The James Bond movies kicked off with Dr. No, which wasn't an origin story, and the franchise was better off for it. James Bond is the most successful film franchise in movie history and No Time To Die will be the 25th "official" Bond movie when it hits theaters in April. No Time To Die is Daniel Craig's fifth Bond film, and it's believed to be his last one starring as secret agent 007, but Craig's tenure is also set in a rebooted continuity that began with 2006's Casino Royale, which was his Bond's origin story. Yet for the 44 years before Craig donned the tuxedo, in which his five predecessors played 007, James Bond didn't have - or need - a cinematic origin story.
Originally, the Bond movies were (loose) adaptations of the novels by 007's creator Ian Fleming until the filmmakers simply ran out of source material and had to craft original stories for the super spy. Before Casino Royale, which was, ironically, the first James Bond novella, and which wasn't adapted in an "official" capacity until 2006, the James Bond movies held to a shaky continuity where it was generally assumed that each Bond actor, originating with Sean Connery and concluding with Pierce Brosnan in 2002's Die Another Day, was portraying the same character. The Bond movies played fast and loose with James' career timeline during and after the Cold War but several of the films referenced his past adventures and even his tragically brief marriage to Tracy Di Vincenzo (Diana Rigg), tying the saga together. (Although many fans hold to the theory that 'James Bond' is a codename and it was a different person taking on the 007 moniker with each actor switch but the franchise has never acknowledged this belief as correct.)
However, much as he did in the novels, James Bond arrived in movie theaters already an experienced and dangerous secret agent at the top of his game. Until Craig's movies, fans never learned the details of what made James Bond the way he was and that info simply wasn't necessary to enjoy watching him take on the megalomaniacal super-villain of the moment, from Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe) to SPECTRE's mastermind, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, himself. Indeed, it was only after the movie industry itself changed and James Bond's competition began to overtake him that the franchise decided to start over and rebuild 007 from the ground up. But for over 40 years, James Bond didn't need moviegoers to know his origin in order for him to thrill audiences with his license to kill.
Why Sean Connery's James Bond Didn't Need An Origin Story
When producers Harry Saltzman and Albert "Cubby" Broccoli teamed up to bring James Bond to the silver screen, they (along with United Artists) selected Dr. No to be the first novel they would adapt. Dr. No was the sixth book Ian Fleming wrote, which involved 007 traveling to Jamaica to stop a Chinese madman named Dr. Julius No from destroying America's missile program, and it was decidedly not an origin story by any means. Instead, moviegoers in 1962 would simply meet Sean Connery's James Bond and follow him along on what was, to 007 at first, just another dangerous mission he executed for Queen and country. According to dialogue between Bond and M (Bernard Lee) at the start of Dr. No, 007 had already been the British Secret Service's top agent for 10 years.
Yet no one clamored to learn the origin of James Bond and he didn't need one. 007 simply was; Bond was handsome, dashing, and sophisticated, but he was also a ruthless killer when he had to be. It was enough for fans (especially males) to live vicariously through Bond and thrill to his provocative mix of sex and violence, where 007 romanced any beautiful woman he wanted and killed any bad guy he pleased, all at his discretion. James Bond traveled the world - and saved it, facing down danger with unflappable style and a dash of wit. The details of Bond's childhood, how he joined MI-6, and what he did to earn his license to kill weren't necessary to enjoy his escapades, nor were the filmmakers interested in offering this information.
Dr. No's Fully-Formed James Bond Was Right For 1962
While James Bond's character and stories were derived from Ian Fleming's novels, the original 007 films were also a product of a different era of filmmaking where origin stories were rare. Most movie heroes arrived fully-formed; for example, audiences never learned why Rick (Humprey Bogart) in Casablanca left the United States before he landed in Paris and, later, French Morocco. When Dr. No premiered in 1962, the majority of cinematic leading men carried secrets from their past that colored their stories, but their origins were rarely shown on-screen. Further, Ian Fleming didn't detail James Bond's beginnings in a novel; the closest readers got was an obituary by M that contained facts about Bond's upbringing when 007 "died" in You Only Live Twice. (This information was partly adapted for Bond's backstory in Skyfall.)
In fact, the producers chose Dr. No as the first Bond movie because it would be "the easiest... in terms of below-the-line costs" (i.e. Dr. No would have a manageable $1-million budget and shooting locations would be limited to Jamaica and Pinewood Studios in the UK) and Saltzman and Broccoli hoped that the film would be successful enough that they'd be able to adapt the rest of Fleming's novels. But in terms of the film itself, what was of paramount importance to the filmmakers was that Dr. No established the cinematic style of 007's glamorous and deadly adventures and that audiences instantly accepted the then-unknown Sean Connery as the dashing secret agent, not tell any kind of origin story.
While reviews were initially mixed, Dr. No was a box office smash that earned over 20 times its budget, and Connery won over fans worldwide (and he is still considered the quintessential version of James Bond). The years have been kind to Dr. No, and it's now regarded as a taut, efficient thriller and a fine introduction to 007. Later, the Bond movies would begin with 007 finishing up a previous adventure before starting the new film's main story - this conveyed that the James Bond franchise was always moving forward and not looking backward at Bond's past.
Why Casino Royale Had To Be An Origin Story
However, by the 2000s, the cinematic landscape had changed. Not only did 2002's Die Another Day end Pierce Brosnan's run as James Bond with cartoonish excess, but that same year, Matt Damon debuted as Jason Bourne. The Bourne movies supercharged the international spy genre with newfound immediacy and blistering violence, centering on a flawed and tortured hero. Further, superhero movies started to become the dominant movie genre, especially after Sam Raimi's Spider-Man set box office records in 2002. A hallmark of superhero movies was the origin story, detailing who each masked crime-fighter was and the trauma that led them to fight evil after they received their special powers. With James Bond in need of a 21st-century makeover, the 007 franchise had to adapt and respond to both Jason Bourne and the proliferation of superheroes taking over the big screen.
The result was Casino Royale, an origin and reboot of James Bond that went back to the beginning to depict how he earned his Double-0 status and his first adventure - and it worked like gangbusters. With Daniel Craig in the role, Bond became more emotionally damaged and vulnerable to suit the new era; though he's the most physically fit 007, Craig's secret agent could be hurt emotionally and physically, he could bleed, and he could fall in love and have his heart broken (which hadn't happened since George Lazenby's Bond married and lost Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Audiences and critics responded to Casino Royale with raves, calling it one of the greatest Bond movies ever, and hailed Daniel Craig as the best James Bond since Sean Connery.
Casino Royale's reboot unshackled Bond from the continuity that started with Dr. No and allowed Craig to start anew: 2008's Quantum of Solace saw Bond reconcile his emotional fallout from Casino Royale. 2012's billion-dollar blockbuster Skyfall then filled in the details of James' traumatic origin and showed Bond literally burning down his childhood home. In 2015's Spectre, Blofeld (Christophe Waltz) was reintroduced as Bond's adoptive 'brother' who was "the author of all of Bond's pain" and Craig's films were retconned to be one macro-story that will now conclude with No Time To Die.
Will The Next James Bond Need A New Origin?
What happens after Daniel Craig is no longer James Bond remains to be seen. Will the next actor portray a continuation of Craig's version? Will the franchise double back and somehow 'restart' the original Bond continuity, with the new actor picking up where Pierce Brosnan's 007 left off? Or will the next James Bond receive a brand new origin and his own continuity, thereby starting the third official James Bond movie timeline?
It may be a dicey proposition for Craig's successor to get a new origin because multiple James Bond beginnings could be as unwelcome to fans who are similarly tired of seeing Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man's origins repeated ad nauseam. However, it may also be necessary for the next James Bond to have a clean break from Craig's wildly successful films in order to forge a new path. Yet for many longtime 007 fans, the simplicity of how James Bond burst onto movie screens fully-formed and already perfect in Dr. No can never be equaled.
