As Broccolis, the long-serving producers of James Bond franchise, step back, and Amazon MGM Studio steps in, the world’s most famous spy faces his biggest mission yet — staying relevant
The name is Bond. James Bond. For over six decades, the James Bond franchise — comprising 25 films, from Dr. No (1962) to No Time to Die (2021), which raked in over $7.8 billion at the box office — has been produced by one family: the Broccolis. It was American producer Albert “Cubby” Broccoli’s vision that transformed Ian Fleming’s literary spy — the only gentleman secret agent with a license to kill, and thrill — into cinema’s most enduring action hero; tuxedo-clad, martini-sipping (shaken, not stirred), and with a weakness for ingenious gadgets, pulse-pounding car chases, and beautiful women — both allies and adversaries.
Albert co-produced the first nine films (until The Man with the Golden Gun, 1974) with Canadian producer Harry Saltzman. Albert’s daughter, Barbara Broccoli, and stepson, Michael G. Wilson, inherited the keys to the Aston Martin and steered the franchise through reinvention after reinvention, adapting 007 for new generations. Now, as they step aside and Jeff Bezos’ Amazon, which acquired the MGM Studios for $8.5 billion in 2022, takes creative control, a fundamental question arises: Can Bond survive without the dynasty that nurtured him?
The Broccoli family’s stewardship of the action franchise meant that it was maintained as a brand that revelled in an air of mystique, sophistication, and a distinctive British identity. Unlike other long-running franchises, which bowed to the pressures of changing trends in cinema and the demographics of the viewers, Bond has always felt distinct; neither a superhero nor an easily commodified action star. Under the Broccolis, the franchise refreshed itself without feeling like a corporate product.
The spy who came in from the Cold (War)
Twenty-five years into the 21st century, it’s almost impossible to grasp the sheer impact of Dr. No when it first hit theatres in 1962. The world was at a boiling point — Cold War tensions loomed large, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was just weeks away. With every new headline bringing the possibility of nuclear annihilation closer, a suave, unflappable British spy who could dispatch villains scurrying for cover, with wit and precision, felt like wish fulfilment.
James Bond, with his impeccable tailoring and lethal charm, was a new hero for Britain in the throes of a changing world order. The timing couldn’t have been better. While Marilyn Monroe’s tragic death signalled the end of Hollywood’s golden age of glamour, Bond arrived just in time to usher in a different kind of cool. Before Dr. No, most spies in films were solemn, trench-coated men in the shadows — grim figures caught in the murky waters of World War II and its aftermath.
Also read: Sean Connery, the first James Bond, dies at 90
Alfred Hitchcock had played with the genre, introducing intrigue and panache into films like Notorious and The Man Who Knew Too Much, but it was his 1959 masterpiece North by Northwest that arguably paved the way for Bond.
Cary Grant’s debonair protagonist — mistaken for a spy, thrust into a whirlwind of chases, seductions, and international intrigue — set the template for a secret agent who would soon ensnare the world. Unlike the cerebral, morally ambiguous world of John le Carré’s novels, in which spies were often haunted by betrayals, Bond’s adventures were thrilling, escapist; lavish sets, exotic locales, and high-stakes action made espionage look glamorous.
The appeal of Bond, as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton said many years apart, lay in the fact that it felt reassuring to audiences to know a secret agent like James Bond was there to take care of the Queen as well as making the world safe for democracy. From Sean Connery’s effortless charisma and the sun-drenched Jamaican setting, everything about Bond felt fresh, exhilarating, and undeniably modern in Dr. No. The film’s success laid the foundation for an empire, proving that espionage could be fun, sexy, and spectacular.
In the uncharted waters
Like the Marvel or DC releases, Bond has always been an event, every spectacle every few years. Now, with Amazon in charge, the spectre of franchise fatigue seems imminent. If the overdose of Mirzapur and Sacred Games taught us anything, it’s that too much of a good thing can lead to disenchantment and eventual disappointment.
Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson may still have a stake in Bond’s future as co-owners under the new joint venture, but the reality is clear: algorithm-driven decisions are in. Will Bond now be written by data analysts studying streaming trends? Or will Amazon MGM understand that some things — like a well-tailored tuxedo and a perfectly delivered one-liner — should never go out of style?
For Indian cinephiles, this shake-up is a lesson in how franchises evolve. As Bollywood struggles with endless remakes, Bond’s next chapter might just offer a roadmap for how to do it right. After all, whether in London or Lokhandwala, the fundamental question remains: can the world’s most stylish spy survive reinvention without losing his asli (real) swag? The Barbara-Wilson partnership was defined by an acute understanding of the character’s evolution. They ensured Bond remained shielded from corporatisation.
The Broccolis also mastered the art of casting. If Connery oozed out the characteristic charm of the 1960s, Roger Moore exaggerated that charm into campy excess; Timothy Dalton brought a literary darkness; Pierce Brosnan exuded suavity like no other; and Daniel Craig stripped Bond down to his wounded core. With them stepping back, Bond now finds himself in uncharted waters.
A spy in a world of superheroes
No Time to Die, directed by Cary Fukunaga, had a surprisingly intimate emotional core, stripping away the invincibility that had defined 007 for so long. The screenplay — by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge — wove together classic Bond elements with unexpected tenderness, showing us a hero who could be both brooding and wryly self-aware.
The film’s tonal dexterity — swinging from camp humour to outright horror — echoed Dr. No, but it also exposed the franchise’s willingness to interrogate its own mythology. We came to know that Bond was also a man with regrets, attachments, and, ultimately, a mortal end. In charting romance, loss, and even fatherhood, No Time to Die forced us to reckon with the limits of the Bond fantasy — an unprecedented move for a series built on perpetual reinvention.
In an era dominated by sprawling cinematic universes and billion-dollar franchises, Bond’s place in popular culture — whether we admit it or not — feels increasingly precarious. The last decade saw espionage thrillers morph into action extravaganzas, with Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One — based on the 1966 TV series created by Bruce Geller, and featuring Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, an agent of the Impossible Mission Force — and John Wick: Chapter 4 (both released in 2023) pushing stunt work to near-superhuman levels.
Meanwhile, Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) and Dune: Part Two (2024) have proved that audiences now expect visual innovation on an epic scale. Against this backdrop, No Time to Die (2021) marked a dramatic shift for 007: Bond can be vulnerable, emotional, even fallible.
Also read: Black female as new 007: Why it shouldn't shake or stir us
What has kept Bond alive for over six decades is not just his ability to adapt, but the enduring fantasy he represents. While Marvel and DC heroes fight intergalactic battles and resurrect fallen characters with multiversal loopholes, Bond remains tangible. His enemies may have grown more complex — Skyfall (2012), believed to be the best since Goldfinger (1964), explored personal betrayals, Spectre (2015) tied his past to a larger conspiracy — but he still operates in a world of grounded stakes.
Mystique versus mass appeal
Bond doesn’t wield superpowers, nor does he rely on CGI-driven spectacle to define his character. In an industry increasingly dictated by IP-driven franchises, Bond’s singularity is his greatest strength. Whether Amazon MGM can maintain that mystique or dilute it in pursuit of mass appeal remains the real question.
A very stilted and half-baked Quantum of Solace (2008), the second Bond film featuring Craig, made us wonder if the spy is a relic of the bygone era. That question was resolved, at least temporarily, with No Time to Die, which gave Bond the most definitive ending he’s ever had. With Daniel Craig’s exit in No Time to Die, and Amazon having arrived on the scene, the question that has become all the more urgent is: Who will don the tuxedo next? Henry Cavill? Tom Hardy? Aaron Taylor-Johnson? Idris Elba? James Norton? Whoever comes on board, one thing is certain: the 007’s biggest mission yet will be staying relevant.
In the post-#MeToo era, Bond has to be tailor-made, in sync with the demands of a more self-aware audience. While the franchise has undoubtedly come a long way, giving us capable female leads like Lashana Lynch’s Nomi in No Time to Die, it still carries the baggage of its past. Women are often disposable and racial stereotypes go unchecked. Watching You Only Live Twice (1967) and Live and Let Die (1973) today, we’d wince. In an age when even legacy franchises like Indiana Jones are struggling, Bond’s challenge is trickier: he is not a superhero, nor can he remain a symbol of 1960s’ machismo. Bond’s singular appeal — an elite, debonair spy with British swagger and traits — risks feeling like an artefact unless the franchise finds a way to modernise his mythos without stripping him of his essence.
