Are you happy to see the DB5 return in B25?

145791012

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited March 2014 Posts: 16,340
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I always saw it as the CR DB5 but modified.

    Which makes no sense in the Craig universe. With sporadic talk of incomprehensible moments in SF, over the last few days, I'd say this is the most glaring of them all. Its only purpose is a commercial one. People knock P&W but they very simply and cleverly dropped the DB5 into CR, at the behest of the studio/producers, no doubt. Total misstep from Mendes IMO.


    Why is it so hard to believe that his DB5 could have been modified within the 6 years that elapsed between QoS and Skyfall? I saw it how I saw fit. I didn't need it explained to me. We live in an age where this is possible to do. No brainer really.

    You would have thought so, yes. I think we Bond fans read too much into things where continuity in concerned and the reboot seems to have confused the issue for some people.

    This is a common problem with franchise's that use a "canon". Everything has to be documented like it's real life. As a viewer, I look at things as how I believe they happen. I believe DAF takes place after YOLT and I have rather sketchy evidence to back it up. So I can happily believe that Bond's DB5 in Skyfall is the same one he picked up in CR. It's the same reason why I don't harp on Bond wearing a different suit in QoS as it takes place just minutes after CR. It doesn't bother me. I don't need to analyze a movie to enjoy it. I watched Moonraker recently. Just to watch it. Not hate it, not analyze what's wrong with it. I had a wonderful experience. I had FUN. People act like everything needs to be explained so it makes sense. I'm not a bookworm so I don't care. I enjoy something for what it is. I don't need a thesis on something to understand it.

    Indeed. That's a refreshingly common sense approach to all things Bond that is all too often sadly lacking amongst the Bond fan community.

    It comes with being a lover of movies and Bond movie. Bond is time capsule, Every film brings something new and relevant to the time it was made. That's why I love them. Skyfall was not only a celebration of Bond's 50th anniversary but it was an exciting romp. So the DB5 had machine guns, At least they went to good use and killed bad guys. I was so pumped because in GF he had machine guns but they didn't get used well. In Skyfall they could finally be useful. The scene lasted 5 to 10 seconds. It was awesome! Don't tell me it made you cringe, It's Bond's 50th cinematic birthday! Stop taking movies so seriously. At least Skyfall was good. It could have been mediocre like DAD or DAF. Look for the good and not the bad I always say.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,003
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I always saw it as the CR DB5 but modified.

    Which makes no sense in the Craig universe. With sporadic talk of incomprehensible moments in SF, over the last few days, I'd say this is the most glaring of them all. Its only purpose is a commercial one. People knock P&W but they very simply and cleverly dropped the DB5 into CR, at the behest of the studio/producers, no doubt. Total misstep from Mendes IMO.


    Why is it so hard to believe that his DB5 could have been modified within the 6 years that elapsed between QoS and Skyfall? I saw it how I saw fit. I didn't need it explained to me. We live in an age where this is possible to do. No brainer really.

    You would have thought so, yes. I think we Bond fans read too much into things where continuity in concerned and the reboot seems to have confused the issue for some people.

    This is a common problem with franchise's that use a "canon". Everything has to be documented like it's real life. As a viewer, I look at things as how I believe they happen. I believe DAF takes place after YOLT and I have rather sketchy evidence to back it up. So I can happily believe that Bond's DB5 in Skyfall is the same one he picked up in CR. It's the same reason why I don't harp on Bond wearing a different suit in QoS as it takes place just minutes after CR. It doesn't bother me. I don't need to analyze a movie to enjoy it. I watched Moonraker recently. Just to watch it. Not hate it, not analyze what's wrong with it. I had a wonderful experience. I had FUN. People act like everything needs to be explained so it makes sense. I'm not a bookworm so I don't care. I enjoy something for what it is. I don't need a thesis on something to understand it.

    Indeed. That's a refreshingly common sense approach to all things Bond that is all too often sadly lacking amongst the Bond fan community.

    It comes with being a lover of movies and Bond movie. Bond is time capsule, Ever film brings something new and relevant to the time it was made. That's why I love them. Skyfall was not only a celebration of Bond's 50th anniversary but it was an exciting romp. So the DB5 had machine guns, At least they went to good use and killed bad guys. I was so pumped because in GF he had machine guns but they didn't get used well. In Skyfall they could finally be useful. The scene lasted 5 to 10 seconds. It was awesome! Don't tell me it made you cringe, It's Bond's 50th cinematic birthday! Stop taking movies so seriously. At least Skyfall was good. It could have been mediocre like DAD or DAF. Look for the good and not the bad I always say.

    Well, again that's not a bad way to go through life, is it? And at least the 50th Anniversary references (if there were very many?) were a lot subtler than the 40th Anniversary ones were in DAD ten years before, though I suppose that wouldn't have been difficult!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    With movies, It's best to be subtle. When you make the reference the key point of a scene, It's like explaining a joke if someone didn't get it. That's a problem with comedies. They have to make the joke badly obvious. Skyfall had the story first and the references last. References are nice. I especially love the references to Casino Royale and QoS. (Don't touch your ear, We may still have one or two friends left in the CIA.) It's okay to show off your history, but when you pretty much hold it up to the camera and say HEY LOOK AT THIS! REMEMBER THIS, like in Die Another Day, it spoils the movie. It's like bad product placement. The only product placement in Skyfall I didn't like was Tanner taking a swig on office hours, but it was only on minor scene so my feathers aren't fluffed. No movie is perfect, nitpicking that the DB5 had machine guns is pointless. It was supposed to be for the fans and Bond's cinematic history.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I always saw it as the CR DB5 but modified.

    Which makes no sense in the Craig universe. With sporadic talk of incomprehensible moments in SF, over the last few days, I'd say this is the most glaring of them all. Its only purpose is a commercial one. People knock P&W but they very simply and cleverly dropped the DB5 into CR, at the behest of the studio/producers, no doubt. Total misstep from Mendes IMO.


    Why is it so hard to believe that his DB5 could have been modified within the 6 years that elapsed between QoS and Skyfall? I saw it how I saw fit. I didn't need it explained to me. We live in an age where this is possible to do. No brainer really.

    You would have thought so, yes. I think we Bond fans read too much into things where continuity in concerned and the reboot seems to have confused the issue for some people.

    This is a common problem with franchise's that use a "canon". Everything has to be documented like it's real life. As a viewer, I look at things as how I believe they happen. I believe DAF takes place after YOLT and I have rather sketchy evidence to back it up. So I can happily believe that Bond's DB5 in Skyfall is the same one he picked up in CR. It's the same reason why I don't harp on Bond wearing a different suit in QoS as it takes place just minutes after CR. It doesn't bother me. I don't need to analyze a movie to enjoy it. I watched Moonraker recently. Just to watch it. Not hate it, not analyze what's wrong with it. I had a wonderful experience. I had FUN. People act like everything needs to be explained so it makes sense. I'm not a bookworm so I don't care. I enjoy something for what it is. I don't need a thesis on something to understand it.

    Indeed. That's a refreshingly common sense approach to all things Bond that is all too often sadly lacking amongst the Bond fan community.

    It comes with being a lover of movies and Bond movie. Bond is time capsule, Every film brings something new and relevant to the time it was made. That's why I love them. Skyfall was not only a celebration of Bond's 50th anniversary but it was an exciting romp. So the DB5 had machine guns, At least they went to good use and killed bad guys. I was so pumped because in GF he had machine guns but they didn't get used well. In Skyfall they could finally be useful. The scene lasted 5 to 10 seconds. It was awesome! Don't tell me it made you cringe, It's Bond's 50th cinematic birthday! Stop taking movies so seriously. At least Skyfall was good. It could have been mediocre like DAD or DAF. Look for the good and not the bad I always say.

    I'm the last person to look for continuity. I don't even need to believe, as you say, YOLT happens after DAF, I couldn't give two hoots. They're all standalone for me. Don't get me started on CR taking place before DN etc. What I like about the Craig films is that they've attempted some character continuity, not necessarily canonical continuity. The weirdest bit is 'M' making the knowing gag about the ejector seat. I just found it very, very strange. Don't get me wrong, I grinned when I saw it in the cinema, how couldn't you? But it's exactly because I regard SF highly that I dislike it. It's a blotch on the tapestry for me.

    Oh and Please don't use Bond's birthday as an excuse. That for me is an irrelevance. Are we going to have this every 5-10 years now. It's Bond's 60th, let's have an underwater car? It's just marketing bollocks.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote:
    With movies, It's best to be subtle. When you make the reference the key point of a scene, It's like explaining a joke if someone didn't get it. That's a problem with comedies. They have to make the joke badly obvious. Skyfall had the story first and the references last. References are nice. I especially love the references to Casino Royale and QoS. (Don't touch your ear, We may still have one or two friends left in the CIA.) It's okay to show off your history, but when you pretty much hold it up to the camera and say HEY LOOK AT THIS! REMEMBER THIS

    Sorry, but the DB5 is the opposite of subtle. As for explaining jokes, M doesn't need to say the line, 'Oh go on then. Eject me'. You could simply have a shot of Bond revealing the red button. That would have been slightly more subtle, or at least more subtle than the bull in a china shop approach we got.

  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    With movies, It's best to be subtle. When you make the reference the key point of a scene, It's like explaining a joke if someone didn't get it. That's a problem with comedies. They have to make the joke badly obvious. Skyfall had the story first and the references last. References are nice. I especially love the references to Casino Royale and QoS. (Don't touch your ear, We may still have one or two friends left in the CIA.) It's okay to show off your history, but when you pretty much hold it up to the camera and say HEY LOOK AT THIS! REMEMBER THIS

    Sorry, but the DB5 is the opposite of subtle. As for explaining jokes, M doesn't need to say the line, 'Oh go on then. Eject me'. You could simply have a shot of Bond revealing the red button. That would have been slightly more subtle, or at least more subtle than the bull in a china shop approach we got.

    Agree. The use of the DB5 in SF was as bad, if not worse, than several of the references in DAD. A really bad idea. It's almost like breaking the 4th wall - you might as well have had M and Bond wink at the camera.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2014 Posts: 18,003
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I always saw it as the CR DB5 but modified.

    Which makes no sense in the Craig universe. With sporadic talk of incomprehensible moments in SF, over the last few days, I'd say this is the most glaring of them all. Its only purpose is a commercial one. People knock P&W but they very simply and cleverly dropped the DB5 into CR, at the behest of the studio/producers, no doubt. Total misstep from Mendes IMO.


    Why is it so hard to believe that his DB5 could have been modified within the 6 years that elapsed between QoS and Skyfall? I saw it how I saw fit. I didn't need it explained to me. We live in an age where this is possible to do. No brainer really.

    You would have thought so, yes. I think we Bond fans read too much into things where continuity in concerned and the reboot seems to have confused the issue for some people.

    This is a common problem with franchise's that use a "canon". Everything has to be documented like it's real life. As a viewer, I look at things as how I believe they happen. I believe DAF takes place after YOLT and I have rather sketchy evidence to back it up. So I can happily believe that Bond's DB5 in Skyfall is the same one he picked up in CR. It's the same reason why I don't harp on Bond wearing a different suit in QoS as it takes place just minutes after CR. It doesn't bother me. I don't need to analyze a movie to enjoy it. I watched Moonraker recently. Just to watch it. Not hate it, not analyze what's wrong with it. I had a wonderful experience. I had FUN. People act like everything needs to be explained so it makes sense. I'm not a bookworm so I don't care. I enjoy something for what it is. I don't need a thesis on something to understand it.

    Indeed. That's a refreshingly common sense approach to all things Bond that is all too often sadly lacking amongst the Bond fan community.

    It comes with being a lover of movies and Bond movie. Bond is time capsule, Every film brings something new and relevant to the time it was made. That's why I love them. Skyfall was not only a celebration of Bond's 50th anniversary but it was an exciting romp. So the DB5 had machine guns, At least they went to good use and killed bad guys. I was so pumped because in GF he had machine guns but they didn't get used well. In Skyfall they could finally be useful. The scene lasted 5 to 10 seconds. It was awesome! Don't tell me it made you cringe, It's Bond's 50th cinematic birthday! Stop taking movies so seriously. At least Skyfall was good. It could have been mediocre like DAD or DAF. Look for the good and not the bad I always say.

    I'm the last person to look for continuity. I don't even need to believe, as you say, YOLT happens after DAF, I couldn't give two hoots. They're all standalone for me. Don't get me started on CR taking place before DN etc. What I like about the Craig films is that they've attempted some character continuity, not necessarily canonical continuity. The weirdest bit is 'M' making the knowing gag about the ejector seat. I just found it very, very strange. Don't get me wrong, I grinned when I saw it in the cinema, how couldn't you? But it's exactly because I regard SF highly that I dislike it. It's a blotch on the tapestry for me.

    Oh and Please don't use Bond's birthday as an excuse. That for me is an irrelevance. Are we going to have this every 5-10 years now. It's Bond's 60th, let's have an underwater car? It's just marketing bollocks.

    Yes, that may very well be so, but if you wait until a Bond film comes along that is as flawless as a cut diamond I suspect you will be waiting a very, very long time. No film is perfect and SF is no exception. I for one feel that as a Bond film it got more right than any Bond film apart from the masterpiece that is OHMSS, and I don't say that at all lightly, either.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2014 Posts: 10,512
    The isn't about being flawless @Dragonpol it's about originality. If a Director/Writer attempts something original and it turns out very badly, one can sympathise. I will always respect that. What I don't agree with is the idea of trying to garner cheap kudos by using or referencing icons of the past.

    I suppose the question is - Would you mind more if these instances? I personally would favour originality.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    RC7 wrote:
    The isn't about being flawless @Dragonpol it's about originality. If a Director/Writer attempts something original and it turns out very badly, one can sympathise. I will always respect that. What I don't agree with is the idea of trying to garner cheap kudos by using or referencing icons of the past.

    I suppose the question is - Would you mind more if these instances? I personally would favour originality.

    What would be more original in that case? Another DBS with gadgets? Another V12 vanquish?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    The isn't about being flawless @Dragonpol it's about originality. If a Director/Writer attempts something original and it turns out very badly, one can sympathise. I will always respect that. What I don't agree with is the idea of trying to garner cheap kudos by using or referencing icons of the past.

    I suppose the question is - Would you mind more if these instances? I personally would favour originality.

    What would be more original in that case? Another DBS with gadgets? Another V12 vanquish?

    It depends on the circumstances of B24. I personally thought it was unoriginal to resurrect the DB5 circa '64, period.

    Regards SF, I'd have found it more original if he'd modded his personal DB5 (CR) at SF. He seemed to show invention about the Lodge, it wouldn't have been a huge leap to see him cleverly modding his car - perhaps with Kincade in tow. You wouldn't even need to see much, just a wide shot of them tinkering under the bonnet. Anyhow, that's obviously irrelevant as we got what we got.

    I guess I'm simply worried that Mendes and Logan will attempt this again in a different guise, and I really don't want that to happen.
  • Posts: 11,425
    How about turning to another famous British marque: http://mg.co.uk/mg6/

    May be not...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    How about turning to another famous British marque: http://mg.co.uk/mg6/

    May be not...

    Ha ha.

    The Spy who Drifted.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited May 2014 Posts: 1,727
    RC7 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    With movies, It's best to be subtle

    Sorry, but the DB5 is the opposite of subtle. As for explaining jokes, M doesn't need to say the line, 'Oh go on then. Eject me'. You could simply have a shot of Bond revealing the red button. That would have been slightly more subtle, or at least more subtle than the bull in a china shop approach we got.


    I agree. That line ruined the final act. Bond having the DB5 stacked away...fine, can live with that. But the 'joke' about the ejector seat is plain moronic and lacks any kind of class or subtlety.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Very lame 'joke'. Worthy of Austin Powers, not Bond.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,353
    Audiences happened to find it one of the best in the film.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Audiences happened to find it one of the best in the film.

    Well, that's not saying much, is it...
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Audiences happened to find it one of the best in the film.

    Samuel - 'audiences' also flocked to 'Too fast Too Furious', or whatever it was called... food for thought.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Audiences happened to find it one of the best in the film.

    It got a great cheer from all of us at the Royal Albert Hall !.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Mrcoggins wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Audiences happened to find it one of the best in the film.

    It got a great cheer from all of us at the Royal Albert Hall !.
    It lit up my theater with laughs too. I love that line and delivery by Dan and Judi.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 6,396
    Mrcoggins wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Audiences happened to find it one of the best in the film.

    It got a great cheer from all of us at the Royal Albert Hall !.
    It lit up my theater with laughs too. I love that line and delivery by Dan and Judi.

    Same here. All 3 occasions I watched it in the cinema, the audience roared with laughter.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,353
    My point being through all this is those who disliked it are likely in the minority - I thought the above two would have realised that.
  • RC7RC7
    edited May 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Double post
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Samuel001 wrote:
    My point being through all this is those who disliked it are likely in the minority - I thought the above two would have realised that.

    I definitely think you're right, we are in the minority. Which is a shame. I could understand if it was a controversial idea that defied expectation and worked, as it is, it's a really weak, throwaway, crowd-pleasing moment. A nod, not to the fans, but the general public who, let's be honest, will eventually grow bored of Bond again and sod off until it's deemed worthy their while to return.

    I don't care much for this kind of laziness and it's my primary worry with the Mendes take. I'm sure for a lot of people will argue, it's one line get over it. Which is all well and good, but I think it epitomises a wider potential problem. I've read more than one article where Mendes is falling over himself to declare the brilliance of it's inclusion and the response of the audience. That should not be a barometer by which he judges his achievements.

    I hope I'm wrong and B24 will not see anymore of these safety-nets appearing. Originality please Mr. Mendes, not nostalgia.
  • Posts: 4,622
    I would have been happier to see the DB return in SF, if they had managed to put the steering wheel on the correct side of the car, ie where it was in CR. We have to assume that's the same car. Terrible lack of attention to simple detail.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    @RC7, I think my issue with Mendes and the nostalgia is that he sort of altered how Craig's Bond is due to adding in a lot more comedy, almost turning his character into a less-rugged, more light-hearted version of who he was in CR and QoS.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    timmer wrote:
    I would have been happier to see the DB return in SF, if they had managed to put the steering wheel on the correct side of the car, ie where it was in CR. We have to assume that's the same car. Terrible lack of attention to simple detail.

    This has been discussed previously. It was supposed to be the CR DB5, P&W mentioned this. It was Mendes being a smart-arse who changed it to the Connery version. Silly idea after the simple but effective set up in CR.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think the DB5 nod in SF worked well and couldn't care less about the lack of continuety between that and CR. The machine guns were used in a creative manner IMO.

    I think Mendes and the producers are smart enough to know that too many nods and winks do not make a good film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    I just think that if the series has been going strong for 50+ years, then we don't need in-your-face nods when it comes to the decade anniversary. Now, tiny nods or little easter eggs that only the true fans would recognize? That would be nice. I just don't want a DAD repeat. You can celebrate the 60th Anniversary by giving us one remarkable, magnificent film, not by having throwbacks to each and every single Bond film.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,189
    It's a short sequence - hardly a big part of the film. SF still manages to rely on great acting (something DAD did not).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    BAIN123 wrote:
    It's a short sequence - hardly a big part of the film. SF still manages to rely on great acting (something DAD did not).

    You're telling me that DAD wasn't full of Oscar-worthy performances? My life has been a lie...
Sign In or Register to comment.