I agree the backstory was unnecessary and messy, why did bond have to be personally connected to Blofeld? I'm fine with the notion that quantum was one of spectres tentacles. But the personal connection??? Why?
I agree the backstory was unnecessary and messy, why did bond have to be personally connected to Blofeld? I'm fine with the notion that quantum was one of spectres tentacles. But the personal connection??? Why?
'This time it's personal' is all the rage these days...
8. It finally debunks the codename theory and the belief that Craig's movies are not in a different timeline.
There are people who believe Craig's movies are in the same world as all the other movies. This puts that to rest once and for all, by reintroducing Blofeld and clealry showing this is a new timeline. It also debunks the codename theory like SF did as Blofeld was with Bond when he was a child.
This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!
I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
8. It finally debunks the codename theory and the belief that Craig's movies are not in a different timeline.
There are people who believe Craig's movies are in the same world as all the other movies. This puts that to rest once and for all, by reintroducing Blofeld and clealry showing this is a new timeline. It also debunks the codename theory like SF did as Blofeld was with Bond when he was a child.
This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!
I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.
Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).
This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!
I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.
Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).
I'm glad it didn't happen but at the same time, if Connery had appeared in Skyfall as Kincade then it would have put an end to it all.
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.
Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).
I'm glad it didn't happen but at the same time, if Connery had appeared in Skyfall as Kincade then it would have put an end to it all.
No, it wouldn't have. If that happened people would just say that Kincade was actually a former James Bond who now goes by a different name, and it would have brought up the codename theory. People are confused enough that Judi Dench plays two different Ms.
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.
*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
I like that about Skyfall, how the proof that Bond is a real person with parents was brought into the films. And I like that SPECTRE finally shut down the people who think that Craig's Bond is in the same universe as any other Bonds.
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.
*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.
*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.
I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian??? )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.
*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.
I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian??? )
8-) (sigh)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR, such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.
I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.
*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.
I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian??? )
The populations of both countries today have percentages of Caucasians well over 90%, and the percentages would have been even higher at the time of Bond's parents' birth. Scottish and Swiss identities go far beyond nationality.
On the basis that James bond can be played by a non Caucasian actor, does that mean a Caucasian actor could play Muhammed Ali in his biopic? Or would that create a terrible uproar? Some characters are very generic and could be played by any actor, but characters fictitious or not with a history and heritage should be played accordingly IMHO.
Well Joseph Fiennes is playing Micky Jackson ....l
Which is ridiculous to say the least. I cannot believe the people behind that decision could ever think that was a good idea? Unless ofcourse they are courting controversy?
On the basis that James bond can be played by a non Caucasian actor, does that mean a Caucasian actor could play Muhammed Ali in his biopic? Or would that create a terrible uproar? Some characters are very generic and could be played by any actor, but characters fictitious or not with a history and heritage should be played accordingly IMHO.
The issue typically brought up is that Muhammad Ali is a real person and James Bond is a fictional character. Real people cannot be changed all that much when portrayed in film, but fictional characters can. The question is, how much can a fictional character be changed and have it still be the same character? The basis for Bond is the character Fleming created. Would a non-Caucasian Bond who is otherwise just like Fleming's character be more or less valid than Roger Moore's James Bond? And both could be equally invalid.
Which is ridiculous to say the least. I cannot believe the people behind that decision could ever think that was a good idea? Unless ofcourse they are courting controversy?
Guess they are trying to give themselves a better chance of winning an Oscar *
Which is ridiculous to say the least. I cannot believe the people behind that decision could ever think that was a good idea? Unless ofcourse they are courting controversy?
Guess they are trying to give themselves a better chance of winning an Oscar *
* topical joke there
) yes that same thought crossed my mind too! Isnt it the same Oscars committee that nominated twelve years a slave for every award going?? I also just can't help wondering if all the best performances this year were from white artists? And if performances were nominated purely based on skin colour doesn't that do everyone a disservice?
Just like the academy, they'd rather give an Oscar nomination to a White man
Playing a Black man. Than give a Black actor the award in the first place. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
On the basis that James bond can be played by a non Caucasian actor, does that mean a Caucasian actor could play Muhammed Ali in his biopic? Or would that create a terrible uproar? Some characters are very generic and could be played by any actor, but characters fictitious or not with a history and heritage should be played accordingly IMHO.
The issue typically brought up is that Muhammad Ali is a real person and James Bond is a fictional character. Real people cannot be changed all that much when portrayed in film, but fictional characters can. The question is, how much can a fictional character be changed and have it still be the same character? The basis for Bond is the character Fleming created. Would a non-Caucasian Bond who is otherwise just like Fleming's character be more or less valid than Roger Moore's James Bond? And both could be equally invalid.
Yes but a fictional character with a backstory and heritage, similarly as with marvel characters they are based on comics and drawings and descriptions. I've said before there most definitely could be a black or non white 007, but he or she can't be James bond.
On the basis that James bond can be played by a non Caucasian actor, does that mean a Caucasian actor could play Muhammed Ali in his biopic? Or would that create a terrible uproar? Some characters are very generic and could be played by any actor, but characters fictitious or not with a history and heritage should be played accordingly IMHO.
The issue typically brought up is that Muhammad Ali is a real person and James Bond is a fictional character. Real people cannot be changed all that much when portrayed in film, but fictional characters can. The question is, how much can a fictional character be changed and have it still be the same character? The basis for Bond is the character Fleming created. Would a non-Caucasian Bond who is otherwise just like Fleming's character be more or less valid than Roger Moore's James Bond? And both could be equally invalid.
Yes but a fictional character with a backstory and heritage, similarly as with marvel characters they are based on comics and drawings and descriptions. I've said before there most definitely could be a black or non white 007, but he or she can't be James bond.
I agree. James Bond is a very specific character, and his ethnicity is one part of that. But many parts of what defined Fleming's Bond have been thrown out, particularly with Moore's Bond. Do you think some things can be thrown out but not others? As for Marvel, Nick Fury's race was changed. But Nick Fury has never been the character James Bond has been.
The issue typically brought up is that Muhammad Ali is a real person and James Bond is a fictional character. Real people cannot be changed all that much when portrayed in film, but fictional characters can. The question is, how much can a fictional character be changed and have it still be the same character? The basis for Bond is the character Fleming created. Would a non-Caucasian Bond who is otherwise just like Fleming's character be more or less valid than Roger Moore's James Bond? And both could be equally invalid.
Yes but a fictional character with a backstory and heritage, similarly as with marvel characters they are based on comics and drawings and descriptions. I've said before there most definitely could be a black or non white 007, but he or she can't be James bond.
I agree. James Bond is a very specific character, and his ethnicity is one part of that. But many parts of what defined Fleming's Bond have been thrown out, particularly with Moore's Bond. Do you think some things can be thrown out but not others? As for Marvel, Nick Fury's race was changed. But Nick Fury has never been the character James Bond has been.
I think sometimes within films some aspects have to change and lines do get blurred, the films have to stay current and also stay profitable, such as Daniel Craig being too blonde etc, I think sir Roger flirted with blondeness now and then as Bond first, things like that are quite minor, and let's be honest bonds persona has changed also but physically he's still identifiable. Sorry for my naivety Matt but I'm unfamiliar with nick fury, I was thinking more along the lines of spiderman, batman, superman x men etc ( i know also DC comics) but it wouldn't right to have spiderman dressed in a pink and white outfit just because.
Yes but a fictional character with a backstory and heritage, similarly as with marvel characters they are based on comics and drawings and descriptions. I've said before there most definitely could be a black or non white 007, but he or she can't be James bond.
I agree. James Bond is a very specific character, and his ethnicity is one part of that. But many parts of what defined Fleming's Bond have been thrown out, particularly with Moore's Bond. Do you think some things can be thrown out but not others? As for Marvel, Nick Fury's race was changed. But Nick Fury has never been the character James Bond has been.
I think sometimes within films some aspects have to change and lines do get blurred, the films have to stay current and also stay profitable, such as Daniel Craig being too blonde etc, I think sir Roger flirted with blondeness now and then as Bond first, things like that are quite minor, and let's be honest bonds persona has changed also but physically he's still identifiable. Sorry for my naivety Matt but I'm unfamiliar with nick fury, I was thinking more along the lines of spiderman, batman, superman x men etc ( i know also DC comics) but it wouldn't right to have spiderman dressed in a pink and white outfit just because.
Nick Fury is played by Samuel L. Jackson in the Marvel movies, but he was originally white. Spiderman has worn other costumes, but they had reasons. But I get your point about not doing something different just because. If Bond was not Caucasian, I can't think of any reason for that.
I agree. James Bond is a very specific character, and his ethnicity is one part of that. But many parts of what defined Fleming's Bond have been thrown out, particularly with Moore's Bond. Do you think some things can be thrown out but not others? As for Marvel, Nick Fury's race was changed. But Nick Fury has never been the character James Bond has been.
I think sometimes within films some aspects have to change and lines do get blurred, the films have to stay current and also stay profitable, such as Daniel Craig being too blonde etc, I think sir Roger flirted with blondeness now and then as Bond first, things like that are quite minor, and let's be honest bonds persona has changed also but physically he's still identifiable. Sorry for my naivety Matt but I'm unfamiliar with nick fury, I was thinking more along the lines of spiderman, batman, superman x men etc ( i know also DC comics) but it wouldn't right to have spiderman dressed in a pink and white outfit just because.
Nick Fury is played by Samuel L. Jackson in the Marvel movies, but he was originally white. Spiderman has worn other costumes, but they had reasons. But I get your point about not doing something different just because. If Bond was not Caucasian, I can't think of any reason for that.
Not a huge marvel fan I'm afraid Matt,
If bond hadn't been so described then anyone of any race could play him, as with Jeffrey Deavers Lincoln rhyme character, I read all the books and no reference is made to his appearance other than his disability, anyone could have played him and the brilliant Denzel Washington did and in a wheelchair too. I was half expecting the film to have the character walking about...which would have been just as bad as James bonds ethnic origins being changed.
Just reading some of the references above , yes Nick Fury could be played by a man of any race, whereas Bond , for me , is Caucasian . With note to Samuel L Jackson, could you imagine a Caucasian playing Shaft ?? Just wouldn't work
Love the Lincoln Rhyme series btw
Just reading some of the references above , yes Nick Fury could be played by a man of any race, whereas Bond , for me , is Caucasian . With note to Samuel L Jackson, could you imagine a Caucasian playing Shaft ?? Just wouldn't work
Love the Lincoln Rhyme series btw
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.
Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).
I'm glad it didn't happen but at the same time, if Connery had appeared in Skyfall as Kincade then it would have put an end to it all.
No, it wouldn't have. If that happened people would just say that Kincade was actually a former James Bond who now goes by a different name, and it would have brought up the codename theory. People are confused enough that Judi Dench plays two different Ms.
I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way
*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I like that about Skyfall, how the proof that Bond is a real person with parents was brought into the films. And I like that SPECTRE finally shut down the people who think that Craig's Bond is in the same universe as any other Bonds.
I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian???
8-) (sigh)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
With you 100%, Loeff.
The populations of both countries today have percentages of Caucasians well over 90%, and the percentages would have been even higher at the time of Bond's parents' birth. Scottish and Swiss identities go far beyond nationality.
The issue typically brought up is that Muhammad Ali is a real person and James Bond is a fictional character. Real people cannot be changed all that much when portrayed in film, but fictional characters can. The question is, how much can a fictional character be changed and have it still be the same character? The basis for Bond is the character Fleming created. Would a non-Caucasian Bond who is otherwise just like Fleming's character be more or less valid than Roger Moore's James Bond? And both could be equally invalid.
Guess they are trying to give themselves a better chance of winning an Oscar *
* topical joke there
Playing a Black man. Than give a Black actor the award in the first place.
I agree. James Bond is a very specific character, and his ethnicity is one part of that. But many parts of what defined Fleming's Bond have been thrown out, particularly with Moore's Bond. Do you think some things can be thrown out but not others? As for Marvel, Nick Fury's race was changed. But Nick Fury has never been the character James Bond has been.
Him in Pink and white, for some camouflage.
Nick Fury is played by Samuel L. Jackson in the Marvel movies, but he was originally white. Spiderman has worn other costumes, but they had reasons. But I get your point about not doing something different just because. If Bond was not Caucasian, I can't think of any reason for that.
If bond hadn't been so described then anyone of any race could play him, as with Jeffrey Deavers Lincoln rhyme character, I read all the books and no reference is made to his appearance other than his disability, anyone could have played him and the brilliant Denzel Washington did and in a wheelchair too. I was half expecting the film to have the character walking about...which would have been just as bad as James bonds ethnic origins being changed.
Love the Lincoln Rhyme series btw