They killed off James Bond in No Time To Die mainly to give Daniel Craig’s version a definitive, emotional ending and to “close the book” on that particular incarnation of 007.

Quick Scoop

What actually happens to Bond?

  • In No Time To Die (2021), Bond is infected with nanobots that are coded to kill Madeleine Swann and their daughter Mathilde if he ever comes near them.
  • Realizing there is no cure and that he can never safely see them again, he chooses to stay on Safin’s island while a missile strike obliterates the base, killing him in the blast.
  • It is the first time in the official film series that James Bond is shown definitively dying on screen, with no last‑minute escape implied.

Why did the filmmakers choose to kill him?

Several creative reasons are usually highlighted:

  1. A true ending for Craig’s arc
    • Daniel Craig’s Bond films (Casino Royale through No Time To Die) were written as a continuous character journey rather than disconnected adventures.
 * The director Cary Joji Fukunaga and the producers have said they wanted an ending that felt like real closure, like the “last sentence in the last chapter” of this Bond’s story.
  1. Emotional stakes and sacrifice
    • Bond dying to save the woman he loves and his child gives his story a tragic, heroic weight the series usually avoids.
 * Craig himself has talked about how Bond’s choice has “weight” and “tragedy” because what he wants most is to be with them, but Safin’s virus makes that impossible.
  1. Breaking the formula and modernizing the character
    • Traditionally, Bond always survives, resets, and moves on to the next mission with minimal lasting consequences. This film deliberately breaks that pattern.
 * By giving him a definitive death, the filmmakers turned a decades‑old, almost “invincible” icon into a more human, vulnerable figure, which fits the more grounded tone of the Craig era.
  1. Closing the past to clear space for the next Bond
    • The ending functions as a way to seal off Craig’s continuity so the next actor can start fresh, without being tied to his relationships, backstory, or ongoing plot threads.
 * The film’s structure, with things like Bond having a child and a definitive death, signals that this timeline is complete and a new interpretation is coming next.

How fans and forums talk about it

  • Some viewers praise the choice as bold, saying it finally gives Bond a complete character arc, from blunt instrument to man who sacrifices everything for family.
  • Others feel killing a “mythic” hero like Bond goes against the escapist spirit of the series and would rather see him ride off into the sunset and simply be recast as usual.
  • Forum discussions often compare Bond to characters like comic‑book heroes or video‑game icons who normally reset each story, and debate whether a permanent death even “fits” such a long‑running franchise icon.

Is Bond “gone” for good?

  • The movie itself ends with the familiar promise “James Bond Will Return,” making it clear the character will continue even though Craig’s version is dead.
  • Most discussion now focuses on how the next Bond will be introduced and whether they will quietly reboot again with a new continuity, as they’ve effectively done after past actor changes.

TL;DR: They killed off James Bond in No Time To Die to give Daniel Craig’s 007 a final, emotionally heavy sacrifice that wraps up his five‑film story and clears the slate for the next era of the character.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.