I hate how mis-informed people can be sometimes!

[Goldeneye]

Bond is the same bond always

 

[StrainedEyes]

Surely the best way to work it out is that bond is a name given to the agents who are 007.

This would explain the whole dr. no/from russia with love sequel thing and it would explain the bit you forgot... the dead bond wife.

In On her majesty`s secret service Bond gets married and his blushing bride gets murdered by Blowfelt. At the begining of one of Roger Moore`s bond films he visits the grave of the deceased wife.

To me this ties it together perfectly as it explains the continuity reason why lazenby`s bond is in only one film. He cannot take the grief and quits the british secret service. Connery`s bond is hastily brought back in to replace Lazenby`s bond. Roger Moore`s bond character then we can assume was a close friend of Lazenby`s bond and thereby that is why he tends the deceased wife`s grave.

Each bond therefore is a different agent, explaining how judi dench can be in it and how it can be bond`s origin in this new film.

Additionally: On wikipedia it says that there is a continuity error in On her majesty`s secret service. Blowfelt doesn`t recognize bond even though he met him in the previous film You only live twice.

This of course would not be a continuuity discrepancy if Connery`s bond and lazenby`s bond were seperate people. Blowfelt then would literally not have ever met him before. Blowfelt`s subsequent helicopter attack on roger moore then must have been for some grievance between moore`s bond and blowfelt.

His name is Blofeld. And there is nothing at all to back the idea that it's different agents. Everything points to them being the same person, you are twisting things and putting your own interpretation on it to make it seem like they are seperate people. Nothing in any of the movies even hints that it is a code name.

By your logic, then the 3 people who played Blofeld are all seperate people too, and Blofeld is a code name

 

[MKO1234]

The reason why Blofeld didn't recognize Lazenby's Bond was because the story was originally going to disclose a plastic surgery that Bond had so he couldnt be recognized while he was pursuing Blofeld and Spectre. However, during production they dropped that part of the storyline, I think to focus on the main plot and they simply forgot to fix the scene where Bond wasn't recognized by Blofeld. A big "oops" if you ask me.

 

[Catman]

Surely the best way to work it out is that bond is a name given to the agents who are 007.

This would explain the whole dr. no/from russia with love sequel thing and it would explain the bit you forgot... the dead bond wife.

In On her majesty`s secret service Bond gets married and his blushing bride gets murdered by Blowfelt. At the begining of one of Roger Moore`s bond films he visits the grave of the deceased wife.

To me this ties it together perfectly as it explains the continuity reason why lazenby`s bond is in only one film. He cannot take the grief and quits the british secret service. Connery`s bond is hastily brought back in to replace Lazenby`s bond. Roger Moore`s bond character then we can assume was a close friend of Lazenby`s bond and thereby that is why he tends the deceased wife`s grave.

Each bond therefore is a different agent, explaining how judi dench can be in it and how it can be bond`s origin in this new film.

Additionally: On wikipedia it says that there is a continuity error in On her majesty`s secret service. Blowfelt doesn`t recognize bond even though he met him in the previous film You only live twice.

This of course would not be a continuuity discrepancy if Connery`s bond and lazenby`s bond were seperate people. Blowfelt then would literally not have ever met him before. Blowfelt`s subsequent helicopter attack on roger moore then must have been for some grievance between moore`s bond and blowfelt.

I've heard this theory a million times and it isn't true. Each Bond film is it's own film with only loose references to the previous films. This was done because it was the only way they could continue this franchise for 40 years.

As for the opening in For Your Eyes Only in which Moore's Bond visits his wife's grave...that was done to shut up Kevin McGlory. By that point they had lost the rights to Blofeld so that opening was a way to tell Kevin McGlory that the Bond franchise didn't need Blofeld in order to survive.

 

[Iceburgeruk]

Fair enough.

I just felt it was a shame them doing a restart when James Bond was (with the occasional continuity glitch) pretty much the longest running character in film history (superman has only had 5 films, batman only goit to 4 before they did a restart). It seems a shame to stop at twenty and restart it who knows how long the loose continuity of bond could have continued to.

I was just trying to figure out some way in which the new film could work without being a restart.

The othe rproblem with the restart thing is that if they fell on hard times during moore or brosnan`s runs then they would try and do something different. If a bond film doesn`t do well under the new restart bond the studio bosses might demand they remake a popular old bond film. So we`d get a shoddy remake of Goldfinger with us all getting bored because we know exactly how the plot will progress.

 

[pointman]

No they wouldn't demand a remake of an old bond movie. The most they'll do is hire better writers to do a better job i.e. we got haggis to accompany wade and purvis for CR and those 2 wrote TWINE and DAD.