No Time To Die - Safin's Plot (Spoilers!)

1235715

Comments

  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Hey guys a bit confused...

    I thought Malek’s double Sebastian was the one filming the Norway sequences? There’s a lot of people claiming he’s playing a different character but that is Sebastian. He was in Norway during the filming (via his Instagram), we also know he follows Malek around 24/7 to copy his movements...

    That’s definitely a young Lea but her and Malek are four years apart.

    I think the whole genetic altering/genetic warfare is pretty self explanatory!

    Malek is much older than Lea in the film.. He has found a way to stay youthful looking. He obviously altered his genetics.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,018
    Hollywood reporter claims Christoph Waltz

    "is set to reprise his role as the villainous Blofeld in the upcoming James Bond movie No Time to Die"

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/christoph-waltz-star-liam-hemsworth-quibi-thriller-1236471
  • Rebooting the villains is probably inevitable, in the long run, and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing.

    Currently we’re all expecting Eon to create entirely new villains, who have nothing to do with Fleming, in every film. But Eon have the rights to the books and they can use the characters in those books as often as they like. They have the rights to the character Dr No, for instance, so why not use the character Dr No? Why do we expect them to think up new villains all the time?

    It is nearly 60 years since Dr No was last in a movie. I want to see him in a new one.

    I would live to see a new Rosa Klebb on the big screen. Lotte Lenya was excellent in 1963, but that was 56 years ago. Fifty six years!

    When I go to see a Batman movie I expect to see him fight Joker, Riddler, Scarecrow, Penguin. I do not expect him to fight an entirely new villain that the movie company has made up. And when I see a James Bond movie it is better, much better, if he is fighting a Fleming villain. Dr No. Largo. Scaramanga. Drax. Eon could reboot them all, I’d be happy.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Rebooting the villains is probably inevitable, in the long run, and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing.

    Currently we’re all expecting Eon to create entirely new villains, who have nothing to do with Fleming, in every film. But Eon have the rights to the books and they can use the characters in those books as often as they like. They have the rights to the character Dr No, for instance, so why not use the character Dr No? Why do we expect them to think up new villains all the time?

    It is nearly 60 years since Dr No was last in a movie. I want to see him in a new one.

    I would live to see a new Rosa Klebb on the big screen. Lotte Lenya was excellent in 1963, but that was 56 years ago. Fifty six years!

    When I go to see a Batman movie I expect to see him fight Joker, Riddler, Scarecrow, Penguin. I do not expect him to fight an entirely new villain that the movie company has made up. And when I see a James Bond movie it is better, much better, if he is fighting a Fleming villain. Dr No. Largo. Scaramanga. Drax. Eon could reboot them all, I’d be happy.

    I have been thinking the same.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 17,272
    I never want to see another rebooted character. Dr.No, Rosa Klebb etc. were perfect as they were, and I have no interest in seeing them return to the big screen – especially after Blofeld in SP…
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    The ‘villain of the week’ sensibility is what sets Bond apart for me. Aside from Blofeld (who I’m ambivalent towards anyhow) the idea of a unique threat in each movie is what drew me to them in the first place and is what gives each film its distinct flavour (even the lesser villains). The idea of rebooting Dr.No or Goldfinger excites me to such a minor extent that I’d be at risk of slipping into a coma.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,103
    Using the same or made up by the movie company villains is what killed many franchises in particular Superman.
  • Yeah it's a no from me on reusing villains.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Well they brought back the biggest one, Blofeld.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited September 2019 Posts: 12,986
    There is a new continuity established since 2006, removing conflict with previous films.

    If the filmmakers really take that on, they should go all in and make modern versions of the Fleming novels (different than remakes of films like Live and Let Die or The Spy Who Loved Me). In that style of what they did with Casino Royale. Some Fleming novels really weren't made in the first place.

    For perspective it's been 57 years since Dr. No. 40 years since Moonraker.

    Doesn't have to be every time. But as an example, introducing a new actor to the Bond role is prime time to capitalize on a true Fleming adventure. And the Blofeld trilogy is ideal for re-energizing the franchise and recharging the Bond character after many missions. That's what Fleming himself did.

  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Well they brought back the biggest one, Blofeld.
    Blofeld is the Moriarty of the franchise, he gets special treatment as the “archenemy” of the protagonist.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2019 Posts: 10,512
    There is a new continuity established since 2006, removing conflict with previous films.

    If the filmmakers really take that on, they should go all in and make modern versions of the Fleming novels (different than remakes of films like Live and Let Die or The Spy Who Loved Me). In that style of what they did with Casino Royale. Some Fleming novels really weren't made in the first place.

    For perspective it's been 57 years since Dr. No. 40 years since Moonraker.

    Doesn't have to be every time. But as an example, introducing a new actor to the Bond role is prime time to capitalize on a true Fleming adventure. And the Blofeld trilogy is ideal for re-energizing the franchise and recharging the Bond character after many missions. That's what Fleming himself did.

    It would never work. Thankfully EON know that.
  • It’s understandable why many people don’t want to see the Fleming villains back again but it’s worth pointing out that by not using Fleming’s characters then they have to invent new characters of their own, and Eon’s track record really isn’t that great.

    I like QOS as much as the next person but Dominic Green is hardly up there with the Fleming villains.

    I can barely name the villains in the Brosnan era.

    Anyway I think a villain reboot is inevitable, given enough time. It’s nearly sixty years since Dr No came out, sixty years in which Eon have had the rights to that character and done nothing with it. How long before Eon decides that enough time has flowed under the bridge? Seventy years? A century? In 2062 will people be saying ‘you cannot use the Dr No character, that was Jospeh Wiseman a hundred years ago’? It would be the same as somebody today saying a franchise could not use a character because that character was used in a film in 1919.

  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    Reboot Fleming villains? I guess in the Daniel Craig continuity they could if they wanted... and probably make it work.
    The thing is - Dr No, Goldfinger etc etc... the actors who played these guys made them their own. They were very unique to the actor.
    Bond, Blofeld, Leiter... these guys have all been played by different actors so we're at a point where we can accept that. But the one shot villains have a cemented place in history - and when they've been done right - have helped give the film they're in a unique identity.

    I'm not saying I'm AGAINST the idea -but I just hope EON know what they're doing if they go down this road.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    One thing people are forgetting here that those villians played once in 60s but Blofeld was played by 3 different actors in the first decade. Bringing back Blofeld won't be a problem but other villians meh..
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    BondStu wrote: »
    Reboot Fleming villains? I guess in the Daniel Craig continuity they could if they wanted... and probably make it work.
    The thing is - Dr No, Goldfinger etc etc... the actors who played these guys made them their own. They were very unique to the actor.
    Bond, Blofeld, Leiter... these guys have all been played by different actors so we're at a point where we can accept that. But the one shot villains have a cemented place in history - and when they've been done right - have helped give the film they're in a unique identity.

    I'm not saying I'm AGAINST the idea -but I just hope EON know what they're doing if they go down this road.

    +1.

    I just don't get the point of rebooting Fleming villains. The Joker has a very specific personality and look, same for Spider-Man over the top villains. When I think of the Joker I think about his clown face and his chaotic mindset, if I think of Green Goblin I think about the goblin mask and glider.

    If I think of Dr No and Goldfinger I see Wiseman and Frobe's faces in mind; there's nothing peculiar about the characters that makes a reboot necessary (the former wears two black gloves because has no hands, the latter simply loves gold more than anything else) - what made those villains stand out were the actors' performances and the plots built around them, which means that there is no reason to bring Goldfinger back unless you make him want to rob/pollute Fort Knox, and if you do that you'd be remaking the Goldfinger movie, so what's the point at the end of the day?
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Quite honestly, comic book villains have long been a crutch when telling those stories. Batman might actually be more interesting if they didn’t just drudge up the Joker everytime.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    I'm starting to think the entire middle section of "No Time To Die" (and perhaps the early parts of the finale too) could be very similar to 1963's FRWL and 2006's CR. In that it will be devoid of action, but instead will have very much a thriller/detective approach. A villain's plot that is logical, but also tremendously well-written. One that makes people in cinema stand up from delight, while not having so much action.

    Now with regard to the villain's scheme.....there have been rumours that 'genetic warfare' is the prime scheme of S.P.E.C.T.R.E./Blofeld/Malek. So it could very well be close to what Blofeld wanted to do in OHMSS, but then with better explanation, with more realism to it. A bit like the danger of current global diseases, like Ebola, or Zika. Dr Vogel even talked about such things briefly in SP. Obviously the young girl could be the McGuffin to this. She could be the key in finding a gene that's more dangerous to the globe than we would possibly think.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I find it interesting that the name of Malek s character hasn t been revealed yet.

    Perhaps Rami Malek is...
    COLONEL FUN.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,862
    I find it interesting that the name of Malek s character hasn t been revealed yet.

    Perhaps Rami Malek is...
    COLONEL FUN.

    Or Goldthumb.
    Hago Drux.
    Dr.Noah...oh wait. ;)
  • So.........we are getting mixed signals by the media on this point.
    1. Baz has said the film is about genetic engineering and @marketto007 suggested that the film will have something to do with replicating genomes.
    2. However, there have been more recent reports that suggest the villain is an environmentalist with an algae farm. The rumour is that he wants to destroy the oceans.

    So, the question is: Genetic Engineering Plot v Environment Plot

    I think it's very likely that Eon will do the environmental plot - because it's certainly more zeitgeisty, but also it sounds waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cooler to me. It fits with their previous films where they pick a current issue such as Snowden (SP) and Wikileaks (SF).

    I can imagine, Fukunaga doing a plot where the villain is some evil fake environmentalist trying to destroy the oceans. Cue, the media accusing Bond of being 'woke' and a member of the Extinction Rebellion.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,862
    Why would an environmentalist want to destroy the oceans?
  • Posts: 17,272
    An environmental plot definitely sounds much more intriguing. It would allow them to tap into something that's very current – but most of all, destroying the oceans sounds suitable for a very nasty villain.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    Sounds a bit like the DAD plot. "Icarus" will bring nothing but good to people across the globe. Yeah sure, Global Warming in a concentrated form...
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,986
    Benny wrote: »
    Why would an environmentalist want to destroy the oceans?
    Villain presents himself as a do-gooder and simultaneously blackmails world leaders.

    Or the deranged villain who wants to create a natural disaster with the intent to act as savior with the scientific solution, teaching the world a lesson. (John Gardner's Seafire if I'm remembering the plot correctly.)
  • As soon as I heard the word "scientist" in the plot synopsis, I suspected this had something to do with climate change. I was actually very surprised when Baz reported on 'genetic engineering.'

    The climate change debate has had a lo of talk about the "science" over the last few years. So, it makes sense for the villain to kidnap someone to help do something evil.

    I don't think Malek is an environmentalist - as its been pointed out, why would he want to destroy the ocean - but his plan involves the environment.

    These videos focus on climate and the ocean. Basically, the sea-level is rising:





    Maybe, Malek and his SPECTRE team are affiliated to big business and have a vested interest in sea-levels rising.
  • Posts: 631
    Maybe, Malek and his SPECTRE team are affiliated to big business and have a vested interest in sea-levels rising.

    Possibly... perhaps Spectre have bought a lot of the world’s land that lies slightly higher than sea level. Then, when they raise the ocean level, the normal coastline disappears underwater and so Spectre’s formerly valueless property suddenly becomes very valuable as it’s the new coastline.

    It brings to mind Goldfinger’s plot to raise the value of his own gold by destroying someone else’s.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Maybe, Malek and his SPECTRE team are affiliated to big business and have a vested interest in sea-levels rising.

    Possibly... perhaps Spectre have bought a lot of the world’s land that lies slightly higher than sea level. Then, when they raise the ocean level, the normal coastline disappears underwater and so Spectre’s formerly valueless property suddenly becomes very valuable as it’s the new coastline.

    It brings to mind Goldfinger’s plot to raise the value of his own gold by destroying someone else’s.

    Sounds like a Lex Luthor plan.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    Maybe, Malek and his SPECTRE team are affiliated to big business and have a vested interest in sea-levels rising.

    Possibly... perhaps Spectre have bought a lot of the world’s land that lies slightly higher than sea level. Then, when they raise the ocean level, the normal coastline disappears underwater and so Spectre’s formerly valueless property suddenly becomes very valuable as it’s the new coastline.

    It brings to mind Goldfinger’s plot to raise the value of his own gold by destroying someone else’s.

    Sounds like a Lex Luthor plan.

    I was thinking the exact same thing! Otisville?
  • Posts: 1,680
    Well it said dangerous technology right?

    Maybe it’s just a mcgauffin anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.