Remember when Daniel Craig was announced as the new James Bond, and the British tabloids acted as though somebody had orchestrated an elaborate assassination plot because he was blond? I don’t, given that I was three months old at the time. But recent developments about the impending direction of the 26th James Bond film are making me oddly nostalgic for a storm in a teapot that I don’t even remember. Having acquired the property of James Bond in 2022, Amazon has taken complete creative control of it – a measure that producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, whose family had the rights to the franchise since 1962’s Dr. No, resisted for a long time. That’s putting it delicately, in fact – back in December of 2024, Barbara reportedly referred to the Amazon executives she’d been having creative dealings with as “f****** idiots.” Don’t hold back, Barbara – tell us what you truly think!

“Each actor’s interpretation of the role has brought a unique flavour, and each actor has existed on his own wavelength, temporally and culturally”

Indeed, the shift from family-business-production-house EON to corporate megastructure Amazon isn’t exactly offering the best prognosis for Bondian creative individuality. As a Variety article has pointed out, the James Bond franchise’s “TV, licensing, spinoff and interconnected cinematic universe potential remains unmined;” but is that negative? Each actor’s interpretation of the role has brought a unique flavour, and each actor has existed on his own wavelength, temporally and culturally (I find it hard to picture Daniel Craig in an invisible car, or Roger Moore tucking his long-lost love child’s stuffed toy into his belt on a nanobot-infested island). But more than that, the films have always had a few key components on which to build an entertaining narrative – Bond, his female accomplice, M, a suitably camp villain, and occasionally Moneypenny, Tanner and/or Q – and modern spin offs are unfortunately synonymous with an ever-expanding web of watered-down side characters. And while product placement has never exactly been absent from James Bond movies (“Rolex?” “Omega.” “Beautiful”), cinephiles would like to think that such a distinctive cultural creation isn’t being completely abandoned to the commercialistic tentacles of Jeff Bezos and co. – that a healthy balance could be struck between artistic idealism and corporate sell-out.

The Variety article’s emphasis on “TV and licensing” is a particularly worrying sign of the times. Now that streaming is more easily available and widespread, and binge-watching episodes of TV shows in quick succession is more normalised than sitting through movies for their full, uninterrupted run time, I fear for the beauty of the two-hour James Bond film, in which the audience can be transported from London to Macau to Shanghai to Scotland and back again in an experience that’s lovingly curated by a director with an individualistic vision. Many people no longer seem capable of maintaining proper cinema etiquette, either; when watching Baby Girl on the big screen, several audience members were yelling and exclaiming at the screen if they didn’t like what a particular character was saying, as though they were under the impression that they were sitting in their own living room. Cinema culture is being eroded bit by bit, and, frankly, I think that the last thing needed by a new generation with already-depleted attention spans is for one of the most popular and iconic film series of all time to be divvied up into television.

“I think that the last thing needed by a new generation with already-depleted attention spans is for one of the most popular and iconic film series of all time to be divvied up into television”

When the Daniel Craig incarnation of James Bond was blasted to the next world by some infinitely confusing missiles, having already been shot and infected with deathly nanotechnology (it’s like Boney M’s ‘Rasputin’ at the end of No Time To Die!), many people wondered if the character of James Bond was actually dead, given that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all spared. My automatic mental response to these queries has always been “Don’t be silly. Of course the character isn’t dead,” but with every news development on the subject, I lose a little bit more hope. Cinema in general needs a fresh breath of life, and a calculating billionaire with only profit in mind will not be responsible for that resuscitation.

Complementary ‘Next James Bond’ guess: I would say “Not Henry Cavill,” but who knows at this point? He is Superman after all – a very commercially bankable figure. I love Idris Elba, but he’s 52. My personal choice would be James Norton, who can do both ‘scary’ and ‘emotional’ incredibly well.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form