It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It didn’t disable the earpiece, so it’s likely limited. Even if he could disable them with his watch, he’s still gravely wounded and has a barrage of missiles about to blow him up. The nanobots were just icing on the cake to how severely screwed he was.
I'd also assume the EMP was a one-and-done controlled burst. While he could possibly get free and get hit by a larger blast at Q's lab, he didn't have the time.
No, I’m sure he’s up to something more nefarious than just killing villains. Even Bond says if we don’t stop this then there will be nothing left to save. Of course if he’s a maniac then he probably views “good” people as villains. So there’s no telling who he will target. But I still think there was more to it than that. Maybe population control. But this is never clearly stated. So we’re largely in the dark about what his scheme really is about.
Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment and according to her the husband is the man of the house. It’s in the Holy Bible.
Anytime a viewer has to guess about the plot...it’s not a good thing. It’s ambiguous at best as to what Safin’s plan entails. We’ll never know, and it probably doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of the movie.
"Safin’s henchmen steal the Heracles virus, setting the plot in motion. Its lethal power is aptly demonstrated in Cuba when key members of SPECTRE are killed en-mass while Bond is spared in a thwarted attempt by Blofeld to kill him. While Blofeld is in prison back in London, Safin even manages to get to him through Madeleine, with Bond unknowingly infecting him with the deadly nanobots. With this act the villain’s revenge is complete. He’s achieved his objective (a rare occurrence for a James Bond villain). His motivations then seemingly change on a dime, capturing Madeleine and her daughter, and taking them to his secret island base between Japan and Russia, where the virus is being mass-produced.
Earlier in the film, Q unearths a database of DNA records of entire government agencies like MI6 that the virus could target. However, Safin’s motivations for this don’t seem to extend before selling the nanobots to the highest bidder as a biological weapon to kill millions of people, to make the world “a little tidier.” As a global threat, this is suitably “Bondian”, however, it's disconnected to the established character of Safin who’s drive up this point has been so personal and directed by revenge.
The megalomanic aspects of Safin’s plans seem more at home as a plan of Blofeld’s. SPECTRE after all stands for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. A bioweapon of mass destruction fits very neatly under their organization’s manifesto. In No Time To Die Safin doesn’t present himself as overly greedy or obsessed with money for the majority of the film; his motivations (till the buyers are revealed) are tied more to his need for revenge and a family.
Spectre as a film was considered to be a disappointment for many, which is somewhat ironic given all the legal efforts and behind the scenes wrangling over the film rights to the terrorist group and Blofeld himself. Given their muted reception in their last outing, placing them as the central villains a second time would have been difficult from a marketing perspective. It would have tied the film more directly to a weaker entry in the series as opposed to introducing a villain with the clout and will of conviction to take down all of SPECTRE. This story choice immediately makes Safin more formidable as a character, setting him up as a boss-level villain for Bond to wrap up the series on a high note."
https://screenrant.com/james-bond-no-time-safin-villain/
I forget the exact dialogue, but in that exterior rapprochement scene between Bond & M, they speculate wildly before dismissing any villainous motivations as amounting to 'the same old thing', or words to that effect. In effect saying, 'What does it matter?'
I think the filmmakers are here cuing the audience not look to carefully into into those motivations, and are maybe even mocking the idea of them as little more than a generic 'MacGuffin' to propel the plot.
Yes, I thought she was wonderful, too, and so unlike any other 'Bond Girl' from the past that she can hardly be regarded as one - or not a traditional one, anyway.
I loved much of Spectre, at least up until the last 30 mins., and one thing I never had any doubt about was the basis of the Madeleine/Bond relationship. It was always present for those with the sensibility to appreciate it.
I know, a risisible comment for many ... but so be it.
Really?
Is that what we've come to?
Too lazy to bother to come up with a decent self respecting villain's scheme?
Taking the audience for granted?
I'd like to think not
Another angle
"After executing his convoluted plan to kill Blofeld, Safin then focuses on finding a buyer for his stolen nanobot technology. This brings him into further conflict with Bond, who recognizes the potentially devastating impact of the so-called Heracles project. However, while programmable nanobots with the potential to kill anyone they come into contact with in seconds are undoubtedly scary, under closer inspection, the rationale for Safin’s supposed masterplan doesn’t hold up. Not only is it unclear why he hopes to eradicate so many people, but also what motivates him once he successfully kills the head of Spectre."
https://solowmedia.com/2021/10/12/no-time-to-die-safins-plan-needed-blofeld/
Yeah I noticed it more on the second viewing. “Who could he be targeting?” “World leaders, political factions, the same old song”.
Then we see the scope of his plan being millions and who exactly becomes moot because it’s basically global genocide.
Yes, and it should hardly need saying that the movies have always been about ... James Bond. Much less so the villains, which is why the broadest of strokes is all that has been necessary, for the most part, in outlining their motivations. (I mean, who really cares why Goldfinger had such a love of gold? It's enough to know that he did ....)
NTTD, of course, needs to up the stakes in terms of the plot to justify the sacrifice that Bond himself makes in foiling the potential global genocide ....
... but implications and motivations are two different things. And for that reason, Safin’s motivations are largely unimportant ... at least to me.
... but the means by which the three most recent films have dealt with that is to present them all (Silva, Blofeld & Safin) as distorted reflections of Craig-Bond himself.
@ringfire211
I agree that the past is the past, and not everything about the past is, by default, evil or bad. Norms and social constructs change and will continue to change. It would be silly to assert that the Connery Bond, for example, showcased some Evil Masculinity 50 years ago. What the Bonds showed us 50 years ago doesn't have to face either formal or informal censorship today, several culture wars later. So far, we agree.
When you put it like that, I see no reason to disagree. Your original wording is what confused me. "Take charge" and all that. I entered my marriage on the strict condition that my wife and I are perfectly equal; no one "takes charge". I don't believe in concepts like "the man in the house". There are areas of expertise where my wife is my superior, and vice versa.
Okay... Let me be the better man and avoid another "religion battle" here. All I can say is that your interpretations of certain Iron-Age texts, which seem to fuel your denial of transgenderism, may be in dire need of a reality check.
If we take this back to Bond, I'm not worried. They won't give us a transgender Bond any time soon. There's no particular reason why they would or should.
Bond never forgave Vesper for what she did. In QoS Mathis, with his dying breath, asks Bond to forgive Vesper and to forgive himself.
This is what he does in NTTD. Ties perfectly.
I think you are quite right.
There was really no need to revisit that again.Bond had closed the book on Vesper by the end of QOS when he dropped that pendant in the snow.When he visited her grave at the start of NTTD I just thought to myself “ This AGAIN ? “
Or as the guy in the pitch meeting said “ He’s still hung up on that 23 year old girl that he knew for a few weeks back in 2006 ? “ 😆
No-one says everything was bad in the past, it's this kind of black and white way of looking at things that causes problems, nothing in life is so imple as you make out, however much we may wish it were. Some things were better, for some people. Also some things were quite a lot worse for quite a lot of people. To pretend otherwise is to live in denial because you don't like change, and really incredibly selfish that you think the world should stay a particular way just because it suited you, even it if means over 50% of the population being denied fair treatment of the same chances. Why should the majority suffer so you can maintain your privilege? Are you so insecure the idea of those who have been denied your opportunities now being given equality scares you? Perhaps you don't believe you would do that well if we lived in a meritocracy and didn't benefit from the complete chance of our skin colour and gender? I personally don't feel I have anything to fear from equality, and all society will benefit from allowing everyone's potential to be fulfilled, but would rather keep others downtrodden so they can feel better about themselves. What a sad way to live, I kind of pity you if you live in such fear of genuine equality, how you must doubt your talents and ability to achieve in a fair world.
It's great you had a blast, so did I. We are lucky. Now do you not think the opportunities we had should be available to everyone? Do you really think because our parents had it good, things like denying people civil rights based on the colour of their skin didn't matter and didn't need to be addressed? You genuinely can't see that anything was wrong, is your world view really that self centred? As a Christian do you not want to rid the world of injustice wherever it exists? I thought Jesus was quite big on that.
The trouble with your outlook is that you seem to think because things were better for one subset of people, they should stay that way, because it suited you, even if overall they were worse, and often much worse.
Put another way, why do you want to deny others the advantages you have, by your own admission, had? That is certainly not in line with the teachings of the main guy in that holy bible of yours. I am fascinated by so called Christians who take a very old testament view of the Bible in order that they can maintain all their prejudices and avoid having to perhaps think about other people sometimes. Jesus would without doubt consider the treatment of the poor in the USA, the belief they are poor because they want/deserve to be, or the lack of provision of healthcare sinful I am sure. But I'm sure you've found a way to ignore all that and convince yourself you are a 'good' Christian. Strangely it's non-religious people who tend to be nicer to others in my experience because they form their own ethical systems based on some reflection on what is right, rather than picking and choosing bits from stone age books to justify their pre-existing prejudices.
By the way, something being in the Bible doesn't make it right. You may choose to believe those stories but can have no expectation anyone else should pay them any heed at all. I'm in Greece right now, no doubt you think it ridiculous anyone ever believed in Zeus. One day your God will probably be looked at in the same way.
I know there is absolutely no chance of you reflecting on any of this at all, but I would hope you can see why others with a very different lived experience to you might not agree everything was better in the old days. Are they not entitled to their view as much as you are, they after all have lived it. You have not.
It works because Bond never really asked for her forgiveness for being such angry towards her. She died for him but still Bond spends an entire film with such mixed feelings towards her. He wanted to avenge her in QoS but he’s still mad she lied to him. In the end he kinda moves on but in NTTD he has the opportunity to pay homage to her and finally asks for her forgiveness like Mathis urged him.
From the guy who whined about Cardi B’s song and embarrassed himself for not understanding female anatomy? Lmao, no thanks.
I am with you, Bond and Madeleine were victims of plotting and execution but their performances were at a modular level fine. One of the odd things I find NTTD has done is make me go back to those last 30 minutes of Spectre and think about how it should have played out.
1) The Oberhauser story should have been played out with much more cunning and payoff for Franz. Flash backs and uncomfortable dinner setting the latter riffing Dr No. We see Bond recognises once again he is responsible for someones death.
2) Later Madeleine trys to persuade him otherwise but Bond insists he must find out the secrets of the Volcano which should have been much less telegraphed. Madeleine says no because Oberhauser will be expecting that Bond decoys and Madeleine discovers.
3) Madeleine could rather like Goldfinger and Bond find out the truth and find someway to get the intel to M. This would then bleed into her later work for MI6.
4) Madeleine however is captured and Oberhauser taunts her with her father's death and Bonds torture. His anger has switched to her.
5) Then the action sequence where the film effectively ends at the Volcano and the "bridge scene" is played into the denouement where Bond decides to leave with Madeleine instead of kill Franz as the SAS arrive.
Then a an epilogue where M explains to Bond what happened to C in his office and to M surprise Bond resigns and leaves with Madeleine and as he walks to the door M offers a by the way did you know we found evidence Oberhauser goes under another name. ESB
Bond and Madeleine remain central to the action Madeleine special understanding comes into play and her latent ability as someone who can do something at a pinch.
I know I should not waste time on what ifs but NTTD has clarified for me what specifically was wrong with Spectre. The film should have really mined the volcano location and really ended with Bonds choices there.
Remember that interview with Andrew Neil (for Americans who don’t know him, a Tory so conservative he recently left the BBC to join a rival Fox news style channel) where he started telling him he was just a liberal? Amazing. Frames his whole brand around being this rational and reasonable king of debate, then gets so flustered when faced with a proper journalist he resorts to just screaming and calling him a lefty liberal, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Yeah, I’m not going to watch his review, but I feel confident in saying it’s definitely not the best, most balanced or funniest. I’ll stick to Mark Kermode, thanks. But I do like Ben Shapiro. Seeing how mental American politics is always makes me feel slightly better about the sad state of all that in the UK. It reminds me that things could be even worse.
So now you’re comparing transgenders to pedophiles.
Sorry, but YOU are evil.
Yes, and it's Madeleine who sends Bond to Vesper's grave - insists on it. Perhaps it's not just about his feelings regarding Vesper, but his distrust of others, especially women, that he has to resolve if, as Bond himself understands, he & Madeleine are to have a future together.
But that he fails to do so will cause him to remain apart from Madeleine & Mathilde, in what might have been the best five years of his life. Instead, as in the Jamaican bar scene with Felix, he's still saying things like, "I stopped trusting pretty faces a long time ago." "Pretty faces," or not, that's his tragedy ... his essential distrust of women ... and why Vesper remains so important years later.