Is Die Another Day suddenly loosing its gloss and appeal?

1356

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Did DAD ever have gloss and appeal?
    Yes. When it came out, in the new Bond release fever.
    Weren't you there?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Did DAD ever have gloss and appeal?
    Yes. When it came out, in the new Bond release fever.
    Weren't you there?

    Totally agree with the logic, but I have to say I didn't feel QOS had a lot of gloss and appeal when it came out, despite new Bond release fever. Love it now though :)
  • Posts: 15,125
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Did DAD ever have gloss and appeal?
    Yes. When it came out, in the new Bond release fever.
    Weren't you there?

    Yes I was. And I remember it very well. People were in the theatre wondering what the heck was happening. I lost faith in Brosnan that night.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Brosnan was never to blame. He didn't have control over the production nor the script.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Thanks for making me laugh (when I saw the title of this thread) :))
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I don't care how much it shows; that's the dumbest superhero costume ever.

    Agree. High heels? ;))
  • Posts: 15,125
    Brosnan was never to blame. He didn't have control over the production nor the script.

    I never said he was. Just that he lost his aura that day to me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Brosnan was never to blame. He didn't have control over the production nor the script.

    I never said he was. Just that he lost his aura that day to me.

    So you have Brosnan s aura now?
  • Posts: 15,125
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Brosnan was never to blame. He didn't have control over the production nor the script.

    I never said he was. Just that he lost his aura that day to me.

    So you have Brosnan s aura now?

    Instead of being the best since Sean Connery it made me reevaluate his tenure as Bond and what he brought to the franchise. Than is what I meant.
  • AceHole wrote: »
    Thanks for making me laugh (when I saw the title of this thread) :))

    I wasn't actually sure...if I should create the topic hehe :-). You never know how people perceive this topic...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    And here's why Pierce is a great Bond: he got some of the most lacking of the Bond scripts, and STILL did something with them.
    Connery got DAF & turned in an okay performance.
    Brosnan got DAD & turned in his BEST performance.
    \:D/
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I'm guilty and sorry so down on Dalton but wow these forums are so negative. Are there any actual Bond fans on here?Any forgiving fans at least.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Shit, I thought I was a fan. But who knows? I haven't attended the meetings
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    chrisisall wrote: »
    And here's why Pierce is a great Bond: he got some of the most lacking of the Bond scripts, and STILL did something with them.
    Connery got DAF & turned in an okay performance.
    Brosnan got DAD & turned in his BEST performance.
    \:D/
    I salute you for that!
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm guilty and sorry so down on Dalton but wow these forums are so negative. Are there any actual Bond fans on here?Any forgiving fans at least.

    I always prefer to be positive-spirited about our beloved Bond franchise. Critical, though still positive ;-).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.
  • Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.

    Hence why it is loosing its gloss and appeal :-P.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.

    Top 12?!? It's uncommon in the top 19 :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    w2bond wrote: »
    Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.

    Top 12?!? It's uncommon in the top 19 :))

    I'd rank it above NSNA. Just.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.

    Top 12?!? It's uncommon in the top 19 :))

    I'd rank it above NSNA. Just.

    I'm curious though why you rank DAD so incredibly....low :-). We have been criticizing Craig's last Bond outing a lot....A LOT, but why isn't the film ranked lower than DAD :-)?
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I don't like SF much but it is nowhere near as bad as DAD or TWINE.

    SF is a higher class of fail IMO. SF is like when someone aims really high but totally misses the mark. DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.

    Top 12?!? It's uncommon in the top 19 :))

    I'd rank it above NSNA. Just.

    I'm curious though why you rank DAD so incredibly....low :-). We have been criticizing Craig's last Bond outing a lot....A LOT, but why isn't the film ranked lower than DAD :-)?

    I think my views on DAD are self explanatory and understood by many (although some disagree). It's a parody, and not a good one at that. Comedic entertainment taking the piss out of its history (in an anniversary year no less) openly and unashamedly. It should be credited with that at least I suppose. I truly believe EON chose to one up Austin Powers (due to that franchise's success at that time), and realized what a mistake this was when Bourne came out in the same year and showed that one does not need to take the piss out of the spy genre to be successful.

    ---
    Regarding Craig's last outing - that's a different sort of discussion. I don't think anyone really believes it's anywhere as disgraceful as DAD (well....maybe some do).

    With SF, it's more unmet expectations for some imho. CR set the bar so very high (after DAD) and brought so much originality and creativity enthusiastically to the table.

    QoS (apart from the quick edits) also was not afraid to be original and daring with the Bond formula, gave us a coherent, if slightly bare and stripped down plot, and a film saving performance from Daniel Craig. It was almost 70'sish (and I mean that in a good way) in its seriousness and lack of padding and ostentation.

    SF attracts criticism by many because it failed to follow through (in some people's minds) on what had begun with CR & QoS. Stylistically and acting wise it did, no doubt. However, plot wise it did not (it was a woefully unoriginal and pedestrian plot if you think about it) and things like the flashlight & DB5 have rubbed people the wrong way, as have the pretention (including M's Tennyson speech etc.). As you know, I like it a lot and can forgive its flaws, but I can understand why many can't. By objective assessment, the latter half is a bit of an incoherent and unbelievable mess (with Bond reduced to being a bystander and coming up with ridiculous ideas), but the earlier half sort of redeems it in my eyes.

    I also think SF really gets the criticism mainly because of its success (which some find unwarranted), because it's the last one (and so it's normal for it to be bashed the most) and because those who like it defend it with similar (and sometimes indefensible and unobjective) passion. The criticism is an equal and opposite reaction to that.

    It's really not a bad film, but the same can't be said for DAD, imho.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I don't like SF much but it is nowhere near as bad as DAD or TWINE.

    SF is a higher class of fail IMO. SF is like when someone aims really high but totally misses the mark. DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds.

    That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard: "DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds" . Tell that to the Bond producers. Every Bond productions aims to give us the best 'Bond films ever'. Taking that into account, I find DAD a higher class of fail than SF.....
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    DAD having had gloss and appeal????



    248e7a6f42706af8565349b73b2e89a2.jpg
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    I think the reasons as to why the majority of the fan base detest DAD have been WELL documented by now.

    And it never had "gloss". It may have had lukewarm "appeal" on release.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't like SF much but it is nowhere near as bad as DAD or TWINE.

    SF is a higher class of fail IMO. SF is like when someone aims really high but totally misses the mark. DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds.

    That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard: "DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds" . Tell that to the Bond producers. Every Bond productions aims to give us the best 'Bond films ever'. Taking that into account, I find DAD a higher class of fail than SF.....

    I don't think "I was out walking my rat and seem I have lost my way" is particularly aiming higher than "You've had your six"

  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Back in 2002 DAD was celebrated frenetically. I remember when seeing it 3 times at the cinema who overtime people were in collective euphoria when leaving the cinema.
    My friends and I went to a pub after the first viewing where we talked about DAD the whole night. We were not the only ones.
    DAD was hugely, hugely popular in Europe.
    And it hit the right tone for 2002. Just look at XXX or the two Charlie's Angels movies.
    That was the audience wanted back then and my favourite quote of Tomorrow Never Dies hits it perfectly:
    GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT

    I frankly don't know anybody in my age-range who dislike DAD today or rates it lower than, say, Top 12.

    BUT...Die Another Day NOW seems strangely dated as do all those action/comedies of that time.
    Bad CGI can be found everywhere of that era, in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy etc.

    DAD's last act was over-the-top, like Moonraker's space sequence.

    Still, Moonraker is a classic now.
    Die Another Day will be viewed upon the exact way as Moonraker once it is old enough.

    Top 12?!? It's uncommon in the top 19 :))

    I'd rank it above NSNA. Just.

    I'm curious though why you rank DAD so incredibly....low :-). We have been criticizing Craig's last Bond outing a lot....A LOT, but why isn't the film ranked lower than DAD :-)?

    I think my views on DAD are self explanatory and understood by many (although some disagree). It's a parody, and not a good one at that. Comedic entertainment taking the piss out of its history (in an anniversary year no less) openly and unashamedly. It should be credited with that at least I suppose. I truly believe EON chose to one up Austin Powers (due to that franchise's success at that time), and realized what a mistake this was when Bourne came out in the same year and showed that one does not need to take the piss out of the spy genre to be successful.

    ---
    Regarding Craig's last outing - that's a different sort of discussion. I don't think anyone really believes it's anywhere as disgraceful as DAD (well....maybe some do).

    With SF, it's more unmet expectations for some imho. CR set the bar so very high (after DAD) and brought so much originality and creativity enthusiastically to the table.

    QoS (apart from the quick edits) also was not afraid to be original and daring with the Bond formula, gave us a coherent, if slightly bare and stripped down plot, and a film saving performance from Daniel Craig. It was almost 70'sish (and I mean that in a good way) in its seriousness and lack of padding and ostentation.

    SF attracts criticism by many because it failed to follow through (in some people's minds) on what had begun with CR & QoS. Stylistically and acting wise it did, no doubt. However, plot wise it did not (it was a woefully unoriginal and pedestrian plot if you think about it) and things like the flashlight & DB5 have rubbed people the wrong way, as have the pretention (including M's Tennyson speech etc.). As you know, I like it a lot and can forgive its flaws, but I can understand why many can't. By objective assessment, the latter half is a bit of an incoherent and unbelievable mess (with Bond reduced to being a bystander and coming up with ridiculous ideas), but the earlier half sort of redeems it in my eyes.

    I also think SF really gets the criticism mainly because of its success (which some find unwarranted), because it's the last one (and so it's normal for it to be bashed the most) and because those who like it defend it with similar (and sometimes indefensible and unobjective) passion. The criticism is an equal and opposite reaction to that.

    It's really not that bad a film, but the same can't be said for DAD, imho.

    I agree with this and what you say sums up my problems with SF pretty well. It's nice to see a SF fan who actually appreciates why some people might not like it - and it's NOT because we prefer DAD!
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't like SF much but it is nowhere near as bad as DAD or TWINE.

    SF is a higher class of fail IMO. SF is like when someone aims really high but totally misses the mark. DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds.

    That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard: "DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds" . Tell that to the Bond producers. Every Bond productions aims to give us the best 'Bond films ever'. Taking that into account, I find DAD a higher class of fail than SF.....

    Most stupid thing ever?

    Well when EON decided to reference every other Bond film in DAD I'd say that was a stupid idea that gives my post a good run for its money.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    w2bond wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't like SF much but it is nowhere near as bad as DAD or TWINE.

    SF is a higher class of fail IMO. SF is like when someone aims really high but totally misses the mark. DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds.

    That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard: "DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds" . Tell that to the Bond producers. Every Bond productions aims to give us the best 'Bond films ever'. Taking that into account, I find DAD a higher class of fail than SF.....

    I don't think "I was out walking my rat and seem I have lost my way" is particularly aiming higher than "You've had your six"
    I have only one response....

    "Yo mama"
  • bondjames wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't like SF much but it is nowhere near as bad as DAD or TWINE.

    SF is a higher class of fail IMO. SF is like when someone aims really high but totally misses the mark. DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds.

    That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard: "DAD is a film that aims low and succeeds" . Tell that to the Bond producers. Every Bond productions aims to give us the best 'Bond films ever'. Taking that into account, I find DAD a higher class of fail than SF.....

    I don't think "I was out walking my rat and seem I have lost my way" is particularly aiming higher than "You've had your six"
    I have only one response....

    "Yo mama"

    Or "And I AM GOING AFTER HIM!!"
    As if 007 had to become the Terminator....
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I have to admit, DAD is a bit of guilty pleasure for me. It features a slew of ludicrous creative decisions, but I don't find it boring. Toby Stephens' scenery chewing keeps me watching. It's like a Bond film that takes place in some kind of parallel universe.
Sign In or Register to comment.