007 Chronological Viewing Order

[Dallas Kinard]

This thread can be used for any and all timeline findings for the 007 franchise. For this thread, I'm only counting on-screen material (Films and TV).

The franchise includes..

- "Climax!" episode Episode 1.03: "Casino Royale" (1954) (original timeline)
- The EON and Taliafilm 007 Film series (1962 - Present)
- "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." (1964 series and associated TV movies)
- "The Girl From U.N.C.L.E." (1966 series)
- "The Master" (1984 series)
- "The New Alfred Hitchcock Presents" Episode 4.15: "Diamonds Aren't Forever" (1989)

The following is the chronological order I've put together by watching the films closely and paying attention to any and all details that may give an idea of the timeline.

This is a work in progress as I watch through the franchise. I will add more films as I progress.

Chronological viewing order​

CBS Timeline:

- 1954 -

Barry Nelson Era - "Climax!" Episode 1.03: "Casino Royale"

EON Productions / Taliafilm Timeline:

- 1962 -

- February -

Sean Connery Era - 01. "Dr. No" (February 15th - 20th, 1962)

- 1963 -

Sean Connery Era - 02. "From Russia With Love"

- June -

10. "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." (June 10th - 15th, 1963)

- 1964 -

- November -

Sean Connery Era - 03. "Goldfinger" (XXXX - November, 1964)

- 1965 -

- May -

Sean Connery Era - 04. "Thunderball" (May 23rd - 28th, 1965)

- 1966 -

- July -

Sean Connery Era - 05. "You Only Live Twice" (July XX - 17th, 1966)

- 1967 -

Sean Connery Era - "Welcome To Japan Mr. Bond"

- 1969 -

- December -

George Lazenby Era - 06. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (September 12th - December, 1969)

- 1971 -

- July -

Sean Connery Era - 07. "Diamonds Are Forever" (March - July, 1971)

- 1973 -

Roger Moore Era - 08. "Live And Let Die"

- 1974 -

Roger Moore Era - 09. "The Man With The Golden Gun"

- 1977 -

- August -

Roger Moore Era - 10. "The Spy Who Loved Me" (July - August, 1977)

- 1978 -

- February -

Roger Moore Era - 11. "Moonraker" (January - February, 1978)

- 1980 -

Roger Moore Era - 12. "For Your Eyes Only"

- 1983 -

- January -

Roger Moore Era - 13. "Octopussy" (August 25th, 1982 - January, 1983)

- XXXX -

Sean Connery Era - 14. "Never Say Never Again"

- 1985 -

- October -

Roger Moore Era - 15. "A View To A Kill" (May - October, 1985)

- 1986 -

- October -

Timothy Dalton Era - 16. "The Living Daylights"

- 1988 -

- August -

Timothy Dalton Era - 17. "Licence To Kill"

- 1995 -

- February -

Pierce Brosnan Era - 18. "Goldeneye" (1986 - February 25th, 1995)

- 1997 -

- April -

Pierce Brosnan Era - 19. "Tomorrow Never Dies"

- 2000 -

- January -

Pierce Brosnan Era - 20. "The World Is Not Enough" (November 15th, 1999 - January 1st, 2000)

- 2003 -

- XXXX -

Pierce Brosnan Era - 21. "Die Another Day" (January 16th, 2001 - 2003)

- 2006 -

- August -

Daniel Craig Era - 22. "Casino Royale: Uncut Version" (XXXX - August 4th, 2006)

- XXXX -

Daniel Craig Era - 23. "Quantum Of Solace" (August 4th - XXXX, 2006)

- 2011 -

- XXXX -

Daniel Craig Era - 24. "Skyfall"

- 2015 -

- November -

Daniel Craig Era - 25. "SPECTRE" (November, 2015)

- 2020 -

- XXXX -

Daniel Craig Era - 26. "No Time To Die" (1998 - 2020)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detailed breakdown courtesy of @Pro Bot
​

Spoiler: Detailed Breakdown

1962
February 15
Dr. No Chapter 1 (0:00:00 - 0:02:50)
Dr. No Chapter 2 (0:02:51 - 0:06:33)
Dr. No Chapter 3 (0:06:34 - 0:09:41)
Dr. No Chapter 4 (0:09:42 - 0:16:16)

February 16
Dr. No Chapter 4 (0:16:17 - 0:16:26)
Dr. No Chapter 5 (0:16:27 - 0:19:00)
Dr. No Chapter 6 (0:19:01 - 0:22:06)
Dr. No Chapter 7 (0:22:07 - 0:24:31)
Dr. No Chapter 8 (0:24:33 - 0:26:43)
Dr. No Chapter 9 (0:26:44 - 0:28:27)
Dr. No Chapter 10 (0:28:28 - 0:31:21)
Dr. No Chapter 11 (0:31:22 - 0:36:07)

February 17
Dr. No Chapter 12 (0:36:08 - 0:37:38)
Dr. No Chapter 13 (0:37:39 - 0:41:17)
Dr. No Chapter 14 (0:41:18 - 0:44:37)

February 18
Dr. No Chapter 15 (0:44:38 - 0:46:44)
Dr. No Chapter 16 (0:46:45 - 0:48:18)
Dr. No Chapter 17 (0:48:19 - 0:51:23)
Dr. No Chapter 18 (0:51:24 - 0:55:28)
Dr. No Chapter 19 (0:55:29 - 0:58:49)
Dr. No Chapter 20 (0:58:50 - 1:01:55)

February 19
Dr. No Chapter 21 (1:01:56 - 1:08:07)
Dr. No Chapter 22 (1:08:08 - 1:12:39)
Dr. No Chapter 23 (1:12:40 - 1:15:17)
Dr. No Chapter 24 (1:15:18 - 1:18:03)
Dr. No Chapter 25 (1:18:04 - 1:20:54)
Dr. No Chapter 26 (1:20:55 - 1:24:40)

February 20
Dr. No Chapter 26 (1:24:41 - 1:26:28)
Dr. No Chapter 27 (1:26:29 - 1:34:00)
Dr. No Chapter 28 (1:34:01 - 1:39:02)
Dr. No Chapter 29 (1:39:03 - 1:43:05)
Dr. No Chapter 30 (1:43:06 - 1:45:18)
Dr. No Chapter 31 (1:45:19 - 1:47:29)
Dr. No Chapter 32 (1:47:30 - 1:49:15)

1963
????
From Russia with Love Chapter 1 (0:00:00 - 0:03:09)
From Russia with Love Chapter 2 (0:03:10 - 0:05:36)
From Russia with Love Chapter 3 (0:05:37 - 0:08:03)
From Russia with Love Chapter 4 (0:08:04 - 0:11:16)
From Russia with Love Chapter 5 (0:11:17 - 0:14:02)
From Russia with Love Chapter 6 (0:14:03 - 0:17:52)
From Russia with Love Chapter 7 (0:17:53 - 0:19:34)
From Russia with Love Chapter 8 (0:19:35 - 0:24:27)
From Russia with Love Chapter 9 (0:24:28 - 0:29:04)
From Russia with Love Chapter 10 (0:29:05 - 0:31:36)
From Russia with Love Chapter 11 (0:31:37 - 0:33:53)
From Russia with Love Chapter 12 (0:33:54 - 0:38:20)
From Russia with Love Chapter 13 (0:38:21 - 0:48:53)
From Russia with Love Chapter 14 (0:48:54 - 0:51:33)
From Russia with Love Chapter 15 (0:51:34 - 0:53:34)
From Russia with Love Chapter 16 (0:53:35 - 0:59:49)
From Russia with Love Chapter 17 (0:59:50 - 1:03:31)
From Russia with Love Chapter 18 (1:03:32 - 1:06:43)
From Russia with Love Chapter 19 (1:06:44 - 1:09:55)
From Russia with Love Chapter 20 (1:09:56 - 1:12:06)
From Russia with Love Chapter 21 (1:12:07 - 1:14:26)
From Russia with Love Chapter 22 (1:14:27 - 1:16:16)
From Russia with Love Chapter 23 (1:16:17 - 1:20:20)
From Russia with Love Chapter 24 (1:20:21 - 1:24:27)
From Russia with Love Chapter 25 (1:24:28 - 1:26:31)
From Russia with Love Chapter 26 (1:26:32 - 1:36:26)
From Russia with Love Chapter 27 (1:36:27 - 1:39:11)
From Russia with Love Chapter 28 (1:39:12 - 1:44:08)
From Russia with Love Chapter 29 (1:44:09 - 1:45:44)
From Russia with Love Chapter 30 (1:45:45 - 1:49:12)
From Russia with Love Chapter 31 (1:49:13 - 1:53:36)
From Russia with Love Chapter 32 (1:53:37 - 1:54:58)

1964
November
Goldfinger Chapter 1 (0:00:00 - 0:03:18)
Goldfinger Chapter 2 (0:03:19 - 0:05:02)
Goldfinger Chapter 3 (0:05:03 - 0:07:48)
Goldfinger Chapter 4 (0:07:49 - 0:08:52)
Goldfinger Chapter 5 (0:08:53 - 0:09:56)
Goldfinger Chapter 6 (0:09:57 - 0:11:34)
Goldfinger Chapter 7 (0:11:35 - 0:15:54)
Goldfinger Chapter 8 (0:15:55 - 0:17:56)
Goldfinger Chapter 9 (0:17:57 - 0:22:38)
Goldfinger Chapter 10 (0:22:39 - 0:25:18)
Goldfinger Chapter 11 (0:25:19 - 0:31:25)
Goldfinger Chapter 12 (0:31:26 - 0:33:36)
Goldfinger Chapter 13 (0:33:37 - 0:36:40)
Goldfinger Chapter 14 (0:36:41 - 0:40:41)
Goldfinger Chapter 15 (0:40:42 - 0:53:59)
Goldfinger Chapter 16 (0:54:00 - 0:47:48)
Goldfinger Chapter 17 (0:47:49 - 0:50:11)
Goldfinger Chapter 18 (0:50:12 - 0:54:08)
Goldfinger Chapter 19 (0:54:09 - 0:56:33)
Goldfinger Chapter 20 (0:56:34 - 1:00:12)
Goldfinger Chapter 21 (1:00:13 - 1:02:55)
Goldfinger Chapter 22 (1:02:56 - 1:04:44)
Goldfinger Chapter 23 (1:04:45 - 1:06:46)
Goldfinger Chapter 24 (1:06:47 - 1:09:49)
Goldfinger Chapter 25 (1:09:50 - 1:13:04)
Goldfinger Chapter 26 (1:13:05 - 1:14:44)
Goldfinger Chapter 27 (1:14:45 - 1:20:40)
Goldfinger Chapter 28 (1:20:41 - 1:25:00)
Goldfinger Chapter 29 (1:25:01 - 1:27:53)
Goldfinger Chapter 30 (1:27:54 - 1:38:00)
Goldfinger Chapter 31 (1:38:01 - 1:45:29)
Goldfinger Chapter 32 (1:45:30 - 1:48:52)

1965
May 23
Thunderball Chapter 1 (0:00:00 - 0:04:44)
Thunderball Chapter 2 (0:04:45 - 0:07:43)
Thunderball Chapter 3 (0:07:44 - 0:11:32)
Thunderball Chapter 4 (0:11:33 - 0:18:27)
Thunderball Chapter 5 (0:18:28 - 0:22:09)
Thunderball Chapter 5 (0:22:10 - 0:22:19) (Audio Only)
Thunderball Chapter 5 (0:22:10 - 0:22:46)
Thunderball Chapter 6 (0:22:47 - 0:26:12)
Thunderball Chapter 7 (0:26:13 - 0:29:21)
Thunderball Chapter 8 (0:29:22 - 0:36:36)

May 24
Thunderball Chapter 8 (0:36:37 - 0:37:02)
Thunderball Chapter 9 (0:37:03 - 0:38:48)
Thunderball Chapter 10 (0:38:49 - 0:44:02)
Thunderball Chapter 11 (0:44:03 - 0:48:41)
Thunderball Chapter 12 (0:48:42 - 0:54:15)

May 25
Thunderball Chapter 12 (0:54:16 - 0:54:17)
Thunderball Chapter 13 (0:54:18 - 0:58:48)
Thunderball Chapter 14 (0:58:49 - 1:01:37)
Thunderball Chapter 15 (1:01:38 - 1:02:55)
Thunderball Chapter 16 (1:02:56 - 1:06:17)
Thunderball Chapter 17 (1:06:18 - 1:09:07)

May 26
Thunderball Chapter 17 (1:09:08 - 1:14:24)
Thunderball Chapter 18 (1:14:25 - 1:21:23)
Thunderball Chapter 19 (1:21:24 - 1:25:57)
Thunderball Chapter 20 (1:25:58 - 1:28:52)
Thunderball Chapter 21 (1:28:53 - 1:31:54)

May 27
Thunderball Chapter 22 (1:31:55 - 1:36:59)
Thunderball Chapter 23 (1:37:00 - 1:41:44)
Thunderball Chapter 24 (1:41:45 - 1:48:35)
Thunderball Chapter 25 (1:48:36 - 1:50:23)

May 28
Thunderball Chapter 25 (1:50:24 - 1:51:19)
Thunderball Chapter 26 (1:51:20 - 1:53:14)
Thunderball Chapter 27 (1:53:15 - 1:55:53)
Thunderball Chapter 28 (1:55:54 - 2:03:29)
Thunderball Chapter 29 (2:03:30 - 2:05:02)
Thunderball Chapter 30 (2:05:03 - 2:08:10)
Thunderball Chapter 31 (2:08:11 - 2:09:30)
Thunderball Chapter 32 (2:09:31 - 2:10:10)

1966
July
You Only Live Twice Chapter 1 (0:00:00 - 0:03:46)

July 8
You Only Live Twice Chapter 1 (0:03:47 - 0:05:01)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 2 (0:05:02 - 0:06:10)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 3 (0:06:11 - 0:06:15)

July 9
You Only Live Twice Chapter 3 (0:06:16 - 0:08:53)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 4 (0:08:54 - 0:11:48)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 5 (0:11:49 - 0:15:22)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 6 (0:15:23 - 0:19:25)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 7 (0:19:26 - 0:24:18)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 8 (0:24:19 - 0:28:19)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 9 (0:28:20 - 0:31:28)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 10 (0:31:29 - 0:33:08)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 11 (0:33:09 - 0:36:14)

July 10
You Only Live Twice Chapter 12 (0:36:15 - 0:40:47)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 13 (0:40:48 - 0:44:17)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 14 (0:44:18 - 0:46:59)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 15 (0:47:00 - 0:49:47)

July 11
You Only Live Twice Chapter 15 (0:49:48 - 0:51:13)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 16 (0:51:14 - 0:54:36)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 17 (0:54:37 - 0:58:58)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 18 (0:58:59 - 0:03:27)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 19 (1:03:28 - 1:09:01)

July 12
You Only Live Twice Chapter 20 (1:09:02 - 1:12:26)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 21 (1:12:27 - 1:14:06)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 22 (1:14:07 - 1:16:35)

July 14
You Only Live Twice Chapter 22 (1:16:36 - 1:17:33)

July 15
You Only Live Twice Chapter 23 (1:17:34 - 1:20:25)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 24 (1:20:26 - 1:23:10)

July 16
You Only Live Twice Chapter 24 (1:23:11 - 1:24:25)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 25 (1:24:26 - 1:26:36)

July 17
You Only Live Twice Chapter 25 (1:26:37 - 1:28:42)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 26 (1:28:43 - 1:34:54)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 27 (1:34:55 - 1:35:49)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 28 (1:35:50 - 1:38:12)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 29 (1:38:13 - 1:44:25)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 30 (1:44:26 - 1:48:19)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 31 (1:48:20 - 1:53:25)
You Only Live Twice Chapter 32 (1:53:26 - 1:55:19)

1967
????
Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond

1969
September 12
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 1 (0:00:00 - 0:01:27)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 2 (0:01:28 - 0:06:56)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 3 (0:06:57 - 0:09:28)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 4 (0:09:29 - 0:14:06)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 5 (0:14:07 - 0:15:43)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 6 (0:15:44 - 0:18:43)

September 13
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 6 (0:18:44 - 0:19:43)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 7 (0:19:44 - 0:26:46)

September 14
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 8 (0:26:47 - 0:30:35)

September 15
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 9 (0:30:36 - 0:34:58)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:34:59 - 0:35:42)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:10 - 0:36:18)

September 16
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:35:43 - 0:35:51)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:23 - 0:36:30)

September 17
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:35:52 - 0:35:56)

September 18
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:35:57 - 0:35:59)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:19 - 0:36:22)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:37 - 0:36:45)

September 19
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:00 - 0:36:03)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:31 - 0:36:36)

September 20
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:04 - 0:36:09)

September 21
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 10 (0:36:46 - 0:37:12)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 11 (0:37:13 - 0:43:51)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 12 (0:43:52 - 0:47:42)

December 5
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 13 (0:47:43 - 0:54:49)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 14 (0:54:50 - 0:57:08)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 15 (0:57:09 - 1:02:36)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 16 (1:02:37 - 1:06:04)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 17 (1:06:05 - 1:13:20)

December 24
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 18 (1:13:21 - 1:18:07)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 19 (1:18:08 - 1:18:38)

December 25
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 19 (1:18:39 - 1:22:18)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 20 (1:22:19 - 1:29:14)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 21 (1:29:15 - 1:31:35)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 22 (1:31:36 - 1:38:31)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 23 (1:38:32 - 1:44:17)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 24 (1:44:18 - 1:48:26)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 25 (1:48:27 - 1:53:33)

December 26
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 25 (1:53:34 - 1:53:52)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 26 (1:53:53 - 1:58:38)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 27 (1:58:39 - 2:00:46)

December 27
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 28 (2:00:47 - 2:05:41)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 29 (2:05:42 - 2:09:09)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 30 (2:09:10 - 2:11:52)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 31 (2:11:53 - 2:15:41)

December
On Her Majesty's Secret Service Chapter 32 (2:15:42 - 2:22:04)

 

[Dallas Kinard]

I just watched "Dr. No" this weekend and believe it's firmly set in late February of 1962 for two reasons.

First, we have this calendar (the best pic I could get online). It lines up with Feb of 1962.

And lastly we have Operation Mercury-Atlas 6 occurring during the third act. This rocket launched on 02/20/1962 (30 years before I was born, as I am 02/20/1992).

Now I didn't get a chance to count backwards the days, but I'd say the film takes place over the course of a few days, ending on Feb 20, 1962.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

I watched "From Russia With Love" this weekend. It's firmly set in 1963 due to the wall calendar in Moneypenny's office.

This film introduces "Q" (standing for Quartermaster). "Major Boothroyd", a character similar to "Q", appeared in the previous film, "Dr. No" who was addressed as "Armorer".

 

[Dallas Kinard]

I watched the third Bond film this weekend "Goldfinger". Here are my findings. I believe the film is firmly set in 1964.

A wall calendar can be seen at the 19:21 mark, although it's difficult to make out the specific month. Update: This calendar matches up with November of 1964, which works well with "that bullion job in November of nineteen sixty four" line from "On Her Majesties' Secret Service" being a call-back to this film's events.

Around the 25:35 mark, a Dunlop Golf poster can be seen with 1964 on it as the date.

At the 33:08 mark, an inspection sticker dated "FEB 65" can be seen on James Bond's car.

At the 34:33 mark, Goldfinger's car inspection sticker can be seen dated "AUG 64".

At the 1:14:51 mark, a license plate date of 1964 can be seen.

The following exchange shows that it's the summer season:

Tilly Masterson:
"It's for my ice skates."

James Bond:
"Lovely sport. Where do you skate?"

Tilly Masterson:
"Saint Moritz."

James Bond:
"I didn't know there was ice there this time of the year."

At one point, James Bond refers to Felix Leiter's time in Jamaica, referring to the events of "Dr. No". Felix Leiter must be a code-name as the character is portrayed differently in this film.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

I watched 1965's "Thunderball" last weekend. Here are my findings for the 007 thread that I'm sure someone will create eventually.

At around the 22:04 mark, a chalkboard can be seen with the text "Exercise Date: 2-65". This seemingly places this film in February of 1965.

At precisely 41:33, a file dated "26/2" can be seen. I couldn't find a shot on the net because of how fast it is.

At around the 41:55 mark, a classified document is dated 19.9.65. This would seemingly place the film sometime during or after September, 1965.

At around the 1:08:24 mark, a car inspection sticker can be seen dated "5".

At around the 1:32:10 mark, a screen shows the date of "27 MAY".

So we can conclude that the film is set in May of 1965.

This film introduces a third man who uses the "Felix Leiter" alias.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

I watched 1967's "You Only Live Twice" this weekend. The only timeline evidence I was able to find in the film was the following newspaper date. This places the film firmly in July of 1966.

This film confirms that Ernst Stavro Blofeld is just an alias used by at least two different men by this point. The Blofeld in this film is clearly a different person than the Blofeld seen in all previous appearances.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

On the Blu Ray for "You Only Live Twice" there is a TV Special included that can be considered canon.



This film is dated 1967, which matches the copyright date. The "present day" scenes take place sometime after the events of "You Only Live Twice".

This short film is told nearly entirely in flashback from "Dr No" through "You Only Live Twice" showing both old and new scenes, some of which occur during the events of "You Only Live Twice".

This short film reveals that within the 007 universe, there are films made about the exploits of the real James Bond starring Sean Connery as the titular character.

At the 6:43 Mark Tatiana Romanovas personal file shows a registered date of 9/9/50 and indexed date of 02/10/60. the file also reveals her date of birth being 7/1/36.

At the 22:43 Mark, the shooting date can be seen as "27•9•66". This means only two months have passed since the real events of "You Only Live Twice".

It is revealed during the present day scenes that the next James Bond movie is titled "On Your Majesty's Secret Service" which is also the title of an Ian Fleming novel seen during these scenes.

I was unable to find HD screencaps online for all of these, but on the Blu Ray this special is in 1080p.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

This weekend I watched "On Your Majesty's Secret Service". This one was packed with dates and evidence for placement!

In the opening scene, after James Bond rescues a woman from drowning and fights a group of mooks, the woman drives away. He faces the camera and says "This never happened to the other fella", a reference to the previous 007. This line establishes that there are at least two 007 agents that use the name "James Bond". The name "James Bond" is likely an alias. I understand this isn't a popular stance, but I think the films themselves prove it due to the evidence in them. We will get more into this in future installments of the franchise.

At around the 21:05 mark a wall calendar can be seen, but it's impossible to make out the month and year.



At the 22:06 mark a calendar is clearly and deliberately focused in on and shows "Setembro 1969". it's then stated that it's the 13th of the month.




At the 42:34 mark, a letter dated "12th June, 1969" is focused on.




At the 42:40 mark another letter is seen dated "30th July, 1969".



At the 43:04 mark another letter is seen dated "3rd, August 1969".



At the 45:17 mark another letter dated "9th June, 1969" can be seen focused on.



At around the 48:22 mark, a newspaper dated "Friday December 5 1969" can be seen.



At the 1:40:32 mark, a calendar is visible, but it's difficult to tell which month and year it is.



At James Bond's wedding, "M" discusses with Marc-Ange Draco "that bullion job in November of 1964" which references "Goldfinger" and also places that film in November of 1964.

From IMDB:

At the wedding, Draco and M discuss an occasion where M's department cost Draco three men. M says, "Ah, yes, November 1964 - the bullion job." This seems to be a reference to Goldfinger (1964), implying Draco was once in league with Auric Goldfinger. But if the writers intended this, they made wrong allusions: 1) M alluded to Draco getting away with a large portion of the job while nothing was stolen; and 2) it's cold in Kentucky by November yet Goldfinger's battle was filmed with obvious summer scenery.

At the 2:19:46 mark, James Bond's car inspection sticker shows the date of "NOV69". Since this scene is in late December of 1969, the inspection sticker must be out of date.



James Bond and Ernst Blofeld don't recognize each other. This adds credence to the idea that Blofeld is a name used by multiple men, similar to James Bond. More on this idea as we continue.



With all of that said, this film spans a few months of time. It starts around September of 1969 and then ends in December of 1969.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

Over the weekend I watched the seventh Bond film "Diamonds Are Forever". Here are my findings.

It is stated that James Bond has been on holiday ("You've been on holiday, I understand."). This could explain this 007's absence from the last film. The film also picks up in Japan, where we last saw the Connery Bond. It is my understanding that this Bond has been living in Japan for the last five years (1966 - 1971). If you recall, he got married in that last film. I like to think he took an extended leave to possibly live a simple life in Japan with his new wife. The Lazenby 007 took over for him (at least for a couple of years after "You Only Live Twice"). After the events of "On Your Majesty's Secret Service", MI6 called Connery back into duty to track down Blofeld and avenge what happened to Lazenby (who possibly retired after his wife's death).



Another man going by the Felix Leiter alias debuts in this film. This would be the fourth since "Dr. No".



By the time of this film, Ernst Stavro Blofeld began creating identical decoys of himself using plastic surgery. It is still unknown who the real Ernst Stavro Blofeld is by this point. Since "Dr. No", this is the fourth individual to use the Blofeld alias.



At around the 10:13 mark a March 1971 calendar can be seen on the wall.



At the 19:27 mark a passport can be seen with a birthday of 15.4.1932.



The Aston Martin DBS that was used by the previous 007 can be seen in Q's lab. The vehicle can be seen in the background of the Q-Branch workshop being fitted with missiles of some kind as James Bond talks with Q on the telephone.



At the 1:19:03 mark, a license plate renewal date of DEC 71 can be seen.



Professor Doctor Metz's security pass is dated 7/5/71. according to the book "The Man With The Golden Eye: Designing The James Bond Films".

Also to note, after James Bond disposes of Peter Franks, he switches wallets with the body. When Tiffany Case inspects the corpse and finds the wallet, her first reaction is a disbelieving "You just killed James Bond!". Given how often James Bond drops his name, it makes sense that he has developed something of a reputation with the general public by this time.

So I think we can conclude that the film spans from March to July of 1971. This means it's been five years since we the audience has seen the original 007 (1966's "You Only Live Twice").

 

[Jozaca]

So, you are going with the multiple Bonds idea?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

So, you are going with the multiple Bonds idea?

Yes. And I believe the films prove this theory.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

Over the weekend I was able to catch "Live And Let Die". Here were my findings. The picture quality isn't always the best due to compression so I apologize if tiny details and text aren't easy to read.

This film introduces the third man to take up the 007 "James Bond" name and without explanation. It can be assumed due to the infamous line in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" that there are multiple men who use the alias "007, James Bond". The Sean Connery Bond has most likely resigned after being on holiday and having to return to action in the previous film. The Roger Moore Bond's distinct feature is his light blue eyes. The previous two agents both had dark brown eyes.



Felix Leiter, the American equivalent to 007 is shown to be a new agent in this film, the fifth since the character's debut in "Dr. No".



At the 18:01 mark, an inspection sticker dated 1973 can be seen on a Taxi cab.



At the 20:09 mark a license plate can be seen dated 1973.




At around the 22:36 mark a car inspection sticker dated 1974 can be seen.



At around the 1:28:45 mark, the sheriff's license plate is dated 72 - 73.



With that said, this film is firmly set in 1973.

 

[Megatron]

Yes. And I believe the films prove this theory.

not a fan of the theory, there are a lot of key proofs for it to be wrong:

 

[Dallas Kinard]

Well I'm not a fan of floating timelines and making characters ageless, which is why I believe the codename theory makes the most logical sense.

You either have to accept that Bond is ageless, which means he's a supernatural entity of some type and exists on a non-sensical "floating timeline" OR maybe 007 and James Bond is an alias used by different men. We are talking about a super-spy organization where M's and Q's exist. Why people take such issue with this yet are totally fine with the ageless man theory really boggles my mind.

I can respond point by point to that Reddit post when I get more time. But upon a quick read, the OP must ignore on-screen evidence to come to his conclusion. This thread will not be doing so, instead we will be embracing the on-screen evidence.

Edit:

It's these types of comments that piss me off. Let people have fun guys. This is FICTION after all. My goodness people get so upset about such silly things. Shut the heck up about "the real fans" nonsense. I'm so sick of that line in all of these fandoms.

 

[Megatron]

Well I'm not a fan of floating timelines and making characters ageless, which is why I believe the codename theory makes the most logical sense.

You either have to accept that Bond is ageless, which means he's a supernatural entity of some type and exists on a non-sensical "floating timeline" OR maybe 007 and James Bond is an alias used by different men. We are talking about a super-spy organization where M's and Q's exist. Why people take such issue with this yet are totally fine with the ageless man theory really boggles my mind.

I can respond point by point to that Reddit post when I get more time. But upon a quick read, the OP must ignore on-screen evidence to come to his conclusion. This thread will not be doing so, instead we will be embracing the on-screen evidence.

Edit:

It's these types of comments that piss me off. Let people have fun guys. This is FICTION after all. My goodness people get so upset about such silly things. Shut the heck up about "the real fans" nonsense. I'm so sick of that line in all of these fandoms.

View attachment 2871

actually you can place the movies in the years they happen, dates are there, the actors rappresent moments of his life, so one bond and also no problem with dates, the ageless factor comes into play when you try to connect the reboot with the original universe.

But anyway going with logic, Bond's codename is OO7, why would he need a codename for a codename?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

actually you can place the movies in the years they happen, dates are there, the actors rappresent moments of his life, so one bond and also no problem with dates, the ageless factor comes into play when you try to connect the reboot with the original universe.

I'm not sure I'm following. You are saying that a 32 year old Bond as seen in Dr. No (which occurs in 1962) is the same exact man that last appears in 2002's Die Another Day? He should be 70 years old by then!

So again, either you must accept that Bond doesn't age/is a time-lord or some whacko sci-fi theory OR you can assume that the 007 is a moniker taken up by different guys throughout the timeline (which the strongest case for is presented in OHMSS). I think in a world of M's, Q's, Felix Leiter's and Blofelds all likely being code-names/aliases, it's a safe bet.

I too have links that argue this case:

https://distinctchatter.co.uk/2015/10/31/month-of-bond-why-james-bond-is-a-codename-and-not-one-man/


https://whatwouldbaledo.com/2015/02/24/yes-indeed-james-bond-is-a-codename/

 

[Megatron]

I'm not sure I'm following. You are saying that a 32 year old Bond as seen in Dr. No (which occurs in 1962) is the same exact man that last appears in 2002's Die Another Day? He should be 70 years old by then!

So again, either you must accept that Bond doesn't age/is a time-lord or some whacko sci-fi theory OR you can assume that the 007 is a moniker taken up by different guys throughout the timeline (which the strongest case for is presented in OHMSS). I think in a world of M's, Q's, Felix Leiter's and Blofelds all likely being code-names/aliases, it's a safe bet.

I too have links that argue this case:

https://distinctchatter.co.uk/2015/10/31/month-of-bond-why-james-bond-is-a-codename-and-not-one-man/


https://whatwouldbaledo.com/2015/02/24/yes-indeed-james-bond-is-a-codename/

1. bond, lives in a world with lasers and other sci-fi stuff in the 70s, the heath system can be very advance, so that's why he's fine even in his 70s, like do u see the 70s of today? They look like in their 50s.
2. IDK why they say the personalities change, tho he does the same one lines jokes and all, so it's pretty stupid to me to say he's a codename, does "make one-line puns" part of the training?
3. answered themself, "separate universe", tho if u want to count it, Both Judith Dench's Ms have different real names lol.

the line that is said in OHMSS is the only thing that points to the theory, as in the same movie the scene with bond cleaning the desk is cleary reminiscing about his past missions, oh and Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond, cos EON wanted to make an 1:1 adaptations of the OHMSS novel, in that novel is the 1st meeting within Bond and Blofeld. So that line could be a 4th wall joke.

Tho if you wanna take it as litteral, then why Bond's codename is OO7, if its codename is James Bond? He has 2 codenames now?

Also why the other bonds cuts him short when talking about marriage? Or why should another Bond go to a tomb of the deceased wife of another Bond if he isn't the same guy? I don't see it being a mission or a task.

I think i said everything, if i forgot smt just tell me.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

1. bond, lives in a world with lasers and other sci-fi stuff in the 70s, the heath system can be very advance, so that's why he's fine even in his 70s, like do u see the 70s of today? They look like in their 50s.
2. IDK why they say the personalities change, tho he does the same one lines jokes and all, so it's pretty stupid to me to say he's a codename, does "make one-line puns" part of the training?
3. answered themself, "separate universe", tho if u want to count it, Both Judith Dench's Ms have different real names lol.

the line that is said in OHMSS is the only thing that points to the theory, as in the same movie the scene with bond cleaning the desk is cleary reminiscing about his past missions, oh and Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond, cos EON wanted to make an 1:1 adaptations of the OHMSS novel, in that novel is the 1st meeting within Bond and Blofeld. So that line could be a 4th wall joke.

Tho if you wanna take it as litteral, then why Bond's codename is OO7, if its codename is James Bond? He has 2 codenames now?

Also why the other bonds cuts him short when talking about marriage? Or why should another Bond go to a tomb of the deceased wife of another Bond if he isn't the same guy? I don't see it being a mission or a task.

I think i said everything, if i forgot smt just tell me.

1. If you choose to have that sort of suspension of dis-belief, more power to you. I do not. Because I think Bond is still more based in reality than something like comic book logic or Star Wars.

2. Personalities DO change though. But moreso, their physical appearance changes. Roger Moore has blue eyes, when the previous two Bonds had brown eyes.

3. How do we know M's "names" are real though? Secret spy stuff. If you can by lasers, can't you buy fake names?

4. While 4th wall breaking IS a thing, you have two options here. Either Lazenby's Bond is like Deadpool and is aware he's in a movie OR the line is meant to be taken literally within the universe and therefore MUST be considered.

5. Bond could be simply cleaning out the desk each 007 agent uses. He was checking out the items Connery's Bond either told him about or he was familiar with the cases.

6. Blofeld is a double/different person which is why he doesn't recognize Lazenby. Ernst using doubles is explored more in Diamonds Are Forever.

7. 007 is the code-name. James Bond is the public persona alias as Diamonds shows people know about him "You just killed James Bond!". Again you can buy lasers in this world, but not two names used by the same guy?

8. I think the brainwashing theory could hold some weight. Basically each man is given a backstory and they truly believe they are "James Bond". The grave thing could be one Bond visiting the grave of his friend's wife. When Moore kills Blofeld, his reaction isn't that of an angry widow who finally killed the man who murdered his wife. His reaction is more of "that was for Lazenby". Watch it again.

9. It all boils down to suspension of disbelief. I think it takes far more stretching and logic leaps to make Bond a single man through the decades than it does to go with the OHMSS dialogue that indicates otherwise.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

This past weekend I was able watch 1974's "The Man With The Golden Gun". Not much timeline evidence in this one, but just enough to give us a year.

James Bond mentions the 1970s energy crisis. This crisis began in 1973 and ended in 1980.

Some previous years were mentioned in the following dialogue: "Where was 002 when it happened? Beirut, '69." "On our Ieft is the wreckage of the famous liner, Queen Elizabeth, which sank here under mysterious circumstances in 1971 ."

At the 1:05:51 mark, a bottle of Phuyuck is dated 1974.



And there we have it, the film is firmly set in 1974.

 

[Pro Bot]

Yeah, I agree with Megatron. Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove.

Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old. Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi ****. Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever. I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active. The "why" doesn't matter as much.

Anyway, the original James Bond film series is canon to Earth-66 and you can't convince me otherwise!!!/s
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Batman_'66_Meets_the_Man_from_U.N.C.L.E._Vol_1
Technically has more proof than the codename theory and any explanation for him not aging much, lol. I wonder if they ever considered a crossover comic...

 

[Dallas Kinard]

Yeah, I agree with Megatron. Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove.

Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old. Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi ****. Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever. I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active. The "why" doesn't matter as much.

Anyway, the original James Bond film series is canon to Earth-66 and you can't convince me otherwise!!!/s
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Batman_'66_Meets_the_Man_from_U.N.C.L.E._Vol_1
Technically has more proof than the codename theory and any explanation for him not aging much, lol. I wonder if they ever considered a crossover comic...

Wow, that's a lot to unpack. I'll reply point by point.

"Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue."

What you may refer to as "shoehorning", others call theories intended to help explain plot holes and logical inconsistencies within the universe of said franchise. I'm not "ignoring" anything. I'm taking what the films give us and trying to piece together the information and make as much sense of it as possible. This entire debate boils down to what you are willing to accept. Is there a right or wrong answer? I don't believe so. But am going to do my best to try to explain everything as logically as possible with the info the films themselves provide. Also, I disagree that they are intended to be the same person. OHMSS dis-proves that idea within the opening minutes with the line "this never happened to the other fellow". Now of course you could dismiss this line and pretend it's a meta, Deadpool level 4th wall breaker if you want OR you could take it seriously and go from there (which is what I'm doing). And calling it a "simple issue" is simply your own opinion. Fans like to think about this stuff and make sense of it all. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's part of the fun of FICTION. Emphasis added to that last word.

"The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove."

Wow, this one is full of problems. So the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, sure I agree with that. And I'm going to provide the evidence week to week as I work my way through the films. Personally, I think OHMSS is the strongest evidence we have so far of the alias/code-name theory. Now, I reject the idea that I'm just "coming up with theories to explain all the things that 'clearly contradict' that interpretation". Again, what you may personally believe "clearly contradicts" this idea may actually be perfectly explainable. You are also making baseless assertions here and now the burden shifts to YOU to provide the evidence that "clearly contradicts" my interpretation. I also don't like your last line about "adding things that I absolutely can't prove." I absolutely disagree. If the evidence literally disproves your claim, which I believe it does (I'll keep referring you to OHMSS), then you would need to agree you're wrong here.

"Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old."

How old? If Bond is as old as the actor portraying him, then he ages and de-ages throughout the series. If you believe Connery through Brosnan are "the same guy" from 1962 - 2002, then you must believe that Pierce is playing a 70+ year old Bond. Do you really believe this? If not, then you must adhere to the completely nonsensical "sliding timeline" theory which the films themselves also "absolutely" do NOT prove. Either view requires leaps and theorizing you see. What makes yours more valid than mine?

"Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi ****."

I'm personally only counting the films for this timeline. Again, Connery is 32 in "Dr. No" and Brosnan is in his 40s by the 90s era. So you would have to believe that Bond looks like a 40+ year old when he's really in his 70s. Again, this requires theorizing that the films themselves absolutely do NOT prove. And you've actually defeated your entire argument with that "well, sci-fi ****" line. Why can't I say the same exact thing regarding the code-name idea? Oh you don't like it? Well too bad, because "sci-fi ****". I think you get the point.

"Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever."

Are these theories that can be proven by simply watching the films? Sounds like you're completely fine with coming up with whatever you need to in order to make YOUR interpretation work, yet completely deny mine which is FAR more logical and fits in with super secret spy organization stuff than all of these out-landish ideas.

"I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active."

Good, because you'll be hard-pressed to prove ANY of those ridiculous claims. And no, we don't KNOW that he's the same man. Again, OHMSS can be interpreted a couple of different ways. It's up to the viewer to decide how he or she wants to take that "other fellow" line. I'm going with the literal interpretation and can defend anything up to "The Man With The Golden Gun" as that's as far as I've seen. So far, nothing I've watched has come close to dis-proving my idea. For example, in OHMSS Lazenby Bond goes through Connery Bond's desk and checks out some of the items from that 007's past cases. Easy. References come in all kinds of ways, so just saying "this movie referenced a previous movie therefore Bond is the same guy despite all the differences in physical appearance and personality" just doesn't add up. We need to get into the specific details of each and every reference.

"The "why" doesn't matter as much."

To you perhaps, but not to me. This is again just your personal opinion.

 

[Jozaca]

Anyway, the original James Bond film series is canon to Earth-66 and you can't convince me otherwise!!!/s
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Batman_'66_Meets_the_Man_from_U.N.C.L.E._Vol_1
Technically has more proof than the codename theory and any explanation for him not aging much, lol. I wonder if they ever considered a crossover comic...

It would actually be very cool if Earth-66 would be the Spyverse

 

[Jamesctl]

In the Batman 66 timeline conversation, I talked about a connected timeline, and someone rewrote my timeline.
Earth-66
Batman Season 1-3
I think this one's obvious
Legends of the Superheroes Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Green Hornet Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Felony Squad Season 1-3
Sam Stone has a Window Cameo in 2x21
Judd, for the Defense Season 1-2
Crossover with The Felony Squad
Hogan's Heroes Season 1-6
Colonel Klink has a Window Cameo in 2x26
The Addams Family Season 1-2
Lurch has a Window Cameo in 2x27; THRUSH is mentioned by Uncle Fester
The Monkees Season 1-2
Penguin from Batman '66 appears
Lost in Space Season 1-3
Window Cameo in one of the Comics, this one could be argued about
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1-4
Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (James Bond)
The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1
Spin-off of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Please Don't Eat the Daisies Season 1-2
THRUSH appears
Get Smart Season 1-5
THRUSH appears I think (?)
The Avengers Season 1-6
Batman '66 Meets Steed and Mrs. Peel
The New Avengers Season 1-2
The Avengers Spin-Off

 

[Pro Bot]

Wow, that's a lot to unpack. I'll reply point by point.

"Shoehorning in a brainwashing explanation so that you can ignore that they are intended to be the same person is essentially just adding more convoluted theorising onto a simple issue."

What you may refer to as "shoehorning", others call theories intended to help explain plot holes and logical inconsistencies within the universe of said franchise. I'm not "ignoring" anything. I'm taking what the films give us and trying to piece together the information and make as much sense of it as possible. This entire debate boils down to what you are willing to accept. Is there a right or wrong answer? I don't believe so. But am going to do my best to try to explain everything as logically as possible with the info the films themselves provide. Also, I disagree that they are intended to be the same person. OHMSS dis-proves that idea within the opening minutes with the line "this never happened to the other fellow". Now of course you could dismiss this line and pretend it's a meta, Deadpool level 4th wall breaker if you want OR you could take it seriously and go from there (which is what I'm doing). And calling it a "simple issue" is simply your own opinion. Fans like to think about this stuff and make sense of it all. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's part of the fun of FICTION. Emphasis added to that last word.

Do you believe that the writers intended Bond to be a codename and all the Bonds are brainwashed into thinking they're the same person? Personally, I think it's much more likely that James Bond is not a codename as this has never been suggested once in all his literary and film appearances, and this extends to the film franchise.

"The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that Bond is a codename, and coming up with theories to explain all the things that clearly contradict that interpretation is not proving anything but just adding more things that you absolutely can't prove."

Wow, this one is full of problems. So the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, sure I agree with that. And I'm going to provide the evidence week to week as I work my way through the films. Personally, I think OHMSS is the strongest evidence we have so far of the alias/code-name theory. Now, I reject the idea that I'm just "coming up with theories to explain all the things that 'clearly contradict' that interpretation". Again, what you may personally believe "clearly contradicts" this idea may actually be perfectly explainable. You are also making baseless assertions here and now the burden shifts to YOU to provide the evidence that "clearly contradicts" my interpretation. I also don't like your last line about "adding things that I absolutely can't prove." I absolutely disagree. If the evidence literally disproves your claim, which I believe it does (I'll keep referring you to OHMSS), then you would need to agree you're wrong here.

James Bond having the exact same dead wife is clear intent for it to be the same character. "This other fella" line doesn't necessarily have to refer to another James Bond in-universe. It's an out-of-universe joke for that, yes, but in-universe it makes more sense for it to refer to someone else. As for meeting Blofield twice, was Bond not disguised during that encounter?

"Personally, I'm fine with Bond being old."

How old? If Bond is as old as the actor portraying him, then he ages and de-ages throughout the series. If you believe Connery through Brosnan are "the same guy" from 1962 - 2002, then you must believe that Pierce is playing a 70+ year old Bond. Do you really believe this? If not, then you must adhere to the completely nonsensical "sliding timeline" theory which the films themselves also "absolutely" do NOT prove. Either view requires leaps and theorizing you see. What makes yours more valid than mine?

Why are you convinced that James Bond is in his 30s in the first film? Connery's age doesn't need to reflect the character. Do you think X-Men: Dark Phoenix is a different universe to X-Men: First Class because the actor's ages don't match the character's age, or do you accept that they're the same universe despite that? I'm not employing a sliding timeline one bit here either, I'm arguing that actor's age isn't a factor.

"Unless we add in the Origins comic, Bond could totally be 20-60 throughout the film series, which isn't terribly problematic, but even if he is... well, sci-fi ****."

I'm personally only counting the films for this timeline. Again, Connery is 32 in "Dr. No" and Brosnan is in his 40s by the 90s era. So you would have to believe that Bond looks like a 40+ year old when he's really in his 70s. Again, this requires theorizing that the films themselves absolutely do NOT prove. And you've actually defeated your entire argument with that "well, sci-fi ****" line. Why can't I say the same exact thing regarding the code-name idea? Oh you don't like it? Well too bad, because "sci-fi ****". I think you get the point.

"Anti-aging drugs, super soldier serums, whatever."

Are these theories that can be proven by simply watching the films? Sounds like you're completely fine with coming up with whatever you need to in order to make YOUR interpretation work, yet completely deny mine which is FAR more logical and fits in with super secret spy organization stuff than all of these out-landish ideas.

"I can't prove that and I'm not trying to, but all we know is that he's the same Bond due to references toward previous adventures and that he's still active."

Good, because you'll be hard-pressed to prove ANY of those ridiculous claims. And no, we don't KNOW that he's the same man. Again, OHMSS can be interpreted a couple of different ways. It's up to the viewer to decide how he or she wants to take that "other fellow" line. I'm going with the literal interpretation and can defend anything up to "The Man With The Golden Gun" as that's as far as I've seen. So far, nothing I've watched has come close to dis-proving my idea. For example, in OHMSS Lazenby Bond goes through Connery Bond's desk and checks out some of the items from that 007's past cases. Easy. References come in all kinds of ways, so just saying "this movie referenced a previous movie therefore Bond is the same guy despite all the differences in physical appearance and personality" just doesn't add up. We need to get into the specific details of each and every reference.

"The "why" doesn't matter as much."

To you perhaps, but not to me. This is again just your personal opinion.

All of this focus on me adding details that aren't intended in any way appears to ignore the part where I explicitly say that none of that can be proven or taken as canon, but it at least works within the confines of what we know. It is certainly less of a stretch than James Bond was brainwashed into thinking that he's the same person as someone else and has the same dead wife. I simply mentioned it to posit that, in a spy-based universe, it's not really that weird or out-of-place.

It would actually be very cool if Earth-66 would be the Spyverse

I'm glad you think so!

In the Batman 66 timeline conversation, I talked about a connected timeline, and someone rewrote my timeline.
Earth-66
Batman Season 1-3
I think this one's obvious
Legends of the Superheroes Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Green Hornet Season 1
I think this one's obvious
The Felony Squad Season 1-3
Sam Stone has a Window Cameo in 2x21
Judd, for the Defense Season 1-2
Crossover with The Felony Squad
Hogan's Heroes Season 1-6
Colonel Klink has a Window Cameo in 2x26
The Addams Family Season 1-2
Lurch has a Window Cameo in 2x27; THRUSH is mentioned by Uncle Fester
The Monkees Season 1-2
Penguin from Batman '66 appears
Lost in Space Season 1-3
Window Cameo in one of the Comics, this one could be argued about
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1-4
Batman '66 Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (James Bond)
The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. Season 1
Spin-off of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Please Don't Eat the Daisies Season 1-2
THRUSH appears
Get Smart Season 1-5
THRUSH appears I think (?)
The Avengers Season 1-6
Batman '66 Meets Steed and Mrs. Peel
The New Avengers Season 1-2
The Avengers Spin-Off

This is great! Unfortunately, unless everyone wants to chip in, I wouldn't be able to add any of that. It is fun though. Batman '66 Meets Steed and Mrs. Peel actually has a flashback to an episode of The Avengers. Oh, and if you go with the idea that the real Earth-76 is post-crisis Earth-66, that adds Wonder Woman, The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman... and all of their sequel comic books. Add on Adventures of Superman and James Bond for the lols, and you've got potentially one of the biggest live-action shared DC universes.

Is there a good explanation for Lost in Space's timeline though?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"Do you believe that the writers intended Bond to be a codename and all the Bonds are brainwashed into thinking they're the same person?"

For one, it doesn't matter what I believe the writers intended. What ultimately matters is the on-screen evidence. Intentions can vary from writer to writer which makes it far too subjective. I have not settled on the brainwashed theory yet myself. The only thing I am convinced of is that in-universe, 007/James Bond is an alias used by multiple different men working for this universes fictional version of MI6 where "M" and "Q" code-names exist. And OHMMS only further cements that idea.

"Personally, I think it's much more likely that James Bond is not a codename as this has never been suggested once in all his literary and film appearances, and this extends to the film franchise.""

Now you're talking. I like how you prefaced with "personally". That's more like it. You are free to personally feel however you'd like to, as am I. This is all fiction after all. Now, I disagree that it has never been suggested once. I will continually lean on OHMSS as evidence that there are at least two men who go by James Bond if we are to take the line literally.

"James Bond having the exact same dead wife is clear intent for it to be the same character."

So you can come up with all sorts of fictional reasons to explain away the various physical differences and ages between actors, but believing that Tracy Bond was only ever married to the Lazenby Bond is too much a stretch? It may be "clear" to YOU, but I don't believe it's clear to the audience. If you are referring to the upcoming film where Roger Moore visits the grave of Tracy, I've seen it posited that he was visiting the grave of an old colleague's dead wife. For all we know, Moore's Bond was active around the same time Lazenby's was (I think this is pretty clear seeing how experienced Moore's Bond is right away) and knew Tracy personally. Heck, he could have been in attendance at their wedding off-screen for all we know.


"This other fella" line doesn't necessarily have to refer to another James Bond in-universe."

"Doesn't necessarily" means it's possible. I believe it absolutely was referring to Connery and I think the writers did actually intend for the audience to understand that.

"It's an out-of-universe joke for that, yes, but in-universe it makes more sense for it to refer to someone else."

Why? I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense he's referring to his 007 work colleague. Why am I wrong?

"As for meeting Blofield twice, was Bond not disguised during that encounter?""

Yes, but Blofield is also a code-name and I think the films 100% prove that with the various different actors and decoys introduced in DAF. Neither Bond or Blofield in OHMSS recognize each other because those two specific men never met.

"Why are you convinced that James Bond is in his 30s in the first film?"

Am I convinced that Bond is the exact same age as his actor? No. Am I convinced that the assumption is they are close in age, yes. I have no reason not to make this assumption. Why don't you?

"Connery's age doesn't need to reflect the character."

Says who? And where is your threshold? Are you fine with Bond being in his 70s while looking to be in his 40s? And if someone disagrees, are they "wrong"?

"Do you think X-Men: Dark Phoenix is a different universe to X-Men: First Class because the actor's ages don't match the character's age, or do you accept that they're the same universe despite that?"

Bringing another franchise into the mix isn't fair. The rules all depend on the universe in which you are in. X-Men is messy and some things can be chalked up to bad writing and continuity mishaps. But we aren't talking X-Men. We are talking 007, which plays by different rules. One of which is the fact it's more based in reality than comic book movies.

"I'm not employing a sliding timeline one bit here either, I'm arguing that actor's age isn't a factor."

Good, I'm glad we agree that the sliding timeline idea is just plain silly and is used as a last ditch effort to explain away all of the many inconsistencies perceived by the franchise. It's insane to me that some people think a sliding timeline makes more sense than a code-name. Absolutely bonkers to me. I'm arguing that an actors age MUST be a factor. You don't cast a 40 year old to play a 70 year old unless heavy makeup is applied (like Palpatine in ROTJ).

"All of this focus on me adding details that aren't intended in any way appears to ignore the part where I explicitly say that none of that can be proven or taken as canon, but it at least works within the confines of what we know."

Yes and what we know is on-screen evidence. Which is why the OHMSS line is so important to this discussion. One's interpretation of said line is really the crux of this entire debate.

"It is certainly less of a stretch than James Bond was brainwashed into thinking that he's the same person as someone else and has the same dead wife."

This is your opinion once again. So super soldier serums and "sci-fi ****" is less of a stretch than a top secret super spy organization brainwashing it's agents to be trained killers by giving them a fake name and back-story? I totally disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in a super spy world.

"I simply mentioned it to posit that, in a spy-based universe, it's not really that weird or out-of-place."

Thanks for sharing your opinion once again. And that's what this entire thing boils down to. It's all about what you personally think is "weird" or "out of place". You think Bond being different men is weird and out of place in this fictional reality. I don't. Cool.

 

[Megatron]

For one, it doesn't matter what I believe the writers intended. What ultimately matters is the on-screen evidence. Intentions can vary from writer to writer which makes it far too subjective. I have not settled on the brainwashed theory yet myself. The only thing I am convinced of is that in-universe, 007/James Bond is an alias used by multiple different men working for this universes fictional version of MI6 where "M" and "Q" code-names exist. And OHMMS only further cements that idea.

that line in-universe 100% refers to the other OO agents, (there are more than 7).

Now you're talking. I like how you prefaced with "personally". That's more like it. You are free to personally feel however you'd like to, as am I. This is all fiction after all. Now, I disagree that it has never been suggested once. I will continually lean on OHMSS as evidence that there are at least two men who go by James Bond if we are to take the line literally.

same thing as 1st one.

So you can come up with all sorts of fictional reasons to explain away the various physical differences and ages between actors, but believing that Tracy Bond was only ever married to the Lazenby Bond is too much a stretch? It may be "clear" to YOU, but I don't believe it's clear to the audience. If you are referring to the upcoming film where Roger Moore visits the grave of Tracy, I've seen it posited that he was visiting the grave of an old colleague's dead wife. For all we know, Moore's Bond was active around the same time Lazenby's was (I think this is pretty clear seeing how experienced Moore's Bond is right away) and knew Tracy personally. Heck, he could have been in attendance at their wedding off-screen for all we know.

tbh My parents are casual viewers and they think that Bond is the same one pleyed by different actors.... When they talk about the actors they debated on who played Bond the best, but as matter of fact they believe he is the same man.

"Doesn't necessarily" means it's possible. I believe it absolutely was referring to Connery and I think the writers did actually intend for the audience to understand that.

1st answer again.

Yes, but Blofield is also a code-name and I think the films 100% prove that with the various different actors and decoys introduced in DAF. Neither Bond or Blofield in OHMSS recognize each other because those two specific men never met.

they wanted to made an 1:1 adaptation of the novel and that novel showed their first meeting. Tho yeah he was disguised.

Am I convinced that Bond is the exact same age as his actor? No. Am I convinced that the assumption is they are close in age, yes. I have no reason not to make this assumption. Why don't you?

tbh if you apply his age from the novels it works. (oh and the continuation novels are canon and go up to the 2000, so yeah the novel do the same thing as the movies, and no codenames or actors this time, and this bond is out from the 1950s).

Says who? And where is your threshold? Are you fine with Bond being in his 70s while looking to be in his 40s? And if someone disagrees, are they "wrong"?

Odin's actor in the MCU isn't 2000+ years old lol.

Bringing another franchise into the mix isn't fair. The rules all depend on the universe in which you are in. X-Men is messy and some things can be chalked up to bad writing and continuity mishaps. But we aren't talking X-Men. We are talking 007, which plays by different rules. One of which is the fact it's more based in reality than comic book movies.

tecnically nope, all franchaises have basic rules that follows, so make examples is fine.

Good, I'm glad we agree that the sliding timeline idea is just plain silly and is used as a last ditch effort to explain away all of the many inconsistencies perceived by the franchise. It's insane to me that some people think a sliding timeline makes more sense than a code-name. Absolutely bonkers to me. I'm arguing that an actors age MUST be a factor. You don't cast a 40 year old to play a 70 year old unless heavy makeup is applied (like Palpatine in ROTJ).

again, there is no need for both.... it works as explained before.

Yes and what we know is on-screen evidence. Which is why the OHMSS line is so important to this discussion. One's interpretation of said line is really the crux of this entire debate.

again, 1st aswer.

This is your opinion once again. So super soldier serums and "sci-fi ****" is less of a stretch than a top secret super spy organization brainwashing it's agents to be trained killers by giving them a fake name and back-story? I totally disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in a super spy world.

both can work, but the super soldier serum are way more plausible than brainwashing, and also if u brainwash someone u make him walk away like that? Like Connery's Bond said I'm out and they just let him?

Thanks for sharing your opinion once again. And that's what this entire thing boils down to. It's all about what you personally think is "weird" or "out of place". You think Bond being different men is weird and out of place in this fictional reality. I don't. Cool.

GoldenEye will make everything more complicated, as there will be 2 Bond Active at the same time, going with your theory.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"that line in-universe 100% refers to the other OO agents, (there are more than 7)."

How do you know with 100% certainty? This could just be your own interpretation. And what do you think audiences were supposed to think when they first heard this? I think it's obvious he's referring to the previous 007 agent who happens to be on holiday in Japan during the events of the film.

"tbh My parents are casual viewers and they think that Bond is the same one pleyed by different actors.... When they talk about the actors they debated on who played Bond the best, but as matter of fact they believe he is the same man."

What your parents, or any casual viewers think is up to them of course. On-screen evidence is what I'm going by. Not what anyone "thinks" because that's all subjective.

"they wanted to made an 1:1 adaptation of the novel and that novel showed their first meeting. Tho yeah he was disguised."

That actually introduces even more continuity issues you'll have to figure out then. I think it makes more sense to believe Blofeld is also different men.

"tbh if you apply his age from the novels it works. (oh and the continuation novels are canon and go up to the 2000, so yeah the novel do the same thing as the movies, and no codenames or actors this time, and this bond is out from the 1950s)."

The novels aren't the same continuity as the films though.

"Odin's actor in the MCU isn't 2000+ years old lol."

Is this a serious argument? Odin, a fictional Norse God is not equivalent to a mere mortal spy. Again, different universe, different rules.

"tecnically nope, all franchaises have basic rules that follows, so make examples is fine."

Oh really? And what exactly are these "basic rules"? Are they written down in some Bible that everyone must reference when figuring out this stuff? Who is the arbiter of these supposedly objective rules of yours? Can I say that Captain America may exist in the 007 timeline because both are technically fiction?

"again, there is no need for both.... it works as explained before."

No actually, it doesn't, as I have already explained.

"again, 1st aswer."

You can keep saying this on repeat but it does nothing to refute my points or further your own subjective interpretation of OHMSS. I'll just say the same thing again, I believe the line is referring to the previous 007 the audience is familiar with. Whether it's 4th wall breaking or in-universe is for the viewer to decide.

"both can work, but the super soldier serum are way more plausible than brainwashing, and also if u brainwash someone u make him walk away like that? Like Connery's Bond said I'm out and they just let him?"

Gosh there is so much wrong with this. First of all, if you really believe Bond using a completely un-proven super soldier serum that alters his physical appearance/personality and gives him longevity is "way more plausible" than a super top secret super spy organization making their 007 agents the ultimate killing machines by turning them into cold killers with brainwashing techniques, then this debate can end right now because nothing I say will make you even consider my points on this. What an INSANE leap to make, and you think I'm the one making crazy logical leaps. This is total absurdity. Brainwashing does NOT eliminate freedom of choice. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dallas Kinard]

If anyone reading is at least open minded enough to consider the "code-name theory", this Reddit thread does a great job of breaking it all down.

 

[Megatron]

How do you know with 100% certainty? This could just be your own interpretation. And what do you think audiences were supposed to think when they first heard this? I think it's obvious he's referring to the previous 007 agent who happens to be on holiday in Japan during the events of the film.

cos it's the most logical one....

What your parents, or any casual viewers think is up to them of course. On-screen evidence is what I'm going by. Not what anyone "thinks" because that's all subjective.

didn't you contraddict what you said on asnwer 1?

That actually introduces even more continuity issues you'll have to figure out then. I think it makes more sense to believe Blofeld is also different men.

cos that's what they are, "continuity errors".

The novels aren't the same continuity as the films though.

yup, but they're based upon that world.

Is this a serious argument? Odin, a fictional Norse God is not equivalent to a mere mortal spy. Again, different universe, different rules.

ok, I could say the same for Bond who is fictional, but if you want another example, In Buffy Season 1, Buffy was 15-16 years old, tho the actress was born in 1977, she was 20-21 at the time.... and she isn't a god.

Oh really? And what exactly are these "basic rules"? Are they written down in some Bible that everyone must reference when figuring out this stuff? Who is the arbiter of these supposedly objective rules of yours? Can I say that Captain America may exist in the 007 timeline because both are technically fiction?

1) Everything is canon until proven otherwise.
2) Producers and props or line in media can be wrong. (Young Justice 2011 date)
3) Whole scenes > statements when contraddicted. (Invincible's Viltrumite weapons arc)
4) design contraddictions can be overlooked if faced with continuity errors. (War and Fall of Cybertron)
i can keep going.

No actually, it doesn't, as I have already explained.

still nothing tells us both his exact age, the novels (the work which the movies are based off gave us a fitting age for him). Tho he could be in his 20s if you don't wanna use the novel's age.

You can keep saying this on repeat but it does nothing to refute my points or further your own subjective interpretation of OHMSS. I'll just say the same thing again, I believe the line is referring to the previous 007 the audience is familiar with. Whether it's 4th wall breaking or in-universe is for the viewer to decide.

bro you're confusing me, 1st you say that what he thinks the audience is subjective, now it's a factor, like take a decision lol.

Gosh there is so much wrong with this. First of all, if you really believe Bond using a completely un-proven super soldier serum that alters his physical appearance/personality and gives him longevity is "way more plausible" than a super top secret super spy organization making their 007 agents the ultimate killing machines by turning them into cold killers with brainwashing techniques, then this debate can end right now because nothing I say will make you even consider my points on this. What an INSANE leap to make, and you think I'm the one making crazy logical leaps. This is total absurdity. Brainwashing does NOT eliminate freedom of choice. The two are not mutually exclusive.

yeah but if i'm the boss of MI6 and do smt so ethically wrong, why would I not force my subject to leave? If I'm going too far what's blocking me?

 

[Dallas Kinard]

"cos it's the most logical one...."

I disagree. Am I wrong?

"didn't you contraddict what you said on asnwer 1?"

How so?

"cos that's what they are, "continuity errors"."

Why the quotes? And what if they aren't though? Who's to say?

"yup, but they're based upon that world."

And? How does this refute my point?

"ok, I could say the same for Bond who is fictional, but if you want another example, In Buffy Season 1, Buffy was 15-16 years old, tho the actress was born in 1977, she was 20-21 at the time.... and she isn't a god."

I never made the claim that the actor's age must line up 100% with the character's age. I'm saying that in general, characters are usually in the same ball-park when we are talking about human characters and not Gods or Aliens.

"1) Everything is canon until proven otherwise."

What does this mean exactly?

"2) Producers and props or line in media can be wrong. (Young Justice 2011 date)"

I never said they couldn't. In fact I've argued this with my "Superman: Brainiac Attacks" essay on this site. I actually dispute that 2011 date in YJ as well. Nothing contradicts it to my knowledge in the episodes themselves. But that can be debated in that thread please.

"3) Whole scenes > statements when contraddicted. (Invincible's Viltrumite weapons arc)"

Is this always true or sometimes true?

"4) design contraddictions can be overlooked if faced with continuity errors. (War and Fall of Cybertron)"

Animation isn't live action and vice versa. Bond actors aren't "designs", they are different humans with different eye color, hair color and personalities. Apples to oranges my friend.

"i can keep going.""

I don't doubt you one bit. However, did you come up with these "rules" and if so, why should anyone care?