Debate Die Another Day
Discutir → Películas → Die Another Day → General
Easily the worst Bond movie.
publicado por Jacinto CupboardSTAFFMOD el 30 de abril de 2020 a las 04:56
And that is saying something. Some Bond entries have been really bad. This is stupid and badly made in just about every way you could think.
For example, Bond 'jokes' have almost always been groaners, but here they are not only shockers but occur exactly where a joke shouldn't be. In the middle of an action scene? This is from professional writers ffs.
Entire plot elements recycled from previous movies, and not even the better bits. And then ridiculous things like gene rebuilding, invisible cars and magic death rays thrown in. Parts of the story make zero sense at all. Why for example does Moon need to go the west and create a new identity? Is there a reason that a nose and eye job won't do the trick? The gene transfer is excruciatingly painful and means you will never sleep again. Why does Tang go thru the same procedure yet it only changes his eye colour? And the diamonds are left in his face. That's sort of a dead giveaway as to his identity. I can't think of a reason why diamonds would need to stay in his face or why they wouldn't be the first thing he'd have fixed. Why can't Moon build his death ray in North Korea, he is, after all going back there at the end of the movie. What is Frost's motivation? There is some reference to Moon turning her when the winner of the fencing Olympic gold medal was killed, but, wait, wtf, what has that to do with anything? Later M says it was significant that they were on the same fencing team at Harvard. Again, wtf? How does that make you a traitor and a murderer? Why is Frost in a bikini top on a military flight to North Korea of all places? The stupidity just goes on and on and on and I could go on and on listing all the reasons why this is such a bad movie.
I get it that it's a Bond film and meant to be fantastical, But jeez, there are limits and this movie is just insulting.
Contestado por Adam
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 04:54
Seriously? It's James Bond lol. If we were discussing a grounded movie about realism I wouldn't be here talking about invisible gadgets in a Bond film. Drones are designed to take out isolated terrorist locations which guess what a villain's lair pretty much is also in NTTD the villain's lair was taken out by missiles. I don't want a boring movie about drones, but when stupid people talk about invisible cars being outrageous in a Bond film it makes me laugh. Invisible reflection tech is being taken seriously enough for the military to invest billions in it so take it up with them.
Contestado por Jacinto Cupboard
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 05:03
Ok. I get it. You are a troll. Another clown in the dark box.
ignored
Contestado por Adam
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 05:15
You're the clown that thinks Bond is about realism I wonder why you did could it have been the metal teeth guy, the villain space cities, ocean cities, volcano bases or the golden painted corpses that convinced you it wasn't an absurd bunch of movies? Ignore yourself even if invisible tech wasn't in development the fact that there's idiots triggered over an invisible vehicle in a Bond film when submarines were being stolen in a previous Bond film decades ago is worthy of ridicule.
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:29
Well it wasn't even much use in the film.
People like to get angry / lampoon the car but it was nowhere near as bad as the CGI surfing. When Q showed it to Bond we got to see how it worked and I think there was a slightly daft shot of it completely disappeared when they were in the tunnel.
But in the Iceland scenes, the outline was pretty clearly visible and it malfunctioned very quickly anyway so it was almost a complete waste of time having it in the first place...
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:33
I had pretty much exactly the same conversation with this guy earlier in this thread!
Put simply he just doesn't want James Bond films to be James Bond films and believes he has some pseudo- intellectual argument to make that case based upon Daniel Craig's "Bond" films and Ian Fleming's pulp fiction novels...
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:34
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:34
I had pretty much exactly the same conversation with this guy earlier in this thread!
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:34
Put simply he just doesn't want James Bond films to be James Bond films and believes he has some pseudo- intellectual argument to make that case based upon Daniel Craig's "Bond" films and Ian Fleming's pulp fiction novels...
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:35
I had pretty much exactly the same conversation with this guy earlier in this thread!
Put simply he just doesn't want James Bond films to be James Bond films and believes he has some pseudo- intellectual argument to make that case based upon Daniel Craig's "Bond" films and Ian Fleming's pulp fiction novels...
Contestado por Jacinto Cupboard
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 06:57
@Midi-chlorian_Count
Good God man, sober up before you post.
Ftr, I don't recall any conversation with you and I sure aint reading 3 pages of an old thread to refresh myself.
But I will remind you of how I concluded my OP:
'I get it that it's a Bond film and meant to be fantastical, But jeez, there are limits and this movie is just insulting.'
So there ya go. Right from the get go I was saying Bond films are meant to be fantastical. Nowhere have I argued that there was a formula in the Craig movies or the novels that had to be followed.
What you think is within limits is your business. Talking monkeys, space blobs...if that's what floats your boat...good luck to you. The point is that Bond is NOT a Sci Fi franchise anymore than it is a horror movie franchise.
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 07:35
Sorry, I didn't post in order to rekindle some old argument on this thread. No point in flogging a dead horse.
I was just more amused as @Adammm seemed to be going down exactly the same road I'd been with you previously.
If you prefer the Craig efforts and think they have some superior merit by not having invisible cars / whatever then that's absolutely your right 👍.
Contestado por Adam
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 07:50
Invisible cars are pretty fantastical. You would be better suited to the Jason Bourne movies as for the repeated quoting it's better than having to repeatedly reply to a moron.
Contestado por Midi-chlorian_Count
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 08:02
Actually - Are invisible cars or taking trips on space shuttles any more fantastical than bloodstream nanobots which can activate viruses based upon a particular individual's DNA?
Contestado por Adam
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 08:13
Exactly. Fantastical or not fantastical, invisible cars are perfectly within the logic if there is one of Bond films.
Contestado por Jacinto Cupboard
el 13 de octubre de 2021 a las 08:39
Not sure whether I mentioned it in this thread but I wrote the OP either after or during a binge watch of the entire franchise.
I gave Die Another Day the lowest rating and Casino Royale the highest. Most of the others hovered around 5 stars. I don't think any of them are 'great movies'. They are what they are. When you watch them in a block it is striking how they are mostly rewrites of the same 3 or 4 stories. I think by the time they got to Die Another Day they were struggling for ways to make it look interesting again and they thought the gadgets and special effects would do the trick. It was the 13th ranked box office film of 02. Signs and Scooby Doo had better box office.
All I was saying originally was something about where this movie stood in relation to other Bond movies. I wasn't comparing it to Citizen Kane.