›

What if the producers used the Code Name Theory?

MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
in Bond Movies Posts: 3,343
Fun little hypothetical thread here. I saw threads on the theory itself, but not the implications of it being true. Most fans, myself included, despise the theory and give it zero credence but what if the Bond producers explored the Code Name Theory in practice during one of the films...

What if in Bond 24 or 25 (or whichever is Craig's last), they killed Craig's Bond? How incredibly shocking would it be for us watching our invincible hero finally meet his demise? With the follow up being a new actor portraying the secret agent with the code name James Bond seeking revenge for the past Bond.

We all cringe about the CN theory, but if it was used as canon in the series, how would you feel? Would you not watch future Bond installments? Would it warp your opinion and ruin the experience of watching old Bond films?

Comments

  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    I would be pissed because James Bond is a character, not a code name.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    I'd hate it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    It wouldn't affect my love for the older Bond movies, but it would make me stop watching newer ones.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,802
    The code name theory being used by the producers ? Let me think.

    "Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh....................

    NO !"

    10 points for the reference.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited October 2014 Posts: 3,157
    That'd be even worse than an invisible Aston Martin.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    That would be a truly terrible idea, but it wouldn't affect how I view the older films and it would take a lot more than that to get me to stop watching the new films period.

    Never going to happen though. At least not with Michael and Barbara in charge.

    Something I could see them doing with Craig's last film, however, is if they pulled a Dark Knight Rises and
    faked Bond's death, but led the audience to believe it was real (sad violins, rainy funeral, Moneypenny bawling, you get the idea), only to turn cop out at the last moment and show Bond "enjoying death" somewhere. On second, that's actually not all that dissimilar from the way Fleming ended You Only Live Twice, which they should do some day, so I guess it would only bother me if it felt more influenced by TDKR than Fleming's YOLT.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    It would hurt me as a Bond fan. And I'd reject it. I'd try to pretend it's not happening.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    That would be a truly terrible idea, but it wouldn't affect how I view the older films and it would take a lot more than that to get me to stop watching the new films period.

    Never going to happen though. At least not with Michael and Barbara in charge.

    Something I could see them doing with Craig's last film, however, is if they pulled a Dark Knight Rises and
    faked Bond's death, but led the audience to believe it was real (sad violins, rainy funeral, Moneypenny bawling, you get the idea), only to turn cop out at the last moment and show Bond "enjoying death" somewhere. On second, that's actually not all that dissimilar from the way Fleming ended You Only Live Twice, which they should do some day, so I guess it would only bother me if it felt more influenced by TDKR than Fleming's YOLT.
    Most of all, it would feel influenced by the beginning of SF and of the film YOLT.


    Lazenby had a very subtle way of hinting at the CN theory when he mentioned that that never happened to the other fella.


    To openly use it in films would be much too self-conscious to be fun anymore. They already have too many self-references in the Bond films. What we need is a Bond who defies logic in such a deadpan way that he convinces us.
    Look what they did in GF, Bond explaining how cabaret dancers suffocated from paint, or Bond doing his little math with Goldfinger. It took people 30 or 40 years to realise that all of that was nonsense. That´s successful story-telling.

  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,343
    I agree with the sentiments here.I bring it up because there have been other series that became ruined for me by an outcome of a current entry.

    It would cause a major stir and could make for one epic film if they killed James Bond at the end. But anything that came after just wouldn't work and I'd end up trying to banish it from my memory.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,595
    I'd kiss the series goodbye (the new ones at least).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Hard to say, really. The good news is that by the time that idea goes through pigs will be flying, so there'll be something else interesting to watch instead.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited October 2014 Posts: 12,837
    I wouldn't like it. At all. I'd be pissed off. I'd probably rant on here a lot about how stupid the producers were and how they're shitting all over Fleming's legacy. But I definetely wouldn't stop watching the films because of it.

    I mean, it's a stupid idea and it'd be even stupider (and wouldn't make sense) if the producers use it but it wouldn't really impact the films. If we follow the suggestion in the first post where Craig Bond dies and the next film has the new Bond finishing what he started, what about the film after? The new Bond actor's second film? Maybe there would be one or two mentions of Bond being a code name but it wouldn't really make much difference other than that. Everyone will still call him James Bond. I could just ignore those references (assuming there are any) and pretend that it isn't really a code name.

    So after 27 years of being a Bond fan, after watching all the films, reading all the books, playing most of the games, etc, I wouldn't stop watching the films because of something that, while dumb, wouldn't really have much of an impact on them.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    I'd hate it, but I wouldn't stop watching the new films.

    However, I would like some joke about the changing of actors, like the 'this never happened to the other fella' in OHMSS. Maybe a subtle joke about Bond getting plastic surgery or something?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,816
    It may destroy the franchise for good.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It may destroy the franchise for good.

    If they killed Bond and have a new one arrive for the new actor, yeah, it could. But if it's just have 2 of them meet, sure it would be very cringeworthy, but it could be fixed. Like if the producers realise their huge mistake and decide to disregard the whole codename theory from then-on. But if they actually killed Bond, it would be a very hard mistake to fix.

  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    Awful idea, much worse than the plastic surgery one.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    WHY would you do it? So far, the transition from one actor to another has mostly gone smoothly without any continuity complaints. People didn't ask why the 50 year old black-haired man with the Irish accent had suddenly become a muscled, blond 30-something Englishman. It's just the 'next James Bond'. Think about it; LALD, GE and CR were commercial successes. OHMSS and TLD are 'sleeper' hits among Bond fans. Doesn't look like anything signals that it might be wise and in fact necessary to explicitly explain the change of 007's face. Nobody really cares.

    But okay, it's not because you don't HAVE to do it that you can't consider doing it for the sake of trying something new, right? The funny thing is that it would be paradoxical. Yes, it could restore a superficial sense of continuity that was previously absent from the series, but then it would introduce new continuity issues. After all, why would 007 version 6.0 inherit the family tree and its past from 007 version 1.0? Why would 007 version 3.0 visit the grave of the wife that 007 version 2.0 lost? And why would 007 version 4.0 respond so sensitively to a simple reference to marriage? What about Felix? Are comradeships passed on from version 3.0 to version 4.0? And the family motto - The World Is Not Enough - is also passed on from version 2.0 to version 5.0?

    I can only conclude that by introducing the Bond code thing, you would upset and/or confuse most people who would actually pay attention to it, while many others wouldn't even care or, worse, start asking sceptical questions they never asked before. And what for? For a few brief scenes that could give you the pleasure of recruiting a new James Bond? I mean it's not like you can have an entire film revolve around this plot, right? We're not going to turn a Bond plot into a contest for the next James Bond, right? If they ever reach the point where this is the only option they've got left, I suggest they quit.

    Of course it's impossible for just one agent to get into the service in the late 50s / early 60s and to still be going in the second decade of the 21st century, with varying faces and ages, varying M's, varying origins of the signature car - the AM DB5 - and so forth. But then anyone who even cares about this, doesn't understand what kind of entertainment the Bond films offer.

    Lastly, there is a trick to introduce continuity in the Bond series in a way that's even scientifically justifiable. We live in a multiverse after all, so maybe OHMSS plays in our universe, whereas CR plays in another. Lord knows in what universe CR67 plays... ;-) Okay, a load of bull you say? Exactly my point! The Bond code theory is the biggest load of bull they could throw in our faces. I'm pretty confident they realise this too and therefore will not likely use it. A lot of fuss for no good reason; EON is smarter than that.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Why can't the codename theory stop haunting me?
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,343
    I highly doubt it would ever happen and if did it would be an act of desperation if the series was really floundering much worse than we've seen during the run of the series. Just playing a little hypothetical what if. I'm sure there are things they could do to further explore, incorporate the code name into the plot. Like everyone here, I would hate it too and probably block it from existence in my mind.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The code name theory demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or just full blown ignorance as to who and what Bond is. Bond has ALWAYS been a contemporary character; a man of the times. Just because the quality if tge novels and the films may have been largely better in the 50s and 60s doesn't mean nor make Bond a period-piece character. It's also a matter of common sense; expecting one actor to be the face and in the role of a character for over 50 years when the character is supposed to be a 30 something to middle aged man is ludicrous.

    Say what you will about SF but the one thing they goy right and we should all be thankful for is Mendes obliterated the code name theory to smithereens with the respective scenes at SF Manor.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,894
    I'm absolutely baffled by all the code name hate. If Tamahori champions it, that's good enough for me. :-??
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    It would make a mockery of the whole series! [-X
Sign In or Register to comment.