Bond 26 Has A Unique Problem Because Of Daniel Craig's Movies
Daniel Craig's James Bond films create a unique problem for Bond 26. Craig's final outing as Bond was in last year's No Time To Die, which saw the conclusion of his run as the iconic character, literally bringing his story to an end. Craig began his tenure as James Bond, 007, in 2006's Casino Royale, which launched as a pseudo reboot of the series, focusing on Bond's origin, rather than simply jumping into the series with his status firmly established. The film set up a storyline for Bond as well, which would reverberate through the rest of the films, playing out like a mini-series of Bond films rather than a series of standalone films.
All other eras of Bond actors, from Sean Connery to Roger Moore to Timothy Dalton to Pierce Brosnan, featured the stars in multiple films as the legendary character, but never in a recurring story that echoed from film to film. Until the Craig era, the Bond series more or less serialized, picking up each new film as a new adventure with the same actor without the hindrance (or benefit) of dealing with previous films. This was the case even when the role changed actors, as they simply kept the flow going without addressing the change of actors, let alone previous events, in any strict fashion.
For Craig, however, the underlying thread was created from the beginning, following the character from film to film, while still introducing new villains, locations, side characters, and, of course, Bond girls. Die-hard fans and casual moviegoers were easily able to enjoy the films, however, as the continued narrative easily fit the style and structure of the films, even if things tended to get a little convoluted. What differed, however, was the cohesive nature of Craig's Bond, which allowed the character to grow and evolve throughout his run, giving Bond something he never really had; an arc. This creates a tremendous problem for Bond 26, as it will have to find a way to establish itself with a new actor, while also deciding if it will tell an overarching story or focus on standalone adventures from film to film. Whichever direction the series goes, it will need to find a direction that isn't a retread of Craig's series, yet cohesive enough to invite fans back into 007's world without having to reinvent the character.
While the Bond films from era to era would occasionally mention a small detail or reference a character, location, weapon, gadget, etc., there was never an ongoing narrative within the series until Craig's run. Bond producer Michael G. Wilson has said that the Bond films weren’t one big film series but rather a “series of series," which creates an interesting through-line for the series, allowing fans to connect each Bond actor at their own whim, rather than having them line up to any specific timeline or series of events. For Craig, however, this isn't possible, as his residency with the character is completely different and contingent on events from his prior films.
What sets Craig's Bond series apart from its predecessors is that it deviated from the traditional formula of serialized adventures. Instead, Craig's era made use of a continued, evolving mystery that unfolded from film to film, while still introducing new characters, including high-profile villains, that would factor into the main narrative, be it in big or small ways, story dependent. Craig's Bond goes from fresh-faced new recruit in Casino Royale to seasoned agent in Skyfall to grizzled retired spy by No Time To Die, giving the character the opportunity to grow, change, evolve, and, ultimately, find closure in a fully realized arc.
While Craig's run was a strong and unique one, it also had its drawbacks. For some, the interconnected nature didn't work and robbed the series of the fun that had dominated the franchise up to that point. The Craig films also focused on a sense of realism, aping The Bourne Identity style of more grounded action and spectacle, avoiding the more cartoonish nature of previous entries. However, the danger in that is that it ignores the fact that those aspects are every bit a part of what helped create the lore of Bond. Avoiding a continued narrative would allow Bond to recur (and even grow as a character) without having to tie up loose ends from film-to-film, as well as giving audiences the welcome surprise of a new story with the same character, rather than a simple continuation of events from prior films. It also becomes tedious to keep track of those details, especially when it can be anywhere from 3-5 years between films.
The simplest and most effective means of continuing Bond past the Craig era is to return to its roots. Just as prior Bond films did before, Bond 26 should begin with 007 already established and in continuity without the unnecessary burden of origins and introductions. After 60 years and 25 films, audiences are well aware of who Bond is, what his characteristics are, what his drink order is, and what is M.O. is. Getting back into the "series of series" explanation from Wilson, Bond simply needs to appear, intact and with all of his known characteristics, and get on with the show. The new Bond actor, whoever it may be, should be settled and ready to assume the mantle without missing a beat, simply carrying on as if he's been Bond for years. Bond 26 can set itself apart well enough with a new actor in the role, but hiring a filmmaker that can put a unique spin on things is also an aspect that shouldn't be ignored, as both the actor and director can do most of the heavy lifting in charting a new, yet familiar, course for Bond. Similar to Batman, James Bond is about the character more so than the actor playing him, so paying attention to what makes him special, unique, and everlasting is what Bond 26 should be all about.