DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD and SP - Why the last of each era is viewed upon with mixed feelings.

1356789

Comments

  • Posts: 232
    BAIN123 wrote: »


    This movie was made only a year before DAD.

    Yeah, but the Edgar Bug in MEN IN BLACK was from 1997 and looks tons better than most stuff from before OR since (and done as an after-the-fact to 'fix' the ending, something I only recently discovered), so it isn't just a matter of years, and both films feature effects by the same vendor.


  • Posts: 232
    SaintMark wrote: »
    In 2046 (38 years after QOS) when probably Bond 35 is a reality, people will have to be reminded: "hey, you know, in 2007 or 2008 there was another Bond movie, whatsitcalled...Kilo of...Quantity of So..So...Something...yes really! I think it came before one of the great Bonds you know...Skyfall!"

    It will probably more in the style of: what the heck happened with that Craig Bloke, on good starting movie CR and then he got the pretentious directors that forgot to make decent thriller first and then add great action instead we got rubbish filmed very well.



    Assuming I'm still kicking, I'll almost certainly still be saying QUANTUM was the only rewatchable pic out of the whole reboot era, AND the only one I honestly enjoyed seeing, in spite of my ever-present disdain for the principal casting.

    (of course by THEN they will be saying it isn't cut fast enough.)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,021
    trevanian wrote: »

    QOS in 2046
    (of course by THEN they will be saying it isn't cut fast enough.)

    oh dear! :)) I bloody well hope not! :))
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Enemy of the state
    Posts: 41,590
    NicNac wrote: »
    I have always had a curious soft spot for DAF. It's something of an anomaly among Bond films. Where some Bond films sit in pairs (LALD and Golden Gun, TSWLM and MR, CR and QOS) and some are just repackaged greatest hits, there are one or two that sit by themselves - and DAF is one of those. It's a Blofeld film yes, but in style and substance it's a quirky, weird, frankly bizarre mixture of comic book excess and early 70s camp (sorry @hasreot for borrowing your adjectives).

    It's seen as a blueprint for the 70s Moore outings, but it's different to them in many ways. The seedy underbelly of Las Vegas is unpleasant, the strange doubling up of the baddies, Wint and Kidd, Bambi and Thumper, Blofeld and..Blofeld, the weird convoluted plot, the sound and editing which attack the senses. It's a Bond film, but seriously like no other.

    I usually watch it with my jaw hanging open, but I do keep going back to it. For best results, smoke something illegal prior to watching.

    Yeah, I like DAF pretty much as it is, except for a few cringeworthy elements.

    A thought just occurred to me, is the Blofeld clone idea hatched from the original premise of the film containing Goldfinger s twin brother?
  • Diamonds are Forever and Moonraker rank comfortably in my top 11 Bond movies (DAF is 9th and MR is 11th). I've wrote extensively in the review section for both of these films how much I love them and how great they are. I'm baffled by the criticisms of them - they are excellent Bond movies with a lot of great features and are harshly treated in this forum. My question would be for Moonraker is would it be better thought of if it didn't go into space? Space based for sure but Bond and Drax stay firmly on Earth?

    A View To A Kill is a guilty pleasure for sure. Currently my 13th ranked Bond movie, it's seriously underrated. I think Moore looked too old in AVTAK (perfect in OP obviously) and Mayday turning into an ally was a weak point but the movie has a lot of strong features including Zorin, the Golden Gate Bridge finale, a fair few truly dark and sinister moments and the fantastic pre credits sequence.

    FYI - Diamonds are Forever, Moonraker and A View To A Kill rank comfortably higher than any Brosnan or Craig offering for me, True Bond movies from start to finish

    Quantum of Solace is a fiasco from start to finish. I hate it. Everything about it is hideous and it's easily the worst movie in the series. Nothing good to say about it. Craig looks bored and is trying too hard and fails. Dench pollutes the movie in every scene she is in. Woeful Bond girl, the worst villain, bad plot. Terrible, just utterly terrible.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,214
    Diamonds are Forever and Moonraker rank comfortably in my top 11 Bond movies (DAF is 9th and MR is 11th). I've wrote extensively in the review section for both of these films how much I love them and how great they are. I'm baffled by the criticisms of them - they are excellent Bond movies with a lot of great features and are harshly treated in this forum. My question would be for Moonraker is would it be better thought of if it didn't go into space? Space based for sure but Bond and Drax stay firmly on Earth?

    A View To A Kill is a guilty pleasure for sure. Currently my 13th ranked Bond movie, it's seriously underrated. I think Moore looked too old in AVTAK (perfect in OP obviously) and Mayday turning into an ally was a weak point but the movie has a lot of strong features including Zorin, the Golden Gate Bridge finale, a fair few truly dark and sinister moments and the fantastic pre credits sequence.

    As you know, the main issue people have with MR is the pigeon, Bondola, space, and Jaws in about that order. If people can look past that (and most can't), it's quite a grand adventure despite conveniently jumping from place to place. It looks like it will rank around the middle in my latest rankings, it's hardly the worst...it's so similar to TSWLM, and in many ways is better than it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,282
    NicNac wrote: »
    I have always had a curious soft spot for DAF. It's something of an anomaly among Bond films. Where some Bond films sit in pairs (LALD and Golden Gun, TSWLM and MR, CR and QOS) and some are just repackaged greatest hits, there are one or two that sit by themselves - and DAF is one of those. It's a Blofeld film yes, but in style and substance it's a quirky, weird, frankly bizarre mixture of comic book excess and early 70s camp (sorry @hasreot for borrowing your adjectives).

    It's seen as a blueprint for the 70s Moore outings, but it's different to them in many ways. The seedy underbelly of Las Vegas is unpleasant, the strange doubling up of the baddies, Wint and Kidd, Bambi and Thumper, Blofeld and..Blofeld, the weird convoluted plot, the sound and editing which attack the senses. It's a Bond film, but seriously like no other.

    I usually watch it with my jaw hanging open, but I do keep going back to it. For best results, smoke something illegal prior to watching.

    Exactly. =D>
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    (:| ...yea man. works for QoS too.. makes all the editing work.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Having been here for some weeks I realised once more how heated discussions can get over those five movies.

    I'm so bold to say that:
    Diamonds Are Forever
    Moonraker
    A View To A Kill
    Die Another Day
    Quantum Of Solace

    are the most disliked/hated/bashed/overly criticised of the Bond franchise in the various forums.

    It is two different things to criticise a movie or bash it. Every Bond movie gets criticism and rightfully so. Nothing is perfect.

    What I wonder is what triggers people to "hate" those movies so much.
    It can't just be Roger Moore's age or the fast editing in QOS or the laser fight in space, can it?

    Maybe I'm asking too much, but I would find it really interesting to hear what your opinion is on this. Not just recite the usual stuff like "oh that CGI surfing scene" or "good Lord did Connery look old" but try to look deeper into that matter.

    I'm apologising in advance if you don't agree with my list of movies for that topic. I'm aware that other Bond movies generally get lower rankings too but a movie like LALD hardly ever gets the same heat as DAD or AVTAK for instance.

    I think they are "hated" so much, because despite the fact that they are fun Bond films....they simply can't escape the "Bond tag". Solely as a film they are lovely popcorn entertainment, but nothing else.

    I guess that's different with movies like CR, OHMSS, SF, GF, TSWLM and GE: Those films did something groundbreaking. Had something "new" that those you mentioned didn't have. They were both good Bond films.....and good films on the whole.

    By the way, here you can see the results of the "BIG BOND FILM CONTEST 2015" so far that is running on two IMDB-sub-forums:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/board/thread/245015308
    http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000075/thread/245297664
    3LDyDY.jpg

    I was interested to see what movie fans, who are not necessarily huge Bond fans, would think of the Bond films on IMDB. So far 44 people have voted.

    None of them are 'hating' the movies you just mentioned @BondJasonBond006 ;-). But.....people simply don't like them as much....
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Gustav_Graves

    Thanks for the updated chart. The astonishing thing is that 7 out of the Top 11 movies I have in my Top 11 too!!!
    Furthermore DAF, TMWTGG, AVTAK and QOS are in my bottom 5 too like in that list.

    So I guess my Top Bond list is quite the average which I find really reassuring :)
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Interesting that the biggest batch of unranked films in that chart are Moore-era films and Quantum of Solace. Started to suspect age-bias (pro-modern) until looking up to see all the Connery-era films ranked. Four No. 1 votes for License to Kill…awesome!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Interesting that the biggest batch of unranked films in that chart are Moore-era films and Quantum of Solace. Started to suspect age-bias (pro-modern) until looking up to see all the Connery-era films ranked. Four No. 1 votes for License to Kill…awesome!

    You may have misunderstood the ranking method. 12 points go to the favourite movie, then 10 to the second, then 8 - 1 to No 3-10.
    Meaning Licence To Kill received one time Top Spot with 12 points and 4 times 1 point which means voted 10th.
    But still LTK received quite a lot of votes and ended up (so far) at No 11.
  • Posts: 11,119
    It actually makes the Moore Bond films stand out as...pretty weak no :-/?
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Interesting that the biggest batch of unranked films in that chart are Moore-era films and Quantum of Solace. Started to suspect age-bias (pro-modern) until looking up to see all the Connery-era films ranked. Four No. 1 votes for License to Kill…awesome!

    You may have misunderstood the ranking method. 12 points go to the favourite movie, then 10 to the second, then 8 - 1 to No 3-10.
    Meaning Licence To Kill received one time Top Spot with 12 points and 4 times 1 point which means voted 10th.
    But still LTK received quite a lot of votes and ended up (so far) at No 11.


    I definitely misunderstood. But it makes a lot more sense now. Not as much love for LTK as I thought. :( But not too bad either.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,476
    Great work, @Gustav_Graves!

    I found that really interesting!
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    DAF.
    This film is hit and miss for me, The fact it isn't a followup to OHMSS and that it's camp isn't very good is why this film is ultimately a letdown. It's certainly entertaining in a weird way but not that good. I consider it more a sequel to YOLT than OHMSS. But that's for the sanity of my Bond head canon. :P

    MR.
    I love Moonraker. It's pure entertainment. Sure I don't like the Hovercraft invading Venice square but other than that I love this film. I can see why it's hated though. It's terrible as a Bond movie but judged by it's own merits as a movie, It's pure class.

    AVTAK.
    This one is also mixed for me. It starts promising but by the second act it starts to nosedive. Moore is too old and it shows from his bad facelift. Zorin is just hammy to me. And guns down his men for the sake of it. It just felt contrived to me.

    DAD.
    I enjoy this film up until the VR training scene. That's when it stops being a Bond movie and just flies off the rails of reality. Physics is thrown out the window for contrived actions scenes, glacier surfing and solar death rays of doom. As well as magic plastic surgery that can turn you into different people so recasting can be a breeze instead of going practical and putting prosthetic on an actor to make them look different realistically. Jinx just plain Stinx and is a terrible character and secret agent. Even more so if Michael Madsen didn't care if she died. :)) Oh and that finale helicopter sequence has even worse green screen effects than the rear projection of Dr. No.

    QOS.
    Rushed story, super quick cut editing and M's incompetence and whining about trust are this films biggest flaws. Other than that it's still enjoyable.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,465
    It actually makes the Moore Bond films stand out as...pretty weak no :-/?

    The Moore films are classics, hence why rankings are bullshit.

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    It actually makes the Moore Bond films stand out as...pretty weak no :-/?

    The Moore films are classics, hence why rankings are bullshit.

    Well, such a remark certainly brings in some nuance.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,465
    RC7 wrote: »
    It actually makes the Moore Bond films stand out as...pretty weak no :-/?

    The Moore films are classics, hence why rankings are bullshit.

    Well, such a remark certainly brings in some nuance.

    There's no nuance in assigning an arbitrary number to something. If you explain to me why something is great or terrible I can converse. Saying something has earned 12 points is meaningless bullshit.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    There's no nuance in assigning an arbitrary number to something. If you explain to me why something is great or terrible I can converse. Saying something has earned 12 points is meaningless bullshit.
    @RC7, you are indeed a 'blunt instrument'. :))
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    It actually makes the Moore Bond films stand out as...pretty weak no :-/?

    The Moore films are classics, hence why rankings are bullshit.

    Well, such a remark certainly brings in some nuance.

    There's no nuance in assigning an arbitrary number to something. If you explain to me why something is great or terrible I can converse. Saying something has earned 12 points is meaningless bullshit.

    This is just a poll man. And you know what? People do it or participate in it because they think it's fun.

    Assigning points to.....songs, Eurovision, figure skating events, gymnastics events, equistrian sports, dressage, penalties....hell, even films on shortlists at the Academy, BAFTA Awards.....is a perfect and accurate means of obtaining rankings from a points based system. It's done everywhere.

    By the way, I really think you could tone down your vocabulary a bit. You make it sound as if I'm doing meaningless bullshit. Well, I've got a surprise for you then. I'm a Bond fan who loves rankings.....and who thinks it's the best way of getting insight on how people on average rate certain Bond films. And, again, the biggest reason why it isn't bullshit, is because I love doing it. Do you want to deprive me of that?

  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Some people like to trade in it
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,465
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    It actually makes the Moore Bond films stand out as...pretty weak no :-/?

    The Moore films are classics, hence why rankings are bullshit.

    Well, such a remark certainly brings in some nuance.

    There's no nuance in assigning an arbitrary number to something. If you explain to me why something is great or terrible I can converse. Saying something has earned 12 points is meaningless bullshit.

    This is just a poll man. And you know what? People do it or participate in it because they think it's fun.

    Assigning points to.....songs, Eurovision, figure skating events, gymnastics events, equistrian sports, dressage, penalties....hell, even films on shortlists at the Academy, BAFTA Awards.....is a perfect and accurate means of obtaining rankings from a points based system. It's done everywhere.

    By the way, I really think you could tone down your vocabulary a bit. You make it sound as if I'm doing meaningless bullshit. Well, I've got a surprise for you then. I'm a Bond fan who loves rankings.....and who thinks it's the best way of getting insight on how people on average rate certain Bond films. And, again, the biggest reason why it isn't bullshit, is because I love doing it. Do you want to deprive me of that?

    Woe is me.

    Have a lie down, man. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Unless I harness the power eternia and corrupt your mind I think you'll be fine to continue ranking yourself silly.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Gustav_Graves

    If someone doesn't want to participate in polls or finds rankings stupid we have to accept that of course.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,214
    @Gustav_Graves Fascinating list. Gives a good insight into popular opinions. The sample size isn't quite large enough, but the list is remarkably similar to MI6 Community.

    Here's the IMDB results compared to 164 MI6 ranks. I will post the full comparisons eventually (CBn and AJB). The colours are what I've found to be tier levels which for the most part apply across the aforementioned websites and also the general community.

    Within the tiers the order varies, except the top 3 (FRWL>CR>OHMSS) and last position (DAD) are quite consistent, although GF remains #1 for the general population, and LTK is always one position better than FYEO

    0e40e9431443542.jpg
  • Posts: 11,119
    @Gustav_Graves

    If someone doesn't want to participate in polls or finds rankings stupid we have to accept that of course.

    Off course. But that's not my issue. I think some people can simply use some different words. I rather find "meaningless bullshit" a bit too harsh....and slightly insulting.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Gustav_Graves

    If someone doesn't want to participate in polls or finds rankings stupid we have to accept that of course.

    Off course. But that's not my issue. I think some people can simply use some different words. I rather find "meaningless bullshit" a bit too harsh....and slightly insulting.

    Spot-on!
  • Posts: 232
    @Gustav_Graves

    If someone doesn't want to participate in polls or finds rankings stupid we have to accept that of course.

    Off course. But that's not my issue. I think some people can simply use some different words. I rather find "meaningless bullshit" a bit too harsh....and slightly insulting.

    I probably ought to apologize, because at many points in history I either thought of or referred to the longest-tenured Bond's reign as 'meaningless bullshit.' And it WAS a bit of hyperbole. I mean, there's great Ken Adam and John Barry work and ingenious Derek Meddings work in a couple of those entries, so they aren't entirely bullshit.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,465
    @Gustav_Graves

    If someone doesn't want to participate in polls or finds rankings stupid we have to accept that of course.

    Off course. But that's not my issue. I think some people can simply use some different words. I rather find "meaningless bullshit" a bit too harsh....and slightly insulting.

    Your sample size is minimal and the demographic is skewed. The Moore films may appear 'weak' in your sample, it doesn't mean they are weak. His portrayal is admired among many and hated by a small few. Hence I find the results pretty bullshit. Why you take this personally, I don't know. I much prefer looking at how individuals rate films comparatively, say DN against FRWL, rather than a homogenised 'whole', but that's just me.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2015 Posts: 15,534
    The Moore films are probably the most well known films, and I don't just mean Bond films. Kids who are 10 years old today can identify more elements from the Moore films than any other film made pre 1995. Kids born 40 years after LALD know about Jaws, the ski jump, the golden gun, the underwater Lotus, the fight on top the Golden Gate bridge, etc. Kids without even seeing a single Moore film in it's entirety can get excited when someone tells them about a 2 meter tall giant with metal teeth.

    The Moore films are camp, but not stupid camp. They are camp, OTT and silly in a way that gets the heart of every generation of people pumping at 300 beats per minute in terms of excitement.
Sign In or Register to comment.