Well, certainly not in the 60’s - but neither did Q branch then, either 😁 but IF safe decoders we’re a thing then Draco would have access to them. Admittedly, Draco would not have DB5’s with extras but small criminal type gadgets is believable.
I take it that Campbell is helping Bond on the quiet and Draco is helping his future son-in -law providing the equipment to transport the cumbersome decoder.
But with Bond having a small camera it would not have been necessary to use such a cumbersome decoder if a pocket sized one was readily available.
Good point. I guess they wanted to do something new that we haven't seen before in spy movies?
1) The camera Bond has when he's photographing the Angels of Death is probably only a camera designed to snap people's faces. I doubt that such a device would also be able to photograph documents. In fact have you ever tried taking a photo with your smartphone and trying to print it out? Unless you have a super high quality one or an app which can smooth out the text, the printouts of documents using a camera are often inferior. Bond clearly wants to photocopy the documents in a decent quality. When he's making the copies, maybe he thinks he can intercept the correspondence between the heraldry college and the lawyer at a later date and needs to have documents to look as close as possible as the originals. On another point Bond probably gets the mini camera from Draco since they go together to Piz Gloria to save Tracy.
2) Just because Draco runs a huge criminal operation does not mean he has pocket sized safe-decoders. You will have to forward me Draco’s criminal manifesto which states that his organisation must have pocket sized decoders if they have suitcase sized decoders in their itinerary list ))
3) Once again this thing with referencing the novels has come up. I personally don’t think it is a good idea to reference elements from the novel to explain inconsistencies in the film. The Bond film series is clearly different to the book series and only alludes to the books at times. It is never explained in the film who this blond guy is. As someone said above he might be helping Bond on the side as an MI6 agent or he works for Draco. Bond shows no signs or remorse when he sees his dead body neither is his death mentioned by M or Draco later in the film. It is clear though that he is helping Bond to get the decoder to the office via the crane.
My better explanation would be that the safe-cracker that they source is neither from MI6 nor Draco’s organisation and is from another unknown source in the event that if the device is discovered by Blofeld’s men, there is no way to trace it back to MI6 or Draco.
Also another point about the safe-cracker in YOLT: I have a theory that the device may not actually work and the safe is not locked in the first place. Bond seemingly turns the safe dial randomly and numbers light up on the display. When Bond opens the safe, the alarm goes off. Why would someone have a safe when an alarm goes off throughout the whole building every time it is opened? My explanation is that the safe was never locked in the first place and the device Bond uses does not work properly.
You guys really must explain the fascination for the theory that the backwards clock explains that OHMSS is set before YOLT. I just watched the end of OHMMS and the beginning of YOLT and the narrative with Bond is ridiculous:
End of OHMMS - Bond in tears huddling his dead wife: "We'll be getting on soon. There's no hurry you see. We have all the time in the world". Proceeds to cry heavily.
Start of YOLT - Bond is in bed with unknown Asian lady: "Why is that Chinese girls taste different to all other girls?"
😍 That sounds like some bad fan fiction right there 🤣
As badly as DAF handled the resolution of OHMSS, at least the film makers had the sense to try and resolve the issue of Bond's vengeance.
So Bond going to bed with Tiffany (after nearly getting it on with Plenty) in DAF is ok, but going to bed with Ling in YOLT isn’t ok? What’s the difference, please explain? Lots of people deal with grief differently - Bond wouldn’t grieve for too long as he has a high sexual drive - that doesn’t mean he has lost his feelings for Tracy as you can see when he lays flowers at her grave in FYEO.
The backwards clock "turns back time" to show clips from past Bond films, and at the end of the title sequence it reappears to signify that time has now been restored to the present and the film can continue. The clips from DN, FRWL, GF, TB and YOLT are grouped as scenes from the past; there's nothing to indicate YOLT represents the future.
That theory was written by John Brosnan in his marvellous book James Bond In The Cinema but when I mentioned my theory to him on one of our many pub lunches together he said that my theory had a lot going for it and he hadn’t thought of that. He goes on to say that it is a plot hole in his book which is hard to explain so my theory stands up to the test. Whether he actually revisited the idea in his monthly Starburst column I don’t know, but he may have done.
Also the clock does not reset in the title sequence as the very last shot is of the clock going backwards again before we see the Aston Martin drive up to the hotel.
The clock going backwards representing past films is very possible, but certainly not 100% proof, unless anyone has evidence that states otherwise. It would be very cumbersome to show that YOLT is in the future in the OHMSS titles but the clock going backwards is subtle enough to say that OHMSS is before YOLT for those who want to see it that way.
There probably will not ever be a definitive answer so best to just go with whatever theory suits you.
its been a while since I watched You Only Live Twice, so someone else remind me?
when Bond and Blofeld finally meet in the volcano, do either of them recognise the other? hows the dialog go?
I think Bond has never heard of this man before. But the film begins with Bond faking his own death, and that being publicised, so MI6 is assuming that bad guys out there know the name and reputation of this supposed secret agent. (but of course Blofeld should know Bond from From Russia with Love)
this is the question, why CoolHand is suggesting the two films actually happen in the opposite order. but if theyre shown meeting for the first time in each film, then the Opposite Order Theory doesnt have any more explaining power than the conventional order of release. and I agree Bond is acting even less like a man whose wife has just been murdered in You Only Live Twice than he is in Diamonds are Forever.
The pre-titles of DAF clearly show Bond hot on the pursuit to find Blofeld. This is explained by the fact that Blofeld had Bond's wife killed at the end of OHMSS. Bond soon comes across Marie the woman in the bikini. Rather than making out with her he proceeds to strangle her with her bikini top. Does Bond have the slightest interest in making out with her? No because Bond's intention in the opening of DAF is to find Blofeld and take his revenge from what happened in OHMSS. Once that is completed he can return to some kind of normality hence he goes on the diamond smuggling mission after the PTS and gets up to his usual 007 antics with Tiffany Case.
If YOLT followed immediately after OHMSS, it looks ridiculous that Bond would be making out with an Asian lady instead of hunting down Blofeld with some urgency. I get Bond loves the chance to spend time with his lady friends but the DAF opening following on from OHMSS is a lot more logical than YOLT.
Agreed. In YOLT, Bond is meeting Blofeld for the first time. I made this thread originally based on the fact that there are some fans who think the same thing happens again in OHMSS in that they don't recognise each other and therefore believe OHMSS doesn't follow on from YOLT.
The theory I put forward in this thread is an explanation of how and why they are NOT meeting for the first time in OHMSS and so the narrative of OHMSS fits in perfectly with the chronological order of how the films were released. Bond knows who Blofeld is from meeting him in YOLT and Bond goes on his revenge mission in the pre-titles of DAF follwing Tracy's death.
good examples comparing the two opening sequences, but they dont really disprove CoolHand's theory
re the precredits of Diamonds...
Bond doesnt have to make out with every lady he meets, especially when she's a baddie who might have information
Bond could be pursuing Blofeld because he escaped the volcano headquarters, ie he's doing his job rather than a personal mission of revenge. Thats actually how I read these scenes regardless of which order the two preceding films happen
and in You Only Live Twice, he's not making out with a lady because he wants to, he's doing so as part of the MI6 scheme to fake his death
personally I just think all this is explained by OHMSS not being part of Connery-continuity. I think the filmmakers intended the failed film be forgotten. and if we're discounting behind the scenes data, and insisting the internal data of the different films all fit together, then I'm afraid the continuity issues of OHMSS are best explained by the dreaded CodeName theory.
I still don't get how the theory that YOLT proceeding OHMSS clarifies anything in the chronological narrative of the films. It makes understanding the chronology more complex and convoluted. (I do wonder if maybe it stems from Fleming fans just wanting the Blofeld trilogy in the films to follow the same order as the books).
The codename theory is even more nonsensical when applied to OHMSS. Why does Bond have Honey Ryder's knife from DN, Grant's watch from FRWL and the mini-breather from TB if he's a different person? Also the title screen depicts scenes from all 5 of the previous films. I learned from the Inside OHMSS documentary that it was Maurice Binder's idea to do that to make it clear that while the actor is different, it is still the same Bond from the previous missions. (I do wonder also if people also who support the codename theory have actually bothered to watch the film series properly and look at all the continuity across all the films).
DAF does not really flesh out the revenge aspect following on from OHMSS. The producers clearly wanted to expand on the tongue in cheek tone of GF since they were in danger of losing their audience following OHMSS financial and critical reception. Distancing DAF from OHMSS was seen as the logical step to take at the time.
Why does Bond have Honey Ryder's knife from DN, Grant's watch from FRWL and the mini-breather from TB if he's a different person? Also the title screen depicts scenes from all 5 of the previous films. I learned from the Inside OHMSS documentary that it was Maurice Binder's idea to do that to make it clear that while the actor is different, it is still the same Bond from the previous missions.
yes thats true. LazenbyBond wouldnt have ConneryBond's sentimental memories, so they must be the same fellow.
But then why does LazenbyBond say "this never happened to the other fellow"? that line makes no sense in-universe, what could he possibly be talking about if not a previous fellow who was also James Bond?
I think as we examine more details, we have to separate out clues that contradict within the same film, and decide which to privilege as truth. I know the banal, realworld answer is this line was a metafictional joke, a wink at the audience breaking the fourth wall. And we start to get a lot more of these beginning with Die Another Day, at which point I feel they really undermine the suspension of disbelief. Casino Royale contains a similar line from M "thats when i knew you were you", which doesn't make much sense outside the assumption there had been previous James Bonds.
anyway, @sinlum I thought you had said all data had to be internal to the films, we couldnt rely on what Fleming said if it wasnt used in the film, and we couldnt rely on behind-the-scenes real world decisions or statements. Binder's intentions for the OHMSS credits is external data, as is our knowledge a line of dialog is breaking the fourth wall, James Bond shouldnt know there is a fourth wall.
Even if the clock doesn't literally reset, its reappearance signifies that the scenes from previous films are over. It doesn't reappear to take the viewer further back in time, but rather to take us back to the present film. It might have been cumbersome to show YOLT was supposedly the future, but Binder could have done something to differentiate that film's clips from the rest if wanted to. Instead he lumped the film together with the rest, giving a very clear message: these are all clips from previous Bond films.
During the script genesis of OHMSS there were several attempts to explain Blofeld not recognizing Bond, including a scene where Bond gets injured and requires plastic surgery. After a while the filmmakers realized this would just clutter the film and that it was enough to have a new actor in the role and to rely on the fact that audiences in the 1960s didn't care about tight continuity. So Hunt and Maibaum resolved to just adapt the book and not worry if it contradicted a film that neither of them appoved of anyway.
The line "This never happened to the other fellow?" could be a reference to Prince Charming. I think personally as Lazenby looks directly into the camera, it is a deliberate 4th wall breaking moment. It was just put the film to give the audience a chuckle. I don't think the film makers could possibly have envisaged people would be debating its meaning in online forums over 40 years later ))
Technically you are right about the Maurice Binder reference and yes it's true that the PTS can have different interpretations. However I think there's nothing wrong with including the stylistic choices the film makers made to explain why they appear in the film.
And the breaking the fourth wall might be a nod to Traffaut's film The 400 Blows and its final scene set on the beach when the kid does the same thing.
It's possible that YOLT is set after and that Blofeld hasn't killed Tracy. What's to say that James and Tracy's wedding took place directly after those events at Piz Gloria? We just assume it does. There might have been two years or so in between, enough time for Bond to go off on his Japan mission. After all, he had it away with a few women on Piz Gloria after their romantic We Have All the Time in the World song.
This reminds me of the mad back and forth I had with a bloke called HighHopes about stuff in Craig's Casino Royale.
Reading this thread has started to give me a headache
Firstly, I think it is important to remember the writers [predominantly Maibaum] don't really appear to give a flying fudge about continuity in the sixties and seventies. These movies were made pre-home video and the internet. Who knew there would be fans analysing every second of material? Nobody. Did they care if there was likely to be? Not a jot.
@sinlum you suggest some of us want to make the 'backwards clock' thing work because we want the Blofeld Trilogy in the Fleming order. Well, you are not wrong on the second count for me - but it isn't in Fleming's order so there we have it. Maurice Binder's 'backwards clock' thing was baffling when I first saw it on TV. It baffles me still. What a ridiculously enigmatic piece of philosophical art to insert into an action movie credit sequence - come on Maurice, you've got clips from past movies and an hour glass - which for decades I thought were champagne flutes, so that tells you the analogy isn't working. - and I remember spending my first viewing wondering who all these people were. They never appeared. Most viewers probably didn't even notice the clock thing.
I enjoyed your OP @sinlum which made me rethink the scenes at Piz Gloria, and I genuinely think you are onto something regarding a sort of psychological game of 'guess who?' being played between Blofeld and Bond. This makes a lot of sense - although I personally prefer the idea Bond was unrecognisable because of his shoddy Japanese make over - a theory hopelessly destroyed by the Mask of Bond PTS of FRWL. So thanks for that and keep thinking!
But you know what, to be brutal, and this is no way a reflection n your thoughts, I really don't care. The early Bond films were not written to be viewed as a continuing saga. They were individual adventures which were loosely bonded [ha!] by SPECTRE. Nobody was trying to join the dots in 1969. The producers / writers were concerned people may not accept Lazenby, thus everything that's been banded about on here, like Bond's pathetic attempt at a disguise, is written purely to ensure OHMSS works as a film on its own, not as a film interconnected to all the others. The scene where Bond views his memorabilia rather blows that out of the water, but having said that, it tells the audience this is the same Bond we saw before - and it is a good piece of storytelling. The overall impression of OHMSS, along with DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, is that they are designed to be watched individually and that prior knowledge is unnecessary. For instance, I'm not sure they even mention the Thunderball Affair in YOLT. The first really obvious nod to continuity occurs with the DAF precredit teaser and Bond's line about his holiday being "Most gratifying" or something. Even then, the PTS seems more designed to introduce the Blofeld double. The debonair Charles Gray later intones Bond has made a vengeful attempt on his life - so even if you've not seen a sixties Bond film, you'll twig there is more to their relationship than just a huge laser in the sky.
As for that little bit about the safe cracking device being organised by a third party - what, what and what? Let's not make things up. It's bad enough trying to reconcile what we can see and imply without adding things that simply are not there. I always assumed Campbell was an MI6 agent until I saw the Draco Construction sign above the building site. Scales metaphorically dropped from eyes. Bond can't use an MI6 agent because he's on leave and also officially off the Bedlam Affair. If he tried to do so, he'd be reported immediately and knows it ["You've been relieved from Operation Bedlam" M says sourly when Bond visits Quarterdeck]. I am convinced Campbell is Draco's man, keeping an eye on Bond for his future father-in-law, which is how Tracy knows where to find him. When Blofeld confronts Bond with his evidence, he never specifically mentions Campbell is MI6 - only that he knows what he is doing there. Blofeld calls Campbell "your esteemed colleague" or something. Unlike the visually mysterious backwards clock, this is actually really good screenwriting for we as an audience can see the explanation, rather than having it told to us. I will say that director Peter Hunt doesn't make the connection as visually obvious as it should be and Maibaum could have inserted one quick line regarding Campbell:
"And Papa told me where to find him."
"So Draco had me watched?"
"Of course. Shaun Campbell. Papa's man in Geneva."
"No more, I'm afraid. He's dead."
"What really happened up there, James?"
HA! Now you've got me speculating!
Welcome to AJB 😁😁😁
I must admit, I'm not actually convinced that Campbell is Draco's man, and I think the filmmakers probably intended him to be MI6, but regardless I do think there's more evidence for him being Draco's guy than there is of him being M's. As you say- Tracy knew where to find Bond.
If we'd had a scene between Bond and Campbell, where perhaps we saw he was convincing Campbell to do an off-the-books job to help him out, then I'd buy he's MI6, but this would be unnecessary and slow the film down. Really it's more streamlined if he's Draco's man- the only thing to throw a pothole in the road is his English accent.
In my Fan Fiction James Bond, On Her Majesty's Secret Service I inserted exactly that scene.
That sounds fun, like a Christopher Wood novelisation? 😁
Yes, very much, but lacking his humour. A link for you.
Great; thanks Chris!
Thanks for the info about The 400 Blows. I have always had the suspicion that the line Lazenby utters also had a subtle reference to something else. I will check this film out.
With reference to the possibility that the wedding takes place after YOLT – while I admit coming up with theories like these are interesting and there’s nothing wrong with letting your imagination run wild, there are a lot of problems that do come up.
First, it’s never implied in the film that this is the case – there’s no information like “2 years later”.
Second, it would be confusing for the audience to work out that this would be the intention. For this reason I can’t understand how YOLT can happen after OHMSS. Scenes from all the previous 5 Bond films are shown in the title sequence in OHMSS. Why is it that YOLT has to be the film that takes place after OHMSS and not the others?
Another problem is that if you start thinking that certain scenes or films happen sooner or later than how they are depicted (without any clarification) then you can apply this principle to any scene from any film. You could argue that the pre-titles sequence of OHMSS is set before Dr No. However explanations start to become convoluted and I don’t think there is ever enough evidence to justify that this was the intention of the film makers. Of course there are scenes in the series which do depict events out of order. For example the pre-title sequence of GE is set 9 years before the rest of the film – there is text on screen to explain that. Also it’s clear that the opening scene of NTTD is set before the rest of film as it depicts Madeleine as a young girl and scenes later in the film reference the opening scene.
I don’t want to make your headache worse but I would like to respond to the interesting points you made:
You say that the writers didn’t care about continuity. I would argue that this was not the case at the very beginning. FRWL is clearly a sequel to DN. The writers originally wanted to feature Silvia Trench in every film and then have her in the last film going on an adventure with Bond. I think it may have been Guy Hamilton, the director of GF, who was a believer that the Bond films should not follow each other so closely. GF has very few references made to the previous two films and does feel like a stand alone movie (it does not reference Spectre for example).
I think the idea of the films not following one another very tightly helps the audience understand each film individually and films which heavily rely on events in previous films are not so easy to understand for new audience members watching their first Bond adventure. Take the film Spectre for example – understanding Blofeld’s plan relies on the audience having watched the previous Craig films. It’s not really a great way to win over new audience members when they are chucked in at the deep end.
However I disagree that the producers wanted to make all the films standalone adventures. If that was the case why didn’t EON just come out and say the codename theory was correct all along? Also if we are having standalone adventures why not have each film focus on a different 00 agent in the main role?
There are slight mentions and nods to previous films which are present in ALL the films albeit some are more subtle than others. Some of these references are essentially like Easter Eggs to the fans who know more than the general audience so can spot these easier and make the connections.
You point out that the writers were not interested in continuity in the films from the sixties and seventies. Here is some evidence to counter that viewpoint:
FRWL – clearly a sequel to DN
GF – When Bond meets Leiter he says “The opposition got close to you in Jamaica” - subtle nod to DN
- Bond asks about his Bentley to Q which he had in FRWL
TB – Bond drives his gadget laden DB5 from GF
- Bond knows who Spectre are in the casino scene - FRWL
YOLT – Bond is “killed” at the beginning because MI6 know he’s being tracked by Spectre following TB
- Bond mentions Spectre to Tiger when they are bathing so confirms that he suspects Spectre are plotting something in Japan – TB
OHMSS – Bond has items from DN, FRWL, TB in his office.
DAF – Bond hunts down Blofeld following his wife’s death in OHMSS
LALD – Bond is good friends with Quarrel Jr – DN (I admit that the early Moore films do not have any explicit references to the previous films and one must assume that Quarrel Jr is Quarrel’s son/relative something which is not mentioned in the film)
TMTGG – Sheriff JW Pepper recognises Bond in the car – LALD
TSWLM – Anja mentions that Bond married only once and his wife got killed – OHMSS
MR – Bond and Jaws recognise one another. Jaws becomes an ally of Bond at the end – TSWLM
This not an exhaustive list but it’s just to give some evidence that there is continuity across the Bond films. As this thread is meant to be about OHMSS I shall stop here with the other references.
I disagree though that audience members didn’t care about continuity at the time. Many people were put off by the fact the Connery was no longer in the part and there were comments at the time that Lazenby simply wasn’t Bond. This is reflected in the fact also that the film did not do as well financially as the Connery films prior to its release.
I think the title sequence in each film can have different interpretations. Same for the films themselves. They are forms of art so I see no reason why people can draw different conclusions based on what they see. It’s the same as reading poetry or looking at paintings. I see the backwards clock as a clear indicator that we are looking at Bond’s previous adventures. I also thought that the sand glasses could also be champagne glasses. What’s wrong with that? There are no captions on screen explicitly stating what each visual image is.
Bond wears a disguise in OHMSS because he is meant to be in character as Sir Hilary Bray.
About the safe cracker- I never said the safe cracker was organised by a third party. It’s never explained in the film where the safe-cracker comes from. I theorise that Bond or Draco inquired into getting one from a source so that there was no way for it to be traced back to MI6 or Draco. In the context of the film it makes sense. This is Bond’s chance in 2 years to get concrete information on Blofeld’s whereabouts. Sourcing a safe-cracker from another source other than MI6 or Draco would reduce the chance of Blofeld working out that MI6 or Draco is on his case in the event that it is ever discovered.
Also it is never explained who the blond guy is in the film. Arguments could be made for both cases that he works for MI6 or Draco. He could even be a guy who Bond had a one night stand with for all we know and is jealous that Bond is now unreachable on Piz Gloria 😄
The clock going backwards in the credits I think was to show why they were showing flashback scenes of - it has to be said - somewhat low-res footage from previous films. A sort of flashback effect.
I was only joking about the idea that Bond's marriage might be two years after the main event of OHMSS but it you're going to engage in wild speculation.... I enjoy these theories up to a point while we wait for Babs and Mikey to announce the new actor to play Bond but it reminds me of Clouseau's convoluted theories as to why the pretty blonde didn't commit the murder in A Shot in the Dark.
Isn't the blond guy seen earlier in the film as one of Draco's men? Maybe not. Most of them are.
@sinlum you have given me another headache 😒
Nice list of references. You see, speaking as a writer, although not an especially successful one, I don't consider most of those as 'continuity'. OK, so couple of times it helps if you've seen the previous movie or might recall a character, but these are such minor instances they simply don't affect one's enjoyment. Even stuff like Anya relating Bond's marriage wouldn't baffle a viewer who hasn't seen OHMSS, it merely introduces a facet if Bond's character history, wether you know it or not. I write stuff like this in my novels, and I dont dwell on it, so a reader can make what they want of it. Those in the know get it, if you don't it doesn't matter a whole lot; so for OO7 even a casual mention of SPECTRE to Tiger Tanaka isn't a deal breaker. I remember when I was younger most of my mates couldn't separate SPECTRE from Goldfinger or Stromberg. They simply didn't care, and I'm just not convinced there is a conscious effort to intertwine the stories, unlike the later CraigBond era.
But no items from or reference to YOLT at all - is this because those events haven’t happened yet in the timeline?
Bond’s assignment was to find Blofeld - there is nothing mentioned to say that this was due to the “volcano” affair - it was because of the TB bomb plot.
Going back to Bond’s love life after Tracy’s death - in DAF he finds out that he hasn’t killed Blofeld after all, and still hasn’t at the end of the film, so should he have gone back to being celibate until he “presumably” kills him in FYEO?
No gadgets from YOLT or GF were not shown in Bond's office because I think the main gadgets from those films were vehicles - the DB5 in Goldfinger and Little Nellie in YOLT.
Bond did use the homing device in GF but this was destroyed when Mr Solo got crushed. Bond had the safe-cracker and exploding cigarettes in YOLT (if there was something else please do comment). I suggested earlier that the safe cracker probably didn't work in YOLT so Bond never bothered using the device again and it's possible that the exploding cigarettes would have been too dangerous for Bond to keep in his office. Also for the audience if we saw either of these gadgets during this scene it would have been a bit confusing unless we were die hard fans like in this forum ). Just having Bond admiring a packet of cigarettes in his office with the YOLT theme playing would have been lost on a lot of the audience. The other gadgets which were shown were more prominent in their respective films and would have been better remembered by the general public.
To repeat what I said before about TB - There is NO evidence in the film which suggests that MI6 or Bond know who Blofeld is (if I am wrong please correct me). Spectre are obviously pissed with Bond following TB so it makes total sense that MI6 hatch the plan to "kill" Bond at the start of YOLT so you can go fully undercover. Bond then eventually meets Blofeld for the FIRST TIME in YOLT but he gets away. This explains why he knows his name in OHMSS and why he has been hunting him for 2 years.
Regarding DAF - Bond assumes he killed Blofeld at the start of film so he returns to his normal self when he's on the diamond smuggling mission. About half-way through the film he discovers that Blofeld is still alive but he doesn't bed any other women from this moment in the film. Bond eventually destroys Blofeld's oil rig and it is implied that he "kills" Blofeld in his mini submarine as Blofeld doesn't return for another 10 years. I do have a theory as to why Blofeld doesn't return which relates to how Blofeld looks in FYEO. He obviously looks quite disabled so it's possible Bond might have broke his spine in DAF and not killed him. I admit that the whole Blofeld affair is never really tidied up in DAF or FYEO but that was more to do with the dispute over the rights with McClory than anything else. The producers obviously decided to let this plot line disappear quietly instead of bringing any solid closure to it.
The janitor whistles the theme tune to GF in OHMSS which leaves YOLT as the only film not referenced. Could have had a suction pad or the safe decoder in the drawer. Seems strange it was left out completely, especially as it was the most recent and more memorable to the casual viewer. The theme tune was very recognisable so could have been played briefly.
Anyway, it’s my theory and choice to believe it, I’m not asking or wanting anyone else to concur, but nothing you or anyone else has written actually disproves the theory - just as I can’t prove that it’s correct - it’s just down to personal opinion.