32 replies to this topic

[R. Dittmar]

Now that DAD has proven to be more of an embarassing "-in-the-elevator" for the franchise rather than it's "nail-in-the-coffin", I've found myself able to watch it again recently. Once again, however, I fail to understand what in the heck everyone is talking about when they claim that Bond was "set up" somehow during the proceedings.

As near as I can tell Zao snaps a picture of him in the teaser and sends it out only to receive notice that Bond is a British agent. Does this constitute being "set up"? Isn't having his cover blown an ever present danger to 007? Goldfinger tagged him through an "opposite number". Fatima Blush recognized him on sight. Didn't Mr. Osato identify him solely from his gun? Zhukovsky did. Super villains used to put a hit out on Moore just because he was such an obnoxious on first meeting for crying out loud! And given that Broz based his masterful disguise on a pair of sunglasses, a routine Internet search probably would have turned up "guy who destroyed St. Petersburg in a stolen tank" after Zao hit send.

Or does the transmission of classified information from Bond's North Korean prison constitute the "set up"? Since North Korea probably only has one phone line and one light bulb for the entire country and both are located at this prison, this inference is dubious on its face. And if it is a "set up" why does Bond suspect Zao? He's traded in a prisoner exchange for the guy! Zao can't send out some phony transmission from Gitmo! And are we really to believe that Miranda Frost is the ONE WHO SET ME UP? Isn't she shadowing Graves at the time of the transmission? Does she monitor North Korean radio traffic in her spare time?

I'll admit that of all of DAD's problems, this particular plot hole is of small consequence. Still it makes for a surreal experience to watch people endlessly discuss being "set up" for the entire film's running time when absolutely no evidence exists to suggest that any such thing happened at all.

[Vauxhall]

Not sure if this will answer your question, but basically Miranda Frost was already working with Colonel Moon (aka Graves) at the time of Bond going into North Korea disguised as diamond trader Van Bierk. As an MI6 agent she would have access to their records, and could identify Bond. Whereas a rogue North Korean colonel wouldn't necessarily recognise 007, even though in the older movies he seemed to be famous around the globe. Zao sent a photo of 'Mr Van Bierk' to Frost, who confirmed that this was in fact Bond, thus setting him up.

Sorry that's not the clearest explanation, but it makes sense in my own head!

[dinovelvet]

As near as I can tell Zao snaps a picture of him in the teaser and sends it out only to receive notice that Bond is a British agent. Does this constitute being "set up"? Isn't having his cover blown an ever present danger to 007? Goldfinger tagged him through an "opposite number". Fatima Blush recognized him on sight. Didn't Mr. Osato identify him solely from his gun? Zhukovsky did. Super villains used to put a hit out on Moore just because he was such an obnoxious on first meeting for crying out loud! And given that Broz based his masterful disguise on a pair of sunglasses, a routine Internet search probably would have turned up "guy who destroyed St. Petersburg in a stolen tank" after Zao hit send.

The franchise tends to change Bond's public identity whenever necessary, really. In DAF we get the lines "You just killed James Bond...Is THAT who it was?", as if to say Bond is a well known celebrity, and in GE Valentin says "James Bond; charming, sophisticated secret agent Shaken, not stirred?". Then in TND a savvy newsman like Elliot Carver has never heard of Bond (despite Bond being front page news in YOLT!) So basically DAD was one of those movies where Bond had to be 'not known' for plot purposes.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

The franchise tends to change Bond's public identity whenever necessary, really. In DAF we get the lines "You just killed James Bond...Is THAT who it was?", as if to say Bond is a well known celebrity, and in GE Valentin says "James Bond; charming, sophisticated secret agent Shaken, not stirred?". Then in TND a savvy newsman like Elliot Carver has never heard of Bond (despite Bond being front page news in YOLT!) So basically DAD was one of those movies where Bond had to be 'not known' for plot purposes.

Assuming of course Brosnan's era wasn't a "reboot" and that the Bond of TND was the same as the Bond of YOLT. I think Brosnan's Bond was it's own separate reboot and its own separate universe from both the pre-Brosnan eras and the Craig era.

[Judo chop]

]
a routine Internet search probably would have turned up "guy who destroyed St. Petersburg in a stolen tank" after Zao hit send.

That struck me as funny.

[marktmurphy]

It's a very good point- there is no indication of being set up at all. Unless she pre-warned them of MI6 looking to interupt the diamond deal and the phone pic was just for confirmation. But as you say, Bond has no particular reason to be suspecting that.

[Mister Asterix]

It's a very good point- there is no indication of being set up at all. Unless she pre-warned them of MI6 looking to interupt the diamond deal and the phone pic was just for confirmation. But as you say, Bond has no particular reason to be suspecting that.

Nothing they show anyway. But Bond had 14 months to think about it, and who knows what he was told or found out in that time. I never mind plotholes if they are easily filled.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Now that DAD has proven to be more of an embarassing "-in-the-elevator" for the franchise rather than it's "nail-in-the-coffin", I've found myself able to watch it again recently. Once again, however, I fail to understand what in the heck everyone is talking about when they claim that Bond was "set up" somehow during the proceedings.

As near as I can tell Zao snaps a picture of him in the teaser and sends it out only to receive notice that Bond is a British agent. Does this constitute being "set up"? Isn't having his cover blown an ever present danger to 007? Goldfinger tagged him through an "opposite number". Fatima Blush recognized him on sight. Didn't Mr. Osato identify him solely from his gun? Zhukovsky did. Super villains used to put a hit out on Moore just because he was such an obnoxious on first meeting for crying out loud! And given that Broz based his masterful disguise on a pair of sunglasses, a routine Internet search probably would have turned up "guy who destroyed St. Petersburg in a stolen tank" after Zao hit send.

Or does the transmission of classified information from Bond's North Korean prison constitute the "set up"? Since North Korea probably only has one phone line and one light bulb for the entire country and both are located at this prison, this inference is dubious on its face. And if it is a "set up" why does Bond suspect Zao? He's traded in a prisoner exchange for the guy! Zao can't send out some phony transmission from Gitmo! And are we really to believe that Miranda Frost is the ONE WHO SET ME UP? Isn't she shadowing Graves at the time of the transmission? Does she monitor North Korean radio traffic in her spare time?

I'll admit that of all of DAD's problems, this particular plot hole is of small consequence. Still it makes for a surreal experience to watch people endlessly discuss being "set up" for the entire film's running time when absolutely no evidence exists to suggest that any such thing happened at all.

Hilarious post. Welcome to the forums. I think the script is a disaster but the film could have made more sense if it had been well edited. Apparently, Zao is a terrorist and we're supposed to hate him because, well, terrorists are baaahaaaad. But we don't see Zao performing any terrorist acts becuase after 9-11, we the 007 fans, simply couldn't handle a terrorist actin a frikn Bond film so they left that on the cutting room floor.And that also gives us no reason to hate Zao because as you point out, there is no real "set up" and Zao isn't really a such bad guy if he simply followed orders and assisted his boss by doing a background check on the diamond dealer. It's just terrible writing and I really thought I could warm to it eventually but after giving it another shot this x-mas my opnion hasn't budged.Actually, that "great first half" got worse for me.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

The set up was the transmission about a Chinese agent that came from Bond's prison...

Bond knew that he hadn't given anything away but the evidence was against him... I guess Graves set him up somehow...I'm not really sure...but the transmission was the set up...personally, they were pumping Bond so full of drugs he couldn't have known what he did or didn't tell.

[marktmurphy]

The set up was the transmission about a Chinese agent that came from Bond's prison...

Bond knew that he hadn't given anything away but the evidence was against him... I guess Graves set him up somehow...I'm not really sure...but the transmission was the set up...personally, they were pumping Bond so full of drugs he couldn't have known what he did or didn't tell.

I always thought it would be much more interesting if Bond had given the info while he was in jail.

[Safari Suit]

The franchise tends to change Bond's public identity whenever necessary, really. In DAF we get the lines "You just killed James Bond...Is THAT who it was?", as if to say Bond is a well known celebrity, and in GE Valentin says "James Bond; charming, sophisticated secret agent Shaken, not stirred?". Then in TND a savvy newsman like Elliot Carver has never heard of Bond (despite Bond being front page news in YOLT!) So basically DAD was one of those movies where Bond had to be 'not known' for plot purposes.

Not to mention that by the time of TMWTGG you can apparently buy lifesize waxwork models of him.

[FullMetalJacket]

Apparently, Zao is a terrorist and we're supposed to hate him because, well, terrorists are baaahaaaad.

Well...they are.

But we don't see Zao performing any terrorist acts becuase after 9-11, we the 007 fans, simply couldn't handle a terrorist actin a frikn Bond film so they left that on the cutting room floor. And that also gives us no reason to hate Zao because as you point out, there is no real "set up" and Zao isn't really a such bad guy if he simply followed orders and assisted his boss by doing a background check on the diamond dealer.

Terrorist acts can consist of more things than just flying planes into buildings, as terrible as that is. You're right in that there isn't much reason to HATE Zao, but when it comes right down to it, is there much reason to HATE many of the Bond villains' henchmen at all? Pretty much all of them are just "following orders". Hell, that's what the Nazis at concentration camps said of themselves too.

But there are the "three Chinese agents" Zao is said to have killed, and we do see him torturing Jinx with the electric glove (even though most people probably cheered when that happened).

[Publius]

Not to mention that by the time of TMWTGG you can apparently buy lifesize waxwork models of him.

Well, that all changed when that 95% efficient solar cell put a permanent end to the energy crisis, and...um...nevermind.

[marktmurphy]

Apparently, Zao is a terrorist and we're supposed to hate him because, well, terrorists are baaahaaaad.

Well...they are.

Would you describe Nelson Mandela as a 'bad' man?

[Simon]

Hmm, yes. No set up as such certainly, but had been given away.

But as above, any number of people could have done that from either 'Side'.

[DLibrasnow]

It's just terrible writing and I really thought I could warm to it eventually but after giving it another shot this x-mas my opnion hasn't budged.Actually, that "great first half" got worse for me.

I ended up watching it with my girlfriends family over Christmas as well and, well, the movie Die Another Day is embarrassingly bad.
I keep saying that the first two-thirds of the movie are great and the last one-third is pure s*it. But the truth is that aside from the sword fight there isn't much really good about the first two-thirds either. Certainly watching it with a room full of people who were tearing the movie to shreds made me kinda sink into my chair as the one sole identifiable "James Bond fan" of the group.

[Santa]

aside from the sword fight there isn't much really good about the first two-thirds either. Certainly watching it with a room full of people who were tearing the movie to shreds made me kinda sink into my chair as the one sole identifiable "James Bond fan" of the group.

This is what happens to me with DAD. I've got into the habit of apologising for the lameness of the film beforehand.

[DLibrasnow]

aside from the sword fight there isn't much really good about the first two-thirds either. Certainly watching it with a room full of people who were tearing the movie to shreds made me kinda sink into my chair as the one sole identifiable "James Bond fan" of the group.

This is what happens to me with DAD. I've got into the habit of apologising for the lameness of the film beforehand.

I'd put it down as a guilty pleasure, except it's just not very pleasurable.

[JimmyBond]

I enjoy DAD, but it doesnt work on the "guilty pleasure" level like Moonraker does, at least that film knew it was silly. DAD has pretentions of being a serious spy thriller.

[marktmurphy]

I enjoy DAD, but it doesnt work on the "guilty pleasure" level like Moonraker does, at least that film knew it was silly. DAD has pretentions of being a serious spy thriller.

Indeed; sadly all that 'wincey' 'acting' that Brosnan turns out overshadows his great charisma during this. If only there had been a Bond film where he'd just played it cool and left it at that.

[Loomis]

DAD has pretentions of being a serious spy thriller.

I disagree. I think that criticism applies to THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (and indeed to GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES), but not to DIE ANOTHER DAY. If the people who made DAD thought they were making a serious spy thriller, with their gene therapy ideas and invisible car, then they're cretins, and we know they're not cretins since most of them went on to make CASINO ROYALE (unless, of course, they somehow just lucked into making a masterpiece with CR ).

[DLibrasnow]

and we know they're not cretins since most of them went on to make CASINO ROYALE (unless, of course, they somehow just lucked into making a masterpiece with CR ).

No, I don't think Ian Fleming was a cretin or Haggis is a cretin.

[Geof]

A bunch of stuff...

I admire your views, sir, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I think the key element in DAD's overall failure is LAZINESS. Everyone just tried to go through the motions & hit the marks, except nobody actually HIT any marks. Except maybe the mark on my car door I found after leaving the theatre. YOU OWE ME $678, BROSNAN!

[Jericho_One]

]
a routine Internet search probably would have turned up "guy who destroyed St. Petersburg in a stolen tank" after Zao hit send.

That struck me as funny.

Me too.

[tambourineman]

Assuming of course Brosnan's era wasn't a "reboot" and that the Bond of TND was the same as the Bond of YOLT. I think Brosnan's Bond was it's own separate reboot and its own separate universe from both the pre-Brosnan eras and the Craig era.

But DAD seemingly disproves that with all the references to the previous movies, specifically the scene with Q with all the old gadgets that go all the way back to From Russia With Love.

[DLibrasnow]

But DAD seemingly disproves that with all the references to the previous movies, specifically the scene with Q with all the old gadgets that go all the way back to From Russia With Love.

Actually it doesn't disprove anything. All it shows is Bond walking through a room full of gadgets.
You are suggesting that he is the same agent who used all those gadgets and also that the shoe that Bond picks up is Klebb's.

[napier007]

A bunch of stuff...

I admire your views, sir, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I think the key element in DAD's overall failure is LAZINESS. Everyone just tried to go through the motions & hit the marks, except nobody actually HIT any marks. Except maybe the mark on my car door I found after leaving the theatre. YOU OWE ME $678, BROSNAN!

I agree. The message of that movie to me was: We can put any senseless crap on screen without making the slightest effort to develop a coherent plot, much less one that makes the tiniest bit of sense, and you idiots will pay good money to see it because it's a Bond film! We'll just laugh (at you) all the way to the bank.
If the was another Bond movie with Brosnan, I wasn't going to pay a cent to see it!.

[tambourineman]

Actually it doesn't disprove anything. All it shows is Bond walking through a room full of gadgets.
You are suggesting that he is the same agent who used all those gadgets and also that the shoe that Bond picks up is Klebb's.

I dont follow... Are you suggesting that in the Brosnan Bond universe a different agent then James Bond fought Kleb, and used the jetpack and crocodile?

[JimmyBond]

Who's saying he did use those gadgets? It's not like he picked up the shoe and said "Boy, I remember when I fought Kleb, boy she sure had her kicks."

[Loomis]

Well, yeah, but I do think it's meant to imply that Brosnan's Bond is indeed the Bond of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL, OCTOPUSSY and so on. Mentally adjust the timelines a bit, and Bob's yer uncle.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to director Lee Tamahori's codename theory.

Didn't think so.

Although why Bond sniffs the shoe is anyone's guess. One of the weirdest moments in the Brosnan era, that one, along with the bit in TWINE where he straightens his tie underwater.