38 replies to this topic

[PPK_19]

One bit that throws me each time i see it is when Bond is introduced to his new Aston Martin Vanquish(down in the disused tube station with Q). He says, "Oh very good".
Is he being sarcastic or is he actually blown away/being sincere? I can never tell, no matter how many times i watch it. Brosnan didn't deliver the line that well really.
Tamorhori should have demanded a few more takes.

[Mister Asterix]

He was serious. Sarcasm would’ve only come from the movie going public.

[danslittlefinger]

Seriousness from Brosnan.
Sarcasm from me.

[Judo chop]

That's actually one of Brozz's better delivered lines, IMO.

Now, am I being serious... or sarcastic?

Fun little game, huh?

[Safari Suit]

Never assume someone isn't in on the joke if you can't be sure.

[Jim]

More interesting than his James Bond's reaction would be knowing Mr Brosnan's actual reaction when someone told him that this was going to happen.
Unless it was his idea.

[danslittlefinger]

Never assume someone isn't in on the joke if you can't be sure.

Aah but is it a joke until someone finds it funny?

[solace]

One bit that throws me each time i see it is when Bond is introduced to his new Aston Martin Vanquish(down in the disused tube station with Q). He says, "Oh very good".
Is he being sarcastic or is he actually blown away/being sincere? I can never tell, no matter how many times i watch it. Brosnan didn't deliver the line that well really.
Tamorhori should have demanded a few more takes.

I think he thought 'an invisible car?' are you having a laugh?

[Safari Suit]

Never assume someone isn't in on the joke if you can't be sure.

Aah but is it a joke until someone finds it funny?

Yes, just not a very good one.

To be honest I'm not sure it's even a joke! But my view stands.

[DaveBond21]

One bit that throws me each time i see it is when Bond is introduced to his new Aston Martin Vanquish(down in the disused tube station with Q). He says, "Oh very good".
Is he being sarcastic or is he actually blown away/being sincere? I can never tell, no matter how many times i watch it. Brosnan didn't deliver the line that well really.
Tamorhori should have demanded a few more takes.

I think he thought 'an invisible car?' are you having a laugh?

That was his reaction before he could see the car. "Maybe you've been down here too long".

But when he says "Oh, very good", it's his way of saying "Nice!"

[sorking]

I can't help but think that, on the page, it was a stealth car, not an wholly invisible one. The 'cameras and screen on all sides' idea would have been fine. It's tech that's in development, and so long as the effect is 'something you don't initially notice' as opposed to 'something you literally cannot see', it's a fine, Big Bond idea.

It's only when Tamahori decided it was a MAGIC car that it became risible...

[Tybre]

I can't help but think that, on the page, it was a stealth car, not an wholly invisible one. The 'cameras and screen on all sides' idea would have been fine. It's tech that's in development, and so long as the effect is 'something you don't initially notice' as opposed to 'something you literally cannot see', it's a fine, Big Bond idea.

It's only when Tamahori decided it was a MAGIC car that it became risible...

1. Somehow the magic car upsets me less than plenty of other stuff in DAD
2. MAGIC car

[PPK_19]

To be fair to the writers, they did come up with a feasible explanation as to how the car could magically disappear. 'Tiny cameras on all sides project the image they see, on to a light emitting polymer skin on the opposite side, so to the casual eye its as good as invisible', Q says. Better than saying 'press this button and the car goes invisible'...though that's essentially what the car did.
It was only after the film was released that there was a collective 'this is ' sigh from audiences around the globe and they decided they needed a reboot.

[dee-bee-five]

"Ejector seat? You're joking?"
"Oh, very good".

Intended as a wry echo, surely?

[David Schofield]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

[MajorB]

It's definitely approval. P&W said the scene is meant to show Bond's acceptance of the new Q: the scene starts out with Bond referring to him as Quartermaster, but by the end, since he's impressed by the "Vanish," he calls him "Q." Of course, no one who hadn't read that comment would likely grasp this subtlety, but that's not important right now. The point is that they definitely intended that Bond approved of the car.

[JimmyBond]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

It's posts like these that fuel the fire. Sure there is some criticizing going on in this thread but nothing as bad as you're trying to make it out to be.

And just for the record, I think an ejector seat is a lot more plausible than a car that can become invisible to the naked eye.

[Tybre]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

It's posts like these that fuel the fire. Sure there is some criticizing going on in this thread but nothing as bad as you're trying to make it out to be.

And just for the record, I think an ejector seat is a lot more plausible than a car that can become invisible to the naked eye.

Well considering ejector technology actually exists, and has in aircraft since 1910 (although not quite as we know it back then), I'd say it's a lot more than plausible. Invisible car, on the other hand, is the sort of thing I expect to see in my TV shows. I love science fiction, but the more it's kept away from Bond, the better. Moonraker withstanding.

[David Schofield]

Gents, just because planes have ejector seats - and may have had for some time - it doesn't make it any more plausible that, in 1964, you could put one in a car. And in a car, bear in mind, which wasn't mechanically or technically very advanced compared with today (and we still don't have ejector seats in cars).

Both are ing ludicrous ideas but - as dee-bee-five had pointed out - DAD intended to mirror GF in that respect.

But - Jimmy Bond - arguements like this thread tend to verge on the "what a silly idea/how badly did Brosnan play THAT!" line, with a subconcious nod to "if YOU KNOW WHO had been in the film it wouldn't have been in the movie and his emoting would have won an Oscar". You will note this thread ISN'T simply entitled "THE DAD INVISIBLE CAR - WHAT A STUPID IDEAD, AND WHAT A SILLY WAY TO INTRODUCE IT"

So I compare Brosnan's reaction in 2002 to Connery's in 1964... Oops.

BTW, Jimmy, you have commented on my opinion, but what's YOUR view on Brosnan's acting and invisible cars?

[PPK_19]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

Im not bashing Brosnan, i just think that he didn't deliver the line particularly well, and i couldn't tell whether he was being sincere or sarcastic as a result. I actually enjoyed Die Another Day, though it does have its faults...

[Double-Oh Agent]

I have no problem with Pierce Brosnan's acting in that scene. He does a good job throughout it.

When he first hears about the invisible car, he's in disbelief and chides the Quartermaster with the line "I think you've been down here too long" thinking such a thing ridiculous and impossible. But when the car is suddenly revealed in front of him and he sees how well the camouflage works, he is impressed and pleased to get such a wonderful toy, which is obvious by the way he looks and says his next line: "Oh, very good."

Personally, I don't have a problem with the invisible car. Bond has always been on the forefront of technology from car phones and industrial lasers to photo copiers and wet bikes. Is the invisible car REALLY that outlandish and stupid? After all, scientists ARE currently working on such technology. Besides, we've already had such things as the rebreather (which didn't really work), a voice replicator (that BOTH Q and Blofeld had made in DAF), a super-powered magnetic watch that could pick up things from several feet away (not to mention deflecting the path of a bullet), an indestructible henchman with stainless steel teeth, a space station that went undetected by the Americans AND Russians when it was first sent into space, a hollowed out volcano lair, and an amphibious/underwater car! Is an invisible car really that out of place in the series?

[PPK_19]

I have no problem with Pierce Brosnan's acting in that scene. He does a good job throughout it.

When he first hears about the invisible car, he's in disbelief and chides the Quartermaster with the line "I think you've been down here too long" thinking such a thing ridiculous and impossible. But when the car is suddenly revealed in front of him and he sees how well the camouflage works, he is impressed and pleased to get such a wonderful toy, which is obvious by the way he looks and says his next line: "Oh, very good."

Personally, I don't have a problem with the invisible car. Bond has always been on the forefront of technology from car phones and industrial lasers to photo copiers and wet bikes. Is the invisible car REALLY that outlandish and stupid? After all, scientists ARE currently working on such technology. Besides, we've already had such things as the rebreather (which didn't really work), a voice replicator (that BOTH Q and Blofeld had made in DAF), a super-powered magnetic watch that could pick up things from several feet away (not to mention deflecting the path of a bullet), an indestructible henchman with stainless steel teeth, a space station that went undetected by the Americans AND Russians when it was first sent into space, a hollowed out volcano lair, and an amphibious/underwater car! Is an invisible car really that out of place in the series?

You make a very good point Double-Oh Agent. You could also say that Bonds phone in QOS was a bit unbelievable, the part where he takes pictures of the members of Quantum at the opera, resulting in full facial recognition! Though like you said, Bond has always been at the forefront of technology, and we expect doses of ridiculousness now and then.
I thought Brosnan acted well in that scene, but that 'Oh Very Good' still grates on me.

[David_M]

To be fair to the writers, they did come up with a feasible explanation as to how the car could magically disappear. 'Tiny cameras on all sides project the image they see, on to a light emitting polymer skin on the opposite side, so to the casual eye its as good as invisible', Q says.

That's all well and fine until someone dings the body of the car with a bullet, or a grenade, or heck, by opening a door on it in the parking lot at Starbucks. Then one or more of those "tiny cameras" is damaged and the illusion is ruined.

For that matter, all it would really take is a splash of mud or a dollop of bird poop to obscure a few camera lenses and ruin the whole thing. And certainly all that rough handling in the chase with Zao would have wrecked most if not all the cameras. No, the only way this kind of thing would work is in a lab or on a showroom floor, not on a car that was actually driven. Even then, you have to wonder how you could cover the windshield with "tiny cameras" and still be able to see out!

It was only after the film was released that there was a collective 'this is ' sigh from audiences around the globe and they decided they needed a reboot.

You're right and wrong. When the Vanquish was introduced, we'd seen a pretty good PTS, some effective "prison" scenes in North Korea, beautifully lensed location work in Cuba and a satisfying swordfight, so at this point the movie had built up a lot of good will. But quickly thereafter it veered deep into the realm of cartoon fantasy to end up something entirely different, and the turning point was Q's introduction of that car.

[dee-bee-five]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

Quite. I can't claim I was mad about the vanishing Aston. But it was actually on screen for a few minutes and was hardly important to the plot. Like the CGI ice wave - another stick used to beat Brosnan and DAD - its supposed detrimental effect on the film is hugely overstated in some quarters.

As for the scene in question, I think Brosnan delivers the line well, with just the right kind of understated sarcastic irony.

[Zorin Industries]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

Quite. I can't claim I was mad about the vanishing Aston. But it was actually on screen for a few minutes and was hardly important to the plot. Like the CGI ice wave - another stick used to beat Brosnan and DAD - its supposed detrimental effect on the film is hugely overstated in some quarters.

As for the scene in question, I think Brosnan delivers the line well, with just the right kind of understated sarcastic irony.

Agreed - which is the mark of a better Bond than he gets credit for. A good Bond actor has a big PR job to do - he has to sell the role to himself, the audience and the story. Brosnan was able to do that throughout, whether the films were wholly successful around him or not.

[PPK_19]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

Quite. I can't claim I was mad about the vanishing Aston. But it was actually on screen for a few minutes and was hardly important to the plot. Like the CGI ice wave - another stick used to beat Brosnan and DAD - its supposed detrimental effect on the film is hugely overstated in some quarters.

As for the scene in question, I think Brosnan delivers the line well, with just the right kind of understated sarcastic irony.

Agreed - which is the mark of a better Bond than he gets credit for. A good Bond actor has a big PR job to do - he has to sell the role to himself, the audience and the story. Brosnan was able to do that throughout, whether the films were wholly successful around him or not.

That may be the case, but Brosnan didn't sell the line very well, which is the whole point of this thread. However that is just one person's (mine) opinion after all.
I love all Brosnan's Bond films, i'm not trying to bash him for Die Another Day. Like it was mentioned earlier, it was a good film until the location moved to Iceland, and things, how shall i say it, got out of hand *cough*CG Ice wave*cough*.

[dee-bee-five]

A 1964 car with an ejector seat? ing ludicrous.
An invisible car in 2002? ing ludicrous.

I know, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Brozza and DAD.

Quite. I can't claim I was mad about the vanishing Aston. But it was actually on screen for a few minutes and was hardly important to the plot. Like the CGI ice wave - another stick used to beat Brosnan and DAD - its supposed detrimental effect on the film is hugely overstated in some quarters.

As for the scene in question, I think Brosnan delivers the line well, with just the right kind of understated sarcastic irony.

Agreed - which is the mark of a better Bond than he gets credit for. A good Bond actor has a big PR job to do - he has to sell the role to himself, the audience and the story. Brosnan was able to do that throughout, whether the films were wholly successful around him or not.

That may be the case, but Brosnan didn't sell the line very well, which is the whole point of this thread. However that is just one person's (mine) opinion after all.

And you are, of course, entitled to it. But I disagree. I think he sold the line perfectly, with just the right amount - as I said earlier - of understated sarciness. But I guess it's the curse of the gifted light comedian - which Brosnan surely is (like Cary Grant and Roger Moore before him) - to have these deft little touches in performance overlooked.

[Tybre]

Even then, you have to wonder how you could cover the windshield with "tiny cameras" and still be able to see out!

Since we're already talking fairly implausible, the windshield could operate as a screen, with the cameras sending back images, generating a sort of HUD for Bond.

You're right and wrong. When the Vanquish was introduced, we'd seen a pretty good PTS, some effective "prison" scenes in North Korea, beautifully lensed location work in Cuba and a satisfying swordfight, so at this point the movie had built up a lot of good will. But quickly thereafter it veered deep into the realm of cartoon fantasy to end up something entirely different, and the turning point was Q's introduction of that car.

I concur. Although I think the errors really do start with the introduction of Jinx in Cuba, it still had time to pull through as a very good film in the end. Ultimately it delved into a realm that I tend to find utter crap, though I admit every now and again I am capable of enjoying it to a degree.

[B. Brown]

I think they actually wrote it so Bond would be genuinely interested in the vehicle. Hard to believe, I know.

[JimmyBond]

BTW, Jimmy, you have commented on my opinion, but what's YOUR view on Brosnan's acting and invisible cars?

I have no qualms about Brosnan or his acting in DAD. I consider it his best film.