MovieChat Forums > You Only Live Twice (1967) Discussion > does OHMSS render this film non-canon?

does OHMSS render this film non-canon?

posted 3 years ago by filmgeek99 (592)
10 replies | jump to latest

With Bond and Blofeld seemingly meeting for the first time in that film, does that technically make this film non-canon?

It'd make sense, considering how this film is never referenced again for the rest of the series. In Tomorrow Never Dies, there's even a scene that contradicts Bond's quip to Moneypenny about having taken a first in oriental languages in Cambridge when he's shown not being able to read Chinese in Wai Lin's gadget station. And for all the old gadgets shown in Die Another Day, none of the toys he used in this film were ever brought up.

What do you think? Is this film technically non-canon?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

No.

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) 3 years ago

No. Bond has such a strange timeline and canon structure that I think it's basically all true despite the plentiful contradictions and the fact that a secret agent couldn't be perpetually late 30s/ early 40s since 1962.

For me, it's kinda all true despite the impossibility of it. But it fits right in with a world of volcano lairs, invisible cars, and parkour fights.

Bond's canon is pretty much unique across pop culture.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The question should be:

Does YOLT render the inferior OHMSS non-canon? :D

[–] hyperjet (633) 3 years ago

No. for the simple reason that OHMSS is awesome and YOLT is not.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

[–] kwestmo (4114) 3 years ago

I'll type slowly. There is no continuity in the Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan films. Why is this hard to understand?

[–] thingmakersback (1183) 3 years ago

You are correct in spirit and in general and I totally reject the concept of "canon" in this series. BUT. I am just pedantic enough to list a few examples of intentional continuity.
Sylvia Trench mentions Bonds recent lengthy trip to Jamaica in the beginning of FRWL.
In OHMSS Bond clears out his desk, displaying references to all previous films.
In DAF Bond begins the film hunting down Blofeld vengefully...
In FYEO the opening shows Bond at his dead wife's grave.
Overall, however, attempts to inflict continuity on the series inevitably leads to the bizarre notion that James Bond is obviously a code name for a series of unrelated people--a concept best left in the 1967 Casino Royale.

[–] kwestmo (4114) 3 years ago

I am aware of of those examples and don't consider them continuity with the possible exception of "Sylvia Trench mentions Bonds recent lengthy trip to Jamaica in the beginning of FRWL." Rather I would term it as evidence of no continuity as the producers made the choice to discontinue the character.

Also in one of the Brosnan movies, we see items like the TB jet pack. One of the Dalton films mentioned Bond was married once.

I consider all of those examples as references to the past films , not continuity in so-called Bond universe. .

I might consider David Hedison as Felix Leiter as an attempt since he had the same personality both times which was different than each other Felixes.

Thanks for the thought-out response.

[–] SandyR (7345) 3 years ago

No.

[–] Devilman (442) 2 years ago

Btw, although removed in most prints today Thunderball end credits had "James Bond will be back On Her Majesty's Secret Service".

So I believe the writers simply didn't care and kept the Bond meeting Blofeld as the original script post "Thunderball".
In the gadgets scene, Bond goes through stuff from "Dr.No", "From Russia with Love" and "Thunderball", notice how there is no reference to You Only Live Twice (except in the opening montage).