The conclusion of Daniel Craig’s era prompts anticipation of a franchise reboot for Bond 26, but the death of 007 in No Time To Die actually makes such a prospect harder than expected. Craig’s Bond was introduced in the form of a reboot, with Casino Royale’s black and white opening sequence featuring the first target of his license to kill. The 2006 film reignited the franchise, initiating a serialized story that developed the character of Bond and has now concluded his arc in tragedy.
Since Craig’s introduction as Bond, the franchise has deviated from gimmicks while still incorporating an appropriate level of nostalgia. Through a gritty aesthetic, the films have added a layer of realism to a franchise that is historically uninterested in the plausibility of its storylines. Bond films have long had an affinity for flirting with the concept of Bond’s death, but usually to emphasize the exact opposite: that James Bond simply doesn’t die. Skyfall continued this trope in a more realistic fashion, showing Bond using his presumed death as an opportunity to escape the world of espionage. The 2012 film was also attentive to Bond’s fragility in returning to service having not properly recovered, emotionally or physically. No Time To Die took this aspect of dramatization to an unprecedented extent with 007 meeting his demise. The character sustains, as James Bond will return, but the explicit visualization of his mortality presents a real problem for Bond 26.
While Bond’s death might seem the perfect foundation for a reboot by wiping the slate clean, this was not deemed necessary for Casino Royale. The initiation of a narrative arc for Craig’s Bond was not indicated by Pierce Brosnan’s final film, Die Another Day, and its unexpectedness perhaps aided its popularity among both fans and critics. Casino Royale repurposed the familiar franchise with a plot that is less preposterous and more dramatic than is traditional. How Bond 26 shall set the tone for 007 is already set to suffer because its story somewhat relies on a reset to the franchise – whether this reset is a partial or complete one is currently unclear. Bond 26 cannot pick up where No Time To Die left off, but it also cannot ignore the significance of audiences having witnessed 007’s death.
Bond 26 will see a new actor taking on the iconic role, but the intrigue of the film is manifested in its handling of the fallout from Bond’s death. A new perspective or direction may be necessary to resolve the lingering impact of the tragedy on both audiences and the franchise itself. A consistent triumph of the franchise is maintaining the ability to engage audiences even among a universal assumption that its protagonist would survive any life-threatening situation. Excitement is typically embedded in anticipation of how Bond will conduct his improbable survival. While No Time To Die continues the theme of Bond’s staunch professional success, his death has shattered the boundaries of what is possible in Bond films and therein disrupted audience perception of the types of stories the franchise intends to tell.
Bond 26 has the difficulty of following a successful arc with the requirement of incorporating change: a lack of tonal distinction, after all, would make Bond’s death seem even more incongruous. The realism of Craig’s Bond means that a reboot to traditional Bond film structures might seem unfashionable and dated. Continuation of the franchise’s recent style, however, would prevent Craig’s timeline from being completely separated as a cycle. If Bond was to die, only to have the character return to cinemas with much of the same tone and personality, it would be hard to understand what distinguishes a Bond film from other action films. Bond 26 bears the burden of needing to establish a new generation of Bond, unattached to the preceding films, yet not oblivious to the lingering impact of 007’s death for audiences.
