It was rather CR that prompted several members to abandon the series. CR has regrettably replaced mainstream Bond fans with general moviegoers.
That's quite a generalization. It all depends on to whom you talk. My circle of Bond fans really liked CR as one of the best movies in the series, just as I'm sure you have friends who didn't like it. And I'd rather have the movies aimed towards an audience that is not looking for Q, Moneypenny, badly delivered juvenile sexual double entendres, and action sequences that rely heavily on computer generated nonsense. If anything, that's what the general moviegoer expected. It's about time that James Bond outgrew all those traditions. Watching a Bond movie had become so routine, that although I looked forward to them, they did not have the same appeal they originally had. There was too much of a "seen it, done it" approach to the movies and Bond was lost to the spectacle. The best thing they ever did was start Bond fresh.
CR is a movie to which you need to pay attention. It's not just a series of stunts and explosions linked together by a tired rehashed plot. It's quality. But if you want to content yourself with the sillines that ran rampant, you have your DVDs to keep you happy. I'll take an adult thriller like CR anyday.
Why wouldn't someone who disliked CR also hang in there?
I have no idea. Perhaps you should ask those who have boycotted the film or left us. ?:)
Very good, Tee Hee -- answering a question with an impossible challenge. Very good indeed.
Perhaps you're right, although I am hard pressed to think of a member of this forum who left because they didn't like CR. And frankly, anyone who would cut and run after one film in a series of 21...well, you know.
Hilly...you old devil!
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Very good, Tee Hee -- answering a question with an impossible challenge. Very good indeed.
Well I can't think of any other way to obtain the answer. Perhaps those who disliked CR are actually "hanging in there" in a sense. They know what to expect from at least two more Craig films. They may not have abandoned the series forever, but perhaps will return once Daniel Craig has turned in his Walther PPK.
Mr. Hee has a point, IMHO. I wasn't even lurking around here during the Brosnan years, as his presense in the role turned me off all things topically Bond. Although disagree that new CR-Bond fans are general movie-goers, I certainly think of myself as old school Bond fan, and I've seen other new folks to the board make similar statements, that CR brought them back to the franchise after a Brosnan-induced hiatus. FWIW.
So, are you saying that for the most part, CR-fans were already Bond fans, but this enormous group that accounts for CR's box office are returning Bond fans who went into hiatus during Brosnan's tenure?
I give credit where it's due, and it's a testament to CR if indeed many present-day Bond fans came to be as a result of watching CR. But why try to construe it in such a way to say that CR's groundswell patronage is largely made up of Bond fans who didn't like Pierce? Is there a need for validating your own experience through numbers? Seriously, I'd like to give you more credit than that.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Very good, Tee Hee -- answering a question with an impossible challenge. Very good indeed.
Well I can't think of any other way to obtain the answer. Perhaps those who disliked CR are actually "hanging in there" in a sense. They know what to expect from at least two more Craig films. They may not have abandoned the series forever, but perhaps will return once Daniel Craig has turned in his Walther PPK.
And frankly, anyone who would cut and run after one film in a series of 21...well, you know.
I agree 100%.
Certain CR-haters are still here! I'm not giving up the series because I hated a movie, of course, Craig needs to do a more traditional movie and AUF/NF have been waiting to be on the big screen.
Come to think of it, AUF was a pretty serious one and I think Craig could play well off of a villain like Malprave, now that I've seen him in action.
If Roger Moore had starred in Die Another Day instead of Pierce Brosnan,no one would be complaining so loudly.
To quote M, "Quite the opposite, in fact." Had a 75-year old Roger Moore starred in Die Another Day I think a lot of people would have complained loudly WG!
Personally I think it would have made for a rather more interesting film.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I can't help but find it interesting though that despite the extremism of DAD, the fibers of the Bond fan base held together. It was rather CR that prompted several members to abandon the series. CR has regrettably replaced mainstream Bond fans with general moviegoers.
I don't see that at all; the evidence for it is anecdotal, and sketchy at best. Perhaps if CR had done the 'reduced box office' that even optimists like myself had forecast...but its success must be largely based on repeat ticket sales---and repeat cinema viewers would tend to be Bond fans, and not general moviegoers, who simply move on to the next new release when next they visit the multiplex.
DAD might have suffered from 'extremism,' but it was a formula-tested, ultra-familiar extremism laced with nods to previous Bond films. It was a 'kitchen-sinker' with something in it for everyone. Yes, like a triple-fudge sundae, it was a bit too rich, and left one uncomfortable afterward...but no one's going to leave...unless it's a quick trip to the restroom to purge
As for members departing this site, it's far too easy to simply blame Craig and CR. The vitriol and personality clashes which characterized the Craig Wars were a product of different Bond tastes colliding---like cosmic particles in an accelerator. Any such pronounced departure in tone and style is bound to alienate fans of the status quo, whilst energizing fans coming off years (or decades) of similiar alienation.
The seams between these camps have become more visible---like borders between the individual states on a map of the USA---but I'd dismiss the notion that a genuine 'fracture' is occurring. The key, as ever, is maintaining an atmosphere of tolerance and civility.
As for the boycotters...who cares?
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Mr. Hee has a point, IMHO. I wasn't even lurking around here during the Brosnan years, as his presense in the role turned me off all things topically Bond. Although disagree that new CR-Bond fans are general movie-goers, I certainly think of myself as old school Bond fan, and I've seen other new folks to the board make similar statements, that CR brought them back to the franchise after a Brosnan-induced hiatus. FWIW.
So, are you saying that for the most part, CR-fans were already Bond fans, but this enormous group that accounts for CR's box office are returning Bond fans who went into hiatus during Brosnan's tenure?
I give credit where it's due, and it's a testament to CR if indeed many present-day Bond fans came to be as a result of watching CR. But why try to construe it in such a way to say that CR's groundswell patronage is largely made up of Bond fans who didn't like Pierce? Is there a need for validating your own experience through numbers? Seriously, I'd like to give you more credit than that.
Sorry, I guess I misspoke a bit, just meant to say that many CR fans around here, new members, said they were in fact old Bond fans returning to the fold. I'm sure some were here all the time, some like both Brosnan and Craig (and Moore and etc.). Seems, there are one or two other folks who do like Craig, and dislike Brosnan. That's all.
Accurate description. I'd say DAD was also Pierce Brosnan's DAF as well. Which is probably why I enjoyed it. While I do enjoy the "hard-edged" faithful-to-Fleming films(FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, LTK, CR) I do also have a strong sentimental love for the sci-fi, comic book OTT entries like the Lewis Gilbert Bond films and DAF. DAF was the first Connery Bond I saw and MR and YOLT were my 2 favorite Bond films as a kid. Brosnan belonged in the world of "comedy" Bond better than in "serious" Bond. I would not have wanted Brosnan in CR.
Sorry, I guess I misspoke a bit, just meant to say that many CR fans around here, new members, said they were in fact old Bond fans returning to the fold.
OK, all you old Bond fans who have "returned to the fold" because of CR after years in the wilderness, raise your hand. Even highhopes, who's as partisan a CR fan as I can think of, was an active fan on this board long before CR was released.
If Roger Moore had starred in Die Another Day instead of Pierce Brosnan,no one would be complaining so loudly.
To quote M, "Quite the opposite, in fact." Had a 75-year old Roger Moore starred in Die Another Day I think a lot of people would have complained loudly WG!
Personally I think it would have made for a rather more interesting film.
I was actually talking about the Roger Moore of the 1970s and early 80s,the man in his 40s and early 50s, who starred in films whose style and content presaged Die Another Day--in particular The Spy Who Loved Me,which in many ways,IMO, DAD most resembles(although a case could also be made for Tomorrow Never Dies as another TSWLM remake).Yet no one seems to complain very much about that particular film and it also references previous Bond films within it's story.
But on the other hand,Brosnan stars in what was purposely intended to be an amalgam of styles in a film very much informed by Roger's big movies,and some people seem almost personally offended by it.
I don't get it,L880--Die Another Day isn't a great film, but it was designed to salute the entire 40 year history of the series with its 20 motion pictures, while utilizing portions of the Fleming Moonraker novel as it's inspiration, while also saluting the 50th anniversary of 007's 1st appearance in print.I have a hard time understanding why some people were so upset with it.
There are plenty of things I don't like about Die Another Day(theme song,Jinx,Frost,the frequently forced quips, the car)-- but I do respect Eon's attempt to celebrate it's illustrious history,as opposed to just cranking out GoldenEye II or Tomorrow Never Dies II instead.Triple anniversaries don't come around all that often and Eon probably would've been just as villified by some fans if they hadn't tried to acknowledge their history.
If Roger Moore had starred in Die Another Day instead of Pierce Brosnan,no one would be complaining so loudly.Wait--Sir Roger did star in this movie when it was called The Spy Who Loved Me.
Would you care to elaborate, Willie?
The complaints would surely be just as numerous (if not more so) had Roger starred in DAD instead of Pierce. And there's no comparison between TSWLM & DAD. MR & DAD would be more apt.
I was speaking in general terms here and alluding to the fact that since TSWLM big extravagant Bond films were more the norm that than the exception to the rule.As Hilly points out,this kind of thing really began with Goldfinger--but I've always seen TSWLM as the apex of the huge productions.The big films that followed TSWLM all tried to surpass it in terms of scope and content alike and this includes DAD.
At the time each of these films was released, they were touted as being among the biggest Bond films of all time.TSWLM definitely saved the series by going back and refering to some of the more popular movies of the past.It's an amalgam of styles and I think most of it works.
The general framework of Die Another Day is definitely modeled on the Fleming "Moonraker" novel--something the Moonraker movie doesn't really do much of apart from the villain being named Hugo Drax and the general space theme.
However,Eon's Moonraker went even more OTT for me than Die Another Day did the instant 007 went into outer space.That said,I like most of this film and think Drax has some of the best lines of any villain in the series.
TSWLM introduced the first truly unbelievable vehicle with 007's submarine car--so in a way it anticipates the invisible car of DAD.And TSWLM's villain has a lair right out of Jules Verne.Bear in mind I liked both of these things.And I liked the references to prior films,most notably to OHMSS, which certainly seemed to have been intentionally ignored by Eon for a long time.I appreciated that brief moment--still do.For me,that was when Roger really became James Bond.
My point overall is that Die Another Day is squarely in the tradition of the big films of the past like The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and I think that if Die Another Day had been made in the 1970s with Roger as it's star when he was in his prime as 007(complete to the raised eyebrow) ,there wouldn't have been so many complaints about it.I'm having trouble understanding the level of hostility aimed at this movie when--in my opinion--there are several other 007 films that are more worthy of disdain.
I can't help but find it interesting though that despite the extremism of DAD, the fibers of the Bond fan base held together. It was rather CR that prompted several members to abandon the series. CR has regrettably replaced mainstream Bond fans with general moviegoers.
This post was what I was refering to, and I still think Tee's mainstream Bond fan vs. general moviegoer doesn't hold up, any more than the same thing said about DAD (or any Bond film). Bond has always appealed to general moviegoers, and I don't really know what mainstream Bond fans are, unless they are Brosnan Bond fans, at least in this context. Otherwise, seems pretty wide polarities in that setup, without much in between. Perhaps it's as simple as some Brosnan Bond fans left, some Craig Bond fans arrived (or returned, whatever), with all the other somewhere-in-between Bond fans still hanging around?
What I think is more remarkable about DAD is how successful it was at the box office. Something making that much money must have been a hit with general moviegoers, eh?
Seems, there are one or two other folks who do like Craig, and dislike Brosnan. That's all.
That's all it ever is with you, blue. To paraphrase the title of this thread: wtf is your personal ax-grinding regarding Brosnan doing in this thread?
It's a thread about how bad DAD is...seems appropriate to comment on Brosnan in that context IMO. You know, like, "Brosnan WTF?!?" If you want to defend him or DAD, be my guest, others do, no biggee.
And, to be fair, I'm not too keen on Dalton's Bond either, but that's not this thread, heh.
To quote M, "Quite the opposite, in fact." Had a 75-year old Roger Moore starred in Die Another Day I think a lot of people would have complained loudly WG!
Personally I think it would have made for a rather more interesting film.
I was actually talking about the Roger Moore of the 1970s and early 80s,the man in his 40s and early 50s, who starred in films whose style and content presaged Die Another Day--in particular The Spy Who Loved Me,which in many ways,IMO, DAD most resembles(although a case could also be made for Tomorrow Never Dies as another TSWLM remake).Yet no one seems to complain very much about that particular film and it also references previous Bond films within it's story.
Sorry WG, I was just being silly and didn't make that clear enough. I know what you meant, it is just that my immediate mental image was of a 75-year-old Roger Moore windsurfing and paragliding. It would have made for interesting viewing. Apologies for the confusion.
I don't get it,L880--Die Another Day isn't a great film, but it was designed to salute the entire 40 year history of the series with its 20 motion pictures, while utilizing portions of the Fleming Moonraker novel as it's inspiration, while also saluting the 50th anniversary of 007's 1st appearance in print.I have a hard time understanding why some people were so upset with it.
I'm not upset by it at all, I just think it is a pretty terrible picture. I understand the rationale behind it, and by itself the attempt to salute the 40 year history is not necessarily a bad thing. I dislike the ways in which these homages are executed, however, as they are executed with the finesse of a daisy-cutter. I also do not sign up to the idea that there is an excellent first half and a dreadful second half: I happen to think that the whole thing is quite misconceived.
The writing, moreover, is consistently awful. And here a comparison may be drawn with The World is Not Enough. There are elements in that film which blunt the potential—the byzantine and inadequately explained plot, Denise Richards, the tired formula—however there are other aspects of that film which strike me as very good indeed. The writing in the scenes with Bond and Elektra is excellent with good emotional impact, heightened dramatically by the pairing of Brosnan and Marceau who both excel in the scenes they share. This part of the film is brilliant, and Brosnan plays the confusion at Elektra's motives superbly. I also enjoy the notion of Renard being the real pawn of Elektra, and Carlyle easily conveys the subservience to Elektra on the one hand and the callous confidence on the other.
If the problem of The World Is Not Enough is that the potential was hamstrung by formula, the problem of Die Another Day is that there was little potential in the first place. The dialogue is wooden, and none of the actors bar Rosamund Pike do anything with the admittedly lacking material. I don't like Brosnan's performance here and the less said about Halle Berry the better in my view. That said, I do find it odd that many hold Mr Brosnan responsible for decisions in which he surely played no part; the completely uneven tone, the leaden dialogue, the awful special effects etc.
On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy Moonraker for being a, mostly, well-written and acted picture that *is* just for laughs. I think that is a *far* more successful film precisely because it avoided an attempt to do anything serious or dramatic and was just created for some amusement and enjoyment. In trying to combine the dark and the light, while implementing each cackhandedly, Die Another Day is a fatally misconceived endeavour. In my humble opinion, of course.
I was speaking in general terms here and alluding to the fact that since TSWLM big extravagant Bond films were more the norm that than the exception to the rule.As Hilly points out,this kind of thing really began with Goldfinger--but I've always seen TSWLM as the apex of the huge productions.The big films that followed TSWLM all tried to surpass it in terms of scope and content alike and this includes DAD.
At the time each of these films was released, they were touted as being among the biggest Bond films of all time.TSWLM definitely saved the series by going back and refering to some of the more popular movies of the past.It's an amalgam of styles and I think most of it works.
The general framework of Die Another Day is definitely modeled on the Fleming "Moonraker" novel--something the Moonraker movie doesn't really do much of apart from the villain being named Hugo Drax and the general space theme.
However,Eon's Moonraker went even more OTT for me than Die Another Day did the instant 007 went into outer space.That said,I like most of this film and think Drax has some of the best lines of any villain in the series.
TSWLM introduced the first truly unbelievable vehicle with 007's submarine car--so in a way it anticipates the invisible car of DAD.And TSWLM's villain has a lair right out of Jules Verne.Bear in mind I liked both of these things.And I liked the references to prior films,most notably to OHMSS, which certainly seemed to have been intentionally ignored by Eon for a long time.I appreciated that brief moment--still do.For me,that was when Roger really became James Bond.
My point overall is that Die Another Day is squarely in the tradition of the big films of the past like The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and I think that if Die Another Day had been made in the 1970s with Roger as it's star when he was in his prime as 007(complete to the raised eyebrow) ,there wouldn't have been so many complaints about it.I'm having trouble understanding the level of hostility aimed at this movie when--in my opinion--there are several other 007 films that are more worthy of disdain.
I understand what you're meaning in terms of films being big. I don't think it's a good analogy however as IMO TSWLM was the greatest non-Connery Bond fillm of all time and is one of only a few Bond films (along with the first 4 and OHMSS) that IMO surpass the series. One reason why I consider TSWLM to be, quite simply, a fantastic film (and the last truly great Bond film) was its screenplay, which I loved. I consider DAD's screenplay to be terrible. Was DAD the worst Bond film ever made? Perhaps not, but IMO it was pretty close, and, in terms of quality, I don't think it can be compared to TSWLM.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Yes, TSWLM was better than DAD in EVERY respect, imho. TSWLM is one of the best in the series for my money. I think Moonraker was probably a more apt comparison- that's another film which I think had that 'kitchen sink' flavour too, without satisfying at all.
Yeah, I'm glad others hated all those continuity references- the worst for me was 'diamonds are for everyone', it just seemed crowbarred in to get acknowledgement from the die-hards. When the writing team does that, you know they're in trouble, imho.
[The writing, moreover, is consistently awful. And here a comparison may be drawn with The World is Not Enough. There are elements in that film which blunt the potential—the byzantine and inadequately explained plot, Denise Richards, the tired formula—however there are other aspects of that film which strike me as very good indeed. The writing in the scenes with Bond and Elektra is excellent with good emotional impact, heightened dramatically by the pairing of Brosnan and Marceau who both excel in the scenes they share. This part of the film is brilliant, and Brosnan plays the confusion at Elektra's motives superbly. I also enjoy the notion of Renard being the real pawn of Elektra, and Carlyle easily conveys the subservience to Elektra on the one hand and the callous confidence on the other.
quote]
I have to agree here. They go into the creative process in the DVD of DAD. And perhaps Purves and Wade did produce a decent "Moonraker novel" script. But then Lee Tamahori came on board.
Tamahori got the gig due to him stressing Bond must move with the times ie the inclusion of cgi. He seems a man familiar with the Bond highlights rather then the Bond genre so we get lots of OTT conitnuity referneces which make you nostalgic for the old films when set against this one.
But the big problem for me with DAD was plotting. The narrative was all over the place. Why does Graves shoot his own father on that plane? Why? ITs not clear why he does it? Is it just because he is sneering evil. If so why isnt this shown? ITs the same weaknesses of TWINE..
If you watch the DVD the director comes on board adn alters the script and addes or removes ideas. I'm not sure who is to blame for the DNA rubbish or the North Korean face transfers but whoever it was they need torture by scorpion venom.
So there are a couple of nice scenes in it.I tend to think as soon as Halle Berry and the clunky dialogue appers the film falls apart. Until in the end it becomes an ordeal.
Check out Pierce Brosnan's commentary on the DVD, it's obvious he is embarrassed throughout the whole movie, very much so at the dreadful CGI moment. I think he says something like; 'Yea, I could buy that...' doesn't sound very convincing, long pauses etc...
There is no doubt in my mind that DAD is the worst Bond film of all time.
Cringeworthy, hide behind the sofa crap!!!
And Berry is simply hideous!!!
I feel sorry for Pierce, he puts heart and soul into every minute, the guy has never 'sleepwalked' through a movie in his life
unlike some... Mr. Connery!
My point overall is that Die Another Day is squarely in the tradition of the big films of the past like The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and I think that if Die Another Day had been made in the 1970s with Roger as it's star when he was in his prime as 007(complete to the raised eyebrow) ,there wouldn't have been so many complaints about it.I'm having trouble understanding the level of hostility aimed at this movie when--in my opinion--there are several other 007 films that are more worthy of disdain.
It's speculation (of course) but if DAD had been made in the 1970's with Roger as it's star it may well have been better received with fewer complaints. But it also may well have put the series into hibernation for a good few years.
I know you place a high importance on the script and dialogue. Surely, the script of DAD has to be scraping the bottom of the Bond barrel. Even if you don't agree with that, you must surely agree how appalling some of the dialogue is, the worst of the series.
Then there's poor acting, poor editing, an excess of CGI, Bond doing the impossible on at least two occasions etc etc. Do I really have to spell it all out?
Overall, what saves DAD from being my least favourite Bond film is that there is plenty to enjoy in the first half of the film. The surfers in the PTS, the title sequence, Bond entrance into a Hong Kong hotel wearing sodden pjyamas, most of the Cuba scenes, Zao's escape from Los Alamos, and the swordfight.
My point overall is that Die Another Day is squarely in the tradition of the big films of the past like The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and I think that if Die Another Day had been made in the 1970s with Roger as it's star when he was in his prime as 007(complete to the raised eyebrow) ,there wouldn't have been so many complaints about it.I'm having trouble understanding the level of hostility aimed at this movie when--in my opinion--there are several other 007 films that are more worthy of disdain.
It's speculation (of course) but if DAD had been made in the 1970's with Roger as it's star it may well have been better received with fewer complaints. But it also may well have put the series into hibernation for a good few years.
I know you place a high importance on the script and dialogue. Surely, the script of DAD has to be scraping the bottom of the Bond barrel. Even if you don't agree with that, you must surely agree how appalling some of the dialogue is, the worst of the series.
Then there's poor acting, poor editing, an excess of CGI, Bond doing the impossible on at least two occasions etc etc. Do I really have to spell it all out?
Overall, what saves DAD from being my least favourite Bond film is that there is plenty to enjoy in the first half of the film. The surfers in the PTS, the title sequence, Bond entrance into a Hong Kong hotel wearing sodden pjyamas, most of the Cuba scenes, Zao's escape from Los Alamos, and the swordfight.
I never once said that I actually LIKE this movie--if I remember correctly(be kind,I'm an old man ).I think it was a missed chance all the way around.The script isn't what it could be--I'm trying to be kind here.The quips come fast and furious and the majority are just terrible("I'm Mr.Kil." "A name to die for.").
I'm not fond of Jinx or Miranda.Halle's performance is self-conscious,amateurish,and it looks like she's phoning it in.And after she won her Oscar the screenwriters announced that they were going to write her more lines.Swell.Much as I like her,I think Roz Pike is quite stiff throughout the movie.I've read that she hadn't been too keen about appearing in DAD,and if that's true,then it shows.Oddly enough,I liked the performances of the actor who played Colonel Moon and Toby Stephens' turn as Moon with his new face.The way Moon/Graves sneered and bit off his dialogue suggested an intentionally over-the-top and hate-filled impression of a British gentleman--at least to me.In some scenes Brosnan seems very alert and in others he looks distracted.I don't blame the movie's abundant lack on him or even the director and screenwriters.In all fairness,any blame for the final product must really rest with the producers, who okayed the screenplay,to begin with.
Like you,I thought the sword fight was one of the best things in DAD.It was exciting and unique and a real highlight of the film.Strangely enough,for all the talk of the money spent to make DAD
,it looked somewhat cheap,particularly in contrast to TSWLM and MR.
It's really a shame the movie turned out like it did.The general plan-adapting unfilmed portions of the Fleming Moonraker novel and using it as a framework for a film celebrating 007's illustrious history was a pretty good idea.In the film itself,the nods to the novels worked better than those designed to salute some of the previous films--if only because they were subtle.
This kind of big, extravagant,fantastic film needed a Christopher Wood(and possibly a Richard Maibaum as well) in order to make it really shine.That Eon didn't contact Wood or Tom Mankewicz to work on this movie's screenplay absolutely amazes me.
Additionally,DAD's tonal shifts as it references the varying styles of the previous movies,isn't done as smoothly as it ought to have been,so this becomes a distraction.When I saw this movie in the theatre,my date found the shifts confusing, and she doesn't follow the series as intently as we loyal fans do.
Overall,I applaud the goal behind the movie, but not the end result.Parts of it work--but then again,that can be said for all of the Bond films.And that's really not enough.If only portions of a movie resonate with the audience,then there's something wrong with the film itself.The movie seems rushed-almost as if it was being pushed to meet a deadline,without any semblance of quality control,as opposed to being the very best possible film Eon could make with the material at hand.
Too bad.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
I never had a "never watch again" Bond film, but if I did this would be the one.
Agreed. (That's quite an interesting observation actually...) I also agree with pretty much everything blueman said. This movie wasn't just over the top-- it was over-the-top and completely devoid of any soul whatsoever. Sure, one could compare DAD to YOLT, DAF, TSWLM or MR, or those films to each other-- but this isn't in and of itself a bad thing. The facts that TSWLM was basically a rehash of YOLT, and that elements of TSWLM were rehashed in MR didn't at all detract from my enjoyment of those movies. Some ideas are fertile enough to be explored in a number of ways before they become stale-- but one has to know when it's time to move on. DAD is what happens when you don't stop until the formula is so worn out and familiar that the whole show lacks a pulse.
Also problematic for me were: all that needless and <i>nauseatingly excessive</i> innuendo-- that "keeping my tip up" line made me want to punch the TV, Jinx (ugggh), John Cleese having Rosa Klebb's boot (wtf?!?), possibly the lamest villain in the whole series, that over-the-top and utterly unconvincing sword fight-- I'm sorry, but Pierce was no longer believable in scenes like that-- and then there is everything that happened after Bond went to Iceland...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Die Another Day was crap. Personally, Die Another Day was the worst Bond movie ever. Yes, that includes unofficial Bonds.
What I don't like about it is that it broke a few traditions, and some of the gadgets are a little far fetched, with the invisible car and all. Today's Bond films seem to have taken gadgets as their priority, rather than a feasible and entertaining storyline. Yes, it was well acted, the action and SFX were first class, but there wasn't much of a plot to speak of. Also, Bond and Moneypenny are close, but they're not that close! I don't care that it was merely a simulation, it shouldn't happen. Despite Moneypenny being disappointed that she's never had James, she always kept their relationship semi-professional. The Bond-Moneypenny kiss transcended that boundary, and I thought it was totally unacceptable.
And what the hell is with Bond being captured for 14 months? What happened to the ingenious James Bond who always had escape plans A through to Z, always with a gadget that somebody failed to detect? The hero of the film is being made to look weak and incompetent. Sure, Bond isn't meant to be perfect, and he does have some weak points, but incompetence isn't one of them. At the point when Bond was released, I was thinking, if they're going to kill him, just get it over and done with. James Bond being captured, has lost all integrity, all dignity, they may as well finish him off. I have no idea what the writers were thinking when they scripted that one.
Finally - and this applies to all post-GE films, M being a woman doesn't sound right. Call me sexist if you want, but I'd like to think of myself as a traditionalist. Fleming's M was a man, and it should stay that way. Hell, for the sake of political correctness, you may as well hire a woman to play James Bond. You don't hire a woman to play James Bond for the same reason why a woman shouldn't be hired to play M. This is the fictional world of James Bond created by Ian Fleming, and for authenticity's sake, it should be as close as possible to what Fleming originally envisaged. Fair enough that there must be new storylines to keep the franchise going, but that doesn't mean one can totally rewrite the characters.
I would argue it wasn't even well acted, to be honest. I think Halle Berry's performance was risible- hard to believe a spin off for Jinx was seriously considered!!- and Toby Stephens acted his part like a spoilt brat without any of the dignity the Bond villains have, imo.
That 'simulation' scene between Moneypenny and Bond was one of the worst scenes to ever grace the series, yeah. It seemed so wrong when you think of their relationship over the previous films.
My point overall is that Die Another Day is squarely in the tradition of the big films of the past like The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and I think that if Die Another Day had been made in the 1970s with Roger as it's star when he was in his prime as 007(complete to the raised eyebrow) ,there wouldn't have been so many complaints about it.I'm having trouble understanding the level of hostility aimed at this movie when--in my opinion--there are several other 007 films that are more worthy of disdain.
It's speculation (of course) but if DAD had been made in the 1970's with Roger as it's star it may well have been better received with fewer complaints. But it also may well have put the series into hibernation for a good few years.
I know you place a high importance on the script and dialogue. Surely, the script of DAD has to be scraping the bottom of the Bond barrel. Even if you don't agree with that, you must surely agree how appalling some of the dialogue is, the worst of the series.
Then there's poor acting, poor editing, an excess of CGI, Bond doing the impossible on at least two occasions etc etc. Do I really have to spell it all out?
Overall, what saves DAD from being my least favourite Bond film is that there is plenty to enjoy in the first half of the film. The surfers in the PTS, the title sequence, Bond entrance into a Hong Kong hotel wearing sodden pjyamas, most of the Cuba scenes, Zao's escape from Los Alamos, and the swordfight.
I never once said that I actually LIKE this movie--if I remember correctly(be kind,I'm an old man ).I think it was a missed chance all the way around.The script isn't what it could be--I'm trying to be kind here.The quips come fast and furious and the majority are just terrible("I'm Mr.Kil." "A name to die for.").
I'm not fond of Jinx or Miranda.Halle's performance is self-conscious,amateurish,and it looks like she's phoning it in.And after she won her Oscar the screenwriters announced that they were going to write her more lines.Swell.Much as I like her,I think Roz Pike is quite stiff throughout the movie.I've read that she hadn't been too keen about appearing in DAD,and if that's true,then it shows.Oddly enough,I liked the performances of the actor who played Colonel Moon and Toby Stephens' turn as Moon with his new face.The way Moon/Graves sneered and bit off his dialogue suggested an intentionally over-the-top and hate-filled impression of a British gentleman--at least to me.In some scenes Brosnan seems very alert and in others he looks distracted.I don't blame the movie's abundant lack on him or even the director and screenwriters.In all fairness,any blame for the final product must really rest with the producers, who okayed the screenplay,to begin with.
Like you,I thought the sword fight was one of the best things in DAD.It was exciting and unique and a real highlight of the film.Strangely enough,for all the talk of the money spent to make DAD
,it looked somewhat cheap,particularly in contrast to TSWLM and MR.
It's really a shame the movie turned out like it did.The general plan-adapting unfilmed portions of the Fleming Moonraker novel and using it as a framework for a film celebrating 007's illustrious history was a pretty good idea.In the film itself,the nods to the novels worked better than those designed to salute some of the previous films--if only because they were subtle.
This kind of big, extravagant,fantastic film needed a Christopher Wood(and possibly a Richard Maibaum as well) in order to make it really shine.That Eon didn't contact Wood or Tom Mankewicz to work on this movie's screenplay absolutely amazes me.
Additionally,DAD's tonal shifts as it references the varying styles of the previous movies,isn't done as smoothly as it ought to have been,so this becomes a distraction.When I saw this movie in the theatre,my date found the shifts confusing, and she doesn't follow the series as intently as we loyal fans do.
Overall,I applaud the goal behind the movie, but not the end result.Parts of it work--but then again,that can be said for all of the Bond films.And that's really not enough.If only portions of a movie resonate with the audience,then there's something wrong with the film itself.The movie seems rushed-almost as if it was being pushed to meet a deadline,without any semblance of quality control,as opposed to being the very best possible film Eon could make with the material at hand.
Too bad.
I will be kind to you......or maybe not, old man.
So your date found the shifts confusing. Is that the different shifts of position you and her were trying on the back row seats?
On a more serious note, I wholeheartedly agree with your first class assessment of DAD. Indeed, the goal behind the movie is to be applauded, but not the end result. While it's true to say that the same thing could be said for all of the Bond films, I think it may perhaps apply more to the Pierce Brosnan era than the others. Plenty of good ideas, but often not well executed.
Like you,I thought the sword fight was one of the best things in DAD.It was exciting and unique and a real highlight of the film.Strangely enough,for all the talk of the money spent to make DAD
,it looked somewhat cheap,particularly in contrast to TSWLM and MR.
It's true, though, isn't it? On Moonraker you get the feeling they'd hire a 100,000 people just to mill about in the background to a scene and, if it were possible, actually fly to the moon to get the shot they were after. On DAD nothing is real, the cast numbers about five people, and none of them make it to any of the main locations the film is set in. How can a film that expensive feel so cheap?
If we're judging Bond films on intent, then they are all masterpieces.
I would've much prefered a simple, old fashioned Bond film to commemorate the 40th, that would've been a nice intent IMO. Maybe they even could've pulled it off, too. As it is we have the biggest blot on the series. Unforgivable. If Fleming wasn't already spinning in his grave (I'm pretty sure he rolled over when YOLT was released), the day DAD hit the cinemas he surely would have spun himself into orbit.
I would've much prefered a simple, old fashioned Bond film to commemorate the 40th, that would've been a nice intent IMO.
That was their intent, though, wasn't it? It's hardly a deep work. They tried to spice it up a bit with the capture thing which is commendable, but largly it's trying to be nothing more than a TSWLM-type bit of fluff. They just fumbled it, that's all.
Like you,I thought the sword fight was one of the best things in DAD.It was exciting and unique and a real highlight of the film.Strangely enough,for all the talk of the money spent to make DAD
,it looked somewhat cheap,particularly in contrast to TSWLM and MR.
It's true, though, isn't it? On Moonraker you get the feeling they'd hire a 100,000 people just to mill about in the background to a scene and, if it were possible, actually fly to the moon to get the shot they were after. On DAD nothing is real, the cast numbers about five people, and none of them make it to any of the main locations the film is set in. How can a film that expensive feel so cheap?
Two things TSWLM and Moonraker offer audiences are gorgeous and exotic locations--who doesn't want to see Sardinia and Rio?I know i do.And those sequences were actually filmed on location.Compare them to Graves' Ice Palace.Portions of it may really have been made of ice,but it still looks cheap nonetheless,almost like an advanced form of styrofoam.DAD isn't colorful enough.If Eon wanted to emulate the big productions of the past, then they probably should've found a few more colorful locales in which to set their story.
There's no reason Eon couldn't have made a more creatively successful riff on Roger's kinds of films and also saluted a few of the other Bonds' movies,too.This would've definitely required a cleverer screenplay,however.I'm not completely knocking Purvis and Wade when I say that, because I believe that they gave the producers exactly what they requested,all the while following the established formula.
I think that somewhere along the way,possibly with DAF or shortly thereafter,the quips started to get out of hand--almost to the point where,in some films, 007 threatens to become a standup comedian.I understand that in the 70s,Cubby decided that the Bonds would be "family films".That said,I think there's something to be said for 007 making fewer asides, and when he does utter them, making them intelligent--as opposed to occasionally making them memorable for the wrong reasons entirely.
Comments
That's quite a generalization. It all depends on to whom you talk. My circle of Bond fans really liked CR as one of the best movies in the series, just as I'm sure you have friends who didn't like it. And I'd rather have the movies aimed towards an audience that is not looking for Q, Moneypenny, badly delivered juvenile sexual double entendres, and action sequences that rely heavily on computer generated nonsense. If anything, that's what the general moviegoer expected. It's about time that James Bond outgrew all those traditions. Watching a Bond movie had become so routine, that although I looked forward to them, they did not have the same appeal they originally had. There was too much of a "seen it, done it" approach to the movies and Bond was lost to the spectacle. The best thing they ever did was start Bond fresh.
CR is a movie to which you need to pay attention. It's not just a series of stunts and explosions linked together by a tired rehashed plot. It's quality. But if you want to content yourself with the sillines that ran rampant, you have your DVDs to keep you happy. I'll take an adult thriller like CR anyday.
Perhaps you're right, although I am hard pressed to think of a member of this forum who left because they didn't like CR. And frankly, anyone who would cut and run after one film in a series of 21...well, you know.
Well I can't think of any other way to obtain the answer. Perhaps those who disliked CR are actually "hanging in there" in a sense. They know what to expect from at least two more Craig films. They may not have abandoned the series forever, but perhaps will return once Daniel Craig has turned in his Walther PPK.
I agree 100%.
-Roger Moore
So, are you saying that for the most part, CR-fans were already Bond fans, but this enormous group that accounts for CR's box office are returning Bond fans who went into hiatus during Brosnan's tenure?
I give credit where it's due, and it's a testament to CR if indeed many present-day Bond fans came to be as a result of watching CR. But why try to construe it in such a way to say that CR's groundswell patronage is largely made up of Bond fans who didn't like Pierce? Is there a need for validating your own experience through numbers? Seriously, I'd like to give you more credit than that.
Certain CR-haters are still here! I'm not giving up the series because I hated a movie, of course, Craig needs to do a more traditional movie and AUF/NF have been waiting to be on the big screen.
Come to think of it, AUF was a pretty serious one and I think Craig could play well off of a villain like Malprave, now that I've seen him in action.
Personally I think it would have made for a rather more interesting film.
I don't see that at all; the evidence for it is anecdotal, and sketchy at best. Perhaps if CR had done the 'reduced box office' that even optimists like myself had forecast...but its success must be largely based on repeat ticket sales---and repeat cinema viewers would tend to be Bond fans, and not general moviegoers, who simply move on to the next new release when next they visit the multiplex.
DAD might have suffered from 'extremism,' but it was a formula-tested, ultra-familiar extremism laced with nods to previous Bond films. It was a 'kitchen-sinker' with something in it for everyone. Yes, like a triple-fudge sundae, it was a bit too rich, and left one uncomfortable afterward...but no one's going to leave...unless it's a quick trip to the restroom to purge
As for members departing this site, it's far too easy to simply blame Craig and CR. The vitriol and personality clashes which characterized the Craig Wars were a product of different Bond tastes colliding---like cosmic particles in an accelerator. Any such pronounced departure in tone and style is bound to alienate fans of the status quo, whilst energizing fans coming off years (or decades) of similiar alienation.
The seams between these camps have become more visible---like borders between the individual states on a map of the USA---but I'd dismiss the notion that a genuine 'fracture' is occurring. The key, as ever, is maintaining an atmosphere of tolerance and civility.
As for the boycotters...who cares?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sorry, I guess I misspoke a bit, just meant to say that many CR fans around here, new members, said they were in fact old Bond fans returning to the fold. I'm sure some were here all the time, some like both Brosnan and Craig (and Moore and etc.). Seems, there are one or two other folks who do like Craig, and dislike Brosnan. That's all.
Accurate description. I'd say DAD was also Pierce Brosnan's DAF as well. Which is probably why I enjoyed it. While I do enjoy the "hard-edged" faithful-to-Fleming films(FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, LTK, CR) I do also have a strong sentimental love for the sci-fi, comic book OTT entries like the Lewis Gilbert Bond films and DAF. DAF was the first Connery Bond I saw and MR and YOLT were my 2 favorite Bond films as a kid. Brosnan belonged in the world of "comedy" Bond better than in "serious" Bond. I would not have wanted Brosnan in CR.
I was actually talking about the Roger Moore of the 1970s and early 80s,the man in his 40s and early 50s, who starred in films whose style and content presaged Die Another Day--in particular The Spy Who Loved Me,which in many ways,IMO, DAD most resembles(although a case could also be made for Tomorrow Never Dies as another TSWLM remake).Yet no one seems to complain very much about that particular film and it also references previous Bond films within it's story.
But on the other hand,Brosnan stars in what was purposely intended to be an amalgam of styles in a film very much informed by Roger's big movies,and some people seem almost personally offended by it.
I don't get it,L880--Die Another Day isn't a great film, but it was designed to salute the entire 40 year history of the series with its 20 motion pictures, while utilizing portions of the Fleming Moonraker novel as it's inspiration, while also saluting the 50th anniversary of 007's 1st appearance in print.I have a hard time understanding why some people were so upset with it.
There are plenty of things I don't like about Die Another Day(theme song,Jinx,Frost,the frequently forced quips, the car)-- but I do respect Eon's attempt to celebrate it's illustrious history,as opposed to just cranking out GoldenEye II or Tomorrow Never Dies II instead.Triple anniversaries don't come around all that often and Eon probably would've been just as villified by some fans if they hadn't tried to acknowledge their history.
I was speaking in general terms here and alluding to the fact that since TSWLM big extravagant Bond films were more the norm that than the exception to the rule.As Hilly points out,this kind of thing really began with Goldfinger--but I've always seen TSWLM as the apex of the huge productions.The big films that followed TSWLM all tried to surpass it in terms of scope and content alike and this includes DAD.
At the time each of these films was released, they were touted as being among the biggest Bond films of all time.TSWLM definitely saved the series by going back and refering to some of the more popular movies of the past.It's an amalgam of styles and I think most of it works.
The general framework of Die Another Day is definitely modeled on the Fleming "Moonraker" novel--something the Moonraker movie doesn't really do much of apart from the villain being named Hugo Drax and the general space theme.
However,Eon's Moonraker went even more OTT for me than Die Another Day did the instant 007 went into outer space.That said,I like most of this film and think Drax has some of the best lines of any villain in the series.
TSWLM introduced the first truly unbelievable vehicle with 007's submarine car--so in a way it anticipates the invisible car of DAD.And TSWLM's villain has a lair right out of Jules Verne.Bear in mind I liked both of these things.And I liked the references to prior films,most notably to OHMSS, which certainly seemed to have been intentionally ignored by Eon for a long time.I appreciated that brief moment--still do.For me,that was when Roger really became James Bond.
My point overall is that Die Another Day is squarely in the tradition of the big films of the past like The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and I think that if Die Another Day had been made in the 1970s with Roger as it's star when he was in his prime as 007(complete to the raised eyebrow) ,there wouldn't have been so many complaints about it.I'm having trouble understanding the level of hostility aimed at this movie when--in my opinion--there are several other 007 films that are more worthy of disdain.
This post was what I was refering to, and I still think Tee's mainstream Bond fan vs. general moviegoer doesn't hold up, any more than the same thing said about DAD (or any Bond film). Bond has always appealed to general moviegoers, and I don't really know what mainstream Bond fans are, unless they are Brosnan Bond fans, at least in this context. Otherwise, seems pretty wide polarities in that setup, without much in between. Perhaps it's as simple as some Brosnan Bond fans left, some Craig Bond fans arrived (or returned, whatever), with all the other somewhere-in-between Bond fans still hanging around?
What I think is more remarkable about DAD is how successful it was at the box office. Something making that much money must have been a hit with general moviegoers, eh?
It's a thread about how bad DAD is...seems appropriate to comment on Brosnan in that context IMO. You know, like, "Brosnan WTF?!?" If you want to defend him or DAD, be my guest, others do, no biggee.
And, to be fair, I'm not too keen on Dalton's Bond either, but that's not this thread, heh.
I'm not upset by it at all, I just think it is a pretty terrible picture. I understand the rationale behind it, and by itself the attempt to salute the 40 year history is not necessarily a bad thing. I dislike the ways in which these homages are executed, however, as they are executed with the finesse of a daisy-cutter. I also do not sign up to the idea that there is an excellent first half and a dreadful second half: I happen to think that the whole thing is quite misconceived.
The writing, moreover, is consistently awful. And here a comparison may be drawn with The World is Not Enough. There are elements in that film which blunt the potential—the byzantine and inadequately explained plot, Denise Richards, the tired formula—however there are other aspects of that film which strike me as very good indeed. The writing in the scenes with Bond and Elektra is excellent with good emotional impact, heightened dramatically by the pairing of Brosnan and Marceau who both excel in the scenes they share. This part of the film is brilliant, and Brosnan plays the confusion at Elektra's motives superbly. I also enjoy the notion of Renard being the real pawn of Elektra, and Carlyle easily conveys the subservience to Elektra on the one hand and the callous confidence on the other.
If the problem of The World Is Not Enough is that the potential was hamstrung by formula, the problem of Die Another Day is that there was little potential in the first place. The dialogue is wooden, and none of the actors bar Rosamund Pike do anything with the admittedly lacking material. I don't like Brosnan's performance here and the less said about Halle Berry the better in my view. That said, I do find it odd that many hold Mr Brosnan responsible for decisions in which he surely played no part; the completely uneven tone, the leaden dialogue, the awful special effects etc.
On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy Moonraker for being a, mostly, well-written and acted picture that *is* just for laughs. I think that is a *far* more successful film precisely because it avoided an attempt to do anything serious or dramatic and was just created for some amusement and enjoyment. In trying to combine the dark and the light, while implementing each cackhandedly, Die Another Day is a fatally misconceived endeavour. In my humble opinion, of course.
Yeah, I'm glad others hated all those continuity references- the worst for me was 'diamonds are for everyone', it just seemed crowbarred in to get acknowledgement from the die-hards. When the writing team does that, you know they're in trouble, imho.
There is no doubt in my mind that DAD is the worst Bond film of all time.
Cringeworthy, hide behind the sofa crap!!!
And Berry is simply hideous!!!
I feel sorry for Pierce, he puts heart and soul into every minute, the guy has never 'sleepwalked' through a movie in his life
unlike some... Mr. Connery!
It's speculation (of course) but if DAD had been made in the 1970's with Roger as it's star it may well have been better received with fewer complaints. But it also may well have put the series into hibernation for a good few years.
I know you place a high importance on the script and dialogue. Surely, the script of DAD has to be scraping the bottom of the Bond barrel. Even if you don't agree with that, you must surely agree how appalling some of the dialogue is, the worst of the series.
Then there's poor acting, poor editing, an excess of CGI, Bond doing the impossible on at least two occasions etc etc. Do I really have to spell it all out?
Overall, what saves DAD from being my least favourite Bond film is that there is plenty to enjoy in the first half of the film. The surfers in the PTS, the title sequence, Bond entrance into a Hong Kong hotel wearing sodden pjyamas, most of the Cuba scenes, Zao's escape from Los Alamos, and the swordfight.
I never once said that I actually LIKE this movie--if I remember correctly(be kind,I'm an old man
I'm not fond of Jinx or Miranda.Halle's performance is self-conscious,amateurish,and it looks like she's phoning it in.And after she won her Oscar the screenwriters announced that they were going to write her more lines.Swell.Much as I like her,I think Roz Pike is quite stiff throughout the movie.I've read that she hadn't been too keen about appearing in DAD,and if that's true,then it shows.Oddly enough,I liked the performances of the actor who played Colonel Moon and Toby Stephens' turn as Moon with his new face.The way Moon/Graves sneered and bit off his dialogue suggested an intentionally over-the-top and hate-filled impression of a British gentleman--at least to me.In some scenes Brosnan seems very alert and in others he looks distracted.I don't blame the movie's abundant lack on him or even the director and screenwriters.In all fairness,any blame for the final product must really rest with the producers, who okayed the screenplay,to begin with.
Like you,I thought the sword fight was one of the best things in DAD.It was exciting and unique and a real highlight of the film.Strangely enough,for all the talk of the money spent to make DAD
,it looked somewhat cheap,particularly in contrast to TSWLM and MR.
It's really a shame the movie turned out like it did.The general plan-adapting unfilmed portions of the Fleming Moonraker novel and using it as a framework for a film celebrating 007's illustrious history was a pretty good idea.In the film itself,the nods to the novels worked better than those designed to salute some of the previous films--if only because they were subtle.
This kind of big, extravagant,fantastic film needed a Christopher Wood(and possibly a Richard Maibaum as well) in order to make it really shine.That Eon didn't contact Wood or Tom Mankewicz to work on this movie's screenplay absolutely amazes me.
Additionally,DAD's tonal shifts as it references the varying styles of the previous movies,isn't done as smoothly as it ought to have been,so this becomes a distraction.When I saw this movie in the theatre,my date found the shifts confusing, and she doesn't follow the series as intently as we loyal fans do.
Overall,I applaud the goal behind the movie, but not the end result.Parts of it work--but then again,that can be said for all of the Bond films.And that's really not enough.If only portions of a movie resonate with the audience,then there's something wrong with the film itself.The movie seems rushed-almost as if it was being pushed to meet a deadline,without any semblance of quality control,as opposed to being the very best possible film Eon could make with the material at hand.
Too bad.
Agreed. (That's quite an interesting observation actually...) I also agree with pretty much everything blueman said. This movie wasn't just over the top-- it was over-the-top and completely devoid of any soul whatsoever. Sure, one could compare DAD to YOLT, DAF, TSWLM or MR, or those films to each other-- but this isn't in and of itself a bad thing. The facts that TSWLM was basically a rehash of YOLT, and that elements of TSWLM were rehashed in MR didn't at all detract from my enjoyment of those movies. Some ideas are fertile enough to be explored in a number of ways before they become stale-- but one has to know when it's time to move on. DAD is what happens when you don't stop until the formula is so worn out and familiar that the whole show lacks a pulse.
Also problematic for me were: all that needless and <i>nauseatingly excessive</i> innuendo-- that "keeping my tip up" line made me want to punch the TV, Jinx (ugggh), John Cleese having Rosa Klebb's boot (wtf?!?), possibly the lamest villain in the whole series, that over-the-top and utterly unconvincing sword fight-- I'm sorry, but Pierce was no longer believable in scenes like that-- and then there is everything that happened after Bond went to Iceland...
What I don't like about it is that it broke a few traditions, and some of the gadgets are a little far fetched, with the invisible car and all. Today's Bond films seem to have taken gadgets as their priority, rather than a feasible and entertaining storyline. Yes, it was well acted, the action and SFX were first class, but there wasn't much of a plot to speak of. Also, Bond and Moneypenny are close, but they're not that close! I don't care that it was merely a simulation, it shouldn't happen. Despite Moneypenny being disappointed that she's never had James, she always kept their relationship semi-professional. The Bond-Moneypenny kiss transcended that boundary, and I thought it was totally unacceptable.
And what the hell is with Bond being captured for 14 months? What happened to the ingenious James Bond who always had escape plans A through to Z, always with a gadget that somebody failed to detect? The hero of the film is being made to look weak and incompetent. Sure, Bond isn't meant to be perfect, and he does have some weak points, but incompetence isn't one of them. At the point when Bond was released, I was thinking, if they're going to kill him, just get it over and done with. James Bond being captured, has lost all integrity, all dignity, they may as well finish him off. I have no idea what the writers were thinking when they scripted that one.
Finally - and this applies to all post-GE films, M being a woman doesn't sound right. Call me sexist if you want, but I'd like to think of myself as a traditionalist. Fleming's M was a man, and it should stay that way. Hell, for the sake of political correctness, you may as well hire a woman to play James Bond. You don't hire a woman to play James Bond for the same reason why a woman shouldn't be hired to play M. This is the fictional world of James Bond created by Ian Fleming, and for authenticity's sake, it should be as close as possible to what Fleming originally envisaged. Fair enough that there must be new storylines to keep the franchise going, but that doesn't mean one can totally rewrite the characters.
That 'simulation' scene between Moneypenny and Bond was one of the worst scenes to ever grace the series, yeah. It seemed so wrong when you think of their relationship over the previous films.
I will be kind to you......or maybe not, old man.
So your date found the shifts confusing. Is that the different shifts of position you and her were trying on the back row seats?
On a more serious note, I wholeheartedly agree with your first class assessment of DAD. Indeed, the goal behind the movie is to be applauded, but not the end result. While it's true to say that the same thing could be said for all of the Bond films, I think it may perhaps apply more to the Pierce Brosnan era than the others. Plenty of good ideas, but often not well executed.
It's true, though, isn't it? On Moonraker you get the feeling they'd hire a 100,000 people just to mill about in the background to a scene and, if it were possible, actually fly to the moon to get the shot they were after. On DAD nothing is real, the cast numbers about five people, and none of them make it to any of the main locations the film is set in. How can a film that expensive feel so cheap?
I would've much prefered a simple, old fashioned Bond film to commemorate the 40th, that would've been a nice intent IMO. Maybe they even could've pulled it off, too. As it is we have the biggest blot on the series. Unforgivable. If Fleming wasn't already spinning in his grave (I'm pretty sure he rolled over when YOLT was released), the day DAD hit the cinemas he surely would have spun himself into orbit.
That was their intent, though, wasn't it? It's hardly a deep work. They tried to spice it up a bit with the capture thing which is commendable, but largly it's trying to be nothing more than a TSWLM-type bit of fluff. They just fumbled it, that's all.
Two things TSWLM and Moonraker offer audiences are gorgeous and exotic locations--who doesn't want to see Sardinia and Rio?I know i do.And those sequences were actually filmed on location.Compare them to Graves' Ice Palace.Portions of it may really have been made of ice,but it still looks cheap nonetheless,almost like an advanced form of styrofoam.DAD isn't colorful enough.If Eon wanted to emulate the big productions of the past, then they probably should've found a few more colorful locales in which to set their story.
There's no reason Eon couldn't have made a more creatively successful riff on Roger's kinds of films and also saluted a few of the other Bonds' movies,too.This would've definitely required a cleverer screenplay,however.I'm not completely knocking Purvis and Wade when I say that, because I believe that they gave the producers exactly what they requested,all the while following the established formula.
I think that somewhere along the way,possibly with DAF or shortly thereafter,the quips started to get out of hand--almost to the point where,in some films, 007 threatens to become a standup comedian.I understand that in the 70s,Cubby decided that the Bonds would be "family films".That said,I think there's something to be said for 007 making fewer asides, and when he does utter them, making them intelligent--as opposed to occasionally making them memorable for the wrong reasons entirely.