Art vs money

SPOILER ALERT: If you haven’t seen No Time to Die yet then read no further. I’m going to discuss a major spoiler.

The ending of No Time to Die has me in a bit of a quandary. On one hand I believe that artists should do the unexpected but. I do, I do, I do!

On the other, I really hate that James Bond dies at the end of No Time to Die.

Never in a million years did I believe they would do it quite so unequivocally. Fleming appeared to kill Bond off at the end of From Russia With Love, but he turned out to be bluffing. This is the real deal – Bond got blown to bits.

But when I thought about it I realised that James Bond wasn’t killed because of a bold artistic choice.

He was killed because of money.

Eon believed Craig’s return would increase the box office returns beyond the huge fee they would have to pay him. But Daniel Craig would only do one more if the character died at the end.

It’s almost certainly the reason Danny Boyle left the production. He wanted the artistic choice to not kill Bond. But his hands were tied.

David Leigh founded The James Bond Dossier in 2002. A fan of 007 since the age of 8, he is also author of The Complete Guide to the Drinks of James Bond. You can order a copy here if you don't own it already.

One Response to “Art vs money”

  • Rhett Lawrence

    I agree 100 percent! Ending did not feel good for many reasons. I went to the first IMAX screening at the Chinese Theater in LA. Daniel had just received his star ⭐️ on the walk of fame next to the theater, minutes before. Big time fans inside were cheering at every little thing … but gradually after the Paloma scene (crowd went wild – applauding with joy), the cheering tapered off. By the end, there were a surprising amount of “boos”.

    Found this “honest review” video last night l, and could stop laughing. Hope you enjoy too!