NTTD - Safin's ultimate goal
SeanIsTheOnlyOne
Posts: 723MI6 Agent
During their meeting, Safin tells Bond 'We’ve just developed different methods for the same goal' and 'We both eradicate people to make the world a better place. I just want to be a little... tidier. Without collateral'.
All of this implies Safin's main goal has always been to punish 'dangerous' people and their families, like he did with Madeleine's mother in the PTS, and then many years later with the members of SPECTRE. I guess he also targets the employees of agencies like MI6 which hire professional killers, because Moneypenny tells Bond in Q's house she 'can’t imagine they’re leaving us out' after the computer breaches round the world of databases holding DNA information.
But who are the buyers Safin refers to during the climax? Why would he sell such a lethal weapon to people whose purpose is not necessarily good while his goal is precisely to 'clean' the world and make it safer? Furthermore, Safin is not written as a greedy character whose ultimate objective is making money like Goldfinger, Kananga or Elektra for instance.
So isn't this subplot with the buyers irrelevant considering what Safin has done so far and what he tells Bond about his worldview? Why did they add such a concept to the story?
Comments
I rewatched the film yesterday, and this element still bothers me. I really don't understand this subplot with the buyers and particularly its link with Safin's goal. If someone here can provide an explanation, it would be very helpful.
Thx.
I have no explanation, but I have a guess as to why it has happened - this is the result of the various screenwriters (not all of whom were credited, I believe) rewriting scenes or entire parts of the plot without looking at, if you'll pardon the pun, the big picture. So long as the desired end point (not desired by me, for what that's worth) was reached then some details not adding up along the way could be ignored.
It must be said that NTTD is hardly alone among Bond films in this.
I suppose you could explain it by saying that potential buyers are lured in by Safin and intended to be eradicated, rather than given the virus. Bringing them to him ties in with the desire to minimize collateral. Drawing them away from the general population.
@Barbel it is the most logical assumption indeed.
Having said that, Purvis and Wade usually make sure the global frame of the story remains understandable and we can see the various plot holes of the previous movies they've written do not interfere with the villain's motivations. Everyone can understand the respective goals of Elektra, Moon, Le Chiffre, Greene, Silva, and even Oberhauser despite the lack of thrill. For Safin, it's the first time we have a villain whose ultimate goal is unclear.
There are many theories online dealing with his motivations, and most are contradictory. Some people claim Safin is like Stromberg and Drax and only wants to kill millions of people indiscriminately, which doesn't fit with the speech he gives to Bond: 'We’ve just developed different methods for the same goal', 'We both eradicate people to make the world a better place. I just want to be a little... tidier. Without collateral', 'Let's face it, I've made you redundant'. Other people say once he's completed his revenge against Spectre and Oberhauser, he just becomes an arms dealer whose main goal is making money thanks to Herakles, which, here again, doesn't match at all with his speech.
The millions of people he's targeting do not seem to be national/regional/municipal populations, but specific groups of individuals related to structures which 'provide' death (Spectre and other criminal entities, MI6...), no matter whether it's fair or not. Because of what happened to his family, I guess he promised himself to make sure the world would be rid of killers one day. The fact he also targets relatives aligns with his state of mind (he doesn't hesitate to eliminate Madeleine's mother for being married to the man who killed his family), and one can even think he considers the propensity to become a killer is in the genes (he doesn't take his own case into account as someone who thinks he's God).
All of this could work eventually, but for me, this subplot with the buyers makes everything even more opaque. An explanation would be those people share his worldview and only intend to get Herakles as a deterrent against potential future killers, but it's incredibly far-fetched and nothing in the film suggests that.
I see your point but I'm not sure it has anything to do with the global population considering the nanobots are programmed to kill only people genetically related to specific targets (belonging to entities like Spectre, MI6...).
Herakles does not work like a classic virus for which the main fear is to have geographical clusters. If you have a random sample of 1000 people infecting each other, then the number of victims within this sample will be determined by the number of people genetically related to the initial targets. This implies that if nobody within the sample is genetically concerned, then nobody will die despite being infected. That's why Safin says 'I just want to be a little... tidier. Without collateral'.
Obruchev has a whole speech (and I think it’s discussed at MI6) about how the virus can be modified to wipe out genetic strains and races. Reading between the lines it’s eugenics and ethnic genocide being discussed.
He mainly says it to provoke Nomi and to show how powerful he can be thanks to the modifications he can bring to Herakles. It doesn't appear to be Safin's initial plan, otherwise he wouldn't tell Bond they've the same goal but different methods to achieve it. Drax doesn't compare himself to Bond and doesn't tell him they share the same objective...
I think the buyers were written into the plot to create a ticking clock, but as it's pointed out above it doesn't make sense. I think it would be better with a better ticking clock. Both Russia and China only knows a weapon of mass destruction is being made on an island just off their coasts, and the island doesn reslly belong to any country. It would make sense to bomb the island flat. Let's say MI6 finds out Russia or China are planning to bomb Safin's island at a certain time. Now we have a ticking clock, and also a way to kill Bond without the irony of Bond gettting killed by his parent service.
The fact we have to discuss this indicates a plot hole that it is not satisfactorially explained, a feature of almost all James Bond films. Does it matter? Do we care as viewers? Most of the audience probably don't even pay such close attention.
Well, don't forget we're fans and some of us like me do pay attention to those elements, otherwise I guess this kind of forum wouldn't even exist. The idea is obviously not to criticize the writers but to determine whether or not it is possible to make the whole story relevant towards the stakes thanks to personal interpretations, despite the various holes it suffers from.
I rewatched CR recently, and I'm still quite impressed by its fluid narrative. The stakes are easy to understand despite the various imbrications due to the fact it's a spy thriller. It's something I desperately missed in NTTD, and right now, I'm still unable to say with certainty what Safin precisely intends to do. Some fans will say the villain's motivations/plan are not what they give credit to when they watch a Bond film, and they have every right to feel that way. But for me, it's a crucial point and one of the parameters I'm looking forward to discovering every time a new film is released.
Do you see my point?
I do get that it's the fun of being a fan to discuss the minutiae of the films but I must admit I never had a problem with this part of the film. I do get the issue with his speech to Bond making it sound like he has a big holistic plan to slim down the population perhaps not feeling entirely compatible with the concept of third party buyers arriving to just use his weapon, presumably in any way they see fit; but I don't think it's entirely contradictory. There's only a few ways this weapon can be used after all, so he's well aware of the sort of uses it will be put to and is kind of taking the credit for that- he doesn't actually really talk of any grand plan, just that he's bringing 'oblivion' to the people and is happy that his legacy will be that.
I dunno, I don't really see where it doesn't work, and it's certainly effective enough as part of a blockbuster movie. His plan is to sell a weapon which will kill lots and lots of people, he's been compiling lists of thousands of people based on their DNA as part of that weapon (and as mentioned above, together with Obruchev's comments there's a strong undercurrent of racial genocide being suggested; plus Bond and Nomi see their simulations to 'kill millions'); I feel like that works well enough?
@emtiem I can't deny your point is relevant, but like I said before, it's mainly me and my propensity to analyse the writing process, as you probably noticed through our recent (and quite interesting) discussions.
Once again, NTTD has a very special place within the series. Presumably, the villain's plan wasn't a parameter the producers decided to prioritize, which remains understandable considering the various topics Craig and them intended to develop in regards to Bond's narrative arc.
I do get where you're coming from and, beyond getting revenge on Spectre, his further motivations and plans are definitely only quite vaguely sketched out, but for me there's still enough there to make the film work.
It's definitely interesting to look at this stuff closely and imagine how it could have been done better, but for me it's not enough to sink the film. I guess the approaching buyers are a bit vague too, but seem an effective enough ticking clock to me.
I listened to an interview with Purvis & Wade the other day which was from the release of Skyfall, and they're asked about how Silva's plan works because it falls apart a bit if you think about it, and they do actually say words to the effect of it's only a movie. And although I'm sure a lot of fans will have a go at them over that, I tend to think they're right: it works well enough when you're sat in the cinema and in a way that's kind of the skill of a moviemaker- to know what you can get away with and what you can't. Stuff like why doesn't Bond call the police or CIA at the end of AVTAK when he's going to Zorin's mine, or why don't they investigate the local circus when 009 turns up dead dressed as a clown; there's lots of this sort of stuff you can get away with if you misdirect enough. On the other hand, arguably something like Blofeld as Bond's foster brother is something which all holds together well in terms of plotting and logic, but jumps out to some in the audience sat there in the cinemas as being just a bit too silly to swallow. It's often more about feel and broad strokes rather than tight internal logic.
Which is by no means meant to say the observation isn't without merit or that we fans shouldn't get hung up on these things, I love debating these details as much as you do and I think it's fun to find the little inconsistencies.
As a writer myself @SeanIsTheOnlyOne I entirely understand your interest in the minutae [is that a word? wasn't corrected by AI...] and the process of perfecting a seamless narrative. However, I admit all my novels, which are action thrillers, have plot holes or at least a blurring of explanation because I am more interested in pushing the story from scene to scene, action to action. Frequently during revision I notice elements of character or incident which do not quite "fit" with the whole. The question I have to ask is, do I alter the scene to remove it, do I go back through the text and change everything to explain it, or do I just leave it as an enigma, assume readers will make their own judgements [as you are with NTTD] or simply not notice [as I did]. Life is not entirely faultless as we know, loose ends often occur in relationships, careers or schemes and are never corrected. That this kind of loose thinking occurs in NTTD and other Bond films - and other films - doesn't bother me unless it completely vandalised the narrative.
To go back to Safin, wasn't the virus devised to eradicate the "unwanted" or the perceived "unwanted" enemies of states? [my term] In which case, it makes sense Safin has buyers committed to bidding for the ultimate assassination tool. We saw how it worked when Blofeld was killed and the price Safin could demand for it would be enormous - esp given the possibility of international blackmail of the kind SPECTRE used to be good at and here appears to be reinventing.
To be honest re: my explanation above, when I thought on the film, that particular plot device did not even register as being overly significant. Only reading your post made me even consider it so ! 😄
@emtiem I completely agree, and as you can imagine, I'm fully aware NTTD is nowhere close to being the only Bond film suffering from plot holes. The main difference with the other ones you refer to is the fact this one gives the impression of going in several directions at once, as if they'd put various classics with different tones in a blender. The problem is OHMSS has nothing to do with MR, neither has YOLT with LTK nor DAD with SF.
The final result is a hybrid product, and it makes the movie less consistent than its main themes suggest in my opinion. That's probably why I tend to focus more on its writing weaknesses, something I would be more lenient with if the film was more uniform in its tone. Having said that, I never considered it as a complete failure. Craig is very moving and the man proves once again what a great Bond he is, Fukunaga's work is impeccable, the cinematography is great and the action is very well executed. Zimmer's score fits quite well with the scenes and the rest of the cast does the job, although I'm not convinced at all by Safin, both in terms of writing and rendering.
@chrisno1 exactly, the virus was devised to eradicate the enemies of states. That's what M says and Safin is about to sell Herakles to the highest bidder. However, we don't know who those buyers are and if they turn out to be crime syndicates like SPECTRE, it becomes irrelevant considering Safin used Herakles precisely to destroy SPECTRE. Furthermore, what Moneypenny says in Q's house about the DNA databases (I can’t imagine they’re leaving us out) suggests agencies like MI6 also belong to the list of targets, meaning Safin does not separate national structures from shadow enemies. In that case, why telling Bond they both have the same goal and using Herakles is just a tidier method to achieve it? And if the buyers turn out to be national structures, then why targetting them as seems to be the case given Moneypenny's line of dialogue? No matter who the buyers are, all of this proves it doesn't make sense.
The identity and motives of the mystery buyers heading towards Safin's island were treated as less important than them not only being the ticking clock, but also a credible delivery or proliferation mechanism for a apocalyptic nanomachine weapons system (there had to be a way for Safin to indirectly deploy the nanomachines on a global scale in a visual way). Not a real plot hole but certainly lack of detail or context (next to Hugo Drax's orbital poison gas globes).