Why Bond 25 Should Be Codename 007
It definitely shouldn't be Shatterhand.
Though precious little has been said about the film so far - other than the casting of Daniel Craig, despite him not being a fan of the idea of coming back initially - we know that Bond 25 is on its way. Now, we can also expect to hear more about the film in the coming weeks, as producer Barbara Broccoli has spoken to RTE Entertainment to tease that something big is coming by the end of the year:
“We’ve got the biggest and most important piece in place, which is Daniel [Craig]. I’m very happy that he’s coming back. So, to me, that’s the crucial thing… We’ve got our Daniel; we’ve got to find the director. We’re working on the script and we’ll see… Hopefully by the beginning of the year we’ll have more news on all those fronts.”
Right now, it seems that the title may be Shatterhand and initial rumours suggested it will be based in part on1999 novel Never Dream of Dying by Raymond Benson. But there's a far better idea out there, which has been the foundation of James Bond fan theorising for some time now: Bond 25 needs to adopt the Codename Bond theory as its own.
The theory suggested, of course, that "James Bond" is a title bestowed on the British government's best spy asset - who also gets to use the 007 designation too - and is no more than a codename. That would explain how the same character has been multiple different ages across multiple different time periods and has looked like six different men since he debuted in Dr No.
It's an ingenious idea and one that should be fed into the narrative, whether in order to hand over to Daniel Craig's replacement in a way that peels away the requires suspension of disbelief between "regenerations" or as a point of intrigue in a dramatic plot.
The first approach would effectively see Bond go through a Doctor Who style regeneration - though without the metaphysical implications, obviously - and we could get some insight into the 00 school, with prospective candidates put through a Top Gun style programme to excel. It wouldn't be your typical Bond film, but that's probably not the worst thing in the world when there have been so many rumblings about the need for change.
The second approach is arguably more interesting, though it would require Bond to go through a Bourne-style period of amnesia for the drama to really work. Because the revelation that Bond is not a real person and rather a conditioned programme (including his tragic backstory) would work best if he was the one investigating it. Yes it would be meta, and yes it would pluck away at the very fabric that the Bond franchise is sewn from, but it would be a hell of a way to change things up.
It'd certainly be better than having yet another Blofeld clone with a silly world-conquering plan that ends up being foiled just in time once more.
Now, the problem here is that Skyfall obviously investigated Bond's past quite openly as part of the plot, with the headstones of his parents, Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix Bond appearing in the final act. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything: if the story positioned Bond as the ignorant tool of the government who had effectively been bred to be their weapon (like a First Order stormtrooper), then of course there'd be a backstory to furnish his false memories. That'd arguably make it even more interesting.
Unfortunately, this idea may only work as the last Bond movie ever, with the world famous spy pulling down his own organisation (it might feel hollow for him to go through the process of enlightenment only to accept it as his fate), but what a way to go. And maybe there is a less destructive way of establishing that James Bond is indeed a codename?
Because some ideas - even those introduced by fans - are too good to ignore.