I literally give away the huge ending, so if you don't want to get spoiled, don't continue reading.
I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert whatsoever on the James Bond franchise. The first Bond movie I watched was Pierce Brosnan's Tomorrow Never Dies, and I kept up with the series when Brosnan was at the helm (I eventually went back to watch Goldeneye, of course). In more recent years, I've gone back to watch maybe a couple of the older movies, but not many. So when 2006 rolled around and Daniel Craig was getting signed on to play the next iteration of Bond, I didn't fully grasp the magnitude of the shift MGM was making with its signature franchise.
Now, 15 years and five movies later, I know full well why there was trepidation back then about where the series was heading. And I can say that, after watching No Time To Die, I'm not only shocked at what happened, but I'm worried that the franchise has died right in front of our eyes. Worst-case scenario is that in two or three decades, people will be able to trace the struggles of the franchise back to this movie and mark it as the time of death.
In some ways, it is completely unfathomable that they would kill off James Bond. I mean, sure, the final scene was done incredibly well: Daniel Craig watches a giant barrage of missiles take out a secret facility on a small island he was forced to stay on to make sure the security gates were left open. In the audience's head (certainly in mine, anyway), that's probably the only attack worthy of beating the otherwise invincible, undefeated James Bond. Can you imagine if they killed off Bond by, oh, I don't know, having somebody accidentally knock him into a Sarlacc pit or something?
No matter how glorious the death, the fact that Bond is dead shocks me. Yet after examination of where we are as a society, it really shouldn't be that surprising. Let me explain.
Before Craig came around, Bond actors definitely fit a certain archetype: tall, handsome, classy. He was good with the ladies, and he was still able to score a perfect 10 with his skydiving acrobatics, or stealthily navigate through enemy complexes. But Craig flipped the script on our expectations of what Bond should look like. He was tougher and grittier, not afraid to get his hands bloody. He was a little more of the strong, silent type. Think Indiana Jones in the modern era.
The problem is that the story and filmmaking style were tailored to fit what Craig was doing with the character. The stories were way, way heavier and more emotional than ever before. Bond movies mostly were known to have a lighter, popcorn-flick feel; they were mostly about seeing cool new gadgets, tech, awesome stunts, etc. Never before was there a "real" doubt that Bond would pull through to catch the bad guys. But with Craig, those expectations were subverted more and more with each of his films. After the previous movie, Spectre, though, he walked off into the sunset toward retirement, so all seemed well. Yet when Craig agreed to do one more movie, it seemed there was a deeper motive behind the move. I mean, seriously, if Craig lived through No Time To Die, it would've felt useless, somehow cheapening the end of the previous flick.
So all eyes were on No Time To Die, even after the billion delays. Yet even with his imminent death, there was always a doubt. I mean, surely they wouldn't actually kill him, right?
During the movie, someone already had taken his 007 number (since he was retired at the time). A woman named Nomi (Lashana Lynch, a lesbian British actress of Jamaican descent) was enlisted as the new 007. She comically allows Bond to take back his old number in the way an NFL veteran would make a rookie change his number. They had some fun with that for a while, but when all was said and done, it's clear that Nomi is going to be 007 going forward.
I get the move. MGM wants to stay current. Younger audiences don't care about anything that has come before them; right or wrong, everything must conform around them or else it's canceled. Bond is a middle-aged white guy, and that's just not in right now. I thought Lynch was okay in the movie, and I'm sure I won't hate the movies during her run. But it won't be the same by any means. Who's going to ask for shaken-not-stirred martinis now?
The most confusing part of all this may have been the end-credit stinger. Right before the final fade to black, a message appears saying "James Bond will return." I'm sorry, what?!? You just killed off the guy, right? And you've already got his replacement lined up. What, are you going to completely reset the series like you did before? I don't think today's audiences are forgiving enough to pull that off. And there's no way he didn't die in that finale, so what possible explanation is there to bring back a character by the same name? Might we be entering the James Bond Clone Wars?
If you don't bring back the character, why even bother calling the movies 007 in the future, anyway? Why not just create something brand new? Oh, wait. Too much money to be made off the franchise's name alone. These are the things that infuriate me the most. You want to create an all-women's team of ghostbusters? Be my guest. Just call it something else. I guess representation isn't all that different than anything else, because clearly it's all about the money and not true progress.
"No Time To Die" was a pretty standard Bond flick, but all anyone will remember it for is the sudden shift for the series. I'll still see the movies in the future, but I have little hope they'll keep my interest.
NOTES:
-There's a Star Wars book in the old expanded universe where they finally killed off Chewy, but only after a giant moon crash lands on the planet he's on. With no escape, Chewy stands up tall and howls at the incoming moon as if he's saying "Bring it on!" Such a fitting end. That's what Bond's death felt like to me.
-The idea of franchising a character isn't new, but Bond certainly reached unparalled heights in longevity and popularity. Sagas like Mission Impossible have the Bond franchise to thank for truly starting that trend. Heck, even the Fast and Furious saga implemented that idea in a series about cars. But so far, those latter series always have had the same actors. I'm curious if they'll try to to revitalize them years from now when Tom Cruise and Vin Diesel are not making movies anymore, but again, if the only thing consistent is the name of the franchise, why not just create a new series altogether?
On a quick side tangent, that's sort of the same problem Warner Bros. and Fox/Marvel have with Batman and Wolverine, respectively. After watching Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman play those characters so well, it's hard for me to get invested in other actors trying to play those roles (and it's not like they can rename those characters, either).
-Rami Malek didn't get nearly enough screen time in this movie.