Things you never want to see in a Bond film again

12324262829

Comments

  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    You're right, Perhaps I was a little strong, but that's how much DAD frustrates me. There are parts of it that are great which is why I feel it could have been so much better in the right director's hands. (I do blame the director as well because I remember reading once that the writing team didn't envisage the movie we got when they penned it. Tamahori had a big influence on how it turned out.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Murdock wrote: »
    After his arrest in 2006 I doubt EON would ever want to work with him ever again.

    Ha ha. Yes I forgot he was a pervert.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    100% agree on your last sentence, I miss Peter Lamont's signature across the movies. I would like him to come out of retirement for Bond 25.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Regarding Tamahori, his pursuit of the Bond is a code name theory is beyond forgiveness.

    die-another-day-movie-still-lee-tamahori-directs-pierce-brosnan-in-die-another-day_1686446-400x305.jpeg
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Oh good, a caption completion!
    "Yes that's right Brosnan, £10 is all they are paying me to direct this steaming turd" said Tamahori just before Pierce shot him.
    That's just my little VR fantasy.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2017 Posts: 6,304
    Q and Moneypenny were used sparingly in SF, and only because it aided the story. I'd say it's more a contractual agreement, so it's probably more EON than anyone else pushing for these characters to get more screen time. The writers and director are just on a leash.

    Sparingly in comparison to SP perhaps, but when MP shows up in Macau, joining Bond in the casino even, and Q joins him on earpiece in a pivotal second act action sequence, that's definitely more than sparingly, IMO.

    MP is the bait-and-switch in these locations. We're meant to think that she's the Bond girl, when in reality it's M.

    I agree with you about the egregious use of the earpiece. In the next film, I'd like Bond to rip out the earpiece and "go rogue" without MI6's interference: "Stuff this bloody earpiece, I'm a professional."

    DAD would require a page-one rewrite. Take out all the stupid references and completely rethink Jinx and her role in the story. Or remove her entirely. Is she really needed? I think she could be completely excised, forcing Bond to investigate Graves alone. Yes, I'm fairly certain that would make for a better movie.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    With Tamahori I'm saying I don't trust his taste. Why bring in a director who you know has to be reigned in on their expected bad judgment.

    So I don't hesitate to watch DIE ANOTHER DAY and enjoy most of it, but that's with some knowledge of what could have been direly worse. No second chances in this case. Or maybe I'll reach the forgive and remember stage eventually.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    I'd rather Bond throw out the ear piece without going rogue.

    Rogue from the earpiece interference.
  • Posts: 4,325
    cwl007 wrote: »
    100% agree on your last sentence, I miss Peter Lamont's signature across the movies. I would like him to come out of retirement for Bond 25.

    Not going to happen, he's pretty old now you know.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    It really surprises me how many Bond fans seem to enjoy DAD. I personally always disliked it. And there is actually no scene or any part in that film that I look forward to. Even the things that aren't bad are not overly great either but rather average. I think Brosnan is OK, I llike the sword fight, the Q branch scene and half of the scenes with Miranda Frost. But that's about it.

    Even the PTS that many people seem to love does not mean anything to me. It is one of the many absurd action scenes of the Brosnan era overload with explosions, mashine guns and silliness (surfing to Noth Korea???). The film is so full of nonsense that I even don't mind the stupid Madonna Cameo.

    But the worst thing is the overall plot. So I cannot understand those who say that there is actually a great film behind DAD which is just ruined by some silly elements and bad casting choices. I would understand this argument for TWINE but not with regard to DAD. The overall villain scheme is ludicrous and the villain changing his gene structure in order to look like a Brit is quite offensive. I wonder what Korean people think of such an idea?

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    My precise feelings towards SF. My least favourite (naming it favourite is untruthful from my part) film of all the existing 24 (plus the one unofficial '83 release). Can't find anything to like about that film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    The Koreans were fuming about it when the film came out and refused to show it.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 4,325
    The original actor they wanted to play Moon wouldn't do it because of how it depicted Koreans.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I stand by my opinion that there is great film underneath the DAD we got. However I don't think it is "ruined by some silly elements" as you put it. I think it is spoiled by a cack handed, over the top approach.
    I can live quite happily with silly elements, they don't ruin a Bond film for me. 1973 - 1985 was full of them and I love the Moore era. No, what I was saying is if the core idea for the plot was taken right back to the drawing board and started again we could have got a very good film with a better director.
    Imagine the bare bones story of DAD put with a 'Daniel Craig' type Bond in today's slightly more realistic approach (I use that word loosely BTW), it would have worked. Brosnan is on record as wanting that sort of approach, so too are the writers. As the figure head of DAD Tamohori should take full reponsibility for screwing it up.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    My main reason for considering DAD the perennial worst entry of the entire franchise is one of deep disappointment.

    Except for a few stupid quips ("Saved by the bell") the first half, especially those Cuba scenes before the idiotic Jinx conversation (though with the notable exception of the Madonna dirge), gave me the impression of a pretty good Bond movie, and I was quite pleasantly surprised and confident that the movie would be miles better than its lukewarm, boring, and convoluted predecessor (which also foreshadowed the subterranean quality of dialogue to come, but I didn't know that at first).

    How wrong I was. The second half ruined everything for me. Dismal dialogue with the worst puerile puns of the franchise (and while Rog could get away with something like that, Broz couldn't). DNA exchange. Invisible car. Lousy CGI overall, not just limited to that tsunami surfing nonsense. Mr. Kil, like Christmas Jones having that name only for turning it into stupid puns. Power Ranger suit. I don't even like the ice palace, it looks completely fake. Worst editing until QOS. Really a bad, bad movie for me.

    They should have let Jinx become the sacrificial lamb at Los Organos, and let Bond blow up the place in a rage, killing all the baddies right there. Leave out the rest, edit the remaining scenes down to size, cut out the bits of idiocy, and we would have had a nice PTS for the next movie. But the way it is, every single other Bond film (not counting CR '67) is cinematic gold in comparison. OK, make that silver for TWINE, AVTAK and DAF.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    GBF wrote: »
    It really surprises me how many Bond fans seem to enjoy DAD. I personally always disliked it. And there is actually no scene or any part in that film that I look forward to. Even the things that aren't bad are not overly great either but rather average. I think Brosnan is OK, I llike the sword fight, the Q branch scene and half of the scenes with Miranda Frost. But that's about it.

    Even the PTS that many people seem to love does not mean anything to me. It is one of the many absurd action scenes of the Brosnan era overload with explosions, mashine guns and silliness (surfing to Noth Korea???). The film is so full of nonsense that I even don't mind the stupid Madonna Cameo.

    But the worst thing is the overall plot. So I cannot understand those who say that there is actually a great film behind DAD which is just ruined by some silly elements and bad casting choices. I would understand this argument for TWINE but not with regard to DAD. The overall villain scheme is ludicrous and the villain changing his gene structure in order to look like a Brit is quite offensive. I wonder what Korean people think of such an idea?

    Yes, the Korean-to-Brit plot is offensive and I'm surprised it got past the producers in 2002. But oddly, I'm now wondering if it was inspired by YOLT.

    Brosnan is quite good in his Dench scenes in DAD. Then again, playing opposite Dench would probably elevate even Talisa Soto's acting.

    One of the many problems with DAD is that they didn't shoot on location very much, just using various places around the UK. Not that they could shoot in North Korea, but still...

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    cwl007 wrote: »
    I stand by my opinion that there is great film underneath the DAD we got. However I don't think it is "ruined by some silly elements" as you put it. I think it is spoiled by a cack handed, over the top approach.
    I can live quite happily with silly elements, they don't ruin a Bond film for me. 1973 - 1985 was full of them and I love the Moore era. No, what I was saying is if the core idea for the plot was taken right back to the drawing board and started again we could have got a very good film with a better director.
    Imagine the bare bones story of DAD put with a 'Daniel Craig' type Bond in today's slightly more realistic approach (I use that word loosely BTW), it would have worked. Brosnan is on record as wanting that sort of approach, so too are the writers. As the figure head of DAD Tamohori should take full reponsibility for screwing it up.

    I agree that one part of the plot is actually really creative: Bond getting caught and tortured and then exchanged for Zao is something new in the franchise. It shows what it can mean to be a spy. It also shows the conflict between M and Bond quite feasibly.

    The thing however is: If you want to use such an extreme experience - being tortured in a North-Korean prison for more than one year - you must acknowledge it better in the rest of the film. I find that DAD does not manage to handle the "result" of the torture scenes properly. Remember Bond in CR being tortured once for 10 minutes and being affected by it immensely days or even weeks later. This kind of vulnerability hardly exists in DAD. Bond does not seem to be overly harmed by being tortured for month. So like in SP the torture elements are not really effective.

    The rest of the plot - as I said - is rather awfull, especially the forced over-the-topness of the villains. I can accept Max Zorin being the result of former Nazi experiments. It is used in a very subtle way in AVTAK. Grave's back story, however, is so far beyond believability that I cannot take the character seriously. The very same applies to Zao and his diamond face. And how much time should have passed by since the PTS so that Graves can not just get a completely new identity but also to establish himself as an extremely rich business man? I also found that actually all of the emotions in this film were forced and cheap. This especially applies to the dialouge between General Moon and his son...

    So maybe yes they could have made a much better film if they had executed some of the good ideas better and developed a completely new story based on this ideas.
  • Posts: 4,044
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    My main reason for considering DAD the perennial worst entry of the entire franchise is one of deep disappointment.

    Except for a few stupid quips ("Saved by the bell") the first half, especially those Cuba scenes before the idiotic Jinx conversation (though with the notable exception of the Madonna dirge), gave me the impression of a pretty good Bond movie, and I was quite pleasantly surprised and confident that the movie would be miles better than its lukewarm, boring, and convoluted predecessor (which also foreshadowed the subterranean quality of dialogue to come, but I didn't know that at first).

    How wrong I was. The second half ruined everything for me. Dismal dialogue with the worst puerile puns of the franchise (and while Rog could get away with something like that, Broz couldn't). DNA exchange. Invisible car. Lousy CGI overall, not just limited to that tsunami surfing nonsense. Mr. Kil, like Christmas Jones having that name only for turning it into stupid puns. Power Ranger suit. I don't even like the ice palace, it looks completely fake. Worst editing until QOS. Really a bad, bad movie for me.

    They should have let Jinx become the sacrificial lamb at Los Organos, and let Bond blow up the place in a rage, killing all the baddies right there. Leave out the rest, edit the remaining scenes down to size, cut out the bits of idiocy, and we would have had a nice PTS for the next movie. But the way it is, every single other Bond film (not counting CR '67) is cinematic gold in comparison. OK, make that silver for TWINE, AVTAK and DAF.

    We're only about a quarter of the way into DAD when Jinx turns up. The rotten puns and DNA stuff start there. If we are writing that off then we haven't even got half a good film.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611


    I agree that one part of the plot is actually really creative: Bond getting caught and tortured and then exchanged for Zao is something new in the franchise. It shows what it can mean to be a spy. It also shows the conflict between M and Bond quite feasibly.

    The thing however is: If you want to use such an extreme experience - being tortured in a North-Korean prison for more than one year - you must acknowledge it better in the rest of the film. I find that DAD does not manage to handle the "result" of the torture scenes properly. Remember Bond in CR being tortured once for 10 minutes and being affected by it immensely days or even weeks later. This kind of vulnerability hardly exists in DAD. Bond does not seem to be overly harmed by being tortured for month. So like in SP the torture elements are not really effective


    Yep, totally agree. 1 of many pieces of nonsense. A really good idea just tossed away. CR Bond spent ages convalescing from torture, DAD Bond just needs a shave and a bottle of Champagne!

  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    (Sorry messed my quote up)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2017 Posts: 40,976
    I think anytime there's a big injury/event that would require time for Bond to recuperate, it almost always goes the way of being randomly disregarded at some point, minus CR's torture, which was wonderfully portrayed. TWINE excels at it, too, but only when it seems to matter within the plot, such as Renard grabbing his shoulder. Any other time after that, it doesn't seem to affect Bond.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    die-another-day-movie-still-lee-tamahori-directs-pierce-brosnan-in-die-another-day_1686446-400x305.jpeg

    Tamahori finds an uninvited guest in his office.

    "So you have seen the finished film?"
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    vzok wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    My main reason for considering DAD the perennial worst entry of the entire franchise is one of deep disappointment.

    Except for a few stupid quips ("Saved by the bell") the first half, especially those Cuba scenes before the idiotic Jinx conversation (though with the notable exception of the Madonna dirge), gave me the impression of a pretty good Bond movie, and I was quite pleasantly surprised and confident that the movie would be miles better than its lukewarm, boring, and convoluted predecessor (which also foreshadowed the subterranean quality of dialogue to come, but I didn't know that at first).

    How wrong I was. The second half ruined everything for me. Dismal dialogue with the worst puerile puns of the franchise (and while Rog could get away with something like that, Broz couldn't). DNA exchange. Invisible car. Lousy CGI overall, not just limited to that tsunami surfing nonsense. Mr. Kil, like Christmas Jones having that name only for turning it into stupid puns. Power Ranger suit. I don't even like the ice palace, it looks completely fake. Worst editing until QOS. Really a bad, bad movie for me.

    They should have let Jinx become the sacrificial lamb at Los Organos, and let Bond blow up the place in a rage, killing all the baddies right there. Leave out the rest, edit the remaining scenes down to size, cut out the bits of idiocy, and we would have had a nice PTS for the next movie. But the way it is, every single other Bond film (not counting CR '67) is cinematic gold in comparison. OK, make that silver for TWINE, AVTAK and DAF.

    We're only about a quarter of the way into DAD when Jinx turns up. The rotten puns and DNA stuff start there. If we are writing that off then we haven't even got half a good film.
    OK, I checked (having avoided DAD for some years), and you're almost right. The Ursula Andress emulation takes place at about 36 minutes, so that's close to a third, then comes the idiotic dialogue, after that the fight at Los Organos (which is ok) and finally the swordfight in London, which is among the few highlights of the movie (in spite of Madonna). So the distinction I made is not quite as clear-cut, but starting at one hour (Q introducing the "Vanish") it's all downhill.
  • Posts: 4,044
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    My main reason for considering DAD the perennial worst entry of the entire franchise is one of deep disappointment.

    Except for a few stupid quips ("Saved by the bell") the first half, especially those Cuba scenes before the idiotic Jinx conversation (though with the notable exception of the Madonna dirge), gave me the impression of a pretty good Bond movie, and I was quite pleasantly surprised and confident that the movie would be miles better than its lukewarm, boring, and convoluted predecessor (which also foreshadowed the subterranean quality of dialogue to come, but I didn't know that at first).

    How wrong I was. The second half ruined everything for me. Dismal dialogue with the worst puerile puns of the franchise (and while Rog could get away with something like that, Broz couldn't). DNA exchange. Invisible car. Lousy CGI overall, not just limited to that tsunami surfing nonsense. Mr. Kil, like Christmas Jones having that name only for turning it into stupid puns. Power Ranger suit. I don't even like the ice palace, it looks completely fake. Worst editing until QOS. Really a bad, bad movie for me.

    They should have let Jinx become the sacrificial lamb at Los Organos, and let Bond blow up the place in a rage, killing all the baddies right there. Leave out the rest, edit the remaining scenes down to size, cut out the bits of idiocy, and we would have had a nice PTS for the next movie. But the way it is, every single other Bond film (not counting CR '67) is cinematic gold in comparison. OK, make that silver for TWINE, AVTAK and DAF.

    We're only about a quarter of the way into DAD when Jinx turns up. The rotten puns and DNA stuff start there. If we are writing that off then we haven't even got half a good film.
    OK, I checked (having avoided DAD for some years), and you're almost right. The Ursula Andress emulation takes place at about 36 minutes, so that's close to a third, then comes the idiotic dialogue, after that the fight at Los Organos (which is ok) and finally the swordfight in London, which is among the few highlights of the movie (in spite of Madonna). So the distinction I made is not quite as clear-cut, but starting at one hour (Q introducing the "Vanish") it's all downhill.

    Yeah that shootout is decent, but the CGI dive is horrible. I find the groaning one-liners worse than the Vanish.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    echo wrote: »
    Brosnan is quite good in his Dench scenes in DAD. Then again, playing opposite Dench would probably elevate even Talisa Soto's acting.
    Brosnan is reasonable throughout DAD, which is saying something for him. He finally seemed to have got the character down.

    No, I'm afraid nothing could elevate Soto's acting. She should have stuck to modelling or whatever she used to do before LTK.
  • Posts: 19,339
    The Ice battle between the Aston and the Jaguar (2 British legend cars) is brilliant though,with the score and Bond flipping the Aston back on its axis with the ejector seat...clever
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    GBF wrote: »
    I wonder what Korean people think of such an idea?
    As a soldier on-peninsula knowing the next film had locations there, I asked my KATUSA (Korean Augmentation the the US Army) counterpart for his thoughts.

    A normally calm, reserved soul he erupted into an obscenity-laden tirade that "BLEEPIN KOREA DOESN'T NEED BLEEPIN JAMES BOND TO BLEEPIN BLEEPIN SAVE US, THAT BLEEPIN BLEEPIN BLEEP BLEEP."

    So I don't think he eventually saw the film.
  • barryt007 wrote: »
    The Ice battle between the Aston and the Jaguar (2 British legend cars) is brilliant though,with the score and Bond flipping the Aston back on its axis with the ejector seat...clever

    Oh it's a great chase. One of the best. Tends to get lost for me in that oh so troublesome final half/third of the movie, but it's a real diamond in the Zao face, as it were.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    GBF wrote: »
    I wonder what Korean people think of such an idea?
    As a soldier on-peninsula knowing the next film had locations there, I asked my KATUSA (Korean Augmentation the the US Army) counterpart for his thoughts.

    A normally calm, reserved soul he erupted into an obscenity-laden tirade that "BLEEPIN KOREA DOESN'T NEED BLEEPIN JAMES BOND TO BLEEPIN BLEEPIN SAVE US, THAT BLEEPIN BLEEPIN BLEEP BLEEP."

    So I don't think he eventually saw the film.

    I'm surprised a South Korean had a problem with DAD. As an American, I don't have a problem with Bond saving us in GF. Heck, I even look past the fact that DAD makes the CIA look like jerks. The North I could see having a fit, but no one cares what those propagandists think.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Murdock wrote: »
    After his arrest in 2006 I doubt EON would ever want to work with him ever again.
    I don't know. Maybe he'd come back as a costume designer?
Sign In or Register to comment.