It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I am always reminded of it during the "Night at the Opera" sequence in QoS, which imho sounds very much like that, with the building repeating motifs.
Both actually remind me of Ravel's Bolero, strangely (one of my all time fave's).
So you´re into minimalism then?
Barry in particular had this knack for repeating memorable motifs and rhythms to create suspense, sometimes by letting it build (like in the aforementioned Gumbold's Safe) and sometimes just keeping it at the same tonal level. I wish more composers would do that. Bolero is a gem to my ears, even though I realize it's not seen as a masterpiece in the classical field.
it's like the overused back projection in Goldfinger, while it is regrettable that they weren't on location, it adds to the nostalgia for me, somehow it belongs to the movie :) and doesn't hurt it very much if at all.
I'm sorry what does that mean?
It's not an opinion.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. So it was a joke. Good then.
Can't believe what I'm reading here.
Most of DAD is a wonderful film?
The first 20 minutes is maybe half decent but after that it jumps off a cliff so vertiginous even Rick Sylvester wouldn't have the cojones to jump off it. In rapid succession you've got Jinx, sub Carry On double entendres, Madonna, hammy overacting from Toby Stephens (although I blame Trannyhori for that), Jinx, the invisible car, Mr Kil, 'Yo Mamma', a vaguely interesting premise of a traitor thrown away in a risible third act comprising almost entirely of bad CGI and cheese, Jinx, Bond getting electrocuted with Force lightning, Robocop suit and Jinx.
Merely removing the tsunami scene is just cutting away one of the more unsightly tumours on the patient's face. It doesn't address the fact that their entire body is riddled with terminal cancer.
To equate the tsunami scene with back projection in a 60s film when someone is driving is hardly fair either. Rear projection was an industry standard back then and while annoying it really only dates a film rather than turn it into a laughing stock.
The tsunami 'special' FX (and I'm using 'special' in the 'Special Olympics' sense there) came out 11 years after T2, 9 years after Jurassic Park, 5 years after Titanic, 3 years after The Phantom Menace and in the same year as Attack of the Clones! Yet while James Cameron and ILM were setting the benchmark in CGI EON managed to find a company who were about 25 years behind who turned in graphics that would shame a ZX Spectrum game.
Given the state of CGI in 2002 the tsunami scene is the equivalent of having rear projection in SP as cringeworthy as the end of FRWL when Bond waves goodbye to the canister of film. Would just be downright embarassing for everyone involved - except that Kiwi bird who Lee must've been shagging (it's the only rational explanation for her being employed) who actually seems proud of her work in the film! Those SFX making of extras on the DVD are comedy gold.
Having said all that, I'll admit to enjoying the film as mindless entertainment, after a few pints and when my critical side is dimmed.
They are really, really, very perfectly fine fine. Really. Believe it. NOW!!
Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.
Agreed. The problem was with the size of the car in the background. Bond wound have to have been driving a Power Wheels for that to be the correct scaling.
Why are they primitive?
They are honestly just a bit basic compared to what we would end up having later. The dragon scene for instance is supposed to be the film's "big" action sequence. All of the action would pale even next to its immediate successor.
DN has many strengths but action definitely isn't one of them. I was feeling momentarily excited when Bond traded blows with Dr. No but I blinked and it was over. Now I can regard all the action with a sort of charm but it's definitely quite primitive.
If you're replying to my post, I was responding to the comments above about DN's back projection and primitive action
Indeed.
And I think the action is fine. Because it does not get in the way of plot, atmosphere, character(s), etc. And it's rather primitive aspect actually enhances the film's charm and strengths.
Disagree with this. The rear projection in the early Bonds (particularly DN car chase, FRWL final scene, close ups of Laz in the ski chase) looks shit and I can't believe there's anyone out there who wouldn't want to swap it for something better.
I'm fine with it because that's the best they could do at the time but they are far from 'perfectly fine'.
I wouldn't want them now, obviously. What I mean is that it is what they had at the time and thus they are perfectly fine. People should stop equating modern/recent to superior because technology has evolved.
But DN couldn't have throwbacks to anything, it was the first...
But I do get your point. It is useful when Bond films serve as time capsules. Connery films perfectly reflect their era. It is unusual however that when you compare the action to what came just one year later in FRWL, DN is blown out of the water. Although, double the budget probably did help.
It was quite groundbreaking at the time was it not?