Why do they Bond fans hate Die Another Day

CIR · 10-23-2003, 12:48 PM

I haven't seen any old bond flicks, never could get into them.

I loved Goldeneye...

But why did so many people hate DIE ANOTHER DAY?

I thought the whole prison camp thing was awesome new take.

Madonna's music is good too.

Kelso · 10-23-2003, 03:57 PM

Many Bond fan miss the intelligent Spy Thillers which began the Bond Saga, and continued with "On Her Majestys...", "Liscense to Kill", etc. They find it difficult to accept any Bond flick which does not fit into this mold.

I have always enjoyed Bond in every form or genre. Moore made some fabulous Action-Comedies, and "Die Another Day" is an enjoyable Sci-Fi Action Adventure movie.

I am not saying that I prefer these movies over the Intelligent Spy Thrillers, I enjoy them all.

Bigee04 · 10-23-2003, 10:50 PM

I would say mainly because it is showing that the Bond franchise is not going in the right direction. Bond fans were hoping that with the 40th Anniversary of the franchise the producers would turn more towards the Golden Age of Spymania (1960's). Die Another Day was a great dissapointment from that respect. The movie featured to many over the top stunts and ridiculous situations. When Bond parachuted off of a cliff that was regarded as a great stunt, but having Bond surf down an iceberg and all that, is just ridiculous. Also, to many unneeded camera moves. The camera would rotate around the character 20 degrees Matrix-style for no reason at all, none at all. The franchise is turning to much towards new sci-fi genre (invisible cars and electric shock body suits) and not enough towards the key elements of the great Bond movies (actual SPYING and good writing, not stupid lines like "your momma"). You wouldn't see that in any of the classic films. The first three Bond films were probably three of the top five best ever. Wilson and Broccoli should watch those movies for some inspirtation before starting Bond 21.

Kelso · 10-23-2003, 11:26 PM

Well, I think much of the problem is the expectations of the general public... who want to see wild gadgets from Q, exciting stunts, catchy quips, etc. Added to that is the pressure to compete with the CGI laden action films such as Matrix and Charlie's Angels. I loved "Liscense to Kill", but it was less than successful at the box office due to the lack of Bond-trappings.

I thought the "Die Another Day" production team did a good job of trying to break out of the classic mold with Bond's capture, while bringing it all back within the normal Bond confines by the end of the film. Hopefully, they will continue to toe the line and do some riskier things with the character in the future.

**JBond** · 10-24-2003, 02:57 AM

Bigee04 said it very well.

Sims17 · 10-24-2003, 06:42 AM

Die another day was pretty awful IMO. For a bond film there was overuse of CGI and it looked terrible!

brody27 · 10-24-2003, 01:31 PM

I just got through watching Die Another Day the second time on DVD. Fourth time overall. It brought up the same things I've always said I didn't like about the movie. Well in my opinion the top 5 things that needed to be fixed in Die Another Day would be:

1. The invisible car. Wow, could Bond get anymore ridiculously impossible. That just sucked. Even with John Cleese's great attempt to fill in for Desmond, I hate watching that part because I know what's coming.

2. Halle Berry. Need I go on with this list after naming this one. I think Ursula Andress could have come back and would've been better. Halle may be very good looking to a lot of people, but she can't act. The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke. I pray that we don't have to hear something as pathetic as the quote "Yo mama" in a James Bond movie again.

3. The electricity jolting glove or whatever the hell it is. What happened to the good old fashioned ways of taking some one out. I guess knocking people in the head with a heavy or hard object is too old and out-dated.

4. Special Effects. Wind-surfing scene. Let's put it this way, I close my eyes. Matrix style camera shifting. Last time I checked it was a Bond movie that doesn't need that crap to make the movie look good. It's Bond, it should look good regardless. Opening gun barrel scene should've been switched on DVD to have no bullet fly by as though to scare you or something. A little thing that would take hardly any effort to change I'm sure.

5. The most un-original Bond movie plots of all. It's the 40th Anniversary, the 20th movie, okay everyone knows it. Instead, let's celebrate them all. No, the only way to celebrate it is to come up with the best most original plot, or at least make an attempt. The only part that was cool with the references was the part in Q's laboratory with the old gadgets, but I already said I don't like watching that part because of the "Vanish." I feel like I'm watching a horrible version of Diamonds Are Forever.

Well, I don't hate the movie as much as it sounds like I do. I simply dislike it in comparison to the others. I know many enjoyed it, but to be quite frank it wasn't true James Bond by any means. Then again, have we really seen the true James Bond since Sean Connery? Some may say we haven't.

DangerMouse · 10-24-2003, 01:58 PM

The main problem I had with "Die Another Day" was I could tell the script, directing, acting, and cinematography were all altered because the Bond franchise actully felt threatened by "Triple Sucks" (aka XXX).

That was the main problem I had with it. They felt that James Bond needed some sort of update. He needed to be "extreme".

If anything, the Bond franchise was intimidated by "Triple Sucks"'s opening scene.

When in actuality, XXX was such a bad movie, the Bond franchise was never really threatened by it.

They need to remember that James in "The Man" and regradless of what new super-spy comes along (Flint, or XXX), it is THEY that are chasing James Bond. It should never be the other way around.

That was the main flaw with "Die Another Day", in my opinion.

brody27 · 10-24-2003, 04:17 PM

I agree with DangerMouse. For some reason XXX comes along and has that kind of effect on a 40 year long franchise? That was very disappointing. Kelso mentioned earlier, how the Bond franchise is now in competition with CGI dominated action films like The Matrix and Charlie's Angels. Since when? Licence to Kill probably didn't do as well at the box office than say The Spy Who Loved Me or The Living Daylights, but it still did well. Why? It's a Bond movie. They all do good. Right now it's a good time for Bond. Prior to the release of Die Another Day, I couldn't believe the anticipation for the movie. Given it's the 40th Anniversary and all, but people wanted to see Bond. They always do and I don't see that changing. To say that Bond needs to turn towards a more CGI laden Matrix style of movie isn't right. The Matrix for one is a style all it's own and Charlie's Angels is just down right pathetic. Bond will always sell. It's very disappointing to see them try and change the format like that. They need to bring back Michael Apted who directed The World Is Not Enough. At the time he had to compete with some films that maybe looked better, but he stayed within the Bond limits and it has made me grow to enjoy that particular film a whole lot more.

Kelso · 10-24-2003, 04:44 PM

I didn't say that Bond SHOULD compete with the CGI-laden action films... I was said that the studio seems to be feeling the pressure to compete with them. Which is inherently obvious upon watching DAD.

I would be perfectly content if the next Bond film bore more of a similarity to THE BOURNE IDENTITY, but it's not going to happen. The studio is not going to risk thier cash cow, they will continue to deliver exactly what the general public expects (especially with the commercial success of DAD).

Though I might prefer a more cerebral, slow moving film... I don't really have a problem with the new integration of CGI stunts and frantic editting. It is simply a sign of the times. Among the greatest strengths of the Bond franchise has been it's ability to evolve with the current pop culture.

Although DAD is not representative of the direction I would like to see the franchise go, it is still an entertaining SciFi action adventure movie. Which is really all it is trying to be.

Bigee04 · 10-24-2003, 05:36 PM

Does Bond really need to venture into the sci-fi realm though? They already tried to do that with Moonraker and, although it had decent commercial success, it is now popularly viewed as on of the two worst Bond films.

brody27 · 10-24-2003, 05:37 PM

I agree that the franchise seems to be moving towards more sci-fi action/adventure style movies. I'm sure the filmmakers are looking at Die Another Day as a success because of the money it brought in. After all it all comes down to money. They're not going to make a Bond movie to please the loyal fans. Sure they've done a great job in keeping up with the times in the past, but Die Another Day makes it quite obvious to me and to many others on this board that by the quality of the CGI in the movie, there is no way that it will be able to compete with the current sci-fi action/adventure type of movies already up and coming. Why can't it compete with these movies? Because James Bond was meant to be left alone when it comes to the use of CGI in the movie. James Bond wasn't meant to be sci-fi. The World Is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies didn't use a ridiculous amount of CGI and editing like Die Another Day. They, in my opinion are better than Die Another Day for that reason alone. They look like Bond movies should. Not sci-fi movies. I will sadly say that I think that this won't get better. It's obvious that money is the issue and Bond movies regardless of whether they're the traditional ones or the newer ones will continue to bring in money. They now think that they need to make a Bond movie look more like a Matrix movie or a Star Trek movie to bring in the most money.

CIR · 10-24-2003, 06:24 PM

Very good analysis everyone.

Brody 27-
"Halle Berry. Need I go on with this list after naming this one. I think Ursula Andress could have come back and would've been better. Halle may be very good looking to a lot of people, but she can't act. The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke. I pray that we don't have to hear something as pathetic as the quote "Yo mama" in a James Bond movie again."

I thought she did okay. What did she do wrong?

The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke.

Why? Have you seen Monster's Ball.

Brody27-

"The World Is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies didn't use a ridiculous amount of CGI and editing like Die Another Day."

What was wrong with editing?

Bond AK 45 · 10-24-2003, 10:32 PM

I think what will happen is the same thing that happend after Moonraker was released. That movie made HUGE amounts of money, but if u watch FOR YOUR EYES ONLY dvd, the producers and writers thought that after a movie like that came out that had that si fi feeling in it, they wanted to get bond more down to earth, and thats where the main inspriation for directing For Your Eyes Only came from. So will it happen again? ALOT and I mean ALOT of people I know HATED the 2nd part of Die Another Day, like alot of people did not like the 2nd half of Moonraker. So does that mean that Bond 21 will get back down to earth where he should be? I REALLY REALLY HOPE SO. Becuase bond coming back to earth, and using less if no CGI is the only thing that is ganna save bond.

**JBond** · 10-25-2003, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CIR
Brody 27-
"Halle Berry. Need I go on with this list after naming this one. I think Ursula Andress could have come back and would've been better. Halle may be very good looking to a lot of people, but she can't act. The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke. I pray that we don't have to hear something as pathetic as the quote "Yo mama" in a James Bond movie again."

I thought she did okay. What did she do wrong?

She was just...bad, examples:

- *looks at crotch* "Now there's a mouthful" (Possible writers fault, but done horribly anyway)

- "I'm sure she got the....thrust of it" (This woman knows nothing of subtly [Or Bond movies], she looked way too smug when delivering this line, this isn't a porno.)

- "Your momma" (Awfully written, but still, her character said it)

- Probably more...

brody27 · 10-25-2003, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bond AK 45
I think what will happen is the same thing that happend after Moonraker was released. That movie made HUGE amounts of money, but if u watch FOR YOUR EYES ONLY dvd, the producers and writers thought that after a movie like that came out that had that si fi feeling in it, they wanted to get bond more down to earth, and thats where the main inspriation for directing For Your Eyes Only came from. So will it happen again? ALOT and I mean ALOT of people I know HATED the 2nd part of Die Another Day, like alot of people did not like the 2nd half of Moonraker. So does that mean that Bond 21 will get back down to earth where he should be? I REALLY REALLY HOPE SO. Becuase bond coming back to earth, and using less if no CGI is the only thing that is ganna save bond.

Very good point. I agree that there is still hope that the writers will rebound after a horribly written Die Another Day. I really liked the first part of Die Another Day as well. It's sad to watch it all the way through because once you hit the half way point of the movie it all goes down hill. You damn right less, if not any CGI will save James Bond. I'm glad someone else agrees that sci-fi has absolutely no place in the franchise. I realize that's opinion, but so is everything else on these boards. On the subject of Halle Berry. She is a disgrace to all the other Bond women. I do put the a lot of the blame on the lousy writers who ruined everything from the get go, but she has only been a beautiful woman that acts sub-par on the side. She was in the right place at the right time the night of the 2001 Academy Awards. Say what you want about her performance in Monster's Ball, but I can surely tell you that she sure tried to be the worst character in Die Another Day with or without bad writers. JBond made some valid points with that. She really could've acted a little better even with her character being what it was.

bbf2 · 10-25-2003, 01:49 AM

Because it was a live action cartoon.

Kelso · 10-25-2003, 08:50 PM

Heh, there was an over amundance of CGI... but I reserve the 'live action cartoon' classification for Matrix Reloaded and the Star Wars prequals.

I agree, brody that the first half of the film was far better than the second half. Also, it drives me nuts that they introduced Hally Barry when they could have easily brought back Michelle Yeoh (esp. since Bond contacted the Chinese Intellegence for help).

I still wish they would do a series of TV movies set in the 50's (starting with CASINO ROYALE), and bring back the Flemming style Bond. That way they could apease the classic fans while still banking at the box office with average joe.

George Bushs 18th cousin · 10-25-2003, 10:56 PM

I dunno, I liked DAD. It was a decent enough bond flick....in my eyes they have a pattern with brosnan bond movies, the odd ones are more spy and espionage-ish...the even ones are more action oriented

Goldeneye - Spy movie
Tomorrow Never Dies - Action movie
The World is Not Enough - Spy movie
Die Another Day - Action movie

I also think too many people want to live in the past. for the franchise to survive, it needs to update itself for modern audiences...people don't like this and don't want to accept it. Audiences these days would not like Goldfinger or Dr. No...thats just how it is...the film making industry is an industry...it's first priority is to make money...people don't seem to like that...they want to live in the past when a blow to the head killing someone would be exciting...I still love Goldfinger because I saw it when it was still cool. If I were a 15-18 year old kid (majority of film goers) I would probably be bored out of my mind if I saw Goldfinger for the first time...sad but true...things need to adapt for the times...I am a James Bond fan, I accept that, others need to do the same.

AndyPandy88 · 10-26-2003, 10:19 AM

I believe this film has gone so bad in Bondfans eyes is because of the fact there were too many gadgets (the car as a BIG example). It seems these days Bond relies on them too much.

The special effects were also a major problem, but I disagree anyone that blames Halle Berry. She didn't write the script, Wade and Purvis did.

I hope the next film really does go back to the developments that had been made with 'Goldeneye' and 'The World is Not Enough'.

brody27 · 10-26-2003, 01:12 PM

A Bond movie like Goldeneye or The World Is Not Enough would probably be the best thing that could happen to the franchise. I realize that in the film industry today it is literally impossible to make a semi-action movie and not use some sort of CGI. They will need to use it on Bond movies occasionally, but not every five seconds of the movie. The bottom line is that they need to write a script that's worth while. One much like The World Is Not Enough. It had its fair share of action in it, but it wasn't stunts so impossible that the only way to pull them off is by using a computer to do it.

**JBond** · 10-27-2003, 01:15 AM

The best CGI is when you don't know it's being used....uh, like make-up.

NE0 · 10-27-2003, 02:19 AM

Ah, guys....Just thought I would point this out. The invisible car that you seem to be complaining about because it's TOO unrealistic IS based on current research being done by private groups here in the US and abroad. It's all apart of next gen stealth technology being devolped for use in the military.

Besides, I can't believe there are actually people arguing about how real or unreal the Bond films are. Hahah..

The Bond films have always been about three things..

Action
Gadgets
babes

That's it! All the plots for all the films are pretty far fetched. How come someone actually argue that there not is baffling to me.

glecoq · 10-27-2003, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bbf2
Because it was a live action cartoon.

EXACTLY, the movie had a terrible plot, out of this world gagets, and the worst acting ive seen in all the bond movies! The gaget thing bugged me a lot. The cool thing about bond gagets used to be that they were believable, and that if you were a secret agent, the stuff he used would be what you would use...an invisible car!...that is the stupidest thing anyone could have ever come up with.

glecoq · 10-27-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by George Bushs 18th cousin
I dunno, I liked DAD. It was a decent enough bond flick....in my eyes they have a pattern with brosnan bond movies, the odd ones are more spy and espionage-ish...the even ones are more action oriented

Goldeneye - Spy movie
Tomorrow Never Dies - Action movie
The World is Not Enough - Spy movie
Die Another Day - Action movie

I also think too many people want to live in the past. for the franchise to survive, it needs to update itself for modern audiences...people don't like this and don't want to accept it. Audiences these days would not like Goldfinger or Dr. No...thats just how it is...the film making industry is an industry...it's first priority is to make money...people don't seem to like that...they want to live in the past when a blow to the head killing someone would be exciting...I still love Goldfinger because I saw it when it was still cool. If I were a 15-18 year old kid (majority of film goers) I would probably be bored out of my mind if I saw Goldfinger for the first time...sad but true...things need to adapt for the times...I am a James Bond fan, I accept that, others need to do the same.

I disagree, i think that the majority of the people like to see a well thought out, and well acted movie. Only stupid 7th grade kids like stuff that was in DAD.

10-23-2003, 12:48 PM	#1
CIR Boom Operator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 110	Why do they Bond fans hate Die Another Day I haven't seen any old bond flicks, never could get into them. I loved Goldeneye... But why did so many people hate DIE ANOTHER DAY? I thought the whole prison camp thing was awesome new take. Madonna's music is good too. __________________ Read my book-COVINGTON HIGH

10-23-2003, 10:50 PM	#3
Bigee04 Whatever I Wanna Be, GOSH! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: AFI Hall of Fame Posts: 957	I would say mainly because it is showing that the Bond franchise is not going in the right direction. Bond fans were hoping that with the 40th Anniversary of the franchise the producers would turn more towards the Golden Age of Spymania (1960's). Die Another Day was a great dissapointment from that respect. The movie featured to many over the top stunts and ridiculous situations. When Bond parachuted off of a cliff that was regarded as a great stunt, but having Bond surf down an iceberg and all that, is just ridiculous. Also, to many unneeded camera moves. The camera would rotate around the character 20 degrees Matrix-style for no reason at all, none at all. The franchise is turning to much towards new sci-fi genre (invisible cars and electric shock body suits) and not enough towards the key elements of the great Bond movies (actual SPYING and good writing, not stupid lines like "your momma"). You wouldn't see that in any of the classic films. The first three Bond films were probably three of the top five best ever. Wilson and Broccoli should watch those movies for some inspirtation before starting Bond 21. Last edited by Bigee04; 10-23-2003 at 10:52 PM.

10-24-2003, 02:57 AM	#5
JBond Stop exploding, you cowards! Join Date: May 2000 Location: Nimbus 1729 Posts: 54,652	Bigee04 said it very well. __________________ The due date for Round 61 of the CS Film Club is Monday, November 16th, 2009. 34 out of 60 Hugo Award winners completed.

10-24-2003, 01:31 PM	#7
brody27 Executive Producer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kinnick Stadium Posts: 270	I just got through watching Die Another Day the second time on DVD. Fourth time overall. It brought up the same things I've always said I didn't like about the movie. Well in my opinion the top 5 things that needed to be fixed in Die Another Day would be: 1. The invisible car. Wow, could Bond get anymore ridiculously impossible. That just sucked. Even with John Cleese's great attempt to fill in for Desmond, I hate watching that part because I know what's coming. 2. Halle Berry. Need I go on with this list after naming this one. I think Ursula Andress could have come back and would've been better. Halle may be very good looking to a lot of people, but she can't act. The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke. I pray that we don't have to hear something as pathetic as the quote "Yo mama" in a James Bond movie again. 3. The electricity jolting glove or whatever the hell it is. What happened to the good old fashioned ways of taking some one out. I guess knocking people in the head with a heavy or hard object is too old and out-dated. 4. Special Effects. Wind-surfing scene. Let's put it this way, I close my eyes. Matrix style camera shifting. Last time I checked it was a Bond movie that doesn't need that crap to make the movie look good. It's Bond, it should look good regardless. Opening gun barrel scene should've been switched on DVD to have no bullet fly by as though to scare you or something. A little thing that would take hardly any effort to change I'm sure. 5. The most un-original Bond movie plots of all. It's the 40th Anniversary, the 20th movie, okay everyone knows it. Instead, let's celebrate them all. No, the only way to celebrate it is to come up with the best most original plot, or at least make an attempt. The only part that was cool with the references was the part in Q's laboratory with the old gadgets, but I already said I don't like watching that part because of the "Vanish." I feel like I'm watching a horrible version of Diamonds Are Forever. Well, I don't hate the movie as much as it sounds like I do. I simply dislike it in comparison to the others. I know many enjoyed it, but to be quite frank it wasn't true James Bond by any means. Then again, have we really seen the true James Bond since Sean Connery? Some may say we haven't. Last edited by brody27; 10-24-2003 at 04:22 PM.

10-24-2003, 04:17 PM	#9
brody27 Executive Producer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kinnick Stadium Posts: 270	I agree with DangerMouse. For some reason XXX comes along and has that kind of effect on a 40 year long franchise? That was very disappointing. Kelso mentioned earlier, how the Bond franchise is now in competition with CGI dominated action films like The Matrix and Charlie's Angels. Since when? Licence to Kill probably didn't do as well at the box office than say The Spy Who Loved Me or The Living Daylights, but it still did well. Why? It's a Bond movie. They all do good. Right now it's a good time for Bond. Prior to the release of Die Another Day, I couldn't believe the anticipation for the movie. Given it's the 40th Anniversary and all, but people wanted to see Bond. They always do and I don't see that changing. To say that Bond needs to turn towards a more CGI laden Matrix style of movie isn't right. The Matrix for one is a style all it's own and Charlie's Angels is just down right pathetic. Bond will always sell. It's very disappointing to see them try and change the format like that. They need to bring back Michael Apted who directed The World Is Not Enough. At the time he had to compete with some films that maybe looked better, but he stayed within the Bond limits and it has made me grow to enjoy that particular film a whole lot more. Last edited by brody27; 10-24-2003 at 04:18 PM.

10-23-2003, 03:57 PM	#2
Kelso Assistant Production Designer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Atl. GA Posts: 110	Many Bond fan miss the intelligent Spy Thillers which began the Bond Saga, and continued with "On Her Majestys...", "Liscense to Kill", etc. They find it difficult to accept any Bond flick which does not fit into this mold. I have always enjoyed Bond in every form or genre. Moore made some fabulous Action-Comedies, and "Die Another Day" is an enjoyable Sci-Fi Action Adventure movie. I am not saying that I prefer these movies over the Intelligent Spy Thrillers, I enjoy them all.

10-23-2003, 11:26 PM	#4
Kelso Assistant Production Designer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Atl. GA Posts: 110	Well, I think much of the problem is the expectations of the general public... who want to see wild gadgets from Q, exciting stunts, catchy quips, etc. Added to that is the pressure to compete with the CGI laden action films such as Matrix and Charlie's Angels. I loved "Liscense to Kill", but it was less than successful at the box office due to the lack of Bond-trappings. I thought the "Die Another Day" production team did a good job of trying to break out of the classic mold with Bond's capture, while bringing it all back within the normal Bond confines by the end of the film. Hopefully, they will continue to toe the line and do some riskier things with the character in the future.

10-24-2003, 06:42 AM	#6
Sims17 Banned Status Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Shawshank Posts: 351	Die another day was pretty awful IMO. For a bond film there was overuse of CGI and it looked terrible!

10-24-2003, 01:58 PM	#8
DangerMouse Your favorite band stinks Join Date: May 2003 Location: A police box Posts: 1,688	The main problem I had with "Die Another Day" was I could tell the script, directing, acting, and cinematography were all altered because the Bond franchise actully felt threatened by "Triple Sucks" (aka XXX). That was the main problem I had with it. They felt that James Bond needed some sort of update. He needed to be "extreme". If anything, the Bond franchise was intimidated by "Triple Sucks"'s opening scene. When in actuality, XXX was such a bad movie, the Bond franchise was never really threatened by it. They need to remember that James in "The Man" and regradless of what new super-spy comes along (Flint, or XXX), it is THEY that are chasing James Bond. It should never be the other way around. That was the main flaw with "Die Another Day", in my opinion.

10-24-2003, 04:44 PM	#10
Kelso Assistant Production Designer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Atl. GA Posts: 110	I didn't say that Bond SHOULD compete with the CGI-laden action films... I was said that the studio seems to be feeling the pressure to compete with them. Which is inherently obvious upon watching DAD. I would be perfectly content if the next Bond film bore more of a similarity to THE BOURNE IDENTITY, but it's not going to happen. The studio is not going to risk thier cash cow, they will continue to deliver exactly what the general public expects (especially with the commercial success of DAD). Though I might prefer a more cerebral, slow moving film... I don't really have a problem with the new integration of CGI stunts and frantic editting. It is simply a sign of the times. Among the greatest strengths of the Bond franchise has been it's ability to evolve with the current pop culture. Although DAD is not representative of the direction I would like to see the franchise go, it is still an entertaining SciFi action adventure movie. Which is really all it is trying to be.

10-24-2003, 05:36 PM	#11
Bigee04 Whatever I Wanna Be, GOSH! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: AFI Hall of Fame Posts: 957	Does Bond really need to venture into the sci-fi realm though? They already tried to do that with Moonraker and, although it had decent commercial success, it is now popularly viewed as on of the two worst Bond films.

10-24-2003, 05:37 PM	#12
brody27 Executive Producer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kinnick Stadium Posts: 270	I agree that the franchise seems to be moving towards more sci-fi action/adventure style movies. I'm sure the filmmakers are looking at Die Another Day as a success because of the money it brought in. After all it all comes down to money. They're not going to make a Bond movie to please the loyal fans. Sure they've done a great job in keeping up with the times in the past, but Die Another Day makes it quite obvious to me and to many others on this board that by the quality of the CGI in the movie, there is no way that it will be able to compete with the current sci-fi action/adventure type of movies already up and coming. Why can't it compete with these movies? Because James Bond was meant to be left alone when it comes to the use of CGI in the movie. James Bond wasn't meant to be sci-fi. The World Is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies didn't use a ridiculous amount of CGI and editing like Die Another Day. They, in my opinion are better than Die Another Day for that reason alone. They look like Bond movies should. Not sci-fi movies. I will sadly say that I think that this won't get better. It's obvious that money is the issue and Bond movies regardless of whether they're the traditional ones or the newer ones will continue to bring in money. They now think that they need to make a Bond movie look more like a Matrix movie or a Star Trek movie to bring in the most money. Last edited by brody27; 10-24-2003 at 05:38 PM.

10-24-2003, 06:24 PM	#13
CIR Boom Operator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 110	Very good analysis everyone. Brody 27- "Halle Berry. Need I go on with this list after naming this one. I think Ursula Andress could have come back and would've been better. Halle may be very good looking to a lot of people, but she can't act. The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke. I pray that we don't have to hear something as pathetic as the quote "Yo mama" in a James Bond movie again." I thought she did okay. What did she do wrong? The Best Actress in 2001 was a joke. Why? Have you seen Monster's Ball. Brody27- "The World Is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies didn't use a ridiculous amount of CGI and editing like Die Another Day." What was wrong with editing? __________________ Read my book-COVINGTON HIGH

10-24-2003, 10:32 PM	#14
Bond AK 45 Executive Producer Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: L.A. Posts: 522	I think what will happen is the same thing that happend after Moonraker was released. That movie made HUGE amounts of money, but if u watch FOR YOUR EYES ONLY dvd, the producers and writers thought that after a movie like that came out that had that si fi feeling in it, they wanted to get bond more down to earth, and thats where the main inspriation for directing For Your Eyes Only came from. So will it happen again? ALOT and I mean ALOT of people I know HATED the 2nd part of Die Another Day, like alot of people did not like the 2nd half of Moonraker. So does that mean that Bond 21 will get back down to earth where he should be? I REALLY REALLY HOPE SO. Becuase bond coming back to earth, and using less if no CGI is the only thing that is ganna save bond. __________________ Joker-"Tell your men they work for me now, this is MY city" Goon-"They won't work, for a freak" Joker-"Why don't we cut you into little pieces and feed ya to your pooches! Then we'll see...how loyal...a hungry dog REALLY is!"

10-25-2003, 01:49 AM	#17
bbf2 This is a trapezoid Join Date: May 2000 Location: Yes Posts: 13,262	Because it was a live action cartoon. __________________ A signature

10-25-2003, 08:50 PM	#18
Kelso Assistant Production Designer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Atl. GA Posts: 110	Heh, there was an over amundance of CGI... but I reserve the 'live action cartoon' classification for Matrix Reloaded and the Star Wars prequals. I agree, brody that the first half of the film was far better than the second half. Also, it drives me nuts that they introduced Hally Barry when they could have easily brought back Michelle Yeoh (esp. since Bond contacted the Chinese Intellegence for help). I still wish they would do a series of TV movies set in the 50's (starting with CASINO ROYALE), and bring back the Flemming style Bond. That way they could apease the classic fans while still banking at the box office with average joe.

10-25-2003, 10:56 PM	#19
George Bushs 18th cousin Executive Producer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The White House Posts: 713	I dunno, I liked DAD. It was a decent enough bond flick....in my eyes they have a pattern with brosnan bond movies, the odd ones are more spy and espionage-ish...the even ones are more action oriented Goldeneye - Spy movie Tomorrow Never Dies - Action movie The World is Not Enough - Spy movie Die Another Day - Action movie I also think too many people want to live in the past. for the franchise to survive, it needs to update itself for modern audiences...people don't like this and don't want to accept it. Audiences these days would not like Goldfinger or Dr. No...thats just how it is...the film making industry is an industry...it's first priority is to make money...people don't seem to like that...they want to live in the past when a blow to the head killing someone would be exciting...I still love Goldfinger because I saw it when it was still cool. If I were a 15-18 year old kid (majority of film goers) I would probably be bored out of my mind if I saw Goldfinger for the first time...sad but true...things need to adapt for the times...I am a James Bond fan, I accept that, others need to do the same.

10-26-2003, 10:19 AM	#20
AndyPandy88 New User - Level 0 Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 13	I believe this film has gone so bad in Bondfans eyes is because of the fact there were too many gadgets (the car as a BIG example). It seems these days Bond relies on them too much. The special effects were also a major problem, but I disagree anyone that blames Halle Berry. She didn't write the script, Wade and Purvis did. I hope the next film really does go back to the developments that had been made with 'Goldeneye' and 'The World is Not Enough'.

10-26-2003, 01:12 PM	#21
brody27 Executive Producer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kinnick Stadium Posts: 270	A Bond movie like Goldeneye or The World Is Not Enough would probably be the best thing that could happen to the franchise. I realize that in the film industry today it is literally impossible to make a semi-action movie and not use some sort of CGI. They will need to use it on Bond movies occasionally, but not every five seconds of the movie. The bottom line is that they need to write a script that's worth while. One much like The World Is Not Enough. It had its fair share of action in it, but it wasn't stunts so impossible that the only way to pull them off is by using a computer to do it.

10-27-2003, 01:15 AM	#22
JBond Stop exploding, you cowards! Join Date: May 2000 Location: Nimbus 1729 Posts: 54,652	The best CGI is when you don't know it's being used....uh, like make-up. __________________ The due date for Round 61 of the CS Film Club is Monday, November 16th, 2009. 34 out of 60 Hugo Award winners completed.

10-27-2003, 02:19 AM	#23
NE0 Producer Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 213	Ah, guys....Just thought I would point this out. The invisible car that you seem to be complaining about because it's TOO unrealistic IS based on current research being done by private groups here in the US and abroad. It's all apart of next gen stealth technology being devolped for use in the military. Besides, I can't believe there are actually people arguing about how real or unreal the Bond films are. Hahah.. The Bond films have always been about three things.. Action Gadgets babes That's it! All the plots for all the films are pretty far fetched. How come someone actually argue that there not is baffling to me.