Reboot? Remake? Retro? Which direction should the series take next?

After the match is before the match.

With the Craig era coming to a conclusion, we not only face the question who should play the next Bond, but also in which direction the series should go.

I put this into the NTTD spoiler section for now (as it could be difficult to discuss certain aspects without spoilering NTTD), will be moved to the forthcoming B26 section later.

So, what do you think?

Just go on with the show, ignore the Craig era and proceed as usual?
The Bobby Ewing solution?
Start from scratch with a new 007 winning his license again?
Or should they now start remaking the old ones, or faithful adaptions of the novels, maybe even delve into continuation novel territories?
Would it be better to keep the Bond movies taking place in present day (or five minutes into the future), or would it be a good idea to give people back their father’s (or grandfather’s) Bond, go the retro route and make them as period pieces?

So many options, and certainly much more opinions. What’s your’s?


My immediate gut says back to business as normal, ignoring this continuity. Ideally I’d like to see a gradual build up of Spectre from shadowy presence to full on Blofeld face off. I suspect I may be on my own there however!

1 Like

Soft reboot, in the way Moore/Dalton/Brosnan. Make a purely stand alone adventure, allowing Craig’s run to be a mini-series of its own. It’s better for Bond 7, as it shows he’s not Craig’s Bond, and in no way is trying to be.


I want the next one to open on a swanky bedroom. The door creeps open as an unseen figure slowly enters, the shadow casting large over the occupants on the bed. Suddenly the Dou Dou comes crashing down on Bond’s head, jerking him awake to find Mathilde standing beside the bed laughing as Daniel Craig sits up, pulling his daughter into a hug. Swann then wakes up and Bond informs her that he just had the most horrible nightmare.



It’s a tough ask given the amount of ground covered by the Craig era, but I think they should create a new narrative which could sustain 3-4 films with the next Bond, introducing a new nemesis who can reoccur as needed.

They need to a make a fresh backstory which doesn’t lean on the major Craig plot points - Vesper, Madeleine, Mr White. I also think the DB5 probably needs to be retired at this stage. There’s only so many times it can be bashed up and repaired.

As to whether they continue with Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris and Tanner - I’m happy enough to keep them going. They’re all excellent in the roles and it would be a shame to jettison them just for the sake of an entirely clean slate.


Retro won’t sell any wristwatches or telephones, so I suspect it’l just be a sort of rebooting.


Omega might get away with “retro” watch…once

1 Like

The next era should start with a Bond who’s already established in his job. James Bond does not need an origin and is only diminished by efforts to give him one. I don’t want to see him “grow into the job,” I want to see him competent from day one.

He should be assgined to a high-stakes mission and this time it is NOT personal.

Treat each new film as a stand-alone story, not reliant on the previous entry for direction or, as has more often been the case, hobbled by the need to “fix” it.

Much as I’d like to see a “period piece” Bond set in the 1950s, there’s no way EON would ever spend that kind of money without being able to offset the cost with product placements, and nobody’s going to pony up the cash to push Studebakers and bakelite radios. For sure I’d want to avoid the 60s, for fear of giving the impression the Connery/Lazenby years are being “rewritten.” So that leaves us with a contemporary setting, which is fine.


I’d personally love the series to return to ‘one-and-done’ stories, some being more light hearted, some being more serious. I don’t need or want multi film arcs.

Something with the Craig era that has struck me is how influenced by other franchises the films seemed to be: CR ('06) influenced by Batman Begins ('05), QoS ('08) influenced by Bourne ('02-'07), Skyfall ('12) influenced by The Dark Knight ('08), and Spectre and NTTD influenced by the Marvel/Expanded Universe trend. For as original the Craig era is heralded as it was quite reactionary to cinematic trends. The current cinematic climate still seems to be very “world building” and “connected universe” centred so I wonder if that’s a hint that the next era of Bond films will be interconnected.
The upcoming Star Trek: Strange New Worlds series is making a point of being episodic (quite unique for a TV series these days, and something I’m very excited for), so perhaps stand alone stories may be be coming back into fashion…


See; James Bond films

1 Like

Put me down for this too, and set in the modern day.

The ‘codename theory’ is an annoying and pointless discussion that I believe has still never been validated. Craig’s Bond is a seperate universe and another will begin.


It’s The Dark Knight Trilogy to the Burton/Schumacher run.

He says like EoN weren’t very open about that.

OR IS BRUCE WAYNE A CODE NAME?!?!?!?! :roll_eyes:


I would not want yet another “origin story” with a young OO making his way up.

But I most of all would not want a "Is Bond relevant? / Can he be trusted? " type of plot as we’ve had non-stop since DAD.
Whatever route they go, I want to see Bond being Bond, being the best at what he does, and doing it with style.


When Roger Moore took over everybody made the deliberate decision to set him apart from Connery.

And with Craig now being considered as the most influential since Connery it would be the wisest idea to follow the example of Moore.

There might even be actors who don’t want to be too serious as Bond. But they all will want the character and the films to have a certain gravitas… and Oscar winners as villains.

Me, I want stand alone adventures, no explaining how Bond became Bond (it‘s been done anyway - and how could one tell that in a different way without us thinking of CR?), and a new Mi6 crew because one M being different in two eras was fine, but Moneypenny, Q and Tanner being now different versions as well… how could that be pulled off?

1 Like

Hey, what if they found a way to tell us that Bond is actually not dead? He made a miraculous last-second escape and now it’s business as usual for new adventures?..

Just joking of course. Even if they wanted to do that, and I strongly doubt it, Bond is too much of a wreak anyway in NTTD (which is one of my main issues) to just go on for around round.

It would dilute NTTD completely.


Don’t forget that in the Craigverse, Bond was already “broken down” and “over the hill” at the start of Skyfall, which means he’s been running on fumes for two and a half films already. So unless they’re planning to cast another 50-someting actor to follow him, there’s no way to build on that continuity.


The Craig run leans hard on OO agents being young and not living to see 40.


I don’t see that being too far fetched, maybe Bond 7 quips on how he escaped the island in the Nick of time. Just a reference made in passing if they don’t go back for a reboot that is.

Better than Flemings “he died…but he got better”