The Code Name Theory is just lazy tripe. "Oh, they recast so this can't be the same guy anymore."
It’s somebody thinking they’re clever and being tragically mistaken.
I use to subscribe to that theory but I've since seen the light.
It's no different than the "alternate timeline" theories in Star Trek.
IIRC, those who adhere to the code name theory just interpreted Lazenby's "other guy" line a bit too literally.
But even that doesn't fit what we see on screen.
Oh, I know.
Literalists. A plague on multiple fandoms.
Thermians.
I have my own theory on this, frankly - which kinda tracks with the John Gardner/Raymond Benson novelverse? Basicallty the Connery/Lazenby/Moore entries are one major timeline (with NSNA as the unofficial cap to that story), and the Dalton/Brosnan entries as a modern sequel to the Fleming originals (or i if you prefer, set after the Fleming originals but slightly retconned) like the aforementioned Gardner/Benson books are.
Obviously we all agree the Daniel Craig movies are their own thing, rather decidedly.
Obviously we all agree the Daniel Craig movies are their own thing, rather decidedly.
And the 1967 Casino Royale is the completely standalone acid trip timeline wherein story cohesion is not only nonexistent but was never encouraged. 
And the 1967 Casino Royale is the completely standalone acid trip timeline wherein story cohesion is not only nonexistent but was never encouraged.
Hey that was a fun movie despite all that and fun song at the end
Nah. The first 20 Eon movies are one continuity with the same lead character — which is admittedly possible only with the most amorphous timeline ever. It doesn’t bear thinking about excessively, it just is what it is.
Calvin Dyson amongst other Internet Bond content creators calls it a floating timeline. Linear, but don't expect the ages and appearances of Bond and Moneypenny to make sense as the franchise went from decade to decade.
Marvel calls it a "sliding time scale".
Ooh a Bond Video about the Brosnan Bond
Similar threads
