›

"Dont blow it all at once ": Die Another Day Appreciation Thread

1…5556586061…70

Comments

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I agree,people have to realise the car was NOT invisible,it had mirrors reflecting that disguised it..no magic,as when a door was opened you could see inside,the tyre tracks could be seen,when it was hit,the whole system broke down.
    Listen to what Q says about it .
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2016 Posts: 10,512
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I agree,people have to realise the car was NOT invisible,it had mirrors reflecting that disguised it..no magic,as when a door was opened you could see inside,the tyre tracks could be seen,when it was hit,the whole system broke down.
    Listen to what Q says about it .

    The execution was shit, though. It was supposed to be a form of camouflage, but the whole thing fell apart the moment they played the 'you must be joking' gag. It could've been done in a much more convincing way.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I agree,people have to realise the car was NOT invisible,it had mirrors reflecting that disguised it..no magic,as when a door was opened you could see inside,the tyre tracks could be seen,when it was hit,the whole system broke down.
    Listen to what Q says about it .

    When you looked at it, it wasn't there. How is that different from being invisible?
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Mirrors? More like tiny polymer emitting cameras. Do get it right old boy.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I agree,people have to realise the car was NOT invisible,it had mirrors reflecting that disguised it..no magic,as when a door was opened you could see inside,the tyre tracks could be seen,when it was hit,the whole system broke down.
    Listen to what Q says about it .

    I could live with this if it was as you say but when Cleese rolls it into the tube station you literally can't see anything. If there was some sort of outline then fine but it is far too perfect.

    And what is it with Cleese's legs when he walks round the back of it? A momentary glitch? Because it never does that again and as long as it's not being shot at it is completely invisible.

    The concept does exist but the way it's presented in the film is just far too good to be anything other than embarassing.

    Does it even add anything to the film? For a few moments perhaps when he is sneaking about. But when he needs to escape from Zao it fails immediately and at the end what difference would it make if he reversed up the wall without going invisible? Zao would still drive over the edge.

    There's no defending that this concept shouldn't have fallen by the wayside during preproduction script meetings.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Oh i agree it should have been dumped....why the hell have an Aston and disguise it for most of the film ?!...i agree with all of you...
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,198
    Oh sorry, I thought this thread was about praising our dads....
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Yes the invisible car is misguided but I'm of the opinion that it was one of the film's more minor flaws next to far more egregious ones... e.g. the Bond girl and the CGI and the excessive action.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited October 2016 Posts: 11,425
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Yes the invisible car is misguided but I'm of the opinion that it was one of the film's more minor flaws next to far more egregious ones... e.g. the Bond girl and the CGI and the excessive action.

    Eon progressively lost their way between 95 and 2002. You could see it happening on screen.

    Tbh I've always been astonished that they were able to turn things around so radically with CR. I didn't think they had it in them after Cubby's death.

    I don't think EON and Brosnan ever fully 'clicked'. It's like he didn't know what they wanted, and they didn't know how to use him to better effect.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,624
    Or he was simply miscast!! (Runs for cover!)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Or he was simply miscast!! (Runs for cover!)
    That is an opinion which is widely shared on this forum, so one is probably safe in expressing it openly.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Or he was simply miscast!! (Runs for cover!)

    Hard to believe there weren t better candidates around.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    You mean Mel Gibson or Sharon Stone?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Apparently Paul McGann, Lambert Wilson, Mark Frankel and Sean Bean were all under consideration, but MGM had a long standing itch to scratch for Brosnan. He was the shoo-in.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Sean Bean would have made a good Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think he was the #2 choice, which is why they gave him Trevelyn as a consolation.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,624
    Love Sean Bean, but I think he was a bit rough around the edges for Bond! He was brilliant as Sharpe, that really was perfect casting!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2016 Posts: 8,455
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Love Sean Bean, but I think he was a bit rough around the edges for Bond! He was brilliant as Sharpe, that really was perfect casting!

    On the contrary, rough around the edges is perfect for Bond. That being said, I'm happy with what we got. Goldeneye and Tomorrrow Never Dies are both very special entries. Along with License To Kill and The Living Daylights they make up the strongest run of films since the 60's.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited October 2016 Posts: 11,189
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Love Sean Bean, but I think he was a bit rough around the edges for Bond! He was brilliant as Sharpe, that really was perfect casting!

    On the contrary, rough around the edges is perfect for Bond. That being said, I'm happy with what we got. Goldeneye and Tomorrrow Never Dies are both very special entries. Along with License To Kill and The Living Daylights they make up the strongest run of films since the 60's.

    People seem to love Bean as Bond. I agree he'd be a good trained agent but I can't quite picture him as 007. A tad too blue collar maybe. He's the one I see in the pub with a pint ironically to reference GoldenEye.

    I think its also the rough Sheffield accent that makes me unsure about him.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    His charisma was off the charts in GE in comparison to the lead imho. I had seen him only a couple of times before at that point, most notably in Patriot Games, where he also made a very favourable impression. I agree though - probably not Bond.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,624
    Especially if he adopted the same accent as he had in GE! What was he thinking?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Or he was simply miscast!! (Runs for cover!)

    Yeah, I agree I wasn't too keen on Dalton. :D
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Murdock wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Or he was simply miscast!! (Runs for cover!)

    Yeah, I agree I wasn't too keen on Dalton. :D

    Hahaha brilliant...bloody Dalton...meh

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    DAD is still Bond so I still like it. BUT, it's the worst film of the series by a country mile.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    edited October 2016 Posts: 153
    DAD is a film of two halves (watching the football right now, seems an apt description).
    The pre-title sequence is solid, apart from the dodgy CGI in the hovercraft fight. The title sequence is decent (with the volume down) and the North Korean scenes are let down only by Brosnan's hair and implausible weight. Why not just make it a two week torture to avoid him going all Barry Gibb on us? Still, its good so far. The ship with M and the Hong Kong scene are all very good. The Havana scenes are intriguing and witty, with only the clunky beach dialogue with Jinx a problem. The scenes with M and Falco extend the Bond film's political family, which I like. Then we get Q (funny scene, as intended) and some more M. Notice the similarity in dialogue between M & Bond in the underground and M & Bond at her home in Skyfall. The scene in Blades is really enjoyable and very, very Bondian. So far I think this a 3 or 4 star Bond movie.Then it goes to Iceland and turns to shit. What happened?
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Love Sean Bean, but I think he was a bit rough around the edges for Bond! He was brilliant as Sharpe, that really was perfect casting!

    On the contrary, rough around the edges is perfect for Bond. That being said, I'm happy with what we got. Goldeneye and Tomorrrow Never Dies are both very special entries. Along with License To Kill and The Living Daylights they make up the strongest run of films since the 60's.

    People seem to love Bean as Bond. I agree he'd be a good trained agent but I can't quite picture him as 007. A tad too blue collar maybe. He's the one I see in the pub with a pint ironically to reference GoldenEye.

    I think its also the rough Sheffield accent that makes me unsure about him.

    I would have been ok with Sean Bean, very Craig style of handsomness and Rough around the edges its fine by me but i prefer the more clean cut GQ type hehe so im very Glad Pierce became Bond.

    Sean Connery was also rough around the edges as well and we know how much he succeded but i prefer the other look most of the times.

  • barryt007barryt007
    edited March 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Well done @darthdimi ,good thinking my old friend,we don't want to waste 60 pages,and thanks for transferring the header so this becomes an appreciation thread !

    Anyway,personally,DAD is my go-to Bond film when i'm in a bad mood or had one too many vodka martinis (or mohitos ?)

    It has recently jumped up in my rankings from #23 to #20 and I think it may even go higher.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Die Another Day at least tries to be the best Bond ever. They tried to cover everything. I remember coming out the cinema going "wow". Honestly.

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Indeed...they took the 40th Anniversary and ran with it !!
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    The DAD soundtrack is very 'poppy', (Bond Vs Oakengates for example). Compare it to CR which has completely orchestrated incidental music. There's was such an obvious attempt to refine Bond movies, after DAD. Can you imagine a Clash song being heard over a sequence in Casino Royale?
    DAD is 'pop' Bond, CR is classical. That's how I see it.
Sign In or Register to comment.