The Academy Awards Ratings Catastrophe and the State of Awards Shows

 By now you've probably heard of the 93^rd Academy Awards and their disastrous ratings on 25 April. With a viewership reportedly in the seven digit range this year's show is the new all-time low in Oscar ratings, representing at least a 56% drop from last year's awards which themselves were the previous all-time low for the Oscars since 1974, the year ratings were first recorded. Similarly this February's Golden Globes Awards also bottomed out with their lowest ratings ever, a 68% drop from last year. Big-name awards shows on television are something that's been on the decline in recent years for a multitude of reasons and it seems that 2020's social unrest and economic hardship were the catalysts that have brought the situation to head in Hollywood.

The notion that awards shows suck is a shared opinion amongst many filmgoers these days. Many argue that the differences between good movies and bad movies is purely subjective and thus a series of awards given to those judged to be the finest is a matter of opinion at best and arguably meaningless at worst. Regardless of your opinion on that subject I think we can all agree that such an awards show should at least be entertaining. But alas, almost all of them are snoozefests. The jokes are tragically unfunny (and sometimes predictable), the overall vibe is too political, the musical performances are boring, half the award winners have some moral grandstanding to do, and it seems that the awards often go to undeserving winners. I thought it was weird in 2010 when Avatar was nominated for best picture and the bizarre candidates trend has only continued (Black Panther? Bohemian Rhapsody? Really?).

Personally I've always found it frustrating that these award shows hardly focus at all on the craft of film-making and how awesome movies can be. Instead the spotlight is placed on the superficial characteristics of the individuals involved in making them. So you're an actress who's a lesbian and a woman of colour. Ok, cool... Are your movies any good? Because that's all I care about. Tell me about the movies! In September 2020 the Academy announced new eligibility rules for awards nomination, which come into force in 2024/2025. In order to be eligible a film must meet certain criteria designed to bolster representation and diversity both onscreen and offscreen. This is odd for several reasons:

• Who exactly gave the Academy the authority to dictate who productions have to hire? Unless producers don't care much about awards I guess we'll never get another Lawrence of Arabia (too male) or Saving Private Ryan (too white).

• You're preaching to the choir (the choir being Hollywood). Have you seen any movies from the past decade? Unless there's behind the scenes stuff I don't know about, I'd say most American movies already meet these diversity quotas.

• Technically speaking the Academy Awards will no longer be for excellency in the art of film-making, but for excellency in the field of diverse films. Again, the focus is shifted further away from the movies and more towards the politics of those who make them.

Admittedly, political grandstanding is nothing new to Hollywood and I think this may be symptomatic of the whole culture surrounding Tinsel Town. If there's one thing Hollywood is good at it's celebrating itself. Elitism and self-congratulations are all part of the glitz and glamour, and – apart from those who just want to see what the celebrities are wearing – it seems fewer and fewer people can stomach it. It's bad enough that the big names in the movie industry make obscene amounts of money for basically playing dress-up and make believe, but when they also try preaching their brand of morality in spite of the movie industry's decades-long scandals (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, etc.) and its catering to foreign markets despite the atrocities taking place there (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.) it leaves a bad taste in the public's mouth.

People hate being lectured to and as Ricky Gervais pointed out during his legendary 2020 Golden Globes speech, “You're in no position to lecture the public about anything.” In this memorable address Gervais roasted the showbiz establishment on several issues: the Weinstein scandal, 45-year-old Leonardo DiCaprio's affinity for very young women, the foreign labour practices of major TV & streaming platforms, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and celebrities who use the awards show as a platform for their political views. It poked fun at the whole American entertainment industry in all its excess and pretentiousness. So naturally the establishment and the journalists all hated the speech – the look on Tom Hanks' face says it all – while the public loved it.

Celebrities pontificating about politics is something that's only intensified with the rise of social media and to be fair it must be tempting to use one's position of influence to spread ideas that one finds virtuous. The problem is that most actors and producers are no better educated on the topic of politics and sociology than the average person. Moreover, these people tend to be very wealthy and live in secure, gated communities far away from the issues that concern the average citizen. Spouting off their beliefs to a public that (for the most part) didn't ask for them is often seen as talking down to people. The best example of this is the “I Take Responsibility” video from last June in which a number of famous actors renounce their privilege while condemning racism. It was a nakedly cynical gesture full of empty words designed to simply garner attention and nothing else and people saw right through it. Need proof? Here are some snips of how this video was received on YouTube.

FYI: Disabled comments are pretty much always a sign of someone trying to quell dissension.

And just for comparison here's how Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech was received.

It's no secret that 2020 was a bad year for the film industry. Lots of productions were delayed or shoved onto streaming services at a net loss, costing a lot of jobs in Hollywood. There were comparatively few films that premiered last year – I only saw three in theatres – and most of the Academy Award nominees were boring movies that most people have never heard of. Additionally countless movie theatres around the world were forced to close down, putting many more out of work. Were any of these hardships mentioned at the Academy Awards this year? Was any relief or tribute given for these afflicted souls? No. The show went on just like any other with all the self-importance and virtue signalling we've come to expect, giving the appearance of an elitist bubble culture that's grown out of touch with its audience.

The past 14 months have been hard for a lot of people. Maybe it's been hard for you. Perhaps you can't find work as easily as you once could. Maybe you're struggling to make ends meet. Maybe you've been feeling lonely since you can't visit your friends and relatives like you could before, or because dating has been far more difficult. Maybe you're disappointed that you had to cancel a vacation or you weren't able to attend a friend's wedding or a relative's funeral. Or perhaps you're just plain bored since the places you used to go for fun are closed. And on top of all that the big movie you were looking forward to still hasn't gotten released and when you tune into the boring awards show to see what your favourite entertainers – who are infinitely richer than you'll ever be – are up to they all tell you that you suck because you're privileged, you didn't share a certain hashtag, and you didn't vote the right way. How could you blame somebody for not wanting to watch that?

Does that sound entertaining to you?

Screw Die Hard: Top 10 Christmas Movies You Didn't Know Were Christmas Movies

Sometimes internet culture is like you when you were a little kid. You know, when you said something that the adults unexpectedly found funny so you repeated that same thing over and over again expecting the same hilarious result when in fact you were really making everyone sick of you. Case in point: OH MY GOSH GUYS, DIE HARD IS TOTALLY A CHRISTMAS MOVIE!!!!!!! AMIRITE? LOL FTW YOLO DOUBLE RAINBOW 360 NOSCOPE ROFL COPTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so sick and tired of people making the joke that Die Hard (1988) – a violent action movie that is not exactly festive in the traditional sense – is a legit Christmas movie simply because it takes place around 25 December, features a couple holiday songs, and has a handful of seasons greetings in it. It's an overdone joke that I've been hearing for at least eight years now and I'm simply tired of it, you know?

(Just for the record, I'm not hating on Die Hard. I thoroughly enjoy it and think it's one of the greatest action movies ever made. This is all just for fun.)

But I guess that if a few nods to Jesus' birthday and the festivities surrounding it is all you need to qualify as a Christmas movie then screw it, I guess Die Hard is a Christmas movie then. But you know what? Two can play at this game! This is my list of top ten other films that qualify as Christmas movies.

10. American Sniper (2014)

What? What are you talking about? American Sniper is totally a Christmas movie! There was that one scene where Chris Kyle is watching war footage of US soldiers getting shot in Iraq as he sits next to a Christmas tree in his living room. It demonstrates Chris' trouble with leaving the war behind and focusing on his family even during a holiday season on which families traditionally get together in peace. Chris sees his comrades in the military as his second family which he wishes to protect and thus he can't get the war out of his mind. And nothing says “Merry Christmas” like combat-induced stress in veterans, right?

9. Stalingrad (1993)

Stalingrad is a German war film about a platoon of Wehrmacht soldiers participating in the epic Battle of Stalingrad (1942-3). It is also unquestionably a Christmas movie. There's one scene set in late December where the situation for the Germans isn't looking good. The Red Army has them encircled, supplies are running low, and a breakout seems less and less likely with each passing day. The main characters have been sentenced to a penal company and are off to take part in a suicide mission. As they ride in the back of a freezing cold truck one of them spontaneously sings “O Tannenbaum” (or “Oh Christmas Tree” as it's known in English). As if that wasn't Christmassy enough, just look at all the snow that envelops three-quarters of this movie. Need I say more?

8. Miracle (2004)

You remember Miracle? It was one of the best hockey movies ever made and it's also a pretty darn good Christmas movie. During a brief holiday break from Olympic training camp the US hockey players take part in a gift exchange. I don't know about you but my holiday season isn't complete until I see Dave Silk being given a pair of silk underpants.

7. Jarhead (2005)

It turns out that it wasn't the waiting, the boredom, the heat, the sand, the thought of his girlfriend at home cheating on him, or his being denied the killing he was meticulously trained to do that drove Lance Corporal Anthony Swofford to have a mental breakdown. It was the fact that he missed out on Christmas 1990 with his family, of course! The closest he got was getting drunk and dancing naked wearing nothing but a Santa hat and even that got ruined by clumsy Fergus falling asleep on the job. Way to go Fergus, you ruined Christmas in Kuwait!

6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

I honestly don't know why people pick Die Hard as the definitive faux-Xmas flick over OHMSS. This one's got it all: a wintery Swiss setting chock full of winter sports, loads of Christmas decorations, and a gift exchange scene involving beautiful young ladies being hypnotized into committing acts of biological warfare. Does Die Hard have those things? Nuh uh. Does Die Hard have Ernst Stavro Blofeld saying “Merry Christmas, 007”? Didn't think so. Sure, in Die Hard John McLane and Holly get back together at the end but do they get married like Bond and Tracey did in OHMSS? No they don't. I rest my case.

5. The Godfather (1972)

The Godfather is often cited as one of the best movies ever made. It is also one of the best Christmas movies ever made and here's why. There's not one but two scenes showing characters shopping for Xmas presents. Michael and Kay are having a fun time shopping for their friends and Tom Hagen gets kidnapped by Sollozzo the Turk while shopping for his kids. What a nice way to spend the holidays.

4. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

You know I'll talk about this movie any chance I get. That's because TGWTDT is one of my favourite movies ever – and if we're going by Die Hard rules then it counts as my favourite Christmas movie of all time. In fact it's so Christmassy that it has Christmas in it twice! That's right, Xmas appears near the film's beginning – Blomkvist is at a Christmas party and Lisbeth gives a gift to her ward only to find that he's had a stroke – and again at the very end when Lisbeth gets a gift for her crush Blomkvist only to find that he's a man whore. Yeah, late December doesn't seem to work out well for Lisbeth Salander.

3. Batman Returns (1992)

Well, damn. Here I was going to make a big tongue-in-cheek thing about how Batman Returns is totally a Christmas movie – what with tons of decorations, trees, snow, and holiday greetings – but Wikipedia of all people beat me to it. Of course the joke was that Batman Returns is a somewhat dark movie with disturbing visuals and insane characters set against a backdrop of the most peaceful and joyous of holidays. But Wiki-freakin'-pedia already has it in their Christmas movies category. You know you've failed at comedy when an online encyclopedia beats you to the punch. Oh well, speaking of Batman...

2. The Dark Knight (2008)

There's a scene where one of Joker's crazy henchman says all the voices in him were replaced with lights “like Christmas”. 'Nuff said.

1. Jingle All the Way (1996)

You probably didn't know this but Jingle All the Way is actually a Christmas movie. Even though it clearly wasn't meant to be. It couldn't have been. There's no way that's what they were going for with this film. In truth Jingle All the Way was intended as a black comedy, a satire depicting the over-commercialization of North American society and how rampant consumerism has driven us all mad to the point of greed, violence, and theft. The film's “happy ending” is simply some greedy kid being given some plastic toy he covets. Materialism brings everyone together, I guess. But if you look closely you can see some subtle Christmas flavour sprinkled about. For example, in some scenes you can catch a glimpse of some Christmas decorations. And did you know the reason people are buying so much stuff in this movie is because 25 December is approaching? And lastly, if you look closely enough you might just see Santa Claus in there somewhere. The only downside is that in order to spot any of this you have to pay attention to the movie, which I wouldn't recommend.

Is it time for Splinter Cell to retire Sam Fisher?

  It's been a while since I last wrote about Splinter Cell. Shall we write about Splinter Cell? Let's write about Splinter Cell.

  Since playing 2013's Blacklist one thing that's been on my mind is the future of Sam Fisher's character. I think it may be time to retire him. Don't get me wrong, I love Fisher's character. I think he's one of the coolest and iconic characters in the action genre this century. But it's quite clear that his glory days have passed. Let me tell you why.

  The first reason why Sam isn't as cool as before is, you guessed it, Michael Ironside leaving the series. Ironside contributed so much to Fisher, with performances that gave the character intensity, professionalism, and at times dark humour and sarcasm. Without Ironside, Fisher simply wasn't the same character he was before. Eric Johnson's performance in Blacklist, while it wasn't outright awful, robbed Sam of much of his personality. Gone was his cool professionalism and much of his sarcasm. In fact at times he just came off as a somewhat disinterested ass. Also, he sounded too young to be playing the highly experienced 4^th Echelon agent.

  Which brings me to the other point, Sam Fisher is simply getting too old to do field work. Sure Sam was already in his 40's when he became a splinter cell in the original game in 2002. His experience in his middle age is part of what made him so distinctive from other video game characters. But seeing him able to effortlessly pull off so many acrobatic moves in Blacklist was really starting to test my suspension of disbelief, especially when you consider that Sam was born in 1957! Part of Sam's backstory is that he was involved in past historical events like the Soviet-Afghan War and the US invasion of Panama. So unless the next game is a prequel or reboot, Sam will be at least 60 years old!

  The solution to these problems is simple. I propose that Ubisoft have a different player character for the next game. I'm not saying that Sam has to disappear; he still could be an advisor/mentor/boss within 4^th Echelon – perhaps he could be the new Lambert.

  I think it would be interesting to let Briggs take over the mantle of the trifocal goggles. We already played as him in two levels of Blacklist (if you don't count the sniping sections), which could serve as a “passing of the torch”. The first level you could tell he was learning how stealth espionage tactics worked and by the final level of the game he was so skilled at it that he was almost indistinguishable from Sam.

  It seems unlikely that the Sam Fisher we all know and love (from the first 5 games) will be coming back, but we do have the chance to move on to someone else who could prove to be just as interesting. In just one game we've seen that Briggs is smart, is skilled, can work on his own, shows initiative, has a sense of humour and comradeship, and has learned that 4^th Echelon spy work doesn't have to be done “by the book”. Sounds like a worthwhile player character to me.

  Anyways, those are just my opinions on the matter. This isn't related to any new Splinter Cell news or anything; I just wanted to share my thoughts on something that's been on the brain for a while. What do you think should be done to revitalize Splinter Cell?  

Being Slightly Critical of Profanity in Movies in One Particular Way

   It's time to talk about swearing in movies, motherf-----. No, I'm not talking about PG words like ass, bastard, hell, or damn. I'm talking about the hard R words like f---, s---, and c---. It's pretty common to hear these words in movies these days (except for maybe that last word). I'd be willing to bet that most people (unless they watch kids movies a lot) don't remember the last movie they saw that didn't have swearing in it. Moreover, most people probably don't even take note of when they see a movie that doesn't have curses – I know I don't. It's a trend that's definitely become ubiquitous since the 1960's. I remember when people made a big deal of all the swearing in The Blair Witch Project in 1999, but now there's movies like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) that use the word f--- on an average of more than thrice per minute. It's a pretty big part of contemporary film, so just for s---s and giggles I'm going to give my two cents on it.

   What the hell is swearing for? To me it seems that there's two uses for cursing in movies. The first is to add a bit of grittiness to a scene. This could take the form of someone muttering a swear word in frustration or shouting a nasty insult as most people do in real life at one point or another (see John McClane in Die Hard). Another way to make a scene gritty with profanity is by using swear words to create an uninviting environment and a tough tone. This s--- can often be seen with child characters who are already adept at the art of profanity (Sarah Altman in Panic Room), something which most people don't learn until maturity. When used in these ways, profanity can make the film's world feel more real and s---. Imagine watching Straight Outta Compton (2015) without hearing any F-bombs. That would be a very f---ed up, surreal experience.

   On the other hand, the other main way of using cursing in movies is in a comedic role. Having swear words used by unexpected people or used in an unusual manner or in an unanticipated context can be hilarious. This technique is one of the cornerstones of raunchy comedies. I once was watching TV and the film Step Brothers (2008) came on, but since it was the TV version all the curse words were edited out and replaced with weird s--- via dubbing. I like Step Brothers, but without the profanity the movie felt toothless and impotent.

   As obscenities have gained more and more prominence, certain filmmakers have gained notoriety in the language's fluency. Directors like Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino and actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Al Pacino are legendary for their ability to weave their quilts of verbal filth. Curses are part of what made Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1980's one-liners so kickass.

   Of course that means there are also ways of misusing swear words. Being able to curse convincingly is a required skill. Not being able to swear with conviction or appearing uncomfortable with saying curse words will make an actor sound like an immature 8 year-old kid who just learned the F-word and is trying it for the first time.

   The second way profanity can be f---ed up is if, just as with all other types of dialogue, it doesn't fit in with the context of the rest of the film. As always, let's look at the 007 series. As the series progressed, curse words have very slowly crept in. But if I might be just a little critical I think 2015's Spectre went a little too far with the profanity. Not that Spectre has a s---load of it; it has about as much swearing as many other action films of today. But what rubs me the wrong way about it is that this is the Bond series: the refined, sophisticated, tasteful series of films evolving from their intelligent British roots since the early 1960's. In the case of Bond films a couple obscenities are OK, but they should be used sparingly.

   Another series that I think is going just a bit too far with obscenities is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I know that as the series has progressed it has dealt with increasingly serious and personal storylines. For example, it's understandable why Tony Stark was so stressed out and agitated in 2016's Captain America: Civil War. But it still feels a little off-putting when the earlier films in the franchise didn't swear so much. Not only that – and I can't believe I'm about to say this – there are motherf---ing kids watching these movies. Like, young kids. With their parents. I don't think curse words in the Marvel films will be driving families away in droves, but Marvel studios should make every effort to make their movies enjoyable to both adult and adolescent viewers. At least, that's what it looks like they're trying to do with this series of movies. Films like Deadpool (2016), which are definitely not for kids, get a free pass.

   And so that's my take on swearing in films. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. However, just as is the case with all elements of a film, it is something that needs to be written naturally and implemented with care. So don't f--- it up.

P.S. - Yes. I realize that this is probably the most pointless article I've ever written.

The Problem with Santa Claus in "Real World" Christmas Movies

   The holiday season is definitely one of my favourite times of the year. Eating good food, relaxing with family, watching Christmas movies... and nitpicking them. Obviously there's a lot of Christmas movies out there and it seems that a good chunk of them have the exact same plot: in a "real" world where people are indifferent towards Santa Claus' existence, one kid discovers that he is very real and must stay true to him/herself in order to continue believing that jolly old St. Nick really exists/proving his existence to the adults.
   "So what's the problem with these movies?" you might be thinking. Think about it, man. The parents are convinced that Santa Claus isn't real. Santa leaves presents behind. On Christmas morning children open up gifts that have Santa's name on it. Why don't the parents ever question this?! Do they not notice the mysterious gifts for their kids that just appeared under their tree out of nowhere? Or do they have terrible memories and can't remember what exactly they got for their kids and just assume that they bought it themselves? Or is there an even more sinister conspiracy behind all this? Maybe the parents so blindingly despise Father Christmas so much that they refuse to acknowledge his existence even in the face of tangible evidence: those anti-Santites.
   Look, I know that movies continuously do the whole "real world, but with Santa" thing all the time in order to set up a whimsical-yet-somewhat-grounded tone that eases the audience into it. But a recurring flaw this glaring simply cannot be ignored. I discovered this problem when I was about nine years old and I can't be the only one to have figured this out. And once you do learn of this plot hole it breaks so many movies, some of which I like very much: The Santa Clause series (1994-2006), Earnest Saves Christmas (1988), Elf (2003), The Polar Express (2004). The list goes on. Even the beloved classic Miracle on 34th Street (1947) is ravaged by this logical failure.
   One explanation I've thought of is that maybe in these movies, Santa only visits the houses of people who believe in him. But even at that, the evidence of presents would surely be seen by non-believers at one point or another. And the parents of the believing kids don't always seem that convinced themselves.
   Oh well. I only nitpick because I care. Personally I slightly prefer Christmas movies that do away with old Chris Kringle: movies like A Christmas Carol (1951), Joyeux Noel (2005), A Christmas Story (1983), Christmas Vacation (1988), It's A Wonderful Life (1946), A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), and, of course, Die Hard (1988). But that's just me. Christmas can mean many things to many people, so watch whatever movies you like. Eat some tasty food. Have fun with your friends and family. And have a very Merry Christmas, my friends.

Alternate James Bond Continuity Theories

As I mentioned last week, fans of the James Bond 007 series are pretty dedicated and creative, enough to come up with such fan theories as the Code Name Theory. As promised, I'm going to go over some other 007 chronology theories today: not because I think any of them are valid, but because they seem rather interesting and fun. Let's take a look.

The Dual Timelines Theory

   One theory I've heard is that the ending to On Her Majesty's Secret Service spawned two separate alternate universes. The first splits directly into the Roger Moore era, in which Bond was able to keep his rage and anguish from losing Tracey under control. That's why the James Bond of the Roger Moore era is so lighthearted and pleasant; it's his way of coping with it. Once he finally, and rather luckily, got his revenge on Blofeld in the opening of For Your Eyes Only, he found true closure and happily continued a few more years until his retirement after A View to a Kill.

   The alternate timeline picks up at The Living Daylights. In this version Tracey's death led to Bond being consumed with anger and the drive for revenge. This accounts for why Timothy Dalton's Bond is so ruthless and intense. This timeline continues to the end of the Brosnan era. (The Daniel Craig era is presumably a different universe altogether.)

   This is a pretty interesting theory. The only problem though is that it doesn't account for the events of Diamonds Are Forever. Which timeline does that one belong to, if any?

Tying Up Loose Ends

   Another theory I've heard is that James Bond is indeed a codename passed down successively through agents, but each new 007 appointee is given a file detailing their predecessor's activities. This is so that each new agent can tie up the loose ends of his predecessor. This explains why Connery's Bond is so obsessed with finding Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever. Perhaps Lazenby's Bond just couldn't handle seeing his wife killed and quit the service, thus forcing Connery to return from extended leave to finish this one last mission. This explains why Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond in OHMSS. Also according to this theory, Lazenby's Bond wasn't reminiscing over the gadgets in his office; he was wondering what they were. He hadn't been agent 007 for long, so it may be possible that he hadn't fully cleaned out Connery's junk from his office yet.

   As for Blofeld, one could argue that that name is also passed down along to the next highest ranking Spectre agent: number two, number three, etc.

   While this is a pretty creative idea, it's a bit too convoluted to take seriously. I'd like to think that both Bond and Blofeld are the same guys they've always been.

The Spirit of Bond

   I've seen a couple comments saying that Bond's character is always the same, it's just that his consciousness switches bodies...OK. So 007's spirit floats around and possesses the bodies of already-grown men after leaving the body it's possessed for the past decade or so? Then whose consciousness was it originally? Is that man still alive? Is it Ian Fleming's? Is each host's body already an MI6 agent? What happens to the host body after the spirit leaves? Did it possess Connery twice then? This is just weird.

Daniel Craig's Bond is Connery Bond's Son

   Think about it, man. In real life Craig was born in 1968, when Bondmania was at its height. Perhaps Craig's Bond is the illegitimate son of Connery's Bond, named after his father. He then grew up wanting nothing more than to be a spy. His lifelong training is what allowed him to develop such marvelous skills. Under the watchful eye of Judi Dench's M he is swiftly promoted to 00 status, leading to his cocky attitude in Casino Royale. It makes perfect sense, right? After all, both characters are Scottish! Yes, this is just some crap I cooked up. You got me.

James Bond is a Time Lord

   Yeah, heh heh heh heh heh. No! If you've ever browsed any sort of comments section talking about the Code Name Theory then you've probably seen this joke about 10,000 times. And no, it doesn't get any funnier the 10,001^st time. Also, I'm not from the UK; I couldn't care less about Doctor Who. So I've got a better idea...

James Bond is an Immortal à la Highlander

   It's brilliant, isn't it? The only downside is that he's only ever been in one sword fight (Die Another Day). Future movies should have a long-haired Bond get in epic swordfights and slicing dudes' freaking heads off while hard rock music blasts. I wanna see more of that in the sequels!

Judging the "James Bond Code Name Theory"

   In the past decade, the internet has been much more geared toward user-generated content. As a result, movie fans have been able to share a plethora of fan theories about their favourite films. This extends to the James Bond 007 series which, as exquisite as it is, is still not perfect. Of course it's fair to expect a 50 year old movie series with 24 entries to have a few inconsistencies. The most popular fan theory of explaining these disparities is the Bond Code Name Theory, which asserts that the name “James Bond” is not agent 007's real name but instead a code name that is successively passed down along MI6's best agents. It's an interesting theory, but does it hold water? Let's take a closer look at the infamous Code Name Theory.

The Case For

   The main purpose of the Code Name Theory is to explain why the character of James Bond does not age despite the obviously changing times (Cold War, Space Race, War on Terror, etc.) and stages of technological advancement. The Theory also explains why Bond's appearance and personality seem to change over the years. Third, the Theory also goes some way to account for the fact that agent 007 just can't seem to maintain any romantic relationships. And lastly, the Theory accounts for the fact that the spy's name is thrown around so much; pretty much everyone knows agent 007's name and so it would make little sense for him to be using his real name while on missions. Such a code name scheme could also be extended to account for the changes in both M and Q's appearances. (This explains how Judi Dench continues her role in the Craig-era films.)

   The evidence supporting the Code Name Theory comes mainly from just one movie: 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service featuring George Lazenby as the second actor to portray James Bond. The opening scene of that film concludes with Bond looking at the camera after the hot chick gets away and saying, “This never happened to the other fellow.” According to the Code Name Theory, this is Lazenby's Bond referring to his predecessor (Connery) as agent 007. The other main bit of evidence supporting the theory is the fact that Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond despite their meeting face to face in the previous film You Only Live Twice.

The Case Against

   There is much more evidence countering the Code Name Theory than there is supporting it. For instance, there's a scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which Lazenby's Bond is considering resigning from MI6. He looks through a collection of gadgets in his drawer, reminiscing about past adventures (which took place in the Connery films). A similar scene appears with even more gadgets later in 2002's Die Another Day. Diamonds Are Forever shows Connery's Bond obsessed with finding and killing Blofeld. Considering that in the previous film Blofeld killed Bond's wife, this suggests that both Bonds – Connery and Lazenby – are the same character.

   In fact, references to Tracey Bond (and her death) are littered throughout the series. Here's a list of them:

• In The Spy Who Loved Me agent Anya Amasova lists everything she knows about Bond (Roger Moore), including the tragic end to his brief marriage. Bond impatiently cuts her off with “Alright, you've made your point.”
• For Your Eyes Only opens with Bond (Moore) placing flowers at Tracey's grave.
• Felix Leiter tells his newlywed wife in License to Kill that Bond (Timothy Dalton) “was married once, but that was a long time ago.”
• Elektra King asks Bond (Brosnan) in The World is Not Enough if he has ever lost someone close to him. Bond briefly pauses, then changes the subject, ignoring the question.

   Admittedly those last two points aren't very conclusive, but I'd like to think that they are indeed referring to Tracey. If they weren't, then they would just be random, inexplicable lines leading to nothing, and that would just be Tommy Wiseau-level of sloppy filmmaking.

   Other than that, there are additional pieces of evidence linking Bond portrayals together. For example, in The Spy Who Loved Me Moore's Bond runs into an old friend from Cambridge University, the same place where Connery's Bond recalled studying in You Only Live Twice. The Code Name Theory is also debunked by the fact that Bond is still called Bond after he leaves MI6 in License to Kill. His absence from they spy game is the reason why he's being evaluated for duty at the beginning of the following film, Goldeneye (featuring Pierce Brosnan taking the place of Timothy Dalton).

   Taking the Code Name Theory to its logical extreme quickly reveals its ridiculous reasoning. While the theory may be appropriate for such characters as M and Q, is it really appropriate to other characters who have changed actors like Ms. Moneypenny, Ernst Blofeld, or Felix Leiter? Are we also supposed to assume that recurring actors like Maud Adams, Charles Gray, Joe Don Baker, and Walter Gotell are playing the same character every time?

What About Daniel Craig?

   This one's easier to figure out. The films featuring Craig as Bond take place in a separate, rebooted universe from the rest. This is proven by the opening scene of Casino Royale, which shows Bond earning his 00 status early in his career. This is further backed up by the fact that in Spectre Bond has clearly never heard of the organization before. As for the continued presence of Judi Dench, I'm guessing the producers finally realized that they oughtta do something with this Academy Award-nominated national treasure of an actress, so her role was expanded upon in the following three films.

   It's also pretty clear that James Bond is this character's real name. In Skyfall Bond returns to the orphanage where he grew up. The groundskeeper there recognizes him and calls him James Bond. Furthermore, we later see the grave of 007's parents and their headstone has the name Bond engraved on it. If that doesn't convince you that the Theory doesn't apply here then I don't know what will!

Conclusion

   In my view, the Code Name Theory sounds interesting but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most of the evidence supporting it comes from just one movie, and even then the most important piece of supporting evidence (Blofeld not recognizing Bond) comes from a simple continuity error. (In the book order, OHMSS came before YOLT , which would mean Bond and Blofeld were meeting for the first time in OHMSS. The screenwriters must've forgotten this when the movie order was changed around.) I think it's pretty conclusive that every Bond actor from Connery to Brosnan all portrayed the same character. Taken as a whole, the series' chronology was never all that comprehensive/cohesive, and the chronology of the 007 movies was probably never meant to be taken too seriously.

   Still I think it's cool that the fans have been dedicated enough to devise a way to try to make sense of everything. It really goes to show how much the fans care about this great series of films. Now if a black actor were suddenly cast as Bond, that would really throw a wrench into things... Anyways stay tuned next week when I'll go over some alternate 007 continuity theories.