NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1159160162164165298

Comments

  • Posts: 372
    Naomie is here to deliver lines that make it into the trailers.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Naomie is here to be a better interviewee than Daniel Craig. ;)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,727
    Minion wrote: »
    Naomie is here to be a better interviewee than Daniel Craig. ;)

    Daniel Craig enjoys the creative process and the acting itself. He is an intuitive, a thinker and an actor in the truest sense of the word.
    Promotional tours and the vacuous nature of celebrity and talk-show chit-chat are lost on people such as him. I completely understand why he doesn't enjoy the whole empty promotional side-show.

    When a truly intelligent interviewer asks him a genuine, thought provoking question he does engage them and open up. But most 'film journalists' are hacks who couldn't make it in real journalism.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    AceHole wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Naomie is here to be a better interviewee than Daniel Craig. ;)

    Daniel Craig enjoys the creative process and the acting itself. He is an intuitive, a thinker and an actor in the truest sense of the word.
    Promotional tours and the vacuous nature of celebrity and talk-show chit-chat are lost on people such as him. I completely understand why he doesn't enjoy the whole empty promotional side-show.

    When a truly intelligent interviewer asks him a genuine, thought provoking question he does engage them and open up. But most 'film journalists' are hacks who couldn't make it in real journalism.

    "Hi! Jake here with Collider! Tell me, Daniel Craig: who would win in a fight, James Bond or Godzilla? Don't forget to like and subscribe and smash that retweet button!"
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Minion wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Naomie is here to be a better interviewee than Daniel Craig. ;)

    Daniel Craig enjoys the creative process and the acting itself. He is an intuitive, a thinker and an actor in the truest sense of the word.
    Promotional tours and the vacuous nature of celebrity and talk-show chit-chat are lost on people such as him. I completely understand why he doesn't enjoy the whole empty promotional side-show.

    When a truly intelligent interviewer asks him a genuine, thought provoking question he does engage them and open up. But most 'film journalists' are hacks who couldn't make it in real journalism.

    "Hi! Jake here with Collider! Tell me, Daniel Craig: who would win in a fight, James Bond or Godzilla? Don't forget to like and subscribe and smash that retweet button!"

    Something along those lines, yes...
  • Posts: 490
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,010
    AceHole wrote: »
    Promotional tours and the vacuous nature of celebrity and talk-show chit-chat are lost on people such as him. I completely understand why he doesn't enjoy the whole empty promotional side-show.
    I did wonder if CraigBond's little flare-ups of exasperation ('Yessss, I know that!', 'Get to the point!', etc) were playing to Craig's actual character, rather than Bond's.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    And died like the little pissant he was. :D
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    That should have been Bond's speech to Safin in their head to head.

    At least then we would have someone on screen calling out the bad plotting and planning of the character, and it could have been a feature of the story, rather than a criticism of the film itself.

    Thought the look and performance of Safin was good. But had absolutely no idea what he was trying to do and still don't after a couple of viewings.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    He made perfect sense to me and I only saw the dang thing twice.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Minion wrote: »
    He made perfect sense to me and I only saw the dang thing twice.

    Good for you.
  • Posts: 490
    Minion wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    And died like the little pissant he was. :D

    My other favorite villain of this era was Silva who was on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Silva was genuinely menacing and dangerous. Directly leading the attack against Bond and M. Safin was playing dress up and Bond just squashed him like a bug. He's so good at it though. Almost a subversion on the villain archetype but it really worked. I would not have bought Rami Malek as a truly intimidating threat like Silva was. But as an angry little man who has dangerous tricks up his sleeve. Absolutely.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    Minion wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Naomie is here to be a better interviewee than Daniel Craig. ;)

    Daniel Craig enjoys the creative process and the acting itself. He is an intuitive, a thinker and an actor in the truest sense of the word.
    Promotional tours and the vacuous nature of celebrity and talk-show chit-chat are lost on people such as him. I completely understand why he doesn't enjoy the whole empty promotional side-show.

    When a truly intelligent interviewer asks him a genuine, thought provoking question he does engage them and open up. But most 'film journalists' are hacks who couldn't make it in real journalism.

    "Hi! Jake here with Collider! Tell me, Daniel Craig: who would win in a fight, James Bond or Godzilla? Don't forget to like and subscribe and smash that retweet button!"

    I loathe Collider anymore, nothing but clickbait, glaring and unnecessary spoilers, poorly researched articles and opinion pieces, and cringe content such as this.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Feyador wrote: »
    It's kind of funny that they had to invent the Safin character at all given that the previous film reintroduced both SPECTRE & Blofeld after more than forty years and amidst much fanfare.

    On the face of it Waltz should have been perfect casting as Blofeld, the Big Bad Villain for Craig-Bond to go out on in NTTD ... but I guess they messed it up with SP and his replacement with Safin in NTTD is EON's tacit acknowledgement of that.

    EON won’t have been blind to the reception. However, you also have to consider that ‘the villain’ is an integral part of marketing a new Bond film.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    RC7 wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    It's kind of funny that they had to invent the Safin character at all given that the previous film reintroduced both SPECTRE & Blofeld after more than forty years and amidst much fanfare.

    On the face of it Waltz should have been perfect casting as Blofeld, the Big Bad Villain for Craig-Bond to go out on in NTTD ... but I guess they messed it up with SP and his replacement with Safin in NTTD is EON's tacit acknowledgement of that.

    EON won’t have been blind to the reception. However, you also have to consider that ‘the villain’ is an integral part of marketing a new Bond film.

    Yes ... and Malek was a hot commodity after his Oscar win for Bohemian Rhapsody, so I can see that.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    I need the BTS-article with the explanation on how/why Blofeld killed Safins family and Safin got his scars. Link please?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Feyador wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    It's kind of funny that they had to invent the Safin character at all given that the previous film reintroduced both SPECTRE & Blofeld after more than forty years and amidst much fanfare.

    On the face of it Waltz should have been perfect casting as Blofeld, the Big Bad Villain for Craig-Bond to go out on in NTTD ... but I guess they messed it up with SP and his replacement with Safin in NTTD is EON's tacit acknowledgement of that.

    EON won’t have been blind to the reception. However, you also have to consider that ‘the villain’ is an integral part of marketing a new Bond film.

    Yes ... and Malek was a hot commodity after his Oscar win for Bohemian Rhapsody, so I can see that.

    I think they got him before he actually won the Oscar (could be wrong), but yes, either way, he certainly was a hot commodity coming off Bohemian.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Another +1 for Billy magnusson here. I thought he played the fan boy to scumbag brilliantly

    One of my favourite vibes in the film is the creepy bald guys walking to camera with the eye. The whole spectre party has a sinister vibe above it. Very well done. Kind of like eyes wide shut meets the dream sequence in Labyrinth
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,849
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Another +1 for Billy magnusson here. I thought he played the fan boy to scumbag brilliantly

    He reminded me a bit of Archer actually.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Another +1 for Billy magnusson here. I thought he played the fan boy to scumbag brilliantly

    One of my favourite vibes in the film is the creepy bald guys walking to camera with the eye. The whole spectre party has a sinister vibe above it. Very well done. Kind of like eyes wide shut meets the dream sequence in Labyrinth

    I also like the shot (either from Bond or Paloma's perspective, perhaps the former) where they bend over with the eye on the pillow so a woman sitting down may speak to Blofeld. That whole party sequence is brilliant.
  • Posts: 490
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Another +1 for Billy magnusson here. I thought he played the fan boy to scumbag brilliantly

    One of my favourite vibes in the film is the creepy bald guys walking to camera with the eye. The whole spectre party has a sinister vibe above it. Very well done. Kind of like eyes wide shut meets the dream sequence in Labyrinth

    I also like the shot (either from Bond or Paloma's perspective, perhaps the former) where they bend over with the eye on the pillow so a woman sitting down may speak to Blofeld. That whole party sequence is brilliant.

    Yeah all the weirdness in that scene was classic Fukugana. I loved it.
  • Posts: 463
    That party was entirely bonkers - the very idea that Blofeld would organize a birthday party from a prison cell with the intent of poisoning Bond with their newly stolen Hercules in front of every other SPECTRE agent was insane, and somehow, absolutely genius. Bond only survives due to Safin flipping Valdo.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    That party was entirely bonkers - the very idea that Blofeld would organize a birthday party from a prison cell with the intent of poisoning Bond with their newly stolen Hercules in front of every other SPECTRE agent was insane, and somehow, absolutely genius. Bond only survives due to Safin flipping Valdo.

    It's fitting that, by giving himself his own gift for his birthday - Bond's death - he also gives a nice gift to all of the other members of SPECTRE in return. Or would've, anyway.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Another +1 for Billy magnusson here. I thought he played the fan boy to scumbag brilliantly

    One of my favourite vibes in the film is the creepy bald guys walking to camera with the eye. The whole spectre party has a sinister vibe above it. Very well done. Kind of like eyes wide shut meets the dream sequence in Labyrinth

    I also like the shot (either from Bond or Paloma's perspective, perhaps the former) where they bend over with the eye on the pillow so a woman sitting down may speak to Blofeld. That whole party sequence is brilliant.

    The woman is Brigitte Millar's Vogel character from Spectre, I think .... she toasts Blofeld and says, 'Happy birthday," or something like that.
  • mattjoesmattjoes DAY OF THE BROSNAN
    Posts: 6,926
    matt_u wrote: »
    I'm a big advocate of NTTD and I really liked Safin. He's creepy, he's dangerous and he genuinely thinks he's a savior.

    But, one thing no one can deny is that Malek's character has been handled quite poorly. His connection and further obsession with Swann is too thin. His motivations are kinda explained but too much was left out of the film. Too many things were just implied, or slightly hinted at best. Just read this:

    Rami Malek Safin sets out to create a world where there is less bloodshed, to remove the world from hand-to-hand combat, from killing people in this animalistic way, as Bond essentially does, when he can kill in such a clean, precise manner. In his mind, this radically progressive technology will help humanity feel less guilty in the wars that they fight.

    If I understood the film correctly, Safin was going to sell the bioweapon to certain people so that they could kill other people. The names of these targets were on Valdo's USB stick, and Safin stole their DNA data to manufacture the nanobots. But were those targets people Safin personally wanted to see dead? Or were they just the targets of Safin's buyers (terrorists, presumably) and he was just putting the weapon out on the market? In other words, was his goal merely to apply a new, "tidier" way of killing people, or was he also looking to kill certain people?

    And as a more general question, what was Safin's immediate threat to the world, beyond his plans of becoming a metaphorical god and having this dangerous technology in his possession? Was the threat the fact he was going to enable some terrorists to commit murder on a large scale, out of a misguided plan of providing a "safer" way to kill people?

    I must say I was a little thrown off by Safin, because early on we find out he stole the DNA data, and then he says to Bond that people want oblivion. That phrase about oblivion is a justification for his desire for godhood, but it also made me assume he personally wanted to see the names on Valdo's list dead. It just sounds like he wants to kill somebody. On the other hand, his words about wanting to be tidier in eradicating people seem to suggest he merely wants to sell the weapon.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,527
    I think your lattermost point is correct. He didn't want to kill certain people, he just wanted to be tidier in eradicating people; he just wanted to sell the weapon. Ostensibly he would equip his buyers with their own means for dialing in targets.
    Killing all of Spectre was a trial, the target chosen by his need for revenge against the organization.
  • mattjoesmattjoes DAY OF THE BROSNAN
    Posts: 6,926
    Just in case, I'd like to clarify that I wrote my previous post under the assumption that, apart from Spectre members, there were other names on Valdo's list, presumably the targets that Safin's buyers wanted to kill. That's what I remember about the scene where they talk about this, but now I wonder if I was conflating Valdo's list with Moneypenny's words on DNA info being stolen from databases around the world. At any rate, one way or the other, the film does point out that Safin was preparing to kill many more people than just Spectre members. And those were the targets I was asking about. Once again, just for clarity's sake.
  • mattjoesmattjoes DAY OF THE BROSNAN
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,926
    I think your lattermost point is correct. He didn't want to kill certain people, he just wanted to be tidier in eradicating people; he just wanted to sell the weapon. Ostensibly he would equip his buyers with their own means for dialing in targets.
    In a way it does make sense that this is Safin's plan. His father was a poison supplier for Spectre, so he takes that to the next level, selling a new means of killing, with new technology and on a worldwide scale. Combine that with a thirst for power and a desire to be an "invisible god", borne out of his experience with life and death in the pre-title sequence, and you get a real nutcase. It's coming together for me.

    Edit: That said, I do wish the exposition on all this had been a little more clear. A little... tidier. The buyers are explicitly mentioned too late into the film.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Agreed on all points. Didn’t even know his father was a Spectre poisons supplier.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think your lattermost point is correct. He didn't want to kill certain people, he just wanted to be tidier in eradicating people; he just wanted to sell the weapon. Ostensibly he would equip his buyers with their own means for dialing in targets.
    In a way it does make sense that this is Safin's plan. His father was a poison supplier for Spectre, so he takes that to the next level, selling a new means of killing, with new technology and on a worldwide scale. Combine that with a thirst for power and a desire to be an "invisible god", borne out of his experience with life and death in the pre-title sequence, and you get a real nutcase. It's coming together for me.

    Edit: That said, I do wish the exposition on all this had been a little more clear. A little... tidier. The buyers are explicitly mentioned too late into the film.

    Or maybe the buyers are only present to give the film a countdown scenario to justify the urgency of calling in the missile strike. No buyers, no urgency .... and maybe Bond is rescued and survives. But then faces that tricky situation regarding his own poisoning with nanobots targeting Madeleine & Mathilde. Which is why we only hear about the buyers late in the film ... maybe they're just a necessary last-minute plot device?

    BTW, it makes little sense that Nomi did not stay with him to finish the job ...

    ... not that any of this matters, lol. I think the ending is wonderful as it is and I would not wish it otherwise. And NTTD wouldn't be the first Bond film to defy logic or have a confusing storyline. Nor will it be the last. The plots of our beloved Bond movies are just not made to withstand the kind of scrutiny we give them sometimes.
Sign In or Register to comment.