James Bond’s identity crisis: the real decision Amazon must make

Amazon MGM’s real task isn’t finding a new James Bond, but deciding what James Bond is.

It has been just over a year since Amazon MGM took over creative control of James Bond, but so far there is little visible progress.

Of course we have new producers, a director has been appointed, and a writer signed. And that writer, Steven Knight, has indicated in interviews that the script is progressing well. So we can’t truthfully say nothing has moved. But because it sits almost entirely out of view, without visible milestones, that’s how progress on Bond 26 often feels.

Discussions on the future of James Bond often focus on the director, or the yet-to-be announced actor. With no solid news to get their teeth into, and a vacuum in place of a current James Bond, it’s completely natural for fans to discuss whether Denis Villeneuve is the right fit for Bond, or who might be the best replacement for Daniel Craig.

But while it can be fun to discuss the pros and cons of each choice, and what it might mean for the next iteration of 007, such discussions overlook the real issue. Comments on social media, YouTube, and email suggest that there is no real consensus on what James Bond should actually be right now.

Bond has changed before

Sean Connery established the template, combining high stakes with a dry, effortless wit. Roger Moore leant further into humour, often pushing the character towards outright absurdity. Timothy Dalton pulled Bond back towards the harder edge of Ian Fleming’s original vision, while Pierce Brosnan blended that edge with a smoother, more polished style suited to the post-Cold War era. Daniel Craig then pushed the character further still, becoming the first to fully explore the personal cost of Bond’s work.

Since 1962, despite new actors, directors, and shifts in tone, the Bond films have followed a recognisable pattern. Continuity existed behind the scenes, and although the production team changed several times over the decades, the changes tended to be gradual. Evolution, not revolution.

That continuity created boundaries within which everything needed to work. But with Amazon MGM now in control, the structure around Bond has shifted, and that continuity is much less certain. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson are no longer shaping the films. The point of reference that has guided the films for six decades – the hand of Cubby Broccoli – is gone.

And with no current James Bond actor, the audience is no longer reacting to a version of Bond that exists on screen. Instead, they are left to define what Bond should be before that version has taken form.

A divided idea of Bond

If there is no shared understanding of what Bond is, the next question is what people think he should be. The answer, based on recurring patterns across online discussions, is not a single direction but a set of competing expectations shaped by what Bond has been and what different viewers want him to become. Three tendencies appear again and again.

A more serious Bond

The first is a continuation of the direction established by Casino Royale, which remains the reference for a modern interpretation of the character. This is a much more serious take on Bond that prioritises credibility and aligns with modern expectations of character-driven storytelling. But it comes with a trade-off. As the tone becomes more grounded, Bond risks losing the escapism that once defined the series, and can begin to blend into the wider field of contemporary spy thrillers.

After the Daniel Craig films, many fans expected the next era to be lighter, with a greater emphasis on humour. The choice of Denis Villeneuve to direct, however, complicates that expectation. His past work leans towards the psychological and the controlled, suggesting a direction that may continue to explore the personal cost of Bond’s work.

A return to the classic formula

The second is a return to the classic formula associated with Connery, Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan. Each film is a self-contained story, without multi-story arcs. This gives us a confident, composed Bond in a film that provides a balance of tension and humour. The appeal here is clarity, with a tone that is immediately recognisable, a familiar structure, and the films accessible to a wide audience.

The limitation is equally clear. Without careful handling it risks feeling repetitive, out of step with current expectations, or simply retrograde.

A period Bond

The third is a period Bond, set in the 1950s or 1960s and closer to the world of Ian Fleming. Although this is an idea largely driven by fans, both Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino have pitched ideas for Bond films set in the 1960s. While the idea of a period Bond may appear similar to the classic formula, those films were always in the present day.

Dropping Bond back into the 1960s as a Cold War spy largely removes the need to constantly update Bond for the present day. Although the attraction is obvious, a period setting limits contemporary relevance.

Taken together, these positions point to something more fundamental. Bond is no longer being interpreted within a single stable framework. Fans are redefining Bond in multiple directions at once.

The same tension on a bigger stage

One of the appeals of James Bond has always been the mixed tones. Connery could be brutal, yet flip the tone instantly with a quip. Think of when he spearguns Vargas and jokes “I think he got the point.”

Roger Moore was much lighter generally, but he sometimes had a hard edge, such as when he helps Locque’s car off the cliff, something Moore himself was uncomfortable doing. Pierce Brosnan went from grounded in Goldeneye to moments of sheer fantastic absurdity in Die Another Day. Audiences accepted it, because it’s what was expected of James Bond, part of the contract between filmmakers and audience.

But something not in that contract was Bond’s death in No Time to Die. And with a change so fundamental, with audiences’ expectations dashed — especially after the additional eighteen-month pandemic pause — followed by Amazon MGM taking over creative control, Bond fans don’t know what happens next. Will it be a deviation from the old road, or a completely different road?

Until that’s answered, fans’ imaginations take over. For some, everything is catastrophic. For others, they are in a state of bliss where everything they dreamed Bond could be will happen. That divide expresses itself most visibly in arguments about casting and directors. But those arguments rarely resolve, because they are not really what people are arguing about.

Why the debate keeps circling

Bond fans currently have a studio, producers, a director, and a writer. What they don’t have is an actor. It’s rare to be in this situation. Sean Connery announced You Only Live Twice would be his last appearance as Bond, yet George Lazenby was cast without much delay — On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was released just two years later. Lazenby announced he wouldn’t return; Connery came back in 1971. Then Live and Let Die arrived in 1973 with Roger Moore. There were no long periods without a James Bond. Even after the delays that followed Licence to Kill, Timothy Dalton was still James Bond right up until the moment Pierce Brosnan was announced. And Brosnan remained in the role after Die Another Day, expected to return for a fifth film, right until the point that he suddenly wasn’t.

Those earlier gaps existed in a different world. News travelled more slowly, fan communities were dispersed, and opinions didn’t collide in real time. Today the conversation is instant and global. Every uncertainty gets amplified, every argument finds an audience, and the absence of an answer feels louder than it ever did before.

But the director and actor arguments aren’t really about the director and actor. They reflect the anxieties of the unknown. What will the tone, structure, and setting of Bond 26 be? Amazon MGM are themselves an unknown in this mix. It’s a lab experiment, and we don’t know what’s going into the test tube. Shake it – don’t stir it – and what do we get?

We won’t know until the premiere. And because the underlying questions can’t be resolved, neither can the arguments. How could they be? The disagreement isn’t about an actor or a director. It’s about what James Bond is.

What actually needs to be decided

James Bond needs to be recognisable as James Bond. He needs enough of Bond’s traits that we feel continuity despite his death. This is a new Bond in a new timeline — a reboot, whether or not that is made explicit. But it needs to be careful not to overdo those traits and tip into parody.

Over the last thirty years, Eon was often guilty of piling Bondism on top of Bondism until it broke under the weight. The drink, the gun, the cars — audiences knew all of this about James Bond. But those elements didn’t appear in every film until Brosnan, and then Craig. The worst example is the DB5, which has been badly overused. It worked in Casino Royale, and Goldeneye almost pulled it off. But when every film has the DB5, every film has “Bond, James Bond,” and every film has “shaken not stirred,” it becomes too much. The audience already knows. Subtlety is not weakness, but respect for what came before.

At his core, James Bond should always be anchored in what Ian Fleming created. There are real differences between Fleming’s Bond and every screen incarnation — Fleming’s Bond comes from an extremely privileged background, something that has been toned down for the films and arguably made Bond more relatable. But the core remains the same. A man with a military intelligence background, working for the British secret service, with a licence to kill. Who gets to enjoy luxury to soften the toll that the violence of his profession takes on him. The scars, both internal and external. The soft life he abhors, balanced by the hard life he has volunteered for — and which he believes will eventually kill him.

Bond doesn’t need to be one thing. It never has been. But it needs to know what it is at any given moment. It should be entertaining without losing stakes, recognisable without becoming self-parody and, above all, rooted in Fleming without being imprisoned by him.

What version of Bond comes next?

Right now, the producers, the director, and the writer need to decide what the next era of James Bond looks like. Not what James Bond himself looks like, although that will come, and hopefully sooner rather than later. They need to balance the serious with the playful and decide the stakes, and what they mean for Bond and for the world. Are the threats truly global in nature, or something smaller and more personal? From Russia With Love or Moonraker? Who will Bond face, and who will help him?

These are the real questions. Not the casting, not whether Denis Villeneuve was the right choice. Those debates are proxies for something more fundamental — what James Bond is in Q2 of the twenty-first century.

And there is more riding on it than reputation. At the end of 2034, Fleming’s copyright expires. While Eon’s trademarks — the gunbarrel, the Bond theme, the Aston Martin gadgets — will remain protected, other versions of James Bond could emerge. Getting this era right is the best defence against that. Make a Bond so definitive, so clearly itself, that no rival version is worth attempting.

The question was never who plays Bond. It was always what Bond is. That’s what needs to be answered first.