Image for the official James Bond feed on Twitter

A Forbes.com article out today says that James Bond still is popular and relevant. That really isn't the correct question.

The real question is whether the series can continue to grind out new entries at $300 million a pop.

There is certainly a market for James Bond films. Even if the audience is aging, fans turn out for Bond. But at what price?

In 2012, there was a market for a movie featuring John Carter (another character from the creator of Tarzan). But not one that cost $200 million or more to make. Walt Disney Co. had to report a big charge against earnings.

In 2013, there was a market for a Lone Ranger movie (even a Tonto-centric one). But not one that cost $240 million to make. With the Lone Ranger, the special effects budget should have mostly been for squibs to simulate gun shots. But the makers of the movie went way beyond that.

Back in the day, Cleopatra (1963) was a very popular film. Financially, not so much. As big as the audience was, 20th Century Fox couldn't earn a profit on its theatrical release.

I've seen some fans say they have no personal stake in how No Time to Die does at the box office. So it doesn't matter to them.

Maybe so. With No Time to Die, it's doing better in the U.K. and Europe than in the U.S. The final numbers remain to be seen. But spending $300 million (or so) makes it harder to earn a profit.

The question facing Eon Productions, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and the studio's future owner, Amazon (assuming Amazon's planned acquisition of MGM gets regulatory approval) is whether it's time rethink and re-evaluate Bond film budgets.

Presumably, Bond 26's leading man won't be paid $25 million (Daniel Craig's reported salary for No Time to Die). Perhaps Eon's Barbara Broccoli will remember how her father did business and negotiate harder than she did with Craig. Presumably Bond 26 won't have pandemic-related delays that added to the tab.

Perhaps. Presumably. We'll see.