It’s inevitable. After the Daniel Craig version of James Bond was killed in No Time to Die, the Bond character will return somehow at some time.
But how?
Some possibilities follow.
Eon starts over — again: In Craig’s debut as Bond, Eon Productions did a reboot. That is, the series started all over again.
Since No Time to Die, Craig has claimed it was always his intention that his version of Bond would die in the end. Whether true or not, that’s how Craig’s five-film tenure played out.
Here is an excerpt from a Craig interview with the Los Angeles Times.
“Two things, one for myself and one for the franchise,” Craig said. “One, for the franchise, was that resets start again, which [the franchise] did with me. And I was like, ‘Well, you need to reset again.’ So let’s kill my character off and go find another Bond and go find another story. Start at [age] 23, start at 25, start at 30.”
However, until Eon shows its cards, there are other possibilities.
The code name theory rears its head: The code name theory refers to a way to explain how different actors (Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, etc., etc.) portray a character named “James Bond” while each actually is different.
The one time this notion was used occurred in the 1967 Casino Royale spoof. There was one “real” James Bond (David Niven) with multiple agents being designated as “James Bond.”
Hard-core Bond fans mostly despise this idea. But there are general movie fans who argue it’s a wonderful idea. Until Bond 26 gets sorted out, you can expect more of this stuff.
In fact, the Screen Rant website already has come out with a version of this notion.
One potential option for Bond 26 is to continue directly from the ending of No Time To Die. MI6 would be in mourning over the loss of James Bond, but international villainy waits for no one, and a replacement must be found. This new “James Bond” would then be recruited to replace Daniel Craig’s version, with explicit references to how their predecessor died saving the world from Safin and the Heracles weapon. This scenario would help preserve a semblance of continuity between James Bond movies, and also allow EON to think outside its usual box when casting Daniel Craig’s replacement.
We pretend the Craig era never happened: Eon’s Bond series had a very loose continuity from 1962-2002. When Sean Connery first departed the series in 1967, Bernard Lee’s M, Lois Maxwell’s Moneypenny and Desmond Llewelyn’s Q remained. Connery came back in 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever but Lee, Maxwell and Llewelyn remained.
Roger Moore came aboard in 1973, with Lee and Maxwell still present. Llewelyn came back as Q for Moore’s second outing in The Man With the Golden Gun.
With Bond 26, what happens with the Craig supporting cast? You could have Ralph Fiennes’ M, Naomie Harris’ Moneypenny and Ben Wishaw’s Q without any mention of the Craig version of Bond.
Conceivably, you pick up with the incredibly loose continuity of the 1962-2002 movies. Let’s move on, chaps.
Or not. Who knows?
Filed under: James Bond Films | Tagged: 1967 Casino Royale, Ben Whishaw, Bernard Lee, Bond 26, Casino Royale, Daniel Craig, David Niven, Desmond Llewelyn, Eon Productions, George Lazenby, Lois Maxwell, Los Angeles Times, Naomie Harris, No Time to Die, Ralph Fiennes, Roger Moore, Sean Connery |
The Spy Command 
They shouldn’t have killed the character in the first place. Anyway, I don’t want to see them try and revive the old canon. Just press on make new material, simple as that. Don’t worry about past films.
The Craig series had Judi Dench as M with no Moneypenny, although both Dench’s “M” and Moneypenny were present for Pierce’s Bond movies
Already written !
Demonstrate an already established, experienced, 007(Like Sir Sean in Dr. No) no origin story required, and move forward.MW & BB need to say “sorry” and bring Pierce back in a cameo as 001. (Or perhaps M.?)
Fans need to decide, without expecting them to agree, that the solution is a matter of degrees, as to what they’re willing to accept.
Do they want James Bond (The Character). Or a James Bond World with a namesake (actor) who works out well enough. Best analogy: Spock is an original personality interacting within a world of unique invention (Cannon). He’s killed. Nobody expects to replace him. Science Fiction saves the day. But the TOS (and movies) are locked into perpetual reruns.
In the Perry Mason television series (which also applies to Columbo).The actor who owns the portrayal of the character, died. Does that series depend on the personality of Mason. Or Burr’s interpretation of the role. Or would any decent (fictional) lawyer solving repetitious crime-stories be acceptable-enough. Keeping in mind that the actors who stood-in for Burr, were hardly unknown talent.
Last example: beyond MFU’s novelty, what made it most successful? Defeating Thrush and the bad guys over and over. Or was it the interesting characters / actors, who were appealing to their fans by devising clever ways of projecting their roles, memorably! And by reason of interviews, added a bit of their own personalities into the characters as well. When MFU ‘s title was given to the movie’s newly invented circumstances and relationships. True fans felt the original-concept was lost. And just another movie. I’m not sure I’d like to. But an original James Bond purist would almost have to start all over. Doing so would take an awful lot of time, unfortunately.
All possibilities are possible (wow, I really wrote that). I personally like the screen rant scenario. There is no sense in rebooting again. This is an abuse of the rebooting phenomenon. Let us have some semblance of continuity.
Treat the Craig Era as an Alternate Timeline. Bring back the feel of Golden Eye.