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

1151152154156157298

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,683
    I'm finally off to see it for my second viewing in theaters tomorrow morning. It'll probably be my last, sadly, as it seems this film won't be around by next weekend. I can't wait, going to be a long wait until that 4K releases. I'm very eager to see how I feel about it after a few weeks of sitting with it and thinking on it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    imranbecks wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    So I was reading about nanobots. Apparently they can be deactivated using an EMP. Then it just dawned on me.. Bond's watch had an EMP device installed by Q! Why didn't Bond use it to deactivate the nanobots inside him???? Was it not powerful enough??

    51592049089_98c2a3c4cc_b.jpg

    Probably the same reason his ear piece communication wasn't knocked out of action. The script didn't require it, even though an EMP would have disabled it.

    Talk about a huge plothole. The thing that could've disabled those nanobots in him was around his wrist and they didn't even think about trying to use it.

    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.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    imranbecks wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    So I was reading about nanobots. Apparently they can be deactivated using an EMP. Then it just dawned on me.. Bond's watch had an EMP device installed by Q! Why didn't Bond use it to deactivate the nanobots inside him???? Was it not powerful enough??

    51592049089_98c2a3c4cc_b.jpg

    Probably the same reason his ear piece communication wasn't knocked out of action. The script didn't require it, even though an EMP would have disabled it.

    Talk about a huge plothole. The thing that could've disabled those nanobots in him was around his wrist and they didn't even think about trying to use it.

    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.
  • Minion wrote: »
    I’ve had to explain this more often than I should, but Safin sees himself as an arbiter of justice, cleansing the world of villains one massacre at a time. They lay this all out in the exchange he has with Bond sitting down at the table.
    Well, if he’s cleansing the world of villains (the likes of SPECTRE for instance) then I’d say he’s a pretty swell guy. Hardly a maniacal Bond villain. A vigilante? Sure. But at least his cause is noble.

    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.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 650
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    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.
  • Posts: 526
    Minion wrote: »
    I’ve had to explain this more often than I should, but Safin sees himself as an arbiter of justice, cleansing the world of villains one massacre at a time. They lay this all out in the exchange he has with Bond sitting down at the table.
    Well, if he’s cleansing the world of villains (the likes of SPECTRE for instance) then I’d say he’s a pretty swell guy. Hardly a maniacal Bond villain. A vigilante? Sure. But at least his cause is noble.

    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.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    The old “hey it’s good enough for me it should be good enough for everyone else”.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    Perhaps this will help clarify things... or not

    "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/

    1853.jpg

    04216-722a6205-9bbc-493a-afad-bafc1f80037a.png
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    Minion wrote: »
    People: “It’s unrealistic and hokey for villains to monologue their masterplan.”

    Same people: “I don’t understand Safin because they didn’t overexplain his motivation.”

    He’ll be the most re-examined character of the Craig era, mark my words.

    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.

  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    peter wrote: »
    Minutes before he died he knows what it is to be a father and we can believe in that because Lea's performance is so authentic

    Thank you, you nailed it. What a beautiful scene, @Michelle_Johnston_55 ...

    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.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    Feyador wrote: »
    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.

    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/

    135758444639910.jpg



  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Feyador wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    People: “It’s unrealistic and hokey for villains to monologue their masterplan.”

    Same people: “I don’t understand Safin because they didn’t overexplain his motivation.”

    He’ll be the most re-examined character of the Craig era, mark my words.

    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.

    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.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Feyador wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    People: “It’s unrealistic and hokey for villains to monologue their masterplan.”

    Same people: “I don’t understand Safin because they didn’t overexplain his motivation.”

    He’ll be the most re-examined character of the Craig era, mark my words.

    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.

    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.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    Minion wrote: »
    I’ve had to explain this more often than I should, but Safin sees himself as an arbiter of justice, cleansing the world of villains one massacre at a time. They lay this all out in the exchange he has with Bond sitting down at the table.
    Well, if he’s cleansing the world of villains (the likes of SPECTRE for instance) then I’d say he’s a pretty swell guy. Hardly a maniacal Bond villain. A vigilante? Sure. But at least his cause is noble.
    The diabolical nature of Safin’s plan is he believes he’s doing humanity a service, but the scale of his goals and lack of any oversight is what makes him dangerous. The issue is he’s writing the definition of what denotes a villain, and that most certainly will begin to involve innocents based on Valdo’s comments. He’s one of the easiest Craig villains to grasp, so I don’t know why some people are having such a difficult time with this.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Perhaps because we've had a greater psychological complexity in the Bond character himself during the Craig years we expect a commensurate complexity in the character of his foes ...

    ... 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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 23,847
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    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.

    @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.
    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

    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.
    It’s in the Holy Bible.
    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.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    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.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Feyador wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    People: “It’s unrealistic and hokey for villains to monologue their masterplan.”

    Same people: “I don’t understand Safin because they didn’t overexplain his motivation.”

    He’ll be the most re-examined character of the Craig era, mark my words.

    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.

    I think you are quite right.
  • Posts: 1,394
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    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.

    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 ? “ 😆

  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,394
    This is easily the best,most well balanced ( He really likes Craig as Bond ) ,and funniest review of the film yet...

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    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.

    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 ? “ 😆

    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.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,025
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    “ He’s still hung up on that 23 year old girl that he knew for a few weeks back in 2006 ? “
    Yeah, but I saw The Dreamers in 2004 and I still drift into a fugue over her every now and then! And that's not meant as a euphemism...

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is easily the best,most well balanced ( He really likes Craig as Bond ) ,and funniest review of the film yet...


    From the guy who whined about Cardi B’s song and embarrassed himself for not understanding female anatomy? Lmao, no thanks.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49
    Feyador wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Minutes before he died he knows what it is to be a father and we can believe in that because Lea's performance is so authentic

    Thank you, you nailed it. What a beautiful scene, @Michelle_Johnston_55 ...

    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.

    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.







  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,114
    After all the buildup on the train when she handles the gun, they needed to pay off Madeleine's ability with a gun in SP, somewhere, somehow...not wait until the next film. It's Chekov's gun.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    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.

    @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.
    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

    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.
    It’s in the Holy Bible.
    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.
    I find the idea of transgenderism or recognition of any genders aside from male or female to be evil. And I’m not just Biblically speaking. Even if you believe in evolution you have to admit that the birth of a human being (either male or female, we’re not born under any other gender) is a sacred concept. So how anyone can accept the idea that someone can just decide to be something other than what they’re born as being normal.. I don’t understand that. Obviously there’s a mental disorder there. We shouldn’t be encouraging that kind of behavior. But treating this as something not normal. Because it isn’t. Never was. Never can be. So a guy wants to be a woman? Well that’s tough. We can’t have everything we want. I mean where do we draw the line? A pedophile wants to have access to kids because that’s the only thing that makes him happy. Should we allow this? I mean why deny his chance as happiness when that’s the only thing in life that brings him joy? Believe it or not we’re headed in that direction. Things that at one time we’re considered bizarre and even criminal are now considered perfectly normal. Things that are criminal today will someday also become the new normal. Something to think about.
  • AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is easily the best,most well balanced ( He really likes Craig as Bond ) ,and funniest review of the film yet...


    From the guy who whined about Cardi B’s song and embarrassed himself for not understanding female anatomy? Lmao, no thanks.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    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.

    @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.
    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

    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.
    It’s in the Holy Bible.
    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.
    I find the idea of transgenderism or recognition of any genders aside from male or female to be evil. And I’m not just Biblically speaking. Even if you believe in evolution you have to admit that the birth of a human being (either male or female, we’re not born under any other gender) is a sacred concept. So how anyone can accept the idea that someone can just decide to be something other than what they’re born as being normal.. I don’t understand that. Obviously there’s a mental disorder there. We shouldn’t be encouraging that kind of behavior. But treating this as something not normal. Because it isn’t. Never was. Never can be. So a guy wants to be a woman? Well that’s tough. We can’t have everything we want. I mean where do we draw the line? A pedophile wants to have access to kids because that’s the only thing that makes him happy. Should we allow this? I mean why deny his chance as happiness when that’s the only thing in life that brings him joy? Believe it or not we’re headed in that direction. Things that at one time we’re considered bizarre and even criminal are now considered perfectly normal. Things that are criminal today will someday also become the new normal. Something to think about.

    So now you’re comparing transgenders to pedophiles.

    Sorry, but YOU are evil.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    matt_u wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    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.

    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 ? “ 😆

    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.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.