007 Chronological Viewing Order

[Dallas Kinard]

yes, cos MI6 would not have reasons to do that. And also again:

Smt that happens in the movies vs. smt that doesn't even exist.

Bringing out the Brainwashing thing is equal to say nothing.

You want to have Bond being multiple guys? Sure, but state it is an headcannon, and don't talk like it's official and was always what the writers intended. Cos it isn't by the simple fact that Casino Royale was advertized as a reboot.

"yes, cos MI6 would not have reasons to do that."

Says who? Remember, they are a super top secret spy organization Megatron. I'm sure they do all kinds of crazy things we can only imagine.

"Smt that happens in the movies vs. smt that doesn't even exist."

Define SMT please.

"Bringing out the Brainwashing thing is equal to say nothing."

It's a theory. Do you know what that means?

"You want to have Bond being multiple guys? Sure, but state it is an headcannon, and don't talk like it's official and was always what the writers intended."

Oh so this seems to be your primary issue. I'll say it again and again and again until I'm blue, I TAKE THE OTHER FELLA LINE LITERALLY. Do you need me to spell that out for you slowly? That was an OFFICIAL line of dialogue included in the final cut of the film and I'm NOT going to just ignore it because you want me to. "head-canon" to me means my own interpretation of what I watch. So every time you use that word, just know that's how I'm taking it.

"Cos it isn't by the simple fact that Casino Royale was advertized as a reboot."

Was the term "reboot" ever mentioned officially? There is evidence in those films that it's still the same timeline....do you just ignore that? Or perhaps the writers changed their minds!

 

[Dallas Kinard]

the problem isn't that you're having fun, you can have fun as you want, but there are rules, even in fiction, you can't just treat the bond code-name thing as canon. Tho it can be your headcannon, and what would be the problem with that?

Why can't I? Where do these "rules" come from? Who makes them and why should anyone care? Fiction is supposed to be a place where your imagination can roam freely and without restriction. You keep insisting on putting restrictions on something that's literally supposed to defy them. Why so serious?

 

[Pro Bot]

Define SMT please.

"Something".

 

[Dallas Kinard]

so you're confirming that different franchaises are consistent with eachothers? "I take it as seriously as any other fictional movie I'm watching."

How are you getting me taking a story seriously being equal to different franchises playing by the same "rules"???

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"Something".

Thank you, never saw that before. I'm not using it.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

I think it may be FAR more productive if we continue this via Private Message. This constant back and forth of replying with walls of text is getting us absolutely no where. My DMs are open if you want to further engage. If not, then I guess walls upon walls of text it is, though I'd rather not.

 

[Megatron]

Why can't this be the case? It's fiction dude. It never really happened lol

cos there are people who write their fiction, have plans for their fiction, have a CANON, damn even the Bible has one.

Why?

it's called LOGIC, it0s teached in school with math. If 2 possibilities are real and opposite to eachothers, one of them MUST be true.

Nope, I'm watching the films for myself and interpreting them with the only brain I have - my own. You are doing the same thing and we are coming to different conclusions. Happens all of the time with us pesky humans. If calling one's own interpretation of said content "headcannon" is how you define it, then sure, call it headcanon. I've used my head to interpret the evidence. Head-canon!

could u have said it before? Instead of treating it as it is canon? We could have avoided all this.

I guess I got distracted there. Until you admit that this is all fiction and it doesn't matter what anyone believes about it.

people who made it have a clear canon, so you wanna go to them and say "I don't care what you did?". They made the movies, they know how the story went.

But I believe the evidence points to each Bond being a different guy because of on-screen dialogue spoken by Lazenby. You can ignore that and whatever else you'd like if it makes you feel better with your ideas.

didn't ignore it, just stated he isn't refearing to that, as HE IS SMILING AND LOOKING AT THE CAMERA, in a real scene why should he smile? And to who since there was no one?

You keep saying smt and I don't know what you mean. The line of dialogue exists. I watched the movie.

smt = something; for smt that doesn't exist I mean the brainwashing theory.

It doesn't matter what I like or dislike. The evidence on-screen is what matters to me. And where are you getting this totally arbitrary percentage from? I would think I'm either right or I'm wrong which puts me at 50% either way lol

counting all the evidence leading to one theory vs. official canon.

Alternate timelines exist in fiction bro. I've stated my primary point of evidence time and time again. Let me spell it out slowly. "THIS NEVER HAPPENS TO THE OTHER FELLA".

oh yeah, there is the comic timeline. the novels timeline and the Reboot timeline (daniel craig). and THAT LINE IS A 4TH WALL BREAK!

If that's what you want to call it, have at it bud.

definition of headcannon for you, buddy:

"Elements and interpretations of a fictional universe accepted by an individual or small group of fans, but not necessarily found within or supported by the official canon. quotations ▼
In my own headcanon of Rocky IV, Ivan Drago is a Russian Mafia enforcer instead of a Red Army Captain."

Again, if you want to call it that, you can call it that all day long.

it's not how i want to call it, languages have dictionaires, and words have a meaning.

Idk, the films never show us their training now do they? Guess you'll have to come up with your own interpretation - and have fun while doing so, this is all fiction after all. And I wasn't aware Bond "ate a different way" whatever the heck that means lol.

headcanon again.

I guess it's possible, but we are talking fiction sir. If it helps you sleep better believing Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan are the exact same dude - moles and all - then have at it, I hope you get really good sleep tonight.

i'm not believing it, it's official canon, i'm not making the stuff up, it's official.

You can explicitly believe and state whatever you want friend. It's fiction after all, try not to take it SO seriously.

not when people or creators of a word makes an established canon. I can't say Daredevil isn't canon to the MCU, cos it's an established canon works by it's creators.... Then why they have one man checking on everything? For sport?

 

[Megatron]

@Megatron It's obvious that Mr. Kinard's main issue here is the idea that an actor can replace another as the same character (correct me if I'm wrong though DK). Batman & Robin is part of the same universe as Batman Forever, that is absolutely 100% true and was absolutely the intention and intended canon, not that people can't have their own head-canon about it but still. If someone wants to believe that Batman & Robin happened in a different universe to Batman Forever, they can. It doesn't matter what is objective or not.

Craig's Bond has a whole backstory that includes his birth name being James Bond, it was certainly intended that he was named James Bond at birth and they never bring up the idea that he replaced someone else once, so the intent is that there's no codename thing going on. If there was, it'd be brought up. The M portraits in NTTD makes it a fun theory that reboot Bond is a continuation of the original series though, but you have to make a lot of assumptions for it to work. I do think that's awesome if people wanna do that, but it's tough. Also, there's two video games that show alternate versions of previous films occurring in the reboot universe but set in modern day and with Daniel Craig, suggesting that there's one Bond and that an alternate version of the original timeline films occurred in the reboot universe but with Craig.

If he was intended to be brainwashed, they wouldn't have shown that his birth name is James Bond and had those video games release, regardless of whether they're canon. Personal interpretation doesn't have to adhere to creator intent though, and that's okay. As I said, "Death of the Author" is the ultimate head-canon.

that's exactly what i meant, thanks Pro Bot, you stole my words hahhahaha.

 

[Megatron]

Because it's all fictional right? "Objective Canon" really doesn't exist in the realm of fiction. It can be changed on a whim because it's literally ALL made up! When the writers write a story, is that their head-canon? They used their brains to come up with a story that they believe is "canon" right? Therefore "headcanon".

i usually don't intervine in other people's messages, but here i have, nope. If an author is writing his word, with his characters etc... it's not an headcanon, he's establishing the canon that other authors of his circle have to follow if they want their works to be canon to his word.

 

[Megatron]

Why can't I? Where do these "rules" come from? Who makes them and why should anyone care? Fiction is supposed to be a place where your imagination can roam freely and without restriction. You keep insisting on putting restrictions on something that's literally supposed to defy them. Why so serious?

what you describe can be applied when you write your own word, the rules comes from the people who make their works. It's their work, not yours or mine.

 

[Megatron]

like if we follow your logic what's the difference between an official movie and a fan-fiction?

 

[Pro Bot]

There is objectivity in canon, but that doesn't mean you can't believe what you want to believe. Though, you can't pretend that because people believe what they want to believe that means that there is no objective canon. Personally, I think it's clear that the intent when the Bond actors refer to having a wife and that it's a touchy subject, that's an intentional reference to them being the same Bond. It doesn't make logical creative sense that he's not talking about Tracy from a BTS point of view. However, if you want to personally believe something different than what was most likely intended by those lines, then you can have fun with that.

 

[Megatron]

There is objectivity in canon, but that doesn't mean you can't believe what you want to believe. Though, you can't pretend that because people believe what they want to believe that means that there is no objective canon. Personally, I think it's clear that the intent when the Bond actors refer to having a wife and that it's a touchy subject, that's an intentional reference to them being the same Bond. It doesn't make logical creative sense that he's not talking about Tracy from a BTS point of view. However, if you want to personally believe something different than what was most likely intended by those lines, then you can have fun with that.

also not forgetting that there are rules on how to write a story, (which depends from genre to genre) so yeah, everything have rules, cos if there weren't there will be chaos. And rules are made to bring order.

 

[JudgeDreddpool]

Jesus Christ... you all are still arguing about that? Like, come on now, this isn't worth derailing an entire timeline thread over. And besides, we're civilised folk, not savages.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

Jesus Christ... you all are still arguing about that? Like, come on now, this isn't worth derailing an entire timeline thread over. And besides, we're civilised folk, not savages.

Thank you, finally someone with some perspective. I never intended this to devolve into this stupid back and forth. I'm new to the franchise and never realized this level of toxicity over "canon" existed in what should be a simple, easy and light franchise to enjoy. I've only ever seen this level of vitriol in the Star Wars fandom, which has ruined that franchise for a lot of people.


With that said, as the OP, I will reply to everything on here. If I have to write 3 books full of posts to get my point across, so freaking be it. I will NOT be backing down on my own thread. If you are in good faith, I'll continue, but if I sense you are trolling, I'm done with you.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

also not forgetting that there are rules on how to write a story, (which depends from genre to genre) so yeah, everything have rules, cos if there weren't there will be chaos. And rules are made to bring order.

It's hilarious to me because my entire premise is to "bring order" to this franchise that has continuity issues galore. But no, when it's fiction THERE ARE NO RULES! That's the flipping point dude! If you want to write a story about purple unicorns who like eating Tacos upside down and live on a sliding timeline where the universe is made out of Cheese, GO AHEAD! There are no "rules" because it's literally ALL made completely up! Are you seriously THIS dense?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

i usually don't intervine in other people's messages, but here i have, nope. If an author is writing his word, with his characters etc... it's not an headcanon, he's establishing the canon that other authors of his circle have to follow if they want their works to be canon to his word.

Does the author use his head to write his canon?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

what you describe can be applied when you write your own word, the rules comes from the people who make their works. It's their work, not yours or mine.

But what if they never come out and directly give an answer/list of rules like say Greg Weisman? We the fans are left to speculate.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

like if we follow your logic what's the difference between an official movie and a fan-fiction?

You tell me? How do you define "official" vs "fan"?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"There is objectivity in canon, but that doesn't mean you can't believe what you want to believe."

If we are talking fiction, what is "objective" about it? And yes, I'm aware one can believe what they want. Some on here have made that VERY clear.

"Though, you can't pretend that because people believe what they want to believe that means that there is no objective canon."

Actually I CAN pretend whatever the heck I want. This is ALL make-believe after all.

"Personally, I think it's clear that the intent when the Bond actors refer to having a wife and that it's a touchy subject, that's an intentional reference to them being the same Bond."

Good, you can personally choose to believe whatever you want to. I can believe that Lazenby was married to Tracy, Moore knew Tracy and respected her/was visiting an old co-worker's wife's grave out of respect/etc because the film itself never answers the question directly. You can feel how you want and that doesn't mean you're wrong OR right. It's all speculation.


"It doesn't make logical creative sense that he's not talking about Tracy from a BTS point of view."

In your opinion it may not. I don't put much into BTS stuff. I take what the film/story itself presents.

"However, if you want to personally believe something different than what was most likely intended by those lines, then you can have fun with that."

Thanks again for your permission. I take the evidence presented to me and interpret it, same as anyone else. Nothing I have said has come out of the blue. I have reasons (on-screen) for the conclusion I've come to and will continue to do so until I'm through with this series.