When they reboot, I think they should take it back to the 60’s and make it a period spy thriller. That would solve the “spies are outdated” and computers can do everything motif they’ve been dealing with for 3 films now. Plus it would distinguish it from Craig’s era as well as other modern spy franchises like Mission Impossible

I don’t see any need to impose a “timeline” or set of rules upon Bond. He died in this one and he’ll come back in the next one played by a new actor. Pointless exercise trying to attach logic to 25 films spanning decades, just enjoy it!

Some BBC employees have reported they can still hear Simon and Mark yelling "no, he can't", "yes, he can" a full month later.

Bond has been around for fifty nine years. Each time an actor takes the part, the character is essentially rebooted. His age is changed, his background is changed, but he remains the same man. So the ending of this movie is a clean slate for the next actor to take over, separate from the Daniel Craig era, which existed in its own timeline, whilst still remaining within the original continuity. The next Bond could be a Cold War period piece, reverting to the original Fleming outline.

The best thing about the Daniel Craig run is that it feels like a complete and natural story arc for his version of the character.

I take Mark's side in the "Bond is about as fantastical as Batman" debate; the nanomachines in No Time To Die are at least as sci-fi as anything in at the very least the Nolan Batman movies, as is the "smart blood" and some of the stuff from older Bond movies like the space warfare in Moonraker and the space death rays from Diamonds Are Forever and Die Another Day. (Some versions of Batman obviously interact with characters who are more overtly "fantasy" rather than "soft sci-fi", like Superman, Wonder Woman, Poison Ivy etc.)

The other big revelation for me was that the repeated delays were clearly not just because they felt it might be a bit busy at the premier or that Bond belongs on the big screen (though these things are both true), it's that the entire plot essentially revolves around a global pandemic in which you can't come into contact with people!

I agree with Mark, the Craig era Bond films are a separate series within the franchise & can start again with a new Bond. Looking forward to seeing where they take it, but Craig was MY Bond & it won’t be the same

I've always liked the theory that "James Bond" is just an alias assigned to an agent, and that any MI-6 schmuck can be "James Bond." They are all Bond. None of them are Bond.

Craig is quoted as saying: “When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara [Broccolli] and Michael [G. Wilson] was that I would like to be killed off when I am finished.” This bombshell would mean Bond’s death in No Time To Die’s ending was planned by the star as far back as 2005 when he was first cast as 007 in Casino Royale.

The setup in Casino Royale made it pretty clear that this was a new timeline. The only continuity was using Judy Dench and that could be written off as the same actor in a separate iteration of the role.

For me, the stinger answers more questions than it raises. Had the Broccolis had any intention of continuing with the Nomi character or the daughter as I've heard people leaving the theatre saying, the credits would have read "007 will return." The explicit use of his name expells any rumours as to the future of the franchise. New actor, new direction.

I thought it was quite apparent that the Daniel Craig films were in their own universe and not part of an ongoing continuity starting from Doctor No.Both Connery and Lazenby went up against Spectre and Blofeld in their films but Craig meets organisation for the first time in his 3rd movie and suddenly has a personal connection to Blofeld that was never part of the earlier movies.

The moment the song started in the opening scene, my wife and I turned to each other said "Uh oh". The referential bits of Bond, which I've always liked, were particularly good in this outing

There's a nod in the final scene as to how they can bring him back without breaking continuity. Madeleine's final line "Let me tell you a story about a man called James Bond" sets up a new set of James Bond stories -- all the stories Madeleine is telling her daughter. They can still star Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw if they want. Bond always dies on that Island, but there are many more stories to tell.

What struck me was that for such a long film a lot of characters felt underwritten. Lashana Lynch barely had anything to do and what was there felt like it came out of nowhere, like most of her part was cut. Léa Seydoux has a lot of story, but all in service of the overarching plot and barely any character. The only exception is Ana de Armas, who got a nice reveal and some clever action in the five minutes she was there. Whichever member of the committee wrote that part should get to do an entire film.

Kermode's take on the Bond continuity is spot on. The Craig movies have a clear arc, and his version of Bond's story has a very definitive end. The canon has always been 'soft', so they'd be totally justified carrying on with a new James Bond as if the death never happened.

Just the fact that the actors change is enough for me to accept that these are different timelines/cinematic universes/canons. It's like all the different reimaginings of Sherlock Holmes, they're distinct. So personally I loved NTTD, and that Craig's time as Bond felt like a complete arc (whereas we only saw snippets of the others).

Bond films are stories that can happen in any order. Bond undertakes each mission with simultaneously the memories of all of his other adventures and none of them. We weren't bothered about seeing Felix Leiter fully able bodied in films made after Licence to Kill. Similarly we needn't concern ourselves about Bond being alive in subsequent films. It's the same man and also not. It's a future Bond and also a past Bond. None of that is important. All that matters is that it's James Bond in a form that is both fresh and familiar at the same time.

I found it kinda poetic that NTTD had elements of MGS1 thru MGS4, a franchise that in turn had paid many tributes to Bond (especially in MGS3) over the years. From Foxdie=Heracles to Otacon/Q on Codec guiding us thru the base. I think Kojima should be grinning about now.

Daniel Graig and Tim Dalton are my two favourites. The darkness of their Bond almost belongs in a different franchise.

I agree with Mark that there is no continuity in Bond. It always makes me chuckle how people get their knickers in a twist over the time-line in Bond, when it seems obvious to me that the series has always been rebooted with each new lead-actor. After all, Daniel Craig never married the countess, Roger Moore never saw Felix get his legs bitten off by a shark on his wedding day, and we never saw Sean Connery earn his double-oh status - these are all obviously completely different interpretations of the character and I'm fine with that. The Daniel Craig era stands as an arc in it's own right, and you can decide if like it or not without it affecting your opinion of the other films, or any that may come in the future. Personally, I mostly liked them, and I admire them having the guts to kill Bond, although I still hate the idea of Blofeld being Bond's step-brother. By way of comparison, nobody ever had to explain to me that Adam West's Batman was a different take to Christian Bale's. I managed to work that out all by myself. Oh, and while we're on the subject, John Boorman's "Excalibur" isn't a sequel to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (no matter how much I wish it was ;) )

NT2D is, for the most part, a well-made film. But, for me, it doesn’t really feel like a Bond film. It’s both spectacular, and not a lot of fun. I left the cinema feeling more like I did after watching Seven than I did after watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. All of the Daniel Craig Bond films have adopted a darker tone than the Connery, Moore or Brosnan films, and have often concluded with the death of a loved character: Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, M in Skyfall, and now Bond himself in NT2D. The model - made very explicit in NT2D - is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, the Bond film which has undergone the most extreme revaluation of just about any film ever. For many years OHMSS was considered the worst Bond film, and today it’s often considered the best. As far as I remember, it’s the only pre-Craig Bond film to end tragically. The problem is, NT2D’s determination to deliver a valediction - in which not just Bond, but Felix Leiter, Blofeld and the whole of Spectre are dispatched - means that Bond doesn’t get to enjoy any temporary moment of triumph across two and a half hours. Hence my Seven comparison. Every Bond film features Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, plus a heroine, a baddie and a novelty henchman. Given this film’s determination to feature the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld and the whole of Spectre, and to wrap up Bond’s romance to Madeleine Swan, this film was always going to be choc-full of characters. But the script adds several extra on top of that. Some of them should have been cut. The most glaring problem with this character profusion is that we don’t get anything like enough screen time with the excellent Rami Malek to really establish him as Bond’s antagonist, Safin. I think it would have been better to have merged Safin’s character with the Russian scientist Obruchev, and even with the double agent Ash. Have Safin/Obruchev appear to be a bumbling minion who turns out to be an evil mastermind. Safin, rather than the nondescript Ash, could then kill Felix Leiter, making his death seem to matter more to the story.

There were rumours that Danny Boyle walked away from the project over the plan to kill Bond, but I thought that was just Internet mutterings....now it seems like that was probably accurate

I couldn't agree more with Mark about the mouthed family bit. It made me simultaneously laugh and well-up. A simple and beautiful line, perfectly delivered.

"James Bond isn't fantasy" is utter, utter nonsense.

I love that Mark and Simon embody both sides of the No Time To Die debate here. I'm firmly on Mark's side of the discussion and struggle to see how people would see it differently but then there's Simon, eloquently arguing his point and I can at least see and respect his irritation and confusion, even if I still think he's mistaken in some ways.

The film has major flaws: Bonds death Bonds death via cheap CGI missile strike. Bond killing Blofeld - sudden rage and choking him in order to move plot forward (needs to touch him in order for virus to work) Range Rover/forest chase scene - basically one big advertisement for Range Rover because they were dispatched way too easily. Main villain seemed to have no motive and his utterings made zero sense. Spectre dispatched in 10 seconds after many films as the all knowing all seeing crime organisation that could never be destroyed. Opening set the scene for major villain turned out to be one of the worst Bond villains. All in all the it had some good set pieces but the film is not really to the standard of Casino Royale or Skyfall. I found Spectre to be a better film. I would say it's just above QoS in terms of ranking Craigs output.

“He will be the Bobby Ewing of detectives” 😂😂😂

Mark is spot on. They need an entirely new cast to make the reboot work. Personally I hope Nolan does an origins story with George MacKay as a much younger Bond in training.

I thought it was widely suspected that he died, given the name of the movie and that it was Craig's last Bond (and his first Bond is an origin story, so it sort of made sense). Also, I totally agree with Kermode about the We Have All the Time in the World soundtrack thing. When I heard it being used near the start of the movie, it *did* signal to me that something tragic was going to happen, but not necessarily what (it made me more prepared for and accepting of Bond dying at the end).

I can’t believe Simon is so stuck on Bond dying and then coming back in a reboot.

****Spoiler Comment**** To answer the person who wrote in at 9.30 ish - Craig's Bond *did* die undefeated. Sacrifice. The only way to be victorious, as long as you accept that you must die in exchange. I kinda think Craig's Bond had to end this way, it would have ultimately been less as a whole, if he didn't die at the end of the fifth film. Bond is an example of a pure hero archetype. In all the other films he's close to death, but then ends up winning in resounding fashion by the end. A pure example of the Hero archetype: either they willingly sacrifice themself and are then resurrected (Harry Potter in the second movie (technically) and the last film (actually.) Or they sacrifice themselves so that the threat from the great evil can be vanquished decisively. Also, Bond dying in this film was Daniel Craig's idea, as was the plot itself I believe. I didn't want Bond to die. But in a real enough to life film (just about) this is one hero who couldn't rise again, like a phoenix from the flames. As he gets to do that in one way as it is, and we all know very well that you can't have anything both ways.

I'm on board for blue-haired future Mathilde as cyberpunk Jane Bond 2049.

I kinda prefer each Bond actor + MI6 cast to be in their own separate, enclosed continuity. My only issue is if takes several years between films that we forget what happened in the preceding film. I found myself wishing I watched a Craig-era recap before viewing NTTD as I kinda forgot some elements/relations. Craig's tenure was longer than RDJ as Iron Man. That's a lot to keep up with, especially if it isn't an annual TV show that keeps our memories up to date each year.

Simon’s argument that if Bond can die & be replaced there’s no jeopardy is cancelled out by his opinion that Bond cannot die. If Bond CAN die, surely this actually adds a jeopardy that has been missing from the franchise, as we always previously knew that despite all the danger and whatever situation he found himself in- he absolutely wouldn’t die.

I agree with Mr Kermode - I don't think one can create an argument that because this Bond died that another version of Bond can't start again, that's essentially what happens as each new actor takes over - it's not just one continuous timeline because if you're working from that premise then you'd have to also admit that he'd already be in his 100s in age

Thank you thank you thank you for posting this. Been dying to hear your full spoiler thoughts on the film. Did not disappoint

1. Daniel Craig’s Bond movies are a capsule, enclosed and separate which is EXACTLY how the franchise should move forward. 2. The best thing about The Mousetrap, and the secret to it’s longevity, is that they regularly switch who the killer is.

I think you have to view the 25 yr group of work in a different way. Each film had a specific goal for its time in artistic & commercial context. Having said that, love this discussion. I’m a Sherlock Holmes fan, welcome to our world.

Watching this video 28/12/2021 - a full 2 months later and only 2 hours after I just watched No Time to Die. All of that intervening time and I *still* was able to experience the ending not having had it spoiled. For all the pandemic's nastiness; there's a silver lining that it seems the internet is a kinder place.

In the final scene of the film Madeleine says to Mathilde words to the effect of “let me tell you about a man, a man called James”. Am I alone in thinking this sets up all future bond films as tales written by Mathilde about her dad, based on memories from her mum and other people who knew him? Same character, different stories, no need for same actor - as narrator / curator she’s a small child who barely met Craig, leaving it open to interpretation. So it’s both a continuation, and…not. Which is exactly what the series plays on throughout.

Amazingly, I had avoided all spoilers. I didn't think Bond would get a happy ending, one way or the other. I'm sorry to see the end of Craig's Bond as his version of the character was much better fleshed out than the others.

Hats off to everyone involved in the film and the mainstream media for not spoiling this... so amazing given how this ended. When we saw it on the first weekend and I was asked by my neighbours if is was seeing... my answer was "yes"... "so what happens", "you need to see the film, I am not spoiling it" They managed to keep Dame Judi Dench and move to Daniel Craig...

The timeline is very VERY loose, but if you look at For Your Eyes Only as evidence, Moore and Lazenby’s Bond at least, are the same character. Furthermore as Connery was the same as Lazenby’s Bond, those three are arguably the same. Afterwards it’s less vague. Craig’s Bond, like Nolan’s Batman, is a self-contained version of that character. It is simply a different interpretation of Bond by the same studio.

I think Mark is right about "We have all the time in the world" not being used to bring you back in a timeline to that moment in Her Majesty's Secret Service, more that it soundtracks the tragedy of Bond. He has given his life to the service. The tragedy that he can't have happiness, be it a wife, Vespa, or even touch his family. Right from the start, being an orphan, he was destined to live that life and there was never going to be a happy ending. I think it's quite a brave thing to do with such a beloved franchise, it's a shame Simon can't see past "they killed Bond" and appreciate the arc. I also think "007 will return" would have left it a little more ambiguous and given a little more time to contemplate his death in that world.

Confusion? How difficult is it to grasp that a completely new cinematic incarnation of a literary character is possible?

I can accept that Batman is only as much a fantasy as Bond, but they also haven't killed off Batman in a film! They do it in the comics a bunch of times (because comic readers get that there are different timelines etc). Unlike, say, Professor X who has died in a film and then returned in a subsequent one, because X Men is sci-fi and that's allowed. Also - Mark says there's no continuity between the Bonds but Q and M and Felix continue all the way through! Llewelyn played Q from Connery all the way up to Brosnan!

Do Bond set in the 60s. This would allow a complete re boot or change the whole cast.

'James Bond will return' ... as a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle.

I agree with mostly everything that Mark said, with the exception of the other characters returning for the next one. I never had an issue with Judi Dench returning as M, Desmond Llewelyn being Q for multiple Bonds or even Maud Adams being both Scaramangas girlfriend and Octopussy. Then again, perhaps the next film will not be a James Bond film, and just a 007 film? 🤔

Does he die though? A running theme in Daniel Craig's tenure is that he's assumed dead then after a few weeks sulking in the Caribbean somewhere he turns up for the next mission. He could have slid down the side of that concrete bunker, a few commando rolls down the grass and then a swan dive off the cliffs into the ocean below?

Must say that I'm very surprised to hear Simon say something as silly as "Batman is fantasy and Bond is not". They are basically identical in every way, except one is better dressed and doesn't travel as much. They are both playboy crimefighters with silly gadgets, trying to defeat supervillains with physical deformities. They can (and will) get rebooted for as long as they keep making money. And that is OK.

Totally agree with Mark on this one. The only way forward now is a new James Bond, a new narrative take on the character with new supporting cast. Still James Bond, still 007 but a new story.

I could listen to this discussion on Bond for hours. More please.

Totally agree with Mark about the Bond franchise. I’ve never viewed them as a continuum. Brosnan wasn’t the same man as previous Bonds to me either. It’s not like Doctor Who. Each Bond actor is an interpretation of the man for me, so I have no problems with Daniel Craig’s era being a complete story for his Bond. I also agree though that sadly it means the whole cast will likely need rebooting as seeing them back with a new actor would be odd. Shame as I love Whishaw as Q. Oh and the family moment was really lovely.

As early as 1995, Michael G. Wilson said the Bond film series was "a series of series." (1995 official James Bond convention in New York City) However, you make the case the Roger Moore films were part of the same continuity going back to Dr. No. From Russia With Love shows you Tracy's headstone that gives her year of death as 1969. The Spy Who Loved Me mentions Bond as having been married once. The producers said with Casino Royale they were starting over.

Mark's story about the Mouse Trap reminds me of when I walked out of the first LOTR movie and (not knowing anything about LOTR beforehand) was like "I can't believe they killed Gandalf!"

Watched it at the cinema yesterday & managed to avoid any spoilers other than what was shown on the trailers. Although I knew this was to be Craig's final Bond film, I did not know that his character was going to be killed off 😮😢 It was enjoyable for the most part, although the villain was lacking, but Daniel Craig gave it his all & the studio has some mighty big shoes to fill! 🤔

Daniel Craig’s Bond films are a separate stand alone Bond series and Character. His films can be seen as a complete character arc from start to finish and should be viewed as exactly that, ignoring all other bond films. Any new bond films will be scripted and cast as if Craig’s Bond didn’t happen because they didn’t in chronology with the rest of Bond.

In a period where the world has been shit for some time, I needed some escapism and boom! They kill off James Bond. What an absolute gut punch!!

on the death of bond: i feel like good story telling is always about finding a delicate balance between the audience willingness to suspend judgment and doubt, and their need for a believable story. there is no clear line where this balance is violated, but when it is, you feel it. it's true that there are alot of stuff that happened to bond that don't make sense if we consider the whole series as all happening to the same exact person. but part of the magic is walking in to the cinema and having this feeling that you are seeing another episode of bond's adventures, so we're willing to "forget" and give ourselves to the story. but killing bond off, seems like stretching the audiences willingness to believe a bit too far. it might hang there for future movies as a nagging "but is it the same bond or not?" , if they don't find a way around it. at least for those of us who actually care about previous movies in the series

I saw this last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. There were a group of French ladies behind me who were in tears as the titles ran…. And that’s what cinema should be allowed to do - so no spoilers. Craig has for me been the definitive Bond. It feels a little like seeing The Dark Knight Rises - I’d be happy to never see another Batman or Bond as I feel I’ve seen the truest, purest version. Anything else would be a rough comparison.

Problem with Mark's take is that he says that the Craig Bond isn't the Lazenby Bond and says to do the next Bond you need a completely new cast, but Craig's Bond kept the M casting from Pierce Brosnan's Bond.

I think claiming James Bond is less fantasy than Batman might not hold up to scrutiny! Definitely a lot of escapism involved in both

Daniel Craig’s Bond was a reboot of the franchise. Daniel Craig was the origin story of Bond. It’s gonna be rebooted again in an earlier timeline.

I just watched it today on prime, and I didn't know. Thanks to everyone who saw it for not spoiling it!

I’ve always thought the timeline is very flexible, I think Mark is right in that Connery, Lazenby, Moore (to an extent, by the end he’s really quite implausible) that are the same character. I’d be inclined to also put Dalton into his own continuity, likewise with Brosnan, just because of how tonally different the two are.

In the same way that 007 is a designation is it not possible that James Bond is also just a code name, that allows for it to be adopted by a different agent?

The bitter rights battle is regarding SPECTRE, Blofeld and Kevin Mccclory who still claimed to own the rights. This was from after the Thunderball film until a deal was done a couple of years before the Spectre 2015 film. EON obtained the rights to those characters for use in film in a court case with the McClory estate.

I can see the some (or all) of the current cast members (Fiennes, Whitshaw) in following movies - much like Dench's 'M' transitioned from Brosnan to Craig (albeit a rebooted timeline). I can also hear the first gag the 'next Bond' actor says is "The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated" and not have to touch the subject again - kid or no kid.

"Bond isn't fantasy" is an egregious statement. At their best, Bond films can be grounded cold war noir thrillers like From Russia with Love, Licence to Kill, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale. But thats like four of 25 films. Has this man never seen a Roger Moore film? It's complete fantasy. The majority of the franchise are fantasy films, many of them being farces or parodies of the films before them.

Disagree with the comment about "wiping the slate clean". Judi Dench managed to cross over from the Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig era as the same character, but in a reboot of the franchise

Like many others, I’m with Mark on this one. The Craig era is its own thing. I was waiting for Mark to make the point that Casino Royale was effectively a reboot from what came before - with Bond gaining his 00 status in the cold open (and then confirmed as 007 in the stunning title sequence, shortly after). A new start. A new Bond. People seem to forget that.

All I really want to say about this is that I think this movie is going to age incredibly well. I’m already in love with what they did (seen it 3 times now). I’ve had to fight back tears both times and I love that it did that to me. Also, I’m with Simon that I missed that “my family” gag the first time but that’s where the multiple watches work.

I think the thing is with what happens next is that just recasting the actor and pretending like nothing else happened, like they used to, probably wouldn't fly with the audiences like it did forty years ago. Reboots are how the industry works now, and it's what people expect; no one's questioning whether Robert Pattinson should be playing the 'same' Bruce Wayne as Ben Affleck, no one asked whether Batfleck was the same as Christian Bale's version. Bond fans would obviously accept a 'well this is just the same guy' explanation, it's part of the franchise, that's fine, but these films are made for wider audiences than that, and that just isn't how things are made. Besides, a proper, hard reboot does give them space to really play around a bit with what happens next. Gives them space to do something quite fresh and different.

As someone who loved almost all of what the Daniel Craig era Bond did, this was obviously a tough end, but does complete his arc. I do just fear where the character/franchise goes next. James Bond RIP?

Try to discuss Bond timelines and continuity. Ha! Have fun! Its makes no sense. And it doesnt need to. The series’ dalliance with it has been flawed at best, you can look at five dozen examples of contradictory things within the series, and ultimately who really cares. Anyhoo, looking forward to a new Bond, in a new rebooted series, and for it to go back to “the old ways”.

This is actually very helpful for helping me deal with Bond dying in this film. Thanks guys

Amazed by how many agree with Kermode about the fantasy of the ‘Bond universe’. (And confirmation of my criticism that the Bond series has been infected by the logic and themes of the superhero franchises). Obviously the ‘timeline’ of Bond isn’t continuous, otherwise he’d now be played by a geriatric. But it’s usually understood that each iteration is playing the same character, with a shared origin story and shared attitudes, etc. They got away with this by having very few life-altering events in the films. But by ending the timeline for Craig, it’s ended for all. It’s too big an event to confine to one character’s timeline. For coherence, any subsequent iterations must now be on an inevitable trajectory towards their death. Of course, that could well mean that they kill off every iteration of Bond when the actor is retiring from the role. But that yo-yoing isn’t something I’d welcome.

One of my main annoyances with the Daniel Craig Bond films, especially the Sam Mendes stuff, is that they went into the backstory/family direction with them. That totally doesn't fit 007 if you ask me. Especially when it resulted into the horrible Austin Powers 3 retread that was Spectre. No Time To Die wants to tie everything in a neat little bow far too much. (The nanobots keeping me apart from my family!) Such finality does not fit James Bond. Now that they basically _have to_ wipe the slate clean, I sure hope we will be rid of the background digging from Skyfall to No Time To Die.

May I suggest an alternate approach to the multiple bonds conundrum? They are all the same bond but at different times. So we’re used to seeing older bond but then they go back and show us how he started

It’s not a continuum Mark?!? So how come Roger Moore in For your eyes only in 1981 goes to Tracy’s grave clearly marked 1969 as year of death who was married to George Lazenby

I don't see the problem. When Daniel Craig started, he was a new Bond and a new 00. He wasn't a seasoned agent. He hadn't lived the Connery or Dalton experiences. He wasn't a continuation of Bronson or Lasenby. I think in a time where we have multiverses in Marvel movies and DC comic movies, the audience is capable of seeing James Bond be different without stressing over the "chronology" of the character.

Mark's right about the continuity but Simon is also right that to be able to kill the character off without consequence empties the franchise of jeopardy. The fun of the Bond movies always was wondering not 'will Bond survive' but '*how* will Bond survive'. The Craig Bond steadily chipped away at this fun, placing him in pretty mundane peril with pedestrian escapes or solutions and now, with a fully consequence-less death, they've really knacked the sole device of the movies.

"You have to do it again with an entirely new cast" *looks at Judi Dench staying post-Pierce Brosnan*

If you enjoyed this I really recommend seeing Dune at the cinema. Visually stunning.

I didn't know the plot of NTTD and am glad I did not. But I was disappointed at how things turned out. I will accept multiple Bond timelines, but don't think is a satisfying way of dealing with this. BTW I really liked Daniel Craig as Bond, but think that Casino Royale is the only truly great Craig as Bond film.

I totally agree with Mark Kermode & follow with his line of argument on the story arc of Daniel Craig’s ‘incarnation’ & ‘characterisation’ of James Bond during the course of his 5 ‘James Bond 007’ films.

My argument is that, sure Bond could die, because he is a human being, but it does not mean that he should. That's my opinion, I have no problem with anyone else's opinion, even though it's the wrong one.

Good fun debate. I’m more in Simon’s camp here, however David Mitchell’s column in the Observer summed my feelings the most. Spot on.

I don't know much about Bond , but have always thought it was a continuous story . An agent is given the name James Bond, when that Bond dies the mantle is passed . If DC Bond is a separate arc then it will be strange if Naomie , Ralph and Ben return as Moneypenny , M and Q

Jane Bond has already been done a long time ago in British comics... The strip started in Tina comic February 1967 and continued through the merger with Princess in September of that year until the Spy craze bit the dust in 1970.

Mr. Mayo, Bond, like any other fictional character has the ability of mutating, of it being attached to all sorts of other stories or fictional worlds. That’s the beauty of fiction. A character can die a thousand times and still live to see another day.

It was a gut-punch. Leaving the theatre so confused, disappointed, sad. I was about to buy the new Omega Seamaster “No Time To Die” edition - but now have NO DESIRE to buy that product. I wonder how some of the brands feel about the movie and negative impact this movie’s ending may have on their sales as a result. I mean, who got fired at Land Rover for selling used Toyotas!! All of those Defenders were easily defeated by that used box of bolts.

Can't see why Simon was so stuck on the idea of Bond dying in one series of films with one actor and then being played again by a different actor in a different series.

I really don't get why people don't understand that Daniel Craig's films are a different continuity from the rest, outside of a few elements that got carried over, like Dench's M or the gadget-laden DB5. I think if anything, Daniel Craig's Bond dying is a fitting way to end his particular tenure, he had the least strings attached in terms of the overall franchise, so doing something dramatic for his finale was a good idea. I have no doubt that we're going to get another reboot now, or even a return to the original movie 'continuity' (such as it was.) I have to agree with that listener about Blofeld and Spectre going out in such a lame way though, they should either have let them be the main villains again, or just not brought them back at all. Waltz as Blofeld must qualify as the biggest waste of potential in the history of the franchise. I hope Bond's archenemies will be used better in future films.

I have to say, at the end I was expecting it to say "007 will be back" - and was very disappointed that they didn't take that chance. Also I totally disagree with your logic on We Have All The Time In The World - I think it was definitely harking back to On Her Majesty's Secret Service

It's nice to hear such unbiased and, in my opinion a fair critique of Daniel Craig's final outing as James Bond.

I spoke to someone who didn't quite get the idea that James Bond will return, but it won't be Daniel Craig either. 'How will he return, if he is dead?' the person said. Why is it so difficult to understand? I though it was common knowledge that movies have different settings and versions of a character... 🤷‍♂️