James Bond is Dead.
Long Live James Bond (Part II)
31 December 2023 11:56
Welcome back to our original series on the ramifications of James Bond’s death in No Time To Die. In this article we’ll explore the many narrative and tonal options that the filmmakers have at their disposal to allow for James Bond’s return in Bond 26. If you missed the first article in the series about their decision-making process then feel free to read PART I here.
How does James Bond return to the franchise after being killed off you ask? Well firstly it’s important to remember that Craig’s era is at least the second Bond ‘timeline’ or ‘universe’ that we’ve encountered. The first Bond timeline is generally agreed to have run from Connery’s Dr. No until Brosnan’s Die Another Day. I.e. the man that watched Jinx walk out of the sea would also remember seeing Honey Ryder doing the same. (The codename theory isn’t real.)
When Daniel Craig became Bond, the series had a fresh start in the form of a soft reboot. This created a completely new timeline with a new Bond. The two variations of Bond share many of the same traits but the distinction is that they wouldn’t share the same experiences or memories. It can be thought of as a parallel universe running alongside the classic timeline, which also helps explain why there are so many similarities including a female M played by Dame Judi Dench.
That is to say that Craig’s timeline did not alter or delete the classic, looser timeline. The Bond played by Connery through to Brosnan is very much alive and well as we last saw at the end of Die Another Day. So is M for that matter. What’s important to realise here is that if you already accepted that there were two timelines, with two Bonds, then the idea of James Bond returning after dying in the last film isn’t hard to accept. It would just be a different continuation with no explanation needed.
With the understanding that the classic timeline still exists it means it could in theory be revisited. The filmmakers could either pick up exactly where they left off or choose to subtly reveal they’re in the same classic ‘universe’ with little hints in each film. This is how they previously did it with each new Bond actor in the past. An example would be referencing the death of ex-wife Tracy which instantly created a link between films and this can be done again in Bond 26.
Alternatively the filmmakers could create a third timeline that’s completely fresh. This is the most likely route they’ll take, since it doesn’t bring along any of the baggage from the previous eras. After all, it might not be the smartest idea to connect the new actor to Connery forcing himself on Miss Galore. Nor would it be a good idea to set it in Craig’s universe because that would confuse casual audiences and require using the debunked codename theory.
A third timeline also leaves the door open to tie it into other eras if the producers later change their minds. In a way this is how they did it in the past. Take Sir Roger Moore’s first two films which don’t directly reference anything that had previously occurred. It wasn’t until the Tracy hints in The Spy Who Loved Me and later For Your Eyes Only that we could be certain this was the same man. Audiences back then would’ve assumed this from the start but technically it was a separate timeline up until those moments.
Perhaps the filmmakers will go the extra mile and make it so that the new timeline’s ending finishes exactly where Dr. No begins, thus creating a perfect loop. This was a common narrative theory amongst Bond fans during the entire Craig era, since Casino Royale played as an origin story and Dr. No begins with an established spy. This theory was of course put to rest with the tragic ending of No Time To Die.
Speaking of which, it’s fair to say that the producers won’t be going the superhero route of resurrecting Craig’s Bond via multiverse shenanigans. Apart from Live and Let Die’s voodoo magic the series has never ventured into the fantastical. Even the most futuristic of gadgets are somewhat grounded in reality. So it’s safe to say that portals to other dimensions and time travel are off the table. Craig’s Bond and his universe should never be expected to be seen on-screen again.
So now that we’ve established the different ways that Bond can return for Bond 26 it’s worth exploring the tone for the franchise going forward. The Craig era was a stark departure from the more light-hearted tone of the classic era. There were notable exceptions to this of course, such as Dalton’s dark take in Licence to Kill. Although for the most part the series became known as a fun time at the movies for the whole family.
Then Craig arrived with Casino Royale which received a 12A rating in the UK (PG-13 in the US) after being edited by censors. The torture sequence, knife violence and blood all proved that his era was different. It was darker, grittier and bleaker. A complete 180 from Die Another Day. A minority of fans immediately wanted to return to the light-hearted nature and this sentiment only became more prominent with each subsequent Craig film.
The producers are now standing at the crossroads with a choice to either continue the grittiness of the Daniel Craig era or return to the previous lighter tone. The dark nature of Craig’s characterisation was a response to 9/11, while the brutality of the action was a response to the Jason Bourne franchise. With these cultural touchstones now in the rearview mirror of history, today’s audiences might not necessarily want to consume this type of entertainment.
Another reason the producers might not choose to continue with a gritty tone is that Craig’s five Bond films have already succeeded in doing just that. Clocking in at just under 12 hours in total, his era gave us a brilliantly acted tragic story of a modern man always just a hair away from death. There was no stone left unturned: they threw in everything and the kitchen sink. So it could feel uninspired and overplayed very quickly if they were to continue with the same tone.
Therefore the most likely scenario is that the producers will switch back to a lighter tone for Bond 26. This would be in-line with the cyclical nature of the Bond franchise – going back and forth between tone and style with each new actor. Director Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz) notably pointed out this phenomenon with his own dark chocolate / milk chocolate analogy. With Craig representing ‘dark chocolate’ it’s now time for another ‘milk chocolate’ Bond à la Sir Roger Moore.
It would be genuinely exciting to know that the next era would be nothing like the past 20+ years, regardless of whether or not you were a fan of Daniel Craig. To see a Bond that has a comedic touch and exhibits a true joie de vivre would be refreshing. The new era could have a bright sheen of optimism coated over it, replacing themes of trauma with hope. An era that captures the fun spirit of previous Bond films and delivers entertaining escapism.
The snarky humour could be swapped with more one-liners, slapstick gags and perhaps even a few raised eyebrows. Bond’s old-school womanising days will probably always be a thing of the past but the filmmakers could loosen his figurative leash just a bit to match the tone. It should still be relatively family-friendly of course, since it has to be appealing to kids in order to nurture the next generation of younger fans.
This tonal shift would be arriving at just the right time too. The worst phases of the Covid-19 pandemic have ended, with the WHO downgrading its emergency status in May 2023. There’s a feeling that we’ve now entered another ‘Roaring Twenties’ era. I.e. a new decade marked by prosperity, optimism and indulgence. So this shift would come at a perfectly suitable moment for Bond 26 as the films have always reflected the times they were made in.
That is, unless there’s any truth to the rumours that the next era could be set in the past as period piece Bond films. The rumour started circulating back in September 2023 with director Christopher Nolan’s name attached to direct. He’s since debunked the story in an interview but even if he isn’t at the helm the concept itself is still a possibility.
In the end the producers have full creative freedom to choose the direction of the franchise. Whether it concerns the selection of the next James Bond actor, the narrative or the tone, it’s their decision instead of ours or the studio’s. We can have faith in them though – the franchise is now celebrating its 62nd anniversary after all.
As always with each new actor it will be a make-or-break moment, so the producers are understandably under immense pressure to get it right. That’s one reason they’re taking their time. They want Bond to come back with a bang to continue their father’s legacy and maintain Bond’s status as a cultural phenomenon. Fans will of course need to stay exceptionally patient during this time of great change and uncertainty in order to give the producers their space.
Particularly at this point in history we need James Bond now more than ever. Thankfully we can rely on those four iconic words which last graced the screen at the end of No Time To Die: JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.
