53 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Originally posted by License To Kill
Fiona has some points and I agree with her on some of them. I believe that this movie will fall under two paramaters: Best Ever or Worst Ever.
~LTK~

Agreed 100%, and I also agree with freemo that everything hinges on how it's presented onscreen, the tone of the movie and how it all hangs together.

Plenty of us have gone over this many times, but it often seems that the filmmakers are sailing very close to the wind in some respects. The FACE/OFF-style switching of identities, a villain who spends much of the film looking like a refugee from the Addams Family.... The sheer goofiness of some of DAD's key elements. Add to this the Icarus scheme and PHANTOM MENACE-style CGI effects, and we could be talking about a movie that will rival YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as the most whacked-out Bond adventure. (Not necessarily a bad thing, but the filmmakers had better know what they're doing, since films that are as far out as I sometimes think DAD is going to be are pretty tough to do right.)

Then again, yesterday's Sunday Times newspaper in the UK came with a magazine featuring a fairly shocking front cover photo of a battered Bond being tortured (and another inside, of Bond and the Scorpion Guard, in a scene that reminded me of Mel Gibson's interrogation ordeal in LETHAL WEAPON). It's safe to say that we've never seen Bond in this kind of situation before (or, more to the point, in this kind of damaged state before), and the magazine's article talked of DAD as marking a return to a "gritty" Bond universe.

What's exciting is that even at this late stage I can't predict which way it'll go. Even now there are no reviews online (although that will change in a few days, courtesy of Brad Tirpitz).

[JimmyBond]

Loomis of course, is right (heres to you Loomis! ). We cant predict how it will be. Will we love it? Will we hate it? Will we just think its so-so? I'm not sure, but I can say one thing for sure, everybody will have their opinion about it, I know that not everyone will love it, but then again, not everyone will hate it.

There are those who are Brosnan fans (the BBC anybody ), and we'll probably have a bias towards the film cause Brosnan is in it. Even than, us Brosnan fans might not like it as much as any of his others, cause thats just how opinions are.

There are also Bond fans that dont care much for Brosnan, but theyll still go see it cause theyre Bond fans, they may not like it, but theyll support it as Bond fans.

Also, its true that this film is bordering on the campiness of say YOLT and Moonraker. Than again, as much as those two films are out there, I dont think they went over the edge in terms of their plots and themes. Hey, at least Bond isnt being sent to outer space (no, thats for Bond 21...kidding, kidding ).

I could go on and on, but I dont really think I'd be able to close off this post in a satisfactory way, so I'll just leave it at this:

Love it or hate, Die Another Day will still be part of the Bond series. Does that mean we should automatically love it? Nope, that just means that if you dont like it, you can always look forward to the next one.

[Fiona]

Soz I'd posted this draft by mistake!

[Fiona]

Still not convinced.
Bond now follows when at onetime he led. You could blame the 80's for the trend with the boom in the home video market bigger explosions, more "Action" instead of a decent plot. Cheaper films, I'm not talking of the Bond films here, but by then Bond always seemed to be playing catch-up when at one time he led.
Talk about a Roger Moore film or Sean Connery and no matter the details you could always remember the film. I went to see TWINE and to tell the truth I couldn't really tell you what it was about now. Too many explosions for one! Brosnan's films seem to be a bit mingled into one. for all you Brosnan followers I'm not having a go at him, it's just the style of films. What next Cameron directing one? *ARRGGHHH!*

[JimmyBond]

Then I guess you just dont want to be entertained. Oh well, I'll be having fun seeing DAD twice on Friday the 22nd, while you just long for the good old days. Well guess what, thats why they call them "The Good old days!" Cause they are in the past!!

This sarcastic post is brought to you by Jimmy

[Fiona]

Of course I wan't to be entertained, just not in a crash bang wallop kind of way. Maybe Bond lovers now will put up with any rubbish no matter how bad. It is amazing how easily you seem to be fooled by gloss and shallow when something as good as a bond film should have style and depth. Or do you just like cars getting trashed which seems to be the Norm. I don't find this entertainment.
Also can someone please tell me who the hell Halle Berry is!

[JimmyBond]

Hold on a minute there, dont start implying things cause it looks like you're about to. I want you to know my last post was pure sarcasm, it was meant in jest.

I could go into the merits of a Brosnan Bond film, but I wont, cause I know that they have class, and I know they are just as good as the old ones, that is my opinion, and you shouldnt attack me for it.

Maybe Bond lovers now will put up with any rubbish no matter how bad. It is amazing how easily you seem to be fooled by gloss and shallow when something as good as a bond film should have style and depth.

See, this is you starting to label us. Why? We arent labeling you. Just cause we find something to like about the latest Bond films doesnt mean we are being fooled. We all have opinions, I like Brosnan's films, several others do, you dont, thats fine, but please dont attack me for it. Just for the record though, TWINE actually has more depth than all the Roger Moore films combined, and a few Connery films.

Or do you just like cars getting trashed which seems to be the Norm.

Is that a yes or no question? If it is, than yes, if done right. I enjoy a good car chase as much as the next one, tell me though, have you ever seen a car chase without some cars getting thrased? I havent.

Also can someone please tell me who the hell Halle Berry is!

Its called the Internet, you can find out all kinds of great things with it, like names of books, historical dates, and oh yeah, you can also find out who the hell Halle Berry is. Happy searching.

[Harmsway]

Okay, let me get this straight - you don't know who Halle Berry is? What did you do, lock yourself in your closet for the last year?

Besides, cars getting trashed is a Bond staple. Very few Bond films have had cars not get trashed. Look at it: Dr. No even had cars getting trashed. They keep coming up with better ways to do it though.

Besides, you say that Bond has more action than plot? Ya right. TWINE has more plot than most Bond films - deeper and more serious than any Bond film to date, save LTK. DAD may be a glossy, showy Bond film, but no more than TSWLM. DAD has more plot and depth than many Bond films combined. It's so complex and well-written. I mean, Bond gets captured and tortured for 3 years! WOW! That's deeper than anything Roger Moore ever did...

But on another note, why was GE's and TWINE's plots so terrible? Please explain yourself - because personally I love them both. They really give a new perspective on the world of Bond.

[Fiona]

Oops! Guess who just hit a hornets nest. Yes I do know what the internet is, I also know what sarcasm is, but hey isn't it great to play devils advocate once in a blue moon? I mean I have read a lot of positives about DAD *where's me Cardi?* though no one had dared to say anything negative about it. I have and if it hurts well....
Of course cars get trashed, nicely done by Fiona by the way, though Motorbikes scare me to death *Giggles* but it is the manner in which things are done now.
Admittedly GE was pretty good, though I would have to add that I have only seen this one a few times as for TND Stupid plot as I have said before someone can take over the world using the media as it is in reality, after all even the news broadcasts have certain angles on them put out by those who want you to look at it that way. Therefore I have only seen it twice. As for TWINE what plot? If I have these three mixed up I apologise as they are a bit of a muchness. Before anyone has a go I will add to ME!
I'm not saying that the earlier films are all brilliant, there are a few duff ones admittedly Moonraker hasd its good bits but there are a few rough patches two and the film dips a bit in the middle, though one thing you can say for it, it was different.
I'm not labelling at all if I have I have included myself in this. I have just grown up a little and make sure I don't get caught in the hype anymore.
Pre-judged DAD? Harshly probably but going on the previous efforts wisely I'm thinking...
Ok guys fire away at me.....

Just a stupid blond.

[1q2w3e4r]

Good for you. I say if your not sure. Aim to be dissapointed and expect little. If it's good you're suprised, if it's crappy for you. Your not as dissapointed. Don't apologise for your opinions I agree with a lot your saying.

[Blue Eyes]

Not firing away with you, but I'd like to counter two points you made;

First off, there have been plenty of negative Die Another Day threads. There are just more positive ones, and that's to be expected on a James Bond board.

As for pre-judging Die Another Day. Harsh? Yes. Wise? No. Different film, different director, different writers. Lee Tamahori loves the older Bond films, praises From Russia With Love and based on taht alone I'm not going to pre-judge his work. Yes I have my concerns that he may have just made an action flick, but I doubt after the drama of The World is not Enough the producers would let him take a huge leap away from drama.

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by Fiona
as for TND Stupid plot as I have said before someone can take over the world using the media as it is in reality, after all even the news broadcasts have certain angles on them put out by those who want you to look at it that way.  

Am I the only person who thinks that TND plotline - the basic theme - is actually quite plausible and relevant. How do you call a plot such as this stupid, when everyone of us here witnessed 9/11. If that had been in a film you would have thought 'yeah, right!' That is what I call ridiculous, and stupid. The idea of incorporating a media mogul and his empire into the film in 97 was very relevant to the times, particularly in the UK. For a start Princess Diana was killed a few short months before, which whipped up a storm about the media's dealings in the matter.

Starting a war for ratings as Pierce put it is not so far-fetched as it may seem in my opinion. As they say, fact is stranger than fiction.

[Blue Eyes]

I agree Rory! The basic plot line for Tomorrow Never Dies is great. It gets a little 'rushed' at the end, but the theme is great imho.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by mrmoon

Starting a war for ratings as Pierce put it is not so far-fetched as it may seem in my opinion. As they say, fact is stranger than fiction.

The truly farfetched thing about TND is the way it portrays Britain as a superpower.

Media moguls' power games and starting conflicts for ulterior motives aside, Carver's entire scheme (and therefore the plot of TND) hinges on something that IS monumentally dumb: the idea that Britain would pugnaciously square up to China and entertain the notion of singlehandedly waging war on that country just because of a suspected minor skirmish resulting in the deaths of a few British sailors. By that rationale, if 9/11 had been conceived as an episode in a Bond film, the screenwriters would have had the US preparing to use nuclear weapons to obliterate the Axis of Evil.

[Fiona]

Just though even if I did look up Halle Berry on the net , it doesn't really give me any idea if she can act. Kiera Knightley or Mischa Barton could be worth a look next time round.
We couldn't even square up to the B.B in the condition we are in but that is another plot! *possibly*?
Hmmm Sept 11, princess di and media mogul in one posting ah! Another plot!
I think this topic is going a little off course. All I was asking was is it about time to get back to basics, or come to thing of it now even re-do some of the weaker films *subject to opinion* *of course* from the books but never eva re-do Spy as the book is utter ****! Before I get slagged off for that comment yes I have read it, I have all the books and yes I have read them all and quite frankly Fleming can't write from a female point of view. Soz I have to go to bed.
Fire two boys.... I'm not sunk yet!!!
Still a dumb bLond?!
night night.............................

[Blue Eyes]

Kiera Knightley, yum. Totally adorable girl. But far too young to play a Bond girl at this stage.

[JimmyBond]

You're original question was Back to basics? Hell, I'd say they did that with TWINE.

[Fiona]

"You're original question was Back to basics? Hell, I'd say they did that with TWINE."

What makes you think that?

As for Kiera I'm hearing a lot of things saying I'm stuck in the past but hey why not a younger girl(s)? Now who's being traditionalist?

Looks like you've stopped shooting at me! *Giggles*

[Blue Eyes]

Well Keira is still 17 at the moment. That wouldn't stop me, but a man in his fifties?

[Fiona]

Why Not? Besides if it was set in the 50's or 60's we could have a younger Bond!
What about me? I know that I tried my darnedest to kill Bond in the Bahama's and too be honest I'd have suceeded if it wasn't for that bottle of fire water! Soz I digress, I'm 35 TODAY! Does that make me elegible then? Is that a *Yeay!* I hear boys?

[1q2w3e4r]

35? I dunno. I think you nailed it if we have a younger Bond after PB then the gals should be mid 20s like in Fleming's novels.

You had your chance at Bond in the Bahamas as you said. If i remember you also were ummm *killed* then as well... Interesting.

and 17 is to young for a 50 yr old in a Bond film. I dont want Roger Moore in the later films again. His Bond, not Hugh Heifneer.

[Fiona]

Yeah that's true but I bled sexily didn't I? Just a nice little red spot on the back of my dress. *Very tasteful I must admit!*
Though a lot of you guys kill me on this post anyhow so I'm kinda getting used to it! *Massive Hiccupy Giggles*
With love....

[JimmyBond]

What I meant when I said TWINE was back to the basics, was that it was more of a thriller than an action film. The movie had a story that took time to develope, Bond had no idea who the true vilian was, and this is reflected in Brosnan's angry performance, he has no idea who'm to trust, and it shows.

[Jinx's Bikini]

I like the idea of an MI6 agent gone bad in Bond films. Why not attempt to work one of Fleming's storylines in one of the next Bond films - 007 attempting to kill the head of his own organization?