170 replies to this topic

[Call Billy Bob]

I think a lot of it might be predicated on the film that was released before it: TWINE. Though not the case, EON wanted a serious and gritty Bond movie. After that came DAD, which could only be viewed as silly and over-the-top.

 

Looking back:

 

-TB to YOLT - great modern spy thriller which kept Fleming's story intact to a film featuring a volcano base and a spaceship that eats other spaceships

 

-TSWLM to MR - a bit OTT on its own but a great idea to a Star Wars inspired cash-in with basically the same plot

 

Maybe it's just my views as an engineer, but I come from a software background where we always view the new model in light of the previous version. I think that sways some of our opinions regarding both Bond films and film series in general (Nolan's Batmans, for example).

[AMC Hornet]

So what am I missing?

 

I loved DAD when it came out - as much as I loved MR, yet MR's OTT elements caused it to drop in my personal ranking over time. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy MR occasionally; it's a gorgeously photographed travelogue with very well-done model effects, yet it doesn't make my top ten, whereas DAD does.

 

Over the last 12 years I have read so much vitriol about how DAD 'falls apart' after Bond returns to London: 'lazy' writing, bad CGI effects throughout (I count 2: Jinx's dive and the infamous parasurfing sequence), cringeworthy dialogue, Halle Berry's lack of talent, the insufferable Antonov sequence, the Robocop suit, the whole gene-replacement concept, the invisible car, etc, etc...

 

Yet none of this sways me. I don't see DAD as the 'mess' that others see. Perhaps it's because DAF was my first exposure to 007and I grew up with Roger Moore in the lead. Perhaps I simply have poor taste and judgement. Perhaps I'm just not interested in joining the mob that feels they have to hate Pierce Brosnan now that Daniel Craig is proving to be a critical and financial success (like Brosnan was during his tenure).

 

I love all the Bond films, whichever style they embrace. If they were all OTT extravaganzas that would be a bit much. On the other hand, a series of 24 relentlessly 'gritty' entries would also be more than I could stand. There are at least three Bond films to suit any mood, and I'm grateful for that.

 

I remember one self-styled internet critic stating his opinion:

 

"Lee Crapahori!!! I could direct a better Bond film with half the budget!"

 

Ah, to be fifteen again. Remember, every change than anyone proposes will be objected to by just as many people as disliked the original version.

 

So I will continue to hold DAD in high esteem, even if I do so alone (perhaps I'm just stubborn and contrary). Please don't bother trying to correct my misguided thinking - I don't want to be straightened out by any well-meaning know-it-alls, and if it hasn't worked before now it never will.

 

TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, OP, TLD, DAD & CR - classics all. I hope B24 ticks all my boxes too - although if it does, I'll have to read a lot more on-line criticism about how it 'falls apart', etc.

[Dustin]

But Hornet, very evidently you are NOT alone, neither back in the day nor now. DAD earned its producers and studio serious money with a vast number of tickets sold to people who, it would seem, enjoyed the film well enough. And even today whenever it's shown on the telly TV guides usually call it a feast for viewers and often enough designate it the 'tip of the day'. Evidently DAD succeeded in the mainstream action genre of its time and is still considered a worthy ambassador of the genre.

DAD's downfall for a large part seems to be a phenomenon of the fanbase, not necessarily of the general public. Looking back on DAD from today I have to say it largely is what I would have expected from a Bond film if Bond was a Marvel comic character. Everything a bit over-the-top/not-too-serious, everything large and glossy and with plenty of excitement of the mostly visual variety. On these terms DAD still holds a solid place, no doubt about that.

The problem only becomes apparent once you try to set a course from where DAD - or its siblings - left off. Suddenly it becomes difficult to beat the previous spectacle, no matter what tricks you employ. From a certain point onwards bigger/faster/glossier doesn't become better, it's merely more of the same. I suspect it is this problem that makes it so hard for many fans to forgive DAD its shortcomings. It really feels like an end of a process. Frankly, I would have been hard pressed to see any further room for the character Brosnan depicted from Halle Berry's navel - or Moneypenny's desk for that matter.

[plankattack]

AMC - the MR-DAD is the interesting and most obvious comparison. And though on the surface the 2 films come from the same place - fantastical OTT Bond extravaganzas, I ultimately find the comparison as something that sets them far apart.

 

MR "knows" what it is, and with Sir Rog at it's centre, it works (if SC starred in MR, it wouldn't have worked).

 

DAD wants to have it both ways, especially on the back of TWINE, and so the extremes of the fantasy are at odds with the spy-swap revenge thriller that the journey starts with. Brozz-Bond starts off in a TWINE-like place, but that part of the story is left completely in the lurch, buried by the OTT 2nd hour. Who cares about Bond's personal journey/motivations when there is a massive space laser to gawk at.

 

MR has no such inhibitions - right from the start, it's Jaws, poison-darts in a horses-bum etc

 

I've always agreed with the DAD 1st hour good, 2nd hour bad analysis, but in a weird way, it's the first hour that undermines the 2nd. DAD would have been better off being a fantasy-extravaganza Bond, like MR, TSWLM, or even DAF, where the tone is even from the start. As it is it's neither TLD spy-thriller, or OP caper.

[Dekard77]

Watched it again on Blu. The film looks and entertains brilliantly. I even managed to see through the tsunami scene. This movie is the last escapism Bond. While DC movies are great in their own way, I do miss the old tradition of storytelling without taking itself to seriously. Bond movies looks so incredible on Blu.

Favourite scenes.

Opening scene. 

Cuba first half where Bond gets in touch Raoul and the brief moment where he enters the clinic with rotating mirrors reminded me of TMWTGG.
Graves enjoys himself tremendously before the sword fight. Graves is one of the best villains to date as he doesn't think of himself being evil or OTT.

Bond doing his thing without looking like a sad man lost in life. Brosnan like Moore understood that part of the character well. 

Miranda Frost at the ice palace guard scenes followed by bedroom scenes, she really plays Bond with her training or better acting skills..

The underground briefing the introduction of the Vanquish and ring. Brilliantly done. 

Ice Palace chase.

Graves confronting his father only to kill him in fit.

The virtual reality training and shooting M to save her and ignoring Q's advice. 

[Bond of Steele]

I've been lurking around here for years, why post now?  Who bloody knows...  I have always seen this movie as an anniversary movie trying to be all things of the past, and then trying to outdo everything that was done before.  

 

I think it works as the film it was intended, but I agree with most, the CGI could have gone without.  If they just made that tsunami smaller, with a touch of real scenery, it would have worked.  Drives me nuts to this day.  Bond was always about "real" stunts, or at least trying to look real  (I'm trying to avoid Stromberg's speedboat, Sean's driving like a maniac in Dr. No)

 

There are great scenes, I won't mention everything that was mentioned before, but Pierce was definately in his own.  You know they were going to bring Bond back to earth in the next film, it happened before.  They had to start over in order to begin the cycle anew. 

 

This movie did everything it was intended to do.  Celebrate the anniversary, entertain, and make money.  I'm sure it still does all three to this day, at least it does for me.

 

[tdalton]

Welcome to the boards, Bond of Steele.

 

With regards to the CGI tsunami, I honestly don't see any way that they could have made that work.  The idea in and of itself just didn't lend itself to any kind of practical stunt work, which is what the Bond franchise should always been striving to do.  I think that, if they needed to keep Bond's escape in Graves' rocket car in the film, then they should have just kept going with the idea of the Icarus laser continuing to chase it until it got so close to the car and started to do so much damage to it that Bond had to find a way to eject himself from the vehicle without ending himself.  Or maybe that's not the way to go, but just something that didn't involve sending it off a cliff, which necessitated one of the worst CGI moments I think I've ever seen (the rocket car slamming against the ice wall) which was then followed by an equally bad CGI moment with the tsunami. 

[sharpshooter]

Perhaps they could have twisted two of their ideas into one? Bond turns the dragster around and races back towards the ice palace, with the Icarus beam following him of course, leading into the melting sequence with Jinx.

[tdalton]

Perhaps they could have twisted two of their ideas into one? Bond turns the dragster around and races back towards the ice palace, with the Icarus beam following him of course, leading into the melting sequence with Jinx.

 

That could have worked as well. 

 

Pretty much anything else that they could have come up with that didn't involve a CGI rocket car slamming into a CGI wall of ice or Bond surfing a CGI tsunami would have been better than what was actually in the film. 

[dtuba]

Comparing MR to DAD....Yes both films are fantastical and OTT, blah blah blah, but MR just seems like a better-crafted film; sets/costumes/music score/SFX are at an "all time high" despite the ridiculous script. Whereas DAD seems to do the same but it just seems a  bit...trashy and low class in it's execution. I can't explain it properly, but MR just seems more...sophisticated.

 

Oh shoot, there I go saying bad things about DAD again. Sorry.

[freemo]

There seems to be this push to get DIE ANOTHER DAY grouped with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and MOONRAKER as the "extravagant and outlandish" (i.e. "big and dumb") Bond films. I'm not so sure I see it. YOU ONLY TWICE climaxs with 100 ninjas storming a volcano rocket base fortress whelding katana blades and flinging hand grenades. MOONRAKER climaxs with two astronaut armies in a laser battle in zero gravity while a space station crumbles around them. DIE ANOTHER DAY climaxs with... four idiots on a plane in fisticuffs over a Nintendo power glove. One of these things is not like the others. DIE ANOTHER DAY might be dumb enough for "big and dumb" classification, but is it really big enough?

 

But returning to the "redeeming qualities" spirit of the thread:

 

- The line "liver's shot. It's definitely him then" got a big laugh at my viewing at the cinema.

- I always dug the cynical, world weary "plenty of ice, if you can spare it" line.

- The fencing is cool (though I know for a fact that Bond hasn't fenced for at least 14 months so I kind of question how match fit he'd really be).

- It all looks bright and colorful and strong and solid.

[sharpshooter]

Perhaps not in the scale of armies clashing against each other ala YOLT and MR, but I'd say the general aim of Graves is big. A massive heat ray destroying the Korean DMZ to unite the nations by force. Bond stopped the situation escalating into that all out war.

[tdalton]

I'd agree that the aim of Graves is pretty large, but the problem is that the film never really makes it feel that way during the climax.  Despite the large scale trappings of the big burning CGI plane and the Icarus laser, the finale feels rather small scale considering everything that's going on around it.  It's a rather personal one, but it feels like something of a betrayal of the entire film to a certain degree.  The whole set up to the film was Bond going after the person who betrayed him in North Korea, yet he never squares off with Frost.  He learns of her betrayal in Iceland and then that's pretty much the end of it.  For the sake of the story, it should have been Bond confronting Frost on the plane and Jinx confronting Graves. 

 

Even still, though, the finale feels inappropriately small.  We're told what the stakes are for South Korea, but they're not really given any kind of representation in the film to drive that point home.  Some scenes of their army mobilizing and taking ownership of the situation would have gone a long way, rather than just showing shots of the bunker that M and Falco seem to be running.

[Golddragon71]

Honestly, (and I'm sure I must've said this elsewhere on this board, perhaps even in this very thread) But Die Another Day never bothered me in the slightest. I found the entire film very watchable and watch it it every time I have a Bond Marathon. (In Fact Brosnan's films are among my highest favorites) That said, there is only one part of the film that makes me reach for the remote.....the Moneypenny scene at the end. the rest of the film is fine and I enjoy it all but that Moneypenny VR scene was cheese on a a level thet even Roger Moore never approached!

[David_M]

Die Another Day was the only Bond film I ever left thinking, "I really hope they don't make any more Bond films."  That said, there are a few "redeeming qualities", to wit:

 

- The title sequence is very clever and for the first time (as far as I'm concerned) actually advances the plot.  It's a neat way of showing the passage of time and the tortures Bond endured therein.  I love naked girls bouncing around on trampolines as much as the next guy, but after awhile even that gets repetitive, and before Kleinman showed up there was a very real danger of the title sequences devolving into self-parody, or at least a "MadLibs" kind of approach ("Have we had a girl fondling a gunbarrel yet?  No? Okay, stick one in there.")  Besides just looking cool (which almost all of these things do) the DAD title sequence is actually an efficient use of time.  I like the SF sequence for a lot of the same reasons, as I choose to see it as a "dream sequence" playing out in Bond's head after he hits the water (or possibly the last images to fly through his brain on the journey to death, we don't know yet).

 

- Brosnan almost always disappoints me, but he's really terrific in the prison sequence; bearded and unkempt, beaten up and worn down, he still manages to keep alive a spark of the old Bond gumption.  He makes a quip in the "exit interview" and the way Brosnan plays it, it's like it pops out of him on "auto pilot," like smart-assery is such an ingrained, practiced element of his persona that it kicks in by instinct.  Which is to say, he doesn't come off as glib and cocky; it would ruin the effectiveness of the scene if he seemed unfazed by his ordeal.  Instead, he delivers the one-liner in a distracted, detached way and seems as surprised as anyone that he managed to summon it up.  A few minutes later, when he's marched outside and put before the firing squad, you can see his eyes darting around for the ubiquitous miracle that's going to turn defeat into victory, or at least death into survival.  Where's the hidden gadget, the trusty ally, the random item waiting to be turned into a weapon?  Where's the path of alligator backs to dash across?  But there's nothing to find; there will be no escape this time, it's game over.  Maybe I'm projecting too much onto this, but it really seems to me Brosnan's expressions run through all of this in a few seconds; a flash of hope, a search for something to build a plan on, an instant of desperation and finally tired resignation.  It's a strong scene, for me.

 

- The swordfight, while nowhere near as good as anything Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power gave us, is nicely done and if nothing else a lot of fun just in terms of how much damage is done to the club.  It's also a welcome respite from gadgets, gadgets, gadgets.  And we finally get to see two things we didn't even know we were dying to see: a proper swordfight (20 films in!) and Blades.

 

After that, alas, things turn ugly and stay that way.

 

One honorable mention:  in the PTS, the "Saved by the bell" quip was easily the least inane and closest-to-actually-amusing one-liner of the Brosnan era.  Which ain't saying much, but at the time I appreciated it. ("Hey, that one actually fit the situation!")

[DaveBond21]

I like - the first 40 minutes - the PTS, the prisoner exchange, the hotel room, Cuba, the sword fight. 

 

At this point, I was thinking "Wow, it's great. I wonder why it is getting bad reviews?'. But then

 

 

 

 They tried to cram in too much namely:-

 

- The invisible car

- Climbing down a glass building

- Ice Palace melting

- Laser machine fight

- Car Chase on Ice

- Speeder racing

- Huge laser from outer space

- Clinging to a melting cliff face

- Surfing a Tsunami

- Fighting in a burning out-of-control plane

- Starting a spinning helicopter mid-air

 

Normally a Bond movie's finale would feature maybe two of these elements, but to cram them all in was absurd.

[sharpshooter]

I think the concepts of DAD are half okay. The invisible car is technically possible, but it's nonetheless a step too far. As a result, the film slipped into video-game territory. The giant orange death ray gives off this vibe too. And then of course we have the awful ice-wave sequence. Even the finale in the plane feels like a video-game, with all that CGI debris peeling off.

 

But, as I have noted previously in this thread, all is not completely lost. There's still good to be found in the movie, and I still prefer it to TWINE.

 

One honorable mention:  in the PTS, the "Saved by the bell" quip was easily the least inane and closest-to-actually-amusing one-liner of the Brosnan era.  Which ain't saying much, but at the time I appreciated it. ("Hey, that one actually fit the situation!")

This one is great. I particularly like how worn out Brosnan appears here.

[Dustin]

I do wonder, would DAD maybe have fared better as a film - in terms of quality and recognition, not its financial aspects - if it had pulled all the stops? Instead of trying to hunt with the mainstream pack and run with the die-hard Fleming foxes? If DAD had completely embraced science fiction genre and approached from that direction, not even pretending any connection with present day technology or real-life politics? A prison camp on an asteroid instead of North Korea, Bond recovering on a moon base instead of Hong Kong, the villain's palace with its tropical glass dome on Mars instead of Iceland? Special effects by ILM, not Nintendo...

[SecretAgentFan]

These Nintendo-effects indeed always raise a question mark.  

 

- Was that sequence an afterthought, rushed through, and they just did not have the time to fix it?

 

- Did the effects mavericks simply not deliver what they promised?

 

- Did they run out of money and nobody wanted to shell out the necessary extra bucks?

 

- Or did they actually think: that´s good enough?

[New Digs]

These Nintendo-effects indeed always raise a question mark.

- Was that sequence an afterthought, rushed through, and they just did not have the time to fix it?

- Did the effects mavericks simply not deliver what they promised?

- Did they run out of money and nobody wanted to shell out the necessary extra bucks?

- Or did they actually think: that´s good enough?

I can't remember where I heard it but I'm sure I recall something about Tamahori persuading the producers this was the way to go. That large scale CGI was going to become commonplace in action movies etc. If Bond didn't do it they would be left behind. I know from a P&W Empire interview they state Tamahori was responsible for the invisible car, so it is possible he wanted the CGI on that scale too. I guess it was seen as 'to adapt is to survive' kind of thing.

[Dustin]

Frankly, especially with stunts - which however you look at it always include a certain potential for accident, injury and death even - I can see the reasoning behind doing the para surf scene in CGI. The Bond series is a burnt child with fatal accidents and every effort to minimise such dangers is of course firstly a sensible idea. Trying to stage this stunt for real in the spirit of Rick Sylvester would doubtlessly have involved numerous incalculable problems turning such an enterprise into Russian Roulette.

The execution however was so lacklustre and downright annoying that the entire film would have profited if that scene had ended on the cutting room floor. And part of this effect wasn't just because it was so clearly staged with CGI, it also undercut its own potential by showing a Playstation Bond near-effortless in what should have been a situation of hair-raising thrills and danger. Why this scene wasn't worked on until it gained at least a vague semblance of convincing suspense is entirely beyond me.

[David_M]

There's no way anyone ever expected to accomplish that stunt in real life: they had to know going in it was CGI or nothing.  

 

I remember thinking during the Brosnan era that somehow the paradigm had shifted when we weren't looking.  There was an extended period -- mostly during the Moore years -- where you got the feeling the stunt men (like BJ Worth's skydiving team, for instance) would come to the producers and say, "there's this neat thing we can do if you can write a script around it," whereas in the Brosnan years, it was more a case of "the writers came up with this idea, and we don't care if it's impossible or not, because we'll find a way to fake it."  It's hard to say which approach is more troublesome:  the first approach gave us films that often felt like extended stunt reels strung randomly together by the bare bones of a plot, while the latter approach gave us slump-under-your-seat moments like the motorcyle-to-plane transfer in GE and the para surfing in DAD (plus the "I don't know much about helicopters but I know that's impossible" stunts in TND).

 

What's really amazing is that for one of the DAD DVD releases, they did a whole "behind the scenes" film explaining how they "accomplished" the para surf scene and bragging about how awesome it was. (!!)

[Dustin]

There's no way anyone ever expected to accomplish that stunt in real life: they had to know going in it was CGI or nothing.

I remember thinking during the Brosnan era that somehow the paradigm had shifted when we weren't looking. There was an extended period -- mostly during the Moore years -- where you got the feeling the stunt men (like BJ Worth's skydiving team, for instance) would come to the producers and say, "there's this neat thing we can do if you can write a script around it," whereas in the Brosnan years, it was more a case of "the writers came up with this idea, and we don't care if it's impossible or not, because we'll find a way to fake it." It's hard to say which approach is more troublesome: the first approach gave us films that often felt like extended stunt reels strung randomly together by the bare bones of a plot, while the latter approach gave us slump-under-your-seat moments like the motorcyle-to-plane transfer in GE and the para surfing in DAD (plus the "I don't know much about helicopters but I know that's impossible" stunts in TND).

Indeed, I suppose nobody in their right mind would even dare staging the DAD stunt for real. Even the preparations would likely be deemed too dangerous for any serious stuntman.

That said I still think the approach to include stunts which are physically possible - at least in theory - is superior to the write-it-and-fake-it school. Yes, sometimes the scenes are not tailored very well to the stunts in question. Why ever would Bond ski with a parachute? And a Union Jack pattern at that...

But overall it's easier - and more believable! - to find a reason why he'd be desperate enough to try and jump a channel with a corkscrew than play cowboy with a motorcycle and a helicopter. Bond - up to a point - is about fantasy, always has been. Any critic with a keyboard and a well-assorted set of truisms will tell us so. But that can hardly mean Bond has to be about dragon eggs and sorcery. By letting CGI and sfx take over such scenes didn't just push the boundaries of probability, they introduced the entire canon of Marvel physics into Bond's world. Not to the best effect, sadly.

[David_M]

Well, I should have worded the last post differently: it's not really "troublesome" to me that the older films wrote scripts around stunts, since that formula produced most of my favorite entries.  But both approaches reflect, on some level, a certain laziness: "stage some stunts and we'll think of an excuse to include them" versus "write any damn thing you like and we'll use a computer to bail us out."

 

I agree with you that the latter is worse, overall.  Even if we've never gone skydiving personally, we "know" what a body in freefall should look like, and how it should -- and should not -- be able to move.  Even if we aren't helicopter pilots, we know you can't angle your nose down at 45% and have the vehicle continue to hover -- while using the rotors to chop up everything in your path, with no damage to the blades!  And even if no, we've have not ever seen a guy surf along the tops of ice chunks in a tidal wave, we still know how a real human body moves, and it's NOT like a beta version of SIMs 1.0.  

 

The thing with Bond is that there is this unspoken agreement between filmmaker and ticket-buyer, that when the BIG moments come along, when the spectacle kicks in, when the Bond theme swells loudly, we are supposed to be seeing something truly amazing...one of those payoffs that make the price of admission, and the wait since the last film, worth it.  When fakery is employed, the filmmakers have welched on their end of the deal.  They are cheating us, pure and simple.  We don't want anyone hurt or killed making a movie, but we do want to feel like there's some genuine danger involved in what we're watching, and when there isn't, we're right to feel ticked off.

 

And "Marvel physics" is too kind.  I'd say Wile E. Coyote.

[Dustin]

Agreed on all points - though I suppose when we buy our tickets for a Bond film most of us automatically bring a certain willingness to be ensnared by the spectacle to the theatre. That's what I think doubles the pain when things on the screen get so obviously out of hand as in that surf scene. We are already in a forgiving mood where reality is concerned, nothing wrong about that. But that particular sequence makes one feel the ring through our noses and that wasn't at all necessary. Not when this series has such a long tradition of expertly luring us along over all cliffs and through deep and heavy seas.

[sharpshooter]

I can't remember where I heard it but I'm sure I recall something about Tamahori persuading the producers this was the way to go. That large scale CGI was going to become commonplace in action movies etc. If Bond didn't do it they would be left behind. 

Yes, I think you're right. Also how they introduced speed ramping during the ice car chase, and those slow motion sequences. I'm referring to the clinic fight and Zao's jacket flick. 

[plankattack]

 

I can't remember where I heard it but I'm sure I recall something about Tamahori persuading the producers this was the way to go. That large scale CGI was going to become commonplace in action movies etc. If Bond didn't do it they would be left behind. 

Yes, I think you're right. Also how they introduced speed ramping during the ice car chase, and those slow motion sequences. I'm referring to the clinic fight and Zao's jacket flick. 

 

It is interesting how times have changed. I do recall this sense that Tamahori was a spokesman for the franchise (which to be the fair the director is while in charge), in taking the position that the series was about reacting and keeping up with everyone else, especially when it came to the technical side. While the franchise has often been in that position when it comes to the story-telling, it was fascinating to hear it so overtly when referencing how the "sausage was made".

 

While I've never been a huge fan of CGI as the primary creative force (rather than augmenting live-action), Tamahori wasnt necessarily out-of-step with his opinions. In fact the comic book movies, and Star Wars, had seemingly completely gone the CGI route. What I do find more interesting is that Tamahori wan't to dress up the speed ramping and slow motion as an industry trend.

 

There was a time when slow motion in action films was all the vogue (after Peckinpah) but I've always seen it's use as directorial license rather than industry-trend. I wonder if that is how Tamahori has always approached directorial decisions? Yes he did have that one New Zealand film (can't recall/can't be bothered to look it up) that established his auteur credentials, but his resume since has been "hacky" at best. XXX, Nic Cage flicks etc

 

I would rather he'd just said "some speed ramping makes the chase more exciting" rather than "this is how movies are going to look for the next decade." 

[stromberg]

 

 

I can't remember where I heard it but I'm sure I recall something about Tamahori persuading the producers this was the way to go. That large scale CGI was going to become commonplace in action movies etc. If Bond didn't do it they would be left behind. 

Yes, I think you're right. Also how they introduced speed ramping during the ice car chase, and those slow motion sequences. I'm referring to the clinic fight and Zao's jacket flick. 

 

It is interesting how times have changed. I do recall this sense that Tamahori was a spokesman for the franchise (which to be the fair the director is while in charge), in taking the position that the series was about reacting and keeping up with everyone else, especially when it came to the technical side. While the franchise has often been in that position when it comes to the story-telling, it was fascinating to hear it so overtly when referencing how the "sausage was made".

 

While I've never been a huge fan of CGI as the primary creative force (rather than augmenting live-action), Tamahori was necessarily out-of-step with his opinions. In fact the comic book movies, and Star Wars, had seemingly completely gone the CGI route. What I do find more interesting is that Tamahori wan't to dress up the speed ramping and slow motion as an industry trend.

 

There was a time when slow motion in action films was all the vogue (after Peckinpah) but I've always seen it's use as directorial license rather than industry-trend. I wonder if that is how Tamahori has always approached directorial decisions? Yes he did have that one New Zealand film (can't recall/can't be bothered to look it up) that established his auteur credentials, but his resume since has been "hacky" at best. XXX, Nic Cage flicks etc

 

I would rather he'd just said "some speed ramping makes the chase more exciting" rather than "this is how movies are going to look for the next decade." 

 

That's the first thing (among many others) that Tamahori didn't understand about Bond:

Bond used to set the trends (well, most of the time), not follow them.

[New Digs]

I can't remember where I heard it but I'm sure I recall something about Tamahori persuading the producers this was the way to go. That large scale CGI was going to become commonplace in action movies etc. If Bond didn't do it they would be left behind.

Yes, I think you're right. Also how they introduced speed ramping during the ice car chase, and those slow motion sequences. I'm referring to the clinic fight and Zao's jacket flick.

It is interesting how times have changed. I do recall this sense that Tamahori was a spokesman for the franchise (which to be the fair the director is while in charge), in taking the position that the series was about reacting and keeping up with everyone else, especially when it came to the technical side. While the franchise has often been in that position when it comes to the story-telling, it was fascinating to hear it so overtly when referencing how the "sausage was made".

While I've never been a huge fan of CGI as the primary creative force (rather than augmenting live-action), Tamahori was necessarily out-of-step with his opinions. In fact the comic book movies, and Star Wars, had seemingly completely gone the CGI route. What I do find more interesting is that Tamahori wan't to dress up the speed ramping and slow motion as an industry trend.

There was a time when slow motion in action films was all the vogue (after Peckinpah) but I've always seen it's use as directorial license rather than industry-trend. I wonder if that is how Tamahori has always approached directorial decisions? Yes he did have that one New Zealand film (can't recall/can't be bothered to look it up) that established his auteur credentials, but his resume since has been "hacky" at best. XXX, Nic Cage flicks etc

I would rather he'd just said "some speed ramping makes the chase more exciting" rather than "this is how movies are going to look for the next decade."

That's the first thing (among many others) that Tamahori didn't understand about Bond:
Bond used to set the trends (well, most of the time), not follow them.

Yes I agree. While a film series obviously has to keep pace to an extent, the trends set by the Craig era have surely paid off far greater than successive greater/bigger stand alone CGI sequences would have done. In this respect the (directorial) approach taken with DAD caused CR, and that's definitely a good thing as CR is one of the best films!

[glidrose]

Yes he did have that one New Zealand film (can't recall/can't be bothered to look it up) that established his auteur credentials, but his resume since has been "hacky" at best. XXX, Nic Cage flicks etc

"Once Were Warriors".