I opened up my childhood Bond collection recently, and the memories came flooding back. Traipsing across small towns to complete my collection of Corgi miniature cars in blister-packs. Bringing home an almost certainly unlicensed 007 cap gun from a family visit to Germany. Collecting up swipe-action ID cards – they must have been the ‘in’ thing around the turn of the millennium – from numerous Bond exhibitions, some featuring a photo of 10-year-old me.
This kind of trip down memory lane is something to which every generation of Bond fans can relate, except maybe the children of the Craig generation; it’s slim pickings in the 007 Store’s ‘for kids’ section right now.
It’s too easy to say Bond merchandising has merely become about the adult stuff like fancy clothes and boutique suitcases. After all, the high-end brand tie-ins were there all along. But one senses that in years gone by, children were at least amply catered to. The same cannot be said today.
The idea of the next James Bond film being a ‘period’ film, set in the 50s or 60s, would only make this trend worse.
I enjoy learning what each generation of young Bond fans found most exciting about the world of 007. But I would also like to find the same joy in seeing what appeals to fans younger than my 34 years, for a change. It strikes me that the primary proponents of ‘period Bond’ are those who have enjoyed decades of nostalgia already.
It’s not just about wanting children today to have the experiences we had. The future success of Bond, in material terms, relies on appealing to new audiences. There is a term for the alternative: cultural fracking. Pumping money into the cracks, seeing what sediment floats to the top, and extracting it for the same audience until it finally shrinks up. Mining the lore of an intellectual property for all it’s worth, instead of ever really innovating again.
Maybe I’m worrying too much. If the films turned back towards ‘milk chocolate’ Bond, they might engage younger audiences naturally. Maybe the problem of Bond’s relevance to youth is a blip. In fairness, I don’t know if I could imagine Daniel Craig’s bloodied face on a can of Pepsi either.
But winding the on-screen world of Bond back 70 or even 80 years will not breathe new life into it.
The beauty of Bond is that it is an ever-expanding theme park, not a museum. Like in Disneyland, each actor brings a new area to the park. Conneryland already has the smoky rooms and attaché cases. Brosnanworld added a dash of futurism and a whole bunch of swipe cards. Craig Street seems a little one-way in comparison, but we love it for what it is.
We know Bond will regenerate. The question is: will the audience? Ask yourself: what do you imagine the 10-year-old Bond fans of the future playing with? Now ask yourself: is it a double-breasted jacket and a candlestick telephone?
A period Bond means resigning 007 to history. We should have more faith in our hero’s ability to rise to the challenges he faces today.
Last modified: 13 January 2026
