The Future of Old Franchises

[Mercurius]

This sort of riffs off of this post in the Stranger Things thread. Basically I'd like to speculate about the future of old franchises, whether currently active, ending, in limbo, or dead (and likely to be revived).

The three that come most readily to mind are Jason Bourne, James Bond, and MCU 2.0, aka "The Mutant Edition." For this post, I'll just cover Jason Bourne and the Bourneverse, and then talk about Bond and MCU in a follow-up. For these entries, I start with a brief recap of the franchise and what we know about the current status (or what I could find with a bit of cursory research), and then go into speculations about possible futures.

JASON BOURNE
After the dud that was Treadstone (I didn't watch it, but assume it was cancelled for a reason)--and the overall pattern of decline from the original great trilogy (2002-07) to the solid but Bourne-less The Bourne Legacy (2012) to the meh rehash that added nothing interesting or new in Jason Bourne (2016) except the exquisite Alicia Vikander, and then to the flop tv series (2019)--one would think the franchise was kaput. But then in 2025, after the rights expired in March, Universal re-purchased the rights to the franchise for a reported nine-figure deal in August, which means they're going to do something with it. There are lots of Jason Bourne books that haven't made it into film. I believe the original plan was to use Treadstone as a jumping-off point for new films, but it wasn't commercially successful. But Universal must have a plan; they've got hundreds of millions invested in it.

The main problem: Well, Matt Damon. Everyone likes Matt Damon, but he's 55 years old and doesn't quite have the box office draw of ten years ago, though he's still quite active and entered "Hall of Fame working actor" status. He's hardly the spring (or at least summer) chicken you want to headline a franchise that redefined action cinema for the 21st century. Now 61-year old Keanu Reeves still pulls off John Wick, but that can only continue for so long; but Keanu has at least one more film in the books (JW 5) and while I didn't see it yet, Ballerina was supposedly pretty good. But as one article (can't remember which) mentioned, the main lesson from The Bourne Legacy and Treadstone is that the franchise is synonymous with Matt Damon, so Universal must figure out ways to work with that. Plus, that same article pointed out that he's headlining Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey next year, so that should give him a boost in terms of visibility.

The good news: There's lots of material to draw from. While Robert Ludlum's original three books were exhausted by the trilogy, Eric Van Lustbader wrote 11 more (including Legacy) and Brian Freeman 8 more and counting. Having not read them, I can't speak to their quality, but I believe the Ludlum books were changed enough that I don't see why the later books couldn't at least provide source material to draw from.

The options: First, what I wouldn't do: redo the original trilogy with a new actor (cue arguments about Jane Bourne). Matt Damon is Jason Bourne, maybe even more than Sean Connery was James Bond. Sure, the role doesn't require the most dynamic actor and you could equal or surpass the trilogy in terms of pure cinematics. But given today's world, 2002-07 isn't that long ago and the films still stand strong (in a similar way that you couldn't really successfully remake Lord of the Rings...at least not for the foreseeable future). So I see three options, in rough order of likelihood (imo):

• OPTION A: Continue with Damon and expand outward. Bring back Old Man Bourne as a starting point - make him central to one film, or start up a series, and then expand outward with other characters - Treadstone/Blackbriar agents, or former agents. Bring back Jeremy Renner, while you're at it, and--if possible--Jason Straithairn and Joan Allen--at least in limited roles (Pamela Landy and Noah Vosen age too!). You don't need to continue with these characters, but they would ground it as feeling like a return to the Bourneverse. Maybe bring in characters from other programs in different countries.
• OPTION B: As Above, but Damon-less. This would be the contingency plan if Damon isn't willing to help restart things - maybe he's busy, or maybe he feels he's too old, or maybe he doesn't want to do it if he knows he'll be phased out. But the same basic idea applies: Not a reboot, but a continuation. This is more risky as it is the Bourneverse without Bourne, and you need the right characters, but it can be done.
• OPTION C: Continue with new actor. This would probably involve doing a Superman Returns and going back to the end of the trilogy and filling out the missing 12 years of Bourne's life. You cast a guy in his 30s and go from there. Jason Bourne is sort of just left ambiguous as to whether it is the future that Bourne ends up at, or just an alternate "Bourne tale" - it wouldn't really matter. You can still expand the Bourneverse like in Option A & B, but the key is that it remains centered on Bourne, just not Matt Damon.

I have no idea what they plan, whether films or tv series (or both), or what direction they'll take. Of the options above, I do think that A is the most likely, mainly because of the Damon Effect, with B and C about equal. But if they really want to remain focused on the character of Jason Bourne, they'll probably need to go for Option C, which is riskier.

 

[Mercurius]

JAMES BOND
What We Know: Nothing. At least as far as I can tell, and beyond the fact that Craig Bond died so anything they do will be a complete reboot, even if still known as Bond 26. We also know it will be James, not Jane.

The Big Question - Who?: According to a brief AI-augmented search, Callum Turner (35) seems to be the current darling. But for gits and shiggles, I asked Chat GPT to create a top 10 speculative list, in order of likelihood, as of the end of 2025. Here is what it came up with:

Actor	End-of-2025 Age	Notes / Why They’re in the Mix
1. Harris Dickinson	29 (born June 24, 1996) (Wikipedia)	Strong mention on GQ and casting lists; fits the reported under-30 push. (British GQ)
2. Jacob Elordi	28 (born June 26, 1997) (Wikipedia)	Frequently cited on Amazon’s “wish list” and speculation roundups. (GamesRadar+)
3. Callum Turner	35 (born Feb 15, 1990) (Wikipedia)	Longtime favorite rumoured by multiple outlets, including GQ. (British GQ)
4. Aaron Taylor-Johnson	35 (born June 13, 1990) (Wikipedia)	Bookies favorite and major rumoured contender; has action experience. (MovieWeb)
5. Regé-Jean Page	37 (born April 27, 1988) (Wikipedia)	Frequently floated fan-favorite; strong screen presence. (British GQ)
6. Jack Lowden	35 (born June 2, 1990) (Wikipedia)	Considered in rumour discussions and fits a traditional British spy profile. (British GQ)
7. Joe Quinn	31 (born January 26, 1994) — age approximate	Emerging star with strong recent roles; mentioned in Vogue lists. (British Vogue)
8. Finn Bennett	~26 (estimated mid-20s)	Younger rising actor cited in Vogue’s potential contenders. (British Vogue)
9. Dev Patel	35 (born April 23, 1990 — not officially in our search results but widely known)	Suggested as a compelling choice due to action credentials in recent speculation. (British Vogue)
10. Theo James	41 (born Dec 16, 1984) (Wikipedia)	A historical contender with past rumour mentions, though less likely under the under-30 push. (British GQ)

Chat GPT followed up by saying, "Denis Villeneuve is set to direct the next Bond film, with many outlets reporting a preference for a relatively unknown or younger British actor in his late-20s to early-30s."

Notice no mention of Henry Cavill (42) or Tom Holland (29), presumably because Cavill is getting a bit long-in-the-tooth for a reboot and Holland is too...Peter Parkerish. I think the ship has long sailed on Tom Hardy (48) and Idris Elba (53), who would have been oldish for a reboot ten years ago (especially Elba).

When? Another search pointed out that Villeneuve is filming Dune 3, which is set to release at the end of 2026, and that casting for Bond will really get going in 2026, with some suggesting mid-year. It also seems that Amazon has a list of seven candidates. Filming wouldn't begin until late 2026 at the earliest, with a release date likely sometime in 2028. Meaning, you really need to add about 2 years to the age of any of those actors, which starts making James, and maybe even Page, Patel, Lowden, Turner, and Taylor-Johnson as less likely.

Finally, the WHAT - Who knows. The films long ago departed from Ian Flemings' books, both in terms of plot and vibe; I believe that The Living Daylights was the last film that was directly based off a book, aside from Casino Royale (I also just discovered that Quantum of Solace was named after an early short story, though I'm not sure if it shares and plot similarities).

That said, because Casino Royale was such a successful re-visioning, I see no reason they can't re-do books into a contemporary idiom. And Skyfall in particular proves they can make great Bond films without Fleming stories.

Threading the Needle: One thing they'll have to figure out is how to make Bond, Bond, while still making him palatable to modern audiences. I think they can look to Daniel Craig for that - he was still Bond, but fell in love and had his heart broken, while still being manly and with several love interests. Meaning, Bond doesn't have to be a womanizer, nor does he have to be totally revised to not offend anyone.

In summary...A lot depends on who they cast. They've got a great director, one who (thankfully) is able to visually tell a tale, without overly obvious socio-political subtext or tribal signaling (one way or the other). Meaning, we can be reasonably sure that he'll make a good story-first film with Bond fans front and center. My guess is that they reboot in a similar fashion to Casino Royale: Bond on an early mission; if they go young enough, they could even present his first - but too young and don't want to risk "Boy Bond." But an actor in his late 20s to early 30s could still be a Bond who might have served in the military or some other fashion, and only become "007" in his early 30s.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'd say we are far enough from the Damon films that you could totally start over with a new actor. But I could be wrong.

 

[Koloth]

Bourne - Plot Twist - Bring Matt Damon(Jason Bourne) back as the leader of <program name here>. After all, Bourne has a lot of knowledge about how the thing can go wrong. Maybe the direction change is trying to do the program in a good way but things still go wrong. Would allow a new actor to take the role of the victim agent.

Bond - I do think that James Bond should stay a James. But there are more 00's then 007 so maybe there could be a Jane Grant(pick a last name) 006, and branch the series off. Would allow a 00 with a different personality then Bond while not irritating those that think Bond should stay Bond.

 

[Zaukrie]

This sort of riffs off of this post in the Stranger Things thread. Basically I'd like to speculate about the future of old franchises, whether currently active, ending, in limbo, or dead (and likely to be revived).

The three that come most readily to mind are Jason Bourne, James Bond, and MCU 2.0, aka "The Mutant Edition." For this post, I'll just cover Jason Bourne and the Bourneverse, and then talk about Bond and MCU in a follow-up. For these entries, I start with a brief recap of the franchise and what we know about the current status (or what I could find with a bit of cursory research), and then go into speculations about possible futures.

JASON BOURNE
After the dud that was Treadstone (I didn't watch it, but assume it was cancelled for a reason)--and the overall pattern of decline from the original great trilogy (2002-07) to the solid but Bourne-less The Bourne Legacy (2012) to the meh rehash that added nothing interesting or new in Jason Bourne (2016) except the exquisite Alicia Vikander, and then to the flop tv series (2019)--one would think the franchise was kaput. But then in 2025, after the rights expired in March, Universal re-purchased the rights to the franchise for a reported nine-figure deal in August, which means they're going to do something with it. There are lots of Jason Bourne books that haven't made it into film. I believe the original plan was to use Treadstone as a jumping-off point for new films, but it wasn't commercially successful. But Universal must have a plan; they've got hundreds of millions invested in it.

The main problem: Well, Matt Damon. Everyone likes Matt Damon, but he's 55 years old and doesn't quite have the box office draw of ten years ago, though he's still quite active and entered "Hall of Fame working actor" status. He's hardly the spring (or at least summer) chicken you want to headline a franchise that redefined action cinema for the 21st century. Now 61-year old Keanu Reeves still pulls off John Wick, but that can only continue for so long; but Keanu has at least one more film in the books (JW 5) and while I didn't see it yet, Ballerina was supposedly pretty good. But as one article (can't remember which) mentioned, the main lesson from The Bourne Legacy and Treadstone is that the franchise is synonymous with Matt Damon, so Universal must figure out ways to work with that. Plus, that same article pointed out that he's headlining Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey next year, so that should give him a boost in terms of visibility.

The good news: There's lots of material to draw from. While Robert Ludlum's original three books were exhausted by the trilogy, Eric Van Lustbader wrote 11 more (including Legacy) and Brian Freeman 8 more and counting. Having not read them, I can't speak to their quality, but I believe the Ludlum books were changed enough that I don't see why the later books couldn't at least provide source material to draw from.

The options: First, what I wouldn't do: redo the original trilogy with a new actor (cue arguments about Jane Bourne). Matt Damon is Jason Bourne, maybe even more than Sean Connery was James Bond. Sure, the role doesn't require the most dynamic actor and you could equal or surpass the trilogy in terms of pure cinematics. But given today's world, 2002-07 isn't that long ago and the films still stand strong (in a similar way that you couldn't really successfully remake Lord of the Rings...at least not for the foreseeable future). So I see three options, in rough order of likelihood (imo):

• OPTION A: Continue with Damon and expand outward. Bring back Old Man Bourne as a starting point - make him central to one film, or start up a series, and then expand outward with other characters - Treadstone/Blackbriar agents, or former agents. Bring back Jeremy Renner, while you're at it, and--if possible--Jason Straithairn and Joan Allen--at least in limited roles (Pamela Landy and Noah Vosen age too!). You don't need to continue with these characters, but they would ground it as feeling like a return to the Bourneverse. Maybe bring in characters from other programs in different countries.
• OPTION B: As Above, but Damon-less. This would be the contingency plan if Damon isn't willing to help restart things - maybe he's busy, or maybe he feels he's too old, or maybe he doesn't want to do it if he knows he'll be phased out. But the same basic idea applies: Not a reboot, but a continuation. This is more risky as it is the Bourneverse without Bourne, and you need the right characters, but it can be done.
• OPTION C: Continue with new actor. This would probably involve doing a Superman Returns and going back to the end of the trilogy and filling out the missing 12 years of Bourne's life. You cast a guy in his 30s and go from there. Jason Bourne is sort of just left ambiguous as to whether it is the future that Bourne ends up at, or just an alternate "Bourne tale" - it wouldn't really matter. You can still expand the Bourneverse like in Option A & B, but the key is that it remains centered on Bourne, just not Matt Damon.

I have no idea what they plan, whether films or tv series (or both), or what direction they'll take. Of the options above, I do think that A is the most likely, mainly because of the Damon Effect, with B and C about equal. But if they really want to remain focused on the character of Jason Bourne, they'll probably need to go for Option C, which is riskier.

Ballerina was very good, and they can absolutely launch more. That said, what a dumb universe.

 

[Basic Expert]

I love a good action flick, but I don't think either Bourne or Bond have much left in the tank.

As for Bourne, even the original creative team couldn't think of much to do with this character so they ended up making the same film like 5 times. They changed out the scheming intelligence bosses and underdeveloped rival assassins, but that's about it.

As for Bond, I have no faith in Amazon making any compelling story choices for the character. The only promising news is the involvement of Denis Villeneuve, who might be able to bring a strong enough vision block any corporate meddling. He also knows drama and spectacle so it will likely been directed well. But from a story perspective, with Bond being killed off in the last Craig movie, you're looking at a total reboot completely unconnected from the previous movies. It's a hard narrative break unlike anything they had to contend with previously.

Can they find a place in the modern world for Bond? Can they put him in a story that seems new and relevant? I have my doubts.

Honestly, I'd rather get the next Bourne or Bond rather than another Bourne or Bond, but I am sadly not in the position to greenlight any films. Though after watching Seth Rogen in The Studio I don't think I want to be a studio head, so it's all for the best.

 

[Deset Gled]

What about Shrek? Prime for a comeback (the original fanbase is going to want to introduce it to their kids soon). Open for spinoffs. Tons of opportunity for toys, shows, and video games. The potential here is huge. Apparently Shrek 5 is in production, but the release date is being pushed back and rumors of issues abound.

As for others, IMNSHO a huge thermometer to test the future of an action franchise is Fortnite. Does the next generation of your audience care about your franchise? If they do, it will have a successful Fortnite skin and possibly other tie ins. John Wick has appeared multiple times. Star Wars, Superman, the MCU, Predator, and even Indiana Jones have appeared. But no Bourne. Does the 67 generation even know who that is?

 

[Mercurius]

And another...This one took longer, because I found myself getting lost in various internet threads and multiverses....

THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE, aka MCU 2.0: THE MUTANT VERSION
First, a caveat. I've sort of fallen away from the MCU since Endgame. Of the 14 Phase Four to Six movies, I've only seen four: Eternals, Spider-Man: No Way Home, Deadpool & Wolverine, and The Fantastic Four. I haven't seen any of the tv series. So what follows is drawn from those films only, as well as my own speculations and that of others that I've read on the interwebs.

I sort of see Phases One to Five as MCU 1.0, with Phase Six as transitional, and Phase Seven as MCU 2.0. But it seems the official framing is in three phases: The Infinity Saga, The Multiverse Saga, and...the upcoming Mutant Saga? I use the term "MCU 2.0" because I think the gap between the second and third saga will be far larger than between first and second. (NOTE: While editing this post, I came across this article...I guess the term Mutant Saga wasn't so original).

Regardless, Phase Seven will be something new - the first part in a new saga of some kind.

What We Know:

• Mutants are here (or will be). It was revealed that Namor and Kamala Khan are both mutants, so we know the gene exists in Earth-199999 616 (I find it annoying that the films stole 616). We also know we'll be seeing some of the old actors, both X-Men and early MCU. I don't know if we know how they'll fit in, but they'll be in at least one of the future films.
• The Fantastic Four are here, or will be - presumably through the Doomsday/Secret Wars storyline.
• 2026 Films: Spider-Man: A Brand New Day, Avengers: Doomsday; Wonder Man series.
• 2027 Films: Avengers: Secret Wars.
• Future Films (post-Secret Wars): Blade, Shang-Chi 2, X-Men, Fantastic Four 2, and Armor Wars series.

I'm sure there's more (2027 seems kind of light), but that's what I found on a brief search. It seems clear that 2026-27 will be focused on setting the new direction, but will do so with the help of past actors. MCU 2.0 won't fully start until 2028, with the presumed release of the new iteration of the X-Men.

The Secret Wars duology will bring everything together and set the new path forward. I'm guessing that they'll be an uber-extravaganza, with nearly every past character involved, if only in cameos. Doomsday, in particular, also gives them a chance to change direction in 2028 and beyond if need be. I think one dangling question they might have is how to make the FF more popular? The film was solid and I think critically well-received, but I believe in disappointed at the box office. So I'm guessing they'll want to see if viewers fall in love with the FF in Doomsday before fully going ahead with FF2...but I could be wrong.

I think the overall picture is that we will see the Fantastic Four and mutant-kind integrated into the MCU. Duh. What becomes of the Avengers and old characters remains to be seen. Specifically, will Doctor Strange, Spider-Man, Thor, and others figure into the MCU 2.0, and if so, how (and which versions)? Let's not forget about the Thunderbolts.

With Marvel logic, anything is possible. I will repeat that I do think that it is quite possible, even likely, that the third Saga will be the Mutant Saga - or some variant, even morphing into the Phoenix Saga by Phase Nine (see below).

One more thing: Just a guess, but I suspect the new X-Men will make their debut in Secret Wars, in some form or fashion. I don't necessarily think as "the X-Men," but at least their younger selves, so that the first X-Men film can debut in the speculated May 2028 release date. Presumably the new X-Men are native to the MCU, with the old X-Men being from an alternate Earth.

Here is where my summary and speculation ends. What follows is more personal - and what I'd like to see from the X-Men, in particular.

X-CODA
1. A Bit on the X-Men
When I was at the height of my comic book reading, waaaaay back in the late 80s to early 90s, the X-Men were my favorite comic. I started reading actively just before Fall of the Mutants and continued through the end of Claremont's run and a bit after, piecing together the past--from Giant Size X-Men and the "new X-Men" on. I then lost interest, not resonating as much with the post-Claremont stories, and also focused more on 20-something concerns (plus, I was perhaps overly influenced by my feminist girlfriend, who complained about the--admittedly ridiculous--depictions of women).

Over the decades, I have somewhat frequently revisited the X-Men, though never to the point of re-upping my readership, though I did eventually go back and ready all the X-Men issues that I had missed in the early Claremont days.

I was super excited when the first X-Men film came out, and floored by how good X2 was. The third film, and first Wolverine prequel, were disasters, but I mostly enjoyed the prequel films with the younger cast (I even enjoyed Apocalypse for its campiness and think Dark Phoenix--while not very good--is a bit underrated and had some nice moments). I find Ryan Reynolds a bit annoying, so wasn't in love with the Deadpool films, including the latest one.

Anyhow, I don't think my personal opinion on this is just nostalgia, but it seems that it is generally considered that the "Golden Age" of the X-Men was the first long Claremont run - or Uncanny X-Men #94-279 (1975-91). Claremont had turned a secondary team from a cancelled run into the most popular comic book team. There are other highly regarded runs; I know that Grant Morrison's New X-Men (2001-04) and the X-Men '97 animated series (2024-present) are both well-regarded, among others. But Claremont's 1975-1991 run remains iconic, and has been mined to various ways in film (Phoenix, Days of Future Past, God Loves Man Kills, Apocalypse, etc), but with some great un-tapped stories (X-Factor, Mutant Marauders, Fall of the Mutants, Inferno, the Outback era, etc).


2. The Phoenix Problem
Let's face it. Jean Grey/Phoenix is awesome. In truth, and with apologies to Professor X, Cyclops, Storm, and Wolverine, one could regard her as the central X-person, and the Phoenix story as the central X-story. In other words, it may not be possible to eventually give in to the magnetic attractor that is the Phoenix Force.

We've had two cinematic versions of the Phoenix and both were disappointing. The first was awful, and the second had some good scenes but was overall "meh" at best (and I think revealed Sophie Turner's limitations). That said, I did like how the later films first established that Jean was a potentially super powerful mutant, which was fully released and augmented by the Phoenix Force.

If the Phoenix is approached again (as I think it will inevitably be) I think the key is to be patient...to build it up gradually, over several films. If I had my druthers, a five-film "Jean-centric" arc would go something like this:

1. Origins - Introduces characters - young X-Men arriving at the School for Gifted Youngsters. Their origin stories, coming to the school, training, first adventure(s), getting to know each other. A bit of Scott-Jean early romance. Ends with them completing their first adventure and becoming "The X-Men," complete with uniforms. First hints of Jean's great power. Main characters in mid-to-late tens.
2. Young X-Men - Now a team, as early 20-somethings, with growing pains. Faces some big threat. More allusions to Jean's great power - elements of losing control in crucial moments, but still with plausible deniability that Phoenix is imminent.
3. Mature X-Men - Further adventures - now more mature, in their mid-20s and fully capable. Ends with Jean becoming the Phoenix in full, whether through her tapping into her full power and/or merging with the Phoenix Force.
4. Phoenix - X-Men with Jean as Phoenix. Mid-to-late 20s. She starts to de-stabilize. Introduce Shi-ar - and some kind of cosmic story. Preview of her as Dark Phoenix, but she regains control.
5. Dark Phoenix - It happens. Now late 20s. This is where you get the whole MCU involved. Don't wimp out on the most dramatic elements - make it cosmic, Jean destroying a Shi-ar ship and an entire world. This could the culmination of "The Mutant Saga," aka Phases 7-9. Oh, and she should probably die in a sacrifice like in the original comics for full impact. Or do something similar to the last film, which wasn't so bad (i.e. cosmic entity protecting Earth, presumably).

You could probably combine 2-4 into two films, with a four-film arc and still get the full impact: Falling in love with Jean, witnessing her eventual fall, and then sacrifice and death. But don't rush it and go big and, in moments, dark. You don't necessarily have to kill a whole world, but at least a Shi-ar ship or fleet!

One final note: Jean Grey Casting
Who to play Jean Grey? Casting is supposedly going to happen in early 2026, and I'm guessing some kind of preliminary filming will start later in the year, but we're still at least 2 1/2 years away from the first new X-Men film. The latest rumor is that they want much younger actors - late teens and 20s.

Sadie Sink has been mentioned and is only 23, so even if she is 25 when the first film comes out, she could probably get by playing a late teen. I like Sink and thinks he'd be promising, though she's quite small in stature (5'3") for Jean Grey...but that is negotiable.

Daisy Edgar-Jones has also been mentioned, and I like more for the part, but is a bit older - 27 now, but is probably just young enough to make it work, with a bit of movie magic. Emma Mackey starts getting to the line--she turns 30 in January--but may look the part more than anyone else, and almost makes too much sense not to be cast.

Either way, you need to cast someone who is A) Can pull off a person in their late teens in a film made in 2026-27, B) Is in it for a likely 10-year haul, and C) Has the dramatic acting chops, so that Jean Grey's turn to Dark Phoenix doesn't come off as a hissy fit. I think a maturing Sink could pull it off, but I like Edgar-Jones more.

Another actress who I think would be great, but is a bit on the old side (32) is Maika Monroe. I don't see that happening, though.

A Phoenix-less X-franchise
All that said, the X-Men films can avoid Phoenix. Really, they can! They can still make Jean Grey a super-powerful mutant with a penchant for losing control, and get the essence of her character arc. This also means that they don't have to really make up their minds on whether to go Phoenix or not for at least a couple films - my above arc wouldn't require more than just allusions to her untapped power, even in a Phoenix-less story. So maybe that's the key: Create films that don't have to move towards the Phoenix story, but could.

And thanks if you made it this far!

 

[Mercurius]

One more thing on the MCU. I think what made Phase One to Three so successful is the patience I mentioned above. They alluded to Thanos as early as the Avengers (2012), if not before, with the story not resolving for seven more years. That gave them time to develop the characters further, as well as their interpersonal dynamics that built greater weight to the eventual outcome (e.g. Civil War).

Phase One introduced the main characters and culminated with them being brought together as the Avengers. Phase Two developed them further, setting the stage for the next phase, but not fully diving into it. Phase Three was huge - with 11 films - and both filled out the cast by introducing new characters (Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel), and brought it all together with the Infinity duology.

That basic pattern is a much better model than the aimless Multiverse Saga that followed. But more than the pattern, are the characters. The Multiverse Saga was weak not only in its meta-arc (such as it was), as losing the most charismatic characters. That's hard to get past.

So I think Phase Seven should be introductions, with no meta-story. Phase Eight can drop hints, but should be more about developing those new characters, seeing them fully come into their own. And then Phase Nine can be a build-up to another huge story - whether it is Dark Phoenix or something else.

 

[Morrus]

IAs for Bond, I have no faith in Amazon making any compelling story choices for the character. The only promising news is the involvement of Denis Villeneuve, who might be able to bring a strong enough vision block any corporate meddling. He also knows drama and spectacle so it will likely been directed well. But from a story perspective, with Bond being killed off in the last Craig movie, you're looking at a total reboot completely unconnected from the previous movies. It's a hard narrative break unlike anything they had to contend with previously.

Craig was a complete reboot. Why shouldn’t the next one be? Don’t worry. It’s the 4th biggest franchise on the planet (after Marvel, Potter, and Star Wars). It’ll be just fine.