The next 007 movie has been cancelled, so should the producers just use their licence to kill off a tired old spy?

Bond 23 – the Sam Mendes Bond, the Peter Morgan Bond, the Bond that was going to right all the wrongs of Quantum of Solace – is no more. Although its status had been set to "indefinitely delayed" since April, the continuing financial mess at MGM means that the film has now been cancelled altogether. It also means that we're back in a situation where the next 007 movie could feasibly be several years away.

The ramifications are huge, not least for Daniel Craig who, at 42, may have slipped into the old tuxedo for the last time. But maybe it's time that a bigger question was asked. Should James Bond's enforced hiatus be turned into a permanent retirement? Some arguments for and against:

In favour of keeping Bond

1. Bond 23 actually sounded quite good. Combining a script by Peter Morgan with the cinematic know-how of Sam Mendes seemed like a match made in heaven, and casting Rachel Weisz as the big baddie was nothing short of a masterstroke. The plans might be mothballed now but, if MGM can sort itself out soon, this still seems like a film worth making.

2. The 007 series thrives on long sabbaticals. The six years between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye reinvigorated the franchise, as did the four-year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale. Given a few more years off, there's no reason why the next James Bond film shouldn't manage to come back just as strongly.

3. Quantum of Solace would be a sorry epitaph for such a distinguished franchise. It featured a near-mute hero, a nondescript baddie who screamed like a girl when he was being beaten up, an indecipherable Bond girl and even a scene where James Bond actually wore a cardigan. A cardigan. That's no way for an icon like 007 to bow out. He deserves his Abbey Road; his final fan-pleasing shot at glory complete with tuxedos, gadgets, Moneypenny, exotic locations, single karate chops that can render villains unconscious, quips aplenty, barely disguised misogyny, a Russian baddie who lives in an underwater lair and zero-gravity sexual intercourse. It's what the fans demand. Probably.

In favour of ditching Bond



1. James Bond isn't James Bond any more. He's a tedious exercise in relentless product placement transparently modelled on Jason Bourne. James Bond actually died long ago, when Roger Moore strapped himself into his first male girdle and started wheezing around in a safari suit. The Connery films will still exist no matter what happens at MGM. Do people really want anything else?

2. Although sabbaticals bring out the best in Bond, things never stay that way. It didn't take long for Brosnan's Bond to descend into a death spiral of invisible cars and sky-lasers and diamond-powered Korean dream machines and Teri Hatcher. On the basis of Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig has already turned into a cartoon of a nightclub bouncer whose mother didn't hug him enough. Even if the franchise does make a successful return, it'll soon slip back into the same old mediocrity. So why even bother?

3. Admit it, you wouldn't miss the James Bond films if they disappeared. Nobody would. The hype never justifies the finished product. Maybe we should just let the character die with dignity while he still can.

So which side of the fence are you on? Should the producers use this break in proceedings as an opportunity to put James Bond out to pasture, or is it still too early to send him to the glue factory? Your thoughts below, please.