Why Bond 26 Needs To Break A Franchise Rule
With the end of Daniel Craig's tenure as James Bond in No Time To Die there is a genuine case for Bond 26 to break one of the franchise's rules. No Time To Die provided an emotional climax to Craig's James Bond story arc, which began with Casino Royale and continued through Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre. The long-form storytelling over these five films, which was unique within the franchise, allowed audiences to gain a deeper understanding of Daniel Craig's James Bond and, by extension, the reasons underpinning the conclusion of his story.
In No Time To Die, James Bond was faced with an impossible choice. Having been shot and infected with the Heracles virus by Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek), Bond sacrificed himself to save the world and, more specifically, Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) and their daughter Mathilde (Lisa-Dorah Sonnet). Knowing that his infection by the virus meant that the slightest touch from him would kill the two people he loved most, he did not try to escape the impending firestorm of Navy missiles raining down upon Safin's base.
Related: Ana De Armas' Paloma Should Return (But Not In Bond 26)
This was the first time a James Bond had died onscreen, and some have suggested that it should not be mentioned in future movies. This would undoubtedly be consistent with what has happened before when the actor playing James Bond has changed. Even so, there is a strong argument that Bond 26, and whoever takes over the role, would benefit from acknowledging the death of Daniel Craig's incarnation of James Bond. This would also potentially allow for the acceptance of the long-held theory that 007/James Bond is a codename or honorific title given to spies over the years. In this way, it can offer
Read more on screenrant.com
