007 Chronological Viewing Order

[Dallas Kinard]

Let me prove that it's the same guy from 1962 to 2002.

"Firstly, the dates in the films do place them definitely in their release years. Don't worry, that has a solution that doesn't involve super serums or anything, lol."

No "solution" is needed. That is an assumption on you part, and in fact is you ignoring on-screen evidence to make YOUR theory work. Also, so what if someone wants to believe in the timelord, super soldier, <insert fictional idea here> theory? IT'S ALL FICTION!!!

"James Bond (George Lazenby) meets Blofeld for "the first time" after meeting him in the previous film (played by Sean Connery). This is because On Her Majesty's Secret Service was their first meeting in book canon. Bond was wearing a Japanese disguise in the previous film, so I guess Blofeld didn't recognise him (?)."
There is nothing in the film that states Bond and Blofeld meet "For the first time". The following exchange proves this: "But, sir, Blofeld´s something of a must with me." M: "You´ve had two years to run him down." If Bond never met him, he wouldn't be "something of a must" for him. I think M, Q, MoneyPenny, Bond, Felix and Blofeld are all aliases because "super secret spy stuff" and so far nothing in the films I've seen contradicts this idea.

"In On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969), James Bond marries Tracy in 1969, where she is killed in a drive-by shortly afterwards."

Yes, I've seen the movie.

"In For Your Eyes Only (1981), Bond (Roger Moore) takes flowers to Tracy's grave (George Lazenby's wife). The gravestone states that died in 1969."

I'm aware of this, have not seen it yet, but I'm aware that Moore Bond visits Tracy's grave. Moore Bond may have known her or even been in attendance at Lazenby Bond's wedding for all we know. Friends of family visit graves of people they know. I know this because of personal experience.

"In the script and comic adaptation, it states that Bond and "Blofeld" last met 10 years ago, which matches with Diamonds are Forever (1971), starring Sean Connery."

Cool. Connery Bond met Blofeld in 1971. Moore Bond then meets him 10 years later. Nothing changes the idea that "Bond" is a code-name here.

"There's other connections between these three Bonds but this definitely places them in a single timeline.""
Yes, I agree there are connections between Connery Bond, Lazenby Bond and Moore Bond and I also agree it's one singular timeline that spans from 1962 - 2021.

"In License to Kill (1989), it's mentioned that Bond (Timothy Dalton) married once, and it's a sore subject, tying in continuity from previous Bonds."

Married to who exactly? Dalton Bond could have been married to another person for all the audience knows. Also, Dalton Bond somehow de-ages from Moore's Bond. How does that work?

"In The World Is Not Enough (1999), Bond (Pierce Brosnan) avoids the question of if he ever lost someone he loved, once again bringing Tracy up as a continuity nod."

How do we know Brosnan Bond was married to a girl named Tracy? Does the film show that or make it clear who he's referring to? Everyone loses loved ones. This changes nothing.

"Further, Bond's family motto mentioned in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969), "the world is not enough", is referenced, although that was taken from Sir Thomas Bond, a real person.""

You answered your own point here. Also, part of the backstory given to each Bond could include the motto.

"In Die Another Day (2002), we get a scene with various gadgets and references to previous Bond films, suggesting that they are all part of the same history as that film."

Same timeline, yes I agree.

"Additionally, certain characters are recast even within a single Bond's series, or they stay the same actor even between Bonds."
Codenames. Remember, this is a fictional super top secret spy world where lasers exist. Codenames aren't out of the realm of possibility....in fact M and Q show there's precedent for them!

"To say that a different Bond is a new continuity would essentially make most of Sean Connery's films different universes too, if we assume that a recast means a different reality."
They could be. Ever hear of a multiverse? I'm not even opposed to this idea. Never Say Never Again is clearly a different timeline since it's a remake of Thunderball. So that Bond is a variant of the original.

"We know that's not the case though"
Speak for yourself!

"so logically every film is a shared timeline until the explicit continuity reboot."

This sounds so pretentious in the way you word it, but I agree it's one single timeline.

And there we have it, you have proven nothing. You simply shared facts that can be observed by anyone who watches the films for themselves. What conclusions people come to is not for you to decide!

 

[Dallas Kinard]

Literally, I was just suggesting that the first 20 James Bond films are part of the same universe as Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman because George Lazenby appears as James Bond in a reunion movie for The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Ugh SO much to reply to.

"So you decide which franchises work on which rules?"
No. I watch the content and let it speak for itself. However, I am fully aware that head-canon is a thing (James Gunn agrees) and that since we are talking fiction, things are malleable. There is literally no harm in coming up with fan theories and using one's imagination when enjoying FICTION.

"How is that more consistent?"
Why are you assuming there needs to be consistency among different worlds of fiction?

"What proof do you have that this franchise works any differently?"
I, like you, take the content for what it is and apply the logic within that particular world and hold it up to itself. The "proof" is in the content. We seem to disagree on the "proof" (see OHMSS).

"It's not a whataboutism because I don't try and decide for myself what works and what doesn't"
Essentially, you said "what about Batman or MCU recasts huh??" And even if you did choose to decide for yourself what "works" and what doesn't, it doesn't matter because it's fiction!

"I follow the common trends of fiction."

Like what exactly? Can these trends change? Do you go along with them if they do or are you stuck in your own head?

"I try and apply things to other franchises to see if they work because that's how consistency works."
Sure, if that's your personal goal. Doesn't mean it has to apply to everyone else.

"I was just trying to inject a bit of sarcastic humour into my comment. I suppose it was a bit too direct and targeted at you, which is a bit mean. I'm sorry."

I appreciate this, honestly thank you. It's hard enough taking the time to respond to all of this hostility.

"You are allowed to have a head-canon, as is anyone else."

Thank you for your permission!

"Heck, Bond being 21-61 is a head-canon."

The films never give an age to my knowledge, so yep I agree.

"We're really just arguing which head-canon works better with the intended official canon."

The problem is how can one know for certain what the "intended" or "official" canon is? We all watch the same content and then must decide for ourselves how we interpret the information given. Isn't diversity always being championed as a good thing? Why aren't we using that logic within the realm of fictional stories?

"I think that Bond was intended to be one person across the films when they were being made, and that's based on the references to previous films, the scripts, the comic adaptation, and the novels."

I love that you prefaced with "I think". Good stuff. You are free to think w/e you want like anyone else. We disagree on "intention" because the films themselves never give an explicit answer (unless you count OHMSS like I do).

"That doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you that you can't interpret the fiction in any way that you want to."

Good, now we're getting somewhere. I will say it doesn't feel that way though.

"That's literally what death of the author is."

I never heard of this until now. I think fiction vs non-fiction are very different.

"I'm not policing your personal interpretations and what you have fun with."

Sure feels like it, but I'm glad you don't see it that way.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

No, I purposed that idea, but I never said I believed it or that it's canon. In fact, I outright said that it wasn't canon. He's not a timelord either haha, it's a recast. Something quite common in fiction actually. If anyone said he's a timelord, they were joking.

It doesn't matter what you believe is or isn't' canon since this is fiction.

And you can't speak for everyone. I've seen Reddit comments that HATE the codename theory but are totally fine/open to the timelord theory "because it's more fun". Totally arbitrary.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

yeah, cos people who traps people into a table to be cut by a laser is to be taken seriously....

Or surfing on a tsunami to escape a giant laser

What do you mean by "taken seriously"? In the world of 007, it happened and I take it as seriously as any other fictional movie I'm watching.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

....

"not in my opinion. Like I'll do an analogy, what you're syaing is that in a video game with 2 endings both are canon, just what you think is right."

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

"Nope, one of them MUST be canon."

Why?

"If start with I disagree you're giving me the idea you're just ignoring canon and going into headcannon (which is fine, just say it out loud)."

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!

"i like the idea of the main character using a code-name, infact Bond uses OO7 as the code-name."

I like Taco Bell. Oh yea, I guess 007 is a code-name isn't it? Similar to "Q" and "M".

"until me finally what?"

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

"And still it doesn't as their points can be explained with evidence inside the movies themself"

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.

"or going meta with their crew, while you're going with smt that it doesn't exist."

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

"And if you don't like simplicity, let's go with probability, at MAX the code-name theroy can be true at 35%."

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

"still one of them MUST be canon, you can't have both as canon, so again, what are your evidences?"

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".

"And here too it's headcanon"

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

"AKA Headcannon."

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

"cos they're trained for them, are you telling me that they train "every Bond" to do the hat trick or to eat the same way? (these are serious questions)."

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.

"or more probably (see? The word came back) because it's the same man?"

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.

"so again this isn't canon, but just your headcannon (in this case)."

You can repeat this phrase as many times as you'd like if you think it makes your point for you better. It doesn't prove or dis-prove anything.

"i don't believe in both, tho i have the time lord theory as more probable (oh again) cos it plays with the different actors"

I personally think this is ridiculous, HOWEVER if you think the time lord theory makes more sense within the world portrayed in the 007 films, then more power to you bud.

"the brainwash thing is made by the fans it's like a whole off-screen storyline, so now Goku SSJ5 and more is canon?

Right, the time-lord theory isn't made by fans at all, and in fact there's tons of on-screen evidence to support it....right? I don't watch Dragon Ball.

"Theories are mostly headcannons and never creates storylines.""

A theory is just an idea that is intended to explain facts or events. "Creating storylines" is usually up to the content creators.


"so i can take star trek and have my theory that says that kirk is a kilngon brainwashed into a human?"

You can if there's any actual evidence within the show of that. Nobody here is making stuff up out of nowhere.

"Makes that canon? Nope, tho it can be an headcannon which is FINE."

Sure, I agree you can come up with anything you want bud. Doesn't make it official of course.

"What I'm saying is that you can have fun, but say that it's headcannon in the open, like i believe, that RoboCop, Terminator and the Buffyverse are set in the AVP Universe but ik it's not canon infact i explicity stated that it is my Headcannon in that thread."

Ok here goes - I have come to the conclusion by watching the 007 films that James Bond isn't one man, but multiple different agents. My primary evidence is the line said by Lazenby's Bond when he refers to the previous 007 agent the audience is familiar with. I have used my head to try and properly interpret the canon shown to me on-screen. I therefore admit that by using my own brain to interpret what I have witnessed on-screen is "head-canon". There you go.

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

"which makes more probable the de-aging serum by your own words you resolved yourself your own aging problem, Wondefull!"

I never said the super soldier serum thing wasn't at all probable. I just need to see the evidence that supports it. Is there any you can come up with? I'm open minded.

 

[Pro Bot]

Why are you assuming I accept Bruce Wayne as the same person? I never said I did, and in fact I don't.

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.

@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.

 

[Megatron]

But brainwashing is too far out there right?

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.

 

[Megatron]

What's the point in any of this? It's called having fun, something I think has been lost in recent years with fiction. Star Wars, DC, Marvel now 007 - everyone takes all of this stuff SO seriously and everyone gets very gatekeepy. The divisions within fandom is unlike anything I've ever seen and it nearly ruins the entire thing for me.

People act as if we are talking politics and religion when we are talking about pure fiction. Perspective people.

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?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

@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.

"It's obvious that Mr. Kinard's main issue here is the idea that an actor can replace another as the same character"

No need to talk about me in the third person, I'm the OP. Now, If it's so obvious, then how can you be wrong? My "issue" is that people are somehow against the idea of taking "the other fella" line seriously. It literally all boils down to how one interprets that single line of dialogue. I choose to go with it and therefore figure out how there can be this many guys that go by 007/James Bond. Of course the films themselves never give a straight answer because the writers probably enjoy the fan theories and discourse around it. Giving a solid answer would end decades of fan debate on the topic.

"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."
I'm not talking about Batman, I'm talking about the 007 franchise. Let's keep it on topic please.

"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."

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".

"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"
Who are you to say what the "intent" of everyone involved in crafting the story is? The Craig era is summed up nicely here.

I never once said, or anyone for that matter, that the brainwashing theory was intended by the writers, producers, cast, crew, etc etc etc. It's a fan theory that helps explain away plot holes and inconsistencies that this franchise is riddled with. Nobody is disputing the fact that there are serious continuity issues. And the theory works if you actually take the time to think about it and read through what I've sent.

"If there was, it'd be brought up."
Not necessarily. But the next Bond film could settle this debate once and for all....

"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."
How do you know what the intention of the writers was by including these portraits that you think are simply "fun"? And what assumptions need to be made? The portraits exist on-screen, that's hard evidence that those M's existed before the current one. Same timeline? Alternate timeline? You be the judge. The writers most likely aren't going to come out and say it for us.

"I do think that's awesome if people wanna do that, but it's tough."

Doesn't' mean it's impossible. It's actually not that hard, but people like to ignore inconvenient evidence (OHMSS) to try to force their ideas on others, which I'm not doing.

"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."

Cool. I don't count the video games. I'm only watching the films so if that ends the debate right there, so freakin be it.

"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."

Again, nobody ever once made the claim that the brainwashing theory was always intended. Not a single person.

"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."

Finally we agree, and I think this last line ends the debate. No need for us to continue writing walls of text trying to convince the other. Just admit you have your own interpretation and I have mine. COOL. Now go outside and play.

 

[Megatron]

What do you mean by "taken seriously"? In the world of 007, it happened and I take it as seriously as any other fictional movie I'm watching.

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

 

[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.