You might be wondering why I haven’t said anything about the selection of Denis Villeneuve as the director of the next Bond film. It’s not that I haven’t noticed it, or that I’m not interested: I am of course intently interested in the future of one of my favourite film franchises. The thing is, it seems to me that whoever they choose faces an almost impossible task.

No Time To Die left the Bond franchise on a high. Daniel Craig had taken 007 to another level: at least four of his five films had been outstanding successes. Prior to the opening of Casino Royale in 2006, expectations for him had been wretchedly low, but as the Americans say, Craig hit it out of the park. The problem now is, his departure has now left a gaping chasm which it will be almost impossible for anyone to fill. What Craig gave us was phenomenal, so we now expect nothing less.

Many people are now saying that the only solution would be a complete change in tone for the franchise. That is, where Craig gave us a gritty, realistic Bond, the new era of Bond films should be lighter and more jovial, along the lines of what Roger Moore gave us. That way, any uncomfortable comparisons can be avoided. I certainly think this is a good idea, although I think that that will in turn give rise to it’s own questions, issues and problems: too serious and you’ll risk comparisons with what went before; too comic and you risk turning people away for being too different to what we’re used to. The balance will therefore need to be absolutely right.

The thing is, it seems to me that the chances of anyone striking that pinpoint balance are now more unlikely than ever. Were the 007 franchise still owned by EON, with Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli still producing, I would not have ruled it out. Wilson and Broccoli had weight and experience behind them, with over thirty years’ experience dealing with this cultural behemoth. With Amazon now in control, promising the complete reinvention of the franchise, no doubt opening it up to the same American hyper-commercial forces which have already been the bane of so many wonderful fictions, I frankly can’t see anything other than the Bond series becoming just another piece of derivative mass-market fluff. The executives at Amazon don’t know the first thing about James Bond, the Bond Phenomenon or it’s unique cultural position; they just see it as a set of big action films which will make them money.

Thus, as much as I respect Villeneuve, I think he’s in an impossible situation which I don’t see how any director could get out of. Bond films will always intrigue me, but I can’t help thinking that it may be wiser to call time on the phenomenon, and let them end on the high of Daniel Craig, than see it become subjected to the commercial, Amazonian pressures I now fear it will become opened up to.

I just came across something very, very interesting indeed regarding James Bond. I know I shouldn’t just blog about the first video I come across on Youtube on a given day, but I think this one is worth a watch. In it, the dude explains that the Bond franchise is due to enter the public domain in about ten years: that means that, rather than being confined to EON and the official Bond films, just about anyone will be able to make a film based around the character. Whereas we currently have to wait for official Bond films, other studios and directors will be able to use the character. Obviously, the danger of that is that a lot of crap will be made, but I must admit part of me finds the prospect intriguing.

I suppose over the last sixty years James Bond has become part of our culture and a bit of a tradition. As I wrote here, we’re used to going to see a new Bond film at the cinema every few years before discussing it with our friends. But could it be time for that to change? ‘All good things’ and all that. Opening the Bond character out gives rise to endless possibilities: Black Bonds; gay Bonds; even Bonds with disabilities. Naturally, a lot of crap stands to be made, lacking a shred of the quality or professionalism of the ‘official’ Bond films; yet I must admit the concept of seeing a franchise and character we’re all so used to taken in a plethora of new directions intrigues me. After all, keeping any intellectual or artistic property in the hands of a select few people means it will inevitably eventually stagnate; but opening it up to as many creative minds as possible will inject it with fresh creative vigour.

I just came across this Youtube video speculating about the future of the James Bond franchise. It’s quite interesting and fairly detailed, and worth a watch for anyone interested in the future of film’s greatest series. As many people are now noting, we’re into by far the longest gap ever between Bond films, and a new one is certainly overdue. As the video explains, the reasons for this depressing pause are quite complex, mostly having to do with tensions between Amazon and EON. Yet what it touches upon but doesn’t quite go into is the fact that Bond films are fundamentally cinematic, and these days, since the rise of online streaming, we don’t go to the cinema to watch films any more. The release of a new Bond film used to be a big cultural event: we used to watch royalty go to the premiere on the news; personally, I used to make an effort to arrange to go to see new Bond films with my friend Charlotte.

These days, though, we just watch films on our computers and mobile phones. Consuming film has become far more casual and less reverent. Instead of making an effort to go out to the cinema, now we just pop a film on our computer screens, often letting it run in the background. I have to wonder, can a phenomenon as fundamentally cinematic as Bond survive this new landscape? Imagine watching one of the awesome, classic James Bond action scenes or car chases on a tiny mobile phone screen – it just wouldn’t work! Thus, as loathe as I am to say it, I don’t see how something as quintessentially cinematic as Bond can survive in this new era, and think it might be time he is put to rest. As I wrote here a couple of weeks ago, rather than try to drag the franchise out and fit Bond into this new online, post-COVID media landscape, it may now be wiser to consign the character to history.

This morning I thought I’d try to get up to speed on what is happening with James Bond. I’d heard there was some kind of spat between EON Productions and Amazon, but other than that I was at a loss. However, I think I need to flag this excellent Den Of Geek article which I just came across up. It looks into what is going on with arguably cinema’s greatest series, and if you ask me it isn’t pretty. Amazon execs apparently want to turn Bond into a kind of Marvel franchise, with spin off film and TV series about characters like Miss Moneypenny and other Double-O agents. Now, as the article points out, there have always been Bond Spin offs in various media like novels, graphic novels (comics) and computer games; but arguably the phenomenal fifty year success of the Bond films boils down to the fact that they all centre around one character. That character, while retaining certain key aspects such as a liking for Martinis and his specific style of introducing himself, changes over time, acting as a kind of cultural barometer for over half a century. Any such spin-off media would probably distract or divert from that, missing the point entirely.

As much as I regret to say this, but I must admit that as I read this article it occurred to me that it may now be time to call an end to the Bond phenomenon: if this is indeed the way things are going, with disputes between film studios and the gradual abandonment of what has made James Bond James Bond, it may be wiser to consign it to history. After all, in this infuriating post-Brexit, Donald Trump era, we no longer live in the world either Ian Fleming or Cubby Broccoli placed Bond in. Many point to Bond’s misogyny, yet he is ultimately a character from a world in which Britain never lost it’s standing as a global imperial power – a delusion which will inevitably grow harder and harder to maintain. Especially after 2016, the over-simplified, good-vs—bad, Britannia rules the Waves world Bond inhabits does not exist any more, and both character and franchise will start to seem increasingly anachronistic and absurd.

Attempting to continue the franchise would surely just draw it out, exposing it to many contemporary sociopolitical pressures which I don’t think it could withstand. Such pressures would pull it in so many different artistic and commercial directions it would ultimately be torn apart. Thus rather than go through the rigmarole of selecting yet another actor, seeing that selection debated ad nauseam, and then waiting to see whether the resulting film lives up to the legacy, perhaps it would be best to consign these twenty-five films to history. After all, one of the greatest skills any artist can have is knowing when to finish a piece.