17 replies to this topic

[AgentM]

At least one out of every five posts in this forums is along the lines of:

"The film is too unrealistic. Too science-fiction like. Futuristic. Bad Plot."

Generally, about 99.99% of these statements begin the SECOND the sword fight ends.

What people don't appreciate is what the Powers That Be have done with this film.

Some people like the thrillers. Some people like science fiction. Some like big action.

In truth, EVERY BOND FAN has SOMETHING they like about the film.

I agree, that up until the sword fight, it was the Best Bond Film ever. Iceland and North Korea were a little hokey (albeit in very minor spots) but they were still great.

To tell you the truth, I have really played this up in my mind as being an epic Bond, and the elements of storytelling they used (Iceland, Big Space Laser, Massive Action Pieces, Political-Oriented Plot) were necessary to do that!

Why are people so bent on a more realistic plot? Do we want another TWINE? (Not knocking that movie, I thought it was okay, just a little drab and formulated in spots). The past Bond movies have all had elements where it felt like the filmmakers were doing things JUST to fit the formula. DAD seemed to flow on its own.

In a way, many of these 'unrealistic' elements had to be used. The Cuban sequence, for example, was a great spy-thriller part of the film, but I found myself thinking "Come on! Get on with it! We don't need more redundant spy-work and gunfight action!"

DIE ANOTHER DAY was a great film, and I think everyone has SOMETHING they like about it. If there's only one element you like, then just think about that! Don't knock an entire film because of a few bad spots!

My PET PEEVE is that people say the CGI sequence RUINED the rest of the film for them. My God, people! It is not great computer work, but it is no worse than Spiderman or other science fiction movies, and they've all got great reviews! Glacier surfing was a very good and Modern Bondian idea - bad production shouldn't let the idea get ruined. Just close your eyes or something when that part of the film comes.

Something else that bugs me - the final line in the Bond/Graves fight. In the novelization, it goes:
GRAVES: Life is full of death.
{Parachute thing}
BOND: You were saying something about death?
Okay, so was this RAYMOND BENSON changing a cringy joke that didn't seem good in the movie, or was it NP and RW's original line which REALLY WORKED, but some GENIUS (no sarcasm there) pulled it out.

Phew. Long post. My point is - Everyone has something good in DAD. The filmmakers have appealed to EVERY FAN - isn't that the goal in an anniversary film like this?

[JBond007]

I liked DAD.

For those who like Fleming and plot, read the books.

Those who like Action etc, watch the movies.

[General Koskov]

So you like DAD, and yet you say it has no plot? I dislike DAD, but I think that it has a very good plot.

PS. What are you saying about Graves' last lines, AgentM?

[AgentM]

Sorry if I was unclear in my first post. (It was late, needed to vent).

I really like DAD's plot, I truly think it was the best one we've had in awhile. What I'm saying is that far too many people complain about the film changing gears - the producers did this so they could try and appeal to every plan.

As for Graves' last line, I just think that the ones in the novelization are far better, and should have been used in the film. "Time to face gravity" just doesn't sound that great, doesn't have the great punch that Bond should end a film with.

[Adam]

Originally posted by AgentM
I agree, that up until the sword fight, it was the Best Bond Film ever.  

Whoa whoa there, let's not jump ahead of ourselves...

[Alexborn007]

Excellent point. Very few people seemed to hate the ENTIRE movie. I entirely agree with what you said. It was a 40th anniversary movie so they probably wanted nuances from every type of Bond movie. This is not easy and could have failed miserably (although some think it did). The movie has an excellent flow and I, for one am thrilled to see that they can make at least half of a down to Earth thriller (because an entire movie like the first half of DAD would be perfection almost). But, I really love the whole movie

[B5Erik2]

"One Undisputable GOOD Thing About DIE ANOTHER DAY"

I dispute that!!!

[B5Erik2]

Honestly, I did find a lot to like about DAD. I just HATED how the movie degenerated from a fantastic James Bond film into some hack xXx clone.

DAD was the REAL Attack Of The Clones! :mad:

[Sir James]

I loved DAD from beginning to end. The first Bond film that had a little something for everyone. And I think its a little immature for some of us Bond fans to reallly get on its case becuase it was not all that they wanted. Becuase, just in case you didnt know, the producers like to make a Bond film that we enjoy, and how do they do that. Balance of the Fleming "stuff." But at the same time, they need to put butts in the seats, and how do you do that? Put in all the Bondian elements that have become synomous with 007 over the years. DAD is the first Bond to have a clear and enjoyable balance, and it should be commended at least for that...

[B5Erik2]

I don't mind that "balance" - in fact, I support it.

What I do mind is HOW they do it. Big action sequences are great - unless they suck. The BIG action sequences in DAD sucked because they were done VERY poorly. The action was VERY unrealistic, and much of it was physically impossible.

Bond is about the improbable or the implausible, not the impossible.

I don't mind bigger Bond movies, unless they're done poorly. The big outlandish action pieces shouldn't be used as a crutch when the writers/producers/director don't know what else to do. They should be an integral part of the plot that leaves a gaping hole if you leave it out. They should be action pieces that make sense.

The ones in the last 45-50 minutes of DAD didn't make sense.

They were poorly conceived, and poorly executed. That's my gripe.

[AgentM]

For the most part, people I talk to consider "GoldenEye" the best Bond of them all. Why? Balance, like you said B5Erik2 and Sir James.

Look at all the elements present.

Great plot - Probably the best of any Bond movie.

Spy Thriller - Bond meeting contact in St. Petersburg, spying on Xenia in Monte Carlo.

Politically oriented - Ruins of Communist Russia, Ourumov is part of the military, Politburo, Defence Minister Mishkin is a prominent character.

Great Action - Bungee Jump was legendary, tank chase memorable, even some TND-style action in the archives!

Set Pieces and Locations- Russian Space Weapons Bunker, Massive Dam, Cuban Satellite Control Centre, need I say more?

Great Music - Um, well, uh...okay so not this one.

There are many different auras throughout the movie and a great balanceof all these elements - that's what made GoldenEye great.

DIE ANOTHER DAY can also fall into most of these categories, if not all of them

GREAT PLOT - The plot contrived for this movie involving Icarus as a forefront for war and the facial transformation may have been far fetched, but it was still VERY WELL CONCEIVED. The problem lay in the fact that it was poorly presented.

POLITICALLY ORIENTED - Big involvement by American NSA, Lots of East/West strife, Korean political situation (Good Element).

GREAT ACTION - Hovercraft chase was great opening, best Car Chase yet in a Bond film, Antonov finale was a brilliant if not redundant idea.

SET PIECES AND LOCATIONS - Hovercraft Chase through DMZ! Dangerous! Car Chase on Glacier! Dangerous! Beautiful Cuba! Not dangerous, but still cool! Great locations!

GREAT MUSIC - THe best score yet of all the Bond movies, in my opinion. Perfect balance of the BOND THEME, techno was acceptable, some of the most memorable pieces ever. BRING BACK ARNOLD!


See, all you nay-sayers? It wasn't such a bad film after all!

The only possible criticism for the film (which I admit I agree with) is that some elements were either FAR FETCHED or SCIENCE-FICTION like. These things are not bad when used SPARINGLY, but the film relied on them so much that it almost seemed like a parody of itself.

[1q2w3e4r]

Originally posted by JBond007
I liked DAD.

For those who like Fleming and plot, read the books.

Those who like Action etc, watch the movies.

I think that should be read Fleming's novels and watch anything up to GoldenEye. Because the action didn't overwhelm the film till then.

[B5Erik2]

Originally posted by AgentM
The only possible criticism for DAD (which I admit I agree with) is that some elements were either FAR FETCHED or SCIENCE-FICTION like.  These things are not bad when used SPARINGLY, but the film relied on them so much that it almost seemed like a parody of itself.

Give AgentM a prize.

Parody. Bond has occasionally strayed into parody territory - ALWAYS to the detriment of the film and the series. Now with so many Bond spoofs/parodies out there, and in the age of Austin Powers, Bond needs to get FURTHER AWAY from parody in order to survive.

Let the others spoof Bond - Bond should be serious, and more grounded in reality. That doesn't mean "boring" or "slow." A serious Bond film can have HUGE action sequences - they just have to conform to the laws of physics, and can't be as ridiculous as the ones in DAD.

DAD came close to being a great Bond film, but because it missed so badly in areas that really need to be solid, overall it is an average to below average Bond film, IMO.

[White Persian]

What it boils down to is the willing suspension of disbelief.

I imagine that we all go into a Bond film knowing that what follows is going to be pretty implausible by real world standards BUT we want to immerse ourselves in Bond's world for two hours and kid ourselves that this COULD happen and enjoy the story on those terms . [This incidentally was Ian Fleming's own philosophy when writing the original stories]. So we willingly put our sense of disbelief and scepticism on hold.

But... if too many things happen that violate all logic, or ignore the laws of physics, or jarringly remind us that it's just a movie (like the intrusive speeding up or slowing down of the action) then the cumulative impossibility re-activates our alarm and the illusion is destroyed.

I, for one, get most out of the Bond films (or books) when they hover deftly just below the level where scepticism kicks in. I enter into an implicit pact with the film makers that I'll suspend my disbelief if they in turn don't violate plausibility too rudely. It's a fine balance, and probably differs from individual to individual, but for me, the second half of DAD went way over the top, and shattered the fantasy.

[White Persian]

What it boils down to is the willing suspension of disbelief.

I imagine that we all go into a Bond film knowing that what follows is going to be pretty implausible by real world standards BUT we want to immerse ourselves in Bond's world for two hours and kid ourselves that this COULD happen and enjoy the story on those terms . [This incidentally was Ian Fleming's own philosophy when writing the original stories]. So we willingly put our sense of disbelief and scepticism on hold.

But... if too many things happen that violate all logic, or ignore the laws of physics, or jarringly remind us that it'

[Felix's lighter]

I watched FYEO the other night, and realized how much more enjoyable Bond films are when everything is completely plausible. Personally, I don't think there's a much more exciting scene in all of Bondom than when he's scaling the cliff face armed only with a set of throwing knives.

Bond can do a lot of things very well, but I strongly dislike it when he's pictured as a superhero who can defy gravity and common sense. Even more troubling is when he's given a gadget that conveniently gets him out of a situation.

Compare the opening scene in Moonraker to, say, the glacier surfing in DAD. Suppose you were thrown out of an airplane without a parachute. Suppose there was a guy with a parachute within catching distance. You have two choices: fall to your death or fight the bad guy for his parachute. You'd do the same thing Bond did, your success contingent on your own strength and control of the situation. What I'm trying to say is that - given enough inner resources - we all could do that. However, NOBODY can do some of the things Bond did in DAD. NOBODY can catch a falling plane after jumping off a cliff like in GoldenEye.

[AgentM]

Re: My Prize

All the DVD Special Editions, please.

Just kidding. LOL.

Seriously though, Bond should have just rode the IceDragster into a cluster of mountains or something, Icarus blows up the area, Graves would be like "Ha! He's dead! Victorious! [Somehting in Korean]." Then we ZOOM back to the carnage of steam and melted ice where a snowmobile is driving through - and 007 hits him with the parachute! See? Fans would have complained less, and it's still just as cool!

Come on Tamahori!

[AgentM]

How 'bout all the Special Edition DVD's? Just kidding. LOL.

Seriously, Glacier Surfing could have been replaced easily. How about:

1) Icarus chases IceJet.
2) Icejet goes into a cluster of mountain, GRAVES turns Icarus onto High Power and it destroys the area.
3) Graves can turn to the Generals and say "Chow me foka something something spy is dead."
4) ZOOM back to the carnage of snow and ice where - the IceJet has flipped over, 007 has used it for cover from the Icarus beam!
5) He appropriates the snowmobile like normal, everything is peachy!

Seriously though, how could the filmmakers not see all this criticism coming?