Warning: This article contains major spoilers for No Time To Die.

James Bond's latest chapter - No Time To Die - is a fitting end to Daniel Craig's tenure as 007, but what does the shocking, explosive ending really mean? Can Her Majesty's best asset endure beyond the events of Cary Joji Fukunaga expansive, bold adventure movie, and what does Craig's ending mean for his arc as a whole? These are the questions posed most loudly by No Time To Die's final moments.

In another universe, No Time To Die may never have happened. In the wake of Spectre, Daniel Craig was very publicly quoted as saying he'd rather open his veins than play James Bond again, but time is a great healer. After getting the opportunity to go away and do other things and to allow his family to forgive him for the time spent away from them, Craig spoke of his realization that there was a story to wrap up: “We started talking about it and I went, ‘There might be a story we need to finish here – something we started in Casino. Something to do with Vesper, and Spectre, and something that was connected, in a way.’ It started to formulate. And I thought, ‘Here we go.’” He returned, with that finality firmly in mind.

Related: What Would Bond 25 Be Like If Craig Had Left After Spectre?

When the credits roll, there is no question of whether No Time To Die is a true ending. Whether it is wholly successful is more of a matter of debate, but the agenda is there to tie up the Spectre story as well as the more spiritual elements of Craig's arc. There's even a meta-comment on the very relevance of Bond, which has spun itself all the way through the past five movies and fifteen years. Here's what No Time To Die's ending really means.

James Bond Dies At The End Of No Time To Die

Daniel Craig in No Time To Die Bond 25

Ever since Daniel Craig said that he'd rather do himself major injury than return to play James Bond after Spectre, the writing, as the theme song so appropriately put it, has been on the wall. It was always likely that Craig's blue-eyed Bond would go out with a major bang and while the idea of killing off such an institution of a character may seem odd to some, the strange continuity of the James Bond franchise made it entirely possible. Ultimately, Commander Bond chooses to die, giving his life up in the final moments of No Time To Die to prevent Safin's plan to put unfeasibly powerful bio-weapons in the hands of people who would use them against the world's population. Safin effectively gives Bond a dilemma that he cannot endure: to live, if he so desired, but to never be able to go near his daughter or Madeleine ever again thanks to the geno-programmed virus the villain infects him with.

Why Bond Chooses To Sacrifice Himself

Daniel Craig No Time to Die

The question of why James Bond chooses to sacrifice himself at the end of No Time To Die is particularly loaded: and it comes down to heart. If No Time To Die is the final chapter for Daniel Craig's Bond, the other four entries in his 15-year run could have been called No-One To Die For. After losing Vesper Lynd at the end of Casino Royale and learning of her betrayal of him (before the about-turn that vindicates her in Quantum Of Solace), 007 becomes almost comical stoic, closing himself off to love in a way that includes simple friendships - or so it seems on the surface). But Madeleine Swann reminds Bond and the audience that James is human beyond his government programming as a killer: she is what pulls him back from becoming all that Silva accused him of being and in the opening of No Time To Die, the pair are evidently deeply in love. When he suspects she has betrayed him, the ghost of Vesper looms large and Bond turns his back on her, prompting the five-year estrangement that means he never gets to meet his daughter until days before his death. But she makes enough of an impact.

Safin's love of Madeleine never quite rings true, but it's a clumsy replacement for the intense emotion of Blofeld's hatred of Bond, and it serves a similar purpose. When he infects James Bond with the virus that would kill Madeleine and Mathilde, he makes Bond all he was without love - a weapon. And though Bond has always been presented as a lone wolf who could endure even enforced solitude, Daniel Craig's Bond is a far more tragic figure than his forebears because of that isolation. He was wounded by Vesper, and then Madeleine, and built armor that pushed people away to the level of fond acquaintances as best. But to think Bond unloving and unsentimental is to misunderstand this Bond: the idea of him being tortured by never being able to enjoy the true love that had come late to him is profoundly painful, and it's ultimately that that makes him choose to resign himself to death. No villain could defeat him, but the idea of despair - of having something to live for and not being able to, is too much for him.

Related: James Bond: Every Way Daniel Craig's Era Changed 007

Safin’s Villain Plan In No Time To Die Explained

Rami Malek as Safin in Madeleine's office in No Time To Die

Safin's plan is where No Time To Die falls down. He is initially presented as a small-scale angel of vengeance - pertinently almost called Lucifer for effect - determined to wipe out Spectre for the traumatic murder of his entire family in front of him. Safin is typically deranged as James Bond villains go, but his personal vendetta rings true right up to the point that it escalates beyond reasonable logic. What was presented as a means to an end to kill Spectre is then presented as a weapon that could target agencies like MI6 (a subplot that No Time To Die drops as quickly as it picks it up), before the final escalation that ruins it. Safin, in the end, is a megalomaniac selling a bio-weapon to the highest bidder, with no real motivation for doing so. He has a personal island and a fascination with plants, but he is not the eco-warrior furious with humanity for global warming he was theorized to be. His motivation seems merely to be general irritation and a desire for money.

The very interesting idea of him being able to target specific genetic traits or groups of people - notably explored when Obruchev (

David Dencik) fatally reveals his racism to Nomi - is also glossed over entirely. And that's the biggest problem. While his revenge plot is clearly in service of himself, there is no broader sense of who or what Rami Malek's Safin is for: what drives him on an essential level. He's odd, but there's no indication he sadistically enjoys watching poisons working (despite his fascination with them), nor is there any hint he is particularly money-hungry. In short, the connective tissue of his plan is missing.

Far more fitting would have been retaining Blofeld as the villain, even with Spectre in pieces, as his personal vendetta against 007 would service the attack on those he loved even better. In the absence of that, Safin's strange, unearned romantic obsession with Madeleine feels shoe-horned in for the sake of added drama, and it rings very hollow. Christoph Waltz's Blofeld was clearly a problematic choice to persist with after Spectre was so divisive, but for the end of Craig's James Bond arc, he should have been the only answer and not something of an awkward footnote.

Blofeld’s Secret & Prediction Of Bond’s Death

Lea Seydoux as Madeleine Swann in James Bond Spectre and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld in No Time To Die

As heavily featured in the No Time To Die trailers, Christoph Waltz's Blofeld threatens James Bond with the knowledge of Madeleine's secret that will "be the death of you". That seems to point to a betrayal of sorts, and given Spectre's involvement in all facets of Bond's life throughout Craig's arc, you'd assume it would be a revelation of her working for him. But the real secret seems to be that Madeleine bore Bond a daughter after their break-up in Italy. After that, the "death" comment seems to make no sense, but reading it less literally, it could be that Blofeld saw a daughter as the herald of such radical change in Bond's life that his entire character and being would have to be put aside, or killed.

Related: Why Tom Hardy Would Be A Terrible Choice To Play James Bond After Daniel Craig

Chillingly, though, Blofeld's ominous portent of doom comes true, as if the Spectre head has suddenly become clairvoyant during his time in Belmarsh. The revelation is life-changing for Bond and it is indeed partly responsible for his death: it's only because of his fear of infecting his child and lover - or of never seeing them again - that he chooses his heroic sacrifice. In other words, Blofeld was entirely accurate in a way that sort of defies logic. Perhaps he knew that Bond's link to other people would be his vulnerability: that his chosen isolation was armor against attack and that Madeleine and Mathilde being so closely tied to him would make it more likely that he would be threatened.

Why Madeleine Refuses To Tell Bond About His Daughter

Lea Seydoux as Madeleine Swann in James Bond No Time To Die

Even stranger than Blofeld's goading about Mathilde's existence is the fact that Madeleine twice refuses to tell James Bond that he even has a daughter. Firstly, when the pair break up in Italy, she goes five years without so much as calling to explain they share a child. This part is somewhat straightforward to accept, because Bond goes off the grid so much that even MI6 assumes he is dead: there is every chance Madeleine believed the same. It's a little illogical that MI6 wouldn't be tracking Madeleine as a person of interest and discover Bond's "secret" before his return, but the estrangement from his employers covers that more or less. More concerning is the fact that when Bond meets Mathilde, Madeleine firmly says she is not his daughter, despite the piercing blue eyes. It can only be a flash of rebellion, in revenge for Bond abandoning her and believing she could betray him that causes the strange defiance. Bond clearly doubts her answer, and the only real result is the revelation loses its impact. It could be that her survival instincts kick in and she believes removal from Bond will protect Mathilde, but it still seems a cruel blow to him.

No Time To Die Title’s Real Meaning

Daniel Craig as James Bond superimposed over the logo for no time to die

Given the two allusions to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the prominence of "All The Time In The World", it almost feels like Bond 25 should have just been called that. It's the musical accompaniment to two huge emotional flashpoints at either end of the story, and it might have avoided the distracting and unnecessary Dr No theories in the run-up to release. But No Time To Die does still have some deeper meaning beyond the comical moment that sees Nomi use it towards the end of the movie - it is a defiant call to Bond that he is never done. The start of No Time To Die sees him in retirement, heartbroken once more, and seemingly happy to run down his existence in Jamaica, but then he's dragged back in, even after apparently slipping MI6's net for five years. The title is a tragic reminder that like the sadly dead Felix Leiter, he was never likely to be allowed to die in peace on his own terms. Then when the revelation of Mathilde's existence changes everything, the title changes to: being less a message of foreboding, but one of desperate happiness. After all, finding joy is no time to die.

What Happens To MI6 After Bond’s Death

Ralph Fiennes as M and Daniel Craig as James Bond in No Time To Die

Like Tony Stark's memorial at the end of Avengers: Endgame, Bond's funeral - or what exists of it - is an emotional but stark affair, because it isn't truly an ending. The service commemorating him has a mere few lines by author Jack London, seemingly celebrating how fitting his death is for someone who lived so fast, before M clinks his whisky glass against one poured for 007 in his absence, and says "Right, back to work." As with the MCU's relentless march after Iron Man's death, MI6 and this franchise has no intention of dying with the most famed spy who walked its halls. There would no doubt have been serious political questions to answer in the wake of M ordering a missile strike on a disputed island, particularly with existing tensions between the UK and the US, but MI6 is nothing if not resilient. Such is the tragedy of Bond's life that there's no time to mourn either.

Related: All 8 Actors Who Have Played James Bond In A Movie

What M's Quote For Bond's Funeral Means

Ralph Fiennes as M in his office in No Time to Die

When the MI6 crew meets to commemorate Bond's life briefly, Ralph Fiennes' M reads out a quote by author Jack London: "The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time." It's a particularly poetic take on life, that fits with Ian Fleming's famed hatred of boredom, and the rest of the quote is arguably even more pertinent to Bond's fate:

"I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, ever atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."

And they are lines that should be familiar to fans of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels, as part of the same quote appears in You Only Live Twice for Bond's obituary as it appeared in The Times. M wrote the main obituary, but an addendum was added by Mary Goodnight, the secretary to the 00 section in some of the novels offering Bond's philosophy of life as"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time." This is of course a meditation on going out in style, as it were - living in brilliance rather than fading away dully and it does fit Bond, even if he would have loved to fade to dust alongside his family. That, finally, is his tragedy, to be doomed to a spectacular death in service.

What No Time To Die’s Final Scene With Madeleine & James Bond’s Daughter Means

James Bond movies are always inherently wrapped up in legacy, because there's always the question of who the next James Bond will be as soon as the incumbent actor has their feet under the table for a couple of movies. But only Daniel Craig's arc has really wrestled with legacy as a real concept because of the different continuity across his arc. Rather than his stories being adventure serials, he had a defined story arc over five movies, and as early as Skyfall the question of whether he could survive a shifting world was written large. After all of that anxiety, which Bond did feel, despite his severely purse-lipped stoicism, we finally have an answer to what his lasting legacy would be. Seeing Madeleine pass on stories of James Bond to Mathilde is a true, tangible legacy that allows him to live on in a way that his being 007 never could.

How Daniel Craig’s Ending Compares To Other James Bonds’

There are only two true endings for James Bond in 25 movies (three if you count Skyfall's ending, which probably should have been a full-stop): On Her Majesty's Secret Service's explosive, heart-breaking end, and now No Time To Die's. In both cases, cruelly, Bond is offered hope for the future before fate steps in and robs him of it. No Time To Die goes even further than OHMSS, however, in its level of finality: there can be no doubt that Commander Bond would ever return - not only was he blown up, but he welcomed the missiles like an old friend because they removed the pain of never seeing his family. He effectively died twice, and it's not exactly wrong for Bond to have died here, even if it will raise some eyebrows.

Related: James Bond: Every Actor Who Played Q

The other Bonds were given rather less auspicious endings or simply didn't get one at all: Sean Connery's position was weakened by friction with the producers and the low quality of his final movie, even if he did kill Blofeld. Roger Moore was apparently recast on Albert Broccoli's insistence (though he claimed he left himself because his age was awkward with younger female co-stars). Timothy Dalton was ousted by contract issues and Pierce Brosnan was regretfully fired before Craig was cast. None of the stories - bar Connery's defeat of Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld - felt particularly like a true ending point: Brosnan in particular simply moved on between missions and Dalton never got his trilogy-ender. It almost felt like each was hurled from a moving train (even if partly by their own choice), while Craig felt much more like the conductor guiding his story into the station. Yes, it will move on, but there was some semblance of completion to his arc at least.

James Bond Will Return: The Credits Confirm Bond 26

James Bond Will Return

Though No Time To Die kills off the world's most famous spy, there was never any question of the brand continuing without Daniel Craig. That was always the plan and always will be the plan as long as there is appetite for this character (and possibly after that too). In that respect, No Time To Die's after credits promise that "James Bond will return" should come as no surprise, especially as the producers are already talking about casting Daniel Craig's replacement in 2022. That, in itself, is rather an ironic parenthesis on the end of No Time To Die, since even the franchise will barely pause to memorialize Daniel Craig's Bond before moving on to someone else. It's almost like No Time To Die's title is a meta-reference to that perpetual motion. And interestingly, there's very much the suggestion that Bond will continue to be male, given the concrete use of "James" there.

What No Time To Die (& Daniel Craig’s 007 Era) Really Means

James Bond No Time To Die Daniel Craig Eilish

The final question for No Time To Die is whether it manages to do justice to Daniel Craig's Bond era. To consider that, you must go back to what the intentions were for Casino Royale and the new, shockingly different Bond back in 2005 and to find the meaning of it all. After Brosnan's final two outings, Bond had grown stale and predictable, and Craig's pouting rascal Bond, who channeled the Bourne movies and jettisoned the old ways performatively was as close as this franchise has ever got to punk rock. Crucially though, the will of the brand always shouts loudest and Craig's Bond movies quickly began to embrace nostalgia in a far more conscious way than you might expect from watching Casino Royale. That movie felt like revolutionary, even revisionist Bond, and it's that old gunslinger mentality that pervades from Skyfall onwards. As the world openly debated the need for James Bond, so too his universe questioned whether he shouldn't be permanently retired.

In the end, No Time To Die is a culmination of that arc as much as it is an end to a single character's journey. In presenting him alongside what would ultimately replace him, Bond strikes a defiant, eternal pose. The new 007 is great, but she's very much still in the Bond mold (even if she listens to rules more), and No Time To Die is a statement of how flexible Bond can be, just as his previous four movies were. In all five cases, there is a conscious attempt to embrace the new but in a way that shows reverence and respect to the old. This new Bond is both progressive - not only in the statements of gender and sexuality marked by Lashana Lynch's 007 involvement and Q's homosexuality, but also in the way Craig led a post-Bondian arc seamlessly within the institute of Bond - and nostalgic and that's where the future of this brand still lies. Accusations that Bond is outdated are lazy and redundant, and No Time To Die is a fitting, if rather an uneven testament to what Craig's era was trying to do.

Next: James Bond: Why Every 007 Actor Quit Or Got Recast