What exactly was the villain's motivation to kill lots of people? (SPOILERS?) - No Time to Die (2021) Discussion

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

I think if we don't understand the villain that is a good sign the movie is lack of depth.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

It seems he’s just evil to be evil much like Drax in Moonraker

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

That kind of Disney cartoon villain is why I think the movie lack of depth.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

You are absolutely right although I would say your typical Disney villain has more depth than Saffin

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

True :)

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Heck even Jafar had more understandable motivations, he was tired of watching the kingdom being ruled by a buffoon

reply

[–] wiiztec (260) 3 years ago

Well Drax had a vision to repopulate the earth with his perfect master race, this guy is like I'm just gonna kill people lol

reply

[–] bistritapcv (1970) 3 years ago

I was wondering too. A world without many people wouldn't be much fun for the survivors.

reply

[–] sonans (1674) 3 years ago

So you must hate The Dark Knight, because no one understand Joker's motivation in that movie too.

Some men just want to watch the world... die.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

I never really liked the dark knight, even I loves batman begins, but actually Joker is understandable. He wanted to rule Gotham with fear, and he was kind of crazy. But the crazy part is probably why I did not like it. I mean why burn the money? We label the joker as crazy and dismiss him, that lacks character depth.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Some men just want to watch the world... die.

Because they are angry and they hate. If they can make us understand why, then I would call that "deep".

reply

[–] LanceDance (1392) 3 years ago

The Joker was a chaotic force, the movie made that known from the beginning.

The villain in No Time To Die wanted to kill the person that killed his family. Makes sense.
The person who killed his family was part of Spectre, and evil organization, so then he wanted to kill Spectre. Makes sense.
He kills the the guy and Spectre, and then after that he wants to kill... everybody? Almost everybody? What? Why?

reply

[–] sonans (1674) 3 years ago

Joker steals money from a bank in the beginning, that mean he need money, and then at midpoint he burn all the money. What? Why?

reply

[–] LanceDance (1392) 3 years ago

To show that he didn’t really need it. He had a team of people, and killed all of them in the end. He demanded for Batman to reveal his identity, and then changed his mind even though Batman was gonna do it.

The Joker can take whatever he wants, even though he doesn’t really want or need it. He changes his mind on the fly just to screw with people. He just wants to watch the world burn. Again, he was a chaotic force, that was established at the beginning of the movie, and remains consistent throughout the movie.

The bad guy in No Time to Die made it clear he wanted to kill the people who killed his family: Spectre. He kills them, and then out of nowhere decided he wants to play Thanos. That made no sense.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

The Joker can take whatever he wants, even though he doesn’t really want or need it. He changes his mind on the fly just to screw with people.

There are people like that, but they are never going to be leaders. The joker does not have super powers, he is nobody if he is alone. People don't join a criminal organizations just because they want chaos, they join for money and expect their leaders to deliver and reward them with it.

When the joker burnt money, in real life he would lose 99% of his gang very shortly, because none wants to work for a boss doesn't want money, it is not like they need to give 2 weeks notice. Bombs might be cheap, but people want to be paid, the more the better.

That is one of the main reason I don't like it. You can't just say the joker can't be understood because he is crazy. He might be crazy but that does not mean he is stupid. And if he were stupid he would not be an enemy for the batman.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1392) 3 years ago

Oh I agree that not everyone in Joker's group joined just because of chaos. I'm sure a few of them sneaked a few chucks of money in their pockets before Joker burnt the rest down. But he's built enough of a reputation that his followers are willing to go far enough for him, that's what I got anyway.

As for whether you'll understand him or his motivations, I disagreed with the other guy. He's actually quite easy to understand. He's crazy and chaotic, yet also quite smart, and it's implied he had a messed up life before becoming the Joker. I don't need all my villains to be sympathetic or deeply developed, sometimes the mystery makes them scarier and less predictable.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Scarier? Of course, but not realistic. Fundamentally organized crime is a business activity, built on drugs, illegal gambling, prostitution, etc. They might appear chaotic but that is just because they don't ask helps from law enforcement. But they actually need order to run their activities, all businesses do.

The joker as it seems does not have a business, his gangs mostly run the smash and grab robbery routine, which is not a stable business, also attracts police attention in other people's turf, since he did not have one. Other crime bosses tolerated him because he offered to kill batman.

He demanded for Batman to reveal his identity, and then changed his mind even though Batman was gonna do it.

Batman is the reason he was accepted by the underworld, it is the reason they've given him a seat at the table, as long as he was useful. Of course he did not want to reveal Batman's identity, because he did not want to kill him at all, he confessed that to Batman as much.

Once Batman's identity is revealed nobody is going to need him. With the full force of underworld on him his days would be numbered, no matter how smart he is. In a war of attrition he will lose all his staffs, eventually end up in the bottom of a river, if not shot in the streets. Like I said he was not stupid.

Also his gang risks their lives to make money, do you think they want to do that for long term? When the joker burnt the money what would they think? Is that the boss going to deliver their retirement? What if someone offered them a better paid job, if they shot the joker? How many do you think would be ready to turn? How many do you think would want a change of leadership, and start thinking:"We can't let him keep doing this shit, maybe we should kill the joker and let Tony lead us."?

I think in real life after that bonfire of greenbacks the joker's life would be hanging by a thread. If you think those minions risked their lives because it was fun then maybe you need to grow up a bit.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

I don't need all my villains to be sympathetic or deeply developed

That is OK with me, not everyone needs the movies to be deep or even make sense to have a good experience. Some people just want to eat popcorn and forget about their lives for 2 hours.

But as someone once said before:"A movie is as good as it's villain", so don't blame us to compare these movies with mickey mouse cartoons.

reply

[–] Kinsayder (47) 3 years ago

It wouldn’t have been hard to give him a plausible motive for the targeted assassination of millions of people. E.g. overthrowing governments for political goals, crashing the stock market for financial gain, eliminating specific ethnic groups for racist reasons, or even saving the world from climate change.

Goldfinger had a great supervillain plan (irradiate the gold in Fort Knox to increase the value of his own hoard). This guy, not so much.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 3 years ago

or even saving the world from climate change.
good one.
That one would work !
not only climate change but all the problems caused by this planet having too many humans crawling all over it , like pollution

reply

[–] FFNogoodnik (778) 3 years ago

If I recall correctly, and I may not as I only saw it once on opening weekend but I remember him saying that his family was in the business of making poisons. they were like the "Rolls Royce" of poisons.

The reason he did what he did in the film was because he realized that if you have something and do not use it then do you really have it. So his plan was to use what he had to its fullest. in other words "Go Big or Go home"

Like i said, this is what I think based on a film I watched a while ago.

I am also not saying I thought it was a good plan for a movie or for anyone, i really do wish there was a better plan going in.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

If I recall correctly, and I may not as I only saw it once on opening weekend but I remember him saying that his family was in the business of making poisons. they were like the "Rolls Royce" of poisons.

The reason he did what he did in the film was because he realized that if you have something and do not use it then do you really have it. So his plan was to use what he had to its fullest. in other words "Go Big or Go home"

Right, that's what I got as well. He wasn't satisfied just killing Spectre; that was just his first act.

M said it as well, killing off Spectre would leave a power vacuum for someone like him to conveniently fill.

So while it wasn't spelled out for us, it was pretty clear to me that Safin was driven by more than revenge. He wanted to "succeed" in the family business (poison).

That's why there were three mysterious ships approaching the island at the end -- he described them as "customers," but we're never told who they are. Nor do we need to know; we just need to understand that, having perfected Herakles and killed off Spectre, he was now "going commercial"

reply

[–] Kinsayder (47) 3 years ago

His speech to Bond gives some clues about his masterplan:

"We both eradicate people to make the world a better place. I just want to be a little... tidier. Without collateral. I want the world to evolve, yet you want it to stay the same. Let's face it... I've made you redundant."

He seems to be saying that while Bond is content to repeatedly foil the plots of organisations like Spectre, his own goal is to eliminate them entirely, "to make the world a better place." The "without collateral" part is incorrect, of course, and Safin's views about which people need eradicating are unclear (MI6, perhaps, if they get in his way?). Which is why Bond has to stop him.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11349) 3 years ago

This movie was trying to tell three different stories at once and the villain/main story line got the short end of the stick. It was like at the last minute they realized they had another Bond story that was completely family motivated and they just did that in the last movie and had to scramble to come up with something else.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

At some point I was thinking that he is targeting only bad guys with the weapon ...

I think he said at some point "we want the same thing but I have the balls to do it" or "we want the same thing but the methods are different"

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I do remember that line now that you mention it. What does it mean though I wonder?

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

To me it sounded like he wanted to take out ALL the bad guys.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Except that when they played the computer simulation of what would happen it pretty much showed the population of the entire world being wiped out. So I think he wanted to kill everyone and start the population from scratch, or simply wipe out mankind. His motivation seemed to be that his family was killed and he wanted revenge, only he wanted revenge against the world.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Well, nope, not the entire population but a lot of people around the world, in all regions. There are criminals all over the world, you know?
I don’t remember the exact number but they said something like “millions will die”

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 3 years ago

but how? how was he going to target the bad guys all over the world?
even with his clever dna targetting system

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Remember that he accessed some databases with DNA for key individuals all over the world?

I suspect that all those individuals are all fugitives, criminals, warlords, etc.

If your goal is to wipe humanity why even create a poison that works on selective DNA?? Use a generic one and bam, much easier.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 3 years ago

well, if he was only going to wipe out " all fugitives, criminals, warlords, etc."
should we be rooting for him?

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

I guess it would had been more interesting if his goals were made more clear and the morality of it would had been explored a bit more. Something like Thanos ...

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

If his goal was simply killing criminal then why would anyone give a fuck. If that was his goal then Bond should have been patting him on the back and helping him get away.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Well, you have a warped sense of justice, don't you????

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

What's warped about it? You think criminals should be afford tender loving care after they have victimized innocent people, raping and murdering them at will? I would say you have a fucking liberal pussy view of criminals. I suspect it will change once you or someone you known and love is victimized.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

No, I think criminals should be trialed and punished when found guilty and according to their crimes and the law, not killed because some idiot thinks all of them deserve to die ...

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Why waste money trying to rehabilitate a piece of shit that in most cases will never be rehabilitated. Kill them and you never have to worry about them ever breaking the law again, besides they provide good food for worms and maggots.

reply

[–] wiiztec (260) 3 years ago

IDK man there's some hardened cucks out there now, pleading for mercy for people that killed their children and such.

reply

[–] footlegger (1468) 3 years ago

The world is a mess, a rat race of stressed people competing against each other and an ultrarich elite controlling everything and allowing extreme poverty and hunger.
It's only human to want to end it all.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Again this.

People don't understand that NO MATTER how rich I would be it's NOT my responsibility to feed you. Learn to fucking fish!!!

reply

[–] footlegger (1468) 3 years ago

Nobody gets rich on their own. That's why everyone should pay taxes.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Yeah, and that doesn't mean that I have to pay for your food.

And guess what: everybody PAYS taxes. Ask Musk how much he paid on the stock he just sold.

Hint: a lot more than you would pay in 10 lives.

"The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for over 71 percent of all income taxes paid and the top 25 percent paid 87 percent of all income taxes. Both of those figures represent an increased tax share compared to 2017."

reply

[–] footlegger (1468) 3 years ago

Capitalism needs constant growth in order to function.
So, the state needs working people in order to generate wealth and taxes (GDP)
The working people are actually livestock to the state and the corporations.
If the state cannot guarantee living wages for everyone (including the currently unemployed), they either need to:
1. prevent people from procreating (bad for capitalism which needs more workers to ensure growth)
2. kill (starve?) the "unproductive" poor (bad for capitalism, since those can be turned into workers whenever the economy expands)
3. feed them and give them shelter through taxpayer funded social programs in order to assure there are enough workers for that constant growth they need. (good for capitalism)

Musk sold stock in order to pay taxes as a gesture of good will. Most of the wealthy people (especially billionaires) pay next to nothing.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Musk pays taxes because his stock options were vested. This is an one time thing, it does not mean he is going to pay taxes in future, he does not have to.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Capitalism doesn't require constant growth to function, what requires constant growth are governments. Governments create all sorts of things that are based on growth. SS is prime example. It has only been able to last as long as it has because the number of wager earners and wages have gone up over time. If the number of workers stayed constant and wages didn't move it would collapse very quickly.

reply

[–] footlegger (1468) 3 years ago

Ask any sales person in any bigger company - they are required to double the profits each year, otherwise they get fired.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I've worked in some very large companies, and while they love more sales I've never known of any that were stupid enough to expect double profits each year. The fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between sales and profits makes me think you're just pulling shit from your ass.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

I've worked in some very large companies, and while they love more sales I've never known of any that were stupid enough to expect profits each year.

Then I doubt you even worked for a large company, at least not in any meaningful managerial roles.

Because in large corporations the majority of manager's pay depends on KPIs (key performance indicators), that is the standard practice. You don't perform you don't get paid. "profits each year"? That is the least of their expectations. If you don't make a profit growth each year you will get fired pretty soon.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The previous poster claimed companies expects profits to double each year. Are you so stupid you think that's true? No one with even half a brain would believe that because it's pretty common fucking knowledge that if you double something and keep doubling it every year, that in no time. Hell in 20 years you would have to be making more than 2 million times more profit than in the first year. Are you so stupid you believe that?

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Double profit? No, that is not possible for large companies. I guess I misread and I am sorry about that.

But return of equity of 12% or more and 5% profit growth each year is pretty standard expectation. So his point is still valid.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

His comment was:

"Ask any sales person in any bigger company - they are required to double the profits each year, otherwise they get fired."

Nothing about that comment it valid, it is complete bullshit. Frankly in large companies they don't even look at a salesman in terms of profit, they look at them in terms of gross sales revenue.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

His point was:"Capitalism needs constant growth in order to function."

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

That was an earlier post, the one I was directly replying to was the one I quoted with the double profit nonsense.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

They are top 10 percent tax payers, that does not mean they are top earners, that does not mean they are wealthy. The question you should ask is that the top 1% wealthiest, how much taxes are they paying?

For example, the only tax Warren Buffet is paying is the tax on his salary, which is about $100K a year.

I think Mark Zuckerberg & Jeff Bezos paid nothing. They paid neither corporate tax nor personal tax. They spend by borrowing from banks at near zero rate.

When Mark Zuckerberg supported universal basic income I don't think it was going to come out of his tax dollars since he did not pay any.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Do you fucking know how to read? It states clearly: the top 10% EARNERS.

And yes, it’s called income tax for a reason.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

So Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg & Jeff Bezos are not top 10 earners? Maybe Mark Zuckerberg & Jeff Bezos need government support since they had almost no income, I am surprised they are not homeless.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

The problem is the rich did not necessarily worked for their money. Only 1/3 of money is made, that is people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg & Jeff Bezos. 2/3 of money is inherited.

Most of middle or lower classes pay rents, mortgages, car loans and student loans, they are lucky if they can get out of all the debts when they retire, and most of that money goes to that 2/3. Do you really think that is all fair.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

Yes,I think that it’s’ fair to leave whatever wealth I’m building over my life to my kids. Who else am I supposed to leave it to? You? The failed government?

"Most of middle or lower classes pay rents, mortgages, car loans and student loans, they are lucky if they can get out of all the debts when they retire"

If they afford rent, mortgage, car loans, etc they are far from poor. And they can afford it because they work for a corporation.

I pay all that and realize that if not for those corporations I would live like in Cuba or NK. Have you EVER lived in a socialist country? Make the experiment and do it, live 5 years in Cuba as a middle class Cuban.

And before you say something about Sweden, Denmark, etc:
1. They are capitalist, not socialist.
2. They have plenty of corporations.
3. And they tax the shit out of the middle class.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Did I say anything about capitalism?

I think rich people don't pay taxes and don't serve in military maybe be related but is not entirely about capitalism.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

As I was saying they pay taxes. On the income.

When bezos and musk sold shares they paid billions in taxes.

Your whine that they "don't pay taxes" is unfounded and quite stupid to be honest.

And they pay sales tax on everything they buy. And on the property. I bet that bezos's property tax alone for 1y is more than you make (not pay ...) in all your life ;)

https://nypost.com/article/jeff-bezos-houses-real-estate-portfolio/

But "they don't pay taxes" right???

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

You can't even find any information on Bezos paying income taxes, can you?

So you think it is OK billionaires don't pay income taxes like average people?

Are are paid by some billionaire funded "think tank" or NGO to defend them? I know a lot of people on various internet forums are actually from "social media consulting firms", nick named "internet troll farms" , it is quite a booming industry currently.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

"So you think it is OK billionaires don't pay income taxes like average people?"

You must be really stupid. They DO pay income like everyone else. Selling stocks IS an income.

And yeah, when they have ZERO income then they should pay zero taxes. As anyone else.

So you think that someone with zero income should pay income tax?? Really? Are you THAT dumb??

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

And Mark Zuckerberg & Jeff Bezos are the zero income billionaires, strange, isn't it? And they did not sell stocks, at least not on regular basis or pay taxes on them. Bezos sold shares before and gave the money to Bezos Earth Charity Fund that he controls, so that is tax free.

You are resorting to name calling, that kind of means you are losing the argument. It seems you have nothing new to say other than name calling and insults, and it is quite clear this is no longer an intelligent discussion.

Since I already made my point, I will just leave you to be.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

So you want him to pay taxes when he's not making a dime and you want him to pay taxes when he gives away his money.

What's with you commies and this hate for people that actually work hard and take risks to get there??? I doubt it's just envy and "i hate everyone that's successful because I'm stupid and I suck and I barely afford to pay rent". Must be something deeper for this kind of hate ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled

"Altogether, Forbes estimates that Bezos has paid $6 billion in federal capital gains taxes on his nearly $27 billion of Amazon share sales, assuming he didn’t use losses on other investments to offset those gains. ProPublica reported that between 2014 and 2018 Bezos paid $973 million in federal taxes."

And I'm calling you names just because you deserve it due to your lack of logic and a lot of bullshit ideology.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Actually I retired at 41 about 8 years ago. Even I am not working I am still paying top marginal taxes from my investments. To me it is just not fair people like Mark Zuckerberg & Jeff Bezos do not have to.

If Bezos gives money to other people's charities I would say he was a philanthropist, but no, he gave money to a charity he controls, that is just money out of one hand into the other.

In many ways charity funds of that kind are just a means to pass money to children without paying inheritance tax.

I have never seen someone so desperate to cover up for billionaires instead of asking questions. I think what you are is quite clear.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

"assuming he didn’t use losses on other investments"

So they don't know whether he paid taxes or not, they just assumed. All he had to do is to give that money to his charity, even if his accountant could not think of something more creative, and I very much doubt he did not have first rate accountants or tax attorneys.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

If he gives the money to the charity, even if it’s his, those are not his money anymore, cannot be used in personal matters or given to kids as inheritance.

Asking questions is fine, hatefully blaming everyone that has the guts to make money is something different.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Of course they can. There were scandals for both Hilary Clinton and Trump using their charity funds as slush funds, paying for personal expenses, and there is even nothing illegal about that.

You are either more than naive or pretend to be. I very much suspect the later.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

Most of western countries like US operate voluntary military, it is the freedom and liberty thing. But that also means rich kids don't need to serve in military. It is the poor kids go and fight for corporate interests overseas so the oil billionaires can get wealthier.

The vast majority of rich people don't really work, don't serve in military and live off on blood and sweat of poor people. Are you really OK with all that?

reply

[–] footlegger (1468) 3 years ago

Poor people who support Republicans and Capitalism think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

reply

[–] fc31 (6122) 3 years ago

But they are not. 1% is 1% because 99% won't make it. And in that 1% only about 1/3 is self made.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

No, I think myself as an emigrant from an-ex socialist country that can finally live a good life and not be the slave of the state/party.

reply

[–] kenburke (2396) 3 years ago

He was an asshole (good enough reason as any).

reply