151 replies to this topic

[chad bradly]

I just saw DAD for the second time. I to thought I was mearly liking the film because of my love for all things Bond. I was wrong. The CGI are far too many, and the sexual one liners to obvious, but the film has some great moments. There is some great dark scene that add a genunie appeal to this film. I have a feeling on DVD that this movie will even be better. The CGI might not be as obvious when there scaled down to a 50" Sony Plasma TV.

[JBond007]

I thought the CGI was better on a TV rather than on a cinema screen.

[Red Widow Dawn]

Hmm...I dunno, Terminus. I liked TWINE. Perhaps I envied Bond, who got to kill his bitchy ex-lover. Or perhaps I liked the return to Fleming-style characters.

Ever read Quantum of Solace? Not a shred of action, but a terrific short story. Same with For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and The Hildebrand Rarity. Okay...it mainly seems to be the domain of his short stories, but Fleming did enjoy creating deep characters, and I saw more of the original Bond in TWINE than I did in DAD.

Action scenes? A dime a dozen.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Red Widow Dawn
At any rate, nobody has answered my question.  Why has the public shunned Die Another Day (critically, not financially) while an unusual number of Bond fans adore it?

The public has shunned DAD? I have no idea where you get this notion, Red Widow. This thread completely baffles me. DAD is clearly the most popular Bond in many years with fans and the public. Am I living in a different universe?

How long have you been a Bond fan, Red Widow? How old are you? What are you measuring DAD against? What part of the world do you live in? I ask because I just don't understand how we're having such a different experience.

Perhaps you live in North Korea?

[Xenobia]

Hang on here folks, it's time for a joke:

What do you Star Trek: Nemisis and Die Another Day have in Common?

They are loved and hated in equal portion.

No one is forgetting the length of either franchise, and based on what they love about each, folks love or hate Nemisis or DAD.

I for one am happy with the action in TWINE and in DAD. I like the characterization in both.

I also enjoy watching squirrels escape the clutches of Richard Gere, but that's just me.

What I do not like is people getting too touchy. Let's not ask each other what planet we are living on, how old we are, to withhold venom, etc. Be passionate by all means, but not paranoid.

Thank you.

-- Xenobia

[Felix's lighter]

Let's put it this way: DAD is a movie. It entertains. It also happens to be a James Bond movie, which are specifically designed to entertain. In an ideal world, I would have a James Bond movie that was a little less reliant on special effects and action. In an ideal world, I'd have a James Bond movie that better reflects the spirit of Ian Fleming's novels while still giving them an epic feel (and no, I'm not a Timothy Dalton fan). In an ideal world, if violence must be perpetrated against women at all, I'd rather have a James Bond who merely slaps a villainous woman around rather than cowardly shooting her point-blank. And, on the subject of women, I would like to see a James Bond movie with an Octopussy-style never-ending array of beautiful women vying for Bond's attention.

However, that world I speak of belongs to the past, and we have 40 years worth of movies that represent all of the above quite well at various points. DAD is the brand-new James Bond movie, and it's the best brand-new James Bond movie we have.

[iceberg]

For what it's worth, DAD had a lot of energy. I have to admit I liked it a lot. However, I think it's cut from the same cloth as TND: wall-to-wall action. Fortunately, it's a little bit ahead of TND as far as characterization, but definitely behind TWINE, which is my favorite contemporary Bond film.

Mine is most likely the minority opinion, but if they had beefed up TWINE's action a little, we would've had a quintessential Bond film along the lines of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. DAD was the producers' response to all the complaints of thin action in TWINE.

Looks like they responded a little too much. Still, DAD's a good movie. Just hope the next one will be a perfect hybrid of TWINE and TND.

I should mention I'm not holding my breath.

[mrmoon]

With all this talk of characterization, have some people seemed to miss the Character of Moon/Graves, possibly the best character of the Brosnan era , he is clearly a more rounded character than Renard, Carver or even Trevelyan. We know of his upbringing, and his hate of western hypocrasy, his western education and subsequent corruption, his patriotism, his love of war, even the lenghts he will go to for his cause. What we are told about Renard in a few short seconds by M could easily be forgotten so he has a bullet lodged in his brain what kind of a character is he, we don't learn of his background and his cause is somewhat bizarre. The same applies to Elliot Carver, he shows little passion for his cause, Graves/Moon is a competitor, and Bond is his prey, when we see Bond in Graves' quarters and he greets him as colonel Graves claims 'it's been fun watching you flail around in your ignorance' - then we realise how lucky Bond is against his adversary.

Even Zao has some background and depth to his character, something rarely seen in a henchman/woman. So before everyone jumps to conclusions about The World is not Enough's infinately better characterization just remember Die Another Day's villains are two of the greatest and most well written characters for a 'long' while.

[iceberg]

There's more to characterization than someone's background. Otherwise, all you have is a stick figure with a manufactured backstory.

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by iceberg
There's more to characterization than someone's background.  Otherwise, all you have is a stick figure with a manufactured backstory.

Yeah. Go on then, tell me Im wrong about Graves/Moon and Zao.

[Red Widow Dawn]

Iceberg is right, Mr. Moon. All Graves was was a background.

Let's do this Jim-style.

I is for inexplicable - such as why Graves is both a Communist and a Capitalist. You know what, Gustav? When you flood the world with Communism, you won't have your pretty car collection any more. Inexplicable also applies to Miranda Frost, who betrays England because she likes to "win". As it does to Jinx, who shows up for a shag and some gunplay.

I couldn't follow the characters' motives. They were sketchy. But let's look at the villains of the previous movies:

Trevelyan - wants to get revenge on England for the death of his parents, and on MI6, whom he felt deceived him

Carver - wants to become powerful in order to shun his meagre beginnings

Renard - was seduced by Elektra into being her slave

Elektra - her mother's affairs ruined her father; her mother and M also refused to pay her ransom

Much more creative than "I think I'll take over the world and turn it into a Communist utopia...or perhaps Capitalist...I dunno...it's all good".

Zencat - thank you so much for misconstruing my previous comments. I said "the public has shunned DAD (critically, but not financially)." So yes, it's a box-office hit, but that doesn't mean it's a good movie.

Check out www.rottentomatoes.com . Of the plethora of reviews stored there, only 38% of the quality reviews are positive. I can understand liking DAD. It was okay. But not claiming it's the best Bond movie ever. The concept is just...it's just...mind-blowing.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Red Widow Dawn
Iceberg is right, Mr. Moon.  All Graves was was a background.

Let's do this Jim-style.

I is for inexplicable - such as why Graves is both a Communist and a Capitalist.  You know what, Gustav?  When you flood the world with Communism, you won't have your pretty car collection any more.  Inexplicable also applies to Miranda Frost, who betrays England because she likes to "win".  As it does to Jinx, who shows up for a shag and some gunplay.

I couldn't follow the characters' motives.  They were sketchy.  But let's look at the villains of the previous movies:

Trevelyan - wants to get revenge on England for the death of his parents, and on MI6, whom he felt deceived him

Carver - wants to become powerful in order to shun his meagre beginnings

Renard - was seduced by Elektra into being her slave

Elektra - her mother's affairs ruined her father; her mother and M also refused to pay her ransom

Much more creative than "I think I'll take over the world and turn it into a Communist utopia...or perhaps Capitalist...I dunno...it's all good".

Absolutely superbly explained, Red Widow Dawn!

[Red Widow Dawn]

*is cautious*

Are you...being sarcastic?

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by Red Widow Dawn

I couldn't follow the characters' motives.  They were sketchy.

He simply wanted to re-unite the North and the South to create a new superpower from where he could create an opposition to the west. He simply hates the west. That is his motive - as his father says '50 years ago the superpowers carved Korea in two' - while the general is somewhat content to sit back his son wants revenge - what better way to do this than be knighted by one of the two nations you hate and then oppose it and its closest allies, using Icarus as your military defence. It's audacious - yes, but its brilliantly audacious, and afterall what's better than a Bond villain with an audacious masterplan.

[terminus]

I is for inexplicable - such as why Graves is both a Communist and a Capitalist. You know what, Gustav? When you flood the world with Communism, you won't have your pretty car collection any more. Inexplicable also applies to Miranda Frost, who betrays England because she likes to "win". As it does to Jinx, who shows up for a shag and some gunplay.

Moon is a communist. Graves is a capitalist. They are, to all intents and purposes, completely different characters. Moon is playing a character named Gustav Graves, the communist is playing a capitalist. He needs to play a capitalist in order to effectively manipulate the west into funding the Icarus program, therefore funding their own demise and his cause.

Capitalist countries had supplied the funding for the Icarus satellite and part of Moon's revenge was to use the object that they had, to all extents and purposes, constructed, to futher their deconstruction.

Moons aims were to destroy the DMZ and reunify North and South Korea. We know that Moon was, even before his transformation into Moon, a hypocrite ( as evidenced by his collection of cars ) and he, in effect, knows this:

'I studied in western hypocrisy'

He's not even pretending that communism is entirely truthfull. Does he even want to create a communist haven ? Not really. Does he want to reunify North and South Korea ? Yes he does. I don't think that he's bothered about whether it's a capitalist country or a communist state.

What is capitalist hypocrisy ? The western countries are effectively forcing their own will on a country which has decided on communism as a way of government. Moon sees this as unethical, which, technically it is as America preaches liberty and freedom above all else and should not be imposing their will on an independant people.

Miranda Frost ? She likes to win. So what ? She obviously believed that Moon was going to suceed in Icarus because she would have been able to prevent any of Bond's actions - she clearly didn't want Bond going to Iceland ( see her briefing with M ). I mean, even up till the Antonov actually took off, the plan looked like it was going to actually succeed. Perhaps there was also an element of romance ? Or perhaps she felt shunned that she wasn't awarded the gold medal in the first place ( and she must know that it was Moon who poisioned her opponent ).

Jinx ? She was supposed to be a female Bond. I think a good fan fiction idea is to write DAD from Jinx's point of view. We never question why Bond is shagging, why he is shooting people. Take that into account and look at it as Jinx is Bond - she is simply following her own investigation, following it to Cuba ( via the Beauty Parlour, not Zao, whom she doesn't appear to realise is there until Bond fights him ) and onto the Ice Palace in Iceland ( assuming the information was on the CD she took from the office. Perhaps it showed Moon morphing into Graves as it did with Zao morphing into the German guy ? ). I don't consider her inexplicable at all.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Red Widow Dawn
*is cautious*

Are you...being sarcastic?

I wasn't being sarcastic, I actually did think you explained it brilliantly. I agreed with what you wrote. That's it, really, no hidden agenda or anything.

[jamesmarinos]

HAHAHA!! It seems to me like too many people are saying "What an antertaining film DAD was". What confuses ( and worries) me is that everyone has at least two or three very negative things to say about DAD. It seems as bond fans we are almost talking our selfs into beleving we actually loved this film and it was a bond classic, when we really know that it was somewhat of a XXX or action film not the Bond we love...the Bond of the past.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Red Widow Dawn
Iceberg is right, Mr. Moon.  All Graves was was a background.

And background isn't characterisation? What is characterisation then, events on the screen? The development/change of a person on a screen? You'll find that background is characterisation.

Let's do this Daniel style.

[b]I is for inexplicable - such as why Graves is both a Communist and a Capitalist.  You know what, Gustav?  When you flood the world with Communism, you won't have your pretty car collection any more.

Did you ever notice that during the cold war in the USSR, a communist country, there were some very rich heads of states? They were corrupt and selfish, despite believing in communism. How you can use a car collection as proof of something being wrong with Die Another Day is the only thing that is inexplicable.

Inexplicable also applies to Miranda Frost, who betrays England because she likes to "win".  As it does to Jinx, who shows up for a shag and some gunplay.

Does every person you know have a definite purpose that I, if I viewed your life like an audience views a film, would understand? Of course not. Does every person in every film, whether a main character or not, have to have a distinct motive? No, they don't. Use your imagination to think of why Forst might betray England because she wants to win. The film doesn't have to explain it. Do we need an explanation as to why Xenia nears orgasm when she kills people? We never get one, but we don't really care.

Picking up as to why Frost likes to win and Jinxs like to shag, and do thinks for President and Country, is becoming R: R for Rediculously Picky.

Much more creative than "I think I'll take over the world and turn it into a Communist utopia...or perhaps Capitalist...I dunno...it's all good".

See above.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by jamesmarinos
It seems to me like too many people are saying "What an antertaining film DAD was".

I'd really have to ask you if you believe that Bond was every meant to be anything more than a form of entertaining medium. Whether literary or cinematic the whole purpose of Bond is to entertain. So what is from with people saying that Die Another Day was entertaining?

What confuses ( and worries) me is that everyone has at least two or three very negative things to say about DAD.

And what's wrong with that? Have you seen a single Bond film that you honestly can't find two or three very negative things to say about? Let's start with a film that some people, strangely in my opinion, regard as the best Bond film; Thunderball. It one a SFX Oscar, has anyone seen the horrible boat finale? Back project, film being sped up etc... The seen is just plain horrible. Then there's the fact that the underwater scenes are stretched out far too long, giving us one of only a few scenes in the Bond series where the film becomes boring. And then there's Vargas, a bond villain without menace.

It seems that no Bond film is without its faults.

[DLibrasnow]

Thank you Daniel

[zencat]

Originally posted by Red Widow Dawn
Zencat - thank you so much for misconstruing my previous comments.  I said "the public has shunned DAD (critically, but not financially)."  So yes, it's a box-office hit, but that doesn't mean it's a good movie.

Sorry, Red Widow, but I just don't understand this statement. It makes no sense. Box office is THE measurement of public acceptance or rejection of a movie. Strong box office week after week indicates good word of mouth and repeat viewing. Are you saying these people who are recommending DAD and going to see it two or three times don't like it? Whether or not you think it's a good movie is your opinion and it's fine if you don

[Red Widow Dawn]

Zencat - let's clarify. By "public" I mean critics. Non-Bond fans.

[DLibrasnow]

RWD you are wrong, I am a movie critic for a newspaper, I don't think the small fraternity of myself and my colleagues can be accurately referred to as the voice of the public....the voice of the public is admissions and box office takings.

[zencat]

Critics? I have review clippings going back to FYEO and DAD's are no better or no worse than any others.

Or by "critics" do you mean "people who don't like DAD"?

You know, I'm too confused. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. Forget it.

[DLibrasnow]

Hang in there zencat

[Red Widow Dawn]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


And background isn't characterisation? What is characterisation then, events on the screen? The development/change of a person on a screen? You'll find that background is characterisation.  

Let's do this Daniel style.

*sigh* Back to the coal mines again.

Did you ever notice that during the cold war in the USSR, a communist country, there were some very rich heads of states? They were corrupt and selfish, despite believing in communism. How you can use a car collection as proof of something being wrong with Die Another Day is the only thing that is inexplicable.

Yes. I noticed the corrupt heads of state. I also noticed that they've never been used as a Bond villain until Die Another Day. Bureaucracy bores me so.

Does every person you know have a definite purpose that I, if I viewed your life like an audience views a film, would understand? Of course not. Does every person in every film, whether a main character or not, have to have a distinct motive? No, they don't. Use your imagination to think of why Forst might betray England because she wants to win. The film doesn't have to explain it. Do we need an explanation as to why Xenia nears orgasm when she kills people? We never get one, but we don't really care.

No, we don't need motives. But it's nice to have them. It makes the movie much more fun. It makes the audience wonder: "Will Bond shoot Elektra?" "Oh no! Valentin is aiming at 007!" and so forth. With DAD, everything is so black and white, even the attempt at a "traitor". If I wanted to see cardboard cutouts, I could have waited in the theatre lobby.

Picking up as to why Frost likes to win and Jinxs like to shag, and do thinks for President and Country, is becoming R: R for Rediculously Picky.

Now, now. Let's not forget that you are replying with counterarguments.

[Red Widow Dawn]

Originally posted by zencat
Critics? I have review clippings going back to FYEO and DAD's are no better or no worse than any others.

Or by "critics" do you mean "people who don't like DAD"?

You know, I'm too confused. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. Forget it.

You're being very difficult. For the last time:

www.rottentomatoes.com

It's an archive of movie reviews. There are hundreds for DAD. They average them out. DAD was brutally slaughtered.

EDIT: really, now Zencat. Do you think a few reviews is an adequate representation of a movie's critical status?

[zencat]

My God, Red Widow, you're right! DAD is a bomb. Shunned by critics and the public and Bond fans alike. The evidence is everywhere. How could I have not seen it?

In other news, ROLLERBALL is a hit.

Now let me go watch some squirrels and calm down because, you know, I'm one of those people.

Someone else can make sense of this. I can't.

[Xenobia]

Ah yes....this thread is goign nowhere. What a surprise.

Folks here's a news flash:

Nemisis = DAD = Highlander = Either you love it or hate it.

And within that, folks will hate the movie for different reasons, just like folks will love it for different reasons.

Let's see if this thread can stop running in circles. If not, I am going to prove that indeed, the circle can be broken.

-- Xenobia

[1q2w3e4r]

I'd have to say that From Russia With Love is without faults. And that the back projection in Thunderball was better than the digital Bond 37 years later in Die Another Day. Another point to ponder is that I didn't and don't find the underwater scenes to long, its got a great girl, exotic locale and the best one liners in the series.

It's great to like the film, but because other's don't doesn't mean their wrong or not fans. By looking at things with only a positive attitude is great, but it's not objective.

Someone on the other page went so far as to proclaim that if you didn't like a film in the series you weren't a Bond fan. I can't for the life of me understand that mentality. I've read all the Bond novels and could probably recite huge passages from memory, seen all the films as everyone here has countless times also. But that doesn't mean i like every film.

Moonraker, A View To A Kill, The Man With The Golden Gun are films that I can't watch. Their boring, Moonraker is huge in scale and entertaining in the first hour, but it's a travelogue, long and tedious, A View To A Kill is the film I've watched the least, I could probably watch it now and remember scenes I didn't think were in the film. TMWTGG isn't so bad.

I also fall into the catagory that aren't fond of DAD. I LOVE the first hour, we get Bond at his best and see Fleming's tortured character on screen. But the second hour turns it's back on it. It just builds up with over the top elements and Brosnan looks bored after a few minutes in iceland.

I hated the adaptave camoflague and ice dragster sequence and would have loved the film if they'd been edited out and the car chase hadn't entered the hotel. After viewing Die Another Day I walked out feeling over loaded and that i'd watched two different films.

So I don't know what type I am, I guess i'm the type that realised or thought that when Bond got to Cuba and you knew that "Bond was back" I had the feeling they were going to stuff it. Die Another Day was a thriller then, it harked back to the great plots and excitement of the earlier films, George's and Dalton's entries and Brosnan's first for it's excitement.