The producers of the James Bond franchise say they want at least one decade’s commitment from the Bond 26 007 actor, but this might not be the best way for the series to approach the role. Many actors would give anything to play James Bond. The suave super-spy is one of cinema’s most iconic heroes and, as he celebrates his sixtieth year on the screen, undoubtedly one of the most enduringly popular leading men ever created.
However, that has not stopped actors from turning down the part of James Bond before. Whether it was Clive Owen demanding a cut of each movie’s profits or Liam Neeson opting to spend more time with his wife and family, a surprising number of actors have considered the option of playing 007 and ended up choosing against taking on the role. Now, a recent interview with the James Bond franchise producers has given any actor vying for the lead role in Bond 26 even more reason to pause and reconsider.
In a Variety interview with James Bond franchise producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson, the pair vetoed the idea of a one-off 007 appearance and instead said that any actor who signs on to play Bond needs to commit for over a decade. Per Broccoli, “when we cast Bond, it’s a 10-, 12-year commitment.” The James Bond franchise’s producers appear adamant about this point, with veteran producer Broccoli noting that many actors are interested in playing James Bond once and think that this could be a fun prospect, but saying “that ain’t gonna work.” However, while these comments make it clear what the James Bond franchise producers want for the series, they don’t clarify whether this is the right path for the franchise. Surprising as it may seem to some long-time viewers of the series, the James Bond franchise’s critical reception offers a pretty favorable argument for short-term James Bond actors who only stick around for one or two movies.
Why Bond’s Producers Want A Long Commitment
The James Bond franchise’s producers want a long commitment from the next 007 actor because of the changing economic landscape of television and cinema. Not only is television now almost as appealing to actors as movie stardom, but James Bond hopefuls like Tom Hardy can also headline numerous blockbuster franchises at once. While this makes it easier than ever for actors to gain fame and acclaim, it means that producers can be left waiting for months at a time as their star is tied up shooting a competing franchise’s latest release. The fact that Hardy, for example, could conceivably play 007 while also simultaneously starring as Mad Max, playing a role in the MCU, and headlining numerous TV shows could be part of what led the producers to insist on a longer commitment from the outset. With the sheer size of Star Wars, DCEU, and the MCU, it’s easy for stars to get snapped up between movies and the James Bond franchise’s producers want insurance against this.
How Long Earlier Bond Actors Stayed
Both Daniel Craig’s James Bond and Roger Moore’s 007 were long-lasting takes on the character, with the former lasting fifteen years and the latter lasting twelve. However, Craig’s tenure was artificially lengthened by pandemic-related release delays. In contrast, Timothy Dalton was a far briefer James Bond while George Lazenby had the shortest tenure in the role by far, playing James Bond in only one movie. Finally, Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery set the average with their 7 and 9-year runs (continuously, at least). Broccoli and Wilson are looking for a tenure longer than the standard that Brosnan and Connery set at 10-12 years, but they are asking for less than the time that Daniel Craig spent in the role. While it is up for debate whether James Bond's age matters in 2022, this particular prerequisite is likely to rule out older actors who might have aged out of the part before their decade-long commitment to the role elapsed.
Why Shorter Bonds Can Succeed
Despite the demands of the franchise’s producers, Bond 26 and its sequels might benefit from a less long-lasting James Bond actor judging by the reception of the series of far. In the case of Timothy Dalton’s 007, a shorter reign as James Bond let the actor’s version of the iconic character reinvent the tone of the series radically without worrying too much about critical reactions and potential fan anger (since Brosnan brought back the playful campiness of Moore’s Bond so soon after). In the case of George Lazenby, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service took an even bigger risk. While the first post-Connery movie didn’t explain James Bond’s changing face, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service did prove that the James Bond franchise could tell a story that completely redefined the character. Giving 007 a wife and killing her off tragically in the same movie was a bold, daring move for the movies, but effectively resetting the canon by changing Bond's actor again only one movie later was an even more surprising decision.
Why James Bond’s Next Actor Shouldn’t Last So Long
Shorter-term Bond actors allow for more creative risk-taking. While longer-lasting James Bond actors allow viewers to establish more of an emotional connection to the character, it could be argued that the 007 movies have been over-relying on this emotional connection in recent outings. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service wouldn’t have worked with Connery’s Bond, and changing actors allowed the series to tell a different type of story, a tonal shift that couldn’t have been pulled off in the middle of Craig or Moore’s time in the role. In contrast, Craig's James Bond movies established a serialized story across the actor’s outings in the role and this made each of the 007 adventures a darker, more self-serious experience.
While this was appropriate for the franchise back in 2006, in 2022, James Bond could benefit from lighter, more fun-focused standalone movies. This is entirely achievable if the James Bond producers get comfortable recasting the character more regularly, meaning the tone of the series would always be subject to change. However, insisting upon holding onto one Bond actor for over a decade at a time is a recipe for stagnation. Much like Daniel Craig’s canon-heavy 007 movies were a breath of fresh air a decade ago, lighter, sillier adventures would be a welcome change now. The best way for the James Bond movies to make this change is for the series to start replacing 007 more regularly.