‘Code Name Theory’ continues

James Bond gunbarrel logo

Nature abhors a vacuum. With the James Bond film franchise, the “code name theory” (that each James Bond actor represents a different character) continues with the ending of No Time to Die.

Here is an excerpt of a Screenrant story published July 12:

Even so, there is a strong argument that Bond 26, and whoever takes over the role, would benefit from acknowledging the death of Daniel Craig’s incarnation of James Bond. This would also potentially allow for the acceptance of the long-held theory that 007/James Bond is a codename or honorific title given to spies over the years.

Right, you mean how the Elmo Lincoln, Johnny Weissmuller, Mike Henry, Ron Ely (and a lot of other actors) versions of Tarzan had code names? Or how Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale, and Robert Pattinson were supposedly playing different characters who happened to named Bruce Wayne who was also Batman?

Give it a rest.

There is no strong argument for the next Bond actor to “acknowledge” the code name theory. Bond is like other long-lasting characters. Should there be a “code name theory” for Sherlock Holmes?

No. Let it go. Stop it. Stop it now.

Meanwhile, the public accepts all these different versions of Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan and Batman. For some reason, the “code name theory” lingers for Bond.

Yes, the Bond film series has one production company. But Eon said in 2005 it was *starting over* with Casino Royale. People (and entertainment websites hungry for clicks) won’t let this go.