moore so how do you explain that?
"
so again no problems with them."
Um, yes actually there are problems. Moore has light blue eyes, a different personality and different interests.
"The producers made a conscious effort to distance the new James Bond from the character made famous by Sean Connery, perhaps an effort to avoid repeating the George Lazenby fiasco. For example: Roger Moore's Bond never orders a vodka martini (neither shaken, nor stirred), he drinks bourbon whiskey; the mission briefing occurs in Bond's flat (a location not seen since "Dr. No" in 1962); the armourer Q is dropped from the film (though still mentioned); Roger Moore's James Bond does not wear a hat; he smokes cigars, not cigarettes, in brief: an English gentleman. In time, as Moore grew in to the role, many old Bond-isms returned, and some new elements were dropped." - Bond Wiki
Still fishing for comments that affirm your side huh? Typical. Well, let me crack my knuckles and rapid fire these points for you.
"
Richard Thayer but Felix and Tanner as well?"
Yep, why not?
"
The only times that it's made clear Bond and Felix are meeting for the first time are in Dr No and Casino Royale."
Good catch, no problem.
"
Felix changed actor every single time he appeared yet he and Bond always acted like old acquaintances (Connery's Bond even mentions the events of Dr No in Goldfinger)."
"The CIA was given access to this program, and created their own agent with their own backstory- Felix Leiter. And the CIA has programmed at least eight of them. Not content to simply program an agent with just a backstory, the CIA attempted to turn the program into one that also gave the agents engrained training in clandestine operations to increase efficiency, which lead to the creation of the Treadstone program." - This will always be my response to the Felix question.
"
Not only that but David Hedison player Felix in Live and Let die, was briefly replaced with another actor for the Living Daylights and then Hedison was brought back for Licence to Kill."
No different than Connery to Lazenby back to Connery. I see no issue.
"
Does that mean they gave the codename back to Hedison?"
Why yes it does! Now you're catching on!
"
Also Timothy Dalton's Bond is attending Felix's wedding despite the fact that Hedison only met Moore's Bond previously, not only that but the entire reason Bond goes after Sanchez is to avenge what happened to Felix which makes no sense if he barely knows him."
It's called "off-screen" events. We the audience may never have seen Dalton meet Hedison, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I take this to mean they obviously did meet at one point and now are friends/co-workers. Bond going after Sanchez to avenge a guy he knows does nothing to refute my theory.
"Licence to Kill is also Felix's last appearance until the Daniel Craig reboot because of the fact that his leg got bitten off, suggesting that Felix is meant to be just one guy, and so they introduced a new character to act as the CIA informant for the Brosnan films, why would they bring in a new name if they could just reuse the codename?" - Another comment from the video you sent me."
This assumes the Craig era is a reboot. Also, Felix's absence doesn't mean anything besides he was absent. Adding "suggestions" is just doing what I'm doing - theorizing. As for it being a new CIA informant, the CIA is a large organization and perhaps Felix wasn't available for those cases. Just like there are 008s and 006s. Easy.
"
Are you seriously try to twist it in an impossible way?"
So super soldier serums, ageless men, timelords and sliding timescales are totally possible, but MI6 using multiple men to take over the James Bond alias is completely impossible! Comments like these give me a serious headache.
"He takes out an empty suitcase to clean out his desk."
You mean the desk shared by each 007 agent? Connery Bond left some items in there and Lazenby is either familiar with the cases and is reminded of his co-worker's exploits, or he's just discovering them and is in awe. Easy.
"
As he takes the watch and the knife out of the drawer, you hear the song that Ursula Andres sang in dr.No. And he smiles... That's clearly reminiscing."
The audience hears the musical score playing yes, but Bond doesn't. And sure, he could be reminiscing about talking to Connery's Bond about these old cases back at HQ. There is no dialogue so all anyone can do is speculate.
"
He wanna put those items in the suitcase. Why would he take those items with him if they weren't his in the first place?"
Because they are Connery's belongings he never got since staying in Japan and he's going to return them to him when he makes it to Japan to visit his old friend. Idk can I use the lazy "top secret spy stuff" line for this one?
"
And why o why does none of the so called different "James Bonds" never ever ever ever ever ever mention their predecessor???"
Did this guy skip the opening to OHMSS? Also, repeating words over and over again doesn't make you any more correct in your point. It just makes you look immature.
"
But yet they put flowers on the grave from the wife of a predecessor that they never met???"
What makes him assume the different 007s never met? Bad comment.
"
Are you really that delusional?"
Are you? This is the toxic garbage I'm talking about.
"
Where o where in the James Bond novels does Ian Fleming write that James Bond is a codename???"
Doesn't matter, the novels and the films don't follow each other 100% and go by different rules.
"
I mean, he went to far (don't approve his behavior) but he does have a point."
Glad we agree his crappy attitude does nothing to help his case. He has multiple points. And I refuted them.
"
Finishing with this made by a James Bond megafan (he has the novels, comics and games too), so tbh I trust him more than myself or other fans on James Bond."
This is an appeal to authority fallacy. An appeal to authority, also known as an argument from authority, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone accepts a claim as true because an authority figure says it is. The authority figure can be a celebrity, a well-known scientist, or any other person who is respected. Just because one YouTuber who's a big mega super duper fan of 007 doesn't mean every take of this is factually correct.
