›

New Jag Ad..Very Bondish

FLeiterFLeiter
edited January 2014 in Merchandise Posts: 315
Jaguar has a new 60 second ad out that will debut during the Super Bowl-'Born to be Bad'. It has a very Bondish element to it. Ben Kingsley is the most well known actor in it. There is also a 30 second teaser ad and when you watch it you'll be reminded of Solitaire's monolgue in 'Live and Let Die' as Bond is on his way to the States. The ads are both up on You Tube now.

Comments

  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited January 2014 Posts: 1,661
    Think this is it:

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Here is another
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    There's a reason why British actors play villains: because they are the only cultural group that wouldn't be offended. They are to modern action movies what Italians are for old crime dramas.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Ludovico wrote:
    There's a reason why British actors play villains: because they are the only cultural group that wouldn't be offended. They are to modern action movies what Italians are for old crime dramas.
    I don't think you're far off there.

  • GetafixGetafix
    edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    talos7 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    There's a reason why British actors play villains: because they are the only cultural group that wouldn't be offended. They are to modern action movies what Italians are for old crime dramas.
    I don't think you're far off there.

    Ludovico is completely right.

    This advert is quite cheesy, as is much of Jaguar's marketing. They've actually created a genuinely beautiful car - one of the first for quite a long time - but they're selling it like it's the new Vauxhall Puma or something naff like that. Not sure who this is supposed to appeal to really. Brosnan fans, perhaps?

  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    I think that new white Jag is one of the coolest cars ever made. Great looking machine, and the motor both rumbles and purrs.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited January 2014 Posts: 15,124
    And that is why I am very reluctant to have a British playing a Bond villain. For most movies,a ctually, except when the plot requires one (I wouldn't picture a non British Moriarty, for instance). I was never convinced by Cumberbatch playing Khan for instance. Sure, he played the psycho well enough, but as a genetically enhanced uberman with exotic name he was utterly unbelievable and just looked and sounded like a generic WASP villain.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I'd like them to have the confidence to cast a proper foreigner as the baddie, like in the good old days. How many Brits have there been in recent years? Every Brosnan film had a Brit villain I think - very lame. I thought Le Chiffre was very good, although I actually felt sorry for him. I had high hopes for Mathieu Almeric and although I didn't think he was bad, it overall a slightly disappointing performance. Bardem made a great entrance but then didn't have much to work with after that (IMO). Non Brits do tend to make the best villains though. With the exception of Robert Shaw perhaps. Oh, and Donald Pleasance. And Christopher Lee...
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Sophie Marceau is French if you count her as the main baddie in TWINE.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sophie Marceau is French if you count her as the main baddie in TWINE.

    Yes. I was thinking of her lame sidekick.

    She was okay, but it's such a BORING film - it sucks the lifeblood out of you.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sophie Marceau is French if you count her as the main baddie in TWINE.

    Yes. I was thinking of her lame sidekick.

    She was okay, but it's such a BORING film - it sucks the lifeblood out of you.

    Have you re-watched it yet @Getafix? :p
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sophie Marceau is French if you count her as the main baddie in TWINE.

    Yes. I was thinking of her lame sidekick.

    She was okay, but it's such a BORING film - it sucks the lifeblood out of you.

    Have you re-watched it yet @Getafix? :p

    No - I'm just recalling the experience of seeing it in the cinema. In a way it's worse than DAD. Even though DAD is clearly one of the worst films ever made, that very awfulness almost makes it compulsive viewing - as in "did they really just sh*t all over 40 year's of heritage?" TWINE is just a dull, wannabe 'classic' with little or no sense of what it's purpose in life is, other than to just fizzle out and die.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sophie Marceau is French if you count her as the main baddie in TWINE.

    Yes. I was thinking of her lame sidekick.

    She was okay, but it's such a BORING film - it sucks the lifeblood out of you.

    TWINE's not that bad, but it is incredibly average. Apted's direction lacks punch.
  • timmertimmer
    edited January 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Getafix wrote:
    TWINE is just a dull, wannabe 'classic' with little or no sense of what it's purpose in life is, other than to just fizzle out and die.
    Harsh! But you are not far off. I do like watching this film, mainly for its grandeur, scope, and abundance of colourful characters, but the part about "wannabee classic" is right on.
    TWINE trys way too hard in that respect, but IMO it works as an entertaining, OTT Bond film, but its no rival to either FRWL or OHMSS in the classic Bond-film discussions.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Sophie Marceau is French if you count her as the main baddie in TWINE.

    Yes. I was thinking of her lame sidekick.

    She was okay, but it's such a BORING film - it sucks the lifeblood out of you.

    Have you re-watched it yet @Getafix? :p

    No - I'm just recalling the experience of seeing it in the cinema. In a way it's worse than DAD. Even though DAD is clearly one of the worst films ever made, that very awfulness almost makes it compulsive viewing - as in "did they really just sh*t all over 40 year's of heritage?" TWINE is just a dull, wannabe 'classic' with little or no sense of what it's purpose in life is, other than to just fizzle out and die.

    Sometimes it takes more than one viewing to understand things. I watched Mission Impossible III once and hated it. Then I watched it a few more times and grew to love it. Check the biases at the door and find something to enjoy about the film. You might genuinely be surprised. I let all the Brosnan hate ruin the film for me but recently I watched it again and realized why I loved it when I first saw it in 99.
  • timmertimmer
    edited January 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Murdock wrote:
    Check the biases at the door and find something to enjoy about the film. You might genuinely be surprised. I let all the Brosnan hate ruin the film for me but recently I watched it again and realized why I loved it when I first saw it in 99.
    This is what I do with the Craig films. Enjoy them for what they are, rather than moan and groan that they aren't Goldfinger or even Live And Let Die.
    Only in this way can one settle in for the repeat viewings that all Bond films warrant.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    timmer wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Check the biases at the door and find something to enjoy about the film. You might genuinely be surprised. I let all the Brosnan hate ruin the film for me but recently I watched it again and realized why I loved it when I first saw it in 99.
    This is what I do with the Craig films. Enjoy them for what they are, rather than moan and groan that they aren't Goldfinger or even Live And Let Die.
    Only in this way can one settle in for the repeat viewings that all Bond films warrant.

    Yes today's movies are looked at from a perfectionists perspective. Everything has to fit a certain criteria or if one thing is wrong then the whole movie is bad. I hate this mentality. A movie is made to entertain someone. They aren't Highlights magazine to find things to pick out and nitpick over. Movies have mistakes and small continuity errors, It's to be expected. I enjoy Brosnan's movies because they are fun and make me smile. They entertain me. Isn't that the point of movies? Now there are movies that are bad, but have charm to them. Then there are bad movies that just plain stink. (Battleship for example.) Brosnan's movies aren't perfect but they aren't Battleship bad.


  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Getafix wrote:
    I'd like them to have the confidence to cast a proper foreigner as the baddie, like in the good old days. How many Brits have there been in recent years? Every Brosnan film had a Brit villain I think - very lame. I thought Le Chiffre was very good, although I actually felt sorry for him. I had high hopes for Mathieu Almeric and although I didn't think he was bad, it overall a slightly disappointing performance. Bardem made a great entrance but then didn't have much to work with after that (IMO). Non Brits do tend to make the best villains though. With the exception of Robert Shaw perhaps. Oh, and Donald Pleasance. And Christopher Lee...

    Even Lee was half Italian and in his youth had trouble being cast because he was deemed too foreign looking. Pleasence looked creepy and foreign, as for Shaw he may be the exception.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    That is a great ad! And all 3 actors would make great Bond villains! :-bd
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Check the biases at the door and find something to enjoy about the film. You might genuinely be surprised. I let all the Brosnan hate ruin the film for me but recently I watched it again and realized why I loved it when I first saw it in 99.
    This is what I do with the Craig films. Enjoy them for what they are, rather than moan and groan that they aren't Goldfinger or even Live And Let Die.
    Only in this way can one settle in for the repeat viewings that all Bond films warrant.

    Yes today's movies are looked at from a perfectionists perspective. Everything has to fit a certain criteria or if one thing is wrong then the whole movie is bad. I hate this mentality. A movie is made to entertain someone. They aren't Highlights magazine to find things to pick out and nitpick over. Movies have mistakes and small continuity errors, It's to be expected. I enjoy Brosnan's movies because they are fun and make me smile. They entertain me. Isn't that the point of movies? Now there are movies that are bad, but have charm to them. Then there are bad movies that just plain stink. (Battleship for example.) Brosnan's movies aren't perfect but they aren't Battleship bad.


    I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I hated Brosnan in GE pretty much from the first scene. My view on rewatching the film did not change. I hated his goraning and grimmacing, machine-gun toting stupidity and lack of gravitas and I immediately felt that his 'take' on Bond (not sure he really ever hard one) was wrong. However, I was moderately entertained by TND and still regard it as the 'best' of the Brosnan era. I therefore went into TWINE hopeful that the series was on an upward trajectory, but it's just a very boring film. The ski chase typifies this - gimmicky and overdone, but completely lacking in excitement. Not at all entertaining in my view.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Check the biases at the door and find something to enjoy about the film. You might genuinely be surprised. I let all the Brosnan hate ruin the film for me but recently I watched it again and realized why I loved it when I first saw it in 99.
    This is what I do with the Craig films. Enjoy them for what they are, rather than moan and groan that they aren't Goldfinger or even Live And Let Die.
    Only in this way can one settle in for the repeat viewings that all Bond films warrant.

    Yes today's movies are looked at from a perfectionists perspective. Everything has to fit a certain criteria or if one thing is wrong then the whole movie is bad. I hate this mentality. A movie is made to entertain someone. They aren't Highlights magazine to find things to pick out and nitpick over. Movies have mistakes and small continuity errors, It's to be expected. I enjoy Brosnan's movies because they are fun and make me smile. They entertain me. Isn't that the point of movies? Now there are movies that are bad, but have charm to them. Then there are bad movies that just plain stink. (Battleship for example.) Brosnan's movies aren't perfect but they aren't Battleship bad.


    I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I hated Brosnan in GE pretty much from the first scene. My view on rewatching the film did not change. I hated his goraning and grimmacing, machine-gun toting stupidity and lack of gravitas and I immediately felt that his 'take' on Bond (not sure he really ever hard one) was wrong. However, I was moderately entertained by TND and still regard it as the 'best' of the Brosnan era. I therefore went into TWINE hopeful that the series was on an upward trajectory, but it's just a very boring film. The ski chase typifies this - gimmicky and overdone, but completely lacking in excitement. Not at all entertaining in my view.

    Fair enough I suppose. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.