The James Bond Codename Theory Remains Valid and Gains Depth with a New Dark Twist

Let’s start with a familiar notion: James Bond is not a single person but a code name passed down to each agent who assumes the 007 designation. This theory conveniently accounts for the drastic changes in Bond’s appearance across films and explains how the character has remained active in the field for decades.

While this fan theory seems plausible at first glance, it falls apart under scrutiny. Why do these supposedly distinct Bonds share the same penchant for a “shaken, not stirred” martini? How do they possess remarkably similar personalities and backstories? It seems improbable that MI6 would continuously find operatives with identical tastes for clever quips. Thus, this theory, popular though it may be, appears fundamentally flawed.

But perhaps there’s a way to reconcile this inconsistency. Imagine a scenario where each James Bond is indeed a different person, but none took on the identity of Bond by choice. Instead, they were brainwashed, their original identities erased, and molded to fit the quintessential “James Bond” persona and history.

This twist offers a compelling explanation for why the franchise’s array of 007 agents, while outwardly diverse, remain so consistently alike in demeanor and background. By rewriting their identities, this theory provides a cohesive narrative that ties the Bond legacy together, offering fans a fresh perspective on the iconic character.

Here’s a look at why this is the best way to explain the film franchise’s long string of identically behaving, yet different-looking 007 agents.

Let’s kick things off with a fun fact from history: Much like the CIA did with its Project MKUltra, MI6 really did tinker with mind control back in the 1950s. This, it just so happens, is right around the time the first canonical James Bond (Sean Connery) would have started out as a field agent. “Dr. No” dropped in 1962, and 007 was already in full fling at this point — so the Connery version could very well have been one of the many military men who were duped into LSD-based mind control experiments by the agency circa 1953 and 1954. Bond comes from a Royal Navy background, and as it happens, MI6 did perform the experiments on at least one deeply misled Navy “volunteer” in real life. 

It doesn’t take a lot of narrative liberty from a spy action thriller series to take things further and assume that such experiments can rewrite a man’s personality into the latest incarnation of James Bond. On occasion, the serving 007 would undergo major life events that would have to be incorporated into his backstory to maintain continuity. This is the reason later incarnations of Bond would remember, say, the George Lazemby version’s marriage to the doomed Contessa Teresa “Tracy” di Vicenzo (Diana Rigg) in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” 

That’s the “how” of it, then. The “why” of creating a series of identical superspy personalities is easier. For one, the agency knows what they’re dealing with if their top agent always has the same persona. It’d also be much easier to maintain cover stories for a well-established type of person, not to mention drafting operational parameters. 

It’s all fine and well so far, but how about the Daniel Craig era? Surely, the amount of backstory and characterization his Bond gets is noticeably different from the ones who came before him? Also, unlike every other Bond, Craig’s has an origin story and a conclusion.

The answer comes in “Skyfall” with the introduction of the MI6 darling before him: Tiago “Raoul Silva” Rodriguez (Javier Bardem). This Big Bad is ostensibly a former MI6 agent who fell on black days when the future M (Judi Dench) gave him to the Chinese after finding out he’d been hacking them. This and the ensuing torture caused him to vow revenge against M. The problem is … well, he doesn’t really act like a geeky MI6 hacker guy, does he? Sure, he knows his computers, but at the end of the day he carries himself with the confidence and ability of a 00 agent. 

As such, the real explanation for Silva’s grudge could be that he’s actually a former 007. Either before he was given to the Chinese or during his torture, he managed to escape his brainwashing programming, and now he really isn’t happy that he was subjected to it in the first place. Some fans have even speculated that Silva might be the Timothy Dalton Bond (after a whole bunch of post-cyanide capsule reconstructive facial surgery, of course). After all, Silva began as an MI6 operative in the late 1980s — which just so happens to coincide with Dalton’s 007 service.   

Silva’s escape from the 007 thrall and his subsequent reign of terror would have been a serious spanner in the MI6 works — perhaps one that prompted a change in the program. This goes double because the Daniel Craig-era MI6 isn’t the kind of entity it was during the heyday of the Cold War. At this point, bureaucrats like future M Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) are looking hard at the agency’s procedures, presumably raising a querying eyebrow at several things that seem like crimes against humanity (not to mention overspending). Things like, say, brainwashing multiple dudes, giving them a license to kill and a large number of expensive experimental gadgets, and providing them with a seemingly unlimited budget for vodka martinis and condoms.

Hence, MI6 has no option but to loosen up the 007 program by the time Craig’s bullish blonde candidate arrives. He still uses the name James Bond, and the cover is maintained to the point that his family’s gravestone bears the name — something Silva notices in the movie and is darkly amused by. Yet, this James Bond does have a clear backstory of his own, as well as a different enough personality from the other Bonds to suggest that MI6 has cooled its brainwashing jets at this point. After that, the next logical stage would have been to drop the name, as well. And so, Lashana Lynch’s Nomi in “No Time to Die” becomes the first 007 who doesn’t use the James Bond name.

Of course, there’s one potential hitch in this theory. It’s the same one that plagues virtually every aspect of continuity regarding Daniel Craig, even though he stars in some of the best James Bond movies. The Craig Bond’s tenure is effectively a soft reboot that brings in a whole bunch of previously seen Bond-verse elements as new versions. He encounters SPECTRE again, yet it’s shown to be the first time. Same goes with key characters like his arch-nemesis Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), and Miss Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). We could get into the weeds here, but perhaps these are also other people using the same names as deceased people before them. Maybe other individuals are also brainwashed. Secret agent stuff — so complex. 

As such, your mileage may vary on whether you consider this particular iteration of the character and his films a part of the “official” Bond lineage, or a fresh start — or perhaps even a temporary alternate timeline detour, depending on where the future of the franchise takes things. Still, the brainwashing theory holds water regardless of which school of thought you subscribe to. 

If you like your Daniel Craig as an official part of the brainwashed Bond revolving door, just follow the theory as described above. If not, things get interesting. After all, this would mean that the brainwashing story stops at Pierce Brosnan’s Bond with little further explanation … and since that lineage doesn’t feature a Raoul Silva that could break the cycle, MI6 could still be brainwashing new James Bonds as you read this.