[member="Tefka"] They sign the contract, they KNOW what comes with the mantle of being James Bond. Or Captain America. Or...Superman, whoever. It's such a sour thing to see them come to resent the role they made after they get a bit bored of their job. A job, to pretend and play and get paid to bulk up, attend glamour events and be the face of a product.
[member="Darth Carach"] Don't get me started on Bond, it's my Achilles Heel and my most passionate subject!
Good point about the "dual identity", but that's just a fan theory and never really confirmed. Nothing has. In general, from 1962 Connery to 2002 Brosnan it was the same man. Timeless, and we are to accept it was Brosnan's Bond doing the events of 'Goldfinger', or Moore's Bond taking on the bad guys in 'Licence To Kill'. We just had to accept actors change in order to bring us these amazing adventures, so we just accept it.
Now, the 2006 era onwards with Craig was a reboot. He just gets the 00 status so all the previous 20 films haven't happened. Clean slate.
So we have options:
1 - Do they do what they did after Connery in 1967 (and 1971) and bring in a new actor to just let us suspend belief but keep the character the same, as Roger Moore took over.
2 - Reboot the series AGAIN for a new actor, another new timeline, another interpretation.
3 - Reveal the James Bond name is (for the DC launched era) a code-name so new actors can be very different enough to be the new 007.
Option 3 is the only way Elba could do it without backlash, but then if any old person can take the James Bond code-name, does that mean we lose the "character traits", or will MI6 force him to make one-liners, drink Vodka Martinis etc?
....it's a chaotic situation with lots of options but lots of potential negative choices.