46 replies to this topic

[General Koskov]

Everyone else has had their rant with DAD. And now it's my turn.

Don't worry, I'm not going to blather on about how DAD is the worst ever film. Rather, I'll name four points that annoy me and explain them, because I think I'm the only person who does not see it as a loveit/hateit film.

The bad bits:

-Laser 'Fight'

-Ice 'Ballet'

-Graves' 'Taser'

Notice how all the last words have little quotation marks around them? That's because these words, while in common usage to describe the scenes I refer to, do not fully explain the 'contents' (like 'Processed Cheese', it was never cheese to begin processing!).

The Laser 'Fight' contains punches, but unlike the Clinic Fight, it lacks the element known as 'uncertainty' (quotes not for same reason here), meaning that we know Bond is going to win. The lasers, unlike a certain other film's laser, do nothing to add 'uncertainty', but merely enhance the obviousness that Bond is going to win, though realistically, Mr Kil ought to time his punches better than Bond does (since he is so infatuated with the diamond-cutting apparatus).

As a side-note, a laser is more appropriate here than in Goldfinger, because gold is not cut. However, several-hundred lasers are not appropriate anywhere.


The Ice 'Ballet' contains two neato stunts: the ejector-seat flip, and the chandelier-smash. But what about the rest of it? Bond's gadgets reliably fend off Zao's gadgets on and on for a few minutes. Did MI6 and N Korean Intelligence plan this for laughs? What could be better than two evenly-matched cars? What could be worse than taking the classic LTK rocket-dodging-tilt stunt, and adding in a gadget to ruin it?


Graves' 'Taser' has, what, 20 000 volts? And yet Bond can withstand this and choke/hold Graves? When people get tasered, they drop to the ground and spasm and yell and stuff. And they DO NOT have friggin' bolts of purple electricity flying around them. And if there were bolts of electricity flying around them, they would be blue, because anyone who has seen an spark knows that they are blue. The CGI people now have two things on their list of 'things to do before I die': (1)See a wave. (2)See and electric spark.


But what could be in place of these action scenes, you say? How about explaining where all the reporters go before Graves melts the Ice Palace and invites N Koreans over? Yes, some quality dialogue (i.e. not involving Jinx) would be a great asset to a hideously-unexplained architectural achievement. The most we get is (1) there is plenty of ice to spare, and (2) Graves built it just for the Icarus demonstration. Can't see why he didn't show off to London: there are more inhabitants than in remote lakes of Iceland.

This is part of my justification for an assault on the Ice Palace. It would prove that the Palace is a true lair, and give a reason why Graves decided to bring all the reporters up North rather than just beaming down on London, or burning up Hadrian's Wall. Seriously, Graves' 'suit of armour' (because he's a knight?) is a mobile controller-of-space-death-rays, yet he needs to be in Iceland... at a fake diamond mine? And then in the Antonov, which only makes slightly more sense.

Yes, a wee bit o' backstory would help. So much for revealing one's evil plot.

Now, I've written a bunch of **** about DAD, but what the hell's my title got to do with it? Well, here's the part that's relevant:

When Falco/Rumsfeld-eagerly-showing-off-missile-defence shoots a cruise missile at Icarus, they find that (surprise!) Icarus can defend itself. But why not shoot down the Antonov? Sure Bond is aboard, but M. calls him useless so often, I really think saving Bond is a moot point. Not to mention no matter how good Bond is, it's him or the entire population of the Korean peninsula. So shoot the 'plane, y'dumb bastards. Or is the Antonov invincible? Sure seems like it, due to the totally inexplicable flying-through-the-beam bit which I suppose was to destroy the Icarus controls...

But that brings me to the next, and final, point, why were the controls for Icarus designed to shut the satellite off when they were destroyed? How dumb can Vlad be? That's like designing a TV remote that shuts off the TV when one loses it!

So, all in all, DAD was okay, but there were so many agrivating bits that it ruins the 'effect'. And keep in mind that when I first saw TMWTGG, I liked it. So DAD must've done something wrong to make me dislike it off the bat. (Madge...?)

[Blue Eyes]

In reference to the title, that reason they don't shoot it down is explained in the film as it is in North Korean airspace, and the South/US can't start the attack.

[General Koskov]

The US can't start an attack... right...

But going along with that theory: wouldn't assassinating Graves in N Korea be essentially the same? Bullet, missile, missile, bullet...

Anyway, this is not my real problem with the film (though it made a nice title, so I had to stick it in my post somewhere), after all, Blofeld's lair in YOLT could have gotten a missile up the **** from the Japanese Navy. And Piz Gloria could've been bombed so easily...

[Tim007]

Koskov, I asked myself the question, why they just didn't shoot the Antanov. Everything would have been over. And you're right. I think I also wrote this in my review 2 months ago; the connections are missing. A lot of Bond's actiona just doesn't make any sense. And that's why I don't like Die Another Day at all.

[Blue Eyes]

But going along with that theory: wouldn't assassinating Graves in N Korea be essentially the same

Well not if its the Brits who squeeze the trigger. And are the Korean's going to necessarily believe that Graves was Moon? British Spy kills British Citizen on Korean Base is very different from US Missle Kills Korean Soldiers in Korean Base.

[Roebuck]

There's a lot of airspace between Iceland and Korea in which to shoot down a transport plane. You would think it easier to weather the diplomatic embarrassment of blowing up one aircraft than trying to explain how a nutcase was able to put a zillion Dollar death ray in orbit and fire it into the DMZ.

BTW, when did we last have a big commando raid ending? Do we count TND fifteen years ago or do we look further back to TSWLM? Either way, it's so long ago it would be a novelty to a lot of fans who are only really familiar with Bond from the Brosnan era.

[mkkbb]

I agree Roebuck. How cool would it have been to have a raid at the ice palace. Could have been a homage to OHMSS Piz Gloria raid.

Even TWINE could have had one at the Maiden's Tower with Zucovsky's men.

I hope Bond 21 has less action during the film, and a huge, battle at the end, like in TSWLM.

[General Koskov]

Another thing to add in instead of the laser fight or ice ballet: the hotspring scene with Frost, and whatever else they cut from the ice palace.

[zencat]

As a rule, I try never to apply the "why don't they just shoot him, her, or it" logic to a James Bond film.

[General Koskov]

Yeah, it does have a terrible habit of spoiling them.

[Blue Eyes]

It has a habit of spoiling any film. There are 1000 films you could ask "why didn't they just do..." Well because the film would be over.

[Paul Scrabo]

You may remember the early buzz on DAD was that either you would love it...or hate it. Not true.
And that's the frustrating case with viewing the new Bond film; So many things ARE done well.
But it all starts with the script. And it's lousy.
It's a compilation of several Bond film script ideas, and they decided to use all of them. What is DAD about?? The Icarus Project? North Korea? Trying to please one's father? Bond as a prisoner? Gene therapy?? I know what Goldfinger is about.....Greed.
First, notice that Brosnan is possibly the oldest actor in this film! Forget older, worldly villians. It's MGM pulling the strings, and it's demographics. Wouldn't Alan Rickman, or Kevin Spacey (great idea) be great baddies for Bond? I think we can forget it.
That said, Colonel Moon and Gustav Graves seem to have interesting personalities, and both performances are fun.
BUT THE IDEA OF THEM BEING THE SAME PERSON DOESN'T WORK. And it's a shame. They should have existed on the their own. I felt cheated. Who am I watching? What is their personality?
(Can you imagine the hovercraft chase...or even the Thames boat chase, AT THE CLIMAX of DAD or TWINE? Could it have catapluted both films to a better level?)
Time and time again, scriptwriter Purvis and Wade blow opportunites; opportunities for YOU the viewer to get involved more.
General Moon, for example, is shown to have a bit of symaptico for Bond. Therefore, in the plane sequence at the end, I wanted Bond to rush forward THEN! For a brief time, both the General and Bond could have understood each other. The father could still be killed, but at least the would have been an effort.
As for the "Bond as prisoner" sequence, there is NO PAYOFF.If you are going to push Bond down further than he's ever been shown on film, then why not make it tough for him to GET BACK UP AGAIN?! In DAD, it's a quick shave and he's back in top form. He should have lost a bit of his edge. Give him a comeback. Give him something. Give US something, or this first 20 minutes of DAD means nothing!
Can anyone explain the relationship between James Bond and M?
I still don't get it.
After 4 films, they seem further away from each other than ever?
Judy Densch was warmer to him in Goldeneye(!)
Can you imagine just one line, one look perhaps, to end DAD. the 20th Bond film..for M to say to herself....
"WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY, JAMES."

Guy Hamilton has said (about directing a Bond film),
"I don't believe in being clever....show the audience what's going on, don't repeat what you've done, and move on".
After 10 minutes, you want to strangle director Lee Tamahori. (not to mention his editing team)
How many times do we see the SAME UGLY TORTURE SHOTS, the same ugly montages? Instead of that God awful slo-mo bit of re-living his torture, why not have some doctor's voice over during his initial exam explaining that
HE WAS ABLE TO WITHSTAND TORTURE BY LOWERING HIS HEARTBEAT.
This way...when he's working on his escape, we, the audience, can feel.HEY..I KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING!
A miracle happens. It's called "the middle hour of "Die Another Day" It's fun. Not perfect, but the best we're gonna get from now on, and we'll take it. It's a Bond film again.
So forget the script, we'll sit back. The music is GREAT in DAD. (Forget the album. There is a LOT of music missing)
Yes, David Arnold got screwed again. Bond fans can HEAR his own version of "Die...another..DAYYY!" all through out the movie, as action themes and even thoughful themes. yOU DO HEAR the real theme of the film, just as "Surrender" was the real them for TND. Arnold publicaly came out to comdemn the Madonna song, and Bond fans should be worried about this. Why? Because he may finaly get fed up completely.
(t has been said that "Goldenye" may have been the best all around Brosnan Bond..if it had a decent score, but for me, the first hour of "Tommorow Never Dies" remains the most confident of Brosnan's work)
And just to show that the world IS coming to an end, Madonna's theme was nominated for a Golden Globe....and KD Lang's "Surrender: never was. Maybe "Die Anothe Day" is a good MADONNA song. It's just a lousy BOND song.
Say what you want about Lulu's "Golden Gun". At least that song had balls.

And here is why the INVISIBLE CAR is ultimately unsatisfying...

We accepted the car as something to giggle at. And we do. It did not interfere. BUT WHEN IT GOES OUT OF COMMISSION, that should have been the end. It served it's purpose. It was not that important.
Remember how unsatisfying Drax'z death in "Moonraker" was?
That's because Christopher Wood gave you LAZY SCREENWRITING. It's called THE CHEAT. We forgot about Bond's wrist gun by then. It shouldn't have come back.
Purvis and Wade pull the exact same scam here. The invisible car comes back into working operation to save Bond's life.
Just like Drax,...it's "no fuss, no muss"
Am I wrong with these points?
Well, that's the first half of my rant. The last part is to come!
Paul Scrabo

[Paul Scrabo]

SOME "DIE ANOTHER DAY" GOOD STUFF - The sword fight is only part of an entire glorious Bond sequence; it's a classic "meet the villian and get him annoyed" sequence. It works because it's FUN. Like many great Bondian monents, there is NOTHING REAL ABOUT IT, but it is portrayed as the truth. It's Bond's world. It's glamorous. It's deadly, sick, and sophisticated.
This is the scene you'll remember from "Die Another Day". Here the Bond filmmakers trust themselves, and you.
So DAD is not a total loss.
The middle of the film is very good. The Grave's entrance with parachute (with the most incredible Bond/Barry sound Arnold ever did) is very Bondian, and somehow it seems that here the film STARTS UP AGAIN..with new charactors!! This is why DAD is so...strange.

THE FINAL WORD ABOUT THE BOND CGI DEBATE -
"Incredible Bond stunt" was not a "tradition" until "The Spy Who Loved Me". We never needed it, but it came along.
Notice we don't go nuts over the "Goldeneye" pre-credits ending; In fact, we seem to feel...weird. That's because it doesn't make sense. It's not a stunt. It's a simulation of a stunt. It's a concept of a stunt.
CGI is here to stay, and IN THE RIGHT HANDS, can be a breakthrough. LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS is a perfect example. The gollum creature is CGI WORTHY OF AN OSCAR FOR ACTING.
But when you know it HAS TO BE STUNT PERSON SUBSTITUTING FOR HALLE BERRY for the cliff jump, why then CALL ATTENTION TO THE PHONINESS by pasting her face on the stunt woman? It makes no sense. because NOBODY IS FOOLED BY IT. It's a case where less could have been more; a cliff less steep, and two quick shots of a stuntperson jumping and landing would have been better.
And a CGI sequence need direction just like a live action sequence, i.e. - Where to place the "camera" or "canvas".
And that's why the Bond surf CGI bit looks awful. The shots are done with impossible angles that in real life could not be captured. So, it does not blend in with reality.
And, sadly, we must day that, for the first time, EON does cheat us. Because, when Bond is hanging over the cliff with the race car, we may be feeling "Oh, come on!", BUT we are also looking forward to how Bond gets out of THIS one!
And they give us a cartoon.
THE ICE CHASE - Somewhere there is the great ice chase sequence, the sequence that was looked forward to. We wanted the new OHMSS finale. As good as it is, where is it? It's cut up, to keep going back to Jinx's peril. Vic Armstrong called it a ballet. Upon viewing the edited result, perhaps the rumors are true that Armstrong was annoyed at the editing of the sequence. As I was. How could Tamahori make so many bad shot decisions? The car flip was done FOR REAL, REAL SIZE. You wouldn't know it here. Tamohori even does a REVERSE SHOT of Brosnan in the car at this point, CHANGING THE 'I' LINE. What is meant to be hip, comes out as being a hack.
THE PLANE FINALE - I am sorry to say that, for me, the last 20 minutes (minus the cute wrap up) of "Die Another Day" is unwatchable for me. I was not thrilled, impressed, or interested in what was going on. Even worse than the submarine sequence in TWINE. I could not wait for it to be over. There were NO SURPISES. It went on FOREVER. At this point, Tamohori's editing style was unbearable. destroying whatever style a Bond film should have.
TWO body flips for Jinx?? It's awful, the worst for a Bond film. Hey, sorry to say this, but Jinx is not fun to watch. This whole idea of "she's as good as Bond. As cool as Bond. She's perfect."
You see...WHAT FUN IS THAT? How can you play off it? It's boring. I like Halle. But Jinx has no personality.
HAS SLO-MO EVER WORKED IN A BOND FILM?
How difficult is it to write a Bond screenplay? A major problem with this ending..I felt there was NO TICKING ON IT. That's a phrase for some sort of timer, some sort of bomb about to go off, something!
The plane sequence of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is far superior, far more exciting and involving than this sequence in DAD.
Perhaps it's time for Bond TO LEAD THE CHARGE again, like the end of TWICE or OHMSS, or SPY, with a big battle.
There is wonderful hour and a half in DAD, but that last half hour is horrible for me.

Paul Scrabo

[Jriv71]

Is it just me or does Paul seem a bit shy...C'mon Paul express yourself!
Man, that was longer than the movie. Most of it was accurate though...I think I liked the movie a little more than you did, though.

[Paul Scrabo]

I WAS a bit long-winded there! Sorry for such a long post. There's so much great info on this website that I get carried away!
I do like many things about the new Bond.The Cuba sequence is great. and it's great to see Brosnan like Connery in Thunderball, even including grabbing a few grapes!
Paul

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Paul Scrabo

As for the "Bond as prisoner" sequence, there is NO PAYOFF.If you are going to push Bond down further than he's ever been shown on film, then why not make it tough for him to GET BACK UP AGAIN?! In DAD, it's a quick shave and he's back in top form. He should have lost a bit of his edge. Give him a comeback. Give him something. Give US something, or this first 20 minutes of DAD means nothing!

Very true. For me, this was a disappointing aspect of DAD. I'd looked forward to Bond's long imprisonment and mock execution as being one of the most dramatic and gripping parts of the film, if not the entire series. We'd never seen Bond brought so low, after all.

What kind of shape do we find 007 in after DAD's opening credits sequence? Well, pretty good shape, actually. I'm not saying there should have been explicit violence and gore onscreen, but Bond looked as though he'd spent those 14 months being subjected to a not much more punishing regime than that of Shrublands.

He cracks a weak gag - more appropriate to a CARRY ON film - about blaming the concierge as an implausibly cuddly North Korean general actually apologises to him - in so many words, anyway - for what's been going on!!!!!!!! Later, when he realises he is about to be put to death, Bond smiles sadly at said general, who is burbling some sentimental guff about wanting his son to build a bridge between East and West. Fleming's Bond - and even Moore's for that matter - would have just glared at the evil communist enemy with cold hatred and disgust right to the bitter end!

On we're whisked to Hong Kong, where Bond, we are told, has sustained absolutely no physical damage whatsoever during his long ordeal in one of the world's most dangerous places. We're left with the impression that he had to put up with nothing worse than repeated injections of scorpion venom, to which he rapidly built immunity, bad food and the inconvenience of being unable to shave or have his hair trimmed.

And then it's on to a swanky hotel where the Chinese agents running it are only too pleased to sort him out with everything he needs.

A little too soft. A little too easy.

Reading Raymond Benson's novelization, I wished we'd seen Bond on the run from his own people, having to truly fend for himself in the back alleys of Seoul. Having to rip off a pimp and talk a sailor into letting him stow away. Sure, it would have lengthened the movie without really moving the plot forward, but it would have been nice to get a real sense of Bond on the ropes and relying solely on his wits.

[Paul Scrabo]

Yes, the General IS sympathetic. I had no problem with that if they just gave us a scene of Bond and him together at the end, possibly Bond trying to save him or something.
It's like Purvis and Wade give IDEAS and CONCEPTS, but no story.
The General's death by his son was poorly edited, too much "artistic junk" here. Every time Tampori goes wacky with his style...the film STOPS for me. I get out of the moment.
Here's one of the bad omens with the new Bond film; the director as "star". That should not be.
Please understand that I'm not really concerned about things always being logical on a bond film, such as In TWICE (why don' t they just shoot him??)etc. I do just want the STYLE and BON'D'S WORLD to carry me along.
Lenny Bruce said "There's nothing sadder than an old hipster"
And that's what DAD is to me a bit. Filmmakers almost trying to get away from the style that made them classics, and trying to be hip with editing techniques that actual HURT THE SCENES!
Paul

[General Koskov]

I always wondered how Bond paid for his tailor and shirts (and razor!) in the Hong Kong hotel. First off, HK is in another evil communist country, so why don't they just torture Bond, or send him back to N Korea?

I thought Bond would be sent to the Falklands unbrainwashing centre, but escape to Cuba on the way.

However, considering the problems with the ice ballet, laser fight, and lack of grand battle, I would gladly keep the first half of DAD the same if Tamahori would add in cut hotspring scenes and more dialogue in the Ice Palace to replace the two bad action scenes. Even the ending could be kept with a few cuts.

[Jriv71]

Hold on, I'm still reading Paul's first post.........

[Jriv71]

I always thought that a great torture sequence would have been, making Bond sit through repeated viewings of DAF, with J.W. Pepper digitally added in.

[bribond]

I like the early section of the film. I thought the North Korean prison scenes were a bit brief but very harrowing. Look at Bond's face in the second shot after the titles end when the guards come to get him to take him to General Moon. They're just kind of dead. Also look at his face right before the credits when they put him in the freezing water and he's looking at the girl or during the credits when he's hung up and the girl is taunting him with the scorpion. It's a focus, kind of inward. He's suffering, but he's focusing inward to keep them from breaking him. When he makes the remark about the concierge to General Moon his voice cracks a bit. It's probably the first time he's spoken since his "Saved by the bell" line. I don't think he ever said one word to his captors until then. The concierge line is sounds like a weak joke, and it's an acknowledgement that that world is far, far away from him. When he says the line to General Moon "same person who betrayed me" that's the first sign of any vulnerability from him. It's just a hint of how much he is hurting inside for what he went through.

As for the effects of the torture, admittedly he's not too badly hurt, but he's probably more sore than anything. But they couldn't have him too badly hurt since they need Bond on the move again. I love the scene where he goes into the Hong Kong hotel and carries off the moment with such panache. I think he stayed there on his old expense account.

The second half of the film, I won't even touch. From the moment he gets to Iceland and it turns into a sci-fi picture, for the most part it utterly sucks. Two things I'll point out. The music during the entire sequence that culiminates with the animated wave section is one of the best pieces on the soundtrack, especially with the OHMSS musical cues. Secondly, the controls for Icarus were on Graves' Robocop suit, not in another part of the plane. There was a shot of him turning Icarus on from a button on the suit and when Bond threw him into the propeller
that was when Icarus shut down. Assuming the British and American agents knew about the plane, they should have just shot it down.

[Doubleshot]

It's interesting to note that Goldfinger had some of these same reactions in the 60's - and if you think about it, they're true as well. The first half of the film is more a thriller in the style of FRWL but with some more smoothness to it. When we meet Pussy Galore, everything gets continually grander and grander - more unbelievable for the time.

I've noticed that most of your complaints are just bitching, though. After the last three Brosnan films, were you expecting a huge ground battle? Sorry you were disappointed.

I may be the only one on this message board that doesn't think Tamahori's a hack. I do disagree with some of his decisions, but my complaints are outweighed by my compliments. Everyone clammered for a different, more unique Bond film and when they got one they complained. I didn't like the slow motion shots in the fights, but I had no problem with the speed-up/slow-down shots over the Icelandic landscape (could a normal speed shot have captured so much without taking up too much screentime?). The scene where we catch up with Bond in his car driving to the Ice Palace is full of style and flair. Bond is back on a mission again. He put Bond in prison! He beat the hell out of him! Bond actually goes through a personal journey in this film. He has to reprove his worth to everyone along the way. What use is the character when he's run out of things to do? Journeys to make? I'd love for Bond to just go on a normal mission in the next film after so many "this time, it's personal" set-ups, but this one was very interesting to me.

I love the "ice ballet". There certainly was more footage shot for it, but I'm happy with what we have. It's cleverly edited and there's a real sense of speed and urgency. It's not a pedestrian car chase by any means. The slow-motion editing of Zao's car going into the floor of the Ice Palace really bugs me (as you can see the unaltered shot in the second teaser trailer), but other than that, I really like this scene.

As for the griping because they didn't shoot down the plane or kill Graves at the beginning of the movie? Hello? It's a Bond film. You're going to drive yourself nuts if you ask these questions about any Bond film, let alone this one.

As for the screenplay, I think it is admittedly a bit weaker towards the end - but lazy? No. I'd like to see you write the ultimate Bond film - and only then will it be call these guys a bunch of lazy hacks. They put their damndest into writing the film. I don't like the character of Jinx Johnson, but I don't let it ruin the film for me.

Hell, if James Bond wore tennis shoes but rest of the film was perfect some of you would still gripe. James Bond isn't about logic. If you ask those questions about every Bond film, you'll find holes. That's the way the formula works.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Doubleshot
I've noticed that most of your complaints are just bitchingto me...
Hell, if James Bond were tennis shoes but rest of the film was perfect some of you would still gripe.

Bitchin is one of the few small pleasures left to us Doubleshot.

Besides, I'd agree that its fair criticism of Purvis & Wade to suggest they turned in a lazy script. Sticking a diamond mine in a country with no diamond mines is lazy. Worse, its insulting to your audience. One of he major problems with the DAD script is that it starts to go off the rails when the authors run out of A) bits of Fleming plot to crib off and have to either use there own imagination or bits of other Bond films to crib off (DAF, TLD).

[Doubleshot]

It was insulting to the audience to put James Bond in a space shuttle and have him know exactly how to pilot it and operate in space. Compared to that, the geographic glitch of saying there was an off-screen diamond mine in Argentina is quite miniscule.

[Blue Eyes]

Sticking a diamond mine in a country with no diamond mines is lazy. Worse, its insulting to your audience.

It's not that at all. How is it possibly insulting? Did your geographical knowledge even pick up the fact that there wasn't one? And if it did, how did it even effect the movie? Not at all. Hence it's not insulting it all.

Nor is it lazy. You can stick it anywhere, it wouldn't matter. How do you know it's not a small scale diamond mine that is very illegal? There are a thousand possibilities, so the 'bitchin' that you reference as a small pleasure you have left is nothign but a waste of time.

[General Koskov]

Actually Iceland, like most of the Artic Circle, does have diamonds. Of course they cost more taxes to Iceland than faking cheap blood diamonds, so Graves does the dirty deals.

And remember, I revoked my 'why not just shoot the 'plane' stance. My only beefs are the three obvious headings in the first post. And the lack of a ice-palace battle.

And slow-mo doesn't ruin everything. But Gen Moon's death was the only part warranting it, so it did ruin all the other superfluous uses (people walking, of all things!).

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
It's not that at all. How is it possibly insulting? Did your geographical knowledge even pick up the fact that there wasn't one? And if it did, how did it even effect the movie? Not at all. Hence it's not insulting it all.

Nor is it lazy. You can stick it anywhere, it wouldn't matter. How do you know it's not a small scale diamond mine that is very illegal? There are a thousand possibilities, so the 'bitchin' that you reference as a small pleasure you have left is nothign but a waste of time.

''You can stick it anywhere, it wouldn't matter''. Then by your logic Daniel, Graves could have had a mine in central London? Or Just outside of Inverness? That's just being ludicrous. We've had this discussion before Daniel. It would have take Purvis or Wade five minutes to find a suitable location for the mine. They just didn't bother. And that's what I find insulting. It's indicative of a 'couldn't care' attitude that shows in the plotting.

Fleming put a lot of effort into getting the factual details of the Bond stories correct. He made mistakes like everyone else, but he understood how important accuracy was to grounding Bond in the real world. You give credibility to the more fantastical elements of the story by surrounding them with an illusion of solidly etched reality.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Roebuck
It would have take Purvis or Wade five minutes to find a suitable location for the mine. They just didn't bother. And that's what I find insulting. It's indicative of a 'couldn't care' attitude that shows in the plotting.

Yeah, well this is Purvis and Wade we are talking about. I never thought two people could do so much damage to a franchise -- they are the Braga and Berman of the 007 world.

[Blue Eyes]

Then by your logic Daniel, Graves could have had a mine in central London? Or Just outside of Inverness? That's just being ludicrous.

Yes you could actually. Do you know on what different levels the diamond mines operate? It could easily be written that there's one deep underground in London, gotten to through a disused railway station. In fact, I know there's a mine (though a gold mine) not to far from my house in Melbourne suburbia. True or false? Fact is, you'll never know and if it's included in the film as 'somewhere in the coutry' then brilliant. Because I guess you could find a lot of large sodding things in a land mass.

This is the thing I never understand. People harp on about something which has one second screen time, how it lets down the film, how it's insulting. But oh my god, a hollowed out volcano 'how cool'. Yawn.

[Roebuck]

Daniel, I have no idea if you live near a gold mine. I do know that you live in one of the seven largest diamond producing nations in the world. Angola, Botswana, Brazil, the Central African Republic, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Namibia, Russia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Venezuela and Zimbabwe also have diamond mines. This is because they have the right geological requirements while Argentina does not. Neither, just for the record, does central London.There may be room for one, but it has no more business being there than a goldfish in the Sahara.
I don't bring this up to be pedantic or argumentative. Nor am I making any hysterical claims that this one piece of duff info killed the whole movie for me (and fail to understand how you could have read that into my posts). Think of it like the infamous 'M&M' clause in Van Halen's rider. It may seem insignificant but, like I said before, its another indicator of how little care was taken over the script of a milestone event like the twentieth entry in the world's most famous film series. It really doesn't take long to find this stuff out.