No Time To Die

[maggiebee]

Went to see the latest James Bond film yesterday. Was not at all impressed by the story line and it was a long watch. However having watched the Bond films since Dr No back in my teenage years with Sean Connery I felt I had to finish off with Daniel Craig. It's been a long journey - RIP James.

[bednobs]

there'll be more films no doubt, despite the fact (i assume from your q) that he dies

[Zacs-Master]

Pretty sure he doesn't die. That would kill the franchise (or the goose that keeps laying the golden egg, film franchise wise). I think Maggie sees this as the end of the Bond she loved.

[jim360]

"Pretty sure he doesn't die."

Spoiler alert, but ...

Daniel Craig's Bond is unambiguously dead. However, James Bond is a pseudonym (and 007 a code name), so there's still room for the franchise to find a new person to take up the mantle.

[Zacs-Master]

Ah, OK.

[maggiebee]

Yes agree. My two Bonds are gone - Sean Connery and Daniel Craig. Couldn't stand those in between!

[ParsleyDumpling]

James Bond is dead, even though a new actor will replace Daniel Craig, they won't be called James Bond, otherwise why kill off the character? My feeling is that it was so they could have a female "Bond". Everything has to be so achingly woke and PC today, the two things that James Bond certainly wasn't. I do think producers, film makers etc. take too much notice of current trends, rather than just making films that have been successful for over fifty years. I was actually upset and also staggered that he died. I know he is only a fictitious character, but James Bond must have been one of the most recognised names in the world. Hopefully any future films live up to the previous all action (in somewhat implausible situations) high standards.

[CrapAtCryptics]

If you had stayed still the end of the credits you would have seen "James Bond will return". For my taste it was overlong and a litle cliched.

[Stickybottle]

ParsleyDumpling
James Bond is dead, even though a new actor will replace Daniel Craig, they won't be called James Bond, otherwise why kill off the character?

Why do you say he is dead ?
Spoiler alert so do not read further if you plan to watch it

What you saw were the missiles heading to his location
You did not see a scene that showed him physically dead
Whilst Craig will not play him again there is no reason why James Bond will emerge from a pile of rubble in the opening scene of the next Bond film
That is what script writers are for
It is called artistic licence

[rockyracoon]

I thought the script writers might go backwards in time for the next film seeing as we largely believe him to be dead. But Jim’s explanation makes more sense.

[jim360]

More spoilers...





You saw missiles heading to his location and him literally getting engulfed in the explosion. He died instantly in an act of self-sacrifice (because also, if you remember, he didn't want to escape because he'd never be able to be with his love and child without killing them). If it's the same Bond "with one bound he was free"-ing outta there it utterly undermines that film.

On the other hand, as I argued before, "James Bond" is a moniker that anybody could claim. It's clear that Craig's Bond is not literally the same character as Brosnan's, Connery's or Moore's, not least because the earlier ones were in their 30s or 40s during the Cold War, and the more recent Bond films have been set in, at the very least, the early 21st Century. So it follows that "James Bond will return" is a reference to a new iteration of the character, rather than the same one.

[ParsleyDumpling]

I get what some are saying, other actors have put their own spin on Bond, but they were still James Bond. I just don't understand the reasoning behind killing off the main character (I do believe that he was killed). I did think that maybe his daughter might take over the mantle when she grows up, though? I never realised James Bond was a pseudonym, 007 was just his licence to kill number, presumably because he was the seventh person to be issued 00 status.