›

The most ridiculous Bond theory you heard/read

12346

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Personally, I think most 'theories', and this is applicable to several franchises, stem from the idea of 'trolling', long before it was known as such. They're usually fabricated by someone who has no vested interest in the subject matter, but likes the idea of riling 'fanboys'. The trouble with a lot of Bond theories is that they are such nonsense, they annoy even the most placid of us.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    Agent007391 wrote:
    Predominantly, the codename theory. I'm sick of how far that spread in so little a time. There was a downright absurd theory I heard many, many years ago (from a magazine, if I remember correctly), long before I knew of this website, or probably even before it existed (TWINE wasn't out yet, Desmond Llewelyn was still alive), that stated that M was the one behind SPECTRE.

    This one, or similar ones, resurface from time to time. Someone here even made a thread saying Malory was a traitor.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote:
    Agent007391 wrote:
    Predominantly, the codename theory. I'm sick of how far that spread in so little a time. There was a downright absurd theory I heard many, many years ago (from a magazine, if I remember correctly), long before I knew of this website, or probably even before it existed (TWINE wasn't out yet, Desmond Llewelyn was still alive), that stated that M was the one behind SPECTRE.

    This one, or similar ones, resurface from time to time. Someone here even made a thread saying Malory was a traitor.

    Wasn't the Mallory/Traitor angle something touted during pre/post-production. The ridiculous theories are the retrospective ones, where we have all the necessary information, but apparently not enough to stop 'M' is Bond's mother' nonsense.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    Ludovico wrote:
    Oh, and no matter how many actors play or will play him, King Arthur is not a codename either.

    No, but Sherlock Holmes is another matter entirely. And don't even get me started on Harry Potter... 8-}
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Mallory being a traitor or mole inside MI6 was a big rumour, and as i was avoiding spoilers (which i managed to do apart from some knob telling me M dies !!!) even when i watched SF the first time i was expecting him to be a baddie.

    I'm pleased he wasnt though and he will be a great M i think !
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That rumour came about because some were convinced he would play Blofeld, and when that was debunked, some of those still refused to let it go.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    barryt007 wrote:
    Mallory being a traitor or mole inside MI6 was a big rumour, and as i was avoiding spoilers (which i managed to do apart from some knob telling me M dies !!!) even when i watched SF the first time i was expecting him to be a baddie.

    I'm pleased he wasnt though and he will be a great M i think !

    I knew from the first minutes he wouldn't be a baddie and I thought he would become M for a number of reasons: his family name for one, but also the fact that he was at first hostile to Bond. If in a movie or a piece of fiction someone in the "team" of the hero seems hostile to him, he is not the traitor. On the other hand, usually if there is a traitor it is either going to be the one most friendly with him or the person looking the most harmless.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Can we make up our own silly theories just for laughs?

    That would kind of defeat the purpose. Everyone can invent stupid theories, what is funny or enraging is the people who take them seriously.

    Got the point.

    There is also the danger of creating a Poe: I once mocked the "Silva is M's son" theory by inventing one about Blofeld being a demon taking possession of different men through the help of his cat, a familiar spirit/channel between this world and Pandemonium. I think some people believed it was true.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009

    Ludovico wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    bigladiesman wrote:
    Can we make up our own silly theories just for laughs?

    That would kind of defeat the purpose. Everyone can invent stupid theories, what is funny or enraging is the people who take them seriously.

    Got the point.

    There is also the danger of creating a Poe: I once mocked the "Silva is M's son" theory by inventing one about Blofeld being a demon taking possession of different men through the help of his cat, a familiar spirit/channel between this world and Pandemonium. I think some people believed it was true.

    Actually, there was an episode of the Powerpuff Girls that spoofed exactly what you say: as a result they leave their father figure - possessed by the cat - as a bleeding cripple with his limbs broken and the only punishment the cat (voiced by Mark Hamill) suffers is being trapped on a tree and getting some talking-to from the narrator. Great series, that was. The scarce TV specials that still continue it are pure crap.

    If you do a Google search, this episode has been discussed on other Bond Forums XD
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    I need to check that series.

    Oh another theory I have seen in the old forums I believe: Judi Dench's M would be revealed as the head of Quantum. Why do these all come from, these theories about M being a double agent?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    Ludovico wrote:
    Regardless of what anyone thinks about LTK, it would have made for a poor swansong.

    Indeed, as much as I like it for what it is, it wasn't very typical of a Bond film. More like an extended big budget version of Miami Vice, in fact.
  • jackdaggerjackdagger
    edited February 2014 Posts: 498
    I swear I heard a rumor once that Javier Bardem was going to be the first transsexual Bond girl. =))

    But in all honesty, I do hate the codename theory. A good friend of mine recently brought it up after Skyfall and I wrote this entire long paragraph in an email "disproving" it. I think I humbled her after that.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    jackdagger wrote:
    I swear I heard a rumor once that Javier Bardem was going to be the first transsexual Bond girl. =))

    But in all honesty, I do hate the codename theory. A good friend of mine recently brought it up after Skyfall and I wrote this entire long paragraph in an email "disproving" it. I think I humbled her after that.

    yes, but this is a rumour more than a theory. If someone had said Silva was transsexual after seeing the movie... Well, that would be something different.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    jackdagger wrote:
    But in all honesty, I do hate the codename theory. A good friend of mine recently brought it up after Skyfall and I wrote this entire long paragraph in an email "disproving" it. I think I humbled her after that.

    I'd love to know what your friend's response to the email was. :P
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2014 Posts: 10,512
    jackdagger wrote:
    But in all honesty, I do hate the codename theory. A good friend of mine recently brought it up after Skyfall and I wrote this entire long paragraph in an email "disproving" it. I think I humbled her after that.

    I was out for dinner with friends last Friday and I did the same thing. A friend who'd had a little too much ale started peddling the same dross, needless to say he got a verbal smack down. It's our duty as fans to destroy anyone who utters it. ;)

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote:
    Disproving it or proving it isn't really the way to approach it.

    It's nowhere in Fleming's texts so that's proof enough for me. As you say, the film continuity is all over the place, which tends to suggest each film is standalone with the odd one having a few superficial nods here and there. You don't run for 50 years if you have hang-ups regards continuity.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    Acutally, proving it would be the duty of any person stupid enough to defend the codename theory. The burden of proof is on the side of the person making the assertion.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    Ludovico wrote:
    Acutally, proving it would be the duty of any person stupid enough to defend the codename theory. The burden of proof is on the side of the person making the assertion.

    Very much agreed. They need to be able to adequately explain how they mean to rail against established Bondian authority with their madcap theories.
  • ChickenStuChickenStu
    Posts: 38
    My older brother (who I not like) is convinced about the code-name theory and says that one day they'll do one with "all of them" in it.

    I said if that's the case and they are all different agents - why do two of Roger Moore's and one of Timothy Dalton's movies reference explicitly an event that happened in the George Lazenby movie?

    He said they've all got to "stick to a story" to try and trick the enemies into thinking that they are all the same guy.

    At this point I would've pointed out the fact that they couldn't possibly trick the enemy into thinking they are the same guy - cause the fact they all have DIFFERENT FACES would totally kybosh it. But I was so bored with the conversation I just said "whatever" and walked away.

    I haven't spoken to him in two years but I would've loved to have seen his face after seeing Skyfall. That one makes the code-name theory impossible.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Not so much a theory as a misconception. I have heard some older folks claiming that Goldfinger was the first Bond film. One even got angry when I said he was wrong,that it was the third, and asked me to get my facts straight. :-w
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not so much a theory as a misconception. I have heard some older folks claiming that Goldfinger was the first Bond film. One even got angry when I said he was wrong,that it was the third, and asked me to get my facts straight. :-w
    Yes, I have heard that as well. They just assumed that it must have been the first Bond film because it was the first one that they saw in the theater.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Damn right. Same as when people think Silence of the Lambs was the first Lecter film, for instance.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    Many viewers have strong misconceptions of Bond movies. I might start another thread about it.
  • jolearonjolearon
    edited March 2014 Posts: 645
    It's all a dream, and Bob Newhart wakes up.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not so much a theory as a misconception. I have heard some older folks claiming that Goldfinger was the first Bond film. One even got angry when I said he was wrong,that it was the third, and asked me to get my facts straight. :-w

    I love to listen in on people discussing the things I am hyper-obsessive about, like Bond. It's funny to hear them occasionally botch a title, date or plot, or become frustrated when they can't remember an obscure detail about the film while I look on, fighting off the urge to shout out the answer in response. It's fun, yet painful all the same. ;)
    Ludovico wrote:
    Many viewers have strong misconceptions of Bond movies. I might start another thread about it.

    Please do, honestly! That's a thread I would love to invest some time in, especially since we can all easily spot when misconceptions are being spread about because of our obsessive love of the novels and film franchise.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Not so much a theory as a misconception. I have heard some older folks claiming that Goldfinger was the first Bond film. One even got angry when I said he was wrong,that it was the third, and asked me to get my facts straight. :-w

    I have heard this too.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I've never heard the "Goldfinger was the first Bond film" one, but I have heard people call FRWL Connery's last film. I have no idea why, either.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    I suspect this theory has been brought up previously:

    http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/is-sean-connery-actually-james-bond-in-the-rock-123235738.html
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    Oh boy that is a stupid one! Trying to give credibility to the codename theory in the meantime.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    It has been so long since I have even thought about The Rock that I had forgotten all about this particular theory. They were obviously just trying to entertain the audience in any way possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.