James Bond — movies in the past, one per decade, each with a different actor

“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make bored.” ― Ian Fleming, From Russia With Love. This was the quote that got me into the books, Moonraker being my favourite of the five I’ve read. It has nothing to do with the movie, by the way, which is considered one of the worst ones. They only went to space because of the success garnered by Star Wars. The quote is fitting because I feel the general audience is bored of the repetitiveness. Many of us grew up with a specific Bond, whether it was Brosnan or Craig, and developed a strong affinity for that particular actor. But how much cooler would it be if the audience born around 2020 were to grow up with five Bonds from five different eras, which they could debate over with friends. Nowadays you need that discord, especially online, or you won’t stay in the general consciousness as a franchise. So here’s my pitch to Amazon and particularly to the Broccoli family who fortunately still decide the direction of the franchise.

The new actor for James Bond who should be following Daniel Craig has not yet been announced. It’s a smart decision to wait for parts 7 and 8 of Mission: Impossible to wrap up because there are only so many spy genre blockbusters that the general audience can take. True, Cruise and McQuarrie have recently expressed their desire to continue with the ‘missions’ even after the eighth movie. But having such a keen eye on the audience experience, they know that this is all the audience needs to know going into the eighth installment a year from now. They probably want to kill Hunt or give an appearance of Hunt’s demise. This would not have an emotional impact if we knew he will be back for the next one. They are not that delusional to believe 70-year-old Cruise can still do the wide variety of stunts and especially the running sequences in a visually appealing manner. They also have a disdain for CGI and know the audience would see it as antithetical to the M:I franchise, so I would like to believe de-aging is out of the question.
In fact, I speculate that discussions between Paramount and the Broccolis have taken place, considering the market saturation for spy movies. Along with Jason Bourne and others, they recognise that the demand for spy films can only handle so much at any given time. Which is why the Broccolis haven’t yet cast the new Bond, even though Craig’s last came out in 2021. A situation very similar to Craig being cast wholly three years after Brosnan’s final film because of the success of the Bourne trilogy. They were uncertain about the new direction and the spy genre was heavily dominated by Bourne.

Bring Bond to the past? While Mission: Impossible should look into the future with its themes, McGuffins and gadgets…
Bond is basically the only franchise that could be looking into past political conflicts and offer a bit of a history lesson. Particularly needed for the 70s and 80s Cold War period that was whimsical with Roger Moore and surely provided some much needed escapism, but never quite captured the essence of that era.
McGuffins can play a crucial role in authentically depicting the importance of that time. Whether it’s a nuclear weapon, an energy crisis-related item, or valuable information, they can transport audiences back to the period and highlight what was deemed significant.
The focus for gadgets should shift from imagining future technology to showcasing what actually existed during each specific era. For instance, a movie set in the 60s could incorporate 90s technology. One set in the 70s could feature 2000s tech and so on. Why? I’ve always wondered how does Q know exactly how to provide Bond with the exact equipment he needs in a particular situation. It often felt as though the action scenes were conceived first, figuring out what he would need to get out of a pickle and then go back to give Bond what he needs. It’s not like the gadgets were inspired by the books, either. Thus, we can do whatever.
So why not give him whatever the writers can come up with based on the tech 30 years into the future and have Bond put them to use. He would have to use his wits and resourcefulness, figuring out how to utilize these specific devices in non-specific scenarios. Eventually, he could find himself utilizing technology similar to our everyday devices, creating a sense of familiarity for the audience. Going to see the film with one’s parents who grew up in the 90s, they could later explain how a certain piece of tech was used in everyday life.

Spy movies transporting us all over the globe is starting to lose its novelty because those exotic locales are just a Google search away and I’m sure soon easily immersible by VR. Not to mention, an increasing amount of people can afford to travel. Secondly, the general populace is becoming cynical about the future. Many believe in some sort of dystopia being upon us. Either has to do with Interstellar (global warming) or Ready Player One (social media and VR). So let’s give people what they want and provide escapism by going into the past, instead.

This was proven to be achievable with a fairly low budget by yet another great Guy Ritchie film, The Man From Uncle (2015). They should still be using real locations as often as possible but just like in “Uncle”, enhanced by stylised CGI for inaccessible locations and action.
Hell, get Ritchie to direct Bond! He seems eager to land a Bond movie if his final two outings are anything to go by, in a spy and war genre. The Man From Uncle depicted the 1960s just like the very first Bond so him making another one in that era would be fitting. He hasn’t lost his step either but having been tirelessly churning out content, he just needs to properly take his time to make it.
Considering he likes using the same actors and would still need some convincing, make Jason Statham into Bond for one movie. Picture a Bond in his 50s, a seasoned veteran who fought in World War II and emerged seemingly unscathed. This would offer a refreshing contrast to the trend of portraying aging heroes as miserable losers, as seen with Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi and Indiana Jones in Dial of Destiny. A huge but understated part for the commercial success of Skyfall and Top Gun: Maverick was that the elderly protagonist was still giving his best out there on the field, even though he was deemed irrelevant. For anyone starting to feel their age, this can be truly inspiring.

Having a different actor portray Bond in each movie can be compelling for several reasons. One argument is that in the initial film introducing a new actor, they often seem to relish the opportunity the most. This can be attributed to the fact that the character of Bond is not the most versatile and its novelty may wear off. Particularly for accomplished actors accustomed to playing a variety of roles. He’s a static character who doesn’t change, nor does he have much of an arc. Renowned actors like Daniel Craig often hesitate to commit to multiple films, as is seen in the case of MCU actors who caution newcomers against long-term contracts. In this context, the idea of portraying James Bond for a single movie can be appealing. It allows actors to dip their toes into the role, delivering their own unique interpretation, and benefiting from a substantial paycheck. This approach provides the opportunity for actors to showcase their talent in an iconic role without feeling tied down to a long-term commitment.
As mentioned before, the first movie is usually the best. GoldenEye for Brosnan and Casino Royale for Craig are widely considered to be superior. Obviously because in order to sell the audience on this new actor, they have to put in their best work and ideas. Interestingly, both films were directed by Martin Campbell.
A final note before diving in. While the Broccolis may prefer to cast relatively unknown actors in the role to ensure the audience associates them exclusively with Bond, there is a valid case to be made for considering established actors. With the increasing average age of known action stars like Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford , there is a case to be made that Hollywood is having a hard time finding new faces who would already have a following. Perhaps the Broccolis look to go in a similar direction, to make sure they can bank on the name of the actor as well as the IP. For the next 15 years, at least, before finding someone for the long haul. They might not even need to pay those known actors too much. Not like Craig, who probably only agreed to do “No Time To Die” because they promised to kill him off and they drove a dump truck full of 25 million up to his house. If they only promise to make one movie with the actor, who wouldn’t want to give iconic role a shot without being tethered to it?

Let’s explore the potential casting choices for Bond and his potential foil in each decade. Initially, Tom Hiddleston seemed suitable for Bond in the 60s, but upon further consideration, he could make an intriguing antagonist to Jason Statham. Hiddleston exudes a quintessentially English vibe, making him an ideal candidate for a classic, wealthy megalomaniac character. But a more unique approach could have Hiddleston portray an overly ambitious, self-centered politician who seamlessly blends into high society, while Statham’s character must conceal his ruggedness to do so. A great alternative to Tom Hiddleston would be Cillian Murphy, but let’s continue with Tom. His foil to Bond would not have participated in World War II, but would have experienced the loss of all his older brothers in the war. This tragic event weighs particularly heavy on his aristocratic father, leading him to become a drunk. Hiddleston’s difficult childhood provides him with a personal motivation to prevent another global conflict amidst the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The McGuffin here is information. At first, a Russian spy is set up to be the antagonist and as Hiddleston feeds him information, we doubt his allegiance. However, it is revealed that Hiddleston is actually providing false information to Russia, indicating to them that the West is not the true enemy. We then come to trust him, only for it to become clear that he intends to instigate a smaller war between Russia and an Eastern country. Framing the latter as the culprit. Hiddleston’s character envisions himself as the one capable of ending the Cold War by diverting Russia’s focus elsewhere. Despite his good intentions, his privileged upbringing has made him entitled and unaware of the extent to which he is in over his head. His inner motivation is to finally be appreciated by his father, akin to Odin in the first Thor. Serving basically as a glorified bodyguard, Statham’s Bond recognises this but his superiors don’t seem to. They do call Hiddleston in for a meeting to confirm Bond’s suspicions. Skillful in deception, Hiddleston passes their test and realises Bond is onto him. He hires a group of henchmen for Bond to go up against.
Eventually Statham’s Bond is forced to step against his orders to protect Hiddleston, thus he ends up killing him before Hiddleston can give up the final piece of false information to the Soviets. One that would have instigated them into starting a war with that Eastern country. However, having killed him after taking out his goons, the final tension comes from whether Bond can retrieve the suitcase from Soviets with that falsified information. If he can’t, he would be hanged for killing a prolific young politician. However, if he’s able to present that as evidence for Hiddleston’s true intentions then he will be exonerated. He, of course, succeeds retrieving it after taking out several KGB agents.
In the final conversation with M, it turns out that MI-6 knew about the ploy by Hiddleston and wished he had succeeded. Bond is disillusioned and resigns— revealing the contrast between Statham’s icy exterior and his strong moral compass. Bond expresses that having witnessed the horrors of the Second World War, he would prefer facing annihilation by a nuclear explosion rather than being complicit in the initiation of yet another devastating war. He carries scars that have deeply impacted him, even if he doesn’t openly display it.
The dynamic would be similar to the first Kingsman, where a rich foil (Charlie) has an easier time because of his natural suaveness and friends in high places. Hiddleston is working together with Statham as Bond in the second act while we see him scheming. It is in the third act where Bond fails to convince his superiors about Hiddleston’s plan and has to go it alone. This structure mirrors the protagonist-antagonist relationship in Mission: Impossible — Fallout, where the IMF fails to convince the CIA about Lark’s true identity.

For the 70s, it would be cool to see Michael Fassbender, considering his previous portrayal of a 60s-era Bond-like character in X-Men: First Class. When Statham was much more of a disciplined sportsman, Fassbender could use his classic cold persuasiveness as a ladiesman. While ruggedness remains part of his character, Fassbender would exude an approachable nature in social circles while Statham acts more as a bodyguard in his film. Fassbender’s Bond would fit seamlessly into high society, showcasing humor and a lighter demeanor. Speaking of which, having seen a couple interviews with him and James McAvoy, he should honestly do more comedies. Case in point, here’s the next Taika Waititi film. Fassbender Bond’s weakness could be similar to Brosnan — he can be rather susceptible to women and hence the choice for antagonists.
The mission revolves around preventing another Vietnam War. The antagonist would be a powerful female megalomaniac, portrayed by Olivia Colman, who possesses great wealth and influence but remains unsatisfied. To aid her cause to basically take over a country and use its cheap/slave labor, she employs a dangerous femme fatale, played by Anya Taylor-Joy. In an intriguing twist, Taylor-Joy’s character could even be the daughter of Colman’s character, adding an emotional element to the narrative. The death of Taylor-Joy’s character could set Colman on a personal revenge mission during the third act. As a femme fatale, Taylor-Joy’s character would not engage in direct hand-to-hand combat but instead rely on methods such as sniping or the use of poisons as her preferred weapons. This approach is dictated by her mother, who prioritizes her safety. Taylor-Joy’s character would use her sex appeal and utilise espionage gadgets to outmatch Bond. In order to avoid being traced back to Colman, they deploy anonymous goons for physical confrontations. Fassbender’s Bond had a loving relationship with his mother before the death of his parents, so dealing with them takes an emotional toll on him.

Unfortunately Idris Elba is probably too old and he would say so himself, but I’ll still float the idea for the 80s. It is intriguing to explore the idea of having a black Bond in that particular decade. To differentiate from what came before, perhaps set the second act in Florida in all of its Miami Vice glory and move to the Caribbean for the third act. The plot should have a smaller scale, akin to Dalton’s Bond films like “License To Kill.” It would delve into the theme of the drug influx from South America and the immigration of Cubans. Given the historical context, addressing the issue of race would be essential. The 1980s marked a period when British intelligence sought to recruit individuals from diverse ethnic backgrounds, aiming to enhance diversity within their ranks. Thus, sending Bond to Florida would align with his profile as a potential candidate to infiltrate drug trafficking networks. The movie could explore his journey of attaining his 00-status before the mission begins, much like Craig’s Bond in Casino Royale.
In Florida, Bond would also confront racial violence and discrimination that persisted during the 1980s. Elba’s Bond could be portrayed as an agent who faced inferior treatment from his comrades due to his race. However, he would have overcome these challenges, becoming a superior spy through his tenacity and intellect. Recognizing his skills as an assassin, his commanding officers frequently assign him to perilous missions. Unbeknownst to them, Bond’s survival is primarily attributed to his charm and wit rather than sheer physicality. That being said, he has always been focused on his mission so the womaniser aspect of Bond has only arisen recently. Elba could perfectly portray his inherent confidence without trying too hard. In contrast to his past self he does take more of these chances as he feels like he’s earned it, starts to feel his age and wants to enjoy life before retiring or an untimely death.
His antagonist could also be something akin to “License To Kill”. Either a Latin-American or African-American, who is a dark mirror to Bond. He would have to be someone even more imposing that Elba. If Esai Morales wasn’t in the next Mission: Impossible then I would go with him. But obviously it’s not a dealbreaker. Both characters have faced discrimination but have made different choices in life. We would expect for Idris Elba’s Bond to falter and doubt his superiors who have no regard for his life, but he never does. Not for a second. Illustrating that you can always decide to be the bigger man by not having anger originating from your past take control.

For the 90s, I would go for either Tom Hardy or Aaron Taylor-Johnson because they could both be passed off as Russians infiltrating the KGB. However, considering the age factor and the supposed antagonist, it seems that Aaron Taylor-Johnson would be more suitable. We would start the movie with the Berlin Wall collapsing. As the Soviet Union strives to regain power, they utilise their remaining assets. Including spies embedded within MI6, of which one is portrayed by Richard Madden.
Not only that, Madden is also 006 to our 007 and they have both just been “brought in from the cold”. Bond helped end the Cold War from the inside and he believes the mission to finally be over. Like other agents, they are now both doing clean up by exposing Soviet spies embedded in MI6. Only for 006 to be exposed by accident by a fellow double agent. They then both try to kill Bond who barely escapes the confrontation. Madden’s 006 is just as coldblooded as Bond but he has no sense of loyalty. It turns out that while there, Madden’s 006 was turned by simply convincing him that there would be more equality due to communism. He was an easy target, due to being disillusioned by the rise or capitalism in the 80s while his salary remained static. Similarly to the 80s film, here we have two men who have both grown up relatively poor compared to their peers but chose to take different paths in the end.
While the audience may already suspect Madden to be the traitor, even though he’s a likeable character, the story progresses with Bond gradually uncovering the truth. The film maintains a sense of suspense as the audience becomes aware of the antagonist’s identity ahead of Bond’s realisation.

For the 2000s, it has to be Henry Cavill. For one, he would be the most physically imposing Bond yet just like Craig was in Casino Royale. And two, they were the final two candidates for Bond back in 2005. However, Cavill was only 22-years-old which is way too young unless you wish to do an origin story. But this is not what Bond is about. That being said, considering how much Hollywood has come to love telling origin stories I would be surprised if we never got one. Perhaps if Disney got its hands on it.
Considering that Cavill would be the last Bond of the proposed era, the movie could start in 2002 and then jump forward to 2012, allowing Cavill’s Bond to experience the era as if he had been chosen instead of Craig. This would be a really nice thing for Cavill, who has not always received favorable treatment from the franchises he has been a part of, such as the DCEU and The Witcher.
In 2002, Bond eagerly joins the war effort as part of an elite group of soldiers deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. With gritty cinematography reminiscent of Extraction, the audience follows Bond on missions that prove instrumental in capturing the equivalent of Osama bin Laden in this film’s narrative. Despite having studied at Oxford and believing he can contribute more than his Navy SEAL-type teammates, Bond’s eagerness leads him to disregard orders to stand back. As a result, the terrorist leader manages to escape. Having realised how close he was to being captured, the leader goes into hiding for years. As he simply continues to operate from the shadows, this elongates the war. This weighs heavily, so he starts drinking as Bond does but he also decides to devote his life to the cause and use humour as a masking device for his guilt. This would help distinguish from his character in The Man From Uncle, who faced no guilt for the past crimes he had committed.
The story then jumps ahead ten years, when the war efforts have faded from public consciousness. The clean cinematography and Bond’s outer layer is a massive juxtaposition to the time before. In the middle of a yet another mission, he discovers a clue for finding that same leader that got away. However, both the general public and the intelligence community believe him to be dead, much like bin Laden. Thus, Bond doesn’t get the permission to after him — they have bigger fish to fry as he gets assigned a new task. And yet, defying orders, he goes after the leader instead.
I’m not sure of the choice given his age, but it would be a Ben Kingsley type. In Iron Man 3 he played a terrorist but I could not take him seriously. Under a different direction, he could have a great dynamic with Cavill as they can both exude intelligence but Kingsley could be more subtle and gentlemanly. That being said, he has held great personal contempt for Bond because he was forced to leave his homeland due to being such a hot target. And so, he set up his operations elsewhere. The only way for him to support his cause was to finance it but the recession of 2008 brought down everything he had built. He was in shambles and getting older by the day, so he desperately looked for ways to accelerate his efforts. In a startling move in the middle of a conversation, Cavill takes out his henchmen and pretty much beats the truth out of Kingsley.
He reveals to be working with Silva, the antagonist from Skyfall. We see a reference to this in the first scene with Silva where he tries to convince Bond to join him: “If you wanted, you could pick your own secret missions, as I do … Name it… name it… Destabilize a multinational by manipulating stocks …easy. Interrupt transmissions from a spy satellite over Kabul… done. Rig an election in Uganda… all to the highest bidder.” I know that this would be another terrible way for Hollywood to make a whole movie about one line in a beloved film in a franchise. But I just can’t help feeling this could be as epic as Rogue One being based on a line from A New Hope. In other words, to have this line essentially describe Cavill Bond’s mission.
Like I said before, the Afghanistan war efforts are no longer constantly in the public’s consciousness in 2012. So this is an opportune moment in Kingsley’s eyes to disrupt the flow of information through the satellites and unexpectedly turn the tide in the Afghan war. So that he could return home as a hero. This manipulation of satellites is, of course, averted by Cavill’s Bond.
The theme here is something I’ve wondered, how do the soldiers feel when their peers at home stop talking about the war effort? With their daily lives in no way changing, do they no longer feel appreciated? Perhaps a bit like both Cavill and his antagonist feel now? Having resolved his guilt and worked tirelessly for 10 years, Cavill’s Bond will be presumed dead in the end of the movie and retire off like Craig’s Bond planned to do at first.

The movie ends with a real kicker that deals with the Bond mythos. The mission that Cavill’s Bond was assigned but refused to undertake was actually related to Silva, the antagonist in Skyfall. It is indeed intriguing why, in 2012’s Skyfall, they didn’t have anyone other than Craig’s Bond to choose from for this particular mission. There didn’t seem to be a special relationship between Craig’s Bond and Silva that would have necessitated his involvement. It is being said that “it’s a young man’s game” but for some reason they just didn’t have any of those young men available at this moment? I actually like the idea of not having intelligent patriots to choose from anymore, who would be willing to devote their life to their country. But it’s still weird, so my only assumption is that Silva was wreaking havoc around the world just like with Kingsley’s antagonist so that all agents would be distracted on their individual targets. And that’s why MI-6 had no choice but to bring in an “elderly” Craig’s Bond in Skyfall.

But wait, with Craig’s Bond back… are there now two Bonds running around? My proposed film would take place during the 3-month period where Craig’s Bond was assumed dead after the pre-credits scene. Thus, Craig’s Bond would return right after Cavill’s death/retirement. But other than that… there would indeed be two Bonds.
Fans have often discussed whether Bond is a codename assigned to the new agent as the old Bond retires or dies. Our 2002 Cavill’s character would have a different name in Afghanistan and the audience wonders why. It is not explained as we simply jump to 2012 where he is now Bond who has taken over the mantle from Craig who was presumably killed on his pre-credits mission in Skyfall (released in 2012).
However, Craig’s parents were also named Bond and his gamekeeper Kincade called him James Bond as if it’s his childhood name. But that was all pre-Internet. MI-6 must have realised that in a time where information about spies could online… why would spies using their actual names in an era where information is easily accessible online. The use of a codename like James Bond allows for a level of anonymity and protection for the agents and their families, as it becomes more challenging for adversaries to target them by exploiting personal information.
Perhaps to honor Craig’s Bond (his real name), the following best spy for MI-6 at any time period will be changed to James Bond. For Cavill and the rest, it consumes their identity in a way that they have to view their parents as Bonds. That’s the only way the antagonist will believe that Bond had a family in his childhood but no longer has one. Which makes Bond scary because this is a man who has lost everything at an early age but doesn’t seem at all shaken by it. Not even stirred (my apologies, I just had to).
Giving the best agents this codename would also create a frightening mythos over time. Similarly to Batman, it could be a mantle passed on over generations.

Due to his age, it will be difficult to have Cavill play Bond five movies from now. Unless they would be made in short succession, a movie every two years. Assign a different writing team and a director to each, who will be doing all the pre and post-production.
Even with a revolving door of approaches, there are certain aspects of Bond that should always stay the same. Why Casino Royale is so revered is because of a Batman-like duality Bond has. In his case, between a gentleman and a cold-blooded killer. He can come out of an R-rated fight and after a quick change of clothes, attend a gala. Craig’s performance also made this dichotomy seem difficult and thus it resonated with many.
It is a valuable lesson, for young men and women alike. Maintaining composure and acting with a certain grace in all situations. Bond’s ability to navigate both gritty action and sophisticated social settings showcases the power of mastery over oneself. By the end of the day, you are the only thing in the world that you can control. Everything else you can only react to.