Obviously they're not going to end this cash-cow franchise.
So why kill him?
Well, because they're confirming the theory that Bond is merely a code name. The next guy will also be James Bond.
They hinted at it with the new 007 and the moment when she asks what his name is and he says... "James. Call me James." He didn't say 'my name is James.' He says 'call me James.'
In that case I bet they will introduce the new one showing him a file with all the past Bond.
But the whole concept will raise so many other problems with the franchise.
BTW this movie was total shit, start to finish. And so is craig.
You're overthinking it, it was just a reboot of the series to do a bit of a rebrand to earn more money. They killed him to finish his arch in one complete story so they can be done with it and they can go either back to the old chronology or try something new again if they want.
Also we know the code name stuff is nonsense because previous Bonds have mentioned (Dalton) or even had flashbacks (Lazenby) to events from prior Bonds confirming they are all the same.
You are completely right. But, this is not going to go away. The notion of "canon" in franchise film, TV and comics has become an idea embedded in psyche of our current crop of meme addicted, and very mundane, nerds. It originated long ago with the Sherlockians applying the concept with dry humor to the original Holmes stories, but now we are seeing it everywhere.
I think people have a sort of twisted desire for things to make sense, even the most senseless things like comic book superheroes. So, in order to enjoy a series of James Bond movies that is, in fact a series of soft reboots followed by a hard reboot, they need to believe that all the films coexist in a single universe. I'm pretty sure that the James Bond as code name business began as a joke, but now it's a semi-serious arguing point for fans with that sort of world-view.
Good reply. I think maybe everyone just needs to have a good read of Don Quixote.
shareI realize this was the 99.9% certain conclusion - that he could only have died from the blast. Everyone seems to have acknowledged this, though seeing a cut away shot it was maybe meant to cast doubt on such a finality. Bond appeared near a cliff, although explosion occurring on top. Does anyone else on a limb here agree there's a possible bit of chance he could've lived?
shareThis movie is a work of fiction. Its already been confirmed this was going to be Craigs last movie playing the character. So the question you are asking makes no sense
shareThere was no body, so…
share[deleted]
I think the reasons for killing him off are:
a. to garner publicity
b. because modern film-makers and fans are obsessed with 'story arcs' and 'character development' and therefore need to see some sort of conclusion to the arc. There's nothing wrong with that in literature, but it's a bit silly to expect it with cartoon characters like James Bond.
c. it's possible he's not actually dead and somehow got away from the explosion, ie in some sort of special blast proof room.
No, he died at the end. Madaleine was telling their daughter about him in the car. Also the MI6 office also honored his life. He wanted to die to not expose his family to the nanobots
share[deleted]
It is a very stupid thing to do. They didn't do that when all the other James Bond actors changed. And they still took over just fine. It's stupid. Not that I watched any of Daniel Craig's Bond movies anyway because I really couldn't stand him as Bond. But just saying.
share